1. THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ON
ORGANIZATIONALPERFORMANCE.
PRESENTEDBY,
ROBINSMATHEW
15 MMH122

2. Company profile
 The Hotel is situated in the Electronic city, Bangalore, Karnataka.
 Total No. of Rooms is 264
 Restaurant
 Bar
 Business centre
 Fitness centre & swimming pool

3. About
Head quarter – Denham,UK.
Brands - 12
No. of Hotels – 5032 & 1028 pipeline.
Regions – 4 major regions world wide
American - Atlanta
Europien - Denham
Greater China - Shankai
AMEA - Singapore

4. Significance of the Study
 Employee engagement is stronger predictor of positive organizational performance clearly
showing the two-way relationship between employer and employee.
 Engaged employees are emotionally attached to their organization and highly involved in their job
with a great enthusiasm for the success of their employer, going extra mile beyond the
employment contractual agreement.
 Studies have found positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational
performance outcomes: employee retention, productivity, profitability, customer loyalty and
safety.
 Engaged employees strive hard towards achieving the companies target, keeping its reputation.
 Engaged employees are satisfied with their job and committed.

5. Research gap
• There have been studies conducted on the ‘impact of employee engagement and organizational
performance.’
• Since now there were no study conducted on my topic.

6. Purpose of the study
 The purpose of my research is to find the ‘impact of Employee engagement on organizational
Performance.’

7. Objectives of the study
i.To analyse effect of Employee engagement activities on Organizational Performance.
ii. To measure the influence of individual Engagement Elements on Organizational performance.
iii. To know the role of Compensation Benefits on Organizational Performance.
iv. To know whether the use of Engagement Elements leads to better rating on Engagement Activities.

8. Hypothesis
 There is no positive correlation between and Employee Engagement activities on Organizational
Performance
 There is no positive correlation between individual Engagement Elements and Organizational
Performance.
 There is no positive correlation between Compensation Benefits and Organizational Performance.
 There is no positive correlation between Engagement Elements and Engagement Activities.

9. Methodology
 The sample size = 40
 Sample Frame = 293
 Data was collected through questionnaire
 Convenience sampling was used for collecting data
 Software used for analysing the data = SPSS
 Statistical tool used for analysis are Correlation, regression and
descriptive statistics.

10. RESEARCH DEMOGRAPHY

11. GENDER
From the pie chart it is clear
that most of the respondents
were male.
75% of respondents were male
and 25% were female.

12. STATE
The chart shows that there are equal
number of respondents from local area
and other State, that is of 50% each

13. AGE
LEVEL
From this chart it can be said that
the respondents fall under 3
categories:
Even though there are no much
difference in the number of different
age groups, the more number of
respondents fall under the age group
of 25-35, which is to be 37.5%.

14. JOB BAND
The chart shows that most of the
respondents come under the job band of 8-
10, who are the base of the hotel
That is almost 60%

15. DEPARTMENT
As shown in the chart, there were
respondents from 10 various department
which is from top level management to the
lower level.
Even though, the more number of
respondents were from the department of
House keeping and Laundry, which is about
to be 20%.

16. DATA
ANALYSIS

17. Objective 1: To analyse effect of Employee engagement activities on Organizational Performance
Ho : There is no positive correlation between and Employee Engagement activities on
Organizational Performance
Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between engagement
activities and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 1 0.573**
.000
40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation 0.573** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed)

18. Regression
Organizational
performance
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
0.573** .328 0.896 .573 4.311 .000
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in Engagement activities will lead to .328 change in
organizational performance. 32.8% of engagement activities depends on organizational performance.

19. Objective 2: To measure the influence of individual Engagement Elements on Organizational performance.
Ho: There is no positive correlation between individual Engagement Elements and Organizational Performance.
Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between Feedback
system and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
Feedback system ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Feedback system Pearson Correlation 1 .577**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation .577** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
**.correlation Is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

20. Regression
Organizational
performance
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
0.541 .293 0.204 0.541 3.964 0.000
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in organizational performance will lead to .293
change in organizational performance. 29.3% of feedback system depends on organizational performance.

21. Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it seen that, thus the p-value is greater than 0.05 the null hypothesis is
accepted in the case of the individual engagement element, and there is a positive correlation between well
established mission and vision and organizational performance.
Correlations
Well established mission &
vision ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Well established mission & vision Pearson Correlation 1 .234
Sig. (2-tailed) .147
N 40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation .234 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .147
N 40 40

22. Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between Cross exposure
training and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
Cross exposure training ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Cross exposure training Pearson Correlation 1 .541**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation .541** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed)

23. Regression
Organizational
performance
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
.541 .293 .204 .541 3.964 .000
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in Cross exposure training will lead to .328 change in
organizational performance. 32.8% of Cross exposure training depends on organizational performance.

24. Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between 2 way
communication and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
2 way communication ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
2 way communication Pearson Correlation 1 .578**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation .578** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

25. Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between Opportunity
for career development and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
Opportunity for career
development ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Opportunity for career
development
Pearson Correlation 1 .513**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation .513** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 40 40
**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

26. Regression
Organizational
performance
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
.578 .334 .158 .578 4.362 .000
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in 2 way communication will lead to .334 change in
organizational performance. 33.4 % of 2 way communication depends on organizational performance.

27. Regression
Organizational
performance
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
.513 .263 .165 .513 3.686 .001
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in Opportunity for career development will lead to
.263 change in organizational performance. 26.3 % of opportunity for career development depends on organizational performance.

28. Objective 3: To know the role of Compensation Benefits on Organizational Performance.
Ho : There is no positive correlation between Compensation Benefits and Organizational Performance.
Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between compensation
and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
COMPENSATION ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION Pearson Correlation 1 .632**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Pearson Correlation .632** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 40 40
**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

29. Regression
Organizational
performance
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
.632 .399 .912 .632 5.022 .000
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in Compensation will lead to .399 change in
organizational performance. 39.9 % of compensation depends on organizational performance.

30. Descriptive statistics:
As there is much correlation between the variables and their factors, by taking a descriptive analysis we can see the level
of satisfaction of employees on Compensation benefits.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Relocation 40 2 c 4.22 .660
Medi-claim
40
3 5 4.65 .533
Transportation 40 2 5 4.10 .788
Free cafeteria meals 40 4 5 4.83 .385
F&B discount @ 50 % 40 2 5 4.63 .705
Subsidized accommodation 40 2 5 4.60 .709
Valid N (listwise) 40
COMPENSATION BENEFITS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

31. INTERPRETATION:
The values given for the five point scale goes like 1-poor , 2-average, 3-good, 4-very good and 5-
excellent respectively.
As shown in the result, the level of satisfaction of employee regarding the compensation benefits,
they are having their ratings between very good and excellent. Thus, it is understood that the
employees are happy enough with the compensation benefits except the benefit of transportation
they gain from the hotel.
Compensations - +
Relocation 3.56 4.88
Medi-claim 4.177 5.183
Transportation 3.312 4.888
Free cafeteria meals 4.445 5.215
F&B discount @ 50 % 3.925 5.335
Subsidized accommodation 3.89 5.309

32. Objective 4: To know whether the use of Engagement Elements leads to better rating on Engagement Activities
Ho : There is no positive correlation between Engagement Elements and Engagement Activities.
Correlation:
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table of correlation it can be seen that there is a highly significant positive correlation between engagement
elements and organizational performance at 0.01 level. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.
Correlations
ENGAGEMENT ELEMENTS ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
ENGAGEMENT ELEMENTS Pearson Correlation 1 .502**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 40 40
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Pearson Correlation .502** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 40 40
**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed)

33. Regression
Engagement Elements
R R Square B Beta t Sig.
.502 .252 .722 .502 3.577 .001
Regression:
From the above table it can be said that, R-simple correlation; 1 unit change in Engagement activities will lead to .252 change in
organizational performance. 25.2 % of engagement activities depends on organizational performance.

34. Findings
 There is a positive correlation between employee engagement activities and organizational
performance. Thus it is precise the higher the engagement activities, the higher is the
organizational performance.
 There is a positive correlation between individual Engagement Elements and
Organizational Performance except the individual element of well established mission and
vision. Thus, it is understood that the individual engagement elements leads to higher
organizational performance except well established mission and vision.
 There is a positive correlation between Compensation Benefits and Organizational
Performance. Thus the compensation benefits makes the employee to perform better.
 There is a positive correlation between Engagement Elements and Engagement Activities.
Thus it is clear that higher the engagement elements, keeps the engagement activities level
higher.

35. Restraints
 A few of the employees did not respondent to the questionnaire seriously.
 As there is a large number of population in the hotel, the sample size was very less.
 The number of respondents on the gender basis , female respondents were very few.
 Busy schedule of the organization was a hindrance for data collection.

36. Recommendations
 Thus the correlation between employee engagement activities and organizational
performance is highly significant, it is recommended to maintain the activities as
effective as the same.
 Each engagement elements except the well established mission and vision leads to
better organizational performance. Thus I suggest to focus much more on the element of
well established mission and vision , and keep up the other element much more
effective.
 Thus the compensation benefits makes the employees to perform better , I recommend
to maintain the various components of benefits.
 It is good to keep the strategy of maintaining the engagement elements to keep the
engagement activities at the same level.

37. THANK YOU