INTRODUCTION:

Engagement at work was conceptualized by Kahn, (1990) as the ‘harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles. Engagement enables people to express themselves physically, emotionally or cognitively while performing their roles. The engaged employee is better informed about the business context and aims at contributing productively to improve performance within the job to benefit the organization. Success, can be achieved when organizations engage continuously by encouraging a two -way relationship between employer and employees.

Hence Employee engagement is an indicator that determines the association of a person with the organization. Engagement is closely related with the existing construction of job involvement (Brown 1996) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Engagement is more individual oriented ie it is concerned with the extent to which an individual view himself/herself during the job performance. Engagement also employs active emotions and is viewed as forerunner to job involvement. The HR Managers feel that the employee’s perception about his/her treatment at the organization is the major challenge in employee engagement. Three basic aspects of employee engagement according to the global studies are:

· Employees psychological make up and experience.

· Employers ability to create the conditions that promote employee engagement

· Employee Interaction at all levels.

Information Technology Sector in India comprises of two major components: IT services and business process outsourcing (BPO).According to NASSCOM, the sector aggregated revenues of US$167 billion in 2018-19, with over 8% growth.

The IT sector in India is generating large employments. India is now one of the biggest IT capitals of the modern world and all the major players in the world IT sector are present in the country.

The IT sector needs to identify practices to help employees connect better to the organizations. Employee engagement can be one of the popular methods used in IT sector. It is employed as a critical indicator as it measures the extent of employee satisfaction, excitement, commitment and loyalty of the workforce and can be a critical indicator and predictor for employee turnover/attrition. The current study tries to comprehend the extent of employee engagement amongst employees in top IT companies- TCS, Infosys and Wipro.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Paula Ketter has aptly noted, “Engagement is all about creating a culture where people do not feel misused, overused, underused or abused.” The term “engagement” stems from the work of Kahn (1990) who distinguished between being engaged and disengaged at work.

Leister and Malsch (1998) opine that engagement involves personal experience of involving with fulfilling activities to enhance professional efficacy. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002), describe engagement as the degree of involvement, enthusiasm and satisfaction by an individual. According to May et al (2004) employee engagement is related to the constructs of job involvement and flow. Job involvement focuses on cognition while engagement also includes emotions and behaviors. West (2005) states that experience of positive emotions lead to flexibility, open-mindedness, greater self-controland better coping mechanisms at work place. Saks (2006) opines that engagement is the person’s attention to work and extent to which he is absorbed in assigned role.

According to Robinson (2006), employee engagement is attained by creating conducive organizational climate where positive sentiments like commitment, sense of pride and involvement are encouraged resulting in enhanced organizational performance and lowered employee turnover. Gallupidentifies engagement as a positive emotional connect and commitment of employee. (Demovsek D, 2008). Thus, employee engagement keeps employees together and ensures they turn passionate about their job resulting in improving their retention. Engagement can affect employees’ attitudes, absence and turnover rates Studies have establishedconnections with output, increasingly pointing to a high correlation with individual, group and organizational performance, measured through the quality of customer experience and customer loyalty (Hemsley Fraser, 2008)

According to the Corporate Leadership Council Report (2008), the staff turnover in highly engaged organizations potentially reduces by 87% and it was also found that the probability for leaving the organizations in the case of disengaged employees is four times more than the average employees. Further, it was noted that improving employee engagement can improve employee retention.

According to Macey and Schneider (2008), determining engagement is tough as it encompassesevaluating complex feelings and emotion. Kular et al. (2008) explored relation of engagement to other individual characteristics, employee voice and representation.

Robertson-Smith and Markwick (2009) reveal that it is pertinent yet intricate challenge, high chances for deliberating on various approaches exist. Susi and Jawaharrani (2011) identified that employee engagement can be promoted through work-life balance policies and practices and workplace culture. This will also aid in increasing the organizational productivity and employee retention. Kumar (2012) also identified that code of conduct, salary and other benefits, job satisfaction, training and development can motivate employees to be engaged. Bhatla (2011) stated that there exists a need to have engaged workforce as presence would enhance the work efficiency of the entire organization. But the major challenge encountered by the HR managers is to identify the ways in improving the employee engagement.

With retention becoming a area of concern for organizations, comprehending the factors contributing to increasing loyalty and commitment amongst employees is important lest turnover rates become high. (Mark Royal, Hay Group News release,2011). Bijaya Kumar Sundaray (2011) identified the factors contributing to employee engagement and the steps the organizations ought to take to have better engaged employees. As appropriatefocus on engagement strategies will increase the organizational effectiveness in terms of high quality, customer satisfaction, productivity, profits, employee retention and increased adaptability.

Driscoll (2013) specified that engagement varies in sectors and industries. The rules of engagement cannot have one size that fits all. The tasks to be undertaken include empowerment, communication, empathy, creating opportunities, grooming leaders. The activities to avoid include micro management, needless restrictions, discrimination, not practicing what we preach, and democracy as it does not work everywhere. Truss et. Al (2006) identified that work environment like climate, physical working conditions, organization structure, team and group work, work flow are important factors under work environment which affect employee engagement. The immediate Manager also plays an important role.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

1. To study the employee perception towards engagement strategies in TCS, WIPRO AND INFOSYS.

2. To identify the effect of selectdemographic factorsand employee engagement.

The research design used for the study has been exploratory and descriptive design. The primary and secondary sources were used for research work. Primary data was collected through a structuredquestionnaire consisting of 20 questions. The secondary data was collected through journals, websites and magazines. Convenience sampling technique was employed. Questionnaires were sent to 600 employees in the top three IT companies TCS, WIPRO and INFOSYS (according to Data Quest Top 20 Ranking). The completed questionnaires received by us were 414 of which 132 employees were from TCS, 147employees from WIPRO and 135 employees from INFOSYS. Further, the validity of the questionnaire was checked using the Cronbach’s reliability test in SPSS 20.

TECHNIQUE USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS:

T-TEST and One way Anova test in SPSS 20 is used to evaluate the responses.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:

QUESTIONNAIRE RELIABILITY TEST:

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha	N of Items
.947	20

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was 0.947 i.e. >0.6, questionnaire which depicted high internal reliability of the variables selected for the study.

Table 1: Gender

Gender	No. of Employees
Male	213
Female	201
Total	414

The demographic profile of the sample size of 414 indicates that 51.44% of the respondents are males while 48.55% of the respondents are females.

Table 2: Age

Age	No. of Employees
20-25 years	177
26-30 years	237
Total	414

The study revealed that 42.75% belong to the age group 20-25 years, 57.25% belong to the age group 26-30 years.

Table 3: Educational Qualification

Educational qualification	No. of employee
Graduation	240
Post graduation	174
Total	414

The sample comprised of 57.97% Graduates and 42.03% were Post Graduates.

Table 4: Designation

Designation	No. of employee
Executive	216
Trainee	198
Total	414

Further 52.17% of the respondents were Executives an47.83% were Trainees.

Table 5: Marital Status

Marital Status	No. of Employee
Married	101
Unmarried	313
Total	414

The sample for the study had 24.40% married employees while75.60% were unmarried.

Table 6: Tenure in Organization

Tenure in Organization	No of Employee
0-2	219
2-5	115
Total	414

It was observed that 84% were associated with the organization for a period of 0-2years and 16% were placed in the 2-5 years category.

Table 7: Total Experience

Total Experience	No of Employee
0-2	240
2-5	174
Total	414

The total experience of the respondents depicted that 57.97% had an experience of less than 2 yrs and 42.03% had an experience between 2 – 5 years.

Table 8: Annual Salary

Annual Salary	No. of Employee
Less than 3 lakh	204
3-6 lakh	210
Total	414

49.27% have annual salary less than 3 lakh and 50.72% have annual salary 3 lakh to 6 lakh.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY:

Exploratory Factor Analysis:

Exploratory factor analysis was applied to develop the measurement tool for measuring employee engagement. Principal component analysis was used with varimax rotation. The correlations between factors and the different items expressed by means of the factorial loads were significant. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy came out to be .944 which is above .65(the acceptable level). This shows that the items selected for the questionnaire are appropriate. The chi- square value of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericitywas found to be significant (chi sq=1613.767, p= .000), that indicates the factor analysis is acceptable. The total variance explained is 68%.

Table 9: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		.944
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	1613.767
	Df	190
	Sig.	.000

Table 10: COMPONENT MATRIX

Component Matrix
ITEM	FACTORS	Components
ITEM	FACTORS	1	2
A29	Workplace satisfaction is high.	.854
A11	A clear link between individual and companies goals exist	.809
A10	I am provided the opportunity to do what I am best at in my place of work.	.762
A19	My companies mission/vision makes me feel that my job is important.	.760
A18	Fair and objective job promotions in the organization.	.752
A21	I recommend the workplace to my friends.	.735
A26	I receive feedback from my superiors for enhancing my performance.	.728
A20	I would like to stay for the next two years	.727
A24	I am provided with the equipment and materials for doing my work right.	.710
A23	I am contented with the stress management programs organized in my company	.707
A25	I received praise/recognition for doing a good job in the last three months.	.707
A13	We have our managers encouraging our development.	.706
A27	My work progress was discussed with me by my superiors in the last six months.	.706	-.533
A15	My team members are committed towards delivering quality work	.697
A28	At work, I have a best friend.	.677	-.491
A17	I am paid as per my knowledge, skills, ability and experience.	.671
A22	I strongly recommend the workplace to my friends.	.664
A12	I know what is expected of me at work.	.663
A14	My opinion counts at work.	.661
A16	My organization provides ample opportunities for me to grow and learn new skills.	.458

There were two factors which were named as “ORGANIZATION SUPPORT” and PEER SUPPORT”. Items A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26, A29 got clubbed on First Component which was named as ORGANIZATION SUPPORT .Items A28, A27, got clubbed on Second Component which can be named as PEER SUPPORT.

FACTOR 1 ORGANIZATION SUPPORT:

· Workplace satisfaction is high

· A clear link between individual and companies goals exist

· I am provided the opportunity to do what I am best at in my place of work.

· My companies mission/vision makes me feel that my job is important.

· Fair and objective job promotions in the organization.

· I recommend the workplace to my friends.

· I receive feedback from my superiors for enhancing my performance.

· I would like to stay for the next two years

· I am provided with the equipment and materials for doing my work right.

· I am contented with the stress management programs organized in my company

· I received praise/recognition for doing a good job in the last three months.

· We have our managers encouraging our development.

· My team members are committed towards delivering quality work

· I am paid as per my knowledge, skills, ability and experience.

· I strongly recommend the workplace to my friends.

· I know what is expected of me at work.

· My opinion counts at work.

· My organization provides ample opportunities for me to grow and learn new skills.

FACTOR 2 PEER SUPPORT:

· My work progress was discussed with me by my superiors in the last six months

· At work, I have a best friend.

Further Anova was used to understand the extent of difference in the perception of employee engagement strategies of the three organizations

Homogeneous Subsets:

Total
A1	N	Subset for alpha = 0.05
A1	N	1	2
WIPRO	147	3.7459
INFOSYS	135	3.8656
TCS	132		4.4105

According to the above table the p value is less than 0.05 i.e. NULL hypothesis is not accepted.

Hence, there is a significant difference among TCS, WIPRO and INFOSYS employees regarding employee engagement practices, showing that TCS employees rated the practices higher followed by INFOSYS employees and WIPRO employees.

The Levene’sT-TEST was conducted to understand the significance difference of employee engagement practices and select demographic variables. The results showed that there was no significant difference between employee engagement and select demographic variables as mentioned below:

	Levene's Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
	F	Sig.	df	Sig.
GENDER	.008	.928	405	.214
AGE	.027	.871	387	.881
Education	2.472	.118	396	.247
DESIGNATION	1.534	.218	405	.369
MARITAL STATUS	.335	.563	402	.448
TENURE IN ORGANIZATION	.060	.807	405	.220
TOTAL EXPERIENCE	.079	.779	390	.360
ANNUAL SALARY	1.614	.206	381	.579

CONCLUSION:

The research attempts to identifythe perception of employees towards employee engagement practices of three IT organizations. TCS employees depict a high level of employee engagement followed by INFOSYS and WIPRO.

Employees comprise the most vital assets of the company. In a work place where employees are not able to use their full potential and not heard and valued, they are likely to leave because of stress and frustration. They need transparent work environment to work in. In a transparent environment where employees get a sense of achievement and belongingness, where they can best utilize their potential and realize their skills. They love to be the essential part of such organization and the company is benefited with a stronger, reliable work-force harboring bright new ideas for its growth.

Based on the findings of the present study, organizations ought to invest in employee engagement practices to improve their organizational performance and effectiveness and it was seen that there is no impact of demographic profile on employee engagement. Apparently, employee engagement may be a useful tool to achieve the organization goal. However, it was found that various factors affect the employee engagement. Organizations can offer career opportunities and promotions, support a creative and innovative environment, conduct stress removal programs, and provide above-average financial packages to their employees to improve the employee engagement.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

The study had a limited sample size and the responses elicited were over the mail. Personal interview was not conducted to understand the reasons for the extent of engagement.

REFERENCES:

JOURNALS:

· Bhatla, N. (2011). “To study the Employee Engagement practices and its effect on employee Performance with special reference to ICICI and HDFC Bank in Lucknow”. IJSER, 2(8)

· Beer, Michael. Managing human assets. Simon and Schuster, 1984.

· Csikszenthihalyi, M. (1990), The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York.

· Gallup Organization, 2005. Employee Engagement: The Engagement side of the Human Sigma Equation. Retrieved from www.gallup.com.

· Hooper, N., 2006. Companies where people want to work. Weekend Australian Financial Review., 17-19.

· Harter, James K., Frank L. Schmidt, and Theodore L. Hayes.(2002) "Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis.".. Journal of . Applied Psychology., 87: 268-279.

· Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy Management. Journal., 33: 692-724.

· Kular,S.,Gatenby,M.,Rees,C.,Soane,E.,andTruss,K.(2008). Employee Engagement :A Literature Review. Kingston University, Kingston Business School. Availableat:http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf

· Kumar, J.A. (2012). Employee Engagement, Saaransh , RKG Journal of Management, 3(2)

· Macey, William H., and Benjamin Schneider. "The meaning of employee engagement." Industrial and organizational Psychology 1.1 (2008): 3-30.

· Maslach, C. Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001) ‘Job burnout’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 52, pp397-422.

· May, D.R. Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004) ‘The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work’, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol 77, pp11-37

· Robinson, I. (2006). Human Resource Management in Organisations. London, CIPD.

· Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of. Managerial Psychology., 21: 600- 619.

· Susi, S. and Jawaharrani, K. (2011). Work-Life Balance: The key driver of employee engagement. Asian Journal of management Research, 2(1)

· Truss, Katie, et al. "Job design and employee engagement." (2014).

BOOKS:

· Aswathappa,Human Resource Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Education(2017).

· Haudan. J(2008) The Art of Engagement: Bridging the Gap Between People and Possibilities, McGraw-Hill Education.

· Kothari C.R, Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, New Age (2013).

WEBSITES:

· https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement

· http://engageforsuccess.org/what-is-employee-engagement

· https://doublethedonation.com/blog/2015/09/the-importance-of-increasing-employee-engagement-using-corporate-giving-programs/

· https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology_in_India

· http://www.ibef.org/industry/information-technology-india.aspx

· http://www.management.ase.ro/reveconomia/2013-2/1.pdf

· http://www.employement-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/469.pdf http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215465/dh_129661.pdf

Received on 08.01.2019 Modified on 14.01.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(2):319-324.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00057.3

ANOVA
Total
			Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	(Combined)		11.216	6	5.608	24.229	.000
	Linear Term	Unweighted	6.529	3	6.529	28.208	.000
		Weighted	6.378	3	6.378	27.556	.000
		Deviation	4.838	3	4.838	20.901	.000
Within Groups			31.016	402	.231
Total			42.232	408