Employee Engagement and Productivity – Linking connectivity from manufacturing industry perspective

Abstract

Focus on core sectors and constant economic reforms creating Indian as a hub of global business center and one of the key country for global development. Through ―Make in India‖ initiative by the government of India, manufacturing industry targeting to contribute 25% of the GDP and to create 100 million new jobs by 2022. This calls for special focus on Indian manufacturing sector and to identify the key dimensions, which are having impact to such ambitious target. Employee engagement and productivity are the two variables which can influence organizational, personal, economic and social growth of the country and needs to be understood closely. This study endeavors to understand the inter relationship between employee engagement and the productivity of the manufacturing sector. At the same time the study investigates into the interplay between the drivers of employee engagement with the drivers of productivity in the manufacturing segment.

Full text

Volume-03 ISSN: 2455-3085 (Online)
Issue-09 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
September-2018 www.rrjournals.com [UGC Listed Journal]
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 592 | Page
Employee Engagement and Productivity – Linking connectivity from manufacturing
industry perspective
1Dr. Sasmita Choudhury & *2Dr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty
1Manager – RBSK, Rourkela Government Hospital (RGH), Rourkela, Odisha (India)
*2Senior Manager- Procurement, Larsen & Toubro Limited, Kansbahal, Sundargarh, Odisha (India)
ARTICLE DETAILS
ABSTRACT
Article History
Published Online: 07 September 2018
Focus on core sectors and constant economic reforms creating Indian as a hub of global
business center and one of the key country for global development. Through ―Make in India‖
initiative by the government of India, manufacturing industry targeting to contribute 25% of
the GDP and to create 100 million new jobs by 2022. This calls for special focus on Indian
manufacturing sector and to identify the key dimensions, which are having impact to such
ambitious target. Employee engagement and productivity are the two variables which can
influence organizational, personal, economic and social growth of the country and needs to
be understood closely. This study endeavors to understand the inter relationship between
employee engagement and the productivity of the manufacturing sector. At the same time the
study investigates into the interplay between the drivers of employee engagement with the
drivers of productivity in the manufacturing segment.
Keywords
Employee engagement; Productivity;
Manufacturing; Indian Industry; Drivers
of engagement; Drivers of productivity
*Corresponding Author
Email: manojacademics[at]gmail.com
1. Introduction
Currently Indian economy is the fastest growing economy
in the world as per International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
Central Statistics Organization (CSO). India is poised to be
within best three economy counties in the world within 10-15
years. Focus on core sectors and constant economic reforms
creating Indian as a hub of global business center and key
country for global development. About 15% of India‘s GDP and
50% of the total exports comes from the manufacturing sector
of India. The employment contribution to the nation by this
sector is more than 12% of the total work force. Through ―Make
in India‖ initiative by the government of India, manufacturing
industry targeting to contribute 25% of the GDP and to create
100 million new jobs by 2022 (www.ibef.org). This calls for
special focus on Indian manufacturing sector and to identify the
key dimensions, which are having impact to such ambitious
target.
Employee engagement is associated with many desirable
outcomes such as job satisfaction, intention to stay, high
productivity, job performance and customer satisfaction.
‗Engaged workers provide the company increased productivity,
higher financial returns, lower attrition, greater talent pool,
higher morale and create emotional engagement and loyal
customers‘ (www.Haygroup.com). The capacity of an
organization to manage its ‗employee engagement‘ is closely
linked to its ability to achieve high performance levels and
superior business results through increased productivity.
Productivity is the ability of an organization to produce goods or
services with the minimum input and it decides the growth story
and financial stability of the organization. Therefore
organizations must design a control system to keep a watch on
the actual output against resources consumed. The measuring
method, identification of actual resources and time scale must
be established to know the productivity levels of the
organization. Alan Lower (1985) advocated the importance of
productivity and identified five key reasons why productivity is
highly desired. In today‘s competitive world organizations only
can be survived with an optimum balance between cost, quality
and delivery. Productivity can influence all these three areas. In
global and boundary less economy manufacturing industries in
developed countries have to compete with low cost producing
developing countries for their existing products or have to
change the product portfolio. The economic growth of an
organization or country only can happen when more resources
are employed to create additional product or services, or by
increasing the productivity levels. As resources is becoming
limited, increased productivity becoming the only answer to the
problem. Industry and our community must be supported by
social infrastructure like public transport, education and health
care facility. Provision for such facilities kept from the national
income of the country. So it becomes an obligation for the
public organizations to increase their productivity and
contribute more financially to the government. Effective use of
resources and efficient production system by both private and
public sector manufacturing industry can reduce the inflation.
One of the secured methods of improving a nation‘s balance of
payment and controlling inflation is productivity. High standard
of living and improved quality of life is a common objective of
individual and nation, which can be achieved by improved
productivity (John Heap, 1992).
As we understand employee engagement and productivity
are the two variables which can influence organizational,
personal, economic and social growth of the country, it is more
important to understand the drivers of these two variables. This
study endeavors to understand the inter relationship between
employee engagement and the productivity of the
manufacturing sector. At the same time the study investigates
into the interplay between the drivers of employee engagement
with the drivers of productivity in the manufacturing segment.
2. Attributes of Employee Engagement

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 593 | Page
As the objective of the study is to link employee
engagement and productivity, we have tried to find out the
maximum number of engagement attributes traced so far by
the previous researchers. Apart from that the gaps also
considered to get the consolidated attributes of engagement.
Previous studies from 1990 to 2018 considered for getting the
attributes selecting prominent 68 studies across the globe.
During linking the engagement attributes with productivity
principal attributes considered.
Table 1: List of engagement attributes
Sl.
Researcher
Year
Drivers
1
Kahn
1990
Meaningfulness, Safety at work, Psychological availability at
work
2
Harter et al.
2002
Employee well-being, Positive work place
3
Harter et al.
2003
Clarity in expectations, Resources, Opportunity at work,
Recognition, Caring, Encouragement, Opinion honoring, Mission
clarity, Quality commitment, Congenial environment, Feedback
4
Loehr
2005
Enthusiasm, Greater value to the employer, Improved physical
health, Happiness
5
Cawe
2006
Leadership and management, Talent Management,
Communication and knowledge sharing, Organizations
reputation and branding
6
Greenberg and
Arakawa
2006
Optimism in the workplace, Employee well-being, Engaged
managers
7
Higgs
2006
Shared ownership, Investment for the development, positive
climate and organizational culture, Employee's immediate line
manager, Attractive financial rewards, Good benefits compared
to that of the competitor organizations
8
Saks
2006
Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment, Job characteristics,
Organizational citizenship
9
Seijts and Crim
2006
Connection,, Career development, Vision Clarity, Conveying
feedback, Congratulating performance, Recognition of
contribution, Control over jobs, Collaboration, Credibility,
Confidence
10
Stairs, et al.
2006
Organizational affiliation, Autonomy and influence, Work-work
and work-life balance, Opportunities for growth, Role factors,
Reward culture, Quality of relationships, Quality of supervision
and Work culture, Loyalty, Performance- motivation
11
Bhatnagar
2007
Organizational culture, Career planning, Incentives,
Organizational support
12
Chen
2007
Financial rewards, Participation in decision making process, Job
autonomy, Performance feedback in task level resources
13
Ryan
2007
Trust and integrity, Nature of the, Line of sight between
employee performance and company, Career Growth, Pride
about the company, Co-workers/team, Employee development,
Relationship with one's manager
14
Scottish Executive
Social Research
2007
Leadership, Effective management, Open and two-way
communication, Pay and benefits, Fair and equal treatment,
Employing the ‗right‘ workforce, Career development and
training, Working hours
15
Soldati
2007
Trust and integrity, Nature of the job, Line of sight, Career
Growth opportunities, Company Pride, Co-workers, Employee's
skills, Relationship
16
Bakker and
Schaufeli
2008
Commitment fulfilment, Affective motivational state, Work-
related well-being
17
Cristina and Patrick
2008
Organizational leadership, Job, and individual characteristic
resilience, Locus of control, Active coping style, Self-
esteem, Neuroticism, and extraversion, Ethical and
trustworthy organization
18
Macey and
Schneider
2008
Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment, Psychological
empowerment, Job involvement, Sense of self-presence in
the work
19
Miller
2008
Recognition, Workplace
culture, Communication, Managerial styles, Trust and
respect
20
Park & Rainey
2008
Quality of political leadership, Administrative leadership
21
Srivastava and
Bhatnagar
2008
Motivation in the work, Positive interpersonal support, Efficient
work environment, flexible work hours, Work-life balance, Paid
holidays, Buying lunches from restaurants, Birthday celebrations

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 594 | Page
22
Townsend and
Gebhardt
2008
Commitment of top management, Leadership
style, Employee involvement with a
structure, Communications, Training, Measurement and
Recognition, Gratitude and celebration
23
Ramadevi
2009
Teamwork, Pleasant working conditions, Treatment of
employees, Growth opportunities, Skill enhancement, Abundant
training opportunities
24
Simpson
2009
Organizational factors, Individual contributors
25
Xanthopoulou, et
al.
2009
Job resources, Personal resources
26
Southard
2010
Environmental influence, Work-unit engagement
27
Swarnalatha and
Prasanna
2010
Proactive workplace, Policies and practices of HR, Workplace
culture, Organizational communication, Managerial styles to trust
and respect, Leadership and company reputation, Access to
training and career opportunities, Work/life balance,
Empowerment
28
Walter, et al.
2010
Personal interest, Holding career discussions, Acknowledging
employee contributions, System of empowerment, Celebrating
milestones and successes
29
Xu and Thomas
2010
Supports team, Effective performance, Integrity
30
Chalofsky and
Krishna
2011
Motivation and satisfaction, Opportunities to use skills and
abilities, Relationship with immediate supervisor, The work itself,
Meaningfulness of job, Flexibility to balance life and work issues
31
Choudhary et al.
2011
General climate, OCTAPAC culture, Implementation of HRD
mechanism
32
Gruman and Saks
2011
Work conditions, Integrated Systems, Accountability
33
Krishnana
2011
Psychological contract, HR systems
34
Mani
2011
Employee Welfare, Empowerment, Employee Growth,
Interpersonal Relationships
35
Shuck, et al.
2011
Relationship development, Attachment to co-
workers, Workplace climate, Opportunities for learning
36
Slatten and
Mehmetoglu
2011
Perceptions of role benefit, Job autonomy, Strategic
attention
37
Abraham
2012
Cooperation between departments, Nature of job, Immediate
supervisor, Recognition to work, Equality and working
environment, Trust, Individual co-operation, Creativity
38
Men
2012
Products and services quality, Financial performance, Vision and
leadership, Work environment, Social responsibility
39
Robertson et al.
2012
Psychological well- being
40
Biswas et al.
2013
Perceived organizational support, Psychological contract
41
Choo et al.
2013
Organizational communication, Reward and recognition,
Employee development
42
Gupta & Kumar
2013
Fair performance appraisal system
43
Menguc et al.
2013
Supervisory support, Perceived autonomy
44
Agarwal
2014
Procedural justice, Interactional justice, Psychological contract
fulfilment
45
Anitha
2014
Working environment, Team and co-worker relationship
46
Bedarkar&Pandita
2014
Communication, Work life balance, Leadership
47
Bedarkar&Pandita
2014
Communication, Work life balance, Leadership
48
Choudhary et al.
2014
Climate quality
49
Rana et al.
2014
Job design, Job characteristics, Supervisor and co-worker
relationships, Workplace environment, HRD practices
50
Kaliannan&Adjovu
2015
Talent management practices
51
Nair &Salleh
2015
Appraisal justice, Trust
52
Popli& Rizvi
2015
Service orientation, Transformational leadership
53
Taneja et al.
2015
Invest in corporate social responsibility, Focus on customer,
Supporting workplace for democracy, Work life balance,
Rewarding culture
54
Ghosh et al.
2016
Variable rewards, Recognition
55
Hanaysha
2016
Organizational learning, Adopting effective human resource
practices
56
Mehrzi& Singh
2016
Leader, Team, Perceived organizational support, Organizational
culture
57
Tiwari &Lenka
2016
Psychological safety

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 595 | Page
58
Whiteoak&
Mohamed
2016
Workplace safety
59
Kwon et al.
2016
Empowering leadership, Quality of relationship between
employee and supervisor
60
Bandura et al.
2017
Honoring the voices of employees about their want,
Understanding what employee want to learn
61
Devendhiran et al.
2017
Spirituality
62
Gawke et al.
2017
Development of intrapreneurship skills
63
Jena et al.
2017
Trust, Transformational leadership, Wellbeing
64
Nazir& Islam
2017
Organizational support
65
Ruck et al.
2017
Organizational communication, Recognition of employee voice
66
Saks
2017
Structural approach to generate engagement, Removal of
engagement barriers
67
Sievert &Scholz
2017
Social tools in organization‘s internal communications
68
Sahu et al.
2018
Transformational leadership, Employer branding
From the literature review and expert opinion this study
has identified engagement drivers which to be linked to
productivity drivers are Strong leadership, Proper
compensation, Role clarity, Quality of job, Technology,
Responsibility, Training and development, Health and safety,
Retirement benefits, Feedback system, Team work, Working
environment, Welfare amenities, Shop floor arrangements and
Skilled based job allocation.
3. Productivity
Productivity is defined as the ratio between outputs to
input. It means how effectively one organization produces
product or service by using man, machine, raw material, labor,
technology and knowledge.
Equation of productivity = Output / Input
From the organizational perspective productivity means
the ratio between value of product or service created with the
cost of resource utilized for the same. As organizations are
more concerned about higher productivity the two variables of
productivity i.e. output and input needs to be understood
correctly. The productivity can be increased in four different
ways with respect to the above two variables.
 Increased production (output) with same input
 Increased production (output) with lesser input
 Same production (output) with reduced input
 Increased production (output) with same input
A simple model of the productivity may be as given in
Fig.4.1
Fig.1: Simple model of Productivity
Increased productivity provides competitive advantage to
the organization. So organizations are more focused to
increase productivity with reduced manpower, material,
space, money and time. This is possible with the use of high
end technology, choice of right material, utilization of just in
time concept, keeping the morale of the workforce high and
doing work smartly. The method or process may vary from
organizations to organization, but the above mentioned
basics remain same for all.
4. Drivers of productivity
Efficiency of a system, organization, machine or a person
is called as measure of productivity. Productivity is calculated
with reference to the total output produced within a specific
timeframe by utilizing the amount of resources like material,
machine, manpower and capital. Productivity is depends on
various factors like skill of the manpower, type of raw material,
available infrastructure, amount of capital employed,
environment, organizational culture, nature of business and
geographical position of the organization. This study referred
the productivity drivers of manufacturing industries from the
countries like New Zealand and UK to get a fair direction. Apart
from this expert opinions also counted to summarize the
productivity attributes.
UK government has identified five key drivers i.e.
investment, innovation, skill, enterprise and competition to
enhance productivity. Investment in the form of machinery,
manpower, building and equipment helps in producing more
with lesser time and better quality. Innovative ideas, new
technologies, new product and improved process boost

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 596 | Page
productivity. It can enhance make the production system more
rigid, efficient, effective and also can motivate the workforce.
Skill has a direct impact on productivity and the quality of
product. So organizations must enhance the skill levels of their
workforce by providing training with the pace of changing
technology. Enterprise defined here as grabbing new business
opportunities. This is applicable for existing as well as new
firms. New enterprise competes with existing firms by
employing innovative ideas and technologies. This forces
existing firms to produce more, change of product portfolio or
exit from the market. Competition improves productivity. This
calls for adaptation of new technology, process improvisation,
designing incentive systems for effective utilization of
resources, making efficient organization structure and working
in organized way.
The government of New Zealand, Ministry of business,
innovation and employment has derived eight driving factors of
productivity i.e. building leadership and management capability,
creating productive workplace, encouraging innovation,
adaptation of technology, skill enhancement, organizing work,
networking and collaboration and developing measuring
system what matters. Leadership is all about having a clear
vision for current and future business. Leader must identify the
business opportunities and motivate the workforce to achieve
that. Leadership is expected from an individual as well as from
teams. A productive workplace demands healthy and caring
relationship among the employees and their superiors. Such an
environment motivates employees and creates a positive
feeling towards organization which ultimately helps in achieving
higher productivity. Organization should honor the feelings,
innovative ideas and experience of the employees at work,
which will create a better and attracting place to work.
Organizations encourage employees to create innovative ideas
and use of latest technologies for higher productivity. Generally
organizations employ high skill workforce and highly paid
employees to extract the benefits of latest innovation and
technology. This helps them in increasing the market share in
comparison to their competitors. Skilled workforce are
innovative and capable of using new technologies. They can
produce high quality product or services with lesser time and
lesser mistakes. Usually they are more responsible, required
less supervision and better communicators. Productive &
vibrant workplace have standard processes and operating
structures in place, so that they can maintain higher production,
adopt new technology and sustain market changes. An
organized workplace can extract the best from their employees.
Sharing ideas and good manufacturing practices among peer
organizations can improve the productivity of the workplace.
Collaboration with technology leaders, new geographic
partners and honest suppliers can increase the business map
and market share. One must measure the value of the
investment made to achieve productivity against what actually
achieved. For example comparison can be made with the
investment in technology acquisition and skill enhancement
with quality of product and market share.
Literature review conducted from 1996 to 2013 to get the
drivers of productivity. The identified attributes are summarized
in table 2.
Table 2:Drivers of productivity from Literature review
Sl. No.
Researcher
Theme
Driver / factors of productivity
1
Kinni (1996)
To explore the factors of
world class manufacturing
(WCM) in Egypt
1. Customer focus
2. Quality
3. Agility
4. Employee involvement
(EI)
5. Supply management
6. Technology
7. Product development
8. Environmental
responsibility
9. Employee safety
10. Corporate citizenship
2
Pradhan and Barik
(2004)
To explore the productivity
drivers in Indian
Manufacturing Industry
1. Capital
2. Raw material
3. Infrastructure
3
Regan et al. (2005)
To explore the drivers of
high growth in
manufacturing SMEs
1. Innovation
2. Ownership
3. Organizational capacity
and capabilities
4. Strategic orientation
5. Operating environment
6. E-Commerce
4
DTI-UK,
Department of trade
and industry (2006)
Study of productivity
drivers of UK
manufacturing sector
1. Investment
2. Innovation
3. Skills
4. Enterprise
5. Competition

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 597 | Page
5
Nesta (2007)
Study of linkage of
knowledge and
productivity
1. Knowledge diversity
2. Knowledge capital
3. Knowledge relatedness
6
Coccia (2008)
To find out the optimal
rate of research and
development
investment to maximize
productivity
growth
1. Investment in Research
and Development
2. Innovation
3. Technology
7
Roper et al. (2008)
Study of value Chain
innovation and its impact
on firm productivity
1. Skill building
2. Capital investment
3. Utilization of other
resources
8
Boothby et al.
(2010)
Linkage of technology
adoption and training on
productivity (Area of
research - Canada)
1. Invest in skill building
2. Adoption of new
technology
3. Intensive training
9
Cardona et al.
(2013)
Study of Impact of
information
communication and
technology on productivity
1. Communication
technologies
10
Ministry of
business, New
Zealand (2013)
To find out factors driver
productivity in New
Zealand
1. Building leadership and
management capability
2. Creating productive
workplace cultures
3. Encouraging Innovation
and the use of
technology
4. Investing in people and
skills
5. Organizing work
6. Networking and
collaboration
7. Measuring what matters
Previous studies carried out in manufacturing sectors to
derive factors of productivity were found to be inadequate. After
referring the previous researches and productivity drivers of
two developing counties this study is undertaken with the help
of experts in this field to derive the productivity drivers
especially with reference to Indian manufacturing Industry. The
attributes identified as productivity drivers for Indian
manufacturing industry are Infrastructure, Raw material, Skill
and competency, Process, Attitude of employee,
Communication, Safety and health, Working environment,
Shop floor arrangement, Welfare amenities, Technology,
Compensation, Organizational climate, Control and review
mechanism.
5. Research methodology
This study largely divided in to three segments. In segment
one employee engagement attributes from both primary and
secondary data are identified. In the second phase drivers of
productivity are identified through secondary data as well as
from expert opinions. In third phase Summarized form of both
attributes were linked. During expert opinion employees from
manufacturing industry are considered those who are having at
least 10 years of working experience. For employee
engagement segment views of 29 senior executives and for
productivity drivers twenty three senior executives are selected.
The manufacturing industry are from core sectors and 7
manufacturing units selected across India which are having at
least 500 manpower and 4000 million revenue.
6. Linkage between productivity and employee
engagement
The above studies clearly indicate that productivity and
employee engagement are closely related in manufacturing
sector. Many factors of employee engagement are directly
linked to productivity and many factors are indirectly linked.
Some factors of employee engagement are also linked to
multiple attributes of productivity. Graphical representation of
the same is shown in fig.2. Employee engagement and
productivity drivers are summarized and explained briefly in
table 2.

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 598 | Page
Fig.2: Drivers of employee engagement and its linkage with productivity drivers
Table 2: Linkage of drivers of employee engagement with productivity drivers
Drivers of Employee
Engagement
Driver of productivity
Explanation
Strong leadership
Organization climate
Leadership is considered as an attribute of organizational climate.
Strong leadership motivates employees to think positive about the
organization. They also think internally to contribute to the
organizational goals and align themselves with the objective of the
leaders. Employees also get highly motivated with strong leadership.
Proper compensation
Compensation
Directly linked
Role clarity
Organization climate
Role clarity indicates positive organizational climate and clear
communication between employee and top management.
Communication
Quality of job
Infrastructure
Quality of job largely depends on availability of infrastructure, raw
Linkage between drivers of of Employee engagement with drivers of Productivity
Drivers of Engagement Drivers of Productivity
- Strong Leadership Innovation
- Proper Compensation Investment
- Role clarity Infrastructure
- Quality of Job Raw Material
- Technology Skill & Competency
- Responsibility Process
- Training & Development Attitude of Employee
- Halth and Safety Communication (Operational)
- Retirement Benefits Safety & Health
- Feedback system Technology
- Team Work Organization Climate
- Working Environment Compensation
- Welfare Amenities Control & Review mechanism
- Shop floor arrangments Competetion
- Skilled based job allocation

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 599 | Page
Raw material
material, skill and attitude of the employee.
Skill and competency
Technology
Technology
Directly linked
Responsibility
Attitude of Employee
Responsibility can be given based on the skill and attitude of an
employee. This depends on the nature of the work.
Skill and Competency
Training and
development
Skill and competency
Training in the form of skill and competency development enhances
the performance of an employee. Training and development also
helps in establishing and improving manufacturing processes.
Process
Health and safety
Safety and Health
Health care facility is considered as one type of compensation. Safe
working environment motivates employees to perform better.
Compensation
Retirement benefits
Compensation
Retirement benefits are a part of compensation package. But it has
very deeper meaning in the sense that organization takes care of the
employees after retirement also. This acts as a motivator to join and
continue with such type of facility providing industry.
Organizational Climate
Feedback system
Control and Review mechanism
Feedback acts as a review and control mechanism of any system. It
helps manufacturing system to reduce cycle time, idle time and
increasing product quality. Feedback system also acts as a
communication tool across the organization.
Communication
Team work
Organizational Climate
Building teams and nurturing the teams depend upon organizational
climate. Team work enhances productivity as well as personal
relationship among employees.
Working environment
Organizational Climate
Productivity of work place and motivation of employees largely
depend on working environment. The working climate includes proper
temperature in the work zone, noise level and vibration effects. This
can be linked to organizational climate and health and safety aspect
of employee.
Health and Safety
Welfare amenities
Infrastructure
Welfare amenities such as housing facility near work i.e. Colony,
Schooling and Medical Centre help in attracting employees. If these
needs are solved, they concentrate more in work than other factors.
These facilities are also considered as indirect compensation.
Compensation
Shop floor arrangements
Process
Proper arrangement of machines, material and related resources
improve productivity and reduces set-up and idle times. Due to this
employee takes the pride of being more productive.
Skilled based job
allocation
Skill and competency
Effective productivity depends on suitable allocation of job, based on
skill. The employees those who are having high process knowledge
or efficiency are preferred in critical jobs or specific tasks during
production.
Process
7. Conclusion
In this competitive world survival of business largely
depends on the productivity levels of the organization.
Improved productivity not only contributes to the competitive
advantage but also helps in staying in the business; compete
with world leading organizations, time to market, effective
utilization of resources and production of quality outputs. This
can be achieved by investment in physical assets, skill
enhancement, and effective utilization of resources,
innovativeness, and adaptation of technology, making creating
workplace, safe workplace and high morale of the workforce.
The productivity drivers explored by this study from various
studies and expert opinion are investment, skill enhancement,
innovation, enterprise, competition, building leadership and
management capability, creating productive workplace,
innovation, adaptation of technology, organizing work,
networking and collaboration, measuring what matters,
customer focus, quality, agility, employee involvement, supply
chain management, product development, environment
responsibility, employee safety and corporate citizenship.
These drivers are directly or indirectly linked to employee
engagement drivers like Strong leadership, Proper
compensation, Role clarity, Quality of job, Technology,
Responsibility, Training and development, Health and safety,
Retirement benefits, Feedback system, Team work, Working
environment, Welfare amenities, Shop floor arrangements and
Skilled based job allocation. From this study it is very clear that
both productivity and engagement drivers are closely linked
and are having impact on each other.
References
1. Boothby, D., Dufour, A. and Tang, J., Technology adoption,
training and productivity performance, Research Policy, Vol.
39, 2010,pp.650–661.
2. Cardona, M., Kretschmer, T. and Strobel, T., ICT and
productivity: conclusions from the empirical literature,
Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 25,2013,pp.109–125.
3. Coccia, M., What is the optimal rate of R and D investment to
maximize productivity growth? Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 76, No.3,2009, pp. 433–446.
4. DTI, UK Productivity and Competitiveness Indicators 2006,
London, Department of Trade and Industry, 2006.

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 600 | Page
5. Fawcett, N. and Cameron, G., The Five Drivers: An Empirical
Review , Department Of Economics, Vol. 252, 2005, pp.1-33.
6. Heap, J., Productivity Management: A Fresh Approach,
Cassell Educational Limited, London, 1992.
7. Kinni, T., America‘s best: Industry Week‘s Guide to World-
class Manufacturing Plants, Wiley, New York, 1996.
8. Lawlor, A., Productivity Improvement Manual, Gower
Publishing company, Aldershot, Hants, 1985.
9. Nesta, L., Knowledge and productivity in the world‘s largest
manufacturing corporations, Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, Vol. 67, 2008, pp. 886–902.
10. Pradhan, G. and Barik, K., Sustainability of output growth in
Indian manufacturing: a decomposition analysis of selected
industries. Economics Working Paper Series, 2000,p.14.
11. Roper, S., Jun, D., James and Love, H. , Modelling the
innovation value chain, Research Policy, Vol. 37,2008,
pp.961–977.
12. Abraham, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction as an Antecedent to
Employee Engagement. SIES Journal of Management, 8(2).
13. Agarwal, U. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work
behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1),
41-73.
14. Al Mehrzi, N., & Singh, S. K. (2016). Competing through
employee engagement: a proposed framework. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6),
831-843.
15. Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement
and their impact on employee performance. International
journal of productivity and performance management.
16. Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement
and their impact on employee performance. International
journal of productivity and performance management.
17. Bakker, A. B. and Schaufeli, W. B., Positive organizational
behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, 2008,pp.147–
154.
18. Bandura, R. P., Bandura, R. P., Lyons, P. R., & Lyons, P. R.
(2017). Using a skill-building tool to enhance employee
engagement. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 25(6), 1-5.
19. Bedarkar, M., &Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of
employee engagement impacting employee
performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133,
106-115.
20. Bedarkar, M., &Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of
employee engagement impacting employee
performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133,
106-115.
21. Bhatnagar, J., Talent management strategy of employee
engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention,
Employee Relations Vol. 29, No. 6, 2007, pp. 640-663.
22. Bhatnagar, J., Talent management strategy of employee
engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention,
Employee Relations Vol. 29, No. 6, 2007, pp. 640-663.
23. Biswas, S., Varma, A., &Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking
distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement
through social exchange: a field study in India. The
International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(8), 1570-1587.
24. Cawe, M., Factors Contributing To Employee Engagement In
South Africa, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2006, pp. 1-
113.
25. Chalofsky, N., and Krishna, V., Meaningfulness,
Commitment, and Engagement: The Intersection of a Deeper
Level of Intrinsic Motivation, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 11, No. 2 , 2009,pp.189-203.
26. Chalofsky, N., and Krishna, V., Meaningfulness,
Commitment, and Engagement: The Intersection of a Deeper
Level of Intrinsic Motivation, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 11, No. 2 , 2009,pp.189-203.
27. Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., &Barua, M. (2011). Relation
between human resource development climate and
employee engagement: Results from India. Europe‘s Journal
of Psychology, 7(4), 664-685.
28. Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., &Barua, M. K. (2014).
Organizational climate, climate strength and work
engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133,
291-303.
29. Chen, J., Study of employee engagement in Chinese
context, Simon Fraser University,2007.
30. Choo, L. S., Mat, N. and Al-Omari, M., Organizational
practices and employee engagement: a case of Malaysia
electronics manufacturing firms, Business Strategy Series,
Vol. 14, No: 1, 2013,pp.3-10.
31. Cristina, M. S. W. and Patrick, D. P.,A perfect match:
decoding employee engagement – Part I: Engaging cultures
and leaders, Industrial And Commercial Training , Vol. 40,
No. 3., 2008, pp. 122-128.
32. Devendhiran, S., Devendhiran, S., Wesley, J. R., & Wesley,
J. R. (2017). Spirituality at work: enhancing levels of
employee engagement. Development and Learning in
Organizations: An International Journal, 31(5), 9-13.
33. Devendhiran, S., Devendhiran, S., Wesley, J. R., & Wesley,
J. R. (2017). Spirituality at work: enhancing levels of
employee engagement. Development and Learning in
Organizations: An International Journal, 31(5), 9-13.
34. Employee Engagement, Public Relations Review, Vol. 38,
2012, pp. 171– 173.
35. Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2017).
Employee intrapreneurship and work engagement: A latent
change score approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100,
88-100.
36. Ghosh, P., Rai, A., Chauhan, R., Baranwal, G., & Srivastava,
D. (2016). Rewards and recognition to engage private bank
employees: Exploring the ―obligation
dimension‖. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1738-
1751.
37. Goffman, E., Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of
interaction, Oxford, England: Bobbs-Merrill.,1961, pp. 1-152.
38. Greenberg, M. and Arakawa, D. , Optimistic Managers and
Their Influence on Productivity and Employee Engagement
in a Technology Organization, Master of Applied Positive
Psychology, 2006, pp. 1-33.
39. Gruman, J. A., and Saks, A. M., Performance management
and employee engagement, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 21, 2011, pp. 123–136.
40. Gupta, V., and Kumar, S. Impact of performance appraisal
justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian
professional, Employee Relations ,Vol. 35, No. 1, 2013,pp.
61-78.
41. Gupta, V., and Kumar, S. Impact of performance appraisal
justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian
professional, Employee Relations ,Vol. 35, No. 1, 2013,pp.
61-78.
42. Hanaysha, J. (2016). Testing the effects of employee
engagement, work environment, and organizational learning
on organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 229, 289-297.
43. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., and Killham, E. A., Employee
Engagement, Satisfaction, and Business-Unit-Level
Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, The Gallup Organization,
Princeton, 2003,pp.1-53.
44. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. ,Business-unit-
level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee
engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 2, 2002, pp. 268-
279.

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 601 | Page
45. Harter, James K., F. L. Schmidt, E. A. Killham, and S.
Agrawal. "The relationship between engagement at work and
organizational outcomes." Gallup Inc. Retrieved November
29, 2009, 2012.
46. Higgs, M., Building employee engagement, Henley Manager
Update, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2006, pp.31-42.
47. Jena, L. K., Pradhan, S., &Panigrahy, N. P. (2017). Pursuit of
organisational trust: Role of employee engagement,
psychological well-being and transformational
leadership. Asia Pacific Management Review.
48. Kahn, W. A., Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work, The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 33,No.4,1990, pp. 692-724.
49. Kaliannan, M., &Adjovu, S. N. (2015). Effective employee
engagement and organizational success: a case
study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 161-
168.
50. Krishnan, T. N., Understanding employment relationship in
Indian organizations through the lens of psychological
contracts, Employee Relations, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2011, pp.
551-569.
51. Krishnan, T. N., Understanding employment relationship in
Indian organizations through the lens of psychological
contracts, Employee Relations, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2011, pp.
551-569.
52. Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E.and Truss, K.,
Employee Engagement: A Literature Review, Kingston
Business School , Kingston University Working Paper, No
19,2008.
53. Kwon, B., Farndale, E., & Park, J. G. (2016). Employee voice
and work engagement: Macro, meso, and micro-level drivers
of convergence?.Human Resource Management
Review, 26(4), 327-337.
54. Loehr, J. , Become fully engaged, Leadership Excellence,
Vol. 22, No. 2, 2005, p. 14.
55. Macey, W. B., Schneider, B., The Meaning of Employee
Engagement, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.
1,2008, pp.3–30.
56. Mani, V., Analysis of Employee Engagement and its
Predictors, International Journal of Human Resource
Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2,2011, pp.15-26.
57. Mani, V., Analysis of Employee Engagement and its
Predictors, International Journal of Human Resource
Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2,2011, pp.15-26.
58. Men, L. R., CEO credibility, perceived organizational
reputation, and employee engagement, 2012.
59. Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, , M. and Haddad, A., To be
engaged or not to be engaged: The antecedents and
consequences of service employee engagement, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66, 2013, pp. 2163–2170.
60. Miller, S. L. An Employee Engagement Assessment of XYZ
Manufacturing Company, PhD diss., University of Wisconsin,
2008.
61. Nair, M. S., &Salleh, R. (2015). Linking Performance
Appraisal Justice, Trust, and Employee Engagement: A
Conceptual Framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 211, 1155-1162.
62. Nazir, O., & Islam, J. U. (2017). Enhancing organizational
commitment and employee performance through employee
engagement: An empirical check. South Asian Journal of
Business Studies, 6(1), 98-114.
63. Nazir, O., Nazir, O., Islam, J. U., & Islam, J. U. (2017).
Enhancing organizational commitment and employee
performance through employee engagement: An empirical
check. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 6(1), 98-
114.
64. Park, S. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2008). Leadership and public
service motivation in US federal agencies. International
public management journal, 11(1), 109-142.
65. Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. A. (2015). Exploring the relationship
between service orientation, employee engagement and
perceived leadership style: a study of managers in the
private service sector organizations in India. Journal of
Services Marketing, 29(1), 59-70.
66. Ramadevi, V., Employee engagement is a two-way street,
Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 17,
No. 2,2009, pp. 3-4.
67. Ramadevi, V., Employee engagement is a two-way street,
Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 17,
No. 2,2009, pp. 3-4.
68. Rana, S., Ardichvili, A., &Tkachenko, O. (2014). A theoretical
model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee
engagement: Dubin's method. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 26(3/4), 249-266.
69. Robertson, I. T., Birch, A. J., Cary L. and Cooper , Job and
work attitudes, engagement and employee performance
Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2012,pp.
224-232.
70. Ruck, K., Welch, M., & Menara, B. (2017). Employee voice:
An antecedent to organisational engagement?. Public
Relations Review.
71. Sahu, S., Pathardikar, A., & Kumar, A. (2018).
Transformational leadership and turnover: Mediating effects
of employee engagement, employer branding, and
psychological attachment. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 39(1), 82-99.
72. Saks, A. M., (2017). Translating Employee Engagement
Research into Practice. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 76—
86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.003
73. Saks, Alan, M., Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, No.
7, 2006, pp. 600-619.
74. Seijts, G. H. and Crim, D., What engages employees the
most or, The Ten C‘s of employee Engagement, Ivey
Business Journal, March/April,2006, pp. 1-6.
75. SHRM Research Quarterly, 2007, pp. 2-11.
76. Shuck, M. B., Rocco and T. S., Albornoz, C. A., Exploring
employee engagement from the employee perspective:
implications for HRD, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2011, pp. 300-325.
77. Sievert, H., &Scholz, C. (2017). Engaging employees in (at
least partly) disengaged companies. Results of an interview
survey within about 500 German corporations on the growing
importance of digital engagement via internal social
media. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 894-903.
78. Simpson, M. R., Engagement at work: A review of the
literature, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 46,
2009, pp. 1012–1024.
79. Slatten, T. and Mehmetoglu, M., Antecedents and effects of
engaged frontline employees A study from the hospitality
industry, Managing Service Quality Vol. 21, No. 1, 2011, pp.
88-107.
80. Soldati, P., Employee Engagement: what exactly is it?
Management Issues, 2007.
81. Southard, R. N. "Employee Engagement and Service
Quality." Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington State University,
2010.
82. Srivastava, P. and Bhatnagar, J., Talent acquisition due
diligence leading to high employee engagement: case of
Motorola India MDB, Industrial And Commercial Training,
Vol. 40,No. 5, 2008, pp. 253-260.
83. Srivastava, P. and Bhatnagar, J., Talent acquisition due
diligence leading to high employee engagement: case of
Motorola India MDB, Industrial And Commercial Training,
Vol. 40,No. 5, 2008, pp. 253-260.
84. Stairs, M., Galpin, M., Page, N. and Linley, A. , Retention on
a knife edge: The role of employee engagement in talent

Volume-03, Issue-09, September-2018 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
© RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 602 | Page
management, Selection and Development Review, Vol. 22,
No. 5, 2006,pp.19-23.
85. Swarnalatha, C., & Prasanna, T. S. (2013). Employee
engagement: The concept. International Journal of
Management Research and Review, 3, 3872-3882.
86. Taneja, S., Sewell, S. S., & Odom, R. Y. (2015). A culture of
employee engagement: A strategic perspective for global
managers. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(3), 46-56.
87. Tiwari, B., &Lenka, U. (2016). Building psychological safety
for employee engagement in post-recession. Development
and Learning in Organizations: An International
Journal, 30(1), 19-22.
88. Tiwari, B., &Lenka, U. (2016). Building psychological safety
for employee engagement in post-recession. Development
and Learning in Organizations: An International
Journal, 30(1), 19-22.
89. Townsend, P. and Gebhardt, J., Employee engagement –
completely, Human Resource Management International
Digest , Vol. 16, No. 3, 2008, pp. 22-24.
90. Walter, G. Tymon,J. , Stephen,A., J., Stumpf, Rechard, R.
and Smith, Manager support predicts turnover of
professionals in India, Career Development International,
Vol. 16, No. 3, 2011, pp. 293-312.
91. Walter, G. Tymon,J. , Stephen,A., J., Stumpf, Rechard, R.
and Smith, Manager support predicts turnover of
professionals in India, Career Development International,
Vol. 16, No. 3, 2011, pp. 293-312.
92. Whiteoak, J. W., & Mohamed, S. (2016). Employee
engagement, boredom and frontline construction workers
feeling safe in their workplace. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 93, 291-298.
93. Xanthopoulou, D.,Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.
B., Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal
resources, and work engagement, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 74, 2009,pp. 235–244.
94. Xu, J., Thomas, H. C., How can leaders achieve high
employee engagement?, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2010, pp. 399-416.
95. www.citehr.com
96. www.EzineArticles.com/6376981
97. www.Haygroup.com
98. www.ibef.com
99. www.ibef.org/industry/manufacturing-sector-india.aspx
100. www.Lawsociety.mb.ca
101. www.scotland.gov.uk
102. www.shrm.org
103. www.ukessays.com