EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

IS YOUR SEAFARER TRULY ENGAGED?
A Research Report
Captain Yogendra Bhattacharya, PhD

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

Engagement
Worldwide

IS YOUR SEAFARER TRULY ENGAGED?

Gallup's 142country
study (2013) found

INTRODUCTION
The last decade has seen the international maritime industry coping
with increased losses due to ship casualties, accidents,
environmental pollution incidents and the like that can be traced
back to human factors. Adding to the woes of ship owners are weak
freight markets, and a shortage of quality officers, partly caused by
the negative image being acquired by it in the face of these
incidents. The shortage of experienced and quality officers is
alarming as it directly impacts the performance, safety and retention
of seafarers. Not only has the industry become unattractive to
potential newcomers, existing seafarers are also leaving a sailing
career to settle in safer jobs ashore. This has resulted in an increase in
horizontal mobility of officers between employers, and combined
with the general exodus does not portend well for shipping. The
industry thus needs to reinvent itself and position it as a career of
choice for the youth of today.
Similar problems are also reported from shore based industries, and
these are being addressed by focusing more on employees as the
source of competitive advantage. Numerous practices are being
developed and followed effectively by HR practitioners to enhance
the performance of employees and utilize their full potential. One of
the recent practices developed and successfully implemented is the
concept of Employee Engagement.
Engagement refers to the physical, emotional and cognitive
commitment employees have to the job and organization. Engaged
employees have a bond with the employer, are involved and
enthusiastic about their work, use discretionary effort and willingly go
the extra mile for the organization.

13.0%
employees
worldwide
Engaged at work

63.0%
found to be
Not Engaged
.

24.0%
found to be
Actively
disengaged

GALLUP. (2013), State of the

global workplace,
http://www.gallup.com/strat
egicconsulting/164735/stateglobal-workplace.aspx

Engagement
Defined

The extent to which

employees are
motivated to contribute
to organizational
success, and are willing
to apply discretionary
effort to accomplishing
tasks important to the
achievement of
organizational goals.

WHAT IS EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT?

The construct of Engagement has a comparatively short time line,
having

been

conceptualized

by

Kahn

(1990).

He

defined

engagement as the harnessing of organization members selves to

their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role
performances. Wellins and Concelman (2005) define engagement
as the illusive force that motivates employees to higher (or lower)
levels of performance. They also suggest that engagement is an
amalgamation of commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership.
Robinson, et al (2004) provide one of the most definitive and

(Macey and Schneider, 2008)

descriptive definition as being a positive attitude held by the

employee towards the organization and its values. An engaged

A positive, fulfilling and

work-related state of
mind that is
characterised by
vigour, dedication
(efficacy) and
absorption
(Schaufeli, et al, 2002)

..
A heightened
emotional and
intellectual connection
that an employee has
for his or her
organization, manager,
or co-workers that, in
turn, influences him/her
to apply additional
discretionary effort to
his/her work

employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to

improve performance within the job for the benefit of the
organization. The organization must work to nurture, maintain and
grow the engagement, which requires a two-way relationship
between employer and employee.
Numerous

studies

Engagement

and

have

shown

business

positive

outcomes

linkages

such

as

between

productivity,

performance, safety, turnover, and customer loyalty. Engagement

can be measured and enhancement programs across industries
have also resulted in benefits to organizations at both individual and
organizational levels.
Engagement has been conceptualised as the positive antithesis of
burnout - an erosion of work engagement, by means of which
energy turns into exhaustion, involvement into cynicism, and efficacy
into ineffectiveness (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter 2001). Engagement
was further characterized as an energetic state of involvement with
personally fulfilling activities to enhance ones sense of professional
efficacy.

(Gibbons, 2006)

(Frank et al, 2004)

Since Kahns seminal work, the construct has undergone rigorous

testing and analysis by academics as well as practitioners, making it
a popular concept in HRM today.

....
Amount of
discretionary effort
exhibited by employees
in their jobs

BENEFITS OF ENGAGEMENT
Engaged employees are more satisfied and have better wellbeing.
The incentives to organizations are expected to be much greater,
and fairly consistent results have been demonstrated regarding the
positive outcomes of implementing engagement enhancing
strategies, both in academic and practitioner contexts (RobertsonSmith and Markwick, 2009).
Gallup (2008) reported engaged employees have

51% lower turnover

27% less absenteeism
18% more productivity
12% higher profitability

Watson Wyatt found that highly engaged employees

Are twice as likely as their less engaged peers to be top

performers.
They miss 20% fewer days of work.
About 75% of them exceed or far exceed expectations in their
most recent performance review.

Improved employee productivity

Better organizational financial performance

Engagement Outcomes

Improved bottom line profits

Increased employee retention
Advocacy of the organization
Enhanced managerial self-efficacy
More effective change management
Better safety and health, reduced costs
Enhanced customer loyalty

Engagement Benefits

Results from Caterpillars

engagement initiatives:
$8.8 million annual
savings from decreased
attrition, absenteeism
and overtime
70% increase in output
in less than four months
Decrease in the break
even point by almost
50% in units/day, and a
decrease in grievances
by 80%, $2 million
increase in profit and a
34% increase in highly
satisfied customers

Beverage giant Molson

Coors found:
Engaged employees
were five times less likely
than non-engaged
employees to have a
safety incident and
seven times less likely to
have a lost-time safety
incident
Average cost of a
safety incident for
engaged employees
was $63, compared
with an average of $392
for non-engaged
employees, saving
$1,721,760 in safety
costs

Vance (2006)

Driver Facts

In a UK study, only 29%

of workers believed that
senior management
was genuinely
concerned with
employee well-being;
31% found
communication with
senior management
open and honest; 3%
considered themselves
and their contribution
treated by managers as
essential to the
organisation, while a
significant 60% felt that
they were being
treated like just another
organizational asset to
be managed by seniors
(Watson Wyatt, 2007)

----------------------------------A survey of 10,000 NHS

employees in the UK
identified that the
feeling of being
involved and valued
was a key enabler of
employee
engagement. This
included elements such
as involvement in
decision making,
freedom to offer
suggestions, personal
development
prospects, and the
concern for employees
demonstrated by the
organization.

Employee engagement has different connotations to different

people. Conditions that promote engagement in one industry or
organization may not be considered valid in another. The drivers of
engagement are numerous and depend on many variables such as
the type of industry, age, role, tenure, and even geographical
regions of the world. A multitude of drivers are suggested, both within
the consultancy literature as well as the limited academic literature,
apart from wide ranging views of employers, organizations,
academics, consultants and even employees themselves.
Engagement

has

been

organizations,

mainly

successfully

consultancy

measured

groups

like

by

many

Gallup,

Hewitt

Associates, Towers Perrin, Blessing White, ISR etc. The antecedents of

engagement are generally similar across all findings, with marginal
differences. A comparison between the various models reveals the
following to be the most cited drivers of engagement:

Recognition of work

Performance management

Voice heard

Feeling valued

Financial rewards

Pride in company

Company advocacy

Nature of work

Best friend at work

Senior managers

Intrinsic motivation

Job demands

Autonomy

Career growth

Work resources

Co-workers

(Robinson et al, 2004)

WHAT DRIVES ENGAGEMENT?

THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

Driver Facts

Cognitive
Attachement
Physical
Expression

Emotional
Connection

Engaged
Employees

..

Who

Take
Initiative

Believe
can make
a
difference
to business
outcomes

Stay
vigilant
and
focused

Support &
reinforce
culture &
values

Voluntarily
put in
effort

Create Employees Who Are

Proud, loyal &

committed

Go the extra mile

The culture of including

employees in the larger
picture is known as
people practices and
leaders of the best
managed companies
maintain constant
communication with
their employees
regarding its direction,
competitive
strategies, long and
short term objectives,
and the progress being
made in their
achievement.

Feel ownership of
the organization

Best Employers who

provide sufficient
opportunities to their
employees, assisting
them in their
development as well as
personal and
professional growth
..
This commitment to
training and
development does not
go unappreciated by its
employees who are
Page | 54
73% more willing to take
on additional
responsibilities,
compared to 51% in
other organizations

(Hewitt, 2004)

Snapshots

In the five years to 2005,

an average of 18 ships
collided, grounded,
sank, caught fire or
exploded every single
day. Incredibly, two
ships sank every day.

The Standard P&I Club

estimates that over a
recent ten-year period,
insurance claims cost
the P&I industry US$15
billion. Thats US$4
million dollars every
day.

Over 65% of this vast

pay-out US$10 billion
was for incidents in
which humans played
the dominant part.

In 2008, a maritime
disaster occurred on
average nearly every
week. Each one
involved an insurance
claim of over US$17m or
had an economic
impact of over US$85m.

The maritime industry has not been left untouched by the changing
international operating environment. Every day brings in newer
challenges that must be overcome in order to survive and eventually
succeed. These challenges come in the form of newer legislations,
changing requirements of vessels trading areas, newer
technologies, environmental pollution issues, incidents and
accidents, and the ever present need to reducing operating costs.
A majority of the above issues lie within the purview of ship owners.
However, the operational aspects of ships are well within the domain
of the ships crew, and it is essential that they rise to the demands of
the industry and raise their performance levels.
The incident snapshots on the left leave no doubt in anyones minds
that the root cause of these losses is the competence levels of the
crew manning and operating ships. This being apparent, a case can
be built on raising seafarers competence levels. This is however
easier said than done. In todays age of multinational crews and
different competence measurement regimes, despite regulations to
this effect, attaining the same standards of competence across the
world fleet may not be practicably feasible. There is no dearth of
training courses that seafarers have to undergo, but these do not
appear to be enhancing skills, making it more of a paperwork
exercise.
There are many other issues relating to crewing that impact
operational performance such as a diminishing pool of experienced
senior officers who are always on the lookout for a shore assignment,
an expected career span of 5 10 years for new entrants, the
inability of the industry to attract potentially good seafarers, the
negative image of the industry due to criminalisation of seafarers,
lowering of entry level requirements, and the like. With the near
disappearance of officers from the traditionally maritime nations,
even in the developing world a maritime career has moved away
from being a career of choice to one where the door is open to all
those who cannot fit anywhere else. A majority of shipowners, in their
short term zeal to save construction costs, have also done away with
cabins on board for trainees. All these compound to create a
situation that does not exactly become a nurturing ground for
quality future officers.

(MCA, 2010)

ENGAGEMENT AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

The industry and regulatory bodies, on their part, have taken steps
reactively and not proactively to address these issues of
operational competence. Prime among these are investment in
newer technologies, promulgation of new rules and regulations, and
investment in automation. This appears to be a throwback to the
early days of industrial safety where people were considered to be
accident prone, and safeguards instead of training was the only
acceptable way out. However, new advancements are based in
the misplaced assumption that seafarers will be able to master their
use something quite unlikely given the modern day recruits and
their shore/ship based training regimen.
To quote ABS (2012):
The maritime industry is still some way from achieving the goal of
peak safety performance (i.e., no operational incidents, no
personal injuries, and no harm to the environment).There is a
general recognition in the industry that encouraging safe working
practices

does

not

require

more

rules,

regulations,

and

procedures. Instead, the industry needs a better understanding of

the social and organizational factors that foster professionalism in
the seafarer in routine and emergency situations.
The industry focus should therefore shift towards making seafarers
truly competent in their professions, not only through essential and
quality training, but also by addressing the social and organizational
factors that foster professionalism in seafarers. In other words, the
intent should be to bring back pride in the profession.
One of the ways to do this is by embracing the principles of

Snapshots

The International Union

of Marine Insurance
(IUMI) declared 2006 to
be a catastrophic year
for hull claims. The next
year, it was four times
worse.

IUMI reports the

average number of
incidents involving the
serious or total loss of
vessels over 500gt had
steadily risen in the 15year period to 2008.
60% of these around
two major incidents per
day in 2008 were due
to human error.

In 2008, maritime
insurers paid out over
half a billion US dollars
for casualties.

who are physically, cognitively and emotionally committed to the

In 2009, the renewal

costs for the
International Group of
P&I Clubs increased by
an average of 16.5%.

organization, have a feeling of ownership of the organization, are

employee engagement which have been successfully used in

numerous industries worldwide. It is this engaged seafarer that can
make all the difference as what the industry requires are seafarers

passionate and enthusiastic about their jobs, are motivated, involved

and satisfied with their work, and, above all, are willing to put in
discretionary effort and go the extra mile for the organization.

The final costs for the

1989 Exxon Valdez
disaster were US$4
billion.

(MCA, 2010)

Data Collection

Sample Size: 433

Deck Off: 337
Engineers: 94
Senior Offs: 102
Junior Offs: 331
Av Age Dk: 27.4 yrs

MEASURING ENGAGEMENT
Employee Engagement can be quantitatively measured using
survey tools and questionnaires. There are many such questionnaires
available and in use, some developed in-house by organizations,
while many developed by major consultancies. The most popular is
the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA Q12), while some others are the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), and instruments developed
by consultancies such as IES, Towers Perrin, and Blessing White etc.

Av Age Eng: 29.3 yrs

..
Methodology based on
U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board (2008)
Engagement scale
developed using 15
items, performance
scale with 19 items,
safety scale with 19
items, and retention
scale using 18 items
Engagement Variables seven factors extracted
accounting for 68.555 %
of variance
Performance Variables eight factors extracted
accounting for 62.632 %
of variance
Safety Variables - Seven
factors extracted
accounting for 64.810 %
of variance
Retention Variables - Six
factors extracted
accounting for 63.125 %
of variance

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study was to measure the engagement levels of
Indian officers, and to determine the relationship between
Engagement and Performance, Safety, and Retention. It was also
determined if there is any relationship between engagement and
rank as well tenure with the shipping company.

RESEARCH DESIGN
The questionnaire was designed using the engagement,
performance, safety and retention drivers identified through
literature review. For engagement, the Gallup Q12 formed the base,
modified to suit the maritime environment. A focus group then
commented on the suitability of the questionnaire, and the final
instrument was drawn up. The survey instrument was in four parts,
each measuring one variable; demographic information was
collected through eight statements.
Convenience sampling was used as no sampling frame is available,
and there are no special demographic groups which could
introduce bias.
The data was collected from active Indian officers, attending
mandatory courses at two maritime colleges in New Delhi and the
NCR region, over a period of three months. The questionnaire was
personally administered and collected at the same time. A total of
448 responses collected. 15 were rejected due incomplete data
giving 433 responses for analysis.
SPSS 20 was used for analysis, with Varimax orthogonal rotation and
Kaiser normalization for extraction.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The engagement scale was developed using 15 items, retention and
performance scales with 17 items, and safety scale with 19 items.
These scales assisted in categorizing seafarers as Engaged, Partially
Engaged and Disengaged, apart from indicating their scores on
performance, safety and retention. Each question was weighted
from 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree). Respondents scoring
5 on all items would have a total score of 85 on performance and
retention, 95 on safety, and 75 on engagement. Similarly, if the score
on all items is 1, the scores would be 17 for performance and
retention, 19 for safety, and 15 for engagement.
Respondents are classified as Engaged if they agree with each of
the 15 items on engagement, i.e., they responded Agree which
had a weightage of 4. Thus the engaged category would have a
minimum score of 60.
The Partially Engaged is the segment scoring between 60 and pure
neutrality, or 45 (answered each item with Neither Agree nor
Disagree). The Disengaged category consists of those who score
less than 45 overall.
A similar methodology is used for the other variables of Safety,
Performance, and Retention.
The results arrived at after analysis indicated that the respondents
levels on the four variables measured were very low, and are
summarized below.

ENGAGEMENT: The mean Engagement Score was calculated as

ENGAGEMENT

51.69, with a standard deviation of 6.416, and standard error of 0.304.

The individual engagement scores ranged from a low of 34, to a high
of 71. Only 10.6% of respondents could be categorized as engaged,
with 11.8% disengaged.

Engaged

Partially Engaged

10.60%

0%

40%

10.6%
of Officers were found
to be engaged

77.6%
of Officers were found
to be partially engaged

11.8%
of Officers were found
to be disengaged

Disengaged

77.60%

20%

Highlights

11.80%

60%

80%

100%

10


Performance
Levels
High: 5.60%

PERFORMANCE:

The mean Performance Score was calculated

as 55.88, with a standard deviation of 6.650, and standard error of

0.320. The individual performance score ranged from a low of 38 to a
high of 74. On performance, only 5.6% of officers could be
considered in the high category.
PERFORMANCE

Highlights

High
5.60%

Low

72.00%

0%

Medium: 72.0%

Medium

20%

40%

22.40%

60%

80%

100%

Low: 22.4%
SAFETY:

The mean Safety Score was calculated as 65.85, with a

standard deviation of 8.741, and standard error of 0.420. The

individual safety scores ranged from a low of 40 to a high of 89. A
slightly higher percentage, 13.4% of officers fell in the high category.

Safety Levels
Medium: 72.3%

SAFETY

High: 13.4%

High

Low: 14.3%

Medium

13.40%

0%

Low

72.30%

20%

40%

14.30%

60%

80%

100%

RETENTION:
Retention Levels
High: 9.2%

with a standard deviation of 9.278, and standard error of 0.446. The

individual safety scores ranged from a low of 30 to a high of 80. The
high category had 9.2%, while the low had 30.5% officers.

Medium: 60.3%

High
Retention

Low: 30.5%

The mean Retention Score was calculated as 55.45,

9.20%

0%

Medium

Low

60.30%

20%

40%

30.50%

60%

80%

100%

11

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Engagement of officers was found to be significantly correlated with

Performance

r = 0.786 and R2 = 0.617

Safety

r = 0.791 and R2 = 0.626

Retention

r = 0.811 and R2 = 0.657

This testifies to the high and positive relationship of engagement with

performance, safety and retention.
There was a significant difference found in the engagement levels of
senior officers versus junior officers. The correlation, however, was not
very strong.
Contrary to findings from engagement literature, the relationship
between engagement and tenure of officers was not found to be
statistically significant, leading to the conclusion that longer service
with a shipping company did not result in higher engagement levels.

Findings

50.5% found good

work recognized
opportunities

47.4% agreed
they had necessary
spares/stores

44.1% were happy

with pay

30.8% were
satisfied with benefits

51.5% accepted
ENGAGEMENT DRIVERS
The factors responsible for engagement were found to be:

Work & Co-Workers

Work Environment
Career Advancement
Financial Rewards
Job Demands
Work Autonomy
Organizational Support

On performance, the drivers were found to be

Commitment of Organization
Training & Development
Pay & Benefits
Work Resources
Work Initiative
Work Environment
Regulatory Compliance
Job Security

their Company was

genuinely interested
in their safety and well
being

53.3% were proud

of their organization

31.1% agreed that

their suggestions were
valued

35.6% said their

Company treated all
seafarers equally

73.9% stated they

could perform better
at their jobs

12

Findings

As regards Safety, the factors derived were:

Safety Support

Organizational Support

Resource Availability

36.7% found

Safety Climate

Job Demands

Just Culture

Safety Compliance

shipboard
recreational facilities
to be good

37.1% found their

grievances addressed

38.6% attested to
good communication
facilities on board

43.2% felt efforts

were made to relieve
them on time

33.2% have taken

short cuts

41.8% get enough

rest

19.9% agree
efforts were made to
procure shore leave
for them

47.6% felt
paperwork has
removed the
challenge

30.5% agreed

Shipboard Life

Organizational Support

Recognition of Merit

Remuneration

Just Culture

Job Security

ENHANCING ENGAGEMENT
The survey revealed that there are many areas where ship owners
could focus on to increase engagement levels. Engagement is a
continuum and there are many officers who are close to being
engaged. Ship owners can concentrate on these as they will require
the least effort to engage fully. Among the issues that raise concern
are:
Recognition of good work
Work and Rest issues
Lack of a No-blame culture
Inadequate stores/spares
Shipboard life issues such as recreation, communication
Adequate shore leave and work/life balance
Autonomy at work
Grievance redressal
Fair treatment
Feeling of being a part of the organization
Providing benefits

13

they could work

without office
interference

On Retention, the following were isolated as contributory factors:

It can also be seen that a majority of officers stated that they could
perform better and contribute by reducing wastage, given the right
conditions. These are issues, along with other positive aspects found,
that should be leveraged by ship owners to optimize the capacity of
their seafarers.
All engagement initiatives do not require the expending of monetary
resources and can be well managed within the existing
infrastructure. However, each ship owner needs to identify their own
barriers to engagement, and then have initiatives in place to remove
them.

Findings

40.6% found
workload excessive

35.3% happy with

work/life balance

In general, the following measures could be considered as primary:

18% agreed to a

1. Improve Organizational Support: Lack of Perceived

Organizational Support is the biggest barrier. Trust in executives
can have more than twice the impact on engagement levels
than trust in immediate managers

no-blame culture

2. Ensure Job Security: Maritime employment is itself based on

impermanency - contractual. However both the company and
seafarers benefit by changing over to regular employment
3. Provide Benefits: Augmenting pay packages with benefits has a
positive effect on retention and will greatly enhance a sense of
belonging and contribute to engagement
4. Enhance Work Culture: Reduced autonomy and standing due
increased day-to-day direction from shore one of the barriers to
retention at sea. Provide autonomy and a no blame culture
allowing officers to exercise discretionary effort and go the
extra mile
5. Improve Quality of Shipboard Life: The monotony of working and
living aboard modern cargo ships adds to the boredom and
social isolation of seafarers. Better quality of shipboard
accommodation, recreational facilities and communication
facilities will improve the quality of life, demonstrate POS and
enhance engagement
6. Reduce Workload & Fatigue: Excess work and inadequate
quantity or quality of rest result in fatigue - a major factor on
board with ships being run on skeletal crews. Fatigue is a major
cause of accidents and has been accepted by all stakeholders.

28.2% find their

Company placing
quality above costs

40% felt an
important part of the
company

66% preferred
regular employment
over contracts

47.8% found
superintendents/
seniors good role
models

47.1% were happy

working for any owner

73.3% considered
they could contribute
more by avoiding
wastage

14

POS

CONCLUSION

Seafaring is a career that requires seafarers who can take initiative,

exercise discretionary effort, take ownership of their job, and willingly
go the extra mile for the organization in essence, they must be
engaged. Engagement is however a two way street wherein the
organization needs to visibly demonstrate its intent and allow its
seafarers to use their creativity, initiative and develop their decision
making skills, something which can only be undertaken in an
atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. Being the larger
stakeholders, the onus thus falls on ship owners to have such systems
in place. Modern ship management systems do not allow too much
liberty by way of allowing for seafarers initiative and creativity, but a
balance needs to be found within the existing framework.

Perceived
Organizational Support
(POS) stems from
organizational support
theory, and is the
appraisal employees
make of the extent their
employer values their
contribution, and shows
concern for their wellbeing.
Based on this appraisal,
they not only determine
how their socioemotional needs will be
met at work, but also
the disposition of the
employer towards
rewards for additional
efforts.
It has been argued that
favourable work
experiences strengthen
POS, as well as the
belief that the decisions
making these
favourable experiences
have been voluntary
and discretionary, and
not a consequence of
regulatory compliance

Once such mechanisms are in place, shipping can also benefit from
improved seafarer performance, enhanced safety on board, as well
as increased retention.

Limitations and Suggestions

1. The survey was carried out only on Indian officers, in Delhi and
NCR region
2. The distribution of senior officers, junior officers, engineers and
deck officers was not proportional
3. There is limited literature available on human resource aspects
of a career at sea
4. The study of engagement of nationalities other than Indians
can be undertaken; different cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds between nations can have an impact on
engagement.
5. The study was also restricted to officers. The scope can be
expanded to include ratings too, as they also form a part of the
operations of ships.

15

REFERENCES
ABS (2012). Guidance Notes on Safety Culture and Leading Indicators of Safety. Retrieved from:
http://www.eagle.org
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in
the 21st century, Human Resource Planning, Vol 27, No 3, pp12-25.
Gallup Consulting (2008), Employee Engagement: Whats your engagement ratio? www.gallup.com
GALLUP. (2013), State of the global workplace, www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/164735/stateglobal-workplace.aspx
Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee Engagement: A Review of Current Research and Its Implications,
montrealoffice.wikispaces.com
Hewitt. (2004). What Makes a Best Employer?
https://ceplb03.hewitt.com/bestemployers/canada/french/pdfs/bestemployer.pdf
Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol 33, pp692-724.
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008).The Meaning of Employee Engagement, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1 (2008), 330.
Maslach, C. Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001) Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 52,
pp397-422.
MCA. (2010). The Human Element,
www.dft.gov.uk/mca/the_human_element_a_guide_to_human_behaviour_in_the_shipping_industry.
Robertson-Smith, G., & Markwick, C. (2009), Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking. Brighton,
UK: Institute for Employment Studies
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton, Institute
for Employment Studies.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., GonzalezRoma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 3, 7192
Towers Perrin (2008). Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study 2007-2008, http://www.towersperrin.com
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2008). The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, www.mspb.gov
Vance, R. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment,
www.cashort.com/Libraries/Employee_Recognition_Programs
Watson Wyatt (2007). Playing to Win in a Global Economy: Global Strategic Rewards Report and United
States Findings, www.watsonwyatt.com/research/pdfs/2007-US-0260.pdf
Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005), Creating a culture for engagement,
www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf.

16

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Yogendra Bhattacharya is a professional seafarer, having joined sea in
1978 as a Cadet on the T.S. Rajendra, rising to take command as a
Captain in January 1993. He has been sailing as a Master on sea
going ships, specializing in the transportation and carriage of crude oil
and petroleum products. He has a PhD in Human Resource
Management in the Maritime Industry, and a Masters degree in
Shipping and Logistics Management. He has been teaching maritime
related subjects to MBA students of Port and Shipping Management,
and Energy Trading, since 2007.
This paper is a synopsis of his PhD dissertation Employee Engagement
in the Maritime Industry: A Predictor of Performance, Safety and
Retention.
Other papers published are:
Y. Bhattacharya (2015). Employee Engagement as a Predictor of
Seafarer Retention: A Study Among Indian Officers, Asian Journal of
Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 31, Issue 2, June 2015, pp 295-318,
doi:10.1016/j.ajsl.2015.06.007
Y. Bhattacharya (2014). Employee engagement in the shipping
industry: a study of engagement among Indian officers, World
Maritime University Journal of Maritime Affairs, DOI 10.1007/s13437-0140065-x
Y. Bhattacharya (2012). The Drivers of Employee Engagement in the
Maritime Industry: An Empirical Study, Asia Pacific Journal of Research
in Business Management - Volume 3, Issue 11 (November, 2012) ISSN
2229-4104
Y. Bhattacharya (2012). Performance in the Maritime Industry: An
Analysis of its Drivers Among Indian Officers, published in International
Journal of Business Economics & Management Research - Volume 3,
Issue 12 (December, 2012) ISSN 22294848.
Working Papers (under review): Y. Bhattacharya - Measuring Safety
Culture on Ships Using Safety Climate: A study Among Indian Officers,
submitted to Journal of Safety Research

He is currently associated with the University of Petroleum & Energy

Studies, Dehra Dun, as a Visiting Professor.
For any details, he can be reached on ybhattacharya9@gmail.com

17