10421 FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Economics and Organization Vol. 19, No 2, 2022, pp. 111 - 124 https://doi.org/10.22190/FUEO220113009G © 2022 by University of Niš, Serbia | Creative Commons Licence: CC BY-NC-ND Original Scientific Paper EFFECT OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND TASK PERFORMANCE1 UDC 005.32 Raj Kumar Guntuku, Shravan Boini, Kaustav Mukherjee, Ravi Sankar Kummeta School of Management Studies, Guru Nanak Institutions Technical Campus, Hyderabad, India ORCID iD: Raj Kumar Guntuku N/A Shravan Boini N/A Kaustav Mukherjee N/A Ravi Sankar Kummeta N/A Abstract. Earlier research proved that organizational productivity depends on the implementation of HR practices. Companies grow high by adopting high-performance- oriented practices. The purpose of this study is to see how the employer-employee relationship affected employee engagement and task performance in food processing plants in Hyderabad. One of the most common HR practices is the employer-employee relationship, which is crucial in determining the employee level of engagement. Task performance refers to an employee's capacity to get things done, and it is backed up by the employer-employee relationship. To measure the influence of the employer-employee relationship on staff engagement and task performance, the researcher performed a study in two food processing plants in Hyderabad, India. To investigate the association between the dependent variables “employee engagement” and “task performance” and the independent variable “employer- employee relationship”, hypotheses were constructed. A questionnaire was circulated to respondents as a research instrument, and information was collected from a sample of 100 people. It is inferred that the employer-employee relationship is significantly connected with employee engagement and negatively correlated with task performance. Gender is linked with all three variables and also with the profile factors. Employee engagement is connected to age, whereas task performance is negatively related to the employer-employee relationship. Statistical tools such as descriptive statistics, correlation, and ANOVA tests were used. Key words: employer-employee relationship, employee engagement, task performance JEL Classification: J53, M54, M12 Received January 13, 2022 / Revised January 12, 2022 / Revised May 29, 2022 / Accepted June 15, 2022 Corresponding author: Raj Kumar Guntuku School of Management Studies, Guru Nanak Institutions Technical Campus, Khanapur Village, Manchal Mandal, Ibrahimpatnam, Telangana 501506, Hyderabad, India | E-mail: rajkumaresearch@gmail.com mailto:rajkumaresearch@gmail.com 112 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA 1. INTRODUCTION Considerable research was performed in the field of employee engagement; findings were consistent to notice that there is considerable involvement of various factors to influence employee engagement. Findings were even more attractive for HR decision- makers to keep up their workforce productively engaged all the time. According to Saks (2006), there was considerable interest by practitioners and academics in the area of employee engagement. With the emergence of globalization and intensified competition, organizations have started the search for intellectual capital. Firms have started to consider employees as their biggest asset available for their organization. Employees’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and talents are given utmost importance in keeping organizations from being outdated. In some organizations, Human resource management practices are bundled together to offer high-performance work practices for better productivity. The relationship between employer and employee plays a major role in determining the fate of organizations. Smooth relationship between superior and subordinate will create a congenial atmosphere in the organization. Care, compassion, warmth, and support exhibited by the boss will certainly enhance the overall employee productivity of the organization. To know to what extent employees are engaged in work is identified by information sharing practices among employees of the organization. Employee performance is also one of the factors that influences both individual and organizational effectiveness. Hence, under this study the researcher evaluated the relationship between communication among employers and employees and its effect on the task performance of the employees. Employee productivity outcomes are primarily measured in relevance to information sharing practices among the employees. Organizations have to ensure that employers should behave empathetically towards their followers in performing given tasks. Empathetic leadership behavior promotes industrial harmony, peace, fair information sharing practices, and promotes employee engagement and career development opportunities. In this era of industry 4.0 organizations are looking forward to utilize latest technological advancements available in the form of HR analytics, additive manufacturing, 3D printing, IOT, augmented reality. With the incorporation of such technologies, the higher level of employee engagement and task performance can be achieved. In this era of human intelligence, human capital is bypassing financial capital and it is possible with the usage of latest developments in the technology for the firms to be able to achieve greater heights. But the question that needs to be addressed is to what extent these latest developments could support building stronger relationships and establishing better engagement practices. In this world of complexity, organizations are due, in incorporating emotional intelligence and developing organizational citizenship behavior among employees, to change behavior of employees from destructive to constructive. This study certainly throws light on employer-employee relationship and assesses its impact on employee engagement and task performance working in food processing units. The main aim of the study is to assess the effect of employer-employee relationship on employee engagement and task performance. Effect of Employer-Employee Relationship on Employee Engagement and Task Performance ... 113 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY To evaluate the association between employer-employee relationship and employee engagement, To know the association between employer-employee relationship and task performance, To identify the relationship between employee engagement and task performance, To evaluate the association between profile factors and variables considered understudy. 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.1. Definition of Employee Engagement (Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; & Shaw, K. 2005) “Employee engagement is a submission of ones’ intellectual capital and emotional capabilities for the wellbeing of the organization”. According to Frank et.al., (2004) employees in their organizations are bound by certain discretionary efforts. Truss et.al., (2006) simply put, engagement has been defined as 'passion for work,' an emotional state that encompasses the various dimensions of engagement. It measures the value that an employee could deliver at their workplace through the usage of their skills and updated talents. He is the first person to link engagement with behavior skills. Employee engagement will certainly create a sense of belonging among the employees to establish a better organizational culture. Rich et al. (2017) define engagement as the mix of cognitive abilities, physical, and emotions used to achieve desired results at the workplace. According to Rothbard (2001) engagement is attained by identifying two dominant components: (1) attention, and (2) absorption; the later refers to getting captivated in one’s role and the former refers to being attended to absorb and digest his role. Engagement is considered to be a dominant component of the workplace of effective organizations (Fairfield et al., 2009). Concerning familiarity owning by employee engagement in the sphere of, organizations, recent surveys pointed out that having no engagement in the workplace is a considerable issue now. According to Maslach & Leiter (1997), “engagement is categorized by (1) energy, (2) involvement, and (3) efficacy, which are the direct opposites of the three burnout dimensions”. 3.1.1. Cause and Effect of Employee Engagement Earnings per share (EPS) are linked with employee engagement, as one can see a hike in EPS with the result in improvement in employee engagement (Ott, 2007). “Employee engagement is associated with organizational performance indicators like overall profitability, customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, employee retention, safety, productivity, sales” (Coffman, 2000). Strong motivation and psychological boost up are possible with the practice of employee engagement (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). It was inferred by Saks (2006) that researchers tend to agree that the concerns of employee engagement are positive and it certainly motivates employees to achieve organizational objectives. To what extent the employees are engaged, depends on the facilities provided by the organization. As it was confirmed by Harter et.al., (2002), engagement is strongly associated with business objectives. They concluded that “…employee satisfaction and engagement are related to meaningful business outcomes at a magnitude that is important to many organizations”. 114 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA 3.2. Employer-Employee Relation Relationship among employers and employees should be managed effectively to enhance the overall effectiveness of the organization. Good relations promote better scope to perform and bad relations reflect adverse conditions and thus result in poor performance. The employer-employee relationship is one of the dominant management practices and is achieved only through mutual understanding and sharing among both parties. It is one of the governing factors having the potential to decide the fate of organization (Wilkinson et al, 2014; Sparrow & Makram, 2015; Keeble-Ramsay & Armitage, 2014; Persson & Wasieleski, 2015). It was proven by many of the researchers that the majority of the goals are achieved only due to effective relationships between employer-employee, but it is a double-edged sword, which can exhibit both positive and negative sides. Employer-employee relationship will promote enough happiness among employees and thus lead to success (Valizade, et.al., 2016). In contrast, weak relationships drive employees toward poor performance. Though employers play a major role in making decisions, employees are more influenced during the times of critical matters to be discussed and their presence is given utmost importance: this sort of mechanism is called employer-employee relationship management (Marchington & Wilkinson 2008). Industrial harmony is the gateway to organizational performance. It is attained through the implementation of better information-sharing practices among leaders and followers. Savolainen, (2000) noticed that the employer-employee relationship is identified as a key performance area in achieving organizational success. Furthermore, Sadri & Lees (2001) expressed that there is a great amount of need for organizations to encourage and embrace a positive organizational climate and thus lead to establishing a positive relationship between employers and employees. Employer-employee relation is considered to be a central nervous system of any organization as it runs on activities like clash and collaboration. “The achievement of organizational objectives depends upon employment relations” (Dawson, 1995). Evidence from the study of Limerick (1992) suggests “that individual empowering should be consistent in the event of strategic change”. 3.3. Task performance It is all about individual behaviour towards their respective roles in relevance to the goals of the organization. Task performance is related to the job in which an employee exhibits behaviours about satisfying his boss. With the increase in competition and the need for versatile skill requirements, study on task performance has received considerable attention. According to Boroman & Motowidlo (1993), classifications were made for job performance, one is based on role, and the second one is on behaviour suitable to perform the job and another one is an extra-role performance which is not directly related to the job but it has its effect on organizational performance. They categorized these two types as task performance and contextual performance. The job description consists of roles and responsibilities to be played by an employee and his work performance is measured against their roles. Effect of Employer-Employee Relationship on Employee Engagement and Task Performance ... 115 3.4. Drivers of task performance There are many drivers noticed by eminent researchers, according to Waldman and Spangler (1989), leaders’ behaviour, experience, job security, ability, pay increase, performance feedback, and group process are the major causing variables for task performance. In the words of Jalil et. al., (2015), individual characteristics play a major role in measuring work performance and employees need to be motivated to achieve desired results in their roles. Employees need a sound organizational culture for better performance. Mutual understanding, sharing a bit of mind, providing career development opportunities, emotional intelligence, and empathetically sound behaviour are some of the cultural inputs useful to embrace task performance (Mensah & Tawiah 2016). These organizations should create an atmosphere of mutual sharing and there will be continuous improvement in organizational outcomes (Shahzad, 2014) Leadership style plays a vital role in acquiring desired results of employees. The leader’s behaviour towards followers and information sharing practices applied by leaders to intensify their growth opportunities will have an effect on employee job performance, (Mulki et al., 2014). Employees may derive pleasure from completing given tasks on time. It gives them immense pleasure in satisfying themselves with their roles and responsibilities defined by employers. Completing a job in the given time results in employee Job satisfaction, which is another factor to be considered to deliver better job performance. There are many ways that an individual could be satisfied with his job, utilizing financial and non- financial measures. (Kappagoda et. al., 2012). 3.5. Food processing units in Telangana state of India The food processing industry offers massive opportunities with attractive and stimulating growth prospects. In India, the food and grocery retail market constitutes 65% of the total market. The government of India is coming up with huge potential offers for potential entrepreneurs. Currently, the Food processing industry in Telangana processes ~25% of Agri & allied output by value and adds 12.5% in value; Telangana state is known for the production of lemon, grapes, turmeric, soybean, and sweet orange. The government of Telangana state is promoting venture capital funds to promote entrepreneurial skills in the area of food processing units. All food processing units are eligible for a grant of Rs. 5 Lakhs for participating in the Telangana Agri Profile. The government has sanctioned 4 mega food hubs. Hence, there is a great need to encourage this sector. There are around 10 major players belonging to food and confectionary units in the Hyderabad region of Telangana State, where the survey is conducted. Ravi food products limited and Anand food products limited are the two units considered for the study. 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1. Research Hypotheses Although there has been considerable research done in the area of employee engagement, still it seems that studies on factors influencing engagement only acquired scant attention. According to a study by Arimie (2020), “employee engagement is a by-product of employer- employee relations and the quality of the relationship, which plays a vital role to evaluate the level of engagement and satisfaction of employees”. 116 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA The strong relationship between employers and employees can encourage employee engagement. Employee engagement and job satisfaction are driven by employer-employee relations. Shaheen et al., (2017) revealed that employer-employee relation targets to what extent employees are engaged in their jobs. Cleland et.al., (2008) reported that “the white paper of the Ixia Consultancy revealed that employees believed that they feel more satisfied and engaged when the relationship with their managers is based on respect and dignity”. Findings from the report by Kenexa (2008), inferred that the attitude and behaviour of leaders towards employees will certainly decide the level of engagement. Managers who respect, appreciate, inspire, motivate and develop stimuli in them and create a wonderful organizational climate for their employees are more likely to get engagement. The employee-employee relationship is positively related to employee performance to produce better results. Organizations are successful when there is peace and harmonious relationship among superiors and subordinates, such an atmosphere reduces friction among them. Therefore, it can be predicted that the employer-employee relationship may have an association with employee engagement and task performance. Based on the argument, the following hypotheses are formulated. H1: Employer-employee relationship is positively correlated with employee engagement. H2: Employer-employee relationship is positively correlated with task performance. H3: Gender is associated with the employee-employer relationship H4: Gender is associated with the employee engagement H5: Gender is associated with task performance H6: Age is associated with the employer-employer relationship H7: Age is associated with employee engagement H8: Age is associated with task performance 4.2. Research study In this study, the researcher examined the influence of the employer-employee relationship on employee engagement and task performance of the employees working in DUKES – Ravi foods Pvt limited and Anand foods Pvt limited located in Hyderabad, India. The very purpose of this study is to test the relationships among the dependent and independent variables considered under this study and to ensure that the findings are useful to the sector considered under this study. Correlation is one of the statistical techniques employed to explore the relationship between the employer-employee relationship (independent variable) and employee engagement and task performance (dependent variables). This study is conducted in a food processing unit belonging to the manufacturing sector. For this purpose, data is collected from superiors and subordinates belonging to various departments, working in the food processing unit in Hyderabad city, India. 220 employees belong to managerial and non- managerial positions working for both Ravi foods Pvt limited and Anand foods Pvt limited. We have distributed the questionnaire to 117 employees through convenient sampling. Some of the respondents have not filled out the research instrument in the required manner, after considering the viability of the filled questionnaires. The sample size is taken as 100. The employer-employee relationship is an HR practice considered as an independent variable in this research study. Employee engagement and task performance are dependent variables. Standard constructs are used in this study to measure these variables. The questionnaire was categorized into four parts, demographic profile factors, employer- employee relationship, employee engagement, and task performance. In this study, a Effect of Employer-Employee Relationship on Employee Engagement and Task Performance ... 117 questionnaire with four constructs is framed using a Likert scale of measurement ranging from 5 to 1. Table 1 Reliability Variable Cronbach’s Alpha No of items Employee Engagement .840 5 Task Performance .860 8 Employer-Employer relation .824 8 Source: authors’ calculation To measure Task Performance, a construct developed by (Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. 1999) was used in this study. There are 8 items in this construct. The reliability test gave us a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.86. The employee engagement measure scale consists of 5 items with Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.84. Employer- employee relationship scale consists of 8 items with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.824. 5. RESULTS The researcher examined the level of the employer-employee relationship, employee engagement, and task performance of the superiors and subordinates belonging to various departments. Table 2 The Result of Descriptive statistics analysis Source: authors’ calculation Task Performance Engagement Employer-Employee relation Mean 26.93 Mean 16.26 Mean 22.22 Standard Error 0.250355 Standard Error 0.230336 Standard Error 0.313204 Median 27 Median 16 Median 22 Mode 28 Mode 17 Mode 22 Standard Deviation 2.503553 Standard Deviation 2.303357 Standard Deviation 3.132044 Sample Variance 6.267778 Sample Variance 5.305455 Sample Variance 9.809697 Kurtosis 6.19061 Kurtosis 1.234942 Kurtosis 9.607728 Skewness 1.342175 Skewness 0.560513 Skewness 1.85112 Range 18 Range 13 Range 25 Minimum 22 Minimum 12 Minimum 15 *Maximum 40 *Maximum 25 *Maximum 40 Sum 2693 Sum 1626 Sum 2222 Count 100 Count 100 Count 100 Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.496759 Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.457036 Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.621465 118 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA There are 8 items in construct task performance. Hence, the total score value (maximum) is 40. There are 5 items in construct employee engagement. Hence total score value (maximum) is 25. There are 8 items in construct employer-employee relation. Hence, the total score value (maximum) is 40. The researcher examined the above table to draw an inference that employer- employee relationship practices are moderate in this firm as the mean value is (22.12) against to maximum value of 40. The level of employee engagement is good in this firm having a mean value of 16.22 against the maximum of 25. Task performance is moderate in this firm as the mean value is 26.85 against the maximum of (40). Table 3 Result of Correlation 1 2 3 1.Employer-Employee relationship 1 2.Task Performance -0.0328** 1 3. Engagement 0.189413** 0.267687** 1 **p<0.05 *p< 0.01 Source: authors’ calculation In this study, the following parameters were used to determine the practical effect size of the inter correlation coefficient values as suggested by Cohen (1992) and supported by Osteen and Bright (2012): coefficient values around .10 or below were considered small; those around .30 were considered moderate; and those around .50 were considered large in terms of practical significance The coefficient of correlation is an indication of the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. From the above table, it is inferred that the variables employer- employee relationship and employee engagement are positively correlated as the coefficient of correlation value (r=0.18) which is greater than zero at 5% significance level. Hence, it signifies that the relationship between the Employer-Employee relationship and Employee Engagement is small and positive. It is concluded that employees at the food processing units are engaged in work due to rapport and smooth relationship between the employers and employees. The variables employer-employee relationship and task performance are negatively correlated (r=-0.0328). The correlation between the variables engagement and task performance is moderate (r=0.267). Hence, it is concluded that the employees in food processing units are performing tasks due to the fact that the employees are engaged in the work. Table 4 The Result of Regression Analysis Adj. R2 = 0.034 F=2.7495 Sig F = 0.06 (B)Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Employee Engagement 0.293841705 0.127549909 2.303739047 0.023371686 Task Performance 0.141155713 0.127066735 -1.110878566 0.269366678 Source: authors’ calculation From table 4 it is inferred that employee engagement is the most influencing factor and is caused by good employer-employee relationship practices. (B=0.29, p< 0.05). Task Effect of Employer-Employee Relationship on Employee Engagement and Task Performance ... 119 performance is not showing a significant impact on the employer-employee relationship as (B=0.141. P>0.05). Hence, it is noticed that employee engagement is caused by the employer-employee relationship. The level of employee engagement is highly influenced by the ongoing relationship between leaders and followers. Table 5 Result of Anova: Gender and Employer-Employee relationship Groups Count Sum Average Variance 10 25 2.5 2.944444 1 12 74 6.166667 25.42424 Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 73.33333 1 73.33333 4.790419 0.040653 4.351244 Within Groups 306.1667 20 15.30833 Total 379.50003 21 Source: authors’ calculation From the above Table 5, it is noticed that p=0.04; p < 0.05. Hence, there exists a relationship between gender and employer and employee relationship. Here, the employer and employee relationship is a variable that is influenced by gender. Hence, gender determines the level of relationship existing between employers and employees. Table 6 The Result of Anova: Gender and Task Performance Groups Count Sum Average Variance 9 25 2.777778 3.444444 1 10 74 7.4 23.15556 Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 101.2023 1 101.2023 7.291372 0.015167 4.451322 Within Groups 235.9556 17 13.87974 Total 337.1579 18 Source: authors’ calculation From the above Table 6, it is noticed that p=0.015; p < 0.05. Hence, there exists a significant relationship between gender and task performance. It is interpreted that task performance is achieved by the involvement of gender. The amount of work being performed by an individual in an organization is certainly influenced by male or female workers. Table 7 The Result of Anova: Gender and Employee Engagement Groups Count Sum Average Variance 7 25 3.571429 3.285714 5 10 70 7 19.55556 Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 48.40336 1 48.40336 3.709747 0.073263 4.543077 Within Groups 195.7143 15 13.04762 Total 244.1176 16 Source: authors’ calculation 120 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA From the above table, it is noticed that p = 0.07. As p-value is higher than 0.05, there exists no relationship between gender and employee engagement. We can interpret that the level of employee engagement is not influenced by gender. Table 8 The Result of Anova: Age and Employer-Employee relationship Groups Count Sum Average Variance 1 11 62 5.636364 25.65455 11 28 2.545455 1.472727 2 5 2.5 0.5 3 4 1.333333 0.333333 Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 75.56061 3 25.18687 2.126337 0.124545 3.027998 Within Groups 272.4394 23 11.84519 Total 348 26 Source: authors’ calculation From the above table, it is noticed that p=0.12; p > 0.05. Hence, there exists no relationship between age and the employer-employee relationship. Age is not an influencing factor in building relationships between employers and employees. Table 9 The Result of Anova Age And Task Performance Groups Count Sum Average Variance 9 63 7 12 9 28 3.111111 2.861111 4 5 1.25 0.25 1 3 3 1 0 Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 145.3211 3 48.44037 8.502651 0.000687 3.072467 Within Groups 119.6389 21 5. Total 264.96 24 Source: authors’ calculation From the above table, it is noticed that p=0.006, where p < 0.05. Hence, there exists relationship between age and task performance. The effectiveness of the task to be performed by the employees is influenced by the age of the employees working in the organization. Table 10 The Result of Anova: Age and Employee Engagement Groups Count Sum Average Variance 4 7 59 8.428571 15.61905 10 28 2.8 3.288889 1 4 4 1 0 2 4 2 0 Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 195.2944 3 65.09814 10.03018 0.000353 3.12735 Within Groups 123.3143 19 6.490226 Total 318.6087 22 Source: authors’ calculation Effect of Employer-Employee Relationship on Employee Engagement and Task Performance ... 121 From the above table, it is noticed that p=0003, where, p < 0.05. Hence, there exists a relationship between age and employee engagement. To what extent employees are engaged in the work assigned is determined by the age of the employees. 6. DISCUSSION From the above results, it is inferred that there exists a relationship between the employer-employee relationship and employee engagement. Hence, H1 is accepted. From the findings, it is concluded that the relationship between employers and employees plays a predominant role in ascertaining the level of employee engagement. Similar findings are noticed from the work of Joel Arimie, Chukuyem (2020), “employee engagement is a by-product of employer-employee relations and the quality of the relationship and is one of the most critical factors that drive engagement and satisfaction of employees”. A smooth relationship between leader and follower will establish a congenial atmosphere in an organization. It strengthens the companionship among the employers and employees and cements relationship to achieve desired results Task performance does not have association with the employer-employee relationship. Hence, H2 is rejected. Hence, the employer-employee relationship is not associated with task performance. Gender is associated with the employer-employee relationship. Hence, H3 is accepted. Similar findings were noticed in the study of ILOSTAT, (2020) that there is parity in gender in terms of works force. According to Woetzel et al. (2018) “there is a huge amount of gender discrimination in achieving organizational leadership”. Gender is not associated with employee engagement. Hence, H4 is rejected. A similar finding was identified from the study of Banihani et al. (2013) that it is easier for men to get engaged in work than women. Gender is having a relationship with task performance. Hence, H5 is accepted. According to the study by Green et al. (2009), “there is a significant gender-based difference in performance on various dimensions”. Age is not associated with the employer-employee relationship. Hence, H6 is rejected. Age is associated with employee engagement. Hence, H7 is accepted. Similar findings are withdrawn from the study of Douglas & Robers (2020) that senior employees of age above 50 are more engaged than employees of age less than 50. Age is associated with task performance. Hence, H8 is accepted. It is inferred that age is an influencing factor of task performance. According to the survey conducted by Converso (2018), age is negatively associated with task performance. 7. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY From the above discussions, it is observed that employees working in food processing units are productively engaged due to effective relationship and companionship among employers and employees. Whereas Task fulfillment and performance delivered by employees is in no way connected to the employer and employee relationship. Hence, it is a need of the hour for decision-makers to train their managerial staff in the lines of behavioral attributes like emotional intelligence, empathetic leadership, and counseling employees through sharing a bit of mind, and changing employees’ behavior from destructive to 122 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA constructive. Such valuable inputs necessarily create strong bondage between leaders and followers. It is advised for the food industry to make sure that the firms have to focus more on imparting training programs to employees on the above-mentioned attributes. Profile factors like age and gender considered in this study are certainly showing an influence on achieving employee engagement and task performance. 8. DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Future scholars will go on many different paths as a result of this work. Employee engagement and task performance were the main variables of interest in this study in connection with the employer-employee relationship in food processing units. Exploring how the employer-employee relationship is influenced by other variables practiced in the food processing company, on the other hand, could be productive for decision-makers in making decisions pertaining to appraising the performance of the employees and in designing a road map to grab career development opportunities. It would be worth emulating to conduct a study about the impact of the employee-employer relationship on lowered turnover intentions, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, dedication, job involvement, work-life balance, workplace bullying, and stress, for example. The goal of the study was to show a direct link between the employer-employee relationship and each dependent variable. Further research would be more beneficial if it could include independent variables such as employee empowerment, pressure to perform, job clarity, and so on, as well as dependent variables. REFERENCES Arimie, C. J. (2020). Employer-employee relations and employee engagement in a tertiary institution in Benin-City, Edo State. Annals of Management and Organization Research, 1(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v1i1.199 Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the Workplace: A Reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800201 Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47(11), 48-52. Banihani, M., Lewis, P., & Syed, J. (2013). Is work engagement gendered?. Gender in Management, 28(7), 400-423. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2013-0005 Boroman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance. In: Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C., Eds., Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, (pp. 71-98). Cleland, A., Mitchinson, W., & Townend A. (2008). Engagement assertiveness and business Performance-A New Perspectives. Ixia Consultancy Ltd. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1,(3), 98-101. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 Converso, D., Sottimano, I., Guidetti, G., Loera, B., Cortini, M., & Viotti, S. (2018). Aging and Work Ability: The Moderating Role of Job and Personal Resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2262. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02262 Coffman, C. (2000). Is Your Company Bleeding Talent? “How to become a true employer of choice”. Gallup Management Journal, 25-50. Dawson, P. (1995). Redefining Human Resources Management: Work Restructuring and Employee Relations at Mobil Adelaide Refinery. International Journal of Manpower 16(5/6), 47-55. Douglas, S., & Roberts, R. (2020). Employee age and the impact on work engagement. Strategic HR Review, 19(5), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-05-2020-0049 https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v1i1.199 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800201 https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2013-0005 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02262 https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Stephanie%20Douglas https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Robin%20Roberts https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/1475-4398 https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-05-2020-0049 Effect of Employer-Employee Relationship on Employee Engagement and Task Performance ... 123 Fairfield, K., Knowles, R., Russel, W., Wirtenberg, J., Mahurkar-Rao, S., & Judd, O. (2009). Employee engagement for sustainable enterprise. In J. Wirtenberg, W. Russel, & D. Lipsky (Eds.). The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351279963 Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25. Green, C., Jegadeesh, N., & Tang, Y. (2009). Gender and Job Performance: Evidence from Wall Street. Financial Analysts Journal, 65(6), 65–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40390382 Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 ILOSTAT. (2020). Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+) (modeled ILO estimate) - Sub-Saharan Africa. East Asia & Pacific, Europe & Central Asia | Data. International Labour Organization. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/ Jalil, S. W., Achan, P., Mojolou, D., N., & Rozaimie, A. (2015). Individual Characteristics and Job Performance: Generation Y at SMEs in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.023 Kappagoda, U., Othman, H., & Alwis, G. (2014) Psychological Capital and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of Work Attitudes. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2, 102-116. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2014.22009 Keeble-Ramsay, D., & Armitage, A. (2014). HRD challenges when faced by disengaged UK workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2013-0112 Kenexa (2008). Engaging The Employee: A Kenexa Research Institute World Trends Report. Kenexa Research Institute. Limerick, D. (1992). The Shape of the New Organisation: Implication of Human Resource Management. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 30(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F103841119203000106 Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossy- Bassel. Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2008). Human Resource Management at Work. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel Development. Mensah, E. B. K., & Tawiah, K. A. (2016). Employee Motivation and Work Performance: A Comparative Study of Mining Companies in Ghana. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(2), 255-309. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1530 Mulki, J. P., Caemmerer, B., & Heggde, G. S. (2014). Leadership Style, Salesperson’s Work Effort and Job Performance: The Influence of Power Distance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(1), 3- 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.958157 Osteen, P., & Bright, C. (2012). Effect size and intervention research. Baltimore: University of Maryland. Ott, E. (2007). Investors, Take Note: Engagement Boosts Earnings. Gallup Management Journal, June 14, 2007. https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/27799/investors-take-note-engagement-boosts-earnings.aspx Persson, S., & Wasieleski, D. (2015), The seasons of the psychological contract: Overcoming the silent transformations of the employer? employee relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 25(4), 368-383. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.02.003 Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?. Workspan, 49, 36-39. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2017). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 655-684. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3094827 Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing Corporate Culture as a Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management Development 20(10), 853-859. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410851 Savolainen, T. (2000). Towards a New Workplace Culture: Development Strategies for Employer-Employee Relations. Journal of Workplace Learning 12(8), 318-326. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010355566 Shaheen, A., Fais Bin, A., & Abdul, R. J. (2017). Employee engagement on employee relations with supervisor and employee performance relationship in developing economy: Critical analysis with PLS-SEM. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(4A), 389-398. Shahzad, F. (2014). Impact of Organizational Culture on Employees’ Job Performance: An Empirical Study of Software Houses in Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 24(3), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-07-2012-0046 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351279963 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40390382 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.023 https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2014.22009 https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2013-0112 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F103841119203000106 https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1530 https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.958157 https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/27799/investors-take-note-engagement-boosts-earnings.aspx http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.02.003 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3094827 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410851 https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010355566 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-07-2012-0046 124 R. K. GUNTUKU, S. BOINI, K. MUKHERJEE, R. S. KUMMETA Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication Management, 9(3), 26-29. Sparrow, P. R., & Makram, H. (2015), What is the value of talent management? Building value-driven processes within a talent management architecture. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.04.002 Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A. & Burnett, J. (2006). Working Life: Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006. London: CIPD. Valizade, D., Ogbonnaya, C., Tregaskis, O., & Forde, C. (2016). A mutual gains perspective on workplace partnership: Employee outcomes and the mediating role of the employment relations climate. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12113 Waldman, D. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1989) Putting Together the Pieces: A Closer Look at the Determinants of Job Performance. Human Performance, 2(1), 29-59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0201_2 Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J., & Townsend, K. (2014), Partnership, collaboration and mutual gains: evaluating context, interests, and legitimacy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(6), 737-747. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.868713 World Bank (2020). GDP growth (annual %) - Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, East Asia & Pacific, Europe & Central Asia | Data. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP. KD.ZG?locations=ZG-8S-Z4-Z7 Woetzel, J., Madgavkar, A., Sneader, K., Tonby, O., Lin, D.-Y., Lydon, J., Sha, S., Krishnan, M., Ellingrud, K., & Gubieski, M. (2018). The power of parity: Advancing women’s equality in Asia Pacific. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/the-power-of- parity-advancing-womens-equality-in-asia-pacific EFEKTI ODNOSA POSLODAVAC-ZAPOSLENI NA ANGAŽMAN ZAPOSLENIH I RADNI UČINAK Ranija istraživanja su pokazala da organizaciona produktivnost zavisi od primene HR praksi. Kompanije rastu tako što prihvataju prakse koje su orijentisane ka visokim performansama. Svrha ovog rada je se vidi kako odnos poslodavac-zaposleni utiče na nagažman zaposlenih i radni učinak u fabrikama za preradu hrane u Hajderabadu. Jedna od najčešćih HR praksi je odnos poslodavac- zaposleni, što je ključno u odreživanju niovoa angažmana zaposlenih. Radni učinak se odnosi na sposobnost zaposlenog da obavi zadatke, i na njega utiče odnos poslodavac-zaposleni. Da bi izmerio uticaj odnosa izmežu poslodavaca i zaposlenih na angažman zaposlenih i njihov radni učinak, autor je obavio istraživanje u dve fabrike za preradu hrane u Hajderbadu, Indija. Da bi se istražila veza između zavisnih varijabili “angažman zaposlenih” i “radni učinak” i nezavisne varijabile “odnos poslodavac- zaposleni”, stvorene su hipoteze. Kao instrument istraživanja, učesnicima je podeljen upitnik, a informacije su sakupljene na uzorku od 100 ljudi. Zaključeno je da je odnos poslodavac-zaposleni u velikoj meri povezan sa angažmanom zaposlenih i ima negativnu korelaciju sa radnim učinkom. Pol ispitanika je povezan sa sve tri varijabile kao i sa faktorom profila. Angažman zaposlenih je povezan sa starošću ispitanika, dok je radni učinak negativno povezan sa odnosom poslodavac-zaposleni. Korišćeni su statistički instrumenti poput deskriptivne statistike, korelacije i ANOVA testova. Ključne reči: odnos poslodavac-zaposleni. angažman zaposlenih, radni učinak https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.04.002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12113 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0201_2 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.868713 https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/the-power-of-parity-advancing-womens-equality-in-asia-pacific https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/the-power-of-parity-advancing-womens-equality-in-asia-pacific