EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A STUDY OF TELECOM INDUSTRY

(1)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 472

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A STUDY OF TELECOM INDUSTRY

Dr. Priyanka Ranga

Assistant professor, MMIM, Maharishi Markandeshwar(Deemed to be University), Ambala, India

Ms. Monika Pawar

Research Scholar, MMIM, Maharishi Markandeshwar(Deemed to be University), Ambala, India

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the employee engagement and commitment level of telecom sector employees and also to examine the relationship among employee engagement and organizational commitment.

Design/Methodology/approach - Three hundred (300) employees of three different organizations of New Delhi and NCR were sampled. Descriptive statistics consisted of mean and standard deviation in order to have a clear picture of study variables. Pearson product correlation, independent t-test and ANOVA were the statistical tools used for analyzing the data collected.

Findings-The findings of the study revealed that employees of telecom sector have a low level of employee engagement and commitment and there is a significant positive relationship between employee engagement and employee commitment. With regard to the demographic characteristics of the employees, experience and income significantly influenced employee engagement and commitment. The findings of the study are discussed with reference to the reviewed literature.

Practical implications –The present study points out the need for employees to be provided with resources and freedom needed to perform their work roles since it has consequential effects on employee engagement and organizational commitment.

Originality/value – This paper attempts to investigate the employee engagement and commitment level of employees and relationship among employee engagement and employee commitment with addition of new insights.

Keywords -Demographic characteristics, Employee engagement, Gallup organization, Organizational commitment, Telecom industry.

Paper type – Research paper INTRODUCTION

Employee engagement has emerged as a significant driver of business success in today’s competitive marketplace. Not only does engagement have the potential to considerably affect employee retention, productivity and loyalty, it is also a link to customer satisfaction, company reputation and stakeholder value. Thus, to gain a spirited edge, organizations are turning to HR to set the plan for employee engagement and commitment.

Employee Engagement as the height of commitment and involvement an employee has toward his organization (Mone and London, 2010). It is the optimistic attitude held by the employees

(2)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 473

towards the organizations and its values Employee engagement is “a state of employee who feels involved, committed, and passionate and demonstrates those feelings in job behavior”.

Engagement is linked to three critical forces in the organization - Attrition, Productivity &

Profitability. (Woodruffe, 2006) highlighted the importance of engaging talented employees and why they should be a pinnacle in organizational priority. (Seigts et al. , 2006) explored the factors influencing the employee engagement and summarized that engagement factors deal with career progression, clearness in communication, conveyance of expectations, congratulations or acknowledgment, contributions, connection control over own job, collaboration between employees, reliability in leaders, and confidence in the company.

Organizational commitment is the extent to which an individual identifies with an organization and is dedicated to its goals. While employee engagement refers to an employee’s loyalty and commitment to his job, organizational commitment refers to an employee’s loyalty and dedication to his organization.. When employees are engaged in their work, they are not only proud of their work they do but of the work their colleagues, managers, and the company itself does.(Tiwari, 2013)explored organizational commitment level and the willingness of an employee to stay and endeavor for an organization in the long run and todayorganizations are looking for proficient workforce who are willing to invest considerable efforts and money to preserve talented employees.

The exponential growth of the Telecom industry is supported by three strong pillars that lend themselves, in creating business excellence, latest technological advances and an unmatched intellectual capital. These are – employee engagement, innovation and leadership.In the face of increasing competition for talent, while companies spread out and grow within India and abroad, it has become increasingly essential to ensure one’s existing employees are fully engaged, integrated and feel invested in developing a career with their employer.

Employee engagement is fast becoming the newest mantra for HR managers, CEOs and company executives. It is, however, a focus that has always been in existence and describes the true fabric and identity of a company. Whether an employee is truly engaged or not is determined by a few elements that make up the workplace.

Despite evidence of how disparaging disengagement can be, studies from the human services field on the opposite condition, engagement, are limited. Surprisingly slight academic and empirical research has been conducted. To address this trouble, more research that focuses explicitly on the engagement and commitment levels of employees is necessary. Empirical data are needed so professionals can better comprehend employee engagement and use what they learn about it to develop executive interventions and alternative strategies that promote engagement for human services workers. The results from this study can contribute further to research in assessing the employee engagement and organizational commitment levels in the organizations and also the relationship between them could be used in other fields of study (e.g., education, public affairs, nonprofit administration) that are challenged with related organizational variables and conditions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

(3)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 474

Moye (2003) analysed the degree to which employee empowerment and employee commitment to the organization are linked to interpersonal-level and system-level trust in the organization.

The outcome showed that employees who have higher levels of commitment to the organization also have higher levels of interpersonal-level trust and system-level trust.

Woodruffe (2006) highlighted the importance of engaging talented employees and why they should be a pinnacle in organizational priority. The author also mentioned about the importance of talented employees as they are valuable possessions that are likely to find another job if they do not feel that their present one is giving them the satisfaction, purpose and self-worth. Having employees who are thoroughly motivated and truly engaged is the most powerful competitive force an organization can enjoy.

Field and Buitendach (2011) determined the relationship between happiness, work engagement and organizational commitment and whether work engagement and happiness hold important value for the organizational commitment of support staff at a tertiary education institution in South Africa. Non probability convenience sampling was used to determine a sample of 123 respondents. Descriptive statistics consisting of mean, medians, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis were used. Exploratory factor analysis, pearson correlation, and linear regression analysis were also used. The findings of the study showed that there is a relationship between happiness, work engagement and affective organizational commitment and organizational commitment has a positive relationship with satisfaction with life, well being and work engagement. The findings of the study also showed that there is a positive relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment and work engagement.

Gowri and Mariammal (2012) emphasized on the three factors namely ‘Commitment’, ‘Salary and benefits’ and ‘Job satisfaction’ which ultimately decide employee engagement in public and private sector banks. 55 respondents from public sector banks and another 55 respondents from private sector banks were selected at random by adopting convenient sampling technique. The factors of employee engagement were assessed with descriptive statistics like mean and standard deviation and Pearson’s product moment correlation is applied to find out their inter-relationship with each other and one way ANOVA test is also used to find out the relationship between the employee engagement factors and the demographic and other variables of the bank employees.

The findings of the study concluded that the Employee’s engagement factors Commitment, Salary and benefits and Job satisfaction are significantly related to the stated demographic and other variables of the employees in private sector as well as public sector banks.

Agyemang and Ofei (2013) emphasized on the possessions to be provided to the employees in order to carry out their work roles since it has major effects on employee engagement and organizational commitment. The study explored the employee engagement and organizational commitment of private and public sector employees in Ghana. The sample size taken was 105 employees of three public and three private sector organizations. Data was collected and analyzed using statistical tools like Pearson product-moment correlation and Independent t test.

It was established that there is a significant positive relationship between employee engagement and employee commitment. The result of the study showed that workers of private organizations have a higher level of employee engagement and organizational commitment than workers in public organizations, and long-tenured and short- tenured employees did not vary in commitment levels.

(4)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 475

Erdil and Muceldili (2014) outlined how envy affects job engagement and turnover intention.

111 employees working in organizations operating in Turkey Marmara Region were surveyed.

SPSS software was used for the evaluation of data. Factor analysis, correlation, reliability tests and the means of the variable and regression analysis were used to analyze the relationships between variables of the research model. The findings of the research showed that feelings of envy influences emotional engagement, affects propensity to leave and emotional engagement impacts intention to leave and also contributed to understanding the role of negative emotions on employees.

Kaliannan and Adjovu (2015) explored the strengths and weaknesses of employee engagement strategies implemented by a telecommunication organisation in Ghana. Quantitative research approach was adopted with 137 completed responses. Mean, percentages, pearson correlation, t test and ANOVA were used. The findings of the research showed that the engagement strategies deployed by the organization has achieved a satisfactory level which in turn indicated that all the engagement strategies of the company are in good shape and more vibrant which is why the company has an unparalleled performance in its industry of operation. The data analysis revealed the ‘work environment’ as the least effective engagement strategy and therefore there are areas of improvement that can be established to integrate the talent management with overall organizational corporate strategies.

Stephanie and Gustamo (2015) examined the current condition of employee engagement level and analyzed the factors that affect employee engagement in PT Maju Sentosa. The model used for this research was the combination of two employee engagement model from AON Hewitt (2013) and Mercer (2007).Primary data was collected through interview, observation, and questionnaire. Factor analysis and multiple linear regression was used. The findings of the research showed that the current employee engagement level of the organiSation is acceptable but need to be improved, and the three significant factors that affects employee engagement in PT Maju Sentosa were welfare, career and social support, and work motivation. The welfare factor was considered as the most significant one that influence employee engagement which is formed by seven independent variables; job security, brand/reputation, benefit, recognition, learning and development, communication, enabling infrastructure.

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

(Woodruffe, 2006) highlighted the importance of engaging talented employees and why they should be a pinnacle in organizational priority. (Seigts et al., 2006) explored the factors influencing the employee engagement and how these factors are essentials within the workplace that “attract, focus, and keep the most talented employees” Based on the discussion, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H1. There is a significant difference in the employee engagement level of employees of the telecom sector.

(Gowri and Mariammal, 2012) emphasized on the three factors namely ‘Commitment’, ‘Salary and benefits’ and ‘Job satisfaction’ which ultimately decide employee engagement (Slatten and Mehmetoglu, 2011) examined the factors related to employee engagement in frontline jobs in service firms and found out that organizational commitment is an antecedent of employee

(5)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 476

engagement.( Moye, 2003) analyzed the degree to which employee empowerment and employee commitment to the organization are linked to interpersonal-level and system-level trust in the organization. Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis was formulated

H2. There is a significant difference in the commitment level of employees of the telecom sector.

(Field and Buitendach, 2011) determined the relationship between happiness, work engagement and organizational commitment and whether engagement holds important value for the organizational commitment. The author showed that there is a positive relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment (Agyemang and Ofei, 2013) focused on the possessions to be provided to the employees in order to carry out their work roles since it has major effects on employee engagement and organizational commitment and showed that there is a significant positive relationship between employee engagement and employee commitment.

Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis was formulated

H3. There is a significant relationship between employee engagement and commitment.

(Gowri and Mariammal, 2012) analysed the relationship between the employee engagement factors and the demographic and other variables of the bank employees and showed that Commitment, Salary and benefits and Job satisfaction are significantly related to the demographics and other variables of the employees in private sector as well as public sector banks of Tiruchendur, India. (Agyemang and Ofei, 2013) emphasized workers of private organizations have a higher level of employee engagement and organizational commitment than workers in public organizations, and long-tenured and short- tenured employees did not vary in their commitment levels. This led to the formation of the following hypothesis:

H4. There is a significant difference across employees with different level of income in predicting overall employee engagement and commitment level of employees

H5. There is a significant difference across employees with different years of length of service in the current organization in predicting overall employee engagement and commitment level of employees.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study is designed as descriptive and analytical in nature since it attempts to obtain a complete and accurate description of a situation. The methodology utilized in this research is of quantitative nature and secondary and primary data were used to statistically determine whether any relationship exists between employee engagement and commitment and also to determine the levels of employee engagement and commitment.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

In the first stage, Delhi, NCR is selected using purposive sampling, since maximum numbers of Telecom companies in North India are in this region. In the second stage, out of various Telecom companies in Delhi NCR, three companies are chosen randomly through systematic random sampling, that is, Bharti Airrtel, Vodafone and Tata communications. In the third stage, 100 employees from each company (strata) were selected on random basis using stratified random sampling.

CONSTRUCTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

(6)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 477

A three section standardized questionnaire was used. The questionnaire used for the study comprises of 32 items categorized into three parts namely employee engagement (12 items), organizational commitment (15 items) and demographic characteristics (4 items).

The first part i.e. employee engagement was measured using the Gallup organizations (G12) questionnaire with a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of 0.91(Harter et al, 2009). Having been used with approximately 1.5 million employees, Gallup’s tool makes an perfect instrument from which to represent the survey questions for this study (Thackray, 2001).

The second part comprises of organizational commitment (Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) with a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of 0.76. The OCQ has been validated using data collected in a variety of diverse organizations and job classifications and the third part consist of the demographic characteristics of the employees.

COLLECTION OF DATA

The study is based on both primary and secondary data. The primary data was collected from the various employees working in the telecom sector with the help of a structured questionnaire.

FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

The data collected was analyzed with the help of SPSS version 16. The following statistics were used: descriptive statistics. One sample t test, Pearson correlation and ANOVA.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Three hundred respondents participated in this study. The participant’s background, i.e., gender, age, length of service and income is examined in the following sections

Analysis 1: Summary of the Demographic Characteristics

Table 1 provides a frequency table of all the demographic variables examined in this research.

CATEGORY VARIABLE F PERCENT

GENDER

Male 198 66

Female 102 34

TOTAL 300 100

AGE

20-29 30 10

30-39 138 46

40-49 84 28

50 and above 48 16

TOTAL 300 100

LENGTH OF

SERVICE

Less than a year 24 8

1-3 70 23

3-5 150 50

6 years or more 56 19

TOTAL 300 100

INCOME

Less than 20,000 60 20

20,000-30,000 80 27

31,000-40,000 96 32

Above 41,000 64 21

(7)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 478

TOTAL 300 100

Approximately 66% (n = 198) of the sample was male and 34% (n = 102) of the sample was female. A frequency analysis of age indicated that 10% (n = 30) of the respondents reported belonging to the age group of 20-29, 46% (n = 138) to the 30-39 group, 28% (n = 84) to the 40- 49 group, 16% (n = 48) to the above 50 group. A frequency analysis of length of service indicated that 8% (n = 24) of the respondents belonging to less than a year group, 23% (n = 70) to the 1-3 group, 50% (n = 150) to the 3-5 group and 19% (n = 56) to the above 6 years group. A frequency analysis of Income indicated that 20% (n = 60) of the respondents belonging to less than 20,000 group, 27% (n = 80) to the 20,000-30,000 group, 32% (n = 96) to the 31,000-40,000 group and 21% (n = 64) to the above 41,000 group.

Once the data is collected, it is entered into computer using SPSS version 16. Following the instructions of the SPSS program all the responses were coded under certain categories

Analysis 2: Extent of employee engagement T-TEST

/TESTVAL=3

/MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=EMPENG /CRITERIA=CI(.9500).

Table 2 Showing One-Sample Statistics of employee engagement

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

EMP_ENG 300 2.2117 .91798 .05300

Table 3: Showing One-Sample Test of employee engagement Test Value = 3

T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

EMP_ENG -14.874 299 .000 -.78833 -.8926 -.6840

(8)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 479

T-Test was used to measure the extent of employee engagement of employees. The sample mean was 2.21, standard deviation is 0.92 and the estimated standard error of mean is 0.053 as shown in table 2. The one sample t test is 14.87 and the p value from the statistic is 0.00 and that is less than 0.05(the level of significance usually used for the test) as shown in table 3. Such a p value indicates that mean score of the employee engagement given by the respondents is statistically and significantly different from 3(i.e. the test value used for the test) which clearly shows that employees of the telecom sector disagree and are dissatisfied with the level of employee engagement in their organization. Therefore, the research hypothesis 1 that is there is a significant difference in the employee engagement level of employees of the telecom sector is accepted and proven to be true.

Analysis 3: Extent of employee commitment T-TEST

/TESTVAL=3

/MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=EMPCOM /CRITERIA=CI(.9500).

Table 4 Showing One-Sample Statistics of employee commitment

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

EMP_COM 300 2.9595 .34570 .01996

Table 5 Showing One-Sample Test of employee commitment Test Value = 3

T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

EMP_COM -2.028 299 .043 -.04048 -.0798 -.0012

T-Test was used to measure the organizational commitment of employees. The sample mean was 2.95, standard deviation is 0.34 and the estimated standard error of mean is 0.019 as shown in table 4. The one sample t test is 2.02 and the p value from the statistic is 0.04 and that is less than 0.05(the level of significance usually used for the test) as shown in table 5. Such a p value

(9)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 480

indicates that mean score of the organizational commitment given by the respondents is statistically and significantly different from 3(i.e. the test value) which clearly shows that employees of telecom sector have a lower level of organizational commitment. Therefore, the research hypothesis 2 that is there is a significant difference in the commitment level of employees of the telecom sector is accepted and proven to be true

Analysis 4: Relationship between employee engagement and commitment CORRELATIONS

/VARIABLES=EMPENG EMPCOM /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Table 6 Showing Descriptive Statistics of employee engagement and commitment

Mean Std. Deviation N

EMP_ENG 2.2117 .91798 300

EMP_COM 2.9595 .34570 300

Table 7 Showing Correlations of employee engagement and commitment

EMP_ENG EMP_COM

EMP_ENG

Pearson

Correlation 1 .198^**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

N 300 300

EMP_CO M

Pearson

Correlation .198^** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

N 300 300

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The statistical output is shown in table 6. Pearson correlation statistic is used to determine the relationship between employee engagement and commitment. r was found to be 0.198 as shown in table 7, by squaring the correlation and then multiplying by 100, the percentage of the variability was found which is four percent. And p value is found to be 0.00 as shown in table 7 which is less than 0.05 which clearly shows that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and commitment, but the relationship is weak indicating that there are the other factors influencing employee engagement and commitment level of employees which are

(10)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 481

already mentioned in the literature view. Therefore, the research hypothesis 3 that is there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and commitment is accepted and proven to be true.

Analysis 5:Impact of income on employee engagement and commitment Income on Employee Engagement

ONEWAY SUMEMPENG BY INCOME /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Table 8Showing Descriptive statistics of income on employee engagement

SUM_EMPENG

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 60 24.4667 8.34727 1.07763 22.3103 26.6230 16.00 50.00 2 80 25.9250 9.72114 1.08686 23.7617 28.0883 16.00 50.00

3 96 22.6667 8.35107 .85233 20.9746 24.3588 13.00 52.00

4 64 35.0625 13.62989 1.70374 31.6579 38.4671 14.00 55.00 Total 300 26.5400 11.01573 .63599 25.2884 27.7916 13.00 55.00

Table 9 Showing ANOVA of income on employee engagement

Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between

Groups 6376.953 3 2125.651 21.039 .000

Within Groups 29905.567 296 101.032

Total 36282.520 299

Table 10 ShowingMultiple Comparisons of income on employee engagement SUM_EMPENGTukey HSD

(I) INC

(J) INC

Mean

Difference (I- J)

Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower

Bound Upper Bound

(11)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 482

1

2 -1.45833 1.71662 .831 -5.8935 2.9769 3 1.80000 1.65417 .697 -2.4739 6.0739 4 -10.59583^* 1.80624 .000 -15.2626 -5.9291 2

1 1.45833 1.71662 .831 -2.9769 5.8935 3 3.25833 1.52162 .143 -.6730 7.1897 4 -9.13750^* 1.68569 .000 -13.4928 -4.7822 3

1 -1.80000 1.65417 .697 -6.0739 739 2 -3.25833 1.52162 .143 -7.1897 .6730 4 -12.39583^* 1.62205 .000 -16.5867 -8.2050 4

1 10.59583^* 1.80624 .000 5.9291 15.2626 2 9.13750^* 1.68569 .000 4.7822 13.4928 3 12.39583^* 1.62205 .000 8.2050 16.5867

Table 11 Showing SUM_EMPENG of income on employee engagement

Tukey HSD

INC N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

3 96 22.6667

1 60 24.4667

2 80 25.9250

4 64 35.0625

Sig. .209 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

ANOVA was performed and the results for different characteristics were shown in table 8. The descriptive statistics as shown in table 8 indicated that, the mean for the income level less than 20,000 is 24.47 and standard deviation is 8.34, the mean for the income level between 20,000- 30,000 is 25.92 and standard deviation is 9.72, the mean for the income level between 31,000- 40,000 22.67 and standard deviation is 8.35 and the mean for the income level above 41,000 is 35.06 and standard deviation is 13.62. The number of participants in each condition (N) is 60,

(12)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 483

80, 96 and 64. There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by one way ANOVA. F = 21.04, p < 0.05 as show in table 9 .Employees were most engaged with income more than 41,000 than the other three income groups. The Tukey post hoc tests as shown in table 10 and 11 indicated that there exists no significant impact of all the other income groups on employee engagement level as the p value is greater than 0.05 in all the other cases (p= 0.83, 0.69, 0.14).This shows that income category 1, 2 and 3 are not different from each other on their impact on employee engagement levels and hence can be dubbed as one category (0-40,000) and income 4 category is significantly higher than the other income groups. The results showed a significant outcome, which means that the employees who earn more are more engaged and significantly differ in their opinion from the employees who earn comparatively less.

Income on Employee Commitment ONEWAY SUMEMPCOM BY INCOME /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).

Table 13 Showing ANOVA of income on employee commitment Sum of

Squares Df Mean

Square F Sig.

Between

Groups 3473.416 3 1157.805 74.685 .000 Within

Groups 4588.771 296 15.503 Total 8062.187 299

Table 14 Showing Multiple Comparisons of income on employee commitment

Table 12 Showing Descriptive statistics of income on employee commitment SUM_EMPCOM

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean Minimum Maximum

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 60 43.5000 3.38241 .43667 42.6262 44.3738 36.00 51.00

2 80 42.5000 3.24525 .36283 41.7778 43.2222 35.00 49.00

3 96 42.1667 3.82971 .39087 41.3907 42.9426 32.00 52.00

4 64 50.8438 5.17693 .64712 49.5506 52.1369 41.00 61.00

Total 300 44.3733 5.19267 .29980 43.7833 44.9633 32.00 61.00

(13)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 484

SUM_EMPCOM Tukey HSD (I)

INC (J) INC

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1

2 1.00000 .67243 .447 -.7373 2.7373 3 1.33333 .64797 .170 -.3408 3.0075 4 -7.34375^* .70753 .000 -9.1718 -5.5157 2

1 -1.00000 .67243 .447 -2.7373 .7373 3 .33333 .59604 .944 -1.2067 1.8733 4 -8.34375^* .66031 .000 -10.0498 -6.6377 3

1 -1.33333 .64797 .170 -3.0075 .3408 2 -.33333 .59604 .944 -1.8733 1.2067 4 -8.67708^* .63538 .000 -10.3187 -7.0354 4

1 7.34375^* .70753 .000 5.5157 9.1718 2 8.34375^* .66031 .000 6.6377 10.0498 3 8.67708^* .63538 .000 7.0354 10.3187

Table 15 Showing SUM_EMPCOM of income on employee commitment

Tukey HSD

INC N

Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

3 96 42.1667

2 80 42.5000

1 60 43.5000

4 64 50.8438

Sig. .176 1.000

(14)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 485

ANOVA was performed and the results for different characteristics were shown in table 12. The descriptive statistics as shown in table 12 indicated that, the mean for the income level less than 20,000 is 43.50 and standard deviation is 3.38, the mean for the income level between 20,000- 30,000 is 42.50 and standard deviation is 3.24, the mean for the income level between 31,000- 40,000 42.17 and standard deviation is 3.83 and the mean for the income level above 41,000 is 50.84 and standard deviation is 5.18. The number of participants in each condition (N) is 60, 80, 96 and 64.

There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by one way ANOVA. F = 62.94, p < 0.05 as shown in table 13.Employees who were earning more than 41,000 were more loyal and committed to the organization than the other three income groups.

The Tukey post hoc tests as shown in table 14 and 15 indicated that there exists no significant impact of all the other income groups on the commitment level as the p value is greater than 0.05 in all the other cases (p= 0.94, 0.45, 0.17).This shows that income category 1, 2 and 3 are not different from each other on their impact on commitment levels and hence can be dubbed as one category (0-40,000) and income 4 category is significantly higher than the other income groups.

The results showed a significant outcome, which means that the employees who earn more are more committed to the organization and significantly differ in their opinion from the employees who earn comparatively less.

Therefore, the research hypothesis 4 that is there is a significant difference across employees with different level of income in predicting overall employee engagement and commitment level of employees is accepted and proven to be true.

Analysis 6: Impact of length of service on employee engagement and commitment Impact of length of service on employee engagement

ONEWAY SUMEMPENG BY LENGTHOFSERVICE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA (0.05).

Table 16 Showing descriptive statistics of length of service on employee engagement

SUM_EMPEG

N Mean Std.

for Mean Minimu

m

Maximu m Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 24 22.1667 8.99114 1.83531 18.3700 25.9633 16.00 50.00 2 70 27.2000 10.42238 1.24571 24.7149 29.6851 17.00 52.00

(15)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 486

3 150 24.8267 9.82173 .80194 23.2420 26.4113 13.00 52.00 4 56 32.1786 13.37855 1.78778 28.5958 35.7614 17.00 55.00 Total 300 26.5400 11.01573 .63599 25.2884 27.7916 13.00 55.00

Table 17 ShowingANOVA of length of service on employee engagement

Sum of

Between

Groups 2710.279 3 903.426 7.965 .000

Within Groups 33572.241 296 113.420

Total 36282.520 299

Table 18 Showingmultiple comparisons of length of service on employee engagement

SUM_EMPENG Tukey HSD (I)

LOS (J) LOS

Mean

Difference (I- J)

Std. Error Sig.

Bound Upper Bound

1

2 -5.03333 2.51915 .191 -11.5420 1.4753 3 -2.66000 2.34136 .667 -8.7093 3.3893 4 -10.01190^* 2.59830 .001 -16.7251 -3.2987 2

1 5.03333 2.51915 .191 -1.4753 11.5420 3 2.37333 1.54156 .415 -1.6096 6.3562 4 -4.97857^* 1.90935 .047 -9.9117 -.0454 3

1 2.66000 2.34136 .667 -3.3893 8.7093 2 -2.37333 1.54156 .415 -6.3562 1.6096 4 -7.35190^* 1.66778 .000 -11.6609 -3.0429 4

1 10.01190^* 2.59830 .001 3.2987 16.7251 2 4.97857^* 1.90935 .047 .0454 9.9117 3 7.35190^* 1.66778 .000 3.0429 11.6609

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 19 ShowingSUM_EMPENG of length of service on employee engagement

(16)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 487

Tukey HSD

LOS N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

1 24 22.1667

3 150 24.8267

2 70 27.2000 27.2000

4 56 32.1786

Sig. .088 .093

ANOVA was performed and the results for different characteristics were shown in table 16. The descriptive statistics as shown in table 16 indicated that, for the employees with less than a year experience the mean is 22.17 and standard deviation is 8.99, the employees with 1-3 years of experience the mean is is 27.20 and standard deviation is 10.42, the employees with 3-5 years of experience the mean is 24.83 and standard deviation is 9.82 and the employees with more than 6 years of experience the mean is 32.18 and standard deviation is the 13.38. The number of participants in each condition (N) is 24, 70, 150 and 56

There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by one way ANOVA. F = 3.93, p < 0.05 as shown in table 17. Employees having more than 6 years of work experience were more engaged than the other three groups. The Tukey post hoc tests as shown in table 18 and 19 indicated that there exists no significant impact of all the other experience groups on employee engagement level as the p value is greater than 0.05 in all the other cases (p= 0.85, 0.67,0.41, 0.19).This shows that the employees having more experience were positively engaged compared to those who have less experience

LENGTH OF SERVICE ON COMMITMENT

ONEWAY SUMEMPCOM BY LENGTHOFSERVICE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA (0.05).

Table 20 Showingdescriptive statistics of length of service on employee commitment SUM_EMPCO

M

(17)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 488

Table 21 ShowingANOVA of length of service on employee commitment

Sum of

Between

Groups 1625.474 3 541.825 24.916 .000

Within Groups 6436.712 296 21.746

Total 8062.187 299

Table 22 Showingmultiple Comparisons of length of service on employee commitment

SUM_EMPCOM Tukey HSD

(I) LOS (J) LOS

Mean

Difference (I- J)

Std. Error Sig.

Bound Upper Bound

1

2 1.39048 1.10305 .589 -1.4595 4.2404 3 -.64000 1.02520 .924 -3.2888 2.0088 4 -5.59524^* 1.13771 .000 -8.5347 -2.6558 2

1 -1.39048 1.10305 .589 -4.2404 1.4595 3 -2.03048^* .67500 .015 -3.7745 -.2865 4 -6.98571^* .83604 .000 -9.1458 -4.8256 3

1 .64000 1.02520 .924 -2.0088 3.2888

2 2.03048^* .67500 .015 .2865 3.7745

4 -4.95524^* .73026 .000 -6.8420 -3.0685

N Mean Std.

for Mean Minimum Maximu

m Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 24 43.3333 2.86913 .58566 42.1218 44.5449 39.00 48.00 2 70 41.9429 4.22513 .50500 40.9354 42.9503 32.00 47.00 3 150 43.9733 4.83548 .39482 43.1932 44.7535 37.00 60.00 4 56 48.9286 5.27725 .70520 47.5153 50.3418 40.00 61.00 Total 300 44.3733 5.19267 .29980 43.7833 44.9633 32.00 61.00

(18)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 489

4

1 5.59524^* 1.13771 .000 2.6558 8.5347 2 6.98571^* .83604 .000 4.8256 9.1458 3 4.95524^* .73026 .000 3.0685 6.8420

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 23 ShowingSUM_EMPENG of length of service on employee commitment

Tukey HSD

LOS N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

1 24 22.1667

3 150 24.8267

2 70 27.2000 27.2000

4 56 32.1786

Sig. .088 .093

The statistical output is shown above. ANOVA was performed and the results for different characteristics were shown in table 20. The descriptive statistics as shown in table 20 indicated that, for the employees with less than a year experience the mean is 43.33 and standard deviation is 2.87, the employees with 1-3 years of experience the mean is 41.94 and standard deviation is 4.22, the employees with 3-5 years of experience the mean is 43.97 and standard deviation is 4.83 and the employees with more than 6 years of experience the mean is 48.93 and standard deviation is 5.28. The number of participants in each condition (N) is 24, 70, 150 and 56. There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by one way ANOVA. F = 17.47, p < 0.05 as shown in table 21.Employees having more than 6 years of work experience were more committed and loyal to the organization than the other three groups.. The Tukey post hoc tests as shown in table 22 and table 23 indicated that there exists no significant impact of all the other experience groups on employee engagement level as the p value is greater than 0.05 in all the other cases. This shows that the experience categories 1, 2 and 3 are not different from each other on their impact on commitment levels and hence can be dubbed as one category (0-5 years) and experience 4 categories is significantly higher than the other experience groups. This shows that the employees having more experience show more commitment towards their job compared to those who are having less experience.

(19)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 490

Therefore, the research hypothesis 5 that there is a significant difference across employees with different years of length of service in the current organization in predicting overall employee engagement and commitment level of employees is accepted and proven to be true

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

After undertaking the study, the following findings were made:

A key finding of the research is that Engagement is largely driven by the extent to which employees feel they are appreciated by, and involved with, their organization

Employees of telecom sector have a low level of employee engagement which indicates that the employees of the telecom sector are disengaged and dissatisfied with their work and feel less involved and empowered at work. Robinson et al. (2007) found several elements such as job satisfaction, feeling valued and involved and equality of opportunity have positive effects on engagement levels. Compensation and formal recognition are also the factors that foster employee engagement (Melcrum, 2007).

Employees of telecom sector have a low level of organizational commitment which indicates that majority of the employees are not loyal to their organization and would leave their existing workplace if the right opportunity came along. Purcell, 2009 and Moye, 2003 explained the importance of trust and how it affects organizational commitment whereas Lockwood, 2007 explained the importance of work-life balance on organizational commitment and how this affects staff retention.

There is a positive significant relationship between employee engagement andorganizational commitment but the relationship is weak indicating that there are other factors influencing employee engagement and commitment level of employees such as recognition, leadership, job satisfaction, recruitment, career development opportunities, training and development, equal opportunities , fair treatment, performance management, compensation, health and security(

Steers ,1977; Moye, 2003; Seigts et al. , 2006, Melcrum, 2007 ; Robinson et.al, 2007 ; Lockwood, 2007 ; Field and Buitendach, 2011).

The demographic characteristics of the employees, experience and income significantly influence employee engagement and commitment. Balain and Sparrow (2009) analyzed that engagement levels vary with demographic factors such as age and their gender, as well as work- related factors such as how new they are to the organization(i.e. experience), their working hours, their pay and their tenure. The employees who have high earnings significantly differ in their opinion from the employees who earn comparatively less i.e. the employees who earn more are more engaged and do have commitment and involvement towards their work compared to others because of the financial incentives they get like the cash bonuses, increased base pay, and stock options.The employees who have more experience significantly differ in their opinion from the employees who have less experience. BlessingWhite (2008) suggests that the lack of experience had by employees had a lack of clarity over what they desire from their workplace.

That is, the employees with more experience show positive employee engagement and commitment towards their job compared to those who have less experience because of the career advancement opportunities, the work itself, opportunities to use their skills and abilities.

(20)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 491

CONCLUSION

Organizations and employees share a symbiotic relation, where both are dependent on each other to gratify their needs and goal. Therefore employee engagement should not be a onetime process, but a continuous process of learning, development and action. Engaged employees are more expected to stay with the organization, perform 30 per cent better than their coworkers and act as supporters of the business. These individuals endow themselves fully in their work, with augmented self‐efficacy and a positive effect upon health and well‐being, which in turn induces increased employee support for the organization. Qualitative data would offer a better insight into the outlook of those experiencing engagement and a improved understanding of its essential parts. At the same time, it is vague exactly how the superior does this, and what differentiates an engaging manager from their companions. Additionally the research might not only recognize what these variances are, but potentially reveal what training managers could undertake to increase their ability to engage their staff. There is also a necessity for more research studies of engagement, to validate a clear link between engagement and organizational commitment, and also to evaluate long-term results and benefits. Much of the study till now has dedicated upon short-term gains. Organizations need to understand that they are not managing the similar world as they were five years before. The technology, people, and the whole work environment have grown. Today’s organizations need to be more flexible. Employees now characterize themselves not by the work they do but by the way of life they have chosen to lead. The study will be significant to employers or employees or whether you are new to engagement or whether you are working to improve and sustain engagement levels in your organization. Workforce or the employees are the assets of the organization and if they are not given a space whereby they can make a perfect merge of both work and fun, optimum performance from them may be difficult.

Thus organizations should realize the importance of employees, more than any other variable, and try to engage them to the utmost possible level by suitable measures. While these are great strategies to keep the employees engaged, the real secret goes back to basic management practices – know your employees.

REFERENCES

Agyemang, C. B., and Ofei, S.B. (2013). Employee work engagement and organizational commitment: A comparative study of private and public sector organizations in Ghana, European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 1, 20-33

Andrew, O.C., and Sofian, S.(2012).Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee Engagement, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498-508.

Angle H., and Perry J.(1981).An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness,Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.

Balain S, and Sparrow P (2009), Engaged to Perform: A new perspective on employee engagement: Executive Summary, Lancaster University Management School

(21)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 492

Balakrishnan C., and Masthan D.(2013).Impact of internal communication on employee engagement-a study at Delhi international airport, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3, 1-14.

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, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 2, 1-7.

BlessingWhite (2008), The State of Employee Engagement, BlessingWhite

Choo et.al. (2013).Organizational practices and employee engagement: a case of Malaysia electronics manufacturing firms, Business Strategy Series, 14, 3- 10

Corporate leadership council (2004).Driving performance and retention through employee engagement, A quantitative analysis of effective engagement strategies, Washington DC, the corporate executive board.

Doherty, R. (2010) Making employee engagement an end-to-end practice, Strategic HR Review, 9, 32 -37

Gowri P., and Mariammal M.(2012).Factorial Dimensions of Employee Engagement in Public and Private Sector Banks, Bonfring International Journal of Data Mining, 2

Johnson M (2004), The new rules of engagement: life‐work balance and employee commitment, The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 21

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

Khalefiah A., and Som A.(2013). The Antecedents Affecting Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, 9, doi:10.5539/ass.v9n7p41.

Kumar, S.B.(2011). Employee Engagement: A Driver of Organizational Effectiveness, European Journal of Business and Management, 3, 22-29.

Lockwood N.(2007).Leveraging EmployeeEngagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role, SHRM Research Quaterly,22,1-12.

Luthans F.,and Peterson S. J. (2002) Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 Is: 5, pp.376 – 387.

Macey W., and Schneider B.(2008).The Meaning of Employee Engagement, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 , 3–30.

MarkosS.,andSridevi M.(2010).Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance, InternationalJournal of Business and Management , 5,89-96.

(22)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 493

Mastro V.L.(1999).Commitment and Perceived Organizational Support, National Forum of Applied Educational Resarch Journal, 12, 1-13.

Melcrum (2007), The Practitioner’s Guide to: essential techniques for employee engagement, Melcrum Publishing Limited.

Mowday, et.al. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior , 14, 224-247.

Moye, M.J. (2003). The relationship of employee empowerment and commitment to the organization to interpersonal and system-level trust, Dissertation-Abstracts-International:- Section-B, The Sciences and-Engineering, 64 (4-B): 1931.

Ogba, I.E. (2008) Commitment in the workplace: The impact of income and age on employee commitment in Nigerian banking sector, Management Research News, 31,867 – 878.

Purcell J (2009), ʹMaintaining employee engagement in difficult timesʹ, Employee Engagement Summit 2009.

Rai S.(2012).Engaging young employees (Gen Y) in a social media dominated world – Review and Retrospection, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 257 – 266.

RamaDevi, V. (2009) Employee engagement is a two-way street, Human Resource Management International Digest, 17,.3 – 4.

Robinson et.al (2007), Engagement: The Continuing Story, Institute for Employment Studies.

Saks, A.M.(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600 – 619.

Seigts, G. H., &Crim,D. (2006). What engages employees the most or, the ten c’s of employee Engagement, Ivey Business Journal, 4, 296-505.

Shore L.M., and Martin H.J.(1989). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions, Human Relations, 42, 625-638.

Singh et.al.(2013)Transformational Leadership, Employee Engagement and Performance:

Mediating Effect of Psychological Ownership, InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management and Research , 3, 57-64.

Sreekanth, K., and Aryasari A.R.(2013). Factoral influences on employee engagement practices in IT Industry, Journal of Banking, Information Technology and Management,10, 63-74.

Steers, R.M. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 46-56.

Tiwari, S.(2013). An empirical study on the factors influencing organizational commitment, Journal of MLRSM, 6, 295-314

(23)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 494

Tomlinson, G. (2010) Building a culture of high employee engagement, Strategic HR Review, 9 , 25 – 31

Vance J.R.(2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment, Society for Human Resource Management Foundation,25, 1-33.

Vandenberghe et.al.. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 991-1007.

Whittington J.L., Timothy J. G.(2010) The engagement factor: building a high-commitment organization in a low-commitment world, Journal of Business Strategy, 31, 14 – 24

Woodruffe, C.(2006) The crucial importance of employee engagement, Human Resource Management International Digest, 14, 3 -5