Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose of Study: This study examined the effect of job rotation procedures on employee engagement at the National Registration Bureau Headquarters in Nairobi City County, Kenya. Specifically, it assessed how job rotation contributes to employee skills development, motivation, teamwork and engagement. The study was guided by the Job Characteristics Model of work design. Methodology: The study adopted a descriptive research design targeting 154 employees through census sampling. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. A total of 146 questionnaires were returned, representing a 94.8% response rate. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and regression analysis, alongside qualitative thematic analysis. Findings: The findings revealed positive perceptions of job rotation procedures, particularly skills development (M = 4.24), teamwork (M = 4.22), motivation (M = 4.21) and task exposure (M = 4.17). Employee engagement was high, with mean scores ranging from 4.21 to 4.23. Correlation analysis established a strong positive relationship between job rotation procedures and employee engagement (r = .741, p < .01). Regression analysis demonstrated a statistically significant positive effect (B = 0.312, β = .324, p < .001). These results indicate that structured job rotation procedures are associated with improved employee engagement, supporting the Job Characteristics Model. Conclusion: The study concluded that job rotation procedures significantly enhance employee engagement through skills development, motivation and collaboration. It recommends institutionalising competency-based rotation policies, providing appropriate training, ensuring transparent communication and regularly monitoring implementation. These measures can strengthen employee commitment, promote professional development and improve workforce effectiveness within public institutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wafula et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: