INTRODUCTION:

Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years. Despite this, there remains a paucity of critical academic literature on the subject, and relatively little is known about how employee engagement can be influenced by management. One of the many challenges that are present today in the field of employee engagement is the lack of a universal definition of employee engagement. Kahn, one of the pioneers in the field of employee engagement defines employee engagement as the harnessing of organization members. Employee Engagement is the extent to which workforce commitment, both emotional and intellectual, exists relative to accomplishing the work, mission, and vision of the organization. Engagement can be seen as a heightened level of ownership where each employee wants to do whatever they can for the benefit of their internal and external customers. Engagement is more than a passing fad - it brings clear business benefits. Engagement is seen, as bringing real competitive advantage. However, raising engagement levels, and maintaining them, takes time, effort, commitment and investment - it is not for the halfhearted. Positive responses to the engagement statements indicate a positive attitude towards, and pride in, the organization belief in the organization's products. Organizations need to work hard to prevent, and minimize the impact of, bad experiences. They also need to ensure that employees' development needs (including the special needs of professionals) are taken seriously; pay attention to, and value the roles of, support staff; and to maintain the interest of longer-serving employees. Each organization is different and there are many factors that affect bottom-line outcomes; however, engagement scores can serve as meaningful predictors of long-term success. Some organizations use engagement scores as lead measures in their HR scorecards. When an organization can show the relationship between engagement scores and bottom-line outcomes, everyone pays attention to the engagement index. Establishing this critical link between people and performance helps HR professionals prove that people-related interventions are a worthwhile investment.

Objectives of the study:

The objective of the study is divided into primary and secondary objectives. The primary objectives focus on the levels of employees engagement and the antecedents. The secondary objective is to indentify whether there exists a relationship between employee engagement and terms of employment. The other objectives are to identify employee engagement and absenteeism, profitability, productivity and the intention of the employees to continue working with the organization. Primary Objective:

To study the Employee engagement and antecedents in HCL Technologies, BPO-Chennai

Secondary Objective: i. ii. To find out the various factors relating to Employee engagement. To identify the superior subordinate relationship that enhances employees engagement. iii. To find out the employees overall satisfaction in the workplace. iv. To suggest measures in improving employees engagement at workplace.

Scope and significant of the study

Employee engagement refers to cooperation between its employees and organization where everyone works together to achieve goals of organization and of the employees as well. It is a tool which determines the association of employee with organization. The engaged employees are more focused to companys profit rather than their own personal goals. They always spread positive vibes or messages and always try to make the working environment more congenial.

To determine the degree of engagement in employees. To study the attitude of employee towards their organization. To study how engagement helps in developing them. Making work environment and culture more friendly and comfortable. To increasing the productivity. To increasing employee retention. Reduces absenteeism. Enhance business growth.

2.1 Industry profile India is the leading country for offshore outsourcing. The offshore outsourcing industry started in India and it has been able to grow the IT and BPO export sector to $47 billion and capture more than half the offshore outsourcing industry. That is not to say that India does not have challenges or is the best location for every offshore outsourcing effort, but it has an unparalleled history and size. The Americas and Europe are the largest customers for the Indian outsourcing industry and account for 60 percent and 31 percent respectively of IT and BPO exports. The largest vertical sectors are financial services (41 percent), high-tech/ telecom (20 percent), manufacturing (17 percent) and retail (8 percent). In 2009 the IT and BPO export industries employed about 2.2 million people. IT and BPO services outsourcing first started in India in the mid 1980s. The large, English speaking, low-cost workforce was the main attraction. The industry grew rapidly through the 1990s aided by the dot com boom and IT upgrades to prepare for potential Y2K bugs. The 2000s saw similar growth with work moving to India in down cycles to help companies cut costs and in boom times to capitalize on the readily available talent. The 2008-2009 global recessions has had a negative impact on outsourcing growth in India, but the sector is experiencing a turn-around in 2011. Many US and European companies are still cautions about the speed or staying power of the 2011 economic recovery and thus are looking to maintain a low cost base in locations such as India. India is considered one of the top outsourcing locations not just because of low costs, but also for the large English-speaking workforce. The workforce is close to half a billion people, second only to China and three times the size of the United States. Based on this workforce and its early entry into the global sourcing market, India has built the largest export sector for IT services. India exports about $50 billion in computer and IT related service. This is about four times that of the United States and almost an order of magnitude greater than any other location. In the BPO sector, India has a leading position.

2.2 Product profile Business process outsourcing (BPO) is a subset of outsourcing that involves the contracting of the operations and responsibilities of specific business functions (or processes) to a third-party service provider. In the contemporary context, it is primarily used to refer to the outsourcing of business processing services to an outside firm, replacing in-house services with labour from an outside firm. An advantage of BPO is the way in which it helps to increase a companys flexibility. However, several sources have different ways in which they perceive organizational flexibility. Therefore business process outsourcing enhances the flexibility of an organization in different ways. Most services provided by BPO vendors are offered on a fee-for-service basis. Another way in which BPO contributes to a companys flexibility is that a company is able to focus on its core competencies. Key employees are herewith released from performing non-core or administrative processes and can invest more time and energy in building the firms core businesses. India is a major hub for business process outsourcing because of young human resource base, quality education, cost effectiveness, convenient Indian time zone etc. The BPO sector is moving towards the spectrum of saturation. However the industry estimates that flexible demands of the clients as well as customers are always on the increase. The Indian IT-BPO sector is estimated to grow 19 per cent in 2010-11 to $76 billion in revenues, according to software industry body, NASSCOM. Some of the major players in the industry are Genpact, Wipro, IBM, HCL, Aegis etc.

2.3 Organization About HCL

profile

Founded in 1976, HCL is one of India's original IT garage start-ups. Shiv Nadar along with his friends started a company that focused on manufacturing computers. The company name "HCL" used to stand for "Hindustan Computers Limited" but now HCL is the only one name that the company goes by. A pioneer of modern computing, HCL is a global transformational enterprise today. Its range of offerings includes product engineering, custom & package applications, BPO, IT infrastructure services, IT hardware, systems integration, and distribution of information and communications technology (ICT) products across a wide range of focused industry verticals. Although HCL is just a three-decade old enterprise, HCL Technologies is a relatively young company formed, 12 years ago, in 1998. In the 12 years since, they have transformed into a global technology brand. IT has changed the way world works and HCL technologies is changing the way IT works. Having established its credentials in global delivery models, domain expertise and corporate governance, they are now focused on delivering value to forward-looking customers. Today, HCL is a $5.7 billion leading global technology and IT enterprise. The HCL team consists of over 79,000 professionals of diverse nationalities, who operate from 31 countries including over 500 points of presence in India. HCL has partnerships with several leading Global 1000 firms, including leading IT and technology firms. HCL comprises two companies listed in India- HCL Technologies and HCL Infosystems. HCL Technologies HCL Technologies is a leading global IT services company, working with clients in the areas that impact and redefine the core of their businesses. Since its inception into the global landscape after its IPO in 1999, HCL focuses on transformational outsourcing, underlined by innovation and value creation, and offers integrated portfolio of services including software-led IT solutions, remote infrastructure management, engineering and R&D services and BPO. HCL leverages its extensive global offshore infrastructure and

network of offices in 26 countries to provide holistic, multi-service delivery in key industry verticals including Financial Services, Manufacturing, Consumer Services, Public Services and Healthcare. HCL takes pride in its philosophy of Employees First, Customer Second which empowers our 73,420 transformers to create a real value for the customers. HCL Technologies, along with its subsidiaries, had consolidated revenues of US$ 3.3 billion (Rs. 15,160 crores), as on 31 March 2011. HCL recognizes human resources as the backbone of its long-term success and has consciously focused on increasing the value-add per employee. Its unique approach has made it an employer of choice both in India and abroad. Utmost importance is attached to attract the best talent into the organization, continuously train, improve the skill set of these professionals, and help them perform in the most challenging assignments, and finally retain the biggest asset-people. HCL - BPO HCL BPO was started in 2001. Today, with USD 214 million in revenue and over 10,500 professionals operating out of India, Northern Ireland and USA, HCL BPO runs 23 delivery centers across India, UK and USA and offers 24X7 multi-channel, multi-lingual support in eight European and eight APAC languages. HCL BPO's focus verticals include Telecom, Retail & CPG, Energy, Utilities & Public Services, Banking & Financial Services, Insurance, Hi-Tech & Manufacturing and Media, Publishing & Entertainment. The company also services various areas of operations that include Supply Chain Management, Finance & Accounts Outsourcing, Knowledge Process Outsourcing, Human Resources Outsourcing, Customer Relationship Management and Technical Support Services. HCL BPO follows industry best practices and metric-based quality norms for all its processes. This is supported by robust technology infrastructure, strong human resources and a customized training program and transition framework. HCL Business Services is the first BPO Company in the world to be appraised at Maturity Level 5 of People CMM. With stringent internal metrics and audit systems, HCL Business Services' quality certifications include CCA Global Standard, COPC 2000 (CSP Release 4.1), ISO

9001:2000, OHSAS 18001:2007 and ISO 14001:2004; Security Systems certification ISO 27001:2005, ISO 20000:2005 and audit certification in SAS 70 Type II. HCL Business Services is the first Indian and third company in the world to be COPC certified in the specialized area of Collections. HCL's BPO is heading towards a maturity level where a new form of BPO, called Business Services, is evolving that constitutes Full Process Outsourcing and Multiple Process Outsourcing. Transformation and innovation is core to HCL Business Services and we have evolved from a traditional BPO to the NeXt Generation BPO. HCL's Business Services serves customers in various industries including Telecom, Retail, Insurance, Banking & Financial Services, Hi-Tech & Manufacturing and Media, Publishing & Entertainment sectors, backed by Value creation, Global delivery processes, new Output-based Commercial Models, and Strategic Partnerships with clients.

2.4 VISION AND MISSION

VISION STATEMENT
"Together we create the enterprises of tomorrow"

MISSION STATEMENT
"To provide world-class information technology solutions and services to enable our customers to serve their customers better"

VALUES
o Employee First o Trust, Transparency, Transformation o Value Centricity

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Gibson (2006) defines employee engagement as a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization, that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort to his or her work. Gallup Consulting (2008) describes employee engagement as the extent to which employees are psychologically connected to something or someone in the organization. Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years. Despite this, there remains a paucity of critical academic literature on the subject, and relatively little is known about how employee engagement can be influenced by management. One of the many challenges that are present today in the field of employee engagement is the lack of a universal definition of employee engagement. Kahn, one of the pioneers in the field of employee engagement defines employee engagement as the Harnessing of organization members. Employee Engagement is the extent to which workforce commitment, both emotional and intellectual, exists relative to accomplishing the work, mission, and vision of the organization. Engagement can be seen as a heightened level of ownership where each employee wants to do whatever they can for the benefit of their internal and external customers.

Engagement and Employee Involvement

Whilst some argue that employees are engaged if they have a positive attitude towards work, others such as Purcell et al (2003) suggest that employee engagement is only meaningful if there is a more genuine sharing of responsibility between management and employees over issues of substance. The CIPD survey conducted by Truss et al (2006)

suggests that strengthening employee voice can make a difference to organizational performance. That is made in organizations (Lucas et al 2006). It has been argued that one of the main drivers of employee engagement is for employees to have the opportunity to feed their view Employee voice can be defined as the ability for employees to have an input into decisions upwards (Truss et al 2006). Their survey concluded that currently many organizations are not very successful in doing this and as a result many employees felt they lacked opportunities to express their views and be involved in decisions. On the other hand, researchers at Towers Perrin (2003) found employers are doing well in giving employees the freedom to make decisions relating to their jobs; 62 per cent of respondents argued they have an appropriate amount of decision-making authority to do their job well

THE CONCEPT OF ENGAGEMENT METHOD The early conceptualization of engagement states in engagement, peopleEmploy and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances (Kahn, 1990). Work engagement is also defined as a persistent, positive affectivemotivational state of fulfillment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). One could also say being engaged means being fully energized, dedicated and absorbed into ones work. According to further research, engagement can be divided into two types of engagement: job engagement and organizational engagement. This derives from the fact, that engagement is conceptualized as role related. It reflects the extent to which an individual is psychologically present in a particular organizational role. (Saks, 2006) Engagement is also defined as a two-way relationship between employer and Employee (Robinson et al., 2004). Thus, the better the employees experience With their work or organization, the more the employees will feel obliged to Repay their organization. Employees will only become engaged in an Organizational environment and in a work environment that offers them what they are looking for, e.g. opportunities, challenges and also the chance to voice their opinions and job security.

ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS When employees are engaged, they are more likely to conduct their work with energy and enthusiasm. When engaged, people are attached to their work role, and absorbed by enacting it. They invest a lot of their personal energy into performing the role, as it is an important part of their identity. They have internalized the goals and aspirations of the organization as their own Facets of Engagement: Companies with a highly engaged workforce were found to be significantly More productive, with operating margins of 5.5% higher.(ISR surveys) Engaged Employees - the most Engaged employees miss fewer days of work and are ten times less likely to say they will leave the company within a year (GMJ Sur vey) Engaged Employees the most committed will deliver a 20% improvementIn performance and are 87% less likely to leave.(Ipsos Mori, 2006) An estimate that actively disengaged employees cost the British economy Between 37 billion and 39 billion per year due to low employee retention, High absentee levels and low productivity. (Gallup) Listed below are some of the excerpts of employee engagement experts, their views as well as the findings of some of the researches conducted in this field: Kahn (Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, The Academy of Management Journal (1990) 1. One of the most influential studies of engagement was carried out by Kahn. Conceptually Kahn began with the work of Goffman who proposed that peoples attachment and detachment to their roles varies. 2. To gain further understanding, Kahn figured out that people often exhibit personal engagement or personal disengagement which refers to behaviors by which people bring in or leave out their personal selves

during work role performances. The concept of engagement was popularized by Kahn (1990), who related this concept to the notion of psychological presence. According to him, engagement refers to the state in which individuals express their entire self--physically, cognitively, and emotionally--in their role. Kahn (1990, 1992) argued that engagement culminates from a state called psychological presence--a state in which the authentic, true facets of the self can be fully expressed. In this state, individuals do not need to curb their beliefs, values, thoughts, feelings, inclinations, and relationships. All of these facets of themselves are manifested in the behavior at work. Kahn delineates three factors that promote this presence or engagement. a) First, when employees experience a sense of meaning in their work, this presence or engagement is more likely to ensue. That is, in some contexts, individuals feel their work relates to some broader, enduring, important, and desirable objective or value. They feel their work aligns with the aspirations they value. As a consequence, they become more inclined to dedicate their efforts to this endeavor, rather than withhold their exertion, which manifests as presence or engagement. b) Second, when individuals feel that such dedication and application to their role will not culminate in undesirable or negative consequences, called psychological safety, engagement is also more likely. That is, engagement surfaces when employees feel that problems or adversities are either unlikely or manageable. c) Third, individuals can maintain this dedication and application to their work only if they can access the necessary resources, called psychological availability. That is, they need, for example, to be able to muster the necessary energy or exertion.

James K. Harter, Frank L. Schmidt, and Corey L. M. Keyes (Author of Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life as well as Well-Being in the Workplace and its Relationship to Business Outcomes: A Review of the Gallup Studies , published by the American Psychological Association in November, 2003) Gallup's employee engagement work is based on more than 30 years of in-depth behavioral economic research involving more than 17 million employees. Researches have appeared in prestigious business and scientific publications, including the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Harvard Business Review, and in bestselling books First; Break All the Rules and 12: The Elements of Great Managing. The Gallup Organization found critical links between employee engagement, customer loyalty, business growth and profitability. According to Harter and Schmidt, with review of the Gallup studies in 2003, Employee engagement is a combination of cognitive and emotional antecedent variables in the workplace that generates higher frequency of positive affect (job satisfaction, commitment, joy, fulfillment, interest, caring). Positive affect then relates to the efficient application of work, employee retention, creativity, and ultimately business outcomes. Well-being in the workplace is, in part, a function of helping employees do what is naturally right for them by freeing them up to do so through behaviors that influence employee engagement and therefore that increase the frequency of positive emotions. Employee engagement is related to how people perceive their tangible rewards. Employee engagement is a leading indicator of intent to stay within a given organization. However, when employees are not engaged, pay may enter in as a more critical factor. Employee engagement is changeable and varies widely by business unit within nearly any company. Therefore, the need to create change in many business units is substantial. Blessingwhite Employee Engagement Report 2011: Blessingwhite is a leading consultancy with an impressive clientele list which includes HP, Oracle, Yahoo!, RBS etc. It conducts surveys and researches in areas of employee engagement, career development, leadership development etc.

The Employee Engagement Report 2011 research reflects interviews with HR and line leaders as well as online survey responses of nearly 11,000 individuals from North America, India, Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia/New Zealand, and China (http://www.blessingwhite.com/eee__report.asp). The previous employee engagement studies (2003, 2006, and 2008) determined that the majority of employees liked their work and were planning on sticking around, but were not necessarily focused on what mattered most to their employers. They also contained organizational best practices for increasing engagement levels. In the 2011 report, it is found that there is a strong correlation between engagement levels and age, role/level, and tenure in the organization. Older employees and people in positions of power and authority are most likely to be engaged. So are long-term employees (7+ years with an organization). Employees who work in departments closest to strategy decisions and customer relationships tend to be more engaged as well. Trust in executives can have more than twice the impact on engagement levels than trust in immediate managers does. However, consistent with past studies, employees are more likely to trust their immediate managers than the executives in their organization Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S (Report 408, Institute for Employment Studies, April 2004) According to the publications of Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S for the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), Employee Engagement is a positive attitude held by the employee towards the 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. The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee. A study carried out by the IES reveals that engagement levels can vary, in association with a variety of personal and job characteristics and with experiences at work. Engagement levels decline as employees get older until they reach the oldest group (60 plus), where levels suddenly rise, and show this oldest group to be the most engaged of all

Managers and professionals tend to have higher engagement levels than their colleagues in the supporting roles, although people in the latter group appear to owe greater loyalty to their profession than to the organization in which they practice their craft

Engagement levels decline as length of service increases Having an accident or an injury at work or experiencing harassment (particularly if the manager is the source of the harassment) both has a big negative impact on engagement

Employees who have a personal development plan, and who have received a formal performance appraisal within the past year, have significantly higher engagement levels than those who have not.

Molinaro and Weiss (n.d.) isolated six key factors that drive employee engagement:

Being part of a winning organization Working for admired leaders Having positive working relationships Doing meaningful work Being recognized and appreciated Living a balanced life

Five level of employee engagement: The engaged: (High contribution and satisfaction) These employees are at the apex where personal and organization interest aligns. They contribute fully to the success of the organization and find great satisfaction in their work. They are known for this discretionary effort and commitment. When recruiters call, they cordially cut the conversation short .organization need to keep them engaged because they can transition over time to any of the three adjacent segments, a move that would likely impact work force morale and the bottom line. Almost engaged: (Medium to high contribution and satisfaction) A critical group, these employees are among the high performance and the reasonably satisfied with their job. They may not have consistent Great days look like. Honey mooners and hamsters: (Medium to high satisfaction but low contribution) Honey mooners are new to the organization on their role and happy to b there .they have yet to find their stride or clearly understand how they can best contribute .it should be a priority to move them out of their temporary holding area to full alignment and productivity. Hamsters may be working hard but are in effect spinning their wheel, working on nonessential tasks, contributing little to the success of the organization. Some may even be hiding out, curled up in their ceder shavings, content with their position (retired in place). If organizations dont deal with them, other employees will have to work harder and may grow resentful.

Crash and burners: (Medium to high contribution but low satisfaction) Disillusioned and potentially exhausted, these employee are top producers who are not achieving their personal definition of success and satisfaction .they can be bitterly vocal that executives are making bad decisions or that colleagues are not pulling their weight .they may leave ,but they are work less hard , slipping down the contribution scale to become disengaged, those around them. The disengaged: (Low to medium contribution and satisfaction) Most disengaged employee didnt start out as bad apples. They still may not be. They are the most disconnected from organization priorities, often feel underutilized, and are clearly not getting what they need from work. They are likely to be skeptical, and can indulge in contagious negativity. if left alone ,the disengaged are likely to collect a paycheck while complaining or looking for their next job . If they cant be coached or aligned to higher level of engagement, their exit benefits everyone, including them.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION TABLE-1 Age wise of the respondent RESPONSE NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

MALE

41

49

FEMALE

42

51

TOTAL

83

100

Figure 1
51.5 51 50.5 frequency 50 49.5 49 48.5 48 MALE sex FEMALE 49 51

INFERENCE: It is inferred that 49% are male and 51% are female.

TABLE-2 AGE of the respondents RESPONSE 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 TOTAL NO.OF RESPONDENTS 41 22 12 8 83 PERCENTAGE 49 27 14 10 100

Figure 2
60 50 frequency 40 30 49 20 10 0 20-29 30-39 age 40-49 50-59 27 14 10

INFERENCE: It is inferred that 49% of the respondents belong to the age of 20-29 and 27% of the respondents are 30-39 and 14% of respondents are 40-49years.

TABLE-3

Terms of employment in HCL Response Contractual Permanent NO.OF RESPONDENTS 41 42 Percentage contractual 45 55 Permanent 51 49

Male Female

10 12

31 30

Total .

22

61

83

100

Figure 3

Permanent Percentage

51

49 Male Female

contractual

45

55

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

INFERENCE It is inference 45% respondents for male contractual, 51% respondents for permanent; for female 55% respondents for contractual and 49% for permanent

TABLE-4 The level of satisfaction with the company OPINION Highly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied Total NO.OF RESPONDENTS 0 0 30 40 13 83 PERCENTAGE 0 0 36 48 16 100

Figure 4
60 50 percentage 40 30 20 10 0
sa t is fie d

48 36

16 0
d

0
ne ut ra l sa t is fie d di s at isf ie d y di ss

hi gh l

sa tis

fie

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference 48% respondents are satisfied, 36% respondents are neutral, and 16% respondents are extremely satisfied.

hi gh l

TABLE-5 Over all expectation of the respondents at work RESPONSE highly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Strongly dissatisfied Total NO.OF RESPONDENTS 0 22 5 42 14 83 PERCENTAGE 0 27 6 50 17 100

Figure 5
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 strongly disaree disagree neutral agree strongly agree 6 27 17 50

percentage

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference 50% respondents are agree , 27% respondents are disagree , 17% respondents are strongly agree, 6% respondents are neutral. Table -6

Response on availability of materials and equipment at work RESPONSE Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total NO.OF RESPONDENTS 21 10 29 23 0 83 PERCENTAGE 25 12 35 28 0 100

Figure 6
40 35 30 percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly disaree disagree neutral agree strongly agree 12 10 25

35 28

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 35% respondents are neutral, 28% respondents are agree, 25% respondents are strongly agree, and 12% respondents are disagree.
Table-7

Respondents opportunity to perform independently

RESPONSE Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

NO.OF RESPONDENTS 20 22 30 6 5 83

PERCENTAGE 24 27 36 7 6 100

Figure 7
40 35 30 percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly disaree disagree neutral agree strongly agree 7 6 24 27 36

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 36% respondents are neutral, 27% respondents are disagree , 24% respondents are strongly disagree, 7% respondents are agree, and 6% respondent are strongly agree. Table-8 Response on superior/others care at work place

RESPONSE Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

NO.OF RESPONDENTS 38 10 24 5 6 83

PERCENTAGE 46 12 29 6 7 100

Figure 8
50 45 40 35 percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree 12 6 7 29 46

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 35% respondents are neutral, 28% respondents are agree, 25% respondents are strongly agree, 12% respondents are disagree. Table-9 Response on best friend at work

RESPONSE Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

NO.OF RESPONDENTS 6 48 9 20 0 83

PERCENTAGE 7 58 11 24 0 100

Figure 9
70 60 50 percentage 40 30 20 10 0 strongly disagree disagree neutral agree 7 11 0 strongly agree 24 58

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 58 % respondents are disagree, 24% respondents are agree , 11% respondents are neutral, and 7% respondents are strongly disagree. Table-10 The table showing the number of days absent

Days of absent 0 1-2 days 3-4 days 4-5 days More than 5 days Total

NO.OF RESPONDENTS 33 31 17 1 1 83

PERCENTAGE 40 37 21 1 1 100

Figure 10
45 40 35 percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1-2 days 3-4 days 4-5 days more than 5 days 1 1 21 40 37

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 40% employees not absent themselves a single day , 37% employees are absent 1-2 days, 21% employees are absent 3-4 days, and 1% employees are absent more than 5 days. Table-11 Respondents satisfaction toward remuneration

RESPONSE Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

NO.OF RESPONDENTS 29 34 20 0 0 83

PERCENTAGE 35 41 24 0 0 100

Figure 11
45 40 35 percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly disaree disagree neutral 0 agree 0 strongly agree 24 35 41

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 45% respondents are disagree, 35% respondents are strongly disagree, and 24% respondents are neutral.

Table-12 Respondents wiliness to continue the service in the organization

RESPONSE Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total .

NO.OF RESPONDENTS 10 31 15 27 0 83

PERCENTAGE 12 37 18 33 0 100

Figure 12
40 35 30 percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly disaree disagree neutral agree 0 strongly agree 12 18 37 33

level of employee engagement

INFERENCE: It is inference that 37% respondents are disagree, 33% respondents are agree, 18% respondents are neutral, and 12% respondents are strongly disagree

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
Response on recognition and praise for doing good work

Response Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total

Frequency 18 22 18 20 5 83

Weight 5 4 3 2 1

weighted average

3.34

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE * FREQUENCY WEIGHTED AVERAGE = ---------------------------------------------------TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS

(5*18) + (4*22) + (3*18) + (2*20) + (1*5) ---------------------------------------------------83

3.34

Inference: It is inferred that the respondent are neither satisfied o r nor dissatisfied with the recognition and praise for doing good work. The mission and purpose of my company makes me feel that my job is important

Response Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total

Frequency 10 30 15 18 10 83

Weight 5 4 3 2 1

weighted average

3.41

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE * FREQUENCY WEIGHTED AVERAGE = ---------------------------------------------------TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS

(5*10) + (4*30) + (3*15) + (2*18) + (1*10) ---------------------------------------------------83

3.14

Inference: It is inferred that the respondent are neither satisfied or nor dissatisfied the mission purpose of the company feel that my job is important.

My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work

Response Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total

Frequency 40 24 10 3 6 83

Weight 5 4 3 2 1

weighted average

1.90

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE * FREQUENCY WEIGHTED AVERAGE = ---------------------------------------------------TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS

(5*40) + (4*24) + (3*10) + (2*3) + (1*6) ---------------------------------------------------83

1.90

Inference: It is inferred that the respondent are neither agree or disagree are committed to doing quality work.

In the last year, I have had opportunities to learn and grow.

Response Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total

Frequency 9 40 10 20 4 83

Weight 5 4 3 2 1

weighted average

3.36

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE * FREQUENCY WEIGHTED AVERAGE = ---------------------------------------------------TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS

(5*9) + (4*40) + (3*10) + (2*20) + (1*4) ---------------------------------------------------83

3.36

Inference: It is inferred that the respondent are neither neutral or disagree in last year they have opportunities to learn and grow.

The HR policies of HCL are employee friendly

Response Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total

Frequency 30 40 3 6 4 83

Weight 5 4 3 2 1

weighted average

4.04

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE * FREQUENCY WEIGHTED AVERAGE = ---------------------------------------------------TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS

(5*30) + (4*40) + (3*3) + (2*6) + (1*4) ---------------------------------------------------83

4.04

Inference: It is inferred that the respondent are neither neutral or disagree the hr policies of hcl are employee friendly.

3.2. CHI-SQUARE TEST

3.2.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT.

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS H0 There is no significance relationship between age group of the employees and terms of employment. H1 There is significance relationship between age group of the employees and terms of employment. TABLE: 3.2.1.1 Observed frequency (Oi): X S.NO Y highly dissatisfied 1 permanent 2 3 20 dissatisfied neutral satisfi ed 30 highly satisfied 6 61 TOTAL

contract

22

TOT AL
AGE OF EMPLOYEE - X

27

36

12

83

TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT

- Y

TABLE: 3.2.1.2 TO TEST CHI SQUARE: S.NO. 1 2 Oi 2 1 Ei 2.20 0.80 (Oi- Ei)2 -0.2 0.92 (Oi - Ei)2 Ei 0.018 10.58

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 2 20 7 30 6 6 6 TOTAL

3.67 1.33 19.84 7.16 26.46 9.54 8.82 3.18

-0.67 0.67 0.16 -0.16 3.54 -3.54 -2.82 2.82

0.12 0.34 1.29 3.58 0.47 1.31 0.90 2.5 20.298

Degrees of freedom

= (r-1)*(c-1) = (2-1)*(5-1) = 1*4 =4

Table value of chi square at 5% level of significance with degrees of freedom 4 is 9.418. Calculated value = 20.298. Table value = 9.49.

Hence, Table value >Calculated value Rejected Null Hypothesis INFERENCE: As the Null Hypothesis is rejected there is no significance relationship between age group of the employees and terms of employment FINDINGS The percentage of employees exhibiting engagement in work place at HCL BPOChennai. The survey results show that the gender and age of the employees do not play an important role in the engagement levels that they exhibit. However, the terms of employment in HCL does play a very significant role in determining the levels of engagement. Some of the results are i. 50% of the respondent are agree 17% of the respondent are strongly agree the employees knows what is expected of them at work. 27% of the employees feel that they do not know what is expected of them at work

ii.

Almost 76% of the employees strongly disagrees that their opinions are being counted at work

iii.

30% of the employees express that the mission/purpose of the company do not make them feel that their job is important.

iv.

40% of the employees feel that their employees are not committed to quality work

v.

40% of the respondent are disagree in the last year the employee did not get any opportunities to learn and grow.

vi.

Around 34% of the respondent are not happy with the remuneration that they receive. They are also unhappy that the HR policies are not employee friendly

Furthermore, i. Around 40% employees do not absent themselves even a single day. These employees are engaged, where as the highest percentage of absenteeism which is around 21% ii. iii. 48% of the employees who engaged feel that they are productive. Around 37%of the employees are disgareed to the intention to stay with the organization, 33% of the employee are agree that they intend to stay with the organization

SUGGESTIONS

The managers should be made aware of the situation and deliberate attempts to be made to change the engagement levels.

Special sessions programs can be conducted to for the employees to make them aware of the impact of employee engagement.

The HR policies have to be modified to suit both the contractual as well as permanent employees.

REFERENCES www.hcl.com http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/reports/blessingwhite_2011_ee_report.pdf http://www.totusconsulting.com/pdf/totus_UTB_Dec_09_21-01-10.pdf http://media.gallup.com/documents/whitepaper--well-beingintheworkplace.pdf http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2008/03/the_three_rules_of_employee_en.html Robinson, D., S. Perryman, and S. Hayday (2004) - "The Drivers of Employee Institute for Employment Studieshttp://www.employment-

Engagement".

studies.co.uk/summary/summary.php?id=408.