employee engagement: differing strategies between high...
TRANSCRIPT
Employee Engagement: Differing Strategies Between High and Low Engagement
by
Nermin Soyalp
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in
Organizational Psychology
at
John F. Kennedy University
August 20, 2009
Approved: _____________________________________ ______________ Advisor/Research Coordinator Date _____________________________________ ______________ Second Reader Date
1
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 4LiteratureReview ................................................................................................................... 6EmployeeEngagement ....................................................................................................................6JobSatisfaction ..................................................................................................................................9OrganizationalCommitment...................................................................................................... 10JobInvolvement.............................................................................................................................. 12Empowerment................................................................................................................................. 12OrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior ...................................................................................... 13EngagementMeasurement ......................................................................................................... 14Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Methodology ...........................................................................................................................16Sample ............................................................................................................................................... 16DataCollection ................................................................................................................................ 16Survey ................................................................................................................................................ 16Interview........................................................................................................................................... 17Site....................................................................................................................................................... 17DataAnalysis ................................................................................................................................... 17Previousdata ..................................................................................................................................................17AnalysisofSurvey ..........................................................................................................................................17AnalysisofInterviews ..................................................................................................................................18
ParticipantIntroductiontoProject/InvitationtoParticipate........................................ 19InformedConsent .......................................................................................................................... 19DebriefingProcedures ................................................................................................................. 20ResearcherBias .............................................................................................................................. 21Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Results.......................................................................................................................................22QuantitativeDataAnalysis ......................................................................................................... 22EngagementScoreCalculation ................................................................................................................23ExplanatoryDataAnalysis.........................................................................................................................23CorrelationBetweenDependentandIndependentVariables ......................................................23Figure1.OverallCorrelationsofScaletoScale ........................................................................................... 24Figure2.OverallCorrelationsofItemtoItem,ItemtoScaleandScaletoScale .......................... 25
QuantitativeDataAnalysis ......................................................................................................... 26Resultsforemployeeswhoscoredahighengagementlevel.........................................................27Responsetosurveyresults .................................................................................................................................. 28Individual’sImpact .................................................................................................................................................. 28TheJob’sImpact........................................................................................................................................................ 32Manager’sImpact ..................................................................................................................................................... 35Organization’sImpact ............................................................................................................................................ 37Whatinterfereswithanemployee’sfeelingofengagement ................................................................. 39
Resultsforemployeeswhoarenotasengagedasothers ..............................................................42ResponsetoSurveyResults ................................................................................................................................. 42Individual’sImpact .................................................................................................................................................. 42Thejob’sImpact........................................................................................................................................................ 44Manager’sImpact ..................................................................................................................................................... 44Organization’sImpact ............................................................................................................................................ 46Anythingthathelpsemployeesfeelmoreengaged................................................................................... 48Whatwouldyouchange ........................................................................................................................................ 48
2
Satisfactoryjob.......................................................................................................................................................... 49Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Discussion................................................................................................................................52EmployeeEngagementandQualitativeAnalysisVariables ............................................ 52EngagementandTraining/Technology.................................................................................. 53Whathelpsemployeesgetorstayengaged? ........................................................................ 53StateEngagement .........................................................................................................................................53Vigor,Absorption,Dedication,andSatisfaction.......................................................................................... 54Empowerment:.......................................................................................................................................................... 54
WorkAttributes: ............................................................................................................................................56BehavioralEngagement .............................................................................................................................57OrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior(OCB) ................................................................................................. 57Adaptive ....................................................................................................................................................................... 58
TraitEngagement .........................................................................................................................................58TraitPositiveAffect................................................................................................................................................. 59AutotelicPersonality .............................................................................................................................................. 59Conscientiousness.................................................................................................................................................... 60Effectoftrustonengagement............................................................................................................................. 60
Leadershipandtrust ....................................................................................................................................62Organization’sImpact .................................................................................................................................63Visibilityofindividual’simpact.......................................................................................................................... 63Influencedbycoworkers....................................................................................................................................... 63Culture........................................................................................................................................................................... 64Company’sexternalimpact.................................................................................................................................. 65
Whatkeepsemployeesfromfeelingengaged? .................................................................... 65Lackofstateengagement ..........................................................................................................................66Lackofworkattributes ...............................................................................................................................66Feelingisolated ..............................................................................................................................................66Conflict...............................................................................................................................................................67
Differingstrategiesbetweenmostandleastengagedemployees ................................ 67Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 68
References ...............................................................................................................................71
Appendices ..............................................................................................................................75AppendixA ....................................................................................................................................... 75AppendixB ....................................................................................................................................... 77AppendixC........................................................................................................................................ 79AppendixD ....................................................................................................................................... 81AppendixE........................................................................................................................................ 83AppendixF........................................................................................................................................ 85AppendixG ....................................................................................................................................... 86AppendixH....................................................................................................................................... 87AppendixI......................................................................................................................................... 88
3
Acknowledgement
Special thanks to: Sharon Mulgrew who guided me through the process with trust
and encouragement—I learned a lot from her during the process, which was not only
useful for this project, but which I will be able to carry with me for my future
development and practice; Herb Wong, who helped with the quantitative analysis and it’s
relation to the discussion section, with his deep understanding and knowledge; my
company, who allowed me to complete the study with them; all the participants of the
study, who trusted the process and worked with me; and finally, all my friends who
patiently proofread my sections and shared their stories with me which helped me to
understand my passion: employee engagement. Thank you all! This project wouldn’t
have been possible without you.
4
Introduction
Why do some employees feel engaged with their jobs? Why do they think that
they are the right fit for their positions while other employees feel the opposite? And how
does employee engagement affect an organization? Macey and Schneider (2008) quotes
Hewitt Associates, their 2005 study indicated that they have established a “conclusive,
compelling relationship between engagement and profitability through higher
productivity, sales, customer satisfaction, and employee retention" (p.3). Research shows
that engaged employees are also productive employees. According to Gallup Poll 50% of
workers are not engaged in the workplace and 20% of those are actively disengaged
(Gallup Poll, 2008).
Using a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2009); both quantitative and
qualitative analyses, this study focused on employees at the Software Company (SC) who
feel most engaged with their jobs, and those who feel least. These specific categories
were identified through Salanova’s (2005) Organizational Resources and Work
Engagement Scale with an additional question regarding job satisfaction (See Appendix
D). The quantitative portion of the study was completed via survey and the qualitative
analysis was performed using a grounded theory approach.
An interview was conducted with six employees - four of whom are engaged and
two who are not. The study tried to identify what actions, if any, employees have taken to
become engaged. What was the strategy used for ensuring engagement? Is there a
connection between personality, age, gender, or compensation and whether an employee
is engaged? What are the employees who are feeling more engaged doing differently
from their less engaged peers?
This research (survey & interviews) was part of an ongoing analysis of, and
intervention in SC.
SC creates software that visualizes data. It provides high performance graphic
visualization, layout, and analysis systems that enable you to see and interpret complex
information to make better decisions. For instance, if you have an Oracle database that
5
contains data about a worldwide network of corporate computers, you can integrate this
database with SC’s software to display a picture of your data in the form of a graph
(Example graph: see Appendix F).
Their products are not used by end-users, such as users of out-of-box products
like Microsoft Word. SC products are used by other software development companies to
provide visualization capabilities for their applications.
SC has been in the market for sixteen years and currently employs a staff of thirty
employees. The company has reached an annual revenue of five million dollars and a
yearly profit of five hundred thousand dollars. However, SC has not been able to exceed
those numbers in the last four years and management is looking for ways to break this
stagnation and move the company forward. Additionally, it is of interest to the company
to gain knowledge about how to become more effective in gaining organizational results
overall (Madden, 2008).
Employees took a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), over the summer of
2008. The MBTI looks at eight personality preferences that everyone uses at different
times, and helps people identify the 4 preferences they tend to employ the most. It
provides a useful tool to understand personality approaches and their applications in
organizational settings (Hirsh and Kummerow, 1998). Engagement survey results were
compared with MBTI results to see if there are any statistically relevant relationships.
MBTI personality test results helped to determine if there is any correlation between
personality and engagement.
Employee engagement is a fairly new term and one that needs further
development. Its definition has different aspects which can be found in the Literature
Review section. The implications of this study could be used to shed more light on the
engagement discussion. The ideas presented here may also help employees and
organizations improve organizational engagement, and will inform practitioners and
researchers interested in improving the world of work.
6
Literature Review
Employee Engagement
The notion of employee engagement is a relatively new one. When you type in
"Employee Engagement" in Wikipedia, the website warns you about the information by
saying "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject!"
(Wikipedia, Employee Engagement, 2008). The idea of employee engagement has been
marketed by Human Resource (HR) firms over the years. Academic researchers are now
slowly joining the fray; both parties are now saddled with competing and inconsistent
interpretations of the meaning of employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
As a folk term, engagement has been used to refer to the following (Macey &
Schneider, 2008).
• Psychological State: e.g. involvement, commitment, attachment, and mood
• Performance Construct: e.g. either effort or observable behavior including
pro-social and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
• Disposition: e.g. Positive Affect (PA)
• Or a combination of the terms listed above
According to Macey & Schneider (2008) a common definition for employee
engagement now has both attitudinal and behavioral components. Employee Engagement
is defined as "a desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and connotes
involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy" (p.4).
The term employee engagement has been used at different times to refer to
psychological states, traits, and behaviors, as well as their antecedents and outcomes.
According to Macey and Schneider (2008), the sources of confusion in definitions of
engagement are due to the fact that some defined engagements attitudinally and some
behaviorally.
7
Some academic definitions:
Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement as “expression of a person’s preferred
self in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to other’s, personal presence
(physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performance” (p.700).
Kim and Mauborgne (2005) see engagement as engaging employee into the
strategic process which is different than the attitude and the behavior. Engagement is part
of the “fair process” with explanation and clarity of expectations. Based on their
findings, employees care about the justice of the process as much as they do the outcome
itself. They claim that fair process affects people’s attitudes and behaviors. In their
model: Engagement is part of the fair process which is followed by trust and commitment
(attitude). Then the employee voluntarily cooperates (behavior) and exceeds expectations
(strategy execution). The authors define engagement as “involving individuals in the
strategic decisions that affect them by asking for their input and allowing them to refute
the merits of one another’s idea and assumptions” (p. 175). They believe that
engagement communicates management’s respect for individuals and their ideas. This
sharpens everybody’s thinking and builds better collective wisdom. Therefore, Kim and
Mauborgne believe that engagement results in “better strategic decisions by
management” and “greater commitment from all involved to execute those decisions”
(p.175).
Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) defined active engagement behaviorally as
a "high level of activity, initiative, and responsibility" (p.737).
Wellins and Concelman (2005) also defined engagement behaviorally. They
suggested that engagement is a "passion, commitment, extra effort… the illusive force
that motivates employees to higher (or lower) levels of performance"(p.1). They broke
the idea of engagement into a number of individual elements: Focused work (with
strategy, empowerment), Individual value (support and recognition), and Interpersonal
support (teamwork and collaboration).
Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, and Barrick (2004) defined engagement
attitudinally as a "high internal motivation state" (p.603).
8
Macey and Schneider
Macey and Schneider (2008) view employee engagement as possessing a few
origins of both the attitudinal and behavioral variety. They offer a series of propositions
about (a) psychological state engagement (feelings of energy, absorption, satisfaction,
involvement, commitment, and empowerment); (b) behavioral engagement (extra role
behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), proactive/personal initiative, role
expansion and adaptive); and (c) trait engagement (positive views of life and work;
proactive personality, autotelic personality, trait positive effect, conscientiousness) (See
Appendix G).
Macey and Schneider’s Psychological State
Psychological state engagement is central to the engagement issue. This state is
where people feel "some form of absorption, attachment and/or enthusiasm" (p.6). Trait
Engagement (engagement as disposition) "can be regarded as an inclination or orientation
to experience the world from a particular vantage point… and that this trait engagement
gets reflected in “psychological state engagement,". Psychological state engagement is an
antecedent of behavioral engagement (p.5).
Macey and Schneider’s Behavioral Engagement
Behavioral engagement “can be regarded as a directly observable behavior in the
work context” (p.14). The nature of work (work attributes, variety, challenge, and
autonomy), leadership (transformational leadership) and trust has an affect on
engagement as well. It also has a direct affect on state engagement and an indirect affect
as a "boundary condition (moderator) between trait and state engagement." The nature of
leadership has an indirect affect on behavioral engagement through the creation of trust
(p.6).
9
How a person relates to (or fits) in their environment, Person and Environment fit,
is also examined in Macey & Schneider’s (2008) model. Person and Environment fit is
an important connection between trait and state and as well as between state and
behavioral engagement. Macey and Schneider (2008) quoted Bono and Judge’s 2003
study that indicated “Engagement with their work suggests that employees who see their
work as consistent with their personal values will be more engaged” (p.23).
However, Burke (2008) believes that Macey and Schneider’s (2008) approach
ignores the prominent role of knowledge and skill as antecedents to behavior at work, and
fails to consider the importance of adaptive behavior (extra role behavior) as ordinary,
role-based behavior.
Job Satisfaction
Hackman and Oldman (1976) studied five different characteristics as contributors
to job satisfaction:
• Skill variety: the number of different skills necessary to do a job
• Task identity: whether or not an employee does an entire job or piece of a job
• Task significance: the impact a job has on other people
• Autonomy: the freedom employees have to do their job as they see fit
• Task feedback: the extent to which it is obvious to employees that they are doing
their jobs correctly
Studies using different methodologies have been less supportive of the idea that
these five characteristics lead to job satisfaction (Spector, 2006).
Job Satisfaction reflects how people feel about their job. In simple terms, job
satisfaction is the extent to which people like their job; job dissatisfaction is the extent to
which people dislike their job. Job satisfaction can be thought of as general satisfaction,
when it is studied as a global approach, and when multiple aspects of it are studied as a
10
facet approach. The global approach aims to measure an employees’ overall feeling
toward the job and the facet approach focuses on feelings of an individual toward aspects
of the job such as rewards, co-workers, conditions and the nature of work itself. The most
popular indicators used to determine job satisfaction are pay, promotion approaches,
fringe benefits, supervision, co-workers, job conditions, communication, security and the
nature of the work itself (Spector, 2006).
The nature of work is thought to be one of the distinctive facets of job satisfaction
(Spector, 2006). However, Macey and Schneider (2008) found that the nature of work is
a component that directly and indirectly affects state engagement; job satisfaction is one
of the components of state engagement. However engagement is beyond satisfaction.
Macey and Schneider (2008) quoted Ericson’s 2005 study that indicated “Engagement, in
contrast, is about passion and commitment – the willingness to invest oneself and expend
one's discretionary effort to help the employer succeed” (p.8).
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is closely related to job satisfaction, but it is
distinctly different (Spector, 2006). There are several ways to describe organizational
commitment and yet, all of the descriptions include the attachment of the employee to the
organization (Silverthorne, 2005).
The original concept is based on the work of Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979).
They identified three components of organizational commitment:.
1. An acceptance of the organization's goals
2. A willingness to work hard for the organization
3. The desire to stay with the organization
Later, Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993) developed their commitment components:
11
• Affective commitment: emotional attachment, concept of belonging, personal
meaning, and being part of the family
• Continuance commitment: must remain in the organization because he or she
cannot find another job and needs benefits
• Normative commitment: comes from the values of the employee, they stay
because they think it is the right thing to do
Dessler (1999) in his article "How to earn your employee's commitment" suggests
that winning commitment requires a comprehensive, multifaceted management system,
one consisting of an integrated and internally consistent package of concrete actions and
policies. The main steps and sub-steps in implementing such a commitment-oriented
management system include: showing a commitment to employees’ most deeply held
values, clarity and communication of the company mission, guarantees of organizational
justice, creating a sense of community, and finally support for employee development.
Salanova (2005) defined organizational commitment, as dedication, which is,
“characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge at
work” (p.1218).
Welins and Concelman (2005) considered commitment as part of engagement "to
be engaged is to be actively committed, as to a cause” (p.1).
As mentioned earlier, Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993) developed their own
components based on a conception of commitment which includes affective commitment,
continuance commitment and normative commitment. Macey & Schneider (2008)
addressed affective commitment as part of state engagement. Macey & Schneider's
defined commitment as “positive attachment to the larger organizational entity and
measured as a willingness to exert energy in support of the organization, to feel pride as
an organizational member, and to have personal identification with the organization”
(p.9).
It is also important to remember that commitment is only one of the facets of state
12
engagement. There are other facets or psychological states that comprise full state
engagement, such as satisfaction, empowerment, and involvement.
Job Involvement
For Salanova, Agut, and Peiro (2005), job involvement or absorption, “consists of
being fully concentrated, happy, and deeply engrossed in one’s work whereby time
passes quickly, and has difficulty detaching oneself from work” (p.1218).
Cummings and Worley (2005) introduced the concept of Employee Involvement
Interventions that moves organization decision making downward to improve
responsiveness and performance and to increase member commitment and satisfaction.
Macey & Schneider (2008) see job involvement (including task engagement and
job commitment) as an important facet of the psychological state of engagement which is
“traditionally conceptualized and assessed”(p.10). Salanova, et al’s (2005) view is also
similar; they find job involvement to be a facet of engagement but not equivalent to it.
Empowerment
Psychological Empowerment is another component of state engagement and has
been defined as two- and four-dimensional models (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Wellins
and Concelman’s (2005) definition of employment empowerment is “appropriate
authority to make decisions and manage their own work” (p.2).
Gilson, & Ruddy (2006) introduced the Two Dimensional Model:
• Experience of authority
• Responsibility
Spreitzer (1995) introduced a Four Dimensional Model:
• Meaning (sense of purpose)
• Competence (self-efficacy)
• Self-determination (sense of having choice and control)
13
• Impact (belief that one's effort can influence)
Spreitzer believed that the presence of four dimensions creates overall
empowerment. The lack of any single dimension will not completely eliminate but will
deflate the overall feeling of empowerment. Spreitzer's perspective represents an
orientation toward action, which Macey & Schneider (2008) regard as a state
engagement. Macey & Schneider's define empowerment as “feelings of self-efficacy and
control and impact from one's action” (p.10).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Spector (2006) defined organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a behavior
that generally defined as going beyond the formal requirements of the job and which is
beneficial to the organization.
Organ & Konovsky (1989) introduced these items for the OCB scale:
• Assists supervisor with his or her work
• Makes innovative suggestions to improve department
• Punctuality
• Gives advance notice if unable to come to work
“Meta-analysis of OCB studies by Organ and Ryan (1995) and Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach (2000) suggested that OCB is most likely when
employees are satisfied with their jobs, have high levels of affective commitment, feel
they are treated fairly, and have good relations with their supervisors” (as cited in
Spector, 2006, p.259). This statement supports Macey and Schneider’s (2008)
engagement model, state engagement and its relation to behavioral engagement:
“Engagement behavior includes actions that, given a specific frame of reference, go
beyond what is typical, usual, ordinary, and/or ordinarily expected (p.16).
Spector (2006) also found that OCB can also be a strategy for getting ahead at work
and getting a promotion.
14
Engagement Measurement
Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and other elements of engagement
have been assessed individually. Macey and Schneider (2008) found that most of the
engagement measurements failed to measure the concept of engagement. They also found
that job satisfaction surveys do not indicate levels of energy or passion which are both
important parts of their definition of engagement. Even if a survey asks how satisfied an
employee is with their conditions at work or with a particular present condition, it fails to
measure these three facets (psychological state, behavioral and trait engagement) of
engagement accurately.
According to Macey & Schneider (2008), one of the exceptional surveys that was
able to measure the concept of engagement was the Salanova, Agut, and Peiro (2005)
Work Engagement and Service Climate survey. The research of Salanova, et al., focuses
on the service climate (i.e., organizational resources and work engagement) and the
service climate's influence on employee performance and customer loyalty. Their survey
is used to assess organizational resources, work engagement, service climate, employee
performance, and customer loyalty. Their survey's work engagement section is assessed
with Salanova’s (2001) Work Engagement Scale. This scale divides 17 items into three
categories: vigor (six items), dedication (five items) and (six items).
Salanova (2005) defines “Vigor as high levels of energy and mental resilience
while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the
face of difficulties. As mentioned earlier in the section for “job involvement” “absorption
consists of being fully concentrated, happy, and deeply engrossed in one’s work whereby
time passes quickly, and has difficulty detaching oneself from work.” Lastly, as
mentioned in section for “Organizational Commitment,” “dedication is characterized by a
sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge at work.” (p.1218).
All items are scored on a seven-point frequency rating scale ranging from 0 =
never to 6 = always. High scores for vigor, dedication and absorption indicate
engagement. See Appendix D for survey items for organizational resources and work
engagement.
15
Summary
Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior
and other engagement assessment criteria have been studied and assessed individually.
Their relationships have also been identified in many studies mentioned here. This new
term of “employee engagement” includes these terms and their relationship. Macey &
Schneider’s (2008) employee engagement model covers them all under its umbrella. And
yet, there is still not a consistent definition and the limitations of the definition remain
problematic. Findings showed that these definitions need further development and
suggestions are made in the discussion section.
16
Methodology
Using a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2009); both quantitative and
qualitative analyses were used in this study focused on employee engagement at SC: how
it manifests and what factors encourage or discourage it.
Sample
The survey sample consisted of the entire company (N= 30). The majority of the
employees (17) were in the Oakland, CA office. Five (5) employees are in Latvia, one (1)
in Germany, one (1) in Australia, and the rest are in different states in the U.S. The
interview sample included the four employees that rated the highest and the two
employees that rated the lowest on the engagement survey.
Data Collection
The quantitative portion of the study was completed via online survey (Appendix
A) and the qualitative analysis performed using a grounded theory approach. The
qualitative research design consisted of a formal semi-structured interview (Appendix E),
in which the researcher asked the size selected participants to answer certain pre-defined
questions, along with possible follow-up and clarification of questions that arised as the
information from the participant unfolds.
Survey
Employees took Salanova's, et at. (2005) Work Engagement Scale (See Appendix
D) with one additional question regarding their overall job satisfaction. In Salanova's, et
al. (2005) Work Engagement Scale, questions for organizational resources were asked in
an order.
Salonova’s (2001) Work Engagement Scale does not measure job satisfaction
level. One global approach job satisfaction question was added at the end of the survey
(See Appendix D, Question 29).
17
Interview
An interview was conducted with six employees - four of whom scored the
highest in the engagement survey and two who scored the lowest. Interview questions
were used to try to identify factors that influence employee engagement and any actions
employees have taken to become, or try to become, engaged. Except one, interviews were
recorded. One participant didn’t want to be recorded and note is taken instead.
Site
The survey was taken online and interviews were conducted face-to-face if the
employees are in Oakland, or via Skype with a camera.
Data Analysis
Previous data
Employees had already taken MBTI tests and data had been collected on
employees’ age, gender, years of employment, compensation, title, manager (yes/no), and
work location. These variables were compared with the engagement survey results to
determine if there is any correlation.
Analysis of Survey
Survey answers were scaled using a Likert scale from 1 = never to 5 = always.
Each question was analyzed separately and training, autonomy, technology, vigor,
dedication, and absorption scores were summed to create a score for engagement level for
each employee. High score indicates engagement.
• Pearson r (one-tailed) was used to identify the relationship between one or more
independent variables (Vigor, Dedication, Absorption).
• Exploratory data analysis was performed for these qualitative and quantitative
data. The mean and standard deviation of quantitative data; age, compensation,
18
years of employment, and overall engagement level for the entire sample
population are calculated.
• Graphics and frequency distribution for qualitative data; gender, location,
department, manager, personality type, each survey question for the entire sample
population are provided. For the demographic analysis, if there were less than 5
participants in the cell, these categories were combined, so that every cell had
more than 5 participants.
• For demographic variables with two categories (e.g. gender: male and female), t
tests were performed. Correlation analysis (Pearson r with one-tailed) was
performed for independent and dependent variables.
• The SPSS statistical package program was used for this analysis.
Analysis of Interviews
Interviews were transcribed and field notes maintained. The data from the
interview transcriptions and field notes were categorized and coded. The researcher paid
particular attention to patterns that may develop, and applied additional codes and
categories accordingly, if applicable.
To commence, two initial interviews were conducted, one of an employee that
tested high on the survey, and one who tested low. They were analyzed to discover
whether or not additional questions are necessary to improve the data and to determine
what questions should be added or revised for the remaining four interviewees. Questions
weren’t changed.
Each interview was analyzed separately. Upon completion of all six interviews,
the data was cross-analyzed. Similarities and differences were noted. Patterns were
coded (using open coding) to identify common themes. When information was in
response to probing questions outside the standard questions, the researcher indicated that
in the analysis.
Each of the participants was described, and quotes taken from their interviews
were applied to illustrate common themes and responses.
19
Participant Introduction to Project/Invitation to Participate
More than six people were qualified for interviews, priority was given to those
who were willing to talk openly about their experiences when invitations are sent.
Participants was invited to participate via email invitation:
1. After identifying the potential list of participants, an individual email was sent
to each potential participant (see Appendix B). Candidates were invited to respond to
researcher directly, via email or telephone, if they choose to participate.
2. Participants who respond affirmatively to the invitation were contacted by the
researcher directly, via phone or email to schedule an interview date, time, and location.
If a Skype interview was to be conducted, the researcher confirmed the Skype account
where the participant can be reached. If an in-person interview was to be conducted, an
offsite location for the interview were determined and agreed upon.
Informed Consent
Invitation to take the survey was sent via e-mail (see Appendix A). It was
considered informed consent if employees agreed to take and actually took the survey
following the e-mail invitation. No other consent form was needed.
Regarding the interview participation, human participants were protected in
accordance with the ethical standards taken from the APA Code of Conduct (1992). A
consent form (see Appendix C) emphasizing confidentiality was forwarded to the
participant for their review, prior to the scheduled date of the interview and was
discussed in detail prior to the interview. The consent form included a clause explaining
that participation in the study was voluntary and that participants were free to change
their mind at any time, even after signing and submitting the consent form. The form
confirms that the information provided during participation in the study was confidential
and anonymous.
Participants who were interviewed via Skype were asked to sign and submit the
consent form via confidential fax or U.S. mail prior to the scheduled date of the
20
interview. Those who will be interviewed in person were given a copy on site, and asked
to sign it prior to proceeding with the interview. The researcher verified that the
participant understands the documents and the process. Participants were given time to
read and sign the consent forms. The researcher assigned participant numbers to each
participant to insure confidentiality and anonymity. All coded notes and participant
identifications remained anonymous.
Data was stored in a secured, confidential location, accessible only by the
researcher and a third-party subscriber. All data and notes were kept in a locked cabinet
in the researcher’s home office for the duration of the research process. All tapes of
interviews were destroyed upon completion of the final paper.
Debriefing Procedures
At the conclusion of the study, individual participants were given the opportunity
to debrief with the researcher. Each participant were given time at the end of their
interview session to ask questions or express any concerns they may have. The
researcher responded to their questions and concerns at that time. If, at any time after the
interview session, participants wish to address any outstanding issues or questions
regarding the interview or final report, they were invited to call or email the researcher
directly to schedule a follow up session. A summary of findings was made available to
them, upon request.
Participants were invited to contact the JFK University Project Advisor if they
had questions or would like to request additional information regarding this study and the
interview process:
Sharon Mulgrew, M.P.H. – Organizational Psychology Research Coordinator,
JFK University
Email: [email protected] Telephone: (510) 450-0378
21
Researcher Bias
The researcher conducting this study had a bias toward the concept of employee
engagement in the Company, due to her position as the Personnel and Organizational
Development Manager of the Company. The researcher was personally influenced by the
organization, its culture, and its employee relations; and in turn the researcher also
influences the organization, its culture, and its employees. The researcher recognized that
it is in her best interest to remain neutral in order to learn more from the perspectives of
the participants and remained open to all data as it is presented. Due to the criteria of the
research method, bias awareness were particularly important and were maintained by the
researcher.
Limitations
The findings of this study are tentative. The sample size and procedures for
participant selection are appropriate for quantitative and qualitative research. They may
or may not, however, due to the small scope of this study, support generalization to a
larger population of employees.
22
Results
Using a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2009); both quantitative and
qualitative analyses were used in this study which focused on employees at SC regarding
employees who feel most engaged with their jobs, and those who feel least engaged.
These specific participant categories were identified through Salanova’s (2005)
Organizational Resources and Work Engagement Scale with an additional question
regarding job satisfaction (see Appendix C). The quantitative portion of the study was
completed via a survey and the qualitative analysis was performed using a grounded
theory approach.
The sample was drawn from a small technology company with 30 employees
worldwide. Participation was voluntary and twenty-eight employees out of thirty (N=28)
took the employee engagement survey. Each employee’s engagement score was
calculated according to the survey results based upon the categories developed by
Salanova (2005). Employees were ranked by their engagement-scores. An interview was
conducted with six employees - four of whom were ranked most engaged and two of
whom were ranked least engaged. The study tried to identify what actions, if any,
employees have taken to become engaged, and how effective they felt they were. This
research also tried to identify: What was the strategy used for ensuring engagement? Is
there a connection between personality, age, gender, or compensation and whether an
employee is engaged? What are the employees who are feeling engaged doing differently
from their peers?
Quantitative Data Analysis
Twenty-eight employees (N=28) took the employee engagement survey
(Salanova, 2005). The survey responses were scaled using a Likert scale with 1 = never
to 5 = always. Each question was analyzed separately and the three Employee
Engagement Scales, Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption, were summed to create a score
for the engagement level for each employee. High scores indicate a higher level of
engagement. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used for the analysis.
23
Engagement Score Calculation
Pearson r (one-tailed) was used to identify the relationship between one or more
independent variables (Vigor, Dedication, Absorption). Inter-item correlations to
examine the internal consistency and reliability of the three scales indicated that Question
17 did not correlate with other Vigor variables and Questions 23 and 25 did not correlate
with other Absorption variables, so those questions are removed from the analysis.
The Engagement score was the sum of Vigor Question #12 to Absorption
Question #28 except Questions #17, #23, and #25 because they were removed. The
engagement level is the engagement score divided by outstanding number of engagement
questions which is seventeen (17 – 3 = 14).
Engagement score = Sum (Vigor 12, Absorption 28)
= Vigor Items + Dedication Items + Absorption Items
Engagement Level = Engagement score /14
Explanatory Data Analysis
Exploratory data analysis was performed for these qualitative and quantitative
data. The mean and standard deviation of quantitative data; age, compensation, years of
employment, and overall engagement level for the entire sample population are
calculated (See Appendix I).
Graphics and frequency distribution for qualitative data; gender, location,
department, manager, personality type, each survey question for the entire sample
population are provided (See Appendix I). For the demographic analysis, if there were
less than 5 participants in the cell, these categories were combined, so that every cell had
more than 5 participants.
Correlation Between Dependent and Independent Variables
For demographic variables with two categories (e.g. gender: male and female),
24
t tests were performed. Correlation analysis (Pearson r with one-tailed) was
performed for independent and dependent variables.
A correlation was found between Employee Engagement score and Satisfaction
level (r = 0.82, p < .001 (one-tailed). No correlation was found between Employee
Engagement and demographic and personality variables (e.g., location, office type, being
in management or not, gender, age, compensation and MBTI).
There was no correlation between organizational resources and employee
engagement, however, a correlation was found when each organizational resources and
work engagement components were compared. Figure 1 shows the correlation on the
scale-score level: between organizational resources and engagement components. Figure
2 shows correlations in detail: item to item, item to scale and scale to scale. Because of
the strong correlation between satisfaction level and engagement components,
satisfaction is considered as a work engagement component in the drawing.
Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between variables.
Figure 1. Overall Correlations of Scale to Scale
25
Figure 2. Overall Correlations of Item to Item, Item to Scale and Scale to Scale
26
Quantitative Data Analysis
An interview (Appendix E) was conducted with six employees - four of whom
were ranked most engaged and two of whom were ranked least engaged. Four of the
questions were similar questions for comparison such as for the most engaged employee
“What is it about your work habits that help you get or stay engaged?” and for the least
engaged employee “What is it about your work habits that keep you from feeling
engaged?”. There were also some questions to get additional information about their state
and what they are doing differently from their peers. Below is the summary of the results
for interview questions. If the cell is empty that means that those questions are not asked
to that group. More detailed interview results are explained in the following sections.
Most Engaged Employees Least Engaged Employees
Individual’s impact - Feeling part of the group or
organization
- Commitment to self, others and the
organization
- Focusing on the long-term goal
- Influence of coworkers
- Internal motivation
- Feeling a sense of accomplishment
- Finding the project interesting
- Feeling a sense of purpose
- Optimistic attitude
- Feeling isolated
Job’s impact - Experience
- Variety
- Applying knowledge and
experimenting
- The job’s position in the company
- Personal match with the job
- Communication with others
- Lack of challenge and purpose
Manager’s impact -Guidance through results rather than
demanding approach
- Different personalities
- Miscommunication
27
Most Engaged Employees Least Engaged Employees
- Competence and trust in
Management
- Leaves you alone
Organization’s
impact
- Environment and Feeling part of it
- Supportive culture
- Hard working and competent
employees
- The organization’s impact in the
works and visibility
- Dysfunctional culture
- Different values
- Difficulty in communicating
What interferes
and keeps you from
feeling engaged
Things are not moving fast enough ----
Anything that helps
you feel engaged
---- Clear expectations
Feeling of accomplishment
Feeling of recognition Suggestions to the
company
Things are not moving fast enough:
- Hiring more people
- Change in culture
- Change in approval process
Hiring more people
Change in culture
Describe a
Satisfactory job
---- Challenge
Complexity
Being in charge
Benevolent culture
Results for employees who scored a high engagement level
Q1: Your survey results showed that you are highly engaged with your job. Would you
agree that this describes you?
28
Response to survey results
This question pertains to how self aware the employees are regarding their
engagement level and how they would compare themselves to other employees and if
they noticed that they seem to be more engaged.
These participants were not surprised by the survey results. All 4 participants
who scored a higher engagement level agreed that the results described them. Three out
of four only said “Yes”, P1 went further and explained why.
P1 stated that he is engaged because of his nature: “I’m always willing to learn
something that I don’t know.” The Company “still offers me a lot of chances so I can
learn a lot of different areas.” He can improve himself. This is what drives him to stay in
the company and be engaged in his job.
All four participants said “yes” and spent very little time with this question.
Q2: Starting with you: What is it about you that helps you get or stay engaged? Can you
give me an example?
Individual’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify which characteristics about employees
help them get or stay engaged.
Nine important characteristics are mentioned as mentioned at the results summary
table above. In detail, the nine characteristics are:
2.1 Feel part of the group or the organization
Two participants (P1 and P3) mentioned feeling a part of the group or an
organization is what engages them and keeps them engaged.
P1 sees himself as member of the company; he wants to help the company
achieve better goals. He is willing to spend time to acquire knowledge to improve himself
and sees improving himself as helping the company achieve its goals. He said “I am
29
willing to spend as much time as I could just to acquire the knowledge… by taking
classes and improving myself I can also be more compatible and finish my job in the
company,” and he added “since I’m one of the members of the company I would like to
improve myself so I’ll be able to be one of the team members that can be able to
accomplish the jobs that my managers or the company needs me to do.”
P3 gets and stays engaged because she sees herself as part of a group. Similar to
P1, she sees herself as part of the organization. As part of a group, P3 stays engaged
because she feels that people are dependant on her. She said “I feel like I have a part in
something…whatever gets assigned to me or whatever I do, I try to do it the best I can
because I know other people are depending on me.”
2.2 Commitment to self, others and the organization
Two participants (P1 and P4) identified a desire for self-improvement that gets
and keeps them engaged. P1 wants to improve himself and his position provides him that
opportunity, so he stays energized and engaged. He said “I’m one of the members of the
company I would like to improve myself so I’ll be able to be one of the team members
that can be able to accomplish the jobs that my managers or the company needs me to
do.” P4 sees it as a commitment to herself and to believing that things will work out. She
sees difficulties as an opportunity to improve herself, so she stays engaged. She is willing
to work on her problems as well as the problems she has with others. She is also
committed to her own ideas and vision and looks for opportunities to implement them.
She said “For me the thing that works best is to ever be committed to working things out
somehow…some way and to never give up on that.” And she added “loyalty to myself
and others. When people know in their hearts that you are loyal and are typically open to
working with others as well as working on problems with yourself, then people have an
ability to trust each other.”
30
2.3 Focus on the long-term goal
The same two participants (P1 and P4) mentioned “patience” with their
“commitment” as something about them that helps them stay engaged at their job. P1
referred to himself as a patient person “so whenever [there is] something I want to know
I’m willing to spend as much time as I could just [to] acquire the knowledge.” P4 takes
the position that there is no other option other than success, you can commit for long
periods of time. This is critical in business as nothing happens overnight or quickly.
Things in general in life take time… for me the thing that works best is to [always] be
committed to working things out somehow…some way and to never give up on that.”
2.4 Influenced by coworkers
P3 derives strength from other people. “other people are depending on me.” P3
stays engaged when she sees people working hard. When she sees “how hard (group
member/coworker) works, and how hard everyone in the organization works, it keeps me
motivated, and it makes me want to do the best I can.”
2.5 Internally motivated
P4 feels engaged when she is motivated to do the job. She thinks that “the biggest
thing is if I have motivation … and that helps me stay engaged with whatever I do.” She
mentioned that the influence of coworkers, a sense of purpose, and being part of a group
keep her motivated.
2.6 Feel a sense of accomplishment
P2 likes to see himself accomplishing things no matter how big or small the task
is. He stays engaged because he can push himself through rough patches. “No matter how
big or small that is, I like to see myself accomplishing things.”
31
2.7 Find the project interesting
P2 needs to find the end result or the project interesting. “At the beginning there
will be certain difficulties. It won’t be very much fun but once we get going, in the end
the result will be very interesting and very nice so I can engage myself from the
beginning and I can push myself through that rough [first] patch and then….but if it’s
totally not interesting I might not be as efficient in it or as engaged.” He thinks his
position is a good match for him because it is full of surprises and interesting things, so
he stays engaged with his job the majority of the time.
2.8 Feel a sense of purpose
P3 gets and stays engaged if there is a sense of purpose. For her, motivation is
“having a sense of purpose in doing something.”
2.9 Optimistic attitude
One important thing that keeps P4 engaged with her job is her “attitude that never
says die…a general optimism and a belief that anything is possible no matter what
obstacles are faced.” She believes that anything is possible and she looks for an open
window with optimism when there is a difficulty with her job.
Overall, participants mentioned a number of characteristics about themselves that
help them stay engaged at a high level: feeling part of the group or the organization,
commitment to self, others and the organization, focus on the long term goal, influence of
coworkers, internal motivation, feeling a sense of accomplishment, finding the project
interesting, feeling a sense of purpose and an optimistic attitude.
Q3: What is it about your job that helps you get or stay engaged? Can you give me an
example?
32
The Job’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify what the characteristics are about an
employee’s job that help them get or stay engaged.
Six important characteristics were mentioned: experience, variety, applying
knowledge and experimenting, the job’s position in the company, personal match with
the job, communication with others.
3.1. Experience
Two participants (P1 and P3) became engaged and stay engaged because their
position affords them a chance to gain experience. P1 is getting experience which he
thinks will be valuable for his future “because I’m going to be working [in this field]
[for] the rest of my life.” P3 sees her position as on her career path. She thinks that
“there’s a lot of room to grow here.” She is learning from her position and from other
people in the organization. With the experience she gets, she is hoping to handle bigger
projects in future.
3.2 Variety
Two participants (P1 and P2) mentioned that variety in their jobs keeps them
engaged.
P1 and P2 both handle all aspects of their positions, and they get a chance to learn
and experiment in different areas. P2 said that “every couple of weeks the stuff that I’m
working on is constantly changing and it’s not [that] I’m dedicated to just one technology
like a software engineer so I get to play with technologies and many different platforms
and so it’s very interesting. So …. you become like a shark. You have to keep going.
It’s a good position for people who like to experiment and play with different stuff all the
time.” P1 “I can also learn more [and apply] different knowledge.”
33
3.3 Ability to Apply knowledge and experiment
Two participants (P1 and P2) mentioned that getting a chance to apply their
knowledge at work and experiment in their areas gets them and keeps them engaged.
P1 has the ability to implement what he learns at school at his job which he thinks
supports his learning as well as the company’s growth. He said, “by staying in the
company I can actually get a lot of chances to apply my knowledge … so that’s the
reason that my job can help me engage in this company.” He also added that when he is
done with school and passes certification exams, “… he can apply his additional
knowledge to his position.
P2 likes to experiment and play with different engineering platforms and his
position provides him that. “It’s a good position for people who like to experiment and
play with different stuff all the time.”
They both mentioned that they are engaged because they are able to experiment
and apply their knowledge at their jobs.
3.4 The job’s position in the company
Two participants (P1 and P2) see that their positions have an important impact on
the organization. P1 feels he has an impact in the company’s growth. P2 feels he impacts
future product lines and what the company does.
• The job’s relationship with the company’s growth
P1 goes to school and looks for ways to improve himself. He thinks that while he
grows he can grow the position and it will help grow the company. When he was talking
about the relationship between him and his position’s growth, he added that, “the
company is still trying to grow … I can help the company keep growing. There [are] still
a lot of things [that] I haven’t gotten a chance to learn.”
34
• The job’s relationship with what the company does
What P2 does affects how future products are shaped. “There’s a huge space of
places [where] these products can go and the effort I’m part of is to find the best one.”
3.5 Personal Match with the job
What the company does, and what products it produces supports P4’s view of life.
She said, “keeping my work very personal and making sure that my personal vision of
life is supported in my work is very important to me.” She thinks her job and the
company’s products support this perspective.
3.6 Close Communication with others
P4 strives to maintain a close communication with whom she works. Her job
provides her that communication by weekly meetings with group members, weekly
meeting with other managers, learning from other managers and monthly reports to the
company. “Those are examples of how keeping interpersonally related to others keeps me
engaged.”
She stays engaged because she personally needs to communicate with people and
her job role provides her with that opportunity.
Overall, participants mentioned a number of characteristics about their job that
help them stay engaged at a high level: getting an experience; having a variety of projects
and responsibilities; being able to apply their knowledge to their jobs and experimenting
with it; having a job role that has a significant impact on the company; having a good
personal match with the job; and having a job that requires communication with other
employees.
Q4: What is it about your manager that helps you get or stay engaged? Can you give me
an example?
35
Manager’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify what the characteristics are about an
employees’ manager that help them get or stay engaged.
Many different characteristics were mentioned, and they are all collected under
three main titles: Guidance through results rather than demanding approach, competence
and trust in management, and leaves you alone.
4.1 Guidance through results rather than demanding an approach
Three participants (P1, P2, and P3) mentioned that their manager guides them
through to the result rather than demanding a specific approach. Their managers make
them feel part of the task or the organization, and managers don’t do the job for them.
They are flexible and patiently wait until the result is produced by them.
List of the things mentioned as part of guidance:
• Makes you feel part of it
• Flexible
• Trains you
• Gives Feedback
• Listens
• Open and supportive
• Communicates well
P1’s manager doesn’t give him hard deadlines and he is flexible. He gets feedback
from his manager to improve his projects and his area. “He’s more like guiding me to
improve [my projects] better.”
Similarly P2 finds his manager open and accepting. He feels his manager listens
and tries to understand him. Even if the project is complicated, his manager still wants to
see results from him. He feels like his manager makes sure that he is engaged with the
task and with making him part of it. “Every time you talk to him you feel like you are
36
resolving a problem together so he makes you a part of it and he becomes part of it. He’s
a great team worker in that sense. So that really gets you engaged.”
Although P3’s manager is really busy, he still makes time to review her work and
guides her through to the result. She trusts his knowledge and what he is trying to
accomplish in the company. She feels part of it. She feels like her manager is
encouraging her knowledge without being demanding and guides her through to the
result. She said that “Well, he is (her manager) really busy…. (and yet) he let us do our
own thing but then in the end he guided us through it. ”
4.2 Competence and trust in management
Two participants (P2 and P3) become engaged and stay engaged because they trust
their manager’s knowledge and they find him competent.
P2 trusts his manager’s knowledge. He finds his manager experienced and credible.
He said “he’s very credible in my mind” Similarly P3 thinks that her manager is very
smart. She trusts his knowledge and what he is trying to accomplish in the company. She
said “he’s like really smart. He knows what he’s doing so … I trust him.”
4.3 Leaves you alone
P4 doesn’t think engagement is something given to you by someone else. She
thinks that it is up to you - the individual - to find ways to be engaged. Most of the time
her manager leaves her alone; “I think I have to count as a blessing.”
Overall participants mentioned a number of characteristics about their manager that
help them stay engaged at a high level: manager’s guidance through results than a
demanding “because I said so” approach; employees’ trust in their manager’s knowledge
and competence; and finally and differently because the manager leaves them alone.
Q5: What is it about the organization that helps you get or stay engaged? Can you give
me an example?
37
Organization’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify what the characteristics are about the
organization that help them get or stay engaged.
Five important characteristics are mentioned: environment and feeling part of it; a
supportive culture; hard working and competent employees; the organization’s impact in
the world; and the organizational structure provides visibility.
5.1 Environment – and feeling part of it
Two participants (P1 and P2) mentioned that the organization is friendly and
almost like a family, so that is what gets and keeps them engaged with their jobs.
P1 enjoys talking to other people in the organization about different topics than
work and he finds people very friendly. He said that he can talk to anyone including the
senior managers. He has some very good friends in the organization and that it feels like
a family. As a result, he wants to do his best to grow the company. “The people in this
organization are very friendly.. [even with] senior managers .. you can talk [to] them.”
P2 feels a part of the organization. He says “When you say organization….I feel
it’s our company. Because of the size (fairly small company), everyone knows each
other, [there’s] not much hierarchy, and [there are] developed friendships between
employees.”
Two participants feel part of the organization because it is small and everybody is
friendly.
5.2 Supportive culture
Two participants (P1 and P4) stated that the organization has a supportive culture.
P1 doesn’t feel pressure from other employees so much and feels like the
organization is flexible and encourages his learning. He is able to develop his talents
38
because the organization allows him to do the work in his own way. The company culture
also allows him to share his opinions with everyone freely. He receives feedback while
he works because he thinks his coworkers want him to grow. “They also want you to be
improving and to learn new techniques. They also want to teach you something by
working in this friendly environment so I think I would like to stay longer and also I
would like to spend more of my time on helping the company to achieve because
everyone in the company is more like a family.”
P4 pointed out that “these folks (people in the organization) are highly educated
and are generous about sharing their knowledge when they have time. Generally
speaking, we all want the company to succeed. And an example of that is the [this]
manager [who she is not reporting to] has shared his time with me…[in a] very open and
interpersonal way. So whenever he can fit me into his schedule, he endeavors to do that
and he offers me his opinions and suggestions or helps me to find solutions that can help
me in my day to day work.”
P1 and P4 feel like the organization supports them and their work so they get and
stay engaged.
5.3 Hard working and competent employees
Two participants (P3 and P4) mentioned that people in the organization are hard
workers and they are very competent in their subject. Seeing everybody’s contribution
and hard work leads to their continued engagement.
P3 said, “I see everyone working so hard and like I feel like everyone does have
like a big part in the company no matter what their position is. It’s like I don’t want to let
anyone down. I just try to work as hard as everyone else.”
5.4 The organization’s impact in the world and visibility
P2 mentioned the organization’s impact in the world. He said that he doesn’t feel
the impact is like an ocean effect considering the size (of the company) but he still thinks,
39
“the company’s impact is quite significant.” He goes on to say, “That also gives you a
reason to engage yourself because you know everything you put in those products, every
thing you accomplish will soon be used by other people. There’s a real short pipeline
between the engineer and the customer.”
5.5 The organizational structure provides visibility
P2 is an engineer and also a sales engineer. He works on products and also gets a
chance to see the customers, how they are using the product, and how the product is
impacting the world. He gets engaged because the organizational structure provides him
visibility to see how the company’s products are helping their customers.
Overall, participants mentioned a number of characteristics about the organization
that help them stay engaged at a high level: they feel like a family because the company
is small and employees are friendly, everybody is working hard and they are competent at
their job, they feel that the organization has a significant impact in the world, and the
organizational structure provides visibility to see how their products are helping their
customers.
Q6: Is there anything that interferes with your feeling engaged? If so what is it, and how
do you address it? Anything the organization could do?
What interferes with an employee’s feeling of engagement
The purpose of this question is to identify if there is anything that interferes with
their feeling of engagement.
Several areas were mentioned by all four participants, e.g., projects, approval
process, etc. as not moving fast enough. While they could be collected under one title
‘not moving fast enough,’ we will mention all four components.
40
Things are not moving fast enough
• Need more people
Three participants mentioned that things are not moving fast enough because there
are not enough people for the work.
P2 strives for interaction with others; brainstorming, and argument. He wouldn’t be
happy working alone. He thinks that there are not enough people to brainstorm, to move
faster, and for inspiration. He suggested hiring more people in his department. “More
people means more power, that’s all.”
P3 thinks that their group is too small (two people) and not senior enough to come
up with projects to move things along faster. She suggested hiring a senior manager for
their department. “Sometimes when we want to do something it’s kind of hard to get it
started.”
P4 thinks that employees are too heavily loaded with work. She said “My manager
is rarely available.” And added “My peers are overloaded.”
• Not enough power for decision-making
Two participants (P1 and P2) mentioned that there are not enough people who have
enough power to make decisions and, as a result, it slows down the work. The company
is owned by the CEO. Sometimes P1 feels like it takes too much time to get approval
because the (CEO) is involved in too many work activities; he has to get the CEO’s
approval on too many things, so it takes time to get an approval. He feels like it slows
him down. “A lot of the activities of the company is based on the judgment of one
person.” P2 wants to see things moving faster. When things start to get implemented
faster “you have to use less of your patience. You get to see things faster. More people
need more power that’s all.” P1 suggested that the owner (CEO) needs to change his
approach and trust more people and give them some authority.
41
• Long approval process
P3 agrees that sometimes it is hard to start something because of the approval
process. “You want to start something and you have to go through that whole process.”
Similarly, P4 mentioned the long approval process. “Nothing can be done unless
many people can agree exactly how things need to be done. Creating that kind of level of
consensus and agreement takes time and gets in the way of our being able to accomplish
any of the goals that we have.”
• Micromanaging - lack of trust and communication
P4 thinks that the company has a micromanaging culture with limited trust. “The
company has a micro-managing culture and nothing can be done unless many people can
agree exactly how things need to be done.” She thinks that the reason for micromanaging
is the limited level of trust. And she added some might say that it is “simply a matter of
not being able to have time enough to engage.”
• Abandonment
Employees are heavily loaded with work which slows down the work. P4 said, “My
manager is rarely available, rarely talks to me outside of a group context, is heavily
negative in his comments and is incapable of communicating with others in a direct
fashion. My peers are overloaded. They also aren’t necessarily great communicators.”
She doesn’t think there is a solution for abandonment. It is top to down and it is
kind of getting better. Everybody is working on it on it his or her own way. She thinks
maybe if people start sharing their success and failure stories, people might start learning
from each other so it would create a cognitive solution. “My thought is we just each have
to continue on an individual basis to work on it the best we can. Share our successes and
our failures when we can.”
Overall, participants mentioned a number of characteristics that interfere with their
feeling of engagement at a high level: mainly things are not moving fast enough because
42
there are enough people to do the work, not enough people have power for decision
making, abandonment, approval process is time consuming and micro managed.
Results for employees who are not as engaged as others
Q1: Your survey results showed that you are not as engaged to your work as others who
took the survey. Would you agree that this describes you?
Response to Survey Results
This question pertains to how self aware employees are regarding their engagement
level: if they have a sense of other’s engagement level and if they see themselves as less
engaged then them.
Both participants, P5 and P6, had some level of reaction to the question.
P5 thinks the survey didn’t identify his real feelings about his job and that the
“survey questions can easily be interpreted differently.” P6 thinks that she can’t compare
herself with others so she can’t answer this question. Later she admitted “sometimes I
don’t feel as enthusiastic or passionate about my job as maybe other people do.”
Overall P5 doesn’t agree with survey results and thinks the survey didn’t scale his
feelings correctly. He was surprised with his ranking. P1 thinks that he is engaged with
his job and P6 admitted that there are times she doesn’t feel very enthusiastic about her
job as maybe the others do.
Q2: Starting with you: What is it about you that keeps you from feeling engaged?
Can you give me an example?
Individual’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify what the characteristics are about
employees that keep them from feeling engaged.
43
Both participants are remote and work alone. They both mentioned the same
characteristic: feeling isolated.
Feeling isolated
P5 and P6 both mentioned feeling isolated. They both used to work in the
headquarters office and moved away for personal reasons.
P5 works alone in his office. “ I have been alone in this office for 2 years.”
He says the company promised to hire more employees but it hasn’t happened. He
is not in the same time zone with the majority of the other employees, so he has very little
interaction with other employees. He would love to have a team working with him.
P6 feels very distant from the other people. She said that she is working alone
without personal interaction. The communication tools used internally such as Skype and
Go To meeting do not satisfy her interaction needs. She said “I’m very distant from
people. That distance I think might make it harder for me to feel involved with the
organization. When I was in the office I could walk around and talk to people. I could
see what they were doing. The only time that I talk to people now is when I have a
particular purpose.”
She thinks that maybe she is not assertive enough. She said that people are really
busy and she doesn’t talk to them because she doesn’t want to bother them.
Overall, participants mentioned feeling isolated as the reason that keeps them from
feeling engaged. Both participants work alone and feel isolated. Their current work set up
does not satisfy their need for personal interaction.
Q3: What is it about your job that keeps you from feeling engaged? Can you give me an
example?
44
The job’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify what characteristics about an employee’s
job keep them from feeling engaged.
P5 mentioned lack of challenge and purpose.
Lack of challenge and purpose
P5 thinks that for his position his skills are not heavily utilized. He doesn’t find it
challenging and someone with less skill can do the job easily. He is doing a lot of routine
work. He gave an example of his interaction with a customer. They were discussing their
project and they were talking about technical details where you need to have experience.
He felt like it was challenging and full of purpose, but the rest of the day wasn’t
challenging and the work he did could have done by anybody - “someone with less skills
can do the job easily.”
P6 said there is nothing in regards to her job that keeps her from feeling engaged.
“The job is a way for me to engage with company so I don’t have a problem with my
job.”
Overall one participant mentioned lack of challenge and purpose as a characteristic
about the job that keeps him from feeling engaged.
Q4: What is it about your manager that keeps you from feeling engaged? Can you give
me an example?
Manager’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify what characteristics of an employee’s
manager might keep him or her from feeling engaged.
Both participants mentioned the same characteristic: different personalities and
miscommunication.
45
Different Personalities and miscommunication
Both P5 and P6 are having some difficulties with certain behaviors in the
organization.
P6 thinks that she and her manager have different personalities and often they
miscommunicate and annoy each other. She also interacts mostly with her manager, so
this is a problem for her. She adds, “My manager and I are trying really hard to get along
but we have very different personalities. I’m an introvert and she’s an extrovert. She
likes to talk. I don’t like to talk and so we often misunderstand each other or we annoy
each other. I think we’re trying really hard to work on that. I think that does present
problems.” P6 is an INFP and her manager is an ESTJ. These are complete opposite
MBTI types. As an example of differences at work places: Introverted (I) people like
quiet and private space for concentration focused on a single task versus Extraverted (E)
people like participating actively with others in a variety of tasks.
Unlike P6, P5 thinks his manager is doing a fantastic job. He is always encouraging
and supportive when P5 comes up with an idea. He compared his manager with his
manager’s manager whom he used to work for. Overall he thinks his manager’s style is
positive versus his manager’s manager who is negative. His manager answers precisely.
He says “Yes” or “No”, however his manager’s manager for example answers “ah,”
“well,” “maybe” which he hates. He said that his manager won’t avoid the topics.
Overall, participants mentioned having difficulty in dealing with certain behaviors
and styles of communication of their manager that keeps them from feeling engaged. P5
is having as much difficulty communicating with his manager’s manager as P6 does with
her manager.
Q5: What is it about the organization that keeps you from feeling engaged? Can you give
me an example?
46
Organization’s Impact
The purpose of this question is to identify characteristics about the organization
that keep them from feeling engaged.
Three characteristics were mentioned: dysfunctional culture, different values, and
difficulty in communicating.
5.1 Dysfunctional culture
P5 and P6 both think that the way the company is run is dysfunctional.
P5 thinks that the way organization is run gets in the way of everybody, because it
is not letting everyone do their job and is controlling, and has a lot of rules for
consistency. “The way company is set up and ran by the CEO makes it very difficult to
enjoy the work in the company. Everything has to be consistent. I disagree.”
P6 thinks that the culture is very dysfunctional and “it’s because of the CEO’s
personality and they way that he runs [the company]…he micro-manages things.” She
thinks that those who are successful at this company are those who learned how to deal
with him or “they’ve gained his respect because they’re just as clever as he is, or they’re
young and exotic (cute). Then you’ll get along with him too.” She said “Since I’m not
an engineer and I’m not young and exotic then I just stay out of his way and let [my]
manager deal with him.” Usually this does not effect her directly except as it affects her
manager. “It effects my manager … she’s one of the people who has to do whatever
needs to be done to make him happy and that effects the kind of work I have to do.
Sometimes priorities are readjusted, things that I thought were complete will have to be
redone or schedules changed because of this blowup. He has an unusual personality. He
has a hard time accomplishing things.”
She thinks everybody is somewhat “directly effected by it.” She added, “It’s a
small organization and he wants to have complete control. If you were to ask him he may
47
say no that’s not his intent at all but he’s not very self aware.” It is hard for her to work in
a culture like this.
Both participants have some difficulty with the company culture.
5.2 Different values
P5 states he has “different values than the CEO.” He objects to how the CEO runs
the company. They fall into conflict often with no resolution. His manager’s attempts to
resolve the situation didn’t help. It is getting in his way of enjoying his work.
5.3 Difficulty in communicating
Most of the people P6 works with are engineers. She is having difficulties
understanding them which wasn’t a problem at her prior employment. She worked with
scientists and engineers before and never had this much of a communication problem.
She thinks that they are not communicating well or clearly. They are leaving out
details that are important. She really has to try to get the information out of them. She
feels like they don’t really try to understand what she needs and she is the only one
trying. While there are some engineers that she is not having this problem with, she is
with majority of them. “In order to get information out of them you do have to really
annoy them.”
Overall, participants mentioned a number of characteristics about the organization
that keep them from feeling engaged at a high level: dysfunctional culture
(micromanagement, and controlling), dysfunctional CEO and having different values
from how the company is run, and difficulty in communicating with others in the
organization.
Q6: Is there anything about your job that helps you feel more engaged?
48
Anything that helps employees feel more engaged
The purpose of this question is to identify if there is anything that helps them feel
more engaged. Four things were mentioned:
• Clear expectations
• When people I do it for are satisfied
• Feeling of accomplishment
• Feeling of recognition
P6 said there were four things that helped him feel more engaged: “When I
understand what’s expected of me; when I can accomplish it and people tell me that it’s
satisfactory or that they’re happy with what I did; when I have a feeling of
accomplishment; and when I get a feeling of recognition.” This makes him feel “more
enthusiastic about the job.”
P5 said “everything is good as is.”
Q7: If you can change something here that would make you more satisfied, what would
that be?
What would you change
The purpose of this question is to identify if there is anything that they would
change to feel more satisfied.
P6 had a long pause before she answered the question. Both participants mentioned
the same two things: hiring more people and changing culture.
7.1 Hiring more people
P5 and P6 both would hire more people. P5 would like to have more people in his
group. P5 works alone in his office. “ I have been alone in this office for 2 years.” And he
feels isolated. P6 would like for the CEO to have a larger support staff so he can delegate
49
some of his work. She would hire a good marketing manager, sales manager and so forth,
so that the CEO doesn’t have to make decisions about too many things. “I think a good
CEO should be able to delegate responsibilities to other people like hiring somebody to
take care of marketing (for instance).”
7.2 Changing culture
P5 and P6 both would try to change the culture.
P5 “and change the company policy to give individuals more freedom and room to
breath.”
P6 would like the CEO to change his behavior so “the culture in the company
would change.” Then, “the culture wouldn’t be so erratic; it’s like people are always
looking over their shoulder to make sure [that the] CEO’s not ready to jump on them.”
She doesn’t think it’s a very conducive atmosphere to breed a healthy company culture.
Overall, participants mentioned two things that they would change in the
organization at a high level. One was to hire more people so overloaded people can
delegate their work, or to help remote employees feel less isolated. Two was to change
the culture because both participants think the culture is dysfunctional.
Q8: Think about a job that you are completely satisfied with and what would it look like?
Satisfactory job
The purpose of this question is to identify what a satisfactory job would be like for
them.
Three things are mentioned: Being in charge and having responsibility, challenge
and complexity, and working in a benevolent culture.
50
8.1 Being in charge and having responsibility
P5 would like to work in a place where he is in charge and is responsible for an
important job. He would like to have a team of people to lead and work towards a high-
level goal.
Sometimes he imagines working for a security company, just to organize the
company but not being limited to software. He likes to organize, he likes to lead and
anything else is secondary. A security company is one example, but it could alternatively
be a hospital. “I like organizing, planning, overseeing things and managing things and
people.”
8.2 Challenge and complexity
P5 likes challenge and complexity. He gave an example of working for a security
company where there are “hundred’s of things to organize, people report things to me
etc.”
8.3 Working in a benevolent culture
P6 would like to work in a company with a benevolent culture. She defined a
benevolent culture as one where there is a lot more exchange of ideas, people are
respected for their input, and people are encouraged to work together.
She gave an example from the company where she worked for nine years. She said
“it was a company with a great culture.” She said that they made employees feel
comfortable about their jobs as well as provided good benefits. Employees were treated
like they were respected and she thinks it was a more benevolent culture. She was
included in the projects from the beginning and she felt like her point of view mattered.
Overall, the participants mentioned three things that they would change in the
organization at a high level: individual level - being in charge, having an important
responsibly; job level – complexity and challenge; and organizational level – creating a
benevolent culture where there is an exchange of ideas and people feel respected.
51
Conclusion
Quantitative and qualitative analysis was performed. Based on quantitative
analysis, a correlation was found between employee work satisfaction and engagement
scores, however no correlation was found between Employee Engagement and
demographic and personality variables (e.g., location, office type, being in management
or not, gender, age, compensation and MBTI). Based on quantitative analysis there were
differences between the most and least engaged employees: how they feel about their
work, about their manager and the company. They had different strategies which are
discussed more in the discussion section.
52
Discussion
This study focused on comparing employees at SC those who feel more engaged
with their jobs than others, and those who feel less engaged than others. A blended
quantitative and qualitative approach was used and the results shared.
As mentioned earlier, employee engagement is a fairly new term and one that needs
further development. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior and other engagement assessment criteria have been studied and
assessed individually. Their relationships have also been identified in many studies. This
new term of “employee engagement” includes these terms and their relationship. Macey
& Schneider’s employee engagement model was introduced during the project proposal
phase. This model covers these components under its umbrella and yet, there is still not a
consistent definition, and the limitations of the definition remain problematic. The results
of this study will be used to improve Macey & Schneider’s employee engagement model
and employee engagement definition.
This section will discuss the definition of employee engagement; suggest additional
elements to Macey and Schneider’s (2008) engagement framework; and identify differing
strategies between most and least engaged employees.
Employee Engagement and Qualitative Analysis Variables
No correlation was found between Employee Engagement and demographic and
personality variables such as gender, MBTI, age, compensation, location, office type,
department, and management responsibility. Then, what is it that drives employees’
engagement with their work? According to the analysis, it is not as easy as changing
compensation, nor it is related to being introverted versus extraverted, nor it is something
you learn while you age.
53
Engagement and Training/Technology
As mentioned earlier, I am internal to the organization and I know the technology
that is used as well as the training provided to the employees. Based on my experience,
the majority of the employees complain about not having proper training and express
concerns that the technology provided in the organization is not sufficient (i.e., document
management tools, information systems). However, the survey results showed that
training and technology are not barriers to employees feeling engaged about their jobs.
No significant correlation was found between the engagement score and technology and
training. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the company should continue to have
insufficient technologies or does not need to train employees; it means that technology
and training do not appear to have an important impact on the employee engagement
level. From the findings, it appears that engaged employees find their way of learning and
completing the task and do not let technology and lack of training get in their way; they
make things possible.
Even though there is no correlation between training and engagement, there is a
correlation between training and one of the engagement components: dedication
(commitment). This might be interpreted to mean that employees feel invested in the
company when the company invests in them by providing training resources. Training
was not mentioned in my literature review as an item, and yet, it affects employees
commitment level in this study.
What helps employees get or stay engaged?
Findings support Macey and Schneider’s frame work (see Appendix G).
Each element is discussed in more detail below.
State Engagement
The findings supported Macey and Schneider’s (2008) state-engagement level
elements: State engagement is the state of feelings of energy and absorption:
54
• Satisfaction (Affective)
• Involvement
• Commitment
• Empowerment
Employees took Salanova’s work engagement survey. The survey scales state level
of employee engagement.
• Vigor => Feelings of Energy
• Absorption => Involvement
• Dedication => Commitment
• Satisfaction: A question added to the survey.
The only lack of match between the two models is empowerment and vigor.
Vigor, Absorption, Dedication, and Satisfaction
Strong correlation was found between employee’s satisfaction with their job and
their engagement level. Satisfaction also correlated with each engagement component in
Salonova’s survey: vigor, dedication, and absorption, so satisfaction is considered one of
the engagement components. These findings supported most of Macey and Schneider’s
(2008) framework.
Empowerment:
Spreitzer’s (1995) four-dimensional empowerment model comprises meaning
(sense of purpose), competence (self-efficacy), self determination (sense of having choice
and control), and impact (belief that one’s efforts can influence). According to Macey
and Schneider (2008), Spreitzer’s four-dimensional empowerment model fits their State
Engagement.
The following are quotations from some of the individuals:
55
P2 is referring to the project he worked on “I felt like I really own it” (self
determination) P3: “[Engagement is] like having a sense of purpose in doing something,”
(meaning) She also said, “whatever gets assigned to me or whatever I do ... I try to do it
the best I can because I know other people are depending on me.” (impact). One other
example for impact from P1 is: “I’m one of the members of the company. I would like to
improve myself so I’ll be able to be one of the team members that can be able to
accomplish the jobs that my managers or the company needs me to do”
In-terms of competence, P2 said, “at any given time, I knew exactly what was
going on and what to expect and what the problems were.”
These findings supported empowerment’s relation to engagement at Macey and
Schneider and as well as Spreitzer’s (1995) four dimensional empowerment model.
Additionally, I found there needs to be a balance between challenge and
competence. Challenge is good (element of work attributes) as long as the employee has
the competence to complete the task (state engagement). P7, another one of the least
engaged employees who was not included in this study, said, “Challenge is good as long
as it doesn’t reach to the level that you can’t complete the task – you can handle only so
much challenge.” Her sense of empowerment was deflated by the lack of competence
dimension.
Both P5 and P6, two of the least engaged employees, did not feel empowered.
P6 doesn’t feel that she has control over her work; she said, “It’s a small
organization and [CEO] wants to have complete control.”
P5 would like to work in a place where he is in charge and is responsible for an
important job. His current position doesn’t provide that for him.
Both are examples for the lack self determination dimension.
56
Work Attributes:
Work attributes have a direct and indirect impact on state engagement. According
to Macey and Schneider (2008), work should have the following attributes (each are
presented with examples that match those attributes with my findings):
• Variety:
P2: “every couple of weeks the stuff that I’m working on is constantly changing.”
• Challenge:
P6: “[The project I did in the morning] was challenging and full of purpose (state
engagement) but the rest of the day wasn’t challenging and the work could have done by
anybody.” He doesn’t find the majority of his work challenging and that is one of the
reasons that keeps him from feeling engaged.
• Autonomy:
Two-dimensional empowerment model (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006) defines
empowerment as experience of authority and responsibility. Macey and Scheiner (2008)
considered authority as one of the work attributes. According to survey data, a correlation
was found between the engagement level and autonomy to choose what tasks to perform,
and autonomy to decide when to start and finish tasks.
Experimenting and room for creativity are also important work attributes
Additional important work attributes:
• Experience:
P3: “because I’m going to be working [in this field] [for] the rest of my life.”
57
• Experimenting:
P1: “by staying in the company I can get a lot of chances to apply my knowledge.”
The examples discussed in this section showed the relationship between my
findings and Macey and Schneider’s (2008) state engagement level and work attributes
impact on engagement. (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
State engagement is an antecedent of behavioral engagement
Behavioral Engagement
Within Macey and Schneider’s (2008) model, behavioral engagement is the level
where employees’ engagement is directly observable in the work context. (Extra-role
behavior):
• Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): going beyond what is typical.
• Proactive/Personal Initiative: self starter, reactivity, and persistence
• Role Expansion: attempt to wider range of tasks that what is typical or usual.
• Adaptive: Behaviors that support organizational effectiveness.
I have findings for organizational citizenship and adaptive behavior.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Engagement as OCB: “Engagement behavior includes actions that, given a specific
frame of reference, go beyond what is typical, usual, ordinary, and/or ordinarily expected
(Macey and Schneider, 2008, p.16).
P1 went beyond what is expected from his position. “since I’m one of the members
of the company I would like to improve myself so I’ll be able to be one of the team
members that can be able to accomplish the jobs that my managers or the company needs
me to do.” This is an example for trait and state engagement as well. P1 also uses his
personal initiative to takes classes. The Company didn’t ask him to take those classes.
58
Adaptive
Adaptive behaviors are behaviors that will support organizational effectiveness
(Macey and Scheneider, 2008). Patience may be considered as adaptive behavior at the
company. Patience was mentioned twice as needed to be successful at current positions.
When an employee is committed to the company, it may result adaptive behavior, which
in this case is “Patience.” P1 and P4 mentioned “patience” as something about them that
helps them stay engaged at their job. P1 said “I’m a patient person so whenever [there is]
something I want to know I’m willing to spend as much time as I could just [to] acquire
the knowledge.” P4 said “commitment and fortitude…If you take the position that there
is no other option other than success, you can commit for long periods of time.”
Salanova’s (2005) engagement scale only ranked employees’ psychological state
engagement, and yet, as you can see based on the findings during the interviews, those
employees who were psychologically engaged also have extra-role behaviors and good
relationship with their managers and trust in their manager’s knowledge. My findings
support the relationship between state and behavioral engagement. Those employees also
have a tendency to be engaged (trait engagement) as you can see in the next section.
According to Macey and Schneider (2008), trait engagement is reflected in state
engagement.
Trait engagement is reflected in state engagement
Trait Engagement
Trait engagement is the “tendency to experience work in positive, active, and
energetic ways and to behave adaptively.” (Macey & Schneinder, 2008)
• Proactive Personality: tendency to create or influence the work
environment.
• Autotelic Personality: involving in activities for their own sake rather than
for specific gains or rewards.
• Trait Positive Affect: being energetic and enthusiastic.
59
• Conscientiousness: hardworking, ambitious, confident and resourceful
people
I have findings for trait positive affect, autotelic and conscientiousness personality
Trait Positive Affect
Macey and Schneider’s (2008) definition of engagement as addition to satisfaction
and involvement also includes emotional, energy, or affective tone like as in Salanova’s
(2005) scale. Q19 “I am enthusiastic about my job” and Q25 “I feel happy when I am
working intensely” are reflective of that definition. Based on my survey data, Q25 didn’t
correlate with other absorption items. I suggest considering this question at a different
category perhaps under the title of: Trait Positive Affect (Trait Engagement) as it is in at
Macey and Schneider’s (2008) model.
Optimistic attitude P3 has an “attitude that never says die…a general optimism and
a belief that anything is possible no matter what obstacles are faced.” This is reflective of
most engaged employees enthusiasm level.
Autotelic Personality
Autotelic is used to describe people who are internally driven, and exhibits a sense
of purpose and curiosity (Snyder & Lopez, 2007). It is also involving in activities for
your own sake rather than for specific gains or rewards (Macey and Schneider, 2008).
Internal motivation: P4 has a tendency to be internally motivated. “I think the
biggest thing is if I have motivation.”
P2: “No matter how big or small it is … I like to see myself accomplishing things.”
As Macey and Schneider point out, a person with an autotelic personality engages
in activities for their own sake rather than for a specific gain or reward. They “should be
open to new challenges, persist in challenging tasks, and be ready to engage, factors that
contribute to arriving at and maintaining a state of flow.” P2 left the organization months
60
after taking the survey. He had two main reasons: trust was broken (stated at the next
section) and he wanted to get more experience in different projects in different markets.
The market this company is in wouldn’t be able to provide him that. My findings support
an autotelic personality as an engagement element and additionally if that state is not
maintained, the employee tries to create the opportunities. If the employee realizes that
the organization won’t provide them that state of engagement, they are more likely to
leave.
Conscientiousness
Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, and Goldberg (2005) studied the underlying
structure of the trait domain of conscientiousness personality and they defined it as
“hardworking, ambitious, confident and resourceful” people (p.119). P1 is very ambitious
and hardworking. “I’m willing to spend as much time as I could just acquire the
knowledge” He works and goes to school full time. P2 was confident. He is referring to
one of the project he was working on “at any given time, I knew exactly what was going
on and what to expect and what the problems were.”
Effect of trust on engagement
There is a link between collaboration, trust, and behavioral engagement. Based on
Wellins and Concelman’s (2005) engagement model, interpersonal support is an
important part of engagement which reflects teamwork and collaboration. The authors
define collaboration as "a high degree of cooperation between workgroups that fosters
common goals, rapid conflict resolution, and increased trust" (p.3). Macey and
Schneider's (2008) define trust as a link between state and behavioral engagement.
Through the creation of trust, transformational leadership makes an affect on behavioral
engagement. Wellins and Concelman (2005) states that collaboration increases trust.
Collaboration -> Increased Trust and Conflict Resolution -> Behavioral Engagement
61
However, what if an engaged employee loses his trust in the organization,
management or the products? What if after trying several strategies they feel like they hit
a dead end and there is nothing that they can do anymore? What are they going to do?
In my opinion, failure of trust is dangerous for an engaged employee. As
mentioned, trust is one of the crucial elements of engagement. The nature of leadership
has an indirect effect on behavioral engagement through the creation of trust (Macey &
Schneider, 2008). One of the most engaged employees, and top performers (P2) left the
organization four months after taking the survey. His trust in the leadership was broken
after an organizational change and an e-mail he received.
Some strive for a high level of engagement and some do not
When an employee strives for high engagement:
• One of the least engaged employees (P5) thinks that he is engaged. He said that he
likes organizing, planning, overseeing things and managing things and people.
This is not what he does currently.
• One of the most engaged employees (P3) left the company right after his feeling
of disappointment of the company management. He said, “I don’t want to be part
of this.”
• One of the most engaged employees (P4) tries to stays engaged with an optimistic
attitude because she can’t work if she is not engaged.
When an employee doesn’t need to stay engaged:
• One of the least engaged employees (P8) (was not included in this study) thinks
the problem is herself and it will not get any better anywhere else.
• One of the least engaged employees (P6) is a few years away from retirement and
has the opportunity to work from home. The town she lives doesn’t have a big job
market and she wouldn’t be able to find a job with same benefits easily. Since she
is close to retirement, she doesn’t have a need to change her job.
62
It is one thing having a work force with highly engaged employees but then it is
another thing to maintain it. If the employees get disappointed, it is possible they will
leave. If an employee has a potential to be engaged, and if they have experienced that
before and know how it feels, they will more likely leave if the company does not
provide them the room for engagement anymore. The engagement level can be broken if
they lose their trust in management, in the organization’s impact in the world, or if the
work is not challenging enough.
Leadership and trust
Most engaged participants have a good relationship with their manager and trust
their technical knowledge, unlike the least engaged employees who typically have major
conflicts with their manager or top management. As also mentioned in the previous
section, it is important to maintain that relationship.
P2: “Every time you talk to him you feel like you are resolving a problem together
so he makes you a part of it and he becomes part of it. He’s a great team worker in that
sense. So that really gets you engaged.”
Participants identified the elements of guidance toward results as opposed to a
demanding leadership approach:
• Makes you feel part of it
• Flexibility
• Training (Even though it came up during interviews, according to the survey
analysis, no significant correlation is found between engagement level and
provided training. So in my opinion, the engaged employee makes it possible
even though the training is not provided. They don’t see it as an important
obstacle)
• Feedback
• Listening
• Open and supportive
• Good communication
63
Organization’s Impact
Based on my findings, I would add the Organization’s (and coworker’s) impact as
an additional box to the Macey and Schneider’s (2008) engagement framework. It would
have the following elements.
• Visibility of individual’s impact: individual’s role impact in the organization
• Influence of coworkers: support for collaboration and network interaction
• Organizational Culture: cultural fit
• Company’s external impact: organization’s impact in the world and it’s visibility
to the individual
Visibility of individual’s impact
Understanding how one as an employee has an impact upon the rest of the
organization is important for an employee’s engagement. Employees have a need to
know the full picture and where they are located in it. P2, an engineer and sales engineer
finds that “every thing you accomplish will soon be used by other people.” He likes the
fact that he develops the software and also gets a chance to see how it is used by
customers when he goes out to meet customers. He likes the fact that his position and the
way the company is structured provide him with a capacity to make a visible impact.
I noticed this need more with the new generation. P2 is Generation Y. I interviewed
a new generation Y hire (junior level position) after she completed her first 6 months.
When we asked what we could do for her, she asked us to present an organizational
structure, how each group works with each other and what kind of impact she has in the
organization. She also wanted to know real life examples for how our products are used
by our customers. She had a need to know the big picture.
Influenced by coworkers
Some derive their strength from other people. P3 sees “everyone working so hard ...
I don’t want to let anyone down.” P3 stays engaged when she sees people working hard.
64
“I can see how hard she (coworker) works, and how hard everyone in the organization
works, and it keeps me motivated, and it makes me want to do the best I can.”
This is also where support for collaboration and network interaction is important.
Those qualities will affect how the coworker is influenced. Culture also has an impact on
group level and group level will have an impact in individual level. Cummings and
Worley’s Comprehensive Model (2005) has three levels, organizational level (in this case
culture), group level, and individual level. Inputs of group level is organizational design,
which is the first level of the model. Organizational design consists of the design
components characterizing the larger organization within which the group is embedded:
technology, structure, measurement system, and human resources systems, and also
organization culture (Cummings & Worley 2005).
Culture
Organizational culture is another component to look at when you study employee
engagement levels and differences. Macey and Schenier (2008) called cultural fit:
“Person and Environment fit” (p.23).
It is important to understand organizational culture and it’s impact on employees.
According to Schein (2004) “When one brings culture to the level of the organization and
even down to groups within the organization, one can see clearly how culture is created,
embedded, evolved, and ultimately manipulated, and at the same time, how culture
constraints, stabilizes, and provides structure and meaning to the group members.” (p.1).
Based on my findings, culture has an impact in an employees’ engagement level.
Depending on how they are affected by the culture, they may become more or less
engaged. Schein adds “Leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin” (Schein,
2004, p. 1). So we cannot separate leadership from organizational culture.
Schein also points out that if we don’t understand the operations of forces that
create social and organizational circumstances, we become victim to them. In my
opinion, when we try to understand an employee’s engagement level and what drives
them, we also need to understand the organization’s culture.
65
P1 and P4 find the organizational culture supportive. P1: “everyone in the company
is more like a family.” P4: “These folks (people in the organization) are highly educated
and are generous about sharing their knowledge.”
Different participants view the same company culture differently. P6 thinks that the
culture is very dysfunctional and “it’s because of the CEO’s personality and they way
that he runs [the company]…he micro-manages things.” Usually this does not affect her
directly except as it affects her manager. She added, “as I said it affects my manager and
then she’s one of the people who has to do whatever needs to be done to make him happy
and that effects the kind of work I have to do.” There is a relationship between
organizational culture, leadership and work attributes and its effect in employee
engagement level.
Company’s external impact
The Company’s external impact is similar to individual impact. There is an urge for
more understanding: I know how I impact the organization, so now I want to know how
my organization is impacting the world.
P2 finds “the company’s impact … quite significant.” This is one of the things
about the organization gets and keeps him engaged.
I placed the organization’s impact box in between work attributes and leadership
but closer to work attributes. It would have affect on both state and behavioral
engagement (See Appendix H).
What keeps employees from feeling engaged?
Negative impact of engagement elements such as engagement levels, trust,
leadership and work attributes, keeps employees from feeling engaged.
66
Lack of state engagement
One of the least engaged employees (P6) said if the following were provided at her
current job, she would be engaged with her job. She stated, “When I understand what’s
expected of me and when I can accomplish it and people tell me that it’s satisfactory or
that they’re happy with what I did … when I have a feeling of accomplishment, and when
I get a feeling of recognition, that makes me feel more enthusiastic about the job.”
Lack of work attributes
P5 thinks his skills are not heavily utilized. He doesn’t find it challenging and
someone with less skill can do the job easily. Nothing about P6’s job keeps her feeling
engaged. “I think my job has a specific purpose and I have a function in the job. The job
is a way for me to engage with company so I don’t have a problem with my job.” Her
main problem, she states, is with state level engagement as mentioned above which is
affected by her relationship with her manager. They have a major conflict which is
mentioned below. She also does not have trust in the leadership as she mentioned earlier:
She thinks the CEO is too controlling and the culture in the organization is dysfunctional.
There seem to be two realities in the organization that effect the different types of
employees. The highly engaged see and emphasize the excitement and success, the least
engaged, see and emphasize the dysfunction.
In addition to the lack of engagement elements, feeling isolated and having conflict
with key people in the organization were two important reasons mentioned by the least
engaged that keep them from feeling engaged.
Feeling isolated
Both participants for their personal reasons started working from other places in the
past years. They both work alone and feel isolated. Their current work set up does not
satisfy their need for personal interaction. P6: “I’m very distant from people.”
67
Conflict
Both participants have major conflict with key employees. These are ongoing
conflicts which haven’t been successfully resolved. They both don’t think the conflict
will ever be resolved, nor do they have any idea of their input into the conflict.
P6: “My manager and I are trying really hard to get along but we have very
different personalities.” This may be an example of the lack of transformational
leadership which according to Macey and Schneider’s (2008) model has an affect on state
and behavioral level of engagement.
Differing strategies between most and least engaged employees
The title of this study is “Employee Engagement: Different strategies between most
and least engaged employees.” After I completed the findings section, I realized that the
main difference in their strategies is having a strategy versus not having one.
Additionally, the engaged employees are aware of this pitfall too. They are not
blind to what doesn’t work in the organization and yet, those pitfalls don’t prevent them
from feeling engaged. When I asked them what feelings interfere with feeling engaged,
they responded the same as the least engaged employees: “Things are not moving fast
enough.”
In contrast, the least engaged employees are less aware of the positive things about
the company. During the interviews with the least engaged employees, few positive
things about the company came up. They seemed mostly focused on negative aspects and
how negatively they are affected by those. Additionally when I asked, “If you can change
something here that would make you more satisfied, what would that be?” P2 had a very
long pause and took a deep breath before answering the question. She sounded
pessimistic, didn’t think anything would help other than a complete personality makeover
of CEO.
68
The main difference in strategy:
Having strategy versus not having one -
• The most engaged employee
1. Has a strategy
2. Thinks that the strategy is doable
3. Takes an action to make it happen (self training, increasing knowledge,
talking to others, focusing efforts)
Versus
• The least engaged employee
1. Does not have a strategy
2. Thinks that nothing will help
3. No action is taken to become more engaged
Those not interviewed – the ones in the middle of the engagement ranking:
One other question, which this study does not answer, is why those who scored in
the middle stay in the organization.
The two high-level executives both ranked in the middle level of the engagement
survey. The engagement score was normally distributed which means the majority of the
employees scored in middle, not as most or least engaged. To further this research,
interviewing the ones who scored in middle might give important information about how
engaged the majority of the employees are, what strategies they use, why the majority of
the employees stay, and how they could be helped to move to a more engaged level.
Conclusion
The world is changing in terms of the global nature of work and the aging of a large
proportion of the workforce. In Macey and Schneider’s (2008) words, "it is [one thing] to
change price and product; it is another thing to create a state and behaviorally engaged
69
workforce… The companies who get these conditions right will have accomplished
something that competitors will find very difficult to imitate” (p.26).
Finally, every one of us plays an important role in the society. We are change
agents, facilitators, team players, business leaders and so forth. We tap people’s lives: the
way they think and relate with each other. We can create better futures together. I would
like to close the conclusion of this thesis with a poem to remember during our journey
that speaks to employees’ stage of engagement and their urge for deep satisfaction:
Ram Tzu knows this… You will never have enough. There is not enough to be had. Your satisfaction, However sweet, Is always temporary. And when it goes It leaves behind a void That screams to be filled. So you go again in search Of completeness, Of fullness Of peace, Of happiness. But you know only to look For satisfaction. A blind man in search of the sky. You clever ones will see It to be a problem with A simple solution. Austerity… You strip yourself of worldly goods Run about naked Living off the labor of the crass souls Still bound to the yoke of desire. Pity it doesn’t work. It looks so good on paper.
70
But always in the deep, Dark recesses of your soul Lurks a tickle of noble want… To be one with God. It might just as well be a Rolls Royse. Fools, don’t despair. For you there is always hope. (Ram Tzu, 1990, p. 10-11)
71
References
Burke, M. (2008). On the skilled aspect of employee engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 70-71.
Cummings T.G., Worley, C. (2005). Organizational Development & Change. Employee
Involvement. (306)-330). Ohio: South-Western part of the Thomson Corporation
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Hater, J.K., Witt, L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive
effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.
Creswell, J. W., (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method
Approaches. (Third Edition). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Dessler G. (1999). How to Earn your Employee’s Commitment. In Osland J. Kold D.
Rubin I.M. (ed.), The Organizational Behavior Reader. (pp. 22-33). Upper Saddle
river, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A Filed experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldman, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hirsh S. K. and Kummerow J. M., 1998. Introduction to Type and Organizations. (Third
72
Edition).CPP, Inc., Mountain View, CA.
Gallup Poll (2008). Employee Engagement Overview Brochure.
Washington, DC: Consulting University Press.
Kahn. W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions Of Personal Engagement And
Disengagement At Work. Academy of Management Journal, 33,4, 692 – 724.
Kim W. C. and Mauborgne R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy. (First Edition).
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation,
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Madden, B. (2008). Tom Sawyer Software Annual Report, 2007.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L. & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team
effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 97-108.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.
73
Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, and Goldberg (2005). The structure of conscientiousness:
An empirical investigation based in seven major personality questionnaires.
Personal Psychology, 58, 103 -139.
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Llorens, S., Peiro, J. M., & Graus, R. (2001). Desde el
“burnout” al “engagement”: una nueva perspectiva [From “burnut” al
“engagement”: A new perspective]. Revista de Psicoloia del Trabajo y de las
Organizaciones, 16, 117-134.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and costumer loyalty: The mediation of
service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Silverthorne, C.P. (2005). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.
Organizational Psychology: In Cross-cultural Perspective. (171-193). New York
& London: New York University Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical
explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Feelings about work: Job Attitudes and Emotions. Industrial And
Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice. (216-244). New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
74
Tzu, Ram (1990). No Way for the Spiritually “Advanced”. Redondo
Beach, CA: Advaita Press.
Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a culture for engagement. Workforce
Performace Solutions (www.wpsmag.com). Retrieved , October 2, 2008, from
www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf
Wikipedia, (2008). Employee Engagement. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from Wikipedia’s
website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement
75
Appendices
Appendix A
E-mail invitation to participants of online survey:
SUBJ: Invitation to Participate in Study: Making Requests
Dear Name,
As you may know, I am a graduate student in Organizational Psychology at John
F. Kennedy University. As part of the requirements for the completion of my Master’s
degree, I am conducting a small qualitative research study on employee engagement. I
am requesting your consideration to participate in this study.
As a company, we aim to provide a fulfilling and engaging work environment for
you. So we have a better understanding of how your current work environment affects
your job satisfaction, as a participant, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire that
will gauge your degree of employee engagement. The questionnaire will take
approximately 10 minutes and will contain 29 questions which are answered using a scale
of 1 to 5.
Participation is completely voluntary. Should you choose to participate, all
information you give will be confidential and your individual contribution will be
anonymous to others. All data collected during the process will be stored in a secured,
confidential location accessible only by me. I will also make a copy of the summary
project report available to you at your request.
Following the survey, some of the participants may be asked for a follow up
interview, which is again completely voluntary and confidential. Accepting to take the
survey will not imply your participation in the interview. You will still have a choice
76
whether or not to participate in the interview.
Thank you for your consideration. Your participation will be of great help to me. I
sincerely hope that you will choose to participate! If you have any questions or would
like to talk with me please feel free to call, e-mail, or stop by my office.
Thanks!
Nermin
77
Appendix B
E-mail invitation to participants of interview:
Subject: Follow-up Interview for Engagement Survey
Dear Name,
Thank you again for taking the engagement survey.
As I mentioned at my previous e-mail, I am currently a graduate student in the Masters of Organizational Psychology program at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, California. The research project is a requirement toward the completion of my Master’s degree. This research project is being conducted under the advisement of Sharon Mulgrew, M.P.H. – Organizational Psychology Research Coordinator. She can be reached at [email protected] or (510) 450-0378.
Now I need your consideration to participate in the next and final step of my study on employee engagement.
This step of the study will focus on identifying what employee engagement means to employees through individual interviews. Each interview is expected to be about 45-60 minutes long and will be tape-recorded.
Interview participants will be asked to describe their own experience with their job and with SC. Data gathered in the interviews will be analyzed and interpreted with the goal of enabling a more complete understanding of the meaning of employee engagement.
Participation is completely voluntary and participants are free to change their mind at any time and choose not to continue even after signing this consent form which is attached.
All information given by study participants is confidential and individual contributions are anonymous. All data will be stored in a secured, confidential location accessible only by me. Each participant will be identified on the tape by first name and participant code only.
A summary of the results of this study will be available to participants upon request after completion of the study.
If you wish to participate, please reply to this e-mail at your earliest convenient indicating your decision. I will follow up with you to schedule the date and the time for the interview.
78
If you have any questions regarding this interview or your results from the survey, please let me know. Thank you for your consideration!
Warm regards,
Nermin
79
Appendix C
Informed Consent Form
My name is Nermin Soyalp. I am currently a graduate student in the
Masters of Organizational Psychology program at John F. Kennedy University in
Pleasant Hill, California. The research project is a requirement toward the
completion of my Master’s degree. This research project is being conducted
under the advisement of Sharon Mulgrew, M.P.H. – Organizational Psychology
Research Coordinator. She can be reached a [email protected]. or (510)
450-0378.
Project Summary: The proposed study will focus on identifying what employee
engagement means to employees. The study will be conducted through a series of
individual interviews with employees; each interview is expected to be of 45-60 minute
duration and will be tape-recorded. Study participants will be asked to describe their own
experience with their job and with the SC. Study participants may also be contacted by
phone at a later date for clarification or follow-up necessary to insure accuracy of the
data.
Data gathered in interviews will be analyzed and interpreted with the goal
of enabling a more complete understanding of meaning of employee engagement.
Voluntary Participation: Participation is completely voluntary and
participants are free to change their mind at any time and choose not to continue
even after signing this consent form.
Confidentiality and Anonymity: All information given by study
participants is confidential and individual contributions are anonymous. All data
will be stored in a secured, confidential location accessible only by me and a
third-party subscriber. Each participant will be identified on the tape by first name
and participant code only.
Availability of Results: A Summary of the results of this study will be available
to participants upon request after completion of the study.
80
Consent: I hereby consent to participate in the above research project. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I may change my mind or refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without consequence. I may refuse to answer any questions or I may stop the interview. I understand that some of the things I say may be directly quoted in the text of the final report, and subsequent publications, but that my name will not be associated with this study.
Participant Signature: ____________________________ Date: ____________
Name: (Please Print) ____________________________
Witness Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________
Name: (Please Print) ____________________________
81
Appendix D
Survey using a 1-5 Likert scale from never (1) to always (5)
Organizational resources
Training 1. Managers ask us for our opinion on training activities.
2. Training helps to overcome work obstacles.
3. Training is practical.
4. Sufficient training is provided.
Autonomy 5. I have the autonomy to choose what tasks to perform
6. I have the autonomy to decide the order I perform tasks
7. I have the autonomy to decide when to start and finish tasks.
Technology 8. Technology is available
9. Technical guidebooks and material resources are available
10. Technologies are easy to use and useful
11. External technical services are provided.
Engagement
Vigor 12. At work, I feel full of energy.
13. In my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
14. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
15. I can continue working for very long periods at a time
82
16. In my job, I am mentally very resilient.
17. At work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well.
Dedication 18. I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose
(commitment) 19. I am enthusiastic about my job
20. My job inspires me.
21. I am proud of the work I do.
22. I find my job challenging
Absorption 23. Time flies when I am working
(involvement) 24. When I am working, I forget everything else around me.
25. I feel happy when I am working intensely
26. I am immersed in my work
27. I get carried away when I am working
28. It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
29. Overall my job is (scale changes to 1 not satisfying at all, 2
somewhat, 3 generally OK, 4 very satisfying, 5 totally satisfying)
83
Appendix E
Interview Questions
Questions for employees who scored high engagement level
• Your survey results showed that you are highly engaged with your job. Would you
agree that this describes you?
Research has found there are four components for engagement. I am going to ask you
about each one of these in an order; yourself, your job and your organization’s support
• Starting with you: What is it about you that helps you get or stay engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• What is it about your job that helps you get or stay engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• What is it about your manager that helps you get or stay engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• What is it about the organization that helps you get or stay engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• Is there anything that interferes with your feeling engaged?
• If so what is it, and how do you address it?
• Anything the organization could do?
Questions for employees who are not as engaged as others
Your survey results showed that you are not as engaged as others who took the survey.
Would you agree with these results?
Research has found there are four components for engagement. I am going to ask you
about each one of these in an order; yourself, your job and your organization’s support
• Starting with you: What is it about you that keeps you from feeling engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• What is it about your job that keeps you from feeling engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• What is it about your manager that keeps you from feeling engaged?
• Can you give me an example?
• What is it about the organization that keeps you from feeling engaged?
84
• Can you give me an example?
• Is there anything about your job that helps you feel more engaged?
• If you can change something here which would make you more satisfied, what would
that be?
• Think about a job that you are completely satisfied, what would it look like?
85
Appendix F
SC Visualization, Version 7.0 Java Edition. Market: Networking. Image: Management 01
This graph does not contain real data; it is a simple example of what a graph may look
like.
86
Appendix G
Macey & Schneider (2008) Framework for understanding the elements of
employee engagement (p.6)
87
Appendix H
Improved Macey & Schneider (2008) Framework for understanding the elements of
employee engagement
88
Appendix I
Descriptive Statistics
Gender
Frequency Percent
Female 8 28.6
Male 20 71.4
Total 28 100.0
Location
Frequency Percent
Carlisle, MA USA 1 3.6
Connecticut, USA 1 3.6
Florida, USA 1 3.6
Lambton, Australia 1 3.6
Munich, Germany 1 3.6
New York, USA 1 3.6
Oakland, CA USA 17 60.7
Riga, Latvia 5 17.9
Total 28 100.0
Cells are combined. Australia is considered the same as the US.
Location Combined
Frequency Percent
Europe 6 21.4
USA 22 78.6
Total 28 100.0
89
Office Type
Frequency Percent
Home 6 21.4
Office 22 78.6
Total 28 100.0
Department
Frequency Percent
Engineering 12 42.9
Executive 1 3.6
Finance 2 7.1
Information Technology 1 3.6
Marketing 2 7.1
Personnel 2 7.1
Sales 4 14.3
Technical Writing 4 14.3
Total 28 100.0
The Cells were combined. The categories are Engineering and Operations. Technical
Writing works mostly with the Engineering group and they were considered the same as
Engineering.
Department Type
Frequency Percent
Engineering 16 57.1
Operations 12 42.9
Total 28 100.0
90
Management Responsibility
Frequency Percent
No 18 64.3
Yes 10 35.7
Total 28 100.0
MBTI
Frequency Percent
Unknown 2 7.1
ENFJ 1 3.6
ENTJ 3 10.7
ENTP 2 7.1
ESTJ 2 7.1
ESTP 1 3.6
INFJ 1 3.6
INFP 3 10.7
INTJ 2 7.1
INTP 4 14.3
ISFJ 1 3.6
ISFP 1 3.6
ISTJ 5 17.9
Total 28 100.0
91
I/E
Frequency Percent
E 9 32.1
I 17 60.7
Total 26 100.0
S/N
Frequency Percent
N 16 57.1
S 10 35.7
Total 26 100.0
92
T/F
Frequency Percent
F 7 25.0
T 19 67.9
Total 26 100.0
P/J
Frequency Percent
J 15 53.6
P 11 39.3
Total 26 100.0
Employee Engagement
N Mean Std. Deviation Engagement Score
Adjusted 28 53.8 8.4
Engagement Score 28 61.3 8.9 Engagement Level 28 3.6 .5 Engagement Level
Adjusted 28 3.5 .5
Other Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std.
Deviation USA Salary Year ($) 22 92406.6 56136.4 Latvia Salary Year
(LVL) 5 18798.0 6137.7
Hours Per Week 28 36.3 8.5 Age 28 36.1 12.1
Years of Employment 28 3.5 3.9