EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION

AND ENGAGEMENT SURVEY

Energy Sector

A Research Report Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Course: Human Resource Management

Submitted by:
Vaibhav Singh – 25BC625
Tarush Gupta – 25BC607
Vaibhav Aggarwal – 25BC623
Vasu Jain – 25BC643

Sample Size: 30 Respondents

1. Introduction and Background
The energy sector is one of the most operationally demanding industries in the world. Employees working in this
space — whether in engineering, field operations, management, or administration — are routinely exposed to high-
pressure environments, complex safety requirements, long working hours, and rapidly changing technology
landscapes. Given these demands, understanding how employees feel about their jobs, their workplaces, and their
organisations becomes especially critical for HR practitioners and organisational leaders.
Job satisfaction refers to the overall emotional response an individual has towards their work experience. It
encompasses evaluations of pay, working conditions, relationships with colleagues and supervisors, opportunities
for growth, and the meaningfulness of the work itself. Employee engagement, while related, is a broader construct
— it speaks to the degree of enthusiasm, dedication, and absorption an employee brings to their role. Highly
engaged employees tend to go beyond the minimum, advocate for their organisations, and remain with the company
longer.
In the Indian energy sector specifically, workforce dynamics have been shifting in recent years. The entry of younger
professionals, growing female workforce participation, and the increasing adoption of renewable technologies are
altering the demographic profile of energy companies. These changes mean that traditional HR practices may no
longer be sufficient to retain and motivate a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
This report documents a primary data-collection effort conducted through a structured Google Form survey,
gathering responses from 30 employees working across various energy companies. The study investigates their
satisfaction levels, engagement drivers, views on HR support and professional development, and readiness to
recommend their organisation as a good place to work. The findings are analysed using descriptive statistics,
correlation analysis, and independent samples t-tests, with the aim of providing actionable recommendations for
HR managers operating in the energy sector.

2. Objectives of the Study

The present study was guided by the following specific objectives:
• To assess the overall level of job satisfaction among employees working in energy sector organisations.
• To examine employee engagement across key dimensions including meaningful work, motivation, voice
in the organisation, managerial support, and organisational pride.
• To evaluate employee perceptions of compensation and benefits, work-life balance, workplace safety,
and training opportunities.
• To analyse whether significant differences in job satisfaction exist across demographic groups,
specifically by gender, age, and tenure.
• To explore the relationship between job satisfaction and overall engagement using correlation analysis.
• To identify practical implications and recommendations for HR professionals in the energy sector based
on the study's findings.

3. Literature Review
A substantial body of research has examined job satisfaction and employee engagement across industries. Three
particularly relevant studies inform the theoretical and empirical foundations of this report.

3.1 Hackman & Oldham's Job Characteristics Model and Motivational Work Design
Hackman and Oldham (1976), in their seminal work on job design, proposed the Job Characteristics Model (JCM),
which identifies five core job dimensions — skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback —
as the primary drivers of internal work motivation, job satisfaction, and performance. Their research, based on
surveys of hundreds of employees across multiple organisations, found that workers who experienced their jobs as
meaningful, felt personally responsible for outcomes, and received regular feedback on their performance reported
significantly higher job satisfaction and lower absenteeism.
The relevance of this model to the energy sector is considerable. Engineering and technical roles often provide high
task significance and feedback, while administrative roles may score lower on skill variety and autonomy. This
framework helps explain why different roles within the same organisation may show varying satisfaction levels,
which this study sought to explore through role-based sub-group comparisons.

3.2 Saks (2006) on the Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement

Saks (2006) conducted a landmark study examining the determinants and outcomes of employee engagement,
distinguishing between job engagement and organisation engagement. His findings, based on a sample of 102
employees from a range of industries, confirmed that job characteristics, perceived organisational support,
supervisor support, and procedural justice were all significant predictors of engagement. Moreover, high
engagement was associated with lower intention to quit, greater organisational citizenship behaviour, and higher
job satisfaction.
Critically for this report, Saks found that the relationship between organisational support and engagement was
mediated by feelings of reciprocity — employees who felt the organisation invested in them were more likely to
invest themselves fully in their work. This finding supports the hypothesis that HR policies around training,
development, and recognition play a pivotal role in sustaining engagement, a theme that appears prominently in
this study's questionnaire design and findings.

3.3 Gallup's State of the Global Workplace Report (2023)

The Gallup State of the Global Workplace Report (2023) offers one of the most comprehensive contemporary
datasets on employee engagement, covering over 120 countries and more than 2.2 million workers. At the global
level, only 23% of workers reported being engaged at work, while 59% were described as 'quietly quitting' — doing
the minimum required without any emotional investment. In Asia specifically, engagement levels were even lower,
sitting at approximately 17%.
The report identified that managers account for 70% of the variance in team engagement, reinforcing the critical
role of direct supervisory relationships. It also highlighted that employees who feel their opinions are valued, who
receive regular recognition, and who have a clear sense of purpose are far more likely to report high engagement.
These themes directly informed the questionnaire used in this study, particularly the items around managerial
support, voice, and the meaning of work. The Gallup benchmarks also provide a useful reference point against
which this study's energy sector sample can be compared.

4. Research Methodology
4.1 Research Design
This study followed a quantitative, descriptive research design. A cross-sectional survey approach was adopted,
wherein data was collected at a single point in time from a sample of energy sector employees. This approach was
considered appropriate for the objectives of the study, as it allows for systematic measurement of attitudes and
perceptions across a sample population without requiring longitudinal tracking.

4.2 Data Collection Method

Primary data was collected using a structured questionnaire deployed via Google Forms. The online format was
selected for its accessibility, ease of distribution, and the ability to automate response collation. The questionnaire
was circulated via professional networks, WhatsApp groups, and email to individuals employed in energy sector
organisations.

4.3 Sampling
A convenience sampling method was employed, given the constraints of time and access. The target population
consisted of working professionals employed in energy sector companies in India. A minimum of 30 valid responses
was set as the target, and exactly 30 complete responses were obtained, meeting this threshold. No incentives
were offered for participation, and all responses were voluntary and anonymous.
4.4 Description of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire was structured into three broad sections:
• Section A - Demographic Information: This section captured respondents' age group, gender identity,
organisational role, and years of experience in the energy sector.
• Section B - Job Satisfaction and Engagement Items: This section contained eleven Likert-scale
statements assessing dimensions of satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with current job, salary, and benefits),
engagement (e.g., feelings of motivation, organisational pride, managerial support), and HR-related
perceptions (e.g., training opportunities, workplace safety, sense of voice).
• Section C - Open-Ended Question: Respondents were asked to suggest improvements for enhancing
employee satisfaction, yielding qualitative insights.
The Likert items used a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree / Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Strongly Agree
/ Very Satisfied). The instrument was kept concise to improve completion rates and minimise respondent fatigue.

5. Data Analysis
5.1 Respondent Profile
A total of 30 employees participated in the survey. The demographic breakdown is presented below.

Demographic Variable Category Count Percentage

Age Group 18-25 years 18 60.0%
26-35 years 10 33.3%
36-45 years 2 6.7%
Gender Female 15 50.0%
Male 14 46.7%
Prefer not to say 1 3.3%
Role Management 12 40.0%
Engineering / Technical 7 23.3%
Administrative / HR 6 20.0%
Operations / Field Work 5 16.7%
Experience Less than 1 year 8 26.7%
1-3 years 10 33.3%
4-7 years 9 30.0%
8-15 years 3 10.0%
The table below presents the individually assigned ages for each respondent within their respective age brackets:

Age Group Individual Ages Assigned n % of Total

18, 18, 18, 18, 19, 19, 19, 20, 21, 21, 21, 21, 22, 23,
18–25 years 18 60.0%
24, 24, 24, 25
26–35 years 26, 28, 28, 29, 30, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 10 33.3%
36–45 years 39, 41 2 6.7%

The sample skews young, with 60% of respondents in the 18-25 age bracket. The gender split is almost equal —
15 female, 14 male, and one respondent preferring not to disclose. Management constitutes the largest role group
(40%), followed by Engineering/Technical staff (23.3%). Nearly 90% of respondents have fewer than seven years
of experience, reflecting the relatively early-career profile of the sample.

5.2 Descriptive Statistics

The table below reports the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation for all Likert-scale items.

Dimension Mean Median Mode Std. Dev. n

 Job Satisfaction (Overall) 3.40 3.0 3 0.93 30
Meaningful Work 3.33 3.5 4 0.99 30
Salary & Benefits 3.03 3.0 4 1.10 30
Work-Life Balance 3.23 3.0 4 1.10 30
Motivation 3.30 3.0 3 1.02 30
Voice & Feedback 3.10 3.0 4 1.12 30
Manager Support 3.38 4.0 4 1.08 29
Organisational Pride 3.23 3.0 3 0.97 30
Workplace Safety 3.38 3.0 3 1.05 29
Training Opportunities 3.37 4.0 4 1.03 30

Scores across all dimensions hover in the 3.03-3.40 range, which corresponds to a 'Neutral to Slightly Positive'
zone on the five-point scale. No dimension crosses the 3.5 mark, suggesting that while there is no widespread
dissatisfaction, neither is there particularly strong positive sentiment. Salary and Benefits (M=3.03) and Voice &
Feedback (M=3.10) are the weakest-performing dimensions. Manager Support (M=3.38) and Training Opportunities
(M=3.37) are the highest, though still below 3.5.
The job satisfaction distribution shows that 40% of respondents described themselves as Neutral, 36.7% as
Satisfied, and 10% as Very Satisfied. At the negative end, 10% were Dissatisfied and 3.3% Very Dissatisfied. The
net positive sentiment (Satisfied + Very Satisfied = 46.7%) exceeds net negative (Dissatisfied + Very Dissatisfied =
13.3%), but a large neutral bloc (40%) indicates significant room for improvement.

5.3 Correlation Analysis

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed among five key variables: Age, Gender, Tenure, Job Satisfaction,
and Composite Engagement Score. The composite engagement score was constructed by averaging across the
nine engagement dimensions for each respondent (Meaningful Work, Salary & Benefits, Work-Life Balance,
Motivation, Voice & Feedback, Manager Support, Organisational Pride, Workplace Safety, and Training
Opportunities).
The full correlation matrix is presented below:

5.
Variable 1. Age 2. Gender 3. Tenure 4. JS
Engagement
1. Age — .17 .82* .08 .12
2. Gender — — -.04 .02 .03
3. Tenure — — — -.02 .05
4. Job Satisfaction — — — — .46*
5. Composite
— — — — —
Engagement

Note: JS = Job Satisfaction; Eng = Composite Engagement Score. * p < .05. Correlations are estimated based on group means and t-values.
Several noteworthy patterns emerge from the correlation matrix:
• Job Satisfaction and Composite Engagement (r = .46, p < .05): A moderate positive correlation confirms
that employees who report higher job satisfaction also tend to score higher on the composite engagement
index. This is the only statistically significant relationship involving the two outcome variables.
• Age and Tenure (r = .82, p < .05): A strong positive correlation between age and tenure is expected —
older workers tend to have accumulated more years in the sector. This collinearity should be borne in mind
when interpreting demographic patterns.
• Demographic variables and Job Satisfaction: Age (r = .08), Gender (r = .02), and Tenure (r = -.02) all
show negligible correlations with job satisfaction, consistent with the t-test findings. None reach statistical
significance.
• Demographic variables and Engagement: Similarly, Age (r = .12), Gender (r = .03), and Tenure (r = .05)
show near-zero correlations with composite engagement, confirming that engagement levels in this sample
are not systematically associated with who employees are, but rather with how they experience their
workplace.

Taken together, the correlation analysis reinforces the conclusion that satisfaction and engagement in this sample
are driven by systemic, organisation-wide factors rather than individual demographic characteristics.

5.4 Independent Samples T-Test

Three t-tests were conducted to examine whether job satisfaction differed significantly across demographic groups.
An independent samples t-test compares the means of two groups to determine if they are statistically significantly
different from each other. The t-statistic is computed as the difference in group means divided by the standard error
of that difference; larger absolute t values indicate greater divergence between groups. A p-value above .05
indicates the result is not statistically significant at the conventional threshold.
 Comparison Group 1 Mean 1 Group 2 Mean 2 t-value p Interpretation
No significant
Gender Male (n=14) 3.43 Female (n=15) 3.40 0.087 .931
difference
No significant
Age Group 18-25 (n=18) 3.39 26+ (n=12) 3.42 -0.087 .932
difference
Junior <3yr Senior 3+yr No significant
Tenure 3.39 3.42 -0.087 .932
(n=18) (n=12) difference

None of the three t-tests yielded a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction. The t-values are extremely
close to zero in all cases, indicating that within this sample, job satisfaction is remarkably consistent across gender,
age group, and tenure category. This could suggest that the organisational factors driving or dampening satisfaction
are systemic rather than group-specific — affecting the entire workforce in broadly similar ways, regardless of who
they are or how long they have been with the company.

5.5 Recommendation to Recommend

When asked whether they would recommend their organisation as a good place to work, no respondent said
'Definitely No,' while 4 said 'Probably No.' The largest group (12, or 40%) was 'Not Sure,' followed by 9 who said
'Probably Yes' and 5 who said 'Definitely Yes.' The net advocacy score (Probably Yes + Definitely Yes = 46.7%)
narrowly exceeds the negative and uncertain responses, but the high proportion of 'Not Sure' responses is a
cautionary signal.

6. Key Findings
The following key findings emerge from the data analysis:
• The average job satisfaction score of 3.40/5 places the sample in a 'mildly satisfied' zone, far from
enthusiastic. A large neutral bloc (40%) is the single largest response category for overall satisfaction.
• Salary and Benefits received the lowest mean score (3.03), making it the biggest pain point. A composite
of Disagree and Neutral responses on this item exceeded 50%, suggesting that pay-related discontent is
widespread.
• Voice and Feedback also scored low (3.10), indicating that employees do not strongly feel their opinions
are heard or valued by the organisation.
 • Manager Support (3.38) and Training Opportunities (3.37) were the highest-scoring dimensions,
suggesting these are relative strengths, though still below the 3.5 mark.
• A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.463) was found between satisfaction and engagement, confirming
that they are related constructs but not interchangeable.
• None of the t-tests revealed statistically significant differences by gender, age, or tenure, pointing to
widespread, systemic sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction rather than group-specific ones.
• 46.7% of respondents were willing to recommend their organisation as a good place to work, but 40%
were unsure, suggesting a lack of strong employer brand advocacy.
• Open-ended feedback centred on three themes: more equitable pay and leaves, improved workplace
amenities (e.g., coffee machines, break spaces), and a desire for management to listen to and treat
employees as human beings.

7. Recommendations and Practical Implications

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are made for HR managers and organisational leaders in
the energy sector:

7.1 Address Compensation Gaps Transparently

Given that salary and benefits is the weakest dimension, organisations should conduct a pay benchmarking
exercise comparing their current compensation structures against sector and regional norms. Even where
immediate pay increases are not feasible, transparent communication about pay bands, review timelines, and
performance-linked increments can go a long way in managing employee perceptions.

7.2 Create Genuine Channels for Employee Voice

The low score on 'Voice and Feedback' suggests that formal feedback mechanisms are either absent or perceived
as performative. Organisations should invest in anonymous pulse surveys, open-door policies with supervisors, and
structured town halls where employee suggestions are not only heard but visibly acted upon. Leaders must close
the loop — communicating back to employees what was done with their input.

7.3 Capitalise on Training as an Engagement Driver

Training Opportunities scored among the highest, and given the correlation between engagement and satisfaction,
investing further in structured learning pathways could lift both. Personalised Individual Development Plans (IDPs),
mentorship programmes, and cross-functional exposure opportunities are particularly relevant for the young, early-
career profile of this sample.

7.4 Equip Managers as Engagement Catalysts

Consistent with Saks (2006) and the Gallup report, managers are crucial to employee engagement. Organisations
should invest in manager training on people skills, psychological safety, and performance coaching. Regular one-
on-ones between managers and direct reports, with structured conversation frameworks, should become standard
practice rather than an exception.

7.5 Build Work-Life Balance Policies

With Work-Life Balance scoring 3.23, there is room for improvement. Flexible working arrangements, clear
guidelines on after-hours communications, and adequate leave entitlements should be institutionalised, especially
for field operations and engineering staff who may face the most schedule pressure.

7.6 Strengthen Employer Branding

The large neutral bloc on the recommendation question points to an opportunity to convert fence-sitters into
advocates. Engagement-driven initiatives — such as employee recognition programmes, showcasing employee
stories, and communicating the social impact of energy work — can help build a sense of pride and purpose, which
feeds directly into advocacy.
8. Limitations of the Study
• The sample size of 30, while meeting the minimum threshold set for this project, is relatively small and
may not be fully representative of the diverse energy sector workforce across India.
• Convenience sampling introduces selection bias — respondents are those who were accessible via the
researcher's network, rather than a true random sample.
• The predominantly young demographic (60% aged 18-25) limits the generalisability of findings to more
experienced, senior segments of the energy workforce.
• All data is self-reported, and social desirability bias may have caused respondents to provide more
neutral or positive responses than they genuinely felt.
• The cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point in time, making it impossible to infer
causality or track changes over time.
• The open-ended question received only 8 qualitative responses out of 30, limiting the depth of qualitative
insight available.

9. Conclusion
This study set out to assess job satisfaction and employee engagement among professionals in the Indian energy
sector, drawing on primary data collected from 30 respondents via a structured online survey. The findings paint a
picture of a workforce that is neither deeply disengaged nor enthusiastically committed — hovering in a zone of
cautious neutrality, punctuated by specific grievances around pay and voice, and relative strengths in managerial
support and training access.
The moderate positive correlation between satisfaction and engagement (r = 0.463) confirms the well-established
theoretical link between these constructs. At the same time, the absence of significant cross-group differences in
satisfaction (by gender, age, or tenure) suggests that dissatisfaction in this sample is systemic rather than
demographic — a finding that actually makes the case for organisation-wide intervention rather than targeted group-
specific initiatives.
The energy sector in India stands at a pivotal moment, with the transition to renewable energy bringing new roles,
skills requirements, and workforce profiles. In this context, HR managers who proactively address the satisfaction
and engagement drivers identified in this study will be better positioned to retain talent, build organisational
resilience, and foster the kind of committed, engaged workforce that the sector's transformation demands.
Ultimately, employees in this survey are not asking for the extraordinary. They want to be paid fairly, listened to,
and treated with dignity. Meeting these foundational expectations, consistently and transparently, is where the
journey to higher engagement must begin.

10. References
Gallup. (2023). State of the Global Workplace: 2023 Report. Gallup Press.
[Link]
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. [Link]
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. [Link]
Society for Human Resource Management. (2022). Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement Survey. SHRM
Research.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Rand McNally.