Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Introduction
Employee Engagement is arguably the
most critical metric for organisations and
Institutions in the 21 st Century. Most if
not all, of the other key measures that
reflect
and
drive
organisational
performance are products of engaged
committed employees. In 1999, the book
First Break all the Rules helped the term
employee engagement become popular
in the world
Engagement
is
or
negative
emotional
Statement of Problem
Despite evidence of how destructive employee burnout or disengagement can
be, studies
from
the
human
services field
on
engagement, are limited. Surprisingly little academic and empirical research has
been conducted overall on the comparative analysis on the employee
engagement initiatives among Corporates v/s Higher educational Institutions,
and a large portion of it comes from the business management community.
Additionally, to address this problem, more research that focuses specifically on
the engagement levels of workers in human services like teaching occupations is
necessary. Empirical data are needed so professionals can better understand
employee engagement and use what they learn about it to develop managerial
interventions and alternative strategies that foster engagement for human
services workers.
Objectives
The main objective of this proposed study is to find the differences in the
employee engagement practices between the Corporates and Higher
educational Institutions.
The article lists down various employee engagement activities being held at
the corporate houses and the Higher educational Institutions. At the end,
implications for theory, further research and practices are discussed.
Methodology
As employee engagement is an emerging topic
and being studied by different researchers on
various aspects of the topic with varied
conceptualization, an integrative literature review
method is adopted and presented in this work in a
descriptive study manner. The Dependent
variable in this study was the employees total
score on the nine item employee engagement
scale. The Independent variables were the
employees number of years of service in the
agency,
Work,
Reward
and
recognition,
Opportunity, Communication effectiveness, team
work and recreational activities.
Distribution of Sample
GENDER
Frequency
Percent
Male
208
59.4
Female
142
40.6
Total
350
100.0
Age
Frequency
Percent
Below 30 years
Between 31 - 40
Years
Above 41 years
138
39.4
155
44.3
57
16.3
Total
350
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Lectures
Process
Executives
Consultant
Assistant
Manager
Manager
Total
167
47.7
149
42.6
14
4.0
11
3.1
9
350
2.6
100.0
Work
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
.195
.560
.997
Consultant
2.064
1.382
.567
Assistant
Manager
-4.222
1.546
.051
Manager
-.222
1.699
1.000
Lecture
Process
s
Executives
Reward
and
Recogniti
on
Oppor
tunity
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
-1.229*
.279
.000
Consultant
Assistant
Manager
Manager
.942
-3.772*
.690
.772
.650
.000
-3.772*
.849
.000
Process
Executives
-1.663*
.411
.001
Consultant
-.165
1.015
1.000
Assistant
Manager
-5.737*
1.135
.000
Manager
-.737
1.248
.976
Process
Lecture
Executives
s
Lectur
es
Team
Work
Lecture
s
Comm Lecture
unicati
s
on
Process
Executives
-.310
.427
.950
Consultant
2.820
1.053
.059
Assistant
Manager
Manager
Process
Executives
-4.323*
1.178
.003
-3.323
-.075
1.295
.410
.079
1.000
Consultant
.524
1.013
.986
Assistant
Manager
Manager
-3.048
1.134
.058
-2.048
1.246
.471
Quality
Of
Life
Recrea
tional
Activiti
es
Lecture
s
Lecture
s
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
Process
Executives
-.690
.442
.522
Consultant
Assistant
Manager
Manager
3.787*
-.784
1.091
1.221
.005
.968
-.784
1.342
.977
Process
Executives
Consultant
Assistant
Manager
Manager
-1.163*
.285
.001
-1.017
-2.874*
.705
.788
.600
.003
-4.874*
.867
.000
Job
Perform
ance
Job
Satisfa
ction
Lecture
s
Lecture
s
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
Process
Executives
-.506*
.120
.000
Consultant
Assistant
Manager
Manager
.250
-.036
.297
.333
.918
1.000
-.036
.366
1.000
Process
Executives
Consultant
Assistant
Manager
Manager
-.486*
.145
.008
-1.897*
-2.754*
.358
.401
.000
.000
.246
.441
.981
Discussion
The work burden of a teacher may look likes easy than a employee from a corporate, but teaching requires lo of
physical and mental work at the same time, but in case of Corporates they have only mental work (i.e.,) think
and execute, and they do not have any physical work while comparing with teachers of educational institutions
In case of Corporates, if an employee is more dedicated and hard worker means, he will be motivated through
awards and recognitions, but in case of teaching this is totally missing. Most of educational institutions are not
willing to recognize the hard work and efforts made by their teaching faculty members on various dimensions
towards the growth of the organisation.
Opportunity is very common and easy for the employees those are working in Corporates or industry on various
aspects like, salary hike, promotion and transfer etc., but in case of educational sector, it is not a easy task to
get high salary in early stages in the profession also there is a long gap between the promotional scales fixed
and transfer is also not possible for the teachers working in private sector.
Teamwork is possible in the Corporates, the employees belongs to the same tean shall joint and work together
in order to achieve their task or goal, but in case of teaching, a teacher is supposed to face his/ her challenges
in single, as there is no scope for the team work in teaching profession.(as per the data collected)
Communication is essential for the working effectiveness of all profession, hence in Corporates and teaching
there is no significant different on the communication aspect. Also there is no burning issue on the
communication on these establishments.
The quality of life of an corporate employee the comparatively better than the teaching people, also there is one
more thing, in some exceptional case both of them have poor quality oif life as well as recreational activities.
Performance Review
Shared
values
were
the
strongest
factor
that
influences
Conclusion
Results from this study contributed to the limited empirical research on
the topic of employee engagement. Specifically, it contributed the first
statistical information about rates of engagement among corporate
and higher educational institutions. Because employee engagement is
now understood to be a critical component of successful organizational
outcomes, it needs to be closely examined in the social work field, if for
no other reason that agencies are held increasingly more accountable
for outcomes, and funding is often tied to success rates. An engaged
staff can contribute significantly to reaching positive outcomes.
Therefore, the engagement concept should be at the forefront of social
work research and policy implementation.
engagement.
Further
exploration
of
teaches
work