ARTICLE

Employee engagement in the shipping industry: a studyof engagement among Indian officers

Yogendra Bhattacharya

Received: 9 September 2013 /Accepted: 23 April 2014# World Maritime University 2014

Abstract Industries across the world have been battling the effects of the globaleconomic slowdown, adopting strategies to remain competitive and viable. It has beenrealized that sustainable competitive advantage can only be created through the work-force, the people who are the organization. In order to get the best from employees sothat they go the extra mile for the organization, they must be “engaged.” Employeeengagement as a construct has become very popular in recent times as it has showncorrelations with productivity, profitability, employee turnover, safety, absenteeism, etc.The shipping industry is also going through a lean period where efficiency of opera-tions is becoming fundamental to survival. In such a scenario, the use of engagementpractices, as practiced ashore, may greatly assist ship owners in developing an engaged,motivated, and dedicated work force. This paper analyses the drivers of engagementfrom a review of literature, identifies the drivers in shipping, and develops a question-naire to measure engagement levels of Indian seagoing officers and compares this withlevels reported from other industries. It explores whether engagement levels increasewith tenure with the shipping company, as reported in literature, and whether seniorofficers are more engaged in their jobs as compared with junior officers. The drivers ofengagement were found to be similar, but engagement levels were found to be muchlower than reported in other industries. Additionally, engagement was negativelycorrelated with tenure, while senior officers were found to be marginally more engagedthan junior officers.

Keywords Employee engagement . Organizational performance . Shipping .

Antecedents . Consequences

1 Introduction

The last two decades has seen a sea change in the way industries operate in theinternational business arena, vying for the same markets, introducing better products

WMU J Marit AffairsDOI 10.1007/s13437-014-0065-x

Y. Bhattacharya (*)Teekay Shipping, 126/12 Mohit, Nagar, Dehra Dun 248006, Indiae-mail: ybhattacharya9@bsnl.in

through continuous innovation, enhancing productivity of employees using improvedproduction technologies, reducing overheads, and changing to lean strategies. Thedisappearance of the traditional social, geographical, and political boundaries hasforced organizations worldwide to continuously review and modify their operatingstrategies in their pursuit of operational and financial viability. Externally, the search forcompetitive advantage has forced organizations to review their strategies on technolo-gies, sources of raw materials, newer markets for products and services, and newsources of manpower supply. Internally improving organizational effectiveness hastaken on greater importance, and strategies relating to organizational change, manage-ment styles, information technology, and human resources are being periodicallyrevised in an attempt to seize whatever business advantage there is to be gained.Although the new environment provides immense possibilities for enhancement, itdoes bring with it numerous challenges (Sundaray 2011).

A major realization of organizations worldwide has been that the key to generatingand maintaining business success lies with their employees—their flexibility, innova-tion, and willingness to contribute above the normal call of duty. Strategic humanresource management practitioners as well as researchers have realized that the com-petitive advantage organizations hope to create and sustain are only possible throughthe dedication, creativity, abilities, and innovation of the work force they employ,making them the most productive assets. These assets and their capabilities have beenconsidered “valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable” (Barney 1991).

Attracting, developing, and retaining human talent therefore assumes great signifi-cance. However, retaining talent is not enough, they must be provided an environmentthat fully utilizes their capabilities, fosters creativity and innovation, promotes the useof “discretionary effort,” and encourages them to go the “extra mile” voluntarily. Inother words, employees must be “engaged.” As Kaye and Jordan-Evans (2003) havevery aptly stated that today, it is not only the retention of talented employees that isimportant; they must be fully engaged by involving them emotionally and rationally intheir work roles.

The last two decades has seen the emergence and popularity of the construct of“employee engagement” as a means of enhancing employee productivity. Engagementresults in people employing and expressing themselves physically, cognitively, andemotionally during the execution of their work. Engaged employees voluntarily put ineffort to meet organizational needs, take initiative, support and reinforce cultures andvalues, stay vigilant and focused, and believe that they can make a difference tooutcomes (Macey 2006). From a practical perspective, engaged employees feel own-ership of the organization and are proud, loyal, and committed to it, investing more thanwhat is normally required (Gibbons 2006; Wellins and Concelman 2005; Robinson2007).

2 Literature review

2.1 Employee engagement

Engagement was first conceptualized by William Kahn (1990) from two qualitativestudies, which explored those work conditions in which employees personally

Y. Bhattacharya

connected with the work or disconnected from it. From this study, Kahn definedengagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles;in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, andemotionally during role performances.” Engaged employees, therefore, are energeticabout their work, enjoy it, and are effectively connected with their work (Kahn 1990;Macey and Schneider 2008). Macey and Schneider (2008) define engagement as “theextent to which employees are motivated to contribute to organizational success, andare willing to apply discretionary effort to accomplishing tasks important to theachievement of organizational goals.”

Kahn identified three dimensions of psychological presence—meaningfulness, safe-ty, and availability. He stated that people modify their personal engagements accordingto their perceptions of the benefits, or “meaningfulness,” and the guarantees, or“safety,” they perceive in situations. Psychological meaningfulness was associated withelements at work that created motivation or demotivation to personally engage ordisengage. Psychological safety was related to elements of social systems that createdpredictable and consistent social conditions, in which the individual did not feelthreatened, in order to engage safely. Psychological availability was associated withindividual distractions that preoccupied people to various degrees and left them more orfewer resources with which to engage in role performances.

Employee engagement as a construct is broad in its reach and incorporates a range ofexisting constructs including job involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commit-ment, loyalty, extra role behavior, etc. Kahn’s theories have been successfully support-ed by positive psychology approaches. Saks (2006) used the social exchange theory(SET) to explain engagement, providing a stronger theoretical rationale which can beused to support Kahn’s views on engagement. SET contends that the interactionbetween parties, who are reciprocally interdependent, generates obligations and actionsthat are based on the perceived reciprocal response (Emerson 1976). The foundation ofSET is that these relationships develop over time leading to trust, loyalty, and mutualcommitment. The receipt of resources from the organization creates an obligationthrough which employees respond in a similar manner and repay the organizationthrough their work (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). This feeling of obligation is whatlies at the heart of engagement making it a two-way relationship, resulting in positiveattitudes towards the organization, leading to engagement. Saks (2006) concludes thatfinding organizational support and resources leads to increased levels of engagement.

Schaufeli and Bakker’s Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al.2001) has also been used to predict employee engagement, through its antithesisburnout. The basic tenet of the JD-R model is that the various factors causing employeewell-being, different in various occupations, fall under two major categories—jobdemands and resources. Job demands refer to those factors that lead to burnout, namely,increased levels of stress, excessive expectations, and conflicting demands, and meet-ing these demands requires additional effort, causing depletion of energy and resultingin exhaustion (Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Job re-sources, on the other hand, indicate the existence of support, feedback and workautonomy—conditions necessary for the cultivation of engagement and simultaneouslymoderate any detrimental consequences of excessive job demands (Schaufeli andBakker 2004; Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Job resources such as constructive perfor-mance feedback, co-worker support, guidance from seniors, working climate, job

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

control, innovation, supervisor support, and appreciation were positively related withvigour, dedication, and absorption—the three elements of work engagement (Schaufeliand Bakker 2004; Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Job resources also have the ability tomitigate the adverse effects of high job demands, thereby reducing burnout. Jobdemands—both physical and emotional—and conflicts between personal and workresponsibilities usually create energy depletion and cynicism, leading to disengagement(Bakker et al. 2005). The provision of job resources such as autonomy, feedback, andsupport help to reduce the effects of such high demands.

Using the perspectives of positive psychology, Fredrickson (1998) developed the“Broaden and Build” theory, which proposes that there are specific and distinct positiveemotions—such as joy, interest, contentment, pride, and love—that have the capabilityto “broaden” people’s momentary thought-action repositories and build their enduringpersonal resources. These resources can range from physical and intellectual to socialand psychological resources (Fredrickson 2001). She states that joy encourages play-fulness and creativity, broadening resources in the process. Interest enhances explor-atory desires, the ability to assimilate new experiences and information, and develop-ment. Such attitudes to work are crucial for organizations to maintain their competi-tiveness, and are particularly important in middle managers who need to take the lead.She also found empirical evidence suggesting that positive emotions broaden attentionspans, cognitive abilities, and activity levels and assist in building intellectual, physical,and social resources. Recent research has shown that engagement also creates positiveemotions, including joy, happiness, interest, and enthusiasm and allow employees todiscover new skills and develop them, form relationships, and gain knowledge, whichmakes them more resilient to setbacks (Schaufeli and Salanova 2007). It has alsosuggested that these positive emotions may be the reason behind engaged employeeshaving higher productivity (Fredrickson 2001). Employees, who are happy are moresensitive to work opportunities, willingly help others, are more optimistic, and havehigher confidence levels (Cropanzano and Wright 2001). Research has also shown thatpositive emotions can make people feel good not only at the moment but also in thefuture, by developing durable psychological resources and moving them towardsemotional well-being (Fredrickson and Joiner 2002).

The academic response to the increasing popularity of engagement, however, hasbeen comparatively slow, and the limited empirical research available does not indicatethat the theory underlying the construct of engagement has been rigorously tested(Robertson-Smith and Markwick 2009). It has also been noted by many academics thatacademic research is lagging far behind practitioner developments (Macey andSchneider 2008; Robinson et al. 2004). Macey and Schneider (2008) even consideremployee engagement as heavily marketed by HR consulting firms, while Little andLittle (2006) think that it has been marketed as a practical rather than an academicconcept. Some even question whether it is a construct at all, with many experts notwilling to accept the concept of engagement as new (Ketter 2008).

Despite such reservations, employee engagement is the most important HR chal-lenge facing organizations (SHRM/Globoforce 2013). In today’s corporate landscape,human capital is widely perceived as critical for future success. And, in the currentenvironment of increasing global competition and slower growth prospects, raisingemployee engagement is seen as a key strategy for success in maximizing that capital(SHRM/Globoforce 2013).

Y. Bhattacharya

2.2 Consequences of engagement

Apart from the fact that engaged employees are more satisfied and have better well-being, the incentives to organizations are expected to be much greater, and fairlyconsistent results have been demonstrated regarding the positive outcomes ofimplementing engagement enhancing strategies, both in academic and practitionercontexts (Robertson-Smith and Markwick 2009). Highly engaged employees are twiceas likely to be top performers and achieve their targets (Watson Wyatt 2009; TowersPerrin HR Services 2003; Towers Perrin 2005), have lesser absenteeism (Watson Wyatt2009; Gallup 2008), and have higher productivity and profitability and higher employ-ee retention (Gallup 2008; Vance 2006; Towers Perrin HR Services 2003; TowersPerrin 2005). Enhanced safety is another incentive with Vance (2006) stating thatbeverage giant Molson Coors reported that safety incidents of engaged employeeswere one fifth that of non-engaged workers, engaged workers had one-seventh lost timeincidents vis-a-vis the non-engaged, reduced safety incident costs—US$63 for theengaged versus US$392 for the non-engaged and savings of US$1,721,760 in safetycosts in the year 2002. Implementation of engagement measures at the Ohio plant ofOwens Corning resulted in a 76 % decline in accidents (Shaffer 2004). From theirmeta-analysis, Gallup again found safety (accidents, etc.) down by 50% (Coffman andGonzalez-Molina 2002), and high engagement organizations had better safety records(Baumruk 2004).

Apart from quantitative benefits, qualitative benefits also accrue as a result ofimproving engagement through reduced employee turnover, improved individual per-formance, increased advocacy of the organization, positive impacts on health and well-being, increased self-efficacy, and making employees more receptive to change initia-tives (Shaw 2005: Blessing White 2008; CIPD 2006; Luthans and Peterson 2002;Gallup Business Journal n.d.).

2.3 Antecedents of engagement

The term employee engagement has different connotations to different people; conditionsthat promote engagement in one industry or organization may not be considered valid inanother. Even though there is a lack of an accepted definition of engagement, engagementhas been successfully measured by many organizations, mainly consultancy groups likeGallup, Hewitt Associates, Towers Perrin, Blessing White, ISR, etc. The antecedents ofengagement are generally similar across all findings, with marginal differences.

Over the past decade, many major research studies have been published that identifyorganizational factors that drive employee engagement. Gibbons (2006) identifies 26separate factors that determine the degree to which individuals will be engaged. A briefsummary of these drivers are presented in Table 8 of the “Appendix”. Even thoughthese studies presented a wide array of definitions and drivers, some patterns didemerge across the studies.

Among the most common drivers of engagement are management practices (Vance2006; Branham and Hirschfield 2010; Hewitt Associates 2004), the immediate man-ager or supervisor (CIPD 2005; Hewitt 2008; Gibbons 2006), career development andadvancement (Robinson et al. 2004; Gallup 2008; Hewitt 2008), recognition andappreciation of employee contributions (Branham and Hirschfield 2010; Towers

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

Perrin HR Services 2003; SHRM/Globoforce 2013), teamwork and a supportiveworking environment (Gibbons 2006; Gallup 2008), the nature of the work (Gibbons2006; Mercer 2007), and pay, rewards, and benefits (Hewitt 2008; Mercer 2007; Aon2013). Other drivers include input in decision making, constructive feedback, receivingformal appraisals, and the implementation of performance development plans(Robinson et al. 2004; Gallup 2008) as well as availability of necessary work resources(Gallup 2008; Blessing White Engagement Report 2011).

2.4 Measurement of engagement

The measurement of engagement provides organizations with the opportunity toexplore a large variety of factors which can be considered relevant for the developmentof engagement (Robinson 2007). Although engagement is not an exact science, it canbe quantitatively measured using survey tools and questionnaires. However, because ofthe diverse nature of its definition, assumptions, and usage, as well as the differentneeds of every organization, there is the possibility of wide variations between thesemeasures in what is actually being measured; organizations should therefore exercisecaution while benchmarking their engagement scores (Balain and Sparrow 2009). Thegeneral practice among practitioners has been to classify employees into three groupsbased on their engagement scores—engaged, partially engaged, and disengaged. Somesuch as Blessing White (2013) identify five distinct employee segments on the basis oftheir engagement, while Towers Perrin (2008) clusters respondents into four groups—engaged, enrolled, disenchanted, and disengaged.

Practitioners such as HR consulting firms have their own survey instruments formeasuring engagement; the most commonly used being the Gallup Work Place Audit(Q12), IES Engagement Survey, The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), HewittBest Employer Studies, Towers Perrin Engagement Survey, etc.

Whatever method chosen and aspects measured, it is suggested that the datacollected from engagement surveys should be accurate enough to enable the organiza-tion to realistically address the issues identified and analyze the factors behind anysuccesses they may have had. For any organization, the most important step is to reacha shared and acceptable definition of engagement relevant to their own operationalcontext, and to translate this into action (MacLeod and Clarke 2009).

2.5 Engagement and the maritime industry

For the last few years, the shipping industry is going through lean times caused bydepressed market conditions. Maximizing output and minimizing associated costs haveassumed greater significance, as the survival of shipping companies depends onefficiency enhancement measures. Market dynamics being outside the control of shipowners, effective strategies to minimize outflows can be used to enhance bottom-lineprofits. Some of the avenues through ship owners can gain a competitive advantage areby eliminating operational losses, minimizing safety and health related costs, andreducing costs related to employee turnover.

A recent MCA (2010) highlights this issue by finding that over a recent 10-yearperiod, insurance claims cost the P&I industry US$15 billion, as estimated by StandardP&I Club. This translates to more thanUS$4 million every single day. They also reported

Y. Bhattacharya

that more than 65 % of this huge amount—a mammoth US$10 billion—involvedincidents which could be attributed to human causes. The year 2008 saw—on aver-age—a maritime disaster occur nearly every week, each involving insurance claims ofover US$17 M or had an economic impact of over US$85 M. The same year, marineinsurance companies paid out over half a billion US dollars for casualties. A report fromthe UK P&I Club states that the shipping industry is paying out more than US$300million a year to meet seafarers’ claims for injury, illness, and death (MCA 2010).

The above assists in putting in perspective the problems being faced by the shippingindustry on account of performance and which can be attributed to the lack of qualified,experienced, and professional seafarers. A result of all these incidents has beenincreased legislation putting more pressure on ship owners and managers. However,as ABS (2012) states, “there is a general recognition in the industry that encouragingsafe working practices does not require more rules, regulations, and procedures.Instead, the industry needs a better understanding of the social and organizationalfactors that foster professionalism in the seafarer in routine and emergency situations.”Ship owners have invested in improving the “hardware” of shipping through bettertechnology, but apparently not paid sufficient heed to ensure that the “software,” i.e.,the manpower managing ships, is motivated enough to willingly raise its performancelevel and ensure operational excellence (OECD 1996).

It is in such a context that the principles of employee engagement hold specialrelevance for the maritime industry as it is through engagement that seafarers can beexpected to willingly exert discretionary effort and go the extra mile for the organiza-tion. The positive links between engagement on one hand and safety, productivity andperformance on the other, have been well demonstrated in literature and it can beexpected that the same principles would benefit the shipping industry too.

There has been limited study on the aspect of engagement of seafarers. Gallup’s2012 meta-analysis of 263 research studies across 192 organizations in 49 industriesand 34 countries, studied 49,928 business/work units including 1,390,941 employees,did not include any from the shipping industry. One of the most relevant studies hasbeen done byManuel (2011) who studied the relationships between team psychologicalsafety, leader inclusiveness, worker engagement, and organizational learning in thecontext of the shipping industry. He also studied the variables that influence workerengagement and if it had the potential to predict organizational learning. He foundsubstantial correlations between the concepts of team psychological safety, leaderinclusiveness, worker engagement, and organizational learning (Manuel 2011).

The shipping industry, by virtue of its truly international nature, has some uniquefeatures which may make the application of the conventional engagement driversdifficult. With foreign flags accounting for the registration of more than 71 % ofinternational shipping tonnage (UNCTAD 2012), in today’s shipping, the ship ownercould be based in one country, the ship itself registered in a second, its operationscontrolled by managers in a third country, and manned by crew from another country.In addition to this are the ship management companies, to whom the operationalfunctions are outsourced by ship owners, and who collectively manage nearly onefourth of international tonnage (Intermanager). Seafarers themselves work for limitedtenures on board on a usually contractual basis and may not even return to the sameemployer. Even if they do return, they may work on a different ship, with different crewand even different owners. In such a situation where seafarers have minimal to no

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

contact with the ship owners—or even knowledge of them in many cases, and acontinuously changing set of co-workers, drivers such as owners management styles,the immediate manager or supervisor, recognition and appreciation of employeecontributions, co-workers, etc. may not have the same significance as when comparedwith any shore based organization.

The present study thus tries to address this gap in order to assess if the drivers ofengagement, as found in contemporary literature, are applicable to the shipping indus-try also. The first objective is therefore to ascertain if the drivers of engagement in themaritime industry are the same as those found in literature.

RQ To what extent are there similarities between the drivers of engagement in themaritime industry and those derived from literature review?

2.6 Engagement levels of shipboard officers

The results of their engagement measurements through various regions of the worldshow that on an average, only one third of employees worldwide are engaged. Gallup(2012) found 28% of American workers engaged in 2010 and by the end of 2012, 30 %of the U.S. workforce was engaged, with the ratio of engaged to actively disengagedemployees being roughly 2 to 1. Gallup estimates that active disengagement costs theUSA US$450 billion to US$550 billion per year. Blessing White (2013) finds engage-ment levels at an average of 35 % across all regions of the world, ranging from 42 % inIndia to 22 % in China. A Hay Group study (2012) on employee engagement trendsconcluded that more than a third of employees across the world are unwilling and unableto go the extra mile for their organization and company loyalty is at a 5-year low. DaleCarnegie Training (2012) found only 29 % of workers to be fully engaged, 26 % weredisengaged, and almost half (45 %) were partially engaged. CIPD’s Engagement Index(2013) shows that the proportion of employees engaged is 35 %, while the majority ofrespondents (61 %) remain neutral—neither engaged nor disengaged.

Some have found higher engagement levels, such as Aon Hewitt (2013), who findthat while 60 % of employees globally are considered engaged, 40 % of employees arepassive or actively disengaged. Kenexa’s Global Employee Engagement Index (2012)scores rose slightly in 2012 to 57 %, but remains below the peak of 60 % reached in2009 and 2010.

The working and employment conditions being different in the shipping industrywhen compared with shore based industries, it is felt that there may be differencesbetween what drives engagement in shipping. Hence, it is proposed that:

H 1 The engagement levels of officers will be different from those found in shore-based organizations.

2.7 Engagement and rank on board

Research has found engagement to be strongly correlated with the employee’srole/level in the organization; people in positions of power, authority, autonomy and

Y. Bhattacharya

control are more likely to be engaged (19, Hallberg and Schaufeli 2006; Salanovaet al. 2005). Due to their larger role, senior managers are able to make greatercontributions which are linked to work engagement (Zhu et al. 2009; Robinsonet al. 2004) with Towers Perrin HR Services (2003) finding the highest level ofengagement for senior executives (53 % highly engaged, 4 % disengaged), withengagement slowly dipping down the ranks to the hourly workers with the lowestengagement levels (12 % highly engaged, 25 % disengaged). Senior officers onboard are expected to have greater autonomy over their work area and are morelikely to have interesting roles that allow for cognitive, emotional, and physicalengagement in work (Kahn 1990). In the maritime industry, the same is expectedto be true and thus, the following is proposed:

H 2 Senior officers will have higher engagement levels as compared to junior officers.

2.8 Engagement and tenure with the organization

Recent studies have also demonstrated that engagement is strongly correlated withtenure in the organization; long-term employees are more likely to be engaged(Blessing White Engagement Report 2011; Bernthal and Wellins 2000). The BlessingWhite Engagement Report (2011) states that “there is a strong correlation betweenengagement levels and age, role/level, and tenure in the organization.” HewittAssociates (2004) state that “double digit growth (DDG) companies demonstrate higherlevels of engagement as tenure increases, and can more successfully maintain employeeengagement levels than other companies.” They also found that at most companies,employee engagement declines after 2 years, and then gradually increases after 6 to9 years. The same trend is expected for shipboard officers too, and therefore, it isproposed that:

H 3 Engagement will be positively correlated with tenure.

2.9 Methodology

2.9.1 Sample

For the purposes of this study, Indian officers were selected, India being the thirdlargest supplier of manpower to the maritime industry (Drewry 2012). The uni-verse consisted of all licensed Indian Merchant Naval Officers, who are activelysailing on seagoing ships. Officers who have left sailing and are part of officeestablishments ashore as well as trainees were not considered part of the targetpopulation.

2.9.2 Procedure

The survey was carried out at two maritime colleges in New Delhi and the NCR regionwhere officers attend mandatory courses. The questionnaire was personally

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

administered to respondents and a total of 448 responses were collected. After rejecting15 on the basis of incomplete data, 433 responses were found usable. Since factoranalysis was to be used for data analysis, and this requires minimum five to tenrespondents per variable (Munro 2005), this sample size was considered to be suitablefor analysis.

2.9.3 Sample characteristics

The sample of 433 respondents were all male and consisted of 337 deck officers(77.8 %), 94 engine officers (21.7 %), and two with missing data. Out of these, 102were senior officers and 329 were junior officers. The average age of officers was27.8 years, with an average sea service of 4.9 years. Coincidentally, the expected futuresea career was 10.4 years for both deck and engine officers.

2.10 Measures

Engagement Engagement data was to be collected using a questionnaire with itemsgenerated using the Gallup Q12 (Gallup 2008) as the basis, supported by otherdrivers identified through literature (Gibbons 2006). These items were reviewedby a panel of five experts spread across academia, shipping, and industry, whocommented on the clarity and relevance of the items, and the comprehensivenessof the questionnaire in covering all aspects of the variable being investigated.Based on their recommendations, the final questionnaire had 15 items for themeasurement of engagement, along with eight items to collect demographic data.The Cronbach Alpha was calculated as 0.787, which indicated acceptable internalconsistency (Bowling and Ebrahim 2005).

Rank For rank, respondents indicated whether they were senior officers—master, chiefofficer, chief engineer and second engineer, or junior officers. They also indicatedwhether they were deck officers or engineer officers.

Tenure Respondents were also asked to provide details on their total sea service and theservice with the current employer. For the purpose of defining tenure, a minimumservice period of 5 years with the current employer was considered as the cutoff. Thisresulted in a sample size of 99 officers who met the above criterion, 41 senior officersand 58 junior officers.

2.11 Scoring methodology

The scoring methodology for engagement calculation used by practitioners is notavailable in the public domain. The methodology followed in this study is based onthat used by the US Merit Systems Protection Board (2008). Engagement scale wasdeveloped using 15 items and this scale assisted in categorizing seafarers as engaged,partially engaged, and disengaged. Each question was weighted from 5 (stronglyagree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Respondents scoring “5” on all items would have atotal score of 75 on engagement. Similarly, if the score on all items is “1”, the scores

Y. Bhattacharya

would be 15. Respondents are classified as engaged if they agree with each of the 15items. Thus, the engaged category would have a minimum score of 60. Each respon-dent achieving an engagement score of 60 may not have agreed with every singleitem—they could have disagreed with some and strongly agreed with others. The“partially engaged” is the segment scoring between 60 and pure neutrality or 45(answered each item with neither agree nor disagree). The“disengaged” categoryconsists of those who score less than 45 overall.

2.12 Data analysis

SPSS 20 was used for all analysis related to the study. For factor analysis,Varimax orthogonal rotation with Kaiser normalization was used for extraction,which uses a default eigenvalue of 1 as the cutoff. However, 0.9 was taken as theeigenvalue cutoff for extraction as Jolliffe (1972) considers Kaiser’s criterion toostrict and suggests retaining all factors with an eigenvalue greater than 0.7. Hairet al. (2009) also state that the eigenvalue criterion when the number of variablesis less than 20 is not reliable as too few factors are extracted; they suggestconsidering solutions that explain 60 % of the total variance in social sciences.Thus, in order to explain at least 60 % of the variance and retain a suitable numberof factors, an eigenvalue of 0.9 and more was considered as the best criterion.Additionally, in order to ensure higher loadings, coefficients smaller than 0.5 wereexcluded. This resulted in isolating reasonably more factors explaining a largerpercentage of variance.

2.12.1 Identifying drivers of engagement

Engagement was measured using 15 variables as listed in Table 9 of the “Appendix”.Correlations between variables were within acceptable limits, with no instances ofmulticollinearity, the determinant being 0.057 (Table 11 in the “Appendix”). Thecommunalities were higher than 0.5, the average being 0.686 (Table 10 of the“Appendix”). The sampling adequacy, as measured by KMO and Bartlett’s Test(Table 12 of the “Appendix”), gave a test statistic of 0.860, representing great values(Field 2009). The factor analysis isolated seven factors which collectively accountedfor 68.555 % of the variability, as shown in (Table 13 of the “Appendix”). The screeplot is shown in Fig. 1 in the “Appendix.” The rotated component matrix is shown inTable 1 below.

These factors can be described as follows:

Factor 1 Organizational support—opinions valued, pride in company, caring organi-zation, feedback and guidance, recognition of work, and work resources

Factor 2 Work and co-workers—best friend at work, potential utilized, and nature ofwork

Factor 3 Work environment—important work and interpersonal relationsFactor 4 Career advancement—merit-based promotionsFactor 5 Financial rewards—salaryFactor 6 Work autonomy—freedom at workFactor 7 Job demands—work pressure

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

2.12.2 Engagement scores

The engagement score was calculated based on the scoring methodology adopted and thedescriptive characteristics are as per Table 2 below. The frequency distribution of theengagement score was found to be normally distributed with the coefficients of skewnessand kurtosis (0.965/0.184) within the required values of ±1.96 for a two-tailed test,indicating that the distribution was within acceptable limits of normality (Pett 1997).

Respondents were categorized into engaged, partially engaged, and disengaged onthe basis of their engagement scores. The engaged group had scores higher than 60, thepartially engaged between 45 and 59, and the disengaged less than 45. On this basis,10.6 % officers can be considered engaged, 11.8 % disengaged, and the remaining77.6 % to be partially engaged. The resulting distribution is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 1 Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Opinion valued .763

Pride in company .742

Caring organization .648

Feedback and guidance .642

Recognition of work .579

Work resources .565

Best friend at work .739

Potential utilized .686

Nature of work .624

Important work .785

Interpersonal relations .650

Career advancement .812

Pay .900

Work autonomy .931

Work pressure .975

Extraction method, principal component analysis. Rotation method, Varimas with Kaiser normalization.Rotation converged in eight iterations

Table 2 Descriptive statistics—engagement score

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.deviation

Variance

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. error Statistic Statistic

Engagement score 433 37 34 71 51.69 .304 6.316 39.895

Valid N (list wise) 433

Y. Bhattacharya

2.13 Engagement and rank

In order to determine if engagement was related to on-board rank and the two groups ofofficers—senior and junior—were statistically different from each other, one of themost popular parametric methods used for comparing two samples—the independent ttest—was used (Hinton 2004). However, it must be noted that the t test is simply astatistical technique and indicates whether there is a difference in the performances ofthe two groups, not what caused the difference (Hinton 2004). The summary of theengagement levels of both groups is shown in Table 4 and group statistics in Table 5.

Senior officers (N=102) had a mean engagement level of 53.4, with a standarddeviation of 5.864 and standard error of 0.575. Junior officers (N=329) had a meanengagement level of 51.2, with a standard deviation of 6.372 and standard error of0.351. The descriptive statistics indicate that there is a difference between the engage-ment levels of the two groups, senior officers showing a higher engagement level ascompared to junior officers. The percentages of engaged and disengaged groups amongseniors’ also shows significant differences compared with juniors. The standard devi-ations indicate that the spread of scores for senior officers is smaller than that of juniors.

To ascertain if the difference in mean engagement levels is significant or due tochance, the independent sample test was used. The results of the Levene’s test andindependent t test are displayed in Table 6 below.

In this case, Levene’s test is found insignificant as p=0.322, indicating the variancesare approximately equal. In case of equal variances, the equal variances assumedcolumn is used (Field 2009).

The independent t test results calculate the t statistic as 3.220, and the significance ortwo-tailed value of p is 0.001 (<0.05). Since the p value is less than alpha, it can beconcluded that there is a significant difference between the means of the two samples.In other words, senior officers are more engaged than junior officers.

Whether the effect is substantial or not can be determined by converting the t statisticinto a value of r, using the values of t and df. The correlation coefficient is calculated as0.154, which indicates a small-sized effect, explaining about 4 % of the variance.

Table 3 Categorical distributionof engagement scores

Category Range Number Percentage

Engaged 60–75 46 10.6

Partially engaged 45–59 336 77.6

Disengaged 15–44 51 11.8

Totals 433 100

Table 4 Summary of engagement levels of senior vs. junior officers

Category No. of junior officers %age No. of senior officers %age

Engaged 32 9.7 14 13.7

Partially engaged 250 76.0 84 82.4

Disengaged 47 14.3 4 3.9

Totals 329 100 102 100

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

On average, senior officers had higher engagement levels (M=53.4, SE=0.575) thanjunior officers (M=51.2, SE=0.351). This difference was statistically significant t(429)=3.220, p<0.05. It also represented a small-sized effect r=0.154. It can thus beconcluded that there are significant differences among engagement levels of senior andjunior officers.

2.14 Engagement and tenure

In order to determine the relationship, if any, between engagement and tenure, corre-lation analysis was undertaken. With a minimum service period of 5 years with thecurrent employer as the cutoff, a sample size of 99 officers—41 senior officers and 58junior officers—was obtained. The frequency distributions were normal with skewnessand kurtosis (−0.642/-0.834) within acceptable limits of ±1.96 for a two-tailed test (Pett1997). The results of correlation analysis are in Table 7 below.

The correlation analysis gives the result: r=0.189, N=99, p>0.05. Since the p valueassociated with the t test is not small (p>0.05), we fail to reject the null hypothesis thatthere is no significant relationship between engagement and tenure. It can therefore beconcluded that the engagement of officers is not related to their tenure.

Table 5 Group statistics—engagement of senior vs. junior officers

Rank N Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean

Seafarer engagement score Senior officers 102 53.35 5.864 .575

Junior officers 329 51.17 6.372 .351

Table 6 Independent samples test

Levene’stest forequality ofvariances

t test for equality of means

F Slg. t df Slg.(2-tailed)

Meandifference

Std.errordifference

95 %confidenceinterval ofthe difference

Lower Upper

EngagementScore

Equalvariancesassumed

.981 .322 3.220 429 .001 2.284 .709 .890 3.678

Equalvariancesnotassumed

3.362 180.818 .001 2.84 .679 .944 3.624

Y. Bhattacharya

3 Discussion

3.1 Drivers of engagement

Factor analysis identified seven factors responsible for 68.555 % of the variability. Thestrongest driver predictive of engagement was identified as the perceived organizationalsupport (POS) from the shipping company that recognized the work of the seafarer andvalued his contribution, thereby providing him with a feeling of worth. Engagementliterature states that the feeling of being involved and valued was a key enabler ofemployee engagement, demonstrated through the concern for employees by the orga-nization (Robinson et al. 2004). This first factor refers to the support perceived byofficers in terms of elements such as recognition of work, feedback and guidance,opinions being valued, and the seafarer himself being valued. Manuel (2011) suggeststhat “this requires a management style and culture which acknowledges the increasedempowerment of seafarers at all levels as knowledge workers.” The outcomes areexpected to be pride in the company and its advocacy as a great place to work. Theelements of this first factor are the same as that identified through literature and foundin shore based industries.

Among the many factors that influence engagement, the nature of the work andutilization of potential have a significant role to play (Robertson-Smith and Markwick2009), and Kahn also considered “psychological meaningfulness” to be caused by thenature and challenge of the work (1990). Along with the work, engagement levels arealso affected through teamwork and close friendships at work (CIPD 2010: Clifton2008). The second factor isolated is work and co-workers which has been considered inliterature as an essential antecedent of engagement.

The third factor identified is the work environment—the importance of the work aswell as interpersonal relationships on board. Workplace relationships have been foundto impact meaningfulness (May et al. 2004), and it also satisfies the relatedness needsof individuals who derive greater meaning from their work through rewarding inter-personal relations. Interpersonal work relationships and teams built on mutual support,openness, and trust promote employee engagement and an environment in whichworkers feel safe to use their abilities to the full without fear of reprisals (Kahn1990). This driver is therefore the same as what has already been identified ashore.

Career advancement is the fourth factor, whereby officers can see their growth futurewith the organization based on their merit and performance. On a global level, career

Table 7 Correlation of engagement with tenure

Seafarer engagement score Tenure

Seafarer engagement score Pearson correlation 1 .189

Sig. (2-tailed) .061

N 99 99

Tenure Pearson correlation .189 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .061

N 99 99

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

advancement opportunities have been found to be the second most important driver ofengagement worldwide (Towers Watson 2012).

Pay has usually been described as a “hygiene” factor of little consequence toemployee engagement, but is one of the top drivers of engagement (Aon Hewitt2013; Sara et al. 2004). Pay and benefits have been found to be the top driver ofengagement globally across all age groups (Towers Perrin 2008). With seafarers, payremains an important driver (Manuel 2011), although it would appear not one of themore important ones, contrary to general perception.

Functional autonomy is an important driver of engagement as it gives freedom atwork allowing for creativity and initiative (Towers Watson 2012; PAHRIS 2010).Autonomy empowers employees, who interpret this as the organization’s trust inemployee capabilities, through involvement in problem solving and decision making(CIPD 2011), and has been found to be positively related to job satisfaction (Humphreyet al. 2007). From the factor analysis, autonomy at work for seafarers appears to be oneof the drivers of engagement.

The last factor extracted is related job demands and pressures at work. Workloadshave been considered a barrier to engagement (Robertson-Smith and Markwick 2009),and job demands require employees to put in sustained physical and psychologicaleffort, leading to significant physiological and psychological costs (Demerouti et al.2001). The presence of job demands has significant relationships with burnout, absen-teeism, decreased performance, and engagement (Bakker and Demerouti 2007:Nahrgang et al. 2010). Excessive work load also leads to fatigue which has a detri-mental impact on performance as well as safety (Nahrgang et al. 2010), and affectsdecision making abilities. In today’s world of shipping, where ship manning levels havealready been pared down to the minimum, it may not be surprising that work pressuresbecome a driver of engagement.

From the above, and comparing with the consolidated drivers of engagement(Table 8 in Appendix), it can be concluded that the drivers of engagement in shippingare similar to those ashore, albeit their order of importance may be different.

3.2 Engagement levels

The analysis of data reveals that the majority of officers are not fully engaged. About11 % of officers can be considered to be engaged in the context of the present study,with more than three quarters being partially engaged and 12 % disengaged. Theaverage engagement levels in surveys carried out ashore have been about 35 %; inthe case of the shipping industry, it is much lower, with only one out of ten officersbeing considered engaged. The percentage of disengaged is similar to those reported insurveys at 12–16 %. The partially engaged group is much larger with more than threequarters officers falling in this category, as compared with half the employees ashore.This supports the hypothesis H 1 that the engagement levels of officers will be differentfrom those found in shore based organizations.

3.3 Engagement and rank

From the analysis carried out, it was found that as far as rank is concerned, there was adifference in the engagement levels of senior officers vis-à-vis junior officers, seniors

Y. Bhattacharya

having a higher engagement level. This supports hypothesis H 2 that senior officershave higher engagement levels as compared to junior officers. However, the differencewas not very significant (53 for seniors/51 for juniors) and the correlation coefficient ofr=0.154 showed only a small sized effect. This finding can be considered a cause ofconcern for ship owners and managers, as the immediate manager has been consideredto be a major driver of engagement. For the junior staff on board ships to be engaged,the engagement of the senior staff on board is extremely desirable; it is them who areresponsible for the dissemination of the organizations objectives, aims, goals, andcultures on board. If the senior management on board is itself not synergized withthe shore establishment, the engagement of junior staff on board may be a difficultproposition to achieve. These findings are in line with those of Manuel (2011) whofound engagement levels for management level workers higher than those of opera-tional level officers.

3.4 Engagement and tenure

Engagement is expected to increase with tenure of employees; as people growmore experienced and vested in their work or more senior in the organization,engagement increases. However, the analysis did not find any significant rela-tionship between engagement and tenure. The tenure used for analysis was5 years, which can be considered to be very high considering the considerableattrition of seafarers, something accentuated by the fact that only 23 % of thesample had an average service of more than 5 years with their currentemployers.

Hewitt (346) found that at most companies, employee engagement declines after2 years, and then gradually increases after 6 to 9 years. Of the top ten respondents withtenure of more than 13 years (ranging from 13 to 30 years) with their current employer,only two were engaged, seven partially engaged, while one was disengaged. Thistherefore presents the conclusion that even after continued service of more than13 years, there is no resulting engagement attesting to the possible disconnect thatexists between the senior officers on board and the shore-based management, clearly acause of concern.

3.5 Practical implications

The study has many practical implications. Firstly, it provides insights into the constructof engagement and its applicability in the maritime industry. It also provides a validatedmeans of measuring engagement which can be used internally by shipping companies—either to determine their own status or to benchmark with other similar organizations.The drivers of engagement being similar, shipping companies can draw on the researchavailable as well as engagement programs used ashore to formulate engagement en-hancing strategies. The relative importance of pay as a primary motivator is alsodispelled somewhat as seafarers have been compared to mercenaries and prostitutes(Magramo et al. 2010; Singhal n.d.). The study also reveals that the highly engaged areone in ten, a comparatively low number. Since engagement is a continuum (Federman2009), the partially engaged becomes the most important segment as those closesttowards the engaged category will require the least effort to shift to full engagement.

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

Identifying these officers and addressing their concerns may result in the engagedcategory increasing significantly.

The study also reveals that even though senior officers are more engagedthan juniors, the relationship is very weak. Ship owners have to rely on seniorshipboard management to carry their strategies forward, and in the absence ofhighly engaged seniors on board, it may prove to be a difficult task to achieve.In shore-based industries, senior managers have been found to be the mosthighly engaged (Towers Perrin HR Services 2003) and the same should also besought by ship owners.

The fact that engagement does not increase with tenure can be a source of concern as itwould indicate that officers are disenchanted and continuing with the company for wantof something better and going through themotions. From a retention perspective this maybe useful, but it does not allow the company to reap the benefits of full engagement.

3.6 Future research

Further research is required to understand if there are any additional drivers thatmay be relevant in the maritime domain. This study was also limited to Indianofficers, and studies with other nationalities can be undertaken as there are signif-icant socio-cultural differences between nationalities. This would allow identifica-tion of drivers that can be applicable to seafarers of any nationality and can beapplied across the board. Since many ships are essentially multi-cultural, a uniformpolicy would benefit ship owners.

4 Conclusion

This research confirms that the principles of employee engagement do exist in theshipping industry and its drivers are similar to those found in academic andpractitioner literature. Engagement levels are however lower than reported in shorebased industries. The conventional wisdom that senior officers would be moreengaged is supported, but the difference is not significant. Engagement has alsonot been found related with tenure which is in accordance with some literatureavailable.

Appendix

Table 8 Drivers of engagement from literature review

Gallup [21] Hewitt [99]

Work expectations Resources

Materials and equipment Intrinsic motivation

Opportunity to do what I do best Recognition

Recognition for good work People practices

Someone at work cares about me Development opportunities

Y. Bhattacharya

Table 8 (continued)

Development encouraged Immediate manager

Opinions count Benefits

Mission/purpose Pay

Associates committed to quality Performance review

Best friend at work Career opportunities

Career progress

Learn and grow

Towers Perrin [100] IES [18]

Company interest in employee well-being Communication

Good relationship with supervisor Job satisfaction

Input into decision making Cooperation

Have excellent career advancement opportunities Equal opportunities and fair treatment

Improved skills and capabilities Training, development, and career

Immediate management

Family friendliness

Health and safety

Pay and benefits

Performance and appraisal

Conference board [10] Mercer [98]

Trust and integrity, feel valued Treated with respect

Nature of job, autonomy Work/life balance

Employee/Company alignment Type of Work

Career growth opportunities Leadership

Pride in company, advocacy Pay

Co-workers

Employee development

Relationship with manager

Blessing White [19] Branham and Hirschfield [153]

Training and development Caring, competent leadership

Role in organization Effective managers

Work resources Effective teamwork

Work opportunities Job enrichment

Flexible job conditions Professional growth

More challenging work Value employee contributions

Concern for employee well-being

SHRM [160]

Opportunities to use skills/abilities

Job security

Compensation/pay

Employee/management communication

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

Table 10 Communalities—engagement variable

Initial Extraction

Opinions valued 1.000 .647

Caring organization 1.000 .584

Pride in company 1.000 .625

Feedback and guidance 1.000 .641

Recognition of work 1.000 .618

Work resources 1.000 .529

Best friend at work 1.000 .616

Potential utilized 1.000 .581

Nature of work 1.000 .575

Important work 1.000 .761

Interpersonal relations 1.000 .643

Career advancement 1.000 .739

Pay 1.000 .866

Work autonomy 1.000 .901

Work pressure 1.000 .957

Extraction method, principal component analysis

Table 9 Engagement variables

Variable Statement

E1 The company values my suggestions and opinions

E2 I am proud to be a part of this company

E3 The company cares about my well-being, health, and safety

E4 I get regular feedback and guidance on my performance

E5 Good work is recognized by the company

E6 I am provided the spares/stores required to do my job well

E7 I can share my troubles and happiness with others

E8 I am given work that fully utilizes my abilities

E9 I find my work enjoyable

E10 My work is important for company profits

E11 I have good relations with other crew on board

E12 I can advance in my job based on merit and performance

E13 I am happy with my salary

E14 We can work independently without interference from the company

E15 There is undue pressure from company to finish jobs on time

Y. Bhattacharya

Tab

le11

Correlatio

nmatrix—

engagementvariables

Correlatio

nmatrix

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6

E7

E8

E9

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

E15

Correlatio

nE1

1.000

E2

0.472

1.000

E3

0.523

0.538

1.000

E4

0.419

0.388

0.425

1.000

E5

0.416

0.290

0.402

0.309

1.000

E6

0.329

0.417

0.320

0.265

0.259

1.000

E7

0.264

0.283

0.227

0.321

0.164

0.130

1.000

E8

0.244

0.279

0.162

0.270

0.174

0.125

0.349

1.000

E9

0.188

0.312

0.325

0.349

0.163

0.173

0.353

0.288

1.000

E10

0.210

0.198

0.219

0.132

0.174

0.186

0.144

0.178

0.200

1.000

E11

0.199

0.304

0.271

0.189

0.096

0.162

0.250

0.183

0.318

0.244

1.000

E12

0.217

0.207

0.232

0.121

0.265

0.105

0.194

0.186

0.112

0.162

0.122

1.000

E13

0.178

0.274

0.264

.0161

0.249

0.243

0.109

0.183

0.201

0.059

0.162

0.091

1.000

E14

0.150

0.151

0.157

0.154

0.120

0.136

0.145

0.075

0.057

0.059

0.123

0.151

0.046

1.000

E15

0.042

0.055

0.007

0.083

−0.020

0.048

0.046

0.037

0.063

0.019

−0.018

0.069

0.030

0.005

1.000

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

Table 12 KMO and Bartlett’s test—engagement variables

KMO and Barlett’s test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin in measure of sampling adequacy .860

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 1,217.922

df 105

Sig. .000

Table 13 Total variance explained—engagement variables

Competent Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums ofsquared loadings

Rotation sums ofsquared loadings

Total % ofvariance

Cumulative%

Total % ofvariance

Cumulative%

Total % ofvariance

Cumulative %

1 4.101 27.343 27.343 4.101 27.343 27.343 2.806 18.705 18.705

2 1.260 8.401 35.742 1.260 8.401 35.743 1.848 12.319 31.024

3 1.066 7.107 42.850 1.066 7.107 42.850 1.284 8.558 39.582

4 1.039 6.928 49.778 1.039 6.928 49.778 1.166 7.771 47.354

5 .965 6.431 56.209 .965 6.431 56.209 1.121 7.476 54.829

6 .950 6.333 62.542 .950 6.333 62.542 1.035 6.898 61.727

7 .902 6.012 68.555 .902 6.012 68.555 1.024 6.827 68.555

8 .784 5.224 73.778

9 .719 4.792 78.570

10 .660 4.399 82.970

11 .610 4.067 87.036

12 .575 3.836 90.872

13 .528 3.518 94.390

14 .449 2.996 97.386

15 .392 2.614 100.000

Extraction method, principal component analysis

Y. Bhattacharya

References

ABS (2012) Guidance notes on safety culture and leading indicators of safety. http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/188_Safety/Guide.Accessed: 11 Jan 2013

Aon Hewitt (2013) 2013 trends in global employee engagement. www.aonhewitt.com/. Accessed: 10 Jan 2013Bakker AB, Demerouti E (2007) The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol 22:309–328Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Euwema MC (2005) Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. J

Occup Health Psychol 10:170–180Balain S, Sparrow P (2009) Engaged to perform: a new perspective on employee engagement: executive

summary. Lancaster University Management School, LancasterBarney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17Baumruk R (2004) The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan

47:48–52Bernthal PR, Wellins RS (2000) Retaining talent: a benchmarking study. www.ddiworld.com/pdf/cpgn60.pdf.

2000. Accessed: 03 Jan 2013Blessing White (2008) The state of employee engagement. Retrieved from: www.blessingwhite.com/research.

Accessed: 20 Jan 2013Blessing White (2013) Employee engagement research update Jan 2013. www.blessingwhite.com/research.

Accessed: 19 Jan 2013Blessing White Engagement Report (2011) Beyond the numbers: a practical approach for individuals,

managers and executives. http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/reports/blessingwhite_2011_ee_report.pdf. Accessed: 22 Jan 2013

Fig. 1 Scree plot—engagement variables

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

Bowling A, Ebrahim S (2005) Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement andanalysis. McGraw-Hill, New York

Branham L, Hirschfield M (2010) Re-engage: How America’s best places to work inspire extra effort inextraordinary times. McGraw-Hill, New York

CIPD (2005) Managing change: the role of the psychological contract. http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/06B92739-19F8-4BB4-AE47-796EA5F5CB15/0/manachang1105.pdf. Accessed: 03 Feb 2013

CIPD (2006) What’s happening with well-being at work? http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DCCE94D7-781A-485A-A702-6DAAB5EA7B27/0/whthapwbwrk.pdf. Accessed: 27 Jan 2013

CIPD (2010) Creating an engaged workforce—findings from the Kingston Employee EngagementConsortium Project. http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DD66E557-DB90-4F07-8198-87C3876F3371/0/Creating_engaged_workforce.pdf. Accessed: 15 Feb 2013

CIPD (2011) Research insight. Retrieved from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5468%20Mgt%20Comp%20RI%20(WEB).pdf. Accessed: 18 Feb 2013

CIPD (2013) Employee outlook—Winter 2012–13. www.cipd.co.uk/employeeoutlook. Accessed: 10 Mar 2013Clifton JK (2008) Engaging your employees: Six keys to understanding the new workplace. SHRM. http://www.

hci.org/lib/engaging-youremployees-six-keys-understanding-new-workplace. Accessed: 06 Jan 2013Coffman C, Gonzalez-Molina G (2002) Follow this path: how the World’s greatest organizations drive growth

by unleashing human potential. Warner, New YorkCropanzano R, Mitchell MS (2005) Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manag 31:874–900Cropanzano R,Wright TA (2001) When a ‘happy’ worker is really a ‘productive’ worker: a review and further

refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 53:182–199Dale Carnegie Training (2012) What drives employee engagement and why it matters. Available at: www.

dalecarnegie.com/. Accessed: 06 Mar 2013Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB (2001) The job demands-resources model of burnout. J

Appl Psychol 86:499–512Drewry (2012) Global seafarers: Manning—2012. Provided by Drewry IndiaEmerson RM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annu Rev Sociol 2:335–362Federman B (2009) Employee engagement: a roadmap for creating profits, optimizing performance and

increasing loyalty. Jossey Bass, San FranciscoField A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage, LondonFredrickson BL (1998) What good are positive emotions? Rev Gen Psychol Spec Issue New Dir Res Emot 2:

300–319Fredrickson BL (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology the broaden and build theory of

positive emotions. Am Psychol 56(3):218–226Fredrickson BL, Joiner T (2002) Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being.

Psychol Sci 13:172–175Gallup Consulting (2008) Employee engagement: what’s your engagement ratio? www.gallup.com/.

Accessed: 17 March 2013Gallup (2012) The state of the American workplace: employee engagement insights for U.S. business leaders.

www.gallup.com/. Accessed: 22 Apr 2013Gallup Business Journal (n.d.) Engagement keeps the doctor away. http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/

14500/engagement-keeps-doctor-away.aspx. Accessed: 23 Dec 2012Gibbons JM (2006) Employee engagement a review of current research and its implications. The Conference

Board, New YorkHair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2009) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, New YorkHallberg UE, Schaufeli WB (2006) ‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from

job involvement and organizational commitment? Eur Psychol 11(2):119–127Hay Group (2012) The loyalty deficit: the employees are restless again. www.haygroup.com/. Accessed: 11

May 2013Hewitt Associates (2004) Employee engagement higher at double digit growth companies. Research Brief.

Hewitt associates LLC. http://www.mckpeople.com.au/SiteMedia/w3svc161/Uploads/Documents/016fc140-895a-41bf-90df-9ddb28f4bdab.pdf. Accessed: 17 Dec 2012

Hewitt Associates (2008) Engaging employees for business success. https://ceplb03.hewitt.com/bestemployers/puertorico/pdfs/Engaging%20Employees%20for%20Business%20Success.pdf. Accessed:30 Apr 2013

Hinton PR (2004) Statistics explained. Routledge, New YorkHumphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP (2007) Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work

design features: a metaanalytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J ApplPsychol 92:1332–1356. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Y. Bhattacharya

Jolliffe IT (1972) Discarding variables in a principal component analysis 1: artificial data. Appl Stat 21:160–173

Kahn WA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad ManagJ 33:692–724

Kaye B, Jordan-Evans S (2003) Engaging talent. Exec Excell 20(8):11Kenexa (2012) The many contexts of employee engagement. A 2012/2013 Kenexa Worktrends Report. www.

kenexa.com/. Accessed: 19 May 2013Ketter P (2008) What’s the big deal about employee engagement? Training and Development, January, 44–49Little B, Little P (2006) Employee engagement: conceptual issues. Journal of organizational culture. Commun

Confl 10:111–120Luthans F, Peterson S (2002) Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. J Manag Dev 21(5):376–387Macey WH (2006) Toward a definition of engagement. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology 21st Annual Conference, May, Dallas, TXMacey W, Schneider B (2008) The meaning of employee engagement. Ind Organ Psychol 1(2008):3–30MacLeod D, Clarke N (2009) Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement.

Retrieved from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdfMagramo M, Eler G, Calambuhay J, Bernas L (2010) Officers as prostitutes: myth or reality? Int J Mar Navig

Saf Sea Transp 4(3):333–335Manuel ME (2011) Maritime risk and organizational learning. Ashgate, LondonMay DR, Gilson RL, Harter LM (2004) The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and

availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J Occup Organ Psychol 77:11–37MCA (2010) The Human element. http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/the_human_element_a_guide_to_human_

behaviour_in_the_shipping_industry. Accessed: 21 Dec 2012Mercer (2007) Exploring the global drivers of employee engagement. www.mercer.com/referencecontent.

htm?idContent=1281670. Accessed: 14 Dec 2012Munro BH (2005) Statistical methods for health care research. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaNahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Hoffman DA (2010) Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link

between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J Appl Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0021484

OECD (1996) Competitive advantages obtained by some ship owners as a result of non-observance ofapplicable international rules and standards http://www.oecd.org/sti/transport/maritimetransport/2754615.pdf. Accessed: 19 Mar 2013

PAHRIS (2010) Employee engagement. http://www.turningpointhr.com/images/content/Employee%20Engagement.pdf. Accessed: 11 Jan 2013

Pett MA (1997) Nonparametric statistics in health care research: statistics for small samples and unusualdistributions. Sage, California

Robertson-Smith G, Markwick C (2009) Employee engagement: a review of current thinking. Institute forEmployment Studies, Brighton

Robinson D (2007). Employee engagement; opinion paper OP11, Institute for Employment Studies. http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/op11.pdf. Accessed: 17 Dec 2012

Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S (2004) The drivers of employee engagement. www.employment-studies.co.uk/. Accessed: 16 Jan 2013

Saks AM (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J Manag Psychol 21(7):600–619Salanova M, Agut S, Peiró JM (2005) Linking organizational resources and work engagement to

employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. J Appl Psychol90(6):1217–1227

Sara L, Rynes SL, Gerhart B, Minette KA (2004) The importance of pay in employee motivation: discrep-ancies between what people say and what they do. Hum Resour Manag Winter 43(4):381–394

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout andengagement: a multi-sample study. J Organ Behav 25:293–315

Schaufeli WB, Salanova M (2007) Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implicationsfor organizations. In: Gilliland SW, Steiner DD, Skarlicki DP (eds) Research in social issues inmanagement (volume 5): managing social and ethical issues in organizations. Information AgePublishers, Greenwich

Shaffer J (2004) Measurable payoff. Communication World, July-Aug 2004. http://jimshaffergroup.com/wp-content/uploads/Measurable-Payoff-through-Employee-Engagement.pdf. Accessed: 12 Feb 2013

Shaw K (2005) An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strateg Commun Manag 9(3):26–29SHRM/Globoforce (2013) Driving stronger performance through employee recognition—2013 Report. www.

shrm.com/. Accessed: 21 May 2013

Employee engagement in the shipping industry

Singhal R (n.d.) Employer’s perspective on the global seafarer shortage. http://www.marinersnetwork.com/.Accessed: 08 Nov 2013

Sundaray BK (2011) Employee engagement: a driver of organizational effectiveness. Eur J Bus Manag 3(8):2011

Towers Perrin (2005) Is your workforce truly engaged in helping your organisation succeed? http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/GBR/2005/200511/RED.pdf. Accessed: 14 Jan 2013

Towers Perrin (2008) Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study 2007–2008. http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2008/200803/GWS_Global_Report20072008_31208.pdf. Accessed:18 Mar 2013

Towers Watson (2012) Global Workforce Study. http://towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-Study.pdf. Accessed: 18 Mar 2013

Towers Perrin HR Services (2003) Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement, The2003 Towers Perrin Talent Report. http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=hrs/usa/2003/200309/talent_2003.pdf. Accessed: 14 Jan 2013

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (2008) The power of federal employee engagement. http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=379024&version=379721. Accessed: 22 Mar 2013

UNCTAD (2012) Review of Maritime Transport 2012, United Nations, Geneva. unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2012_en.pdf. Accessed: 14 Dec 2012

Vance R (2006) Employee engagement and commitment. http://www.cashort.com/Libraries/Employee_Recognition_Programs/Employee_Engagement_and_Commitment.sflb.ashx. Accessed: 10 Dec 2012

Watson Wyatt (2009) Work USA survey report—driving business results through continuous engagement.http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/pdfs/2008-US-0232.pdf. Accessed: 18 Mar 2013

Wellins R, Concelman J (2005) Creating a culture for engagement. www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf. Accessed: 22 Apr 2013

Zhu W, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO (2009) Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformationalleadership and follower work engagement. Group Organ Manag 34(5):590–619

Y. Bhattacharya