Research Overview

Employee Engagement adalah suatu kondisi dimana karyawan :

• Merasa puas terhadap kondisi pekerjaan dan organisasi saat ini
• Merasa antusias terhadap pekerjaan yang dilakukan
• Memiliki kontribusi yang optimal terhadap kinerja organisasi

Mengukur tingkat
keterlekatan karyawan

Memberikan feedback
Mengetahui faktor-faktor improvement dalam
yang mempengaruhi pengelolaan SDM di
keterlakatan karyawan perusahaan

Mengetahui hal-hal yang

dapat dijadikan focus
improvement
 Result Outline

Engagement
Drivers
Linkage
Analysis

Details
Engagement
Post
Analysis
Engagement
at A Glance
 Engagement Level

Actively Disengaged Disengaged Engaged Fully Engaged

Range (1,00-1,99) Range (2,00-2,99) Range (3,00-3,49) Range (3,50-4,00)

Kondisi dimana Keadaan dimana Keadaan dimana Keadaan dimana

karyawan cenderung karyawan lebih karyawan karyawan secara
berpandangan negatif mementingkan bertanggungjawab konsisten
terhadap perusahaan, kepentingan pribadi, dan fokus terhadap berkontribusi terhadap
hasil kerja karyawan bekerja secara baik target pekerjaanya kinerja perusahaan,
selalu dibawah target apabila diawasi, serta baik secara individu menganggap bahwa
serta beranggapan cenderung menjadi maupun di dalam tim. perusahaan sudah
bahwa kepentingan “penggangu” bagi menjadi bagian dari
perusahaan tidak rekan kerja yang lain. dirinya serta mampu
menjadi bagian dari menjadi role model di
pekerjaannya. organisasi.
Respondent
Profile
 Respondent Profile
78,72% 10,34% 10,93%

Area Warehouse Office

32,146
Total Participant
Clerk Staff Officer Coordinator Manager & Up

30,347 27.44% 39.42% 14.71% 3.88% 14.55%

Valid Participant

54,25%
Growth Partisipant
0,52% 52,76% 46,72%
Details
Gen X-ers Millennials Gen Z-ers
43 – 54 Years Old 23 – 42 Years Old 18 – 22 Years Old
Engagement
@ A Glance
 SAT Engagement
3,19 -0.28%
Strive

0.18% 3,24 -2,09% 3,33 2.26%

Stay Say

3,20
34,49% 97,35%
1,78%
26,90% 49,01% 22,32% Actively
Fully Engaged Engaged Disengaged Disengaged

% Growth
 SAT Branch Engagement
Regional
Regional 14
2
3 National Engagement Index : 3,20

National Engaged Employee : 75,91%

Pekanbaru
Medan
Index : 3,24
Index : 3,25
%Engaged : 79,82%
%Engaged : 80,70%

Batam
Index : 3,20
%Engaged : 73,23%
Cilacap
Jember
Index : 3,12 Pontianak Manado
%Engaged : 70,65% Index : 3,34
Jambi Index : 3,15 Index : 3,34
%Engaged : 85,57%
Index : 3,32
Cileungsi 2 %Engaged : 71,14% %Engaged : 87,39%
%Engaged : 83,90%Index Plumbon PalembangSidoarjo
: 3,11
%Engaged Index: 69.32%
Index : 3,17 : Bekasi
3,31
Index : 3,28Semarang
%Engaged : Index
85,12% : 81,84%
: 3,17 Banjarmasin
Bali
%Engaged : 74,68%
%Engaged Index : 3,18 Index
%Engaged : 73,98% : 3,20
Index : 3,33
Parung %Engaged : 72,92%%Engaged %Engaged
: 75,66% : 85,20%
Cianjur : 3,13
Index Kotabumi
Malang
%Engaged
Index : 71,89%
: 3,22 Index Bandung
: 3,27 Klaten
Lampung%Engaged : 77,56% IndexIndex: 80,40%
%Engaged : 3,19: 3,18 Makasar
Head
%Engaged Office
: 75,27% Index : 3,16
IndexBogor : 3,21 %Engaged : 76,55% Index : 3,34
%Engaged : 73,64%
%Engaged : 72,92% Index : 3,03 %Engaged : 88,96%
IndexKarawang
Cikokol : 3.18 Balaraja
%Engaged : 60,80%
%Engaged : 73.95% Bandung 2
Index
Index : 3,12
: 3,13 Index : 3,15 Rembang
Serang
%Engaged : 69,44%
%Engaged : 75,66% Index
%Engaged : 3,11
: 73,20%Index : 3,20
Index : 3,02 %Engaged : 66,17%
%Engaged : 76,97%
%Engaged : 61,39% Lombok
Index : 3,27
%Engaged : 82,04%

Negative Growth Stable Positif Growth

 Division Engagement
%Engaged Employee by Division
National Engagement 3.19 3.21 3.21
3.20 3.07 3.06 3.06 3.10 3.08 3.08 3.15 3.18
3.02 2.99
2.77

1.39% -1.13% -1.74% -3.57% -0.42% -0.60% -1.76% 1.16% 0.68% -0.98% -1.20% 4.00%
-10.07% -12.00%
Merchandising Corporate Marketing Information Franchise Finance Human Capital Business Corporate Operation Property & Service Quality Logistic International
Audit Technology Controlling Affair Smb Business &
%Engaged Employee by Division Development Technology

Division %Engaged National %Engaged

75.90% 73.42% 76.99% 74.24% 75.92% 73.68%
66.42% 69.23% 70.08%
62.50% 63.58% 64.34% 64.48%
60.00%
50.00%

5.27% 3.85% -2.98% -4.60% -28.00% 47.37%

-8.81% -10.53% -1.53% -9.93% -10.97% -33.33% -8.76% -8.92%
Merchandising Corporate Marketing Information Franchise Finance Human Capital Business Corporate Operation Property & Smb Service Quality Logistic International
Audit Technology Controlling Affair Development Business &
Technology

Negative Growth Stable Positif Growth

Engagement
on Details
 SAT Work Location Details
Engagement Outcome

Engagement
Index % Engaged Stay Say Strive Improvement Area

• Working
3,21 76,92% 3,24 3,34 3,19 Environment

Area

• Working
3,18 76,01% 3,30 3,39 3,14 Environment

Warehouse

• Working
3,11 68,54% 3,19 3,21 3,23 Environment
• Leaders
Office
 SAT Position Level Details
Engagement Outcome

% Engaged Stay Say Strive Improvement Area

Manager • Working
& Up 3,23 77,28% 3,30 3,37 3,32 Environment
• Leaders

Coordinator 3,16 73,94% 3,24 3,24 3,32

Officer 3,20 76,30% 3,23 3,27 3,24

Staff 3,21 76,74% 3,26 3,14 3,21

Clerk 3,17 74,05% 3,22 3,35 3,12

 SAT Working Periode Details
Engagement Outcome

Engagement
% Engaged Stay Say Strive Improvement Area
Index

0 – 3 Working
Month 3,17 73,82% 3,20 3,32 3,13 •
Environment
• Leaders
4 – 6
Month
3,17 74,78% 3,20 3,34 3,13

7 – 12
Month 3,19 75,38% 3,26 3,38 3,16

1 - 2
Years 3,20 75,97% 3,24 3,34 3,18

2 - 3 3,21 76,97% 3,25 3,33 3,23

Years

>3 3,20 76,89% 3,26 3,31 3,24

Years
 SAT Generation Details
Engagement Outcome

Engagement
Index % Engaged Stay Say Strive Improvement Area

• Working
3,27 80,42% 3,35 3,40 3,44 Environment
• Leaders
Gen X-ers
43 – 54 Years Old

3,20 76,40% 3,25 3,33 3,22

Millennials
23 – 42 Years Old

3,18 75,01% 3,22 3,34 3,13

Gen Z-ers
18 – 22 Years Old
Engagement
Drivers
 My Organization

3,40
Driver
Index
Driver
Impact
0,22%
2,29%
Improvement
Area
 Menyelaraskan nilai budaya dengan
perilaku karyawan

 Memberikan karyawan kesempatan untuk

mengerjakan hal-hal baru
 My Work

3,04
Driver
Index
Driver
Impact
0,30%
-2.49%

Improvement  Mengusahakan Pelatihan berkala untuk

Area mengembangkan diri

 Penyediaan sarana dan fasilitas penunjang

pekerjaan
 My Team

3,30
Driver
Index -2.49%
Driver
Impact
0,17%

Improvement  Membangun tim yang dapat saling menghargai dan care

Area satu sama lain.
 My Leader
Driver
Index 3,15 Driver
Impact
0,30%
0,99%

Improvement Area

 Menerima ide dan masukan yang diberikan anggota tim

 Melakukan upaya pendekatan personal untuk membangun

yang baik dengan seluruh tim
 Loyal
Respondent
Analytic
 Loyal Respondent
Engagement Outcome
5443
Engagement
% Engaged Stay Say
Index Strive

3,20 76,11% 3,26 3,33 3,23

-2.39%
0,05% 0,99%
Detail Growth:
Negative Growth Stable Positive Growth

43,46% 6,23% 50,31%

Detail Driver: My Organization My Work My Team My Leader

3,40 3,04 3,32 3,15

-2.20%
Linkage
Analysis
 Engagement vs IKT
Engagement Index versus number of WIN IKT Intention to Stay versus number of WIN IKT
3.26
3.26
3.24 Stay Trendline
3.24
3.23 3.34
3.22 3.32
3.21 3.29 3.28
3.25 3.27
3.20 3.23
3.19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Intention to Say versus number of WIN IKT Intention to Strive versus number of WIN IKT
3.44 3.44 3.24
3.40 3.40 3.23
3.38
3.34 3.20
3.32 3.31 3.20 3.20
3.19 3.19 3.19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Say Trendline Strive Trendline
 Detail Leader Driver vs IKT
Overall Leader index vs number of WIN IKT Direction and coaching from Leader index vs number
3.25 of WIN IKT
3.44
Trendline
3.22 Trendline 3.41
3.21 3.21 3.21 3.40 3.40
3.39
3.20 3.38
3.18 3.36 3.36
3.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Acceptance of idea and suggestion index from Appreciation from Leader vs number of WIN IKT
Leader vs number of WIN IKT
Trendline
3.16 3.29 3.33

Trenline 3.14 3.14 3.13 3.26 3.27 3.26

3.12 3.13 3.13 3.19 3.21

3.11 3.13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 Mapping People Overview

• Key Talent: Data Kinerja Tinggi dan Data Potensi Tinggi

• Hi-Potential : Data Kinerja Sedang dan Data Potensi Tinggi
• Hi-Performer : Data Kinerja Tinggi dan Data Potensi Sedang
• Solid Citizen : Data Kinerja Sedang dan Data Potensi Sedang
• Low Potential 2 : Data Kinerja Tinggi dan Data Potensi Rendah
• Low Potential 1 : Data Kinerja Sedang dan Data Potensi Rendah
• Low Performer 2 : Data Kinerja Rendah dan Data Potensi Tinggi
• Low Performer 1 : Data Kinerja Rendah dan Data Potensi Sedang
• Under Performer :Data Kinerja Rendah dan Data Potensi Rendah
 Engagement vs Mapping People
Engagement Index versus Mapping People Intention to Stay versus Mapping People
Trendline
3.33
3.23 3.26
3.20 3.35Trendline 3.35 3.38
3.21
3.15 3.21 3.18
3.07
2.50

2.81

KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW LOW LOW KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW POTENTIAL LOW LOW
POTENTIAL PERFORMER PERFORMER 2 PERFORMER PERFORMER 2

Intention to Say versus Mapping People Intention to Strive versus Mapping People
Trendline
3.25
3.19
3.23 3.21 3.46
Trendline
3.14
3.07
3.33
3.25 3.26
2.83 3.21
3.17 3.17

KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW LOW LOW

POTENTIAL PERFORMER PERFORMER 2 KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW LOW LOW
POTENTIAL PERFORMER PERFORMER 2
 Engagement vs Mapping People
Engagement Index versus Mapping People Intention to Stay versus Mapping People
Trendline
3.33
3.23 3.26
3.20 3.35Trendline 3.35 3.38
3.21
3.15 3.21 3.18
3.07
2.50

2.81

KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW LOW LOW KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW POTENTIAL LOW LOW
POTENTIAL PERFORMER PERFORMER 2 PERFORMER PERFORMER 2

Intention to Say versus Mapping People Intention to Strive versus Mapping People
Trendline
3.25
3.19
3.23 3.21 3.46
Trendline
3.14
3.07
3.33
3.25 3.26
2.83 3.21
3.17 3.17

KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW LOW LOW

POTENTIAL PERFORMER PERFORMER 2 KEY TALENT HI-POTENTIAL HI-PERFORMER SOLID CITIZEN LOW LOW LOW
POTENTIAL PERFORMER PERFORMER 2
 Engagement vs PA
Intention to Stay versus PA Result Leader Appreciation versus PA Result
Trendline
Trendline 3.11 3.24
3.50 3.01
3.28 3.32 3.19

Kurang Baik Baik Sekali Luar Biasa

Sangat Kurang Kurang Baik Baik Sekali Luar Biasa

Coaching and Counseling versus PA

Comben Perception versus PA Result
Result
 Engagement vs KPI Result
Intention to Strive versus KPI Result Perception of target versus KPI Result

Comben perception versus KPI Result Leader Direction versus KPI Result
Thank
You!