Proj Draft

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is my proud privilege to express my deepest gratitude to a number of helping hands

for their indefatigable cooperation that enabled me to shape my study. Indeed this page of
acknowledgement shall never be able to touch the horizon of generosity of those, who
rendered help to me.
It is my utmost pleasure to extend my sincere gratitude to Titan Industries Ltd. (TIL)

for offering me an opportunity to undergo project training in the esteemed organization.
I express my sage sense of gratitude and indebtedness to our Director, Dr. Christine
Palani from the bottom of my heart, for her unprecedented support and faith that I do the best
and her valuable recommendation for accepting this project.
I am extremely grateful to Ms. Subhashree Natarajan, Asst. Professor and mentor

whose timely guidance and illuminating suggestion inspired me in shaping the report in its
existing form.
I offer my sober and earnest regards to Mr. Benjamin Felix Rajkumar, Asst. Manager
HR and Mr. Chandra Prasad B. C., Executive HR, Precision Engineering Division - TIL, my
corporate guides for their scholarly guidance and kind cooperation. Their keen interest and
encouraging words at every step were a source of inspiration that enabled me to broaden my
sphere of domain knowledge.
I acknowledge special thanks to all the employees and staff members of different
departments in Precision Engineering Division – TIL for their ready to help attitude and
support extended during the course of program.
I am also grateful to my family and friends for their continuous encouragement and
appreciation which helped me in the successful completion of this project.
This report is a reflection of the knowledge acquired by me during the period.
Ebinezar Rathnam. S
(Reg. No.: MA90224)
[1]
DECLARATION
I, Ebinezar Rathnam. S, student of Velammal College of Management and Computer

Studies, Chennai, hereby declare that this project report entitled “A study on factors
extending involvement in employee engagement activities at Titan Industries Limited –
Precision Engineering Division, Hosur”, is a bonafide record of work done by me during
the course of project work of MBA program and all contents and facts are prepared and
presented by me without any bias.
I also declare that it has not previously formed the basis for the award to me for any
degree/diploma associate ship, fellowship or other similar title, of any Institute/Society.
Place: Ebinezar Rathnam. S

Date:
[2]
CERTIFICATE FROM GUIDE
This is to certify that the project entitled “A study on factors extending involvement in
employee engagement activities at Titan Industries Limited – Precision Engineering
Division, Hosur”, is a bonafide work of Ebinezar Rathnam. S, a student of
Velammal College of Management and Computer Studies, bearing Roll No.: MA90224
has successfully completed his project work at Titan Industries Limited – PED, Hosur, from
Dec 06, 2010 to Feb 20, 2011, for the partial fulfillment for the award of Masters in Business
Administration (MBA). To the best of my knowledge this is an original piece of work.
I wish him all the very best in his career endeavors.
Asst. Prof. Subhashree Natarajan
( Project Guide)
[3]
ABSTRACT
Employee engagement is the level of commitment and involvement
an employee has towards their organization and its values. An engaged
employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to
improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. It
is a positive attitude held by the employees towards the organization and
its values. As organizations globalize and become more dependent on technology in a
virtual working environment, there is a greater need to connect and engage with employees to
provide them with an organizational ‘identity. ‘Titan Industries Limited takes pride
about its current engagement level which is envied by most of the Indian
companies.
It will be appropriate to apprise to the reader that the cardinal

objective of my project is to key out the factors increasing participation of
employees in employee engagement activities at Precision Engineering
Division – TIL to improve the overall efficacy of business. Owing to the fact
that before one sets out for the survey, the individual should have a
thorough knowledge of the topic he/she is assigned with. I as a survey
person spent my considerable time in knowing about the TIL policies.
The working paper focuses on identifying the parameters offering them a rewarding
environment to work in, not just financial rewards. The paper would attempt to disseminate
the findings of research in specific areas and also to facilitate discussions and sharing of
perspectives and information about the identified areas.
[4]
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................5
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................11
1.1 Definition: Employee Engagement.............................................................13
1.2 Importance of Employee Engagement........................................................13
1.3 Aspects of Employee Engagement.............................................................14
1.4 Categories of Employee Engagement.........................................................14
1.5 Factors Leading to Employee Engagement.................................................15
1.6 How to measure Employee Engagement?..................................................15
2. COMPANY OVERVIEW.......................................................................................17
2.1 TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED – An Overview.................................................18
....................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 About Precision Engineering Division..........................................................21
2.2.1 Machine Building And Automation (MBA).............................................21
2.2.2 Precision Engineering Components (PEC).............................................21
2.2.3 HR vision.............................................................................................. 22
2.2.4 HR Strategic People Initiatives.............................................................22
2.2.5 Employee Engagement culture at PED.................................................22
3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................23
4. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM.....................................................................23
4.1 SGA practices at Titan Industries Limited ..................................................24
4.1.1 OBJECTIVE............................................................................................24
4.1.2 PROCESS.............................................................................................. 24
4.1.3 CHART.................................................................................................. 25
...................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.4 SGA TRACKER 2008-2009.....................................................................26
5. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................27
[5]
6. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY................................................................................28
6.1 Primary Objective ......................................................................................28
6.2 Secondary Objectives ...............................................................................28
7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY......................................................................................28
8. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................29
8.1 Research Design.........................................................................................29
8.2 Primary data...............................................................................................29
8.3 Secondary data...........................................................................................29
9. Data Analysis and Interpretation.....................................................................30
9.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST ......................................................................................48
10. FINDINGS....................................................................................................... 95
11. SUGGESTIONS................................................................................................97
12. CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 98
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................99
14. ANNEXURE...................................................................................................100
[6]
List of Tables
Table 1: SGA Participants.....................................................................................26
Table 2: Gender Classification.............................................................................30
Table 3: Department Classification......................................................................31
Table 4: Level Classification.................................................................................32
Table 5: Age Classification...................................................................................33
Table 6: Experience.............................................................................................34
Table 7: Work Style..............................................................................................35
Table 8: Recognition modes Expected.................................................................36
Table 9: Frequency of SGA expected...................................................................37
Table 10: Two-way (Age and level of agreement A)...........................................50
Table 11: Two-way (Age and level of agreement B)............................................52
Table 12: Two-way (Age and level of agreement C)............................................54
Table 13: Two-way (Age and level of agreement D)............................................56
Table 14: Two-way (Age and level of agreement E).............................................58
Table 15: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement A).................................60
Table 16: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement B).................................62
Table 17: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement C).................................64
Table 18: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement D).................................66
Table 19: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement E).................................68
Table 20: Two-way (Age and recognition for 1)...................................................70
[7]
Table 25: Two-way (Experience and recognition for 1)........................................81
Table 26: Two-way (Experience and recognition sought for 2)............................83
Table 30: Two-way (experience and recognition modes).....................................91
Table 31: Two-way (Age and recognition modes)................................................93
[8]
List of Figures
Figure 1: SGA Participation (in numbers).............................................................26
Figure 2: SGA Last Presented Figure 3:

Employees awarded last (in nos.)........................................................................26

Employees awarded last (in nos.)........................................................................26
Figure 4: Gender Classification............................................................................31
Figure 5: Department Classification.....................................................................31
Figure 6: Level Classification...............................................................................33
Figure 7: Age Classification..................................................................................34
Figure 8: Experience............................................................................................34
Figure 9: Work Style............................................................................................36
Figure 10: Recognition modes Expected..............................................................37
Figure 11: Frequency of SGA Expected................................................................37
[9]
[10]
1. INTRODUCTION
The quest to solve the talent management issues, particularly retention of employees has
taken HR managers through concepts such as employee review, employee satisfaction and
employees delight. The latest idea is “Employee Engagement”, which enunciates the degree
to which an employee is emotionally bonded to his organization and passionate about his
work.
Engagement is about motivating employees to do their best. An engaged employee

gives his company his hundred percent. The quality of output and competitive advantage of a
company depends upon the quality of its people. It has been proved that there is an intrinsic
link between employee engagement, customer loyalty and profitability.
When employees are effectively and positively engaged with their organization they
form an emotional connection with the company. This impacts their attitude towards the
company’s clients, and thereby improves customer satisfaction and service levels.
Most organizations realize today that a satisfied employee is not necessarily the best
employee in terms of loyalty and productivity. It is only an engaged employee who is
intellectually and emotionally bound with the organization, feels passionate about its goals
and is committed towards its values. He goes the extra mile beyond the basic job
responsibility and is associated with the actions that drive the business. Moreover, in times of
diminishing loyalty, employee engagement is a powerful retention strategy.
A successful employee engagement helps create a community at the workplace and

not just a workforce. As organizations globalize and become more dependent on technology
in a virtual working environment, there is a greater need to connect and engage with
employees to provide them with an organizational identity. Especially in Indian culture this
becomes more relevant given then community feeling which organization provide in our
society.
Employee engagement is the thus the level of commitment and involvement an

employee has towards their organization and its values. An engaged employee is aware of
business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the
benefit of the organization.
[11]
Engagement is most closely associated with the existing construction of job
involvement and flow. Job involvement is defined as ‘the degree to which the job situation is
central to the person and his or her identity’. Job involvement is a ‘Cognitive or belief state of
Psychological identification. Job involvement is thought to depend on both need saliency and
the potential of a job to satisfy these needs. Thus, job involvement results form a cognitive
judgment about the needs satisfying abilities of the job. Jobs in this view are tied to one’s self
image. Engagement differs from job in as it is concerned more with how the individual
employees his/her self during the performance of his / her job.
Furthermore engagement entails the active use of emotions. Finally engagement may
be thought of as an antecedent to job involvement in that individuals who experience deep
engagement in their roles should come to identify with their jobs.
The three aspects of employee engagement are physical, cognitive and emotional.
Whereas in job satisfaction importance has been more given to cognitive side. HR
practitioners believe that the engagement challenge has a lot to do with how employee feels
about the about work experience and how he or she is treated in the organization. It has a lot
to do with emotions which are fundamentally related to drive bottom line success in a
company.
The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a
two-way relationship between employer and employee.’ Thus, Employee engagement is a
barometer that determines the association of a person with the organization.
[12]
1.1 Definition: Employee Engagement
Scarlett Survey defines employee engagement as an individual’s degree of positive or
negative emotional attachment to their organization, their job and their colleagues.
1.2 Importance of Employee Engagement

Engagement is important for managers to cultivate given that disengagement or alienation is
central to the problem of workers’ lack of commitment and motivation. Meaningless work is
often associated with apathy and detachment from ones work. In such conditions, individuals
are thought to be estranged. Other Research using a different resource of engagement
(involvement and enthusiasm) has linked it to such variables as employee turnover, customer
satisfaction – loyalty, safety and to a lesser degree, productivity and profitability criteria.
An organization’s capacity to manage employee engagement is closely related to its ability to

achieve high performance levels and superior business results.
Some of the advantages of Engaged employees are

 Engaged employees will stay with the company, be an advocate of the company
and its products and services, and contribute to bottom line business success.
 They will normally perform better and are more motivated.
 There is a significant link between employee engagement and profitability.
 They form an emotional connection with the company. This impacts their attitude
towards the company’s clients, and thereby improves customer satisfaction and
service levels
 It builds passion, commitment and alignment with the organization’s strategies
and goals
 Increases employees’ trust in the organization
 Creates a sense of loyalty in a competitive environment
 Provides a high-energy working environment
 Boosts business growth
 Makes the employees effective brand ambassadors for the company
[13]
1.3 Aspects of Employee Engagement
Three basic aspects of employee engagement according to the global studies are:-
 The employees and their own unique psychological make up and experience
 The employers and their ability to create the conditions that promote employee
engagement
 Interaction between employees at all levels.
Thus, it is largely the organization’s responsibility to create an environment and culture
conducive to this partnership, and a win-win equation.
1.4 Categories of Employee Engagement

According to the Gallup the Consulting organization there are there are different types of
people:-
Engaged--"Engaged" employees are builders. They want to know the desired expectations
for their role so they can meet and exceed them. They're naturally curious about their
company and their place in it. They perform at consistently high levels. They want to use
their talents and strengths at work every day. They work with passion and they drive
innovation and move their organization forward.
Not Engaged---Not-engaged employees tend to concentrate on tasks rather than the goals and
outcomes they are expected to accomplish. They want to be told what to do just so they can
do it and say they have finished. They focus on accomplishing tasks vs. achieving an
outcome. Employees who are not-engaged tend to feel their contributions are being
overlooked, and their potential is not being tapped. They often feel this way because they
don't have productive relationships with their managers or with their coworkers.
Actively Disengaged--The "actively disengaged" employees are the "cave dwellers." They're
"Consistently against Virtually Everything." They're not just unhappy at work; they're busy
acting out their unhappiness .They sow seeds of negativity at every opportunity. Every day,
actively disengaged workers undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish. As
workers increasingly rely on each other to generate products and services, the problems and
tensions that are fostered by actively disengaged workers can cause great damage to an
organization's functioning .
[14]
1.5 Factors Leading to Employee Engagement
Studies have shown that there are some critical factors which lead to Employee engagement.
Some of them identified are
1.6 How to measure Employee Engagement?

Gallup research consistently confirms that engaged work places compared with least engaged
are much more likely to have lower employee turnover, higher than average customer loyalty,
above average productivity and earnings. These are all good things that prove that engaging
and involving employees make good business sense and building shareholder value. Negative
workplace relationships may be a big part of why so many employees are not engaged with
their jobs.
Step I: Listen
The employer must listen to his employees and remember that this is a continuous process.
The information employee’s supply will provide direction. This is the only way to identify
their specific concerns. When leaders listen, employees respond by becoming more engaged.
This results in increased productivity and employee retention. Engaged employees are much
more likely to be satisfied in their positions, remain with the company, be promoted, and
strive for higher levels of performance.
[15]
Step II: Measure current level of employee engagement
Employee engagement needs to be measured at regular intervals in order to track its
contribution to the success of the organisation. But measuring the engagement (feedback
through surveys) without planning how to handle the result can lead employees to disengage.
It is therefore not enough to feel the pulse—the action plan is just as essential.
Knowing the Degree in which Employees Are Engaged?
Employee engagement satisfaction surveys determine the current level of employee
engagement. A well-administered satisfaction survey will let us know at what level of
engagement the employees are operating. Customizable employee surveys will provide with a
starting point towards the efforts to optimize employee engagement.
The key to successful employee satisfaction surveys is to pay close attention to the feedback
from the staff. It is important that employee engagement is not viewed as a one time action.
Employee engagement should be a continuous process of measuring, analyzing, defining and
implementing.
Step III: - Identify the problem areas
Identify the problem areas to see spot the exact areas, which lead to
disengaged employees.
Step IV: Taking action to improve employee engagement by
acting upon the problem areas
Nothing is more discouraging to employees than to be asked for their
feedback and see no movement toward resolution of their issues. Even
the smallest actions taken to address concerns will let the staff know how
their input is valued. Feeling valued will boost morale, motivate and
encourage future input. Taking action starts with listening to employee
feedback and a definitive action plan will need to be put in place finally.
Using the above steps, study has been made at Titan Industries Limited to evaluate
whether employee engagement is a fad or a new knowledge domain where HR executives can
help make their companies a better place to work.
[16]
2. COMPANY OVERVIEW
Before discussing at length the Company, I would like to throw some light on the Tata
Group of companies in India. Tata Group has extended its global footprint, just as it has
enhanced its performance and competitiveness. One of the key drivers of this critical
transition has been innovation.
TIL is one of the successful ventures of the Tata Group but it has many other
successful companies under its umbrella. Companies which form a major part of the group
include Tata Steel (including Tata Steel Europe), Tata Motors (including Jaguar and Land
Rover), Tata Consultancy Services, Tata Technologies, Tata Tea (including Tetley), Tata
Chemicals, Titan Industries, Tata Power, Tata Communications, Tata Teleservices and the
Taj Hotels.
[17]
2.1 TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED – An Overview
One power, One Force – The dream of One man which shapes the realities of millions
world over today. I bring to you the story of one of the most successful organizations of our
times and celebrate the true with Titan Industries Limited.
Titan Industries is a manufacturing company that produces India's largest and best-
known range of personal accessories – watches, jewellery, sunglasses and prescription eye
wear. Titan Industries was established in 1984 as a joint venture between the Tata group and
the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation.
The company brought about a paradigm shift in the Indian watch market, offering
quartz technology with international styling, manufactured in a state-of-the-art factory at
Hosur, Tamil Nadu. In 1995, the company diversified into jewellery under the brand Tanishq
to capitalise on a fragmented market operating with no brands in urban cities. In 2005, the
company launched its second jewellery brand, Gold Plus, to capitalise on opportunities in
small towns and rural India. The company has now entered into eye wear, launching Fastrack
eye-gear sunglasses and prescription eye wear.
The reasons for picking TIL for my study are simple–

 It is worlds Fifth largest wrist watch manufacturer.
 It is India's leading producer of watches under the Titan, Fastrack, Sonata, Nebula,
RAGA, Regalia, Octane & Xylys brand names.
 Claimed to have manufactured the world's slimmest wrist watch - Titan Edge.
 It is has been awarded 19th rank overall as ‘Great Place to Work’
 Ranked 1st in the Retail by Economic Times
TITAN – Journey through years
[18]
Titan's main products are:
Watches: The four main watch brands

include Titan for the mid-premium
segment, Fastrack focused on the youth
and trendy fashion space, Sonata for the
mass market and Xylys for the premium
market. The Titan brand architecture
comprises several sub-brands: Titan
Edge, Titan Raga, Nebula and several
other collections like Wall Street,
Heritage, Regalia, and the Aviator
series. The company manufactures over
10 million watches per annum and has a
customer base of over 100 million.
Today, the Titan portfolio has over 60
per cent of the domestic market share in
the organised watch market. Watches are
sold through exclusive 'World of Titan'
showrooms and at 12,000 outlets in
more than 2,500 cities in India and
internationally in over 30 countries,
primarily in the Middle-East and Asia
Pacific. Its after-sales-service is itself a
benchmarked operation with service centres and amongst the world’s fastest turnaround
times. The company has a world-class design studio for designing watches and accessories.
Jewellery: Tanishq is India’s largest, fastest growing jewellery brand with a premium range
of gold jewellery studded with diamonds or coloured gems, and a wide range in 22kt pure
gold and platinum jewellery. Gold Plus is the recent retail plain gold jewellery offering for
the mass market. The jewellery division has its own design studio.
[19]
Eye wear: Titan Eye+ retails sunglasses under the Fastrack brand and prescription eye wear
consisting of frames, lenses, sunglasses, accessories and contact lenses of its in-house brands
and other premium brands.
Precision engineering: The Company’s Precision Engineering Division supplies precision

components to the aviation and automotive industries. It also manufactures dashboard clocks
as OEM to car manufacturers in Europe and America, and provides fully integrated
automation solutions. This division is certified under AS 9100B for the aerospace segment,
TS 16949 for the automotive segment and the coveted Ford Q1 status – the highest possible
supplier recognition from Ford.
[20]
2.2 About Precision Engineering Division
Titan watches is one of the first and most successful divisions belonging to Titan Industries
Ltd. The production of watches was initially done on an assembly line with a lot of manual
effort. Subsequent developments led to the formation of a department called the machine
building and automation department which takes care of all production and automation
requirements of the watch division.
Later, with substantial effort and vision, a separate division called the Precision Engineering
Division (PED) was established. This division handles all kinds of automation and process
improvement projects both within and outside Titan Industries Limited.
2.2.1 Machine Building And Automation (MBA)

The machine building and automation department is the core department in Precision
Engineering Division. It has sub-department like Designs, Assembly etc. The main job of the
MBA department is designing and developing automation machines required by various
customers as per their requirements.
The design department in MBA deals only with the design part of any automation system
order. It comprises of design engineers who develop everything related to a machine from the
conceptual stage of an idea to the final draft of the machine design. MBA designs can further
be classified as the mechanical design team and the control or electrical design team.
2.2.2 Precision Engineering Components (PEC)

Precision Engineering Components has a state of art facility, which manufactures
components as aerospace components, automotive components – dash-board instrumentation,
automotive clocks and pointers, parts of fuel injection pumps, hydraulics and turbochargers.
[21]
2.2.3 HR vision
To create an environment of Engaged employees who are committed to achieve Business
Objectives and make Titan and Employer of Choice
2.2.4 HR Strategic People Initiatives

 Senior Management Leadership Development
 Optimizing of HR
 Expanding the Talent Management Program
 Key ‘People Initiatives’ to motivate and engage employees
 Building a competency based robust learning & development model
 HR Support to Franchise
 Managing the outsourced models
 Harmonious IR
2.2.5 Employee Engagement culture at PED

Titan has over the past couple of years set itself an ambitious vision ‘to create an environment
of engaged employees who are committed to achieving business objectives and Titan an
employer of choice’.
The ‘Great Place to Work Institute, India’ conducts survey across various organization in
India. As a part of “India’s Best Companies to Work For – 2010”, Titan ranks 19th overall.
Such studies benchmarks employee perception of workplace environment with selected
global benchmarks from industries across the world. This identifies the strength and focus
area for improvement.
Few of the successful engagement initiatives are:
 Champions – Quarterly Magazine
 Keep it up – Punctuality Award
 Titan Employee Welfare Fund

[22]
 Employee Wedding Gift
 Idea+ Suggestion Scheme
 Outstanding Titanian/ Dream Team
 Moment of Fame
3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

High attrition rates are expected to remain a concern for the industry, particularly considering
that replacing experience personnel with fresh graduates costs 8 – 10 per cent more on
account of the training expenditure.
From the companies’ perspective, while recruiting fresh candidates is relatively inexpensive
to roping in lateral engineers who come with a different set of expectations, the attrition rate
means the massive training expenditure. Hence, most companies have started taking
engagement with employees very seriously. The workforce that is an asset to the company is
identified and kept satisfied.
From celebrating birthdays and granting frequent promotions to recognizing their loyalty and
efforts, companies adopt a variety of strategies to retain them.
Out of sheer curiosity, I had the privilege to know and to make a study on the employee
engagement activities and its related problems practiced at Titan Industries Limited. Titan
offers company shares to employees with a certain lock-in period as a trend to retain its
employees.
4. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

In order to have a focused approach towards ‘Continuous Improvement’, TIL drives
SGA(Small Group Activities)movement among its employees to identify the individual/team
who has add on creativity in addition to his regular roles and responsibilities which he
delivers on regular basis.
In other word, the title is conferred to those who cut costs, saves time and other
factors that benefit the company. To cite one of the best awarded SGA Activity for the year
2008 is Customer Complaint Handling @ Machine Building & Automation Department.
[23]
4.1 SGA practices at Titan Industries Limited
Small Group Activity program at Titan Industries was started way back in 1997 to bring the
young minds together. It was started to incorporate the world class practice.
Small Group Activity is basically a small group of employees doing similar or related work
who meet regularly to identify, analyze and solve product-quality and production problems
and to improve general operations. These small group activities are usually led by a
supervisor or a senior in the team.
4.1.1 OBJECTIVE
 To promote the culture of team work
 To create an opportunity for employees to exhibit their creativity and innovation
 To engage employees for healthy work environment
 To reward and recognize the efforts of a team
 To promote high performance work culture
4.1.2 PROCESS
Every SGA team takes up the problem/challenging task in their work area. They solve the
problem using quality circle approach. They present their improvement at SGA presentation
platform in front of Senior Management team and employees. This platform acts as a
knowledge sharing platform where other employees and management members also learn
about the way and concept or idea used to solve the problems.
SGA at Titan has enhanced the employee’s Engagement levels which has been time
and again proved through various surveys such as ‘Gallup’ and ‘Great place to Work’ held
during last financial years.
[24]
4.1.3 CHART
INITIATIVES TAKEN
 Introduced ‘Best SGA of Qtr – Rolling Trophy’
 Introduced ‘SGA for vendor partners’ as process
 Training on presentation skills especially to teams participating in external conventions
 Theme Based SGAs – cost cutting and safety
 Increased participation in external forums
 SGA presentation of GE – 2 teams
 Special SGA during Quality month with special reward amount

[25]
 Structured Approach was used to nominate teams for external conventions.
The purpose of conducting SGAs is to increase participation and learning by other

fellow employees who equally shoulder responsibility to achieve superior results. It is noticed
that since last year, the participation has dropped down to nil. Below are some of the facts
related to the study.
4.1.4 SGA TRACKER 2008-2009

Figure 1: SGA Participation (in numbers)
Table 1: SGA Participants
Participant (in
Department numbers)
PEC 10%
MBA 67.5%
Common
Services 21.25%
TOTAL 100%

Employees awarded last (in nos.)
[26]
5. LITERATURE REVIEW
People’s perceptions of meaning with regard to the workplace has connections with
how engaged they are and their level of performance. It is suggested that people seek more
meaning in their day-to-day work than they do in their personal lives. This implies employers
should be seeking to make work meaningful by finding out what matters to their employees,
especially since evidence suggests that meaningfulness impacts not only on the individual,
but also on the bottom line. Research is expected to suggest a connection between employee
engagement and business results of increased corporate profitability due to increased
employee engagement.
The people are the most important assets and through their capabilities and use of
their knowledge, Titan Industries Limited has been able to maintain the leadership position in
the market. TIL is a joint venture between one of India's most respected business
organizations, the Tata Group, and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
(TIDCO). The Human Resource Department of TIL experiments and conducts surveys to
develop new concepts relating to employee well being, satisfaction and organizational
behaviors for the development of the employees in the organization. As part of regular pulse
check on employee engagement levels, TIL conducts Gallup Q12 engagement survey.
The paper here attempts to study the engagement activities followed and tries to make
out those positive points which can influence and keep the employees ever engaged in the
fast paced environment.
[27]
6. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
6.1 Primary Objective
 To identify the factors influencing participation in employee engagement activities at
PED – Titan Industries Limited, Hosur.
6.2 Secondary Objectives

 To identify the employees expectation from the rewards and recognition system.
 To ascertain the motivational drivers that help to create an engaged workplace.
7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
 Covers all employees across Precision Engineering Division.
 It is for the employees who have participated and not participated in SGA Activities.
 Temporary employees are not covered by the study.
The future and growth of the firm is very bright and gradually it will expand and innovate
and create a ‘niche’ in the corporate world and would reach to the zenith of success in future.
[28]
8. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
8.1 Research Design
1. A well framed Questionnaire was administered to the employee respondents for
eliciting essential information’s.
2. The Questionnaire was designed on a five point Likert Scale where 1 represents
strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree.
3. A sample size of 60 respondents was chosen out of 500 employees at PED.
4. The sampling type is probability sampling based on simple random sampling.
5. The scores of individual items has been summated and interpretation has been done
subsequently.
6. Tools used: MS EXCEL and SPSS
8.2 Primary data

It involves first hand data source collected through the questionnaires from the respondents.
Questionnaire was administered to the following departments: Machine Building &
Automation, Precision Engineering Components department and Common Services.
Common Services includes Human Resources, Canteen and Plant Maintenance.
From my interaction with a few employees, it is observed that they are little interested in the
present Rewards & Recognition System. Keeping R&R system as a base, the questionnaire
has been structured.
8.3 Secondary data

The theoretical foundation of the study is based on various secondary sources such as:
i. HR Policy Manual
ii. People First – Knowledge centre of PED(TIL)
iii. SGA Training Tracker 2009-10
[29]
9. Data Analysis and Interpretation
This chapter is allocated for analysis and interpretation of data. Using statistical tools like
chi-square, the analysis of employee engagement has been done. The data is directly
extracted from the questionnaire. The variation in the extent of employee engagement can be
measured with variables such as level of agreement related to the present recognition system,
recognition sought for and recognition modes.
Calculation of Engagement Scores
The respondents were asked to state their level of engagement relating fifteen factors. The
engagement score was decided based on the respondents feedback. For the first five factors,
the respondents were required to rate the recognition sought for. Followed by it would be the
usage of likert scale to measure the level of agreement with regard to the contemporary
Recognition system practiced. The analysis helps to make suggestions on the factors
influencing participation of employees in Small Group Activity.
Table 2: Gender Classification
[30]
There is no consistent evidence as to whether women are more satisfied with their job than
men. The female employee strength is very low. In order to avoid bias, female gender is
considered for the research.
FEMA
MALE LE TOTAL
59 1 60
98.3% 1.7% 100%
Figure 4: Gender Classification
Interpretation
98 percent of the total respondents belong to male gender and rest belongs to female.
Table 3: Department Classification
The division is categorized into three different business verticals with Machined building &
Automation Department having larger employee strength compared to other department.
MB& Common TOTA

A PEC Services L
40 7 13 60
66.7% 11.7% 21.7% 100%
Figure 5: Department Classification
[31]
Interpretation
67 percent of the respondents are from Machine Building & Automation department
(MB&A), 11 percent from Precision Engineering Components (PEC) and the rest belong to
common service which includes Accounts dept., plant maintenance, Catering, Time Office
and Human Resource Department.
Table 4: Level Classification
TIL has achieved significant improvements by building a competent workforce. TIL’s

(Precision Engineering Division, Hosur unit) employees are in two broad categories L-level
and E-level.
L- E-
Level Level Total
46 14 60
76.7% 23.3% 100%
[32]
Figure 6: Level Classification
Interpretation
77 percent of the respondents are of supervisory cadre (L-level). Rest come under workmen
category (E-level).
Table 5: Age Classification
Age is an important factor that has an influence on employee engagement. Hence according
to the age levels the respondents are classified into five categories.
20- 25- 30- 35- >40yrs

25yrs. 30yrs. 35yrs. 40yrs. . Total
7 20 15 10 8 60
11.7% 33.3% 25% 16.7% 13.3% 100%
[33]
Figure 7: Age Classification
Interpretation
Majority of the respondents (33%) are in 25 – 30 yrs. age group, 25 percent of the
respondents belong to 30 – 35 yrs. Respondents of age 20 -25 yrs. and >40 yrs. are less.
Table 6: Experience
Experience plays a critical role in gauging employee engagement levels.

Here, they have been classified into five different categories.
5- 10- 15- >20yrs

1-5yrs. 10yrs. 15yrs. 20yrs. . Total
13 11 18 12 6 60
21.7% 18.3% 30% 20% 10% 100%
Figure 8: Experience
[34]
Interpretation
From the chart it is observed that 30% of the respondents have 10 – 15
yrs. experience and 20 percent of the respondents have 15 – 20 yrs.
experience. About 22 percent of the respondents have 1 – 5 yrs. of
experience.
Table 7: Work Style
The work style has been classified as individual work, team work and
sometimes both whenever necessary.
Individ Tea Either ways if necessity

ual m demands
7 21 32
11.7% 35% 53.3%
[35]
Figure 9: Work Style
Interpretation
Out of 60 respondents, 32 have selected the option of working either ways
if necessity demands which demonstrated their flexibleness. The second
priority was given for Team work.
Table 8: Recognition modes Expected
The following are recognition modes administered to identify the

requirements of the employees from the Recognition system.
Career Award,
Monetary Interesting developmental Certificate or
benefits assignment role benefits gifts
22 5 26 7
36.7% 8.3% 43.3% 11.7%
[36]
Figure 10: Recognition modes Expected
Interpretation
Career developmental Activities and its benefits have been given the top
priority. Followed by it are the monetary benefits.
Table 9: Frequency of SGA expected
SGA programs brings out ones potential in a team as well as an individual. To bring out the
basic reason for ineffective participation the following question has been administered.
Every Every Every Once in every 2 Once in a

Week Fortnight Month months quarter
0 0 0 9 51
0 0 0 15% 85%
Figure 11: Frequency of SGA Expected
[37]
Interpretation
Quarterly program schedule have been preferred by most employee

respondents. A few responses were once in every 2 months.
‘I want recognition for cost savings/building capability like new products in the
portfolio’
[38]
CostSavings
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 12 20.0 20.0 20.0
2 12 20.0 20.0 40.0
3 15 25.0 25.0 65.0
4 10 16.7 16.7 81.7
5 11 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
It is observed that majority of respondents have ranked the above statement as Rank 3.
‘I want recognition for meeting and delivering the requirements in time’
[39]
MeetingRequirementsinTime
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 16 26.7 26.7 26.7
2 13 21.7 21.7 48.3
3 11 18.3 18.3 66.7
4 12 20.0 20.0 86.7
5 8 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
More than a quarter respondents have ranked 1 for the above statements.
‘I want recognition for the support rendered to my team’
[40]
SupportToTheTeam
Valid Cumulative
Valid 1 5 8.3 8.3 8.3
2 8 13.3 13.3 21.7
3 13 21.7 21.7 43.3
4 16 26.7 26.7 70.0
5 18 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
30% of the respondents have given the lowest rank for the above statement.
‘I want recognition for my length of service to the company’
[41]
LengthOfService
Valid Cumulative
Valid 1 8 13.3 13.3 13.3
2 10 16.7 16.7 30.0
3 10 16.7 16.7 46.7
4 15 25.0 25.0 71.7
5 17 28.3 28.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
28.3% of the respondents have given the least rank.
‘I want recognition for the extra responsibilities on special projects above and beyond
my normal duties’
[42]
ExtraResponsibilities
Valid Cumulative
Valid 1 18 30.0 30.0 30.0
2 16 26.7 26.7 56.7
3 10 16.7 16.7 73.3
4 9 15.0 15.0 88.3
5 7 11.7 11.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
The above statement has been given the topmost priority by 30% of the respondents.
‘I believe that it is possible to promote a healthy competition among teams or

individuals through the recognition program’
[43]
RecognitionPromotesHealthyComp
Valid Cumulative
Valid Strongly Disagree 8 13.3 13.3 13.3
Disagree 13 21.7 21.7 35.0
Neither Agree nor

10 16.7 16.7 51.7
Disagree
Agree 18 30.0 30.0 81.7
Strongly Agree 11 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
1 - Strongly Disagree  5 – Strongly Agree
Interpretation
48% of the respondents have given a positive sign of agreement and 35% have shown their
disagreement.
‘The recognition mechanism provides an opportunity to utilize my potentials’
[44]
OpportunityToUtilizeOnesPotential
Valid Cumulative
Disagree 12 20.0 20.0 35.0
Neither Agree nor

11 18.3 18.3 53.3
Disagree
Agree 15 25.0 25.0 78.3
Strongly Agree 13 21.7 21.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
45% of the respondents have shown their agreement and 35% have shown their level of
disagreement.
‘I get adequate recognition if I come out with some useful ideas’
[45]
AdequateRecognitionForIdeas
Valid Cumulative
Disagree 9 15.0 15.0 35.0
Neither Agree nor

18 30.0 30.0 65.0
Disagree
Agree 13 21.7 21.7 86.7
Strongly Agree 8 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
30% of the respondents have given their neutral response.
‘My ideas and opinions are valued by my superiors and co-workers’
[46]
IdeasValuedBySuperiors
Valid Cumulative
Disagree 16 26.7 26.7 45.0
Neither Agree nor

14 23.3 23.3 68.3
Disagree
Agree 9 15.0 15.0 83.3
Strongly Agree 10 16.7 16.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
47% of the respondents feel their ideas are not valued by the superiors and co-workers.
‘I sincerely believe that all employees should be equally rewarded’
[47]
BeliefOfEqualRewardForAll
Valid Cumulative
Disagree 18 30.0 30.0 51.7
Neither Agree nor

9 15.0 15.0 66.7
Disagree
Agree 12 20.0 20.0 86.7
Strongly Agree 8 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation
The disagreement level is high with 41% which means employees are not satisfied with
‘Equal reward for all’ system.
9.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST

Chi-square test is applied to test the goodness of fit, to verify the
distribution of observed data with assumed theoretical distribution.
[48]
Therefore it is a measure to study the divergence of actual and expected
frequencies; Karl Pearson’s has developed a method to test the difference
between the theoretical (hypothesis) and the observed value.
Chi – square test (X2) = ∑ (O-E)2 / E
Degree of Freedom = V = (R-1) (C-1) [It is the number of values in the

final calculation of
statistic that are free to vary.]
where,
‘O’ = Observed Frequency – An observed frequency is a frequency

obtained from number of respondent in various respondent table.
‘E’ = Expected Frequency – An expected frequency is a theoretically

predicted frequency obtained from an experiment presumed to be true
until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates
otherwise. An observed frequency, on the other hand, is the actual
frequency that is obtained from the experiment. The events being
predicted must be mutually exclusive.
‘R’ = Number of rows in a table
‘C’ = Number of columns in a table
For all the chi-square test the table value has taken 5% level of
significance.
[49]
Relationship between Age factor and level of Agreement (Belief to promote a healthy
competition among teams or individuals through the recognition program)
Table 10: Two-way (Age and level of agreement A)
Level of Agreement
Strongly Disag Neither Agree nor Agr Strongly TOT
AGE Disagree ree Disagree ee Agree AL
20-25
yrs. 1 1 1 3 1 7
25-30
yrs. 2 3 2 8 5 20
30-35
yrs. 2 4 2 5 2 15
35-40
yrs. 2 4 2 1 1 10
>40
yrs. 1 1 3 1 2 8
TOTA
L 8 13 10 18 11 60
Chi-square test is conducted to test the extent of relationship between the age factor and level
of agreement:
H0 : There is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the belief
to promote a healthy competition among teams or individuals through the
recognition program.
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

1 0.93 0.07 0.0049 0.005
2 2.67 -0.67 0.4489 0.168
2 2 0 0 0.000
2 1.33 0.67 0.4489 0.338
1 1.07 -0.07 0.0049 0.005
1 1.52 -0.52 0.2704 0.178
3 4.33 -1.33 1.7689 0.409
4 3.25 0.75 0.5625 0.173
4 2.17 1.83 3.3489 1.543
1 1.73 -0.73 0.5329 0.308
1 1.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.025
2 3.33 -1.33 1.7689 0.531
2 2.5 -0.5 0.25 0.100
2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.065
3 1.33 1.67 2.7889 2.097
3 2.1 0.9 0.81 0.386
8 6 2 4 0.667
5 4.5 0.5 0.25 0.056
1 3 -2 4 1.333
1 2.4 -1.4 1.96 0.817
1 1.28 -0.28 0.0784 0.061
5 3.67 1.33 1.7689 0.482
2 2.75 -0.75 0.5625 0.205
[50]
1 1.83 -0.83 0.6889 0.376
2 1.47 0.53 0.2809 0.191
TOTAL 10.518
Degree of Freedom : (5-1) (5-1) = 16
Table value : 26.3
Calculated value : 10.518
Inference
The above table reveals that the percentage of agreement in the likert
scale is higher between the age group 25-30yrs. Neutral agreement is
more from the age group >40 yrs.
Calculated value < Table Value
Accept H0
[51]
Hence, there is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the belief to
promote a healthy competition among teams or individuals through the recognition program.
Relationship between age factor and the level of agreement of the recognition
mechanism providing opportunity to utilize ones potential
Table 11: Two-way (Age and level of agreement B)
Level of Agreement
AGE Diagree ree Disagree ee Agree AL
20-25
yrs. 0 1 1 3 2 7
25-30
yrs. 1 3 2 8 6 20
30-35
yrs. 4 3 2 2 4 15
35-40
yrs. 3 4 2 1 0 10
>40
yrs. 1 1 4 1 1 8
TOTA
L 9 12 11 15 13 60
of agreement:
H0 : There is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the
recognition mechanism providing opportunity to utilize ones potential
(O-
O E O-E E)^2 (O-E)^2/E
0 1.05 -1.05 1.103 1.050
1 3 -2 4.000 1.333
4 2.25 1.75 3.063 1.361
3 1.5 1.5 2.250 1.500
1 1.2 -0.2 0.040 0.033
1 1.4 -0.4 0.160 0.114
3 4 -1 1.000 0.250
3 3 0 0.000 0.000
4 2 2 4.000 2.000
1 1.6 -0.6 0.360 0.225
1 1.28 -0.28 0.078 0.061
2 3.67 -1.67 2.789 0.760
2 2.75 -0.75 0.563 0.205
2 1.83 0.17 0.029 0.016
4 1.47 2.53 6.401 4.354
3 1.75 1.25 1.563 0.893
8 5 3 9.000 1.800
2 3.75 -1.75 3.063 0.817
1 2.5 -1.5 2.250 0.900
1 2 -1 1.000 0.500
2 1.52 0.48 0.230 0.152
[52]
6 4.33 1.67 2.789 0.644
4 3.25 0.75 0.563 0.173
0 2.17 -2.17 4.709 2.170
1 1.73 -0.73 0.533 0.308
TOTAL 21.619
Table value : 26.3
Inference
more from the age group >40 yrs.
[53]
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the
Relationship between age factor and level of agreement for getting adequate recognition
for useful ideas
Table 12: Two-way (Age and level of agreement C)
Level of Agreement
20-25
yrs. 0 0 1 4 2 7
25-30
yrs. 3 2 7 5 3 20
30-35
yrs. 5 4 3 1 1 15
35-40
yrs. 2 3 3 2 1 10
>40
yrs. 2 0 4 1 1 8
TOTA
L 12 9 18 13 8 60
of agreement:
H0 : There is no significant association between age and level of agreement for getting
adequate recognition for useful ideas
(O- (O-
O E O-E E)^2 E)^2/E
0 1.4 -1.4 1.960 1.400
3 4 -1 1.000 0.250
5 3 2 4.000 1.333
2 2 0 0.000 0.000
2 1.6 0.4 0.160 0.100
0 1.05 -1.05 1.103 1.050
2 3 -1 1.000 0.333
4 2.25 1.75 3.063 1.361
3 1.5 1.5 2.250 1.500
0 1.2 -1.2 1.440 1.200
1 2.1 -1.1 1.210 0.576
7 6 1 1.000 0.167
3 4.5 -1.5 2.250 0.500
3 3 0 0.000 0.000
4 2.4 1.6 2.560 1.067
4 1.52 2.48 6.150 4.046
5 4.33 0.67 0.449 0.104
[54]
1 3.25 -2.25 5.063 1.558
2 2.17 -0.17 0.029 0.013
1 1.73 -0.73 0.533 0.308
2 0.93 1.07 1.145 1.231
3 2.67 0.33 0.109 0.041
1 2 -1 1.000 0.500
1 1.33 -0.33 0.109 0.082
1 1.07 -0.07 0.005 0.005
TOTAL 18.725
Table value : 26.3
Inference
[55]
more from the age group 25-30 yrs.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between age and level of agreement for getting
adequate recognition for useful ideas
Relationship between age factor and level of agreement of the statement 'my ideas and
opinions are valued by my superiors and co-workers'
Table 13: Two-way (Age and level of agreement D)
Level of Agreement
20-25
yrs. 0 1 1 3 2 7
25-30
yrs. 3 5 8 2 2 20
30-35
yrs. 4 4 2 2 3 15
35-40
yrs. 2 4 2 1 1 10
>40
yrs. 2 2 1 2 1 8
TOTA
L 11 16 14 10 9 60
of agreement:
H0 : There is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the
statement 'my ideas and opinions are valued by my superiors and co-workers'
(O- (O-
O E O-E E)^2 E)^2/E
0 1.28 -1.28 1.638 1.280
3 3.67 -0.67 0.449 0.122
4 2.75 1.25 1.563 0.568
2 1.83 0.17 0.029 0.016
2 1.47 0.53 0.281 0.191
1 1.87 -0.87 0.757 0.405
5 5.33 -0.33 0.109 0.020
4 4 0 0.000 0.000
[56]
4 2.67 1.33 1.769 0.663
2 2.13 -0.13 0.017 0.008
1 1.63 -0.63 0.397 0.243
8 4.67 3.33 11.089 2.374
2 3.5 -1.5 2.250 0.643
2 2.33 -0.33 0.109 0.047
1 1.87 -0.87 0.757 0.405
3 1.17 1.83 3.349 2.862
2 3.33 -1.33 1.769 0.531
2 2.5 -0.5 0.250 0.100
1 1.67 -0.67 0.449 0.269
2 1.33 0.67 0.449 0.338
2 1.05 0.95 0.903 0.860
2 3 -1 1.000 0.333
3 2.25 0.75 0.563 0.250
1 1.5 -0.5 0.250 0.167
1 1.2 -0.2 0.040 0.033
TOTAL 12.728
Table value : 26.3
[57]
Inference
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the
Relationship between age factor and level of agreement of the belief that all employees
should be equally rewarded
Table 14: Two-way (Age and level of agreement E)
Level of Agreement
20-25
yrs. 2 0 1 2 2 7
25-30
yrs. 3 7 1 6 3 20
30-35
yrs. 4 6 3 2 0 15
35-40
yrs. 2 5 2 1 0 10
>40
yrs. 2 0 2 1 3 8
TOTA
L 13 18 9 12 8 60
of agreement:
H0 : There is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the belief
that all employees should be equally rewarded
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

2 1.52 0.48 0.230 0.152
3 4.33 -1.33 1.769 0.409
4 3.25 0.75 0.563 0.173
2 2.17 -0.17 0.029 0.013
2 1.73 0.27 0.073 0.042
0 2.1 -2.1 4.410 2.100
7 6 1 1.000 0.167
[58]
6 4.5 1.5 2.250 0.500
5 3 2 4.000 1.333
0 2.4 -2.4 5.760 2.400
1 1.05 -0.05 0.003 0.002
1 3 -2 4.000 1.333
3 2.25 0.75 0.563 0.250
2 1.5 0.5 0.250 0.167
2 1.2 0.8 0.640 0.533
2 1.4 0.6 0.360 0.257
6 4 2 4.000 1.000
2 3 -1 1.000 0.333
1 2 -1 1.000 0.500
1 1.6 -0.6 0.360 0.225
2 0.93 1.07 1.145 1.231
3 2.67 0.33 0.109 0.041
0 2 -2 4.000 2.000
0 1.33 -1.33 1.769 1.330
3 1.07 1.93 3.725 3.481
TOTAL 19.973
Table value : 26.3
[59]
Inference
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between age and level of agreement of the belief
that all employees should be equally rewarded.
Relationship between experience factor and level of Agreement (Belief to promote a

healthy competition among teams or individuals through the recognition program)
Table 15: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement A)
Level of Agreement
Experie Strongly Disag Neither Agree nor Agr Strongly TOT
nce Disagree ree Disagree ee Agree AL
1-5 yrs. 1 1 2 5 4 13
5-10
yrs. 1 1 2 6 1 11
10-15
yrs. 2 5 3 4 4 18
15-20
yrs. 3 4 2 2 1 12
>20
yrs. 1 2 1 1 1 6
TOTAL 8 13 10 18 11 60
Chi-square test is conducted to test the extent of relationship between the experience factor
and level of agreement:
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and level of agreement of the
belief to promote a healthy competition among teams or individuals through the
recognition program
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

1 1.73 -0.73 0.5329 0.308035
1 1.47 -0.47 0.2209 0.150272
[60]
2 2.4 -0.4 0.16 0.066667
3 1.6 1.4 1.96 1.225
1 0.8 0.2 0.04 0.05
1 2.82 -1.82 3.3124 1.17461
1 2.38 -1.38 1.9044 0.800168
5 3.9 1.1 1.21 0.310256
4 2.6 1.4 1.96 0.753846
2 1.3 0.7 0.49 0.376923
2 2.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.013318
2 1.83 0.17 0.0289 0.015792
3 3 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0
5 3.9 1.1 1.21 0.310256
6 3.3 2.7 7.29 2.209091
4 5.4 -1.4 1.96 0.362963
2 3.6 -1.6 2.56 0.711111
1 1.8 -0.8 0.64 0.355556
4 2.38 1.62 2.6244 1.102689
1 2.02 -1.02 1.0404 0.51505
4 3.3 0.7 0.49 0.148485
1 2.2 -1.2 1.44 0.654545
1 1.1 -0.1 0.01 0.009091
TOTAL 11.6237
Table value : 26.3
[61]
Inference
scale is higher between the experienced persons with 1-5 yrs & 5-10 yrs.
Neutral agreement is more with the employees having 10-15 yrs.
experience.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between experience and level of agreement of the
belief to promote a healthy competition among teams or individuals through the recognition
program.
Relationship between experience factor and the level of agreement of the recognition
mechanism providing opportunity to utilize ones potential
Table 16: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement B)
Level of Agreement
1-5 yrs. 1 1 2 4 5 13
5-10
yrs. 1 2 1 4 3 11
10-15
yrs. 2 3 6 3 4 18
15-20
yrs. 3 4 1 3 1 12
>20
yrs. 2 2 1 1 0 6
TOTAL 9 12 11 15 13 60
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and level of agreement of the
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

1 1.95 -0.95 0.903 0.463
[62]
1 1.65 -0.65 0.423 0.256
2 2.7 -0.7 0.490 0.181
3 1.8 1.2 1.440 0.800
2 0.9 1.1 1.210 1.344
1 2.6 -1.6 2.560 0.985
2 2.2 -0.2 0.040 0.018
3 3.6 -0.6 0.360 0.100
4 2.4 1.6 2.560 1.067
2 1.2 0.8 0.640 0.533
2 2.38 -0.38 0.144 0.061
1 2.02 -1.02 1.040 0.515
6 3.3 2.7 7.290 2.209
1 2.2 -1.2 1.440 0.655
1 1.1 -0.1 0.010 0.009
4 3.25 0.75 0.563 0.173
4 2.75 1.25 1.563 0.568
3 4.5 -1.5 2.250 0.500
3 3 0 0.000 0.000
1 1.5 -0.5 0.250 0.167
5 2.82 2.18 4.752 1.685
3 2.38 0.62 0.384 0.162
4 3.9 0.1 0.010 0.003
1 2.6 -1.6 2.560 0.985
0 1.3 -1.3 1.690 1.300
TOTAL 14.738
Table value : 26.3
[63]
Inference
experience.
Accept H0
Relationship between experience factor and level of agreement of getting adequate

recognition for useful ideas
Table 17: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement C)
Level of Agreement
1-5 yrs. 0 0 6 5 2 13
5-10
yrs. 1 1 3 3 3 11
10-15
yrs. 5 3 5 3 2 18
15-20
yrs. 4 3 4 0 1 12
>20
yrs. 2 2 0 2 0 6
TOTAL 12 9 18 13 8 60
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and level of agreement of
[64]
getting adequate recognition for useful ideas
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

0 2.6 -2.6 6.760 2.600
1 2.2 -1.2 1.440 0.655
5 3.6 1.4 1.960 0.544
4 2.4 1.6 2.560 1.067
2 1.2 0.8 0.640 0.533
0 1.95 -1.95 3.803 1.950
1 1.65 -0.65 0.423 0.256
3 2.7 0.3 0.090 0.033
3 1.8 1.2 1.440 0.800
2 0.9 1.1 1.210 1.344
6 3.9 2.1 4.410 1.131
3 3.3 -0.3 0.090 0.027
5 5.4 -0.4 0.160 0.030
4 3.6 0.4 0.160 0.044
0 1.8 -1.8 3.240 1.800
5 2.82 2.18 4.752 1.685
3 2.38 0.62 0.384 0.162
3 3.9 -0.9 0.810 0.208
0 2.6 -2.6 6.760 2.600
2 1.3 0.7 0.490 0.377
2 1.73 0.27 0.073 0.042
3 1.47 1.53 2.341 1.592
2 2.4 -0.4 0.160 0.067
1 1.6 -0.6 0.360 0.225
0 0.8 -0.8 0.640 0.800
TOTAL 20.573
Table value : 26.3
[65]
Inference
experience.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between experience and level of agreement of

getting adequate recognition for useful ideas
Relationship between experience factor and level of agreement of the statement 'my
ideas and opinions are valued by my superiors and co-workers'
Table 18: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement D)
Level of Agreement
1-5 yrs. 0 2 4 4 3 13
5-10
yrs. 1 2 3 2 3 11
10-15
yrs. 6 5 3 2 2 18
15-20
yrs. 2 4 3 2 1 12
>20
yrs. 2 3 1 0 0 6
TOTAL 11 16 14 10 9 60
[66]
the statement 'my ideas and opinions are valued by my superiors and co-workers'
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

0 2.38 -2.38 5.664 2.380
1 2.02 -1.02 1.040 0.515
6 3.3 2.7 7.290 2.209
2 2.2 -0.2 0.040 0.018
2 1.1 0.9 0.810 0.736
2 3.47 -1.47 2.161 0.623
2 2.93 -0.93 0.865 0.295
5 4.8 0.2 0.040 0.008
4 3.2 0.8 0.640 0.200
3 1.6 1.4 1.960 1.225
4 3.03 0.97 0.941 0.311
3 2.57 0.43 0.185 0.072
3 4.2 -1.2 1.440 0.343
3 2.8 0.2 0.040 0.014
1 1.4 -0.4 0.160 0.114
4 2.17 1.83 3.349 1.543
2 1.83 0.17 0.029 0.016
2 3 -1 1.000 0.333
2 2 0 0.000 0.000
0 1 -1 1.000 1.000
3 1.95 1.05 1.103 0.565
3 1.65 1.35 1.823 1.105
2 2.7 -0.7 0.490 0.181
1 1.8 -0.8 0.640 0.356
0 0.9 -0.9 0.810 0.900
TOTAL 15.063
Table value : 26.3
[67]
Inference
scale is higher between the experienced persons with 1-5 yrs. Employees
having 10-15 yrs. experience show their disagreement with this
statement.
Accept H0
Relationship between experience factor and level of agreement of the belief that all
employees should be equally rewarded
Table 19: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement E)
Level of Agreement
nce Diagree ree Disagree ee Agree AL
1-5 yrs. 2 2 2 4 3 13
5-10
yrs. 2 1 1 3 3 11
10-15
yrs. 5 6 4 2 2 18
15-20 3 5 2 2 0 12
[68]
yrs.
>20
yrs. 1 4 0 1 0 6
TOTAL 13 18 9 12 8 60
the belief that all employees should be equally rewarded
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

2 2.82 -0.82 0.672 0.238
2 2.38 -0.38 0.144 0.061
5 3.9 1.1 1.210 0.310
3 2.6 0.4 0.160 0.062
1 1.3 -0.3 0.090 0.069
2 3.9 -1.9 3.610 0.926
1 3.3 -2.3 5.290 1.603
6 5.4 0.6 0.360 0.067
5 3.6 1.4 1.960 0.544
4 1.8 2.2 4.840 2.689
2 1.95 0.05 0.003 0.001
1 1.65 -0.65 0.423 0.256
4 2.7 1.3 1.690 0.626
2 1.8 0.2 0.040 0.022
0 0.9 -0.9 0.810 0.900
4 2.6 1.4 1.960 0.754
3 2.2 0.8 0.640 0.291
2 3.6 -1.6 2.560 0.711
2 2.4 -0.4 0.160 0.067
1 1.2 -0.2 0.040 0.033
3 1.73 1.27 1.613 0.932
3 1.47 1.53 2.341 1.592
2 2.4 -0.4 0.160 0.067
0 1.6 -1.6 2.560 1.600
0 0.8 -0.8 0.640 0.800
TOTAL 15.222
Table value : 26.3
[69]
Inference
scale is higher between the experienced persons with 1-5 yrs. Employees
having 10-15 & 15-20 yrs. experience show their disagreement with this
statement.
Accept H0
the belief that all employees should be equally rewarded.
Relationship between Age factor and recognition for cost savings/building capability
like new products in the portfolio
Table 20: Two-way (Age and recognition for 1)
Recognition Priority
Ran Ran Ran Ran Ran TOT
AGE k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 AL
20-25
yrs. 1 2 2 1 1 7
[70]
25-30
yrs. 5 4 7 3 1 20
30-35
yrs. 3 3 1 2 6 15
35-40
yrs. 2 1 2 3 2 10
>40
yrs. 1 2 3 1 1 8
TOTAL 12 12 15 10 11 60
Chi-square test is conducted to test the extent of relationship between the age factor and
recognition sought for:
H0 : There is no significant association between Age and recognition for cost
savings/building capability like new products in the portfolio
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

1 1.4 -0.4 0.16 0.114286
5 4 1 1 0.25
3 3 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 0
1 1.6 -0.6 0.36 0.225
2 1.4 0.6 0.36 0.257143
4 4 0 0 0
3 3 0 0 0
1 2 -1 1 0.5
2 1.6 0.4 0.16 0.1
2 1.75 0.25 0.0625 0.035714
7 5 2 4 0.8
1 3.75 -2.75 7.5625 2.016667
2 2.5 -0.5 0.25 0.1
3 2 1 1 0.5
1 1.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.024701
3 3.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.032703
2 2.5 -0.5 0.25 0.1
3 1.67 1.33 1.7689 1.059222
1 1.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.08188
1 1.28 -0.28 0.0784 0.06125
1 3.67 -2.67 7.1289 1.94248
6 2.75 3.25 10.5625 3.840909
2 1.83 0.17 0.0289 0.015792
1 1.47 -0.47 0.2209 0.150272
TOTAL 12.208
Table value : 26.3
[71]
Inference
From the above table, it is observed that the response for this statement
from most of the respondents is neutral i.e Rank 3.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between Age and recognition for cost
Relationship between age factor and recognition for meeting and delivering the
requirement of the clients in time
[72]
20-25
yrs. 3 2 1 1 0 7
25-30
yrs. 6 5 1 2 6 20
30-35
yrs. 2 2 6 4 1 15
35-40
yrs. 3 1 2 4 0 10
>40
yrs. 2 3 1 1 1 8
TOTAL 16 13 11 12 8 60
H0 : There is no significant association between Age and recognition for meeting and
delivering the requirement of the clients in time
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

3 1.87 1.13 1.277 0.683
6 5.3 0.7 0.490 0.092
2 4 -2 4.000 1.000
3 2.67 0.33 0.109 0.041
2 2.13 -0.13 0.017 0.008
2 1.52 0.48 0.230 0.152
5 4.3 0.7 0.490 0.114
2 3.25 -1.25 1.563 0.481
1 2.17 -1.17 1.369 0.631
3 1.73 1.27 1.613 0.932
1 1.28 -0.28 0.078 0.061
1 3.67 -2.67 7.129 1.942
6 2.75 3.25 10.563 3.841
2 1.83 0.17 0.029 0.016
1 1.47 -0.47 0.221 0.150
1 1.4 -0.4 0.160 0.114
2 4 -2 4.000 1.000
4 3 1 1.000 0.333
4 2 2 4.000 2.000
1 1.6 -0.6 0.360 0.225
0 0.93 -0.93 0.865 0.930
6 2.67 3.33 11.089 4.153
1 2 -1 1.000 0.500
0 1.33 -1.33 1.769 1.330
1 1.07 -0.07 0.005 0.005
TOTAL 20.734
[73]
Table value : 26.3
Inference
from most of the respondents is Rank 1. Also few respondents have
ranked the statement as No.:1.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between Age and recognition for cost
savings/building capability like new products in the portfolio.
Relationship between age factor and recognition for the support rendered to the team
AGE Ran Ran Ran Ran Ran TOT
[74]
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 AL
20-25
yrs. 0 0 0 5 2 7
25-30
yrs. 0 1 1 6 12 20
30-35
yrs. 2 4 3 3 3 15
35-40
yrs. 2 3 4 1 0 10
>40
yrs. 1 0 5 1 1 8
TOTAL 5 8 13 16 18 60
H0 : There is no significant association between Age and recognition for the support
rendered to the team
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

0 0.58 -0.58 0.336 0.580
0 1.67 -1.67 2.789 1.670
2 1.25 0.75 0.563 0.450
2 0.83 1.17 1.369 1.649
1 0.67 0.33 0.109 0.163
0 0.93 -0.93 0.865 0.930
1 2.67 -1.67 2.789 1.045
4 2 2 4.000 2.000
3 1.33 1.67 2.789 2.097
0 1.07 -1.07 1.145 1.070
0 1.52 -1.52 2.310 1.520
1 4.33 -3.33 11.089 2.561
3 3.25 -0.25 0.063 0.019
4 2.17 1.83 3.349 1.543
5 1.73 3.27 10.693 6.181
5 1.87 3.13 9.797 5.239
6 5.33 0.67 0.449 0.084
3 4 -1 1.000 0.250
1 2.67 -1.67 2.789 1.045
1 2.13 -1.13 1.277 0.599
2 2.1 -0.1 0.010 0.005
12 6 6 36.000 6.000
3 4.5 -1.5 2.250 0.500
0 3 -3 9.000 3.000
1 2.4 -1.4 1.960 0.817
TOTAL 41.016

[75]
Table value : 26.3
Inference
Calculated value > Table Value
Reject H0
Hence, there is significant association between Age and recognition for the support rendered
to the team.
Relationship between age factor and recognition for the length of service to the
company
[76]
20-25
yrs. 0 0 2 3 2 7
25-30
yrs. 0 2 6 10 2 20
30-35
yrs. 3 3 1 1 7 15
35-40
yrs. 3 4 1 1 1 10
>40
yrs. 2 1 0 0 5 8
TOTAL 8 10 10 15 17 60
H0 : There is no significant association between Age and recognition for the length of
service to the company
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

0 0.93 -0.93 0.865 0.930
0 2.67 -2.67 7.129 2.670
3 2 1 1.000 0.500
3 1.33 1.67 2.789 2.097
2 1.07 0.93 0.865 0.808
0 1.17 -1.17 1.369 1.170
2 3.33 -1.33 1.769 0.531
3 2.5 0.5 0.250 0.100
4 1.67 2.33 5.429 3.251
1 1.33 -0.33 0.109 0.082
2 1.17 0.83 0.689 0.589
6 3.33 2.67 7.129 2.141
1 2.5 -1.5 2.250 0.900
1 1.67 -0.67 0.449 0.269
0 1.33 -1.33 1.769 1.330
3 1.75 1.25 1.563 0.893
10 5 5 25.000 5.000
1 3.75 -2.75 7.563 2.017
1 2.5 -1.5 2.250 0.900
0 2 -2 4.000 2.000
2 1.98 0.02 0.000 0.000
2 5.67 -3.67 13.469 2.375
7 4.25 2.75 7.563 1.779
1 2.83 -1.83 3.349 1.183
5 2.27 2.73 7.453 3.283
TOTAL 36.799
[77]
Table value : 26.3
Inference
Reject H0
Hence, there is significant association between Age and recognition for the length of service
to the company.
Relationship between age factor and recognition for the extra responsibilities on special
projects above and beyond ones normal duties
[78]
20-25
yrs. 5 2 0 0 0 7
25-30
yrs. 6 5 5 2 2 20
30-35
yrs. 1 2 5 4 3 15
35-40
yrs. 0 6 0 3 1 10
>40
yrs. 6 1 0 0 1 8
TOTAL 18 16 10 9 7 60
H0 : There is no significant association between Age and recognition for the extra
responsibilities on special projects above and beyond ones normal duties
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

5 2.1 2.9 8.410 4.005
6 6 0 0.000 0.000
1 4.5 -3.5 12.250 2.722
0 3 -3 9.000 3.000
6 2.4 3.6 12.960 5.400
2 1.87 0.13 0.017 0.009
5 5.33 -0.33 0.109 0.020
2 4 -2 4.000 1.000
6 2.67 3.33 11.089 4.153
1 2.13 -1.13 1.277 0.599
0 1.17 -1.17 1.369 1.170
5 3.33 1.67 2.789 0.838
5 2.5 2.5 6.250 2.500
0 1.67 -1.67 2.789 1.670
0 1.33 -1.33 1.769 1.330
0 1.05 -1.05 1.103 1.050
2 3 -1 1.000 0.333
4 2.25 1.75 3.063 1.361
3 1.5 1.5 2.250 1.500
0 1.2 -1.2 1.440 1.200
0 0.82 -0.82 0.672 0.820
2 2.33 -0.33 0.109 0.047
3 1.75 1.25 1.563 0.893
1 1.17 -0.17 0.029 0.025
1 0.93 0.07 0.005 0.005
TOTAL 35.651
[79]
Table value : 26.3
Inference
Reject H0
Hence, there is significant association between Age and recognition for the extra
responsibilities on special projects above and beyond ones normal duties.
[80]
Relationship between experience factor and recognition for cost savings/building
capability like new products in the portfolio
Table 25: Two-way (Experience and recognition for 1)
Experie Ran Ran Ran Ran Ran TOT
nce k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 AL
1-5 yrs. 3 5 3 2 0 13
5-10
yrs. 3 3 3 1 1 11
10-15
yrs. 3 2 5 4 4 18
15-20
yrs. 2 1 2 2 5 12
>20
yrs. 1 1 2 1 1 6
TOTAL 12 12 15 10 11 60
and recognition sought for:
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and recognition for cost
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

3 2.6 0.4 0.160 0.062
3 2.2 0.8 0.640 0.291
3 3.6 -0.6 0.360 0.100
2 2.4 -0.4 0.160 0.067
1 1.2 -0.2 0.040 0.033
5 2.6 2.4 5.760 2.215
3 2.2 0.8 0.640 0.291
2 3.6 -1.6 2.560 0.711
1 2.4 -1.4 1.960 0.817
1 1.2 -0.2 0.040 0.033
3 3.25 -0.25 0.063 0.019
3 2.75 0.25 0.063 0.023
5 4.5 0.5 0.250 0.056
2 3 -1 1.000 0.333
2 1.5 0.5 0.250 0.167
2 2.17 -0.17 0.029 0.013
1 1.83 -0.83 0.689 0.376
4 3 1 1.000 0.333
2 2 0 0.000 0.000
1 1 0 0.000 0.000
0 2.38 -2.38 5.664 2.380
1 2.02 -1.02 1.040 0.515
4 3.3 0.7 0.490 0.148
5 2.2 2.8 7.840 3.564
1 1.1 -0.1 0.010 0.009
TOTAL 12.5567
[81]
Table value : 26.3
Inference
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between experience and recognition for cost
[82]
Relationship between experience factor and recognition for meeting and delivering the
requirements of the client in time
Table 26: Two-way (Experience and recognition sought for 2)
1-5 yrs. 5 6 2 0 0 13
5-10
yrs. 4 3 2 2 0 11
10-15
yrs. 2 2 3 5 6 18
15-20
yrs. 0 1 4 5 2 12
>20
yrs. 5 1 0 0 0 6
TOTAL 16 13 11 12 8 60
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and recognition for meeting
and delivering the requirements of the client in time
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

5 3.47 1.53 2.341 0.675
4 2.93 1.07 1.145 0.391
2 4.8 -2.8 7.840 1.633
0 3.2 -3.2 10.240 3.200
5 1.6 3.4 11.560 7.225
6 2.82 3.18 10.112 3.586
3 2.38 0.62 0.384 0.162
2 3.9 -1.9 3.610 0.926
1 2.6 -1.6 2.560 0.985
1 1.3 -0.3 0.090 0.069
2 2.38 -0.38 0.144 0.061
2 2.02 -0.02 0.000 0.000
3 3.3 -0.3 0.090 0.027
4 2.2 1.8 3.240 1.473
0 1.1 -1.1 1.210 1.100
0 2.6 -2.6 6.760 2.600
2 2.2 -0.2 0.040 0.018
5 3.6 1.4 1.960 0.544
5 2.4 2.6 6.760 2.817
0 1.2 -1.2 1.440 1.200
0 1.73 -1.73 2.993 1.730
0 1.47 -1.47 2.161 1.470
6 2.4 3.6 12.960 5.400
2 1.6 0.4 0.160 0.100
[83]
0 0.8 -0.8 0.640 0.800
TOTAL 38.191
Table value : 26.3
Inference
Reject H0
[84]
Hence, there is significant association between experience and recognition for meeting and
delivering the requirements of the client in time.
Relationship between experience factor and recognition for the support rendered
to the team
1-5 yrs. 0 0 0 5 8 13
5-10
yrs. 0 0 2 2 7 11
10-15
yrs. 3 4 5 6 0 18
15-20
yrs. 2 3 3 3 1 12
>20
yrs. 0 1 3 0 2 6
TOTAL 5 8 13 16 18 60
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and recognition for the
support rendered to the team
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

0 1.08 -1.08 1.166 1.080
0 0.92 -0.92 0.846 0.920
3 1.5 1.5 2.250 1.500
2 1 1 1.000 1.000
0 0.5 -0.5 0.250 0.500
0 1.73 -1.73 2.993 1.730
0 1.47 -1.47 2.161 1.470
4 2.4 1.6 2.560 1.067
3 1.6 1.4 1.960 1.225
1 0.8 0.2 0.040 0.050
0 2.82 -2.82 7.952 2.820
2 2.38 -0.38 0.144 0.061
5 3.9 1.1 1.210 0.310
3 2.6 0.4 0.160 0.062
3 1.3 1.7 2.890 2.223
5 3.47 1.53 2.341 0.675
2 2.93 -0.93 0.865 0.295
6 4.8 1.2 1.440 0.300
3 3.2 -0.2 0.040 0.013
0 1.6 -1.6 2.560 1.600
8 3.9 4.1 16.810 4.310
[85]
7 3.3 3.7 13.690 4.148
0 5.4 -5.4 29.160 5.400
1 3.6 -2.6 6.760 1.878
2 1.8 0.2 0.040 0.022
TOTAL 34.658
Table value : 26.3
Inference
[86]
Reject H0
Hence, there is significant association between experience and recognition for the support
rendered to the team.
Relationship between experience factor and recognition for the length of service
to the company
1-5 yrs. 0 0 0 3 10 13
5-10
yrs. 0 0 0 5 6 11
10-15
yrs. 3 3 6 6 0 18
15-20
yrs. 4 6 2 0 0 12
>20
yrs. 1 1 2 1 1 6
TOTAL 8 10 10 15 17 60
length of service to the company
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

0 1.73 -1.73 2.993 1.730
0 1.47 -1.47 2.161 1.470
3 2.4 0.6 0.360 0.150
4 1.6 2.4 5.760 3.600
1 0.8 0.2 0.040 0.050
0 2.17 -2.17 4.709 2.170
0 1.83 -1.83 3.349 1.830
3 3 0 0.000 0.000
6 2 4 16.000 8.000
1 1 0 0.000 0.000
0 2.17 -2.17 4.709 2.170
0 1.83 -1.83 3.349 1.830
6 3 3 9.000 3.000
2 2 0 0.000 0.000
2 1 1 1.000 1.000
3 3.25 -0.25 0.063 0.019
5 2.75 2.25 5.063 1.841
6 4.5 1.5 2.250 0.500
0 3 -3 9.000 3.000
1 1.5 -0.5 0.250 0.167
[87]
10 3.68 6.32 39.942 10.854
6 3.12 2.88 8.294 2.658
0 5.1 -5.1 26.010 5.100
0 3.4 -3.4 11.560 3.400
1 1.7 -0.7 0.490 0.288
TOTAL 54.827
Table value : 26.3
Inference

[88]
Reject H0
Hence, there is significant association between experience and recognition for the length of
service to the company.
Relationship between experience factor and recognition for the extra responsibilities on
special projects above and beyond ones normal duties
1-5 yrs. 6 4 3 0 0 13
5-10
yrs. 5 2 3 1 0 11
10-15
yrs. 4 5 3 4 2 18
15-20
yrs. 2 3 1 3 3 12
>20
yrs. 1 2 0 1 2 6
TOTAL 18 16 10 9 7 60
extra responsibilities on special projects above and beyond ones normal duties
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

6 3.9 2.1 4.410 1.131
5 3.3 1.7 2.890 0.876
4 5.4 -1.4 1.960 0.363
2 3.6 -1.6 2.560 0.711
1 1.8 -0.8 0.640 0.356
4 3.47 0.53 0.281 0.081
2 2.93 -0.93 0.865 0.295
5 4.8 0.2 0.040 0.008
3 3.2 -0.2 0.040 0.013
2 1.6 0.4 0.160 0.100
3 2.17 0.83 0.689 0.317
3 1.83 1.17 1.369 0.748
3 3 0 0.000 0.000
1 2 -1 1.000 0.500
0 1 -1 1.000 1.000
0 1.95 -1.95 3.803 1.950
1 1.65 -0.65 0.423 0.256
4 2.7 1.3 1.690 0.626
3 1.8 1.2 1.440 0.800
1 0.9 0.1 0.010 0.011
[89]
0 1.52 -1.52 2.310 1.520
0 1.28 -1.28 1.638 1.280
2 2.1 -0.1 0.010 0.005
3 1.4 1.6 2.560 1.829
2 0.7 1.3 1.690 2.414
TOTAL 17.189
Table value : 26.3
Inference
[90]
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between experience and recognition for the extra
responsibilities on special projects above and beyond ones normal duties.
Relationship between experience and recognition modes
Table 30: Two-way (experience and recognition modes)
Interesting Career Awards,

Experie Monetary assignment development Certificates TOT
nce Benefits role al benefits or gifts AL
1-5 yrs. 2 2 6 3 13
5-10
yrs. 3 1 5 2 11
10-15
yrs. 8 0 9 1 18
15-20
yrs. 5 0 6 1 12
>20
yrs. 4 2 0 0 6
TOTAL 22 5 26 7 60
and recognition modes:
H0 : There is no significant association between experience and recognition modes
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

2 4.76 -2.76 7.618 1.600
3 4.03 -1.03 1.061 0.263
8 6.6 1.4 1.960 0.297
5 4.4 0.6 0.360 0.082
4 2.2 1.8 3.240 1.473
2 1.08 0.92 0.846 0.784
1 0.92 0.08 0.006 0.007
0 1.5 -1.5 2.250 1.500
0 1 -1 1.000 1.000
2 0.5 1.5 2.250 4.500
6 5.63 0.37 0.137 0.024
5 4.77 0.23 0.053 0.011
9 7.8 1.2 1.440 0.185
6 5.2 0.8 0.640 0.123
0 2.6 -2.6 6.760 2.600
3 1.52 1.48 2.190 1.441
2 1.28 0.72 0.518 0.405
1 2.1 -1.1 1.210 0.576
1 1.4 -0.4 0.160 0.114
0 0.7 -0.7 0.490 0.700
[91]
TOTAL 17.685
Table value : 21.0
Inference
[92]
From the above table, it is observed that employees with less than 15 yrs.
of experience expect career developmental activities. Monetary benefits
have been given the second priority.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between experience and recognition modes.

Relationship between Age factor and recognition modes
Table 31: Two-way (Age and recognition modes)
Awards,
Interesting Career Certificates
Monetary assignment developmenta or TOT
AGE Benefits role l benefits Gifts AL
20-25
yrs. 1 1 3 2 7
25-30
yrs. 6 3 7 4 20
30-35
yrs. 6 0 8 1 15
35-40
yrs. 4 0 6 0 10
>40
yrs. 5 1 2 0 8
TOTAL 22 5 26 7 60
recognition modes:
H0 : There is no significant association between age and recognition modes
O E O-E (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

1 2.57 -1.57 2.465 0.959
6 7.3 -1.3 1.690 0.232
6 5.5 0.5 0.250 0.045
4 3.67 0.33 0.109 0.030
5 2.93 2.07 4.285 1.462
1 0.58 0.42 0.176 0.304
3 1.67 1.33 1.769 1.059
0 1.25 -1.25 1.563 1.250
0 0.83 -0.83 0.689 0.830
1 0.67 0.33 0.109 0.163
3 3.03 -0.03 0.001 0.000
7 8.67 -1.67 2.789 0.322
8 6.5 1.5 2.250 0.346
6 4.33 1.67 2.789 0.644
[93]
2 3.47 -1.47 2.161 0.623
2 0.82 1.18 1.392 1.698
4 2.33 1.67 2.789 1.197
1 1.75 -0.75 0.563 0.321
0 1.17 -1.17 1.369 1.170
0 0.93 -0.93 0.865 0.930
TOTAL 13.585
Table value : 21.0
Inference
[94]
From the above table, it is observed that employees with age group of 25-
30, 30-35 & 35-40 yrs. expect career developmental activities. Monetary
benefits have been given the second priority.
Accept H0
Hence, there is no significant association between age group and recognition modes.
10. FINDINGS
 Male gender is predominant in Precision Engineering Division
 Of the total respondents, 67 percent are from MB&A Department, 12 percent are from
PEC and the remaining 21 percent are from common services which include Human
Resources, Accounts, Canteen and Plant maintenance.
 Three quarter of the respondents belong to L-level.
 Employees of age group 25-30 yrs. are high compared to 31-35 yrs. old.
 Employees with 10-15 yrs. experience at Titan are more.
 Around 27 employees have ranked 2 – recognition sought for cost savings/building

capability.
 ‘Meeting & delivering the requirements of the client in time’ has been ranked 3 as
recognition sought for.
 ‘The support rendered to the team’ has been ranked 4 by the employee respondents.
 ‘My length of service to the company’ has been given least priority.
 Employee handling extra responsibilities on special projects above and beyond

normal duties has been given the top preference.
 Nearly half of the respondents have agreed to the belief that it is possible to promote a
healthy competition among teams or individuals through the recognition program.
[95]
 About 21 respondents agreed that the recognition mechanism has provided an
opportunity to utilize his/her potential.
 22 employee respondents believe that adequate recognition is provided for useful

ideas.
 Half of the respondents disagree with statement ‘my ideas & opinions are valued by
my superiors and co-workers.
 Employees disagree with system ‘Equal reward for all’.
 ‘Years back’ was the response for the last participation in SGA Activities from most
of the respondents.
 More than three-quarter of the respondents expect the SGA events to be conducted
once in a quarter.
 Employees are flexible to work in a team as well as an individual.
 Employees expect Career developmental benefits and monetary benefits from the
recognition system.
[96]
11. SUGGESTIONS
 The reward and recognition culture should be based on the
performance and the actual weight-age of the activity.
 Managers must understand each individual’s talents, interests and

needs and try to engage them in engagement activity, not to force
them.
 To create a more engaged work place – the quality of work has to be

improved, career advancement opportunities have to be provided,
job training and competitive pay should be provided.
 Change in appraisal policies, heeding to employee concerns through

internal portals and facilitating interactions with the management
can prove a more engaged work environment.
 Create a transformational leadership culture, where individuals

become well connected to the organizations purpose and overall
mission through open forums.
 Promote and map out career pathways and development

opportunities. Make this a part of an attraction and retention
strategy.
 Workshop on people management i.e., holding critical conversations

as well as coaching. This is to enhance the interest and
subsequently performance by clear goal setting.
[97]
 It is hard to wait for some survey results or diagnosis from a management consultant.
It is better to look at the work you are doing right now and determine how you can
engage with it more fully. In addition, look at what you are engaged with now and
make sure the results matter.
12. CONCLUSION
In a nutshell I can say that the conclusion which I have drawn once and
again about the employee engagement are purely empirical and are not
influenced in the least by the vagaries of my perception.
The study brings out the fact that companies with the highest levels of
employee engagement it can achieve better financial results and are
more successful in retaining their most value employees than the
companies with lower levels of engagement.
It is equally important for human resource professionals to be up to date on the latest trends
in staffing, performance appraisals, compensation and benefits, training and development,
employee and labor relations, and safety and health issues, disciplinary issues, determination
of employee engagement and act as facilitator.
Employee engagement emphasizes the importance of employee communication on the

success of a business. An organization should thus recognize employees, more than any other
variable, as powerful contributors to a company's competitive position. Therefore employee
engagement should be a continuous process of learning, improvement, measurement and
action.
I would conclude that raising and maintaining employee engagement lies in the hands of an
organization and requires a perfect blend of time, effort, commitment and investment to craft
a successful endeavor.
[98]
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites Referred
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Industries
 http://www.citehr.com
 http://www.scribd.com
Book & Magazines Referred
 V.S.P Rao, Human Resource management
 Magazines & Journals (Published by TATA group & Titan Industries Limited)
 Kothari, C.K. (1990). Research Methodology, Methods, and Techniques, 2nd ed.
Viswa Prakashana, New Delhi
[99]
14. ANNEXURE
QUESTIONNAIRE
A Study on factors extending involvement in Employee Engagement activities at PED,

Titan Industries Limited, Hosur
Dear Sir/Madam,
As part of MBA program, I am making a study on the above research topic. I would
request you personally to spare your valuable time in answering this survey.
Thanks in advance.
With
Regards,
Ebinezar Rathnam. S
Personal Details:
Gender : a) MALE b) FEMALE
Department :
Level :
[100]
Age : a) 20-25yrs. b) 26-30yrs. c) 31-35yrs. d) 36-40yrs. e) >40yrs.
Experience : a) 1-5yrs. b) 6-10yrs. c) 11-15yrs. d) 16-20yrs. e) >20yrs.
Rate the statements (1 to 5): 1 – Highest Rank  5 – Lowest Rank

I want recognition for
1) Cost savings/building capability like new products in the portfolio.
2) Meeting & delivering the requirements of the client in time.
3) The support rendered by me to my team.
4) My length of service to the company
5) The extra responsibilities on special projects above and beyond my
normal duties.
6) Please use the following numbers to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement
with the statements below:
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
A. I believe that it is possible to promote a healthy competition among teams or

individuals through the recognition program.
B. The recognition mechanism provides an opportunity to utilize my potentials.
C. I get adequate recognition if I come out with some useful ideas.
D. My ideas and opinions are valued by my superiors and co-workers.
E. I sincerely believe that all employees should be equally rewarded.
Please use the following numbers to select the best option:

7) When did you last participate in SGA event?
1. Last month 2. Last Quarter 3. Six months back 4. Couple of years back
5. Never participated
8) How frequent would you like SGA programs to be conducted?

1. Every week 2. Every fortnight 3. Every month
4. Once in every 2 months 5. Once in a quarter
9) I am comfortable to work as
1. an individual 2. a team 3. either ways if necessity demands
10) How would you most like to be recognized?

1. Monetary benefits
2. Opportunity to work on interesting assignment.
3. Opportunity to participate in professional or career development activities.
4. An award, certificate or gift from an established recognition program in my
department.
Please ink your suggestions towards the improvement of participation by employees in

Employee Engagement Activities:
[101]
___________________________________________________________________________
*** THANK YOU ***
[102]

Proj Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proj Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is my proud privilege to express my deepest gratitude to a number of helping hands

It is my utmost pleasure to extend my sincere gratitude to Titan Industries Ltd. (TIL)

I am extremely grateful to Ms. Subhashree Natarajan, Asst. Professor and mentor

This report is a reflection of the knowledge acquired by me during the period.

I, Ebinezar Rathnam. S, student of Velammal College of Management and Computer

Place: Ebinezar Rathnam. S

I wish him all the very best in his career endeavors.

Asst. Prof. Subhashree Natarajan

It will be appropriate to apprise to the reader that the cardinal

1.1 Definition: Employee Engagement.............................................................13

1.2 Importance of Employee Engagement........................................................13

1.3 Aspects of Employee Engagement.............................................................14

1.4 Categories of Employee Engagement.........................................................14

1.5 Factors Leading to Employee Engagement.................................................15

1.6 How to measure Employee Engagement?..................................................15

2.1 TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED – An Overview.................................................18

2.2 About Precision Engineering Division..........................................................21

2.2.1 Machine Building And Automation (MBA).............................................21

2.2.2 Precision Engineering Components (PEC).............................................21

2.2.4 HR Strategic People Initiatives.............................................................22

2.2.5 Employee Engagement culture at PED.................................................22

3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................23

4. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM.....................................................................23

4.1 SGA practices at Titan Industries Limited ..................................................24

4.1.4 SGA TRACKER 2008-2009.....................................................................26

6.1 Primary Objective ......................................................................................28

6.2 Secondary Objectives ...............................................................................28

7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY......................................................................................28

8.1 Research Design.........................................................................................29

8.2 Primary data...............................................................................................29

8.3 Secondary data...........................................................................................29

9. Data Analysis and Interpretation.....................................................................30

9.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST ......................................................................................48

Table 2: Gender Classification.............................................................................30

Table 3: Department Classification......................................................................31

Table 4: Level Classification.................................................................................32

Table 5: Age Classification...................................................................................33

Table 7: Work Style..............................................................................................35

Table 8: Recognition modes Expected.................................................................36

Table 9: Frequency of SGA expected...................................................................37

Table 10: Two-way (Age and level of agreement A)...........................................50

Table 11: Two-way (Age and level of agreement B)............................................52

Table 12: Two-way (Age and level of agreement C)............................................54

Table 13: Two-way (Age and level of agreement D)............................................56

Table 14: Two-way (Age and level of agreement E).............................................58

Table 15: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement A).................................60

Table 16: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement B).................................62

Table 17: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement C).................................64

Table 18: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement D).................................66

Table 19: Two-way (Experience and level of agreement E).................................68

Table 20: Two-way (Age and recognition for 1)...................................................70

Table 21: Two-way (Age and recognition for 2)...................................................72

Table 22: Two-way (Age and recognition for 3)...................................................74

Table 23: Two-way (Age and recognition for 4)...................................................76

Table 24: Two-way (Age and recognition for 5)...................................................79

Table 26: Two-way (Experience and recognition sought for 2)............................83

Table 27: Two-way (Experience and recognition for 3)........................................85

Table 28: Two-way (Experience and recognition for 4)........................................87

Table 29: Two-way (Experience and recognition for 5)........................................89

Table 30: Two-way (experience and recognition modes).....................................91

Table 31: Two-way (Age and recognition modes)................................................93