Antecedents and Perceived Consequences of Employee Engagement Activities in IT Companies: An On-the-Job Training Study

Author

Swity Prakash Medpalliwar, Dr. Jyoti Bhanage


Abstract

 This paper reports an on-the-job training (OJT) project on the antecedents and perceived consequences of employee engagement activities in IT companies, based on a case study of an IT services company. Verified employee-level performance and exit records were not available, so the study combines observation of HR and engagement activities, activity participation records and a short anonymous five-point questionnaire completed by 20 employees. Recognition, communication, leadership support, learning opportunities and employee participation were examined as antecedents; motivation, team collaboration, job satisfaction, intention to stay and perceived productivity were examined as perceived consequences. Between 220 and 265 of about 300 eligible employees attended each of four activities: recognition initiatives (88%), Hackathon (80%), festive celebrations (79%) and Kaizen Day (73%). Questionnaire means ranged from 3.5 to 4.0 (overall 3.81). Recognition, leadership support, learning, job satisfaction and intention to stay scored 4.0; communication, motivation and collaboration scored 3.5; and perceived productivity scored 3.8. The findings indicate broad participation and favourable perceptions, with communication about activities the main area for improvement. Because the sample is small and the data describe perceptions, the study does not claim measured effects on performance or employee exits.



Keywords

Employee engagement; Engagement activities; Recognition; Kaizen Day; Hackathon; Job satisfaction; Intention to stay; Human resource management



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  • Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their role in improving performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308–323.
  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
  • Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
  • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
  • Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.
  • Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
  • Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.


 

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons