This chapter discusses the introductory background of the entire study. It is composed
of the brief introduction of the employee engagement, statement of the problem,
research objectives, research questions, the significance of the study, research gap,
variables of the study, and ends with a summary.
The concept of employee engagement received extensive consideration in the
real world 2300 years ago when Alexander (356BC-323BC) was marching ahead and
conquer the unknown land battling for years across continents, and he had engaged
arm forces that were ready to abide the order of its commander (Prachi Juneja, 2000).
Most of the contemporary literature on employee engagement came from leading
consultancies firms (Aon Hewitt, CIPD, and Gallup). In a study at Topaz South
Dublin, it was reported that overall employee engagement (cognitive, emotional and
physical) arrived at 64% (Robert Knight, 2011). Many have claimed that employee
engagement predicts employee's outcomes, secretarial triumph and financial
performances (Shareholders return) (Bates 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter et al., 2002;
Richman, 2006). As noted by Robinson, Perryman & Haydey (2004), there has been
surprisingly little academic and empirical research on the topic that has become so
popular.
As a result, Employee Engagement has the appearance of being somewhat
faddish or what some might call, "old wine in a new bottle." An employee who is
more satisfied with their job is likely to more engaged than those who are less (Robert
Knight, 2011). Many researchers observe employee engagement as different from
satisfaction or staff motivation by focusing less on creating a contented workforce
and, or about making an organisation more productive (Furness, 2008). Engaged
employees who are stretchy, innovative, willing to contribute and go over and ahead
of the letters of their formal job description or contracts of employment (Hartley et al.,
1995).
