University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Addressing employee retention in the technology industry: improving access to corporate social responsibility programs

(USC Thesis Other)

Addressing employee retention in the technology industry: improving access to corporate social responsibility programs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Addressing Employee Retention in the Technology Industry:
Improving Access to Corporate Social Responsibility Programs
by
Ryan M. Mancinelli

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Ryan M. Mancinelli 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Ryan M. Mancinelli certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Derisa Grant
Adrian Donato
Alexandra Wilcox, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors impacting employee access to corporate social responsibility (CSR)
programs. Sixteen participants took part in the study. The qualitative research methods used
included interviews with 11 junior-level technology employees and five CSR program alumni,
supported by data analysis. Interviews provided participants with the best opportunity to share
their feelings, thoughts, and intentions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview transcripts and
notes were analyzed to make helpful comparisons and draw conclusions and key insights (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008). The research revealed a lack of clarity in the knowledge and skills required to
access CSR programs (conceptual knowledge) and a lack of understanding of the process or
steps required to access these types of supportive programs (procedural knowledge). Two
motivational needs were discovered as well through the interview and analysis
process. Participants expressed a need to engage in activities where their values and the
company's values are actively demonstrated. The study participants highlighted a desire to
pursue greater joy in the work they do. From an attribution influence perspective, every CSR
program alumnus (100%) communicated they felt more connected to the organization's culture
and mission after participating in the CSR program. All participants conveyed that participation
in a CSR program would contribute to their joy at work. A cultural model influence was also
supported as a need as all participants (100%) expressed support for the idea that participation in
a CSR program would help grow their careers and develop their skills. Only half (50%) of the
participants responded that they believed there were tangible rewards provided to those who
participate in the CSR program. Furthermore, for those who did believe there were tangible
rewards for participation, those rewards were deemed intrinsic rather than company-provided.

v
Dedication
To my son. This is for you. May you never stop learning and laughing. Daddy loves you always.

vi
Acknowledgements
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, thank you for being an incredible mentor,
skillful professor, and true friend. I truly could not have completed this program without your
guidance, motivation, and encouragement. You go above and beyond for your students and I will
never forget it. Thank you for all of your help along the way.
Thank you to Dr. Derisa Grant and Dr. Adrian Donato for serving on my dissertation
committee and for being two of my favorite professors. You provided me with valuable
feedback, opportunities to learn and grow, and kept me focused on what matters most. Thank you
Dr. Don Murphy for your many reviews of my dissertation drafts. I am grateful for all of you.
Thank you to Cohort 13 of the Ed.D. in OCL program at USC’s Rossier School of
Education. Your humor, encouragement, and friendship made this program more enjoyable than I
could have imagined. Going through the ups and downs together, during a pandemic to boot,
demonstrated our resilience and made those bonds we have forged over these past several years
even stronger.
Thank you to my incredible mentors, managers, and colleagues at IBM. It is an incredible
honor and privilege to have had your support and encouragement during my pursuit of higher
education. I promise to apply all that I have learned to help fuel the continued growth of our
incredible organization.
Thank you to the best wife in the world, Arela, for all that you do for me and our family.
When I began this program, there was only the two of us, our ears had never heard the words
Covid-19, and we lived on the beach in San Diego, California. Now, we have a 17-month-old
son, survived a plague and economic depression, and moved across the country to Westchester
County, New York. I am so grateful to be going through life with you. You took extra shifts

vii
taking care of our son, went to bed alone on more occasions than I would have liked as I worked
full-time and engaged in my research and dissertation writing. You spent weekends without me
as I taught my classes at UCSD and you did it all with a poise and grace that made me love and
appreciate you more than you will ever know. I would and will do anything for you and I look
forward to catching up on the time we missed together. You deserve the world. I love you.
Thank you to my family and friends. I have always felt incredibly lucky to be surrounded
by intelligent, kind, and driven people. It is easy to be inspired when those around you are
inspiring and I am forever grateful for having the best family and friends a guy could ask for.
Finally, thank you to my mom, Robin. While you haven’t been here physically in 30
years, I have kept you with me in my mind and heart each and every day. Trying to make you
proud has been the single most powerful motivating force behind anything and everything I have
ever accomplished in my life. I love you, miss you, and hope we get to catch-up in another place
and time.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Background and Importance of the Problem ...................................................................... 2
Organizational Context, Mission, and Background ............................................................ 2
The Organization’s Performance Goal and the Importance of the CSR Program .............. 4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 7
Review of the Literature ..................................................................................................... 8
The History of Employee Engagement ................................................................... 8
Measuring and Driving Improvement in Employee Engagement .......................... 9
The History of Corporate Social Responsibility ................................................... 10
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Retention ............. 12
Other Strategic Organizational Investments ......................................................... 13
Flexible Work Arrangements ................................................................................ 15
The Gap Analysis Framework .......................................................................................... 19
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 33
Research Design and Methodology .................................................................................. 35
Findings............................................................................................................................. 36
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 37
Determining Needs ........................................................................................................... 40
Findings of Assumed Knowledge Needs .............................................................. 41

ix
Findings of Assumed Motivational Needs ............................................................ 50
Findings of Assumed Organizational Needs ......................................................... 56
Findings Summary ............................................................................................................ 62
Solutions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 67
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................. 67
Motivational Recommendations ........................................................................... 71
Organizational Recommendations ........................................................................ 76
Implementation: A Reimagined CSR Program ................................................................. 81
Evaluation and Measures of Success ................................................................................ 85
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 91
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 92
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 94
References ......................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A: Definitions ..............................................................................................................115
Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................116
Sampling Approach and Rationale .............................................................................. 116
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................................. 117
Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 118
Protocol ............................................................................................................... 118
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................. 119
Interview Procedures .......................................................................................... 119
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 121
Credibility and Trustworthiness .......................................................................... 122
Appendix C: Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 124
Appendix D: Interview Questions for Junior-Level Technology Employees ............................. 126

x
Appendix E: Interview Questions for CSR Program Alumni ..................................................... 129
Appendix F: Crosswalk of KMO Influences .............................................................................. 132
Appendix G: USC Information Sheet for Exempt Research ...................................................... 135
Appendix H: Summary of Participant Responses ....................................................................... 138

xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Performance
Goals 7
Table 2 The Knowledge Dimension 21
Table 3 Assumed Knowledge Types, Knowledge Influences, and Knowledge Influence
Assessment 25
Table 4 Assumed Motivation Type, Motivational Influence, and Motivational Influence
Assessment 28
Table 5 Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments 32
Table 6 Mapping of Assumed Needs and KMO Categories 33
Table 7 Participant Description 39
Table 8 Thresholds Used for the Evaluation of Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and
Organizational Influences 40
Table 9 Assumed Knowledge Influence Findings 42
Table 10 Assumed Motivational Influence Findings 50
Table 11 Assumed Organizational Influence Findings 57
Table 12 Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influence Needs 66
Table 13 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 68
Table 14 Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations 72
Table 15 Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 77
Table 16 Implementation Plan Table 83
Table 17 Assessment Questions Corresponding to Validated Needs and Recommendations 87
Table F Crosswalk of KMO Influences 132
Table H1 Participant Responses Regarding the Transparency of the Skill Development
Opportunity of the CSR Program 138
Table H2 Participant Responses Regarding the Impact of CSR Program on Happiness 142

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Model of Person-Organization Fit 14
Figure 2 Conceptual Framework 34
Figure 3 CSR Program Accessibility 45
Figure 4 Perceived Sufficiency of CSR Program Promotion 53
Figure 5 Perceived Company Goals for CSR Program Participation 54

1

Addressing Employee Retention in the Technology Industry: Improving Access to
Corporate Social Responsibility Programs
This study addresses the issue of low employee retention rates in the technology industry.
Singh and Dixit (2011) define employee retention as a process in which employees are
encouraged to remain with the organization for the maximum period of time or until the
completion of its objectives. According to Workforce Planning for Wisconsin State Government
(2015), employee retention refers to an organization’s efforts to encourage employees to remain
employed by having policies and practices that address their diverse needs. The technology (or
tech) industry refers to companies involved in the research, development, and/or distribution of
technologically based goods and services (e.g., personal computers, software, etc.; Frankenfield,
2021). The technology industry is an essential part of the U.S. economy, providing about 12% of
all jobs while producing nearly 23% of total economic output (Wolf & Terrell, 2016). Worldwide
spending in the technology industry exceeded $3.9 trillion in 2020, an increase of 3.4% from
2019 according to the latest forecast by Gartner (2020). Global spending is likely to exceed $4
trillion in 2021.
According to a study by LinkedIn (2018), the highest reported attrition rates in the global
job market (13.2%) come from the technology industry. Gartner (2021) found that 68% of
employees would consider leaving their employer for another organization. Due to increased
global competition over a small number of highly skilled employees, employers have invested
millions of dollars into recruiting, developing, engaging, and retaining employees (Morgan,
2017). Organizations must address this problem of employee retention because an organization’s
success relies upon the of its employees. Without programs and policies specifically designed to
2

retain employees in the technology industry, the attrition of employees with critical skills is
inevitable.
Background and Importance of the Problem
Solving the problem of employee retention within the technology industry is of the
utmost importance. In today’s competitive business environment, employee retention can make
the difference between an organization succeeding or failing. The technology industry has the
highest attrition rates (13.2%; LinkedIn, 2018) and also represents 23% of U.S. economic output
(Wolf & Terrell, 2016). Marsden (2016), based on an analysis of PwC employee and financial
data, found that up to $27 billion is being wasted in the U.S. economy alone because people are
not hiring the right candidates, with first-year-of-service turnover among American organizations
around 24 percent. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM, n.d.), it
is far more efficient to retain an employee than to recruit, train, and develop a replacement
employee. The cost of losing an employee and rehiring a new one can be six to nine months’
worth of the position’s salary, depending on the job role and organization (SHRM, n.d.). By
solving the problem of employee retention, organizations in the technology industry can develop
and maintain a talented and engaged workforce that contributes actively to their overall business
success. Employee retention directly impacts an organization’s business performance and is an
issue that every organization in the technology industry should focus on today.
Organizational Context, Mission, and Background
The organization that serves as the focus for this study is Big Tech Company Inc. (BTCI).
BTCI is a publicly traded technology company headquartered in the United States. BTCI is
included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and employs thousands of people in over 170
countries (BTCI Annual Report, 2018). BTCI’s mission is to be the world’s leader in developing
3

the most advanced enterprise technology, including computer systems, software, and more.
These technologies provide value for customers through enterprise solutions and service
businesses worldwide.
Improving employee access to BTCI’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) program – a
potential vehicle by which to drive employee retention – will be the focus of this study. As
defined by Carroll (1979), CSR concerns the economic, legal, discretionary, and ethical
expectations that society has of an organization. BTCI’s CSR program simultaneously develops
the leadership and functional skills of employees while providing solutions to communities
facing critical challenges (BTCI, 2018). Over the past 10 years, BTCI’s CSR program has
included over 4,000 participants and supported over 1,500 unique projects. BTCI launched the
program in the early 2000s primarily as a vehicle for global leadership development and
employee retention. Individual CSR teams spend three months learning about the local
communities and the problems they will need to solve. Participants then spend four weeks on the
ground working with local organizations and other key stakeholders to develop recommendations
for short-term and long-term solutions (e.g., helping a local foodbank in Jujuy, Argentina serve
more people in need).
Each candidate who would like to participate must complete an application, provide three
written essays, have been employed by BTCI for at least two years, be a top performer, and have
the written support and commitment of their first- and second-line managers. A selection
committee comprised of CSR leaders, former program participants, and business line leaders
selects participants. Those selected are then matched to projects requiring their unique skills and
language proficiency. The geographical area or country of interest of the candidate is also taken
into consideration when possible. The employees who have participated in BTCI’s CSR program
4

are more likely to remain retained by the organization than those who have not participated
(BTCI, 2020). Unfortunately, only 1% of BTCI’s employees have participated in BTCI’s CSR
program. As demonstrated, a relationship exists between participation in the CSR program and
employee retention and improving employee access to the program and is thus a worthy subject
for further exploration.
The Organization’s Performance Goal and the Importance of the CSR Program
By December 2023, BTCI’s goal is to have completed the implementation of its strategic
plan to make the CSR program accessible to all of its junior-level technology employees.
Given the intense competition in the technology industry over employees with in-
demand, niche skills, BTCI is interested in leveraging a unique vehicle for improving employee
retention by expanding access to its CSR program. As previously stated, BTCI is a large
company, and currently, the CSR program only serves a small percentage (1%) of its employees
and stakeholders. The opportunity to participate in the program for the majority of BTCI
employees is also severely limited. To access the CSR program at BTCI, employees must have
worked at BTCI for at least two years, have the support of their manager, and complete an
application, including a series of essay questions reviewed by a selection committee responsible
for staffing projects and selecting program candidates. Research shows that organizational
investment into CSR programs can improve employee retention and decrease turnover. Based on
552 employee survey responses, Bode et al. (2015) found that employee participation in a CSR
initiative correlated with improved retention rates. Additionally, employee attrition was reduced
by 36% within the population that participated in a CSR initiative, although other factors (such
as compensation, promotion opportunity, recognition, etc.) may have contributed as well.
Moreover, employee perceptions of an organization’s CSR practices were found to positively
5

correlate with retention intention (Lee & Chen, 2018). Retention intention is an employee’s
willingness to remain employed by their current organization. Based on responses received from
a 289-employee survey conducted at the largest department store chain in Taiwan, Lee and Chen
(2018) found that positive employee perceptions of an organization’s CSR practices correlate
with higher employee retention rates.
Furthermore, CSR programs are considered part of an employer’s brand, and a strong
employer brand can impact employee retention intention (Tanwar & Prasad, 2016). Schiebel and
Pöchtrager (2003) found that an increasing number of organizations recognize that CSR provides
benefits like improving financial performance and enhancing brand image (how customers and
society views an organization). Accordingly, BTCI could potentially avoid higher levels of
turnover and employee attrition (which might harm the organization’s ability to meet its business
goals and objectives regarding revenue, profit, and share price) by improving access to its CSR
program.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
In a large technology company with a global footprint, many stakeholders exist, from
industry to government, executives to junior-level employees, to everyone in between.
Notwithstanding, there are three stakeholder groups that have been chosen for this study. The
first is BTCI’s corporate citizenship leadership team, who is responsible for creating, improving,
and delivering BTCI’s CSR programs globally. The second is BTCI’s HR leadership team, who
is responsible for areas such as employee compensation and benefits, HR strategy, employee
engagement, diversity and inclusion, employee skill development, performance management,
and employee retention programs. The third comprises junior-level technology employees
(JLTEs) with critical skills (e.g., AI, analytics, cloud, open source, quantum, security). These are
6

the individuals who the organization needs and aims to retain to execute its business strategy.
These stakeholders can also be influenced by various knowledge, motivational, and
organizational factors. These key stakeholder groups contribute to BTCI’s ability to make
essential business decisions and investments, assessing the current technology and skills
marketplace, and enhancing business and HR strategies done by organizational leaders and
employees.
The stakeholder group of focus chosen for this study was the junior-level employees with
critical technology skills (e.g., AI, analytics, cloud, open source, quantum, security). The
stakeholder goal is that by September 2022, 100% of JLTEs will choose to access the BTCI CSR
program. The result of junior-level tech employees’ collective efforts has a massive impact on
BTCI’s success in delivering solutions to some of the world’s most pressing problems and drives
junior-level employees’ retention while furthering strategic business goals. If BTCI fails to
improve junior-level technology employee access to its CSR program, the likely result will be a
more disengaged junior-level employees workforce, which may lead to higher rates of junior-
level employees employee attrition in critical skill areas. Table 1 summarizes the organizational
mission, organizational goal, and performance goals of each of the main stakeholder groups.

7

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational mission
BTCI’s mission is to be the world’s leader in developing advanced enterprise technology
including computer systems, software, and more. These technologies provide value for
customers through enterprise solutions and service businesses worldwide.
Organizational goal

By December 2023, BTCI will have completed the implementation of its strategic plan to
make its CSR program accessible to all of its junior-level technology employees.

Junior-level technology employees
By September 2022, 100% of JLTEs will choose to access the BTCI CSR program.

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine the influences that impact JLTEs’ access to CSR
programs at BTCI. To determine what factors impact JLTEs’ access to the CSR program, three
primary questions were developed:
1. What are the knowledge and motivational needs required for JLTEs to access CSR
programs at BTCI?
2. What is the relationship between BTCI’s organizational culture and context and JLTEs’
knowledge and motivation as it relates to access with respect to CSR programs at BTCI?
8

3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions for
improving JLTEs’ access to CSR programs at BTCI?
Review of the Literature
This review covers literature regarding several strategic organizational investments and
areas of research related that may impact employee access to CSR programs. CSR is a key
component of corporate employee engagement strategies and is one important method that
organizations use to retain employees (Porter & Kramer, 2006). To better understand the drivers
of employee access to CSR programs, it was necessary to examine the history and evolution of
employee engagement, employee retention, CSR, and how organizations are leveraging these
programs today.
The History of Employee Engagement
The definition of employee engagement continues to evolve over time (Shuck & Wollard,
2010). Kahn first defined employee engagement as the harnessing of employees’ selves to their
work roles (1990). Saks (2006) defined employee engagement as the combination of knowledge,
emotion, and behavior related to the individual’s role performance. Harter et al. (2002) defined
employee engagement as the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as
enthusiasm for work. Bakker (2011) defined employee engagement as a positive, highly
awakened emotional state with two features: energy and involvement. Some common themes
include employees’ satisfaction with their work and pride in their employer, the extent to which
people enjoy and believe in what they do for work, and the perception that one’s employer values
the things one values. The greater an employee’s engagement is, the better their performance.
Moreover, engaged employees are more likely to commit to staying with their current
organization. For example, software giant Intuit found, in a study of thousands of contact center
9

employees and their managers who responded to a Likert-scale based engagement survey, that
highly engaged employees, are 1.3 times more likely to be high performers compared with less
engaged employees. They are also five times less likely to voluntarily leave their company
(Vance, 2006).
Another element that has changed over time is who (which department and leader) is
responsible for employee engagement in an enterprise and who leads the development and
execution of solutions designed to improve engagement across the organization. Today, HR
professionals typically have this responsibility within organizations, along with people managers
(those who have a least one direct report) and business line leaders (those leading a particular
business unit) (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Another critical component of this research is that
engagement is tied to a broader organizational purpose and social responsibility (Shuck et al.,
2017). There is a strong relationship between employee engagement and organizational
performance metrics such as productivity, financial results, customer acquisition and retention,
and employee retention (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Employee engagement is correlated with
improved productivity and helps drive business strategy execution (Vance, 2006). Research
supports the need for organizations to focus resources and efforts on employee engagement.
Measuring and Driving Improvement in Employee Engagement
Employee surveys have served as the most common method for measuring engagement
within organizations (Kumar & Pansari, 2015). The measurement of key performance indicators
and key metrics allows an organization to set realistic goals, track progress, and measure any
gaps that exist concerning several potential HR areas of concern, such as employee attrition
rates, learning hours, productivity, and more (Attridge, 2009).
10

Measuring engagement alone, however, is not enough to solve the problem. Employee
engagement is an organization-wide issue (Attridge, 2009). People managers must also be
brought in who understand that, by driving engagement in their teams and allowing their
employees to participate in programs, like CSR for example, they could drive productivity and
retention in their organizations (Lockwood, 2007).
The Relationship Between Employee Engagement and Retention
Research is clear on the relationship between employee engagement and employee
retention. Balakrishnan et al. (2013), in a study including hundreds of randomly sampled airline
employees who completed a survey, found that employee engagement leads to commitment and
psychological attachment and reflect in the form of high retention of employees. They also found
that by increasing the level of employee engagement, organizations can improve employee
retention as well. Siddiqui (2020), based on a survey of over 200 employees working across
industries, found a positive and significant correlation exists between employee engagement and
employee retention. Gallup (2017) found that employees who are engaged are more likely to stay
with their organization, reducing overall turnover and the costs associated with it. Moreover,
Gallup’s (2017) meta-analysis, a statistical technique that pooled 263 research studies across 192
organizes, 49 industries, 34 countries, and more than a million employees, showed that highly
engaged organizations have lower absenteeism and turnover.
The History of Corporate Social Responsibility
Carroll (1979) defined CSR as the economic, legal, discretionary, and ethical
expectations that society has of an organization. The Commission of the European Communities
defines CSR as a concept whereby organizations voluntarily integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and their interactions with their stakeholders (2008). In a
11

case study that aimed to analyze the evolution towards a sustainable business model leveraging a
theoretical framework of values-based, ethical and sustainable leadership, found that over the
past 15 years, based on responses from employees and leaders at a medium-sized Italian oil
company, organizations have been facing growing pressures to address social and environmental
issues in addition to providing value to shareholders (Del Baldo & Baldarelli, 2017). When
organizations implement CSR programs, they are not only benefiting themselves but also society
as a whole. The organizational benefits of implementing CSR include increased financial
performance (Orlitzky, 2005; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Porter & Kramer, 1999, 2002; Waddock &
Graves, 1998), competitive advantages (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; McWilliams et al., 2006),
and an improved corporate reputation (Fombrun et al., 2000).
Furthermore, CSR is essential for brand reputation. A study by MIT Sloan Management
Review (Johar et al., 2010) that included surveys of nearly 3,500 people in the U.S. and
Germany showed that an improved brand or image was a significant benefit for acting
sustainably and responsibly as a corporation. Likewise, improvements in brand, image, trust, and
reputation were cited by 72% of CEOs who responded to a global survey as the main factors for
engaging in CSR programs (Visser, 2008).
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Engagement
Glavas and Piderit (2009) found that the effect of positive employee perceptions of CSR
was strengthened by importance of CSR to the employee. Caligiuri et al. (2013), using a
longitudinal and multisource design, garnered responses from 116 corporate volunteers from a
global pharmaceutical organization, found a positive relationship between CSR and employee
engagement. Specifically, CSR allows for companies to go beyond formal values statements
which tend to be words on paper to living out these values (Glavas, 2012). Furthermore, prior
12

CSR research by Valentine and Fleischman (2008), found a positive relationship between CSR
and job satisfaction. Grant (2008), based on a survey of 58 firefighters and 140 fundraising
callers, found a positive relationship between CSR and intrinsic motivation. In summary, the
research suggests that there is a relationship between CSR and employee engagement.
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Retention
Research shows that one potential vehicle for improving employee retention is employee
access to CSR programs. Using individual-level data for approximately 10,000 employees in a
global management consulting firm, Bode et al. (2015) presented empirical evidence based on
quantitative data analysis demonstrating a positive retention effect associated with employee
participation in a corporate initiative with explicit social impact goals. Additionally, employee
attrition was reduced by 36% within the population that participated in a CSR initiative. As
mentioned earlier, retention intention is an employee’s willingness to remain employed by their
current organization. Based on survey responses from 289 employees of the largest department
store chain in Taiwan, Lee and Chen, who were aiming to discover if employee retention could
be positively impact by CSR, found that employee perceptions of an organization’s CSR
practices correlate with employee retention.
Furthermore, in a qualitative study of a large, global IT company, interview data from 25
employees across three locations in India (NCR, Hyderabad, and Mumbai) supported the notion
that CSR programs were found to be considered part of an employer’s brand, and a strong
employer brand can have a positive impact on employee retention (Tanwar & Prasad, 2016).
Schiebel and Pöchtrager (2003) found that an increasing number of organizations recognize that
CSR provides benefits such as improving financial performance and enhancing brand image (the
way consumers or customers view an organization’s brand). CSR programs and an employer’s
13

brand can significantly impact employee retention. In a review focused on illuminating the main
pathways to meaningful work, found that by engaging in CSR programs, employees feel they are
contributing more to the greater good and feel more connected to their organization (Rosso et al.,
2010). Glavas (2009), in a mixed-methods study including 22 interviews and regression analysis
following the testing of a new corporate citizenship model on 347 employees in North America,
found other positive outcomes correlated with CSR program participation are improved
connections, creative involvement, and employee engagement.
Focusing on employee engagement is now a crucial business need. Organizations are led
and operated by people, and people care about the places they work and their impact on the
communities in which they live. CSR is linked to an organization’s identity in the minds of its
employees and customers (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Today’s employees desire to work for
socially responsible organizations (Taneja et al., 2015). They want to develop a sense of
connection to and pride in their organization due to their organization’s positive impact on the
world and society (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Employee retention is an organizational and
industry-wide challenge. There are a number of organizational investments, such as CSR
program access and participation, that can be used to improve employee retention.
Other Strategic Organizational Investments
Research has revealed that employee retention rates could improve with strategic
organizational investments in areas such as socialization, employee-organization value fit, and
succession planning. Socialization is the process of communication and interaction between
people (Handzic & Chaimungkalanont, 2004). In a study surveying 103 students in a diverse
MBA program, Black and Ashford (1995) found that programs explicitly designed to socialize
employees led to improved employee retention rates. Furthermore, Chatman (1989) and Liedtka
14

(1989) both argue that employee-organization value fit, the compatibility of values between
employees and their organizations, is the primary mechanism that drives employee retention
rates. According to Presbitero et al. (2016), employee-organization value fit is positively and
significantly correlated with employee retention and accounts for nearly 83% of the variation in
employee retention rates. Figure 1 showcases the model of person-organization fit. This research
demonstrates that, by making strategic investments in key areas, organizations can improve
employee retention rates.

Figure 1
Model of Person-Organization Fit

Note. Adapted from The Academy of Management Review, by J. Chatman, 1989, p. 333
15

A third strategic investment proven to improve employee retention rates is in employee
development planning. IndustryView (Osterhaus, 2015) surveyed 387 people managers and
found that 94% of respondents said that employee development plans have a positive impact on
employee engagement. Additionally, 90% of employees say that working for a company with
development plans would improve their engagement (Osterhaus, 2015). Like with CSR
programs, organizations can make strategic organizational investments in areas such as
socialization, employee-organization value fit, and employee development, all of which may
have a positive impact on employee retention rates.
Flexible Work Arrangements
Another strategic investment that organizations can leverage to improve employee
retention is FWAs such as volunteer programs. Organizations that make targeted investments in
FWAs such as volunteering and CSR programs can decrease employee turnover rates and
improve employee retention rates. Using data from 537 workplaces in the United Kingdom,
Stirpe and Zarraga-Oberty (2016) found that FWAs can have an impact on employee retention
rates. Questionnaire data, collected through face-to-face interviews with the managers
responsible for HR at the participating workplaces, was analyzed for the purposes of the study.
FWAs include offerings such as phased retirement, sabbaticals, condensed work, telecommuting,
volunteer programs, and customizable schedules (SHRM, 2014). Moreover, 7% of the nearly
25,000 employees who responded to a survey asking about what factors would lead to their
continued retention at their organization said FWAs were the main factor contributing to their
ongoing retention (Hausknecht et al., 2009).
16

FWAs contribute directly to employee retention. In a 2014 study from the SHRM
surveying 525 HR professionals, over 73% of the respondents from organizations that offer
FWAs said that the arrangements are somewhat or very successful. Furthermore, 89% of the
respondents believed that the use of FWAs would increase considerably in the coming years, and
over 50% said that FWAs had a positive impact on attracting and retaining employees.
Organizations that make targeted investments into FWAs, such as CSR programs, can positively
impact employee retention.
CSR and the Technology Industry
Grabinska et al. (2021) found, in a study investigating whether tech companies can attract
more financing by engaging in CSR activity, that employee participation in CSR plays a
statistically significant role in shaping capital structure. The results, leveraging regression
analysis of 92 firm observations covering the years 2014 to 2018, also suggested that employees
are considered to be key resources and tech companies may engage in CSR because it is aligned
with the values of the employees they wish to retain. Dhanesh (2014) examined corporate social
responsibility as a probable relationship management strategy that could strengthen relationships
between organizations and their employees. Specifically, this study explored linkages between
employee perceptions of their organizations’ CSR practices and organization–employee
relationship dimensions of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Results, based
on a survey (N = 244) with employees of two large, publicly listed technology companies in
India, revealed strong, significant, and positive associations between CSR and organization–
employee relationships, especially between legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of CSR
and relationships. CSR, for technology companies, is then recommended as a relationship
management strategy, especially in the context of employee relations.
17

Aligned with these ideas are the contemporary demands by employees and shareholders
alike that call for businesses, particularly those in the technology industry, to be more
environmentally and socially responsible. In a paper focused on expanding our understanding of
CSR by revealing its antecedent effects on firm innovation performance, Weiwei et al. (2018), in
an analysis using data collected from publicly listed firms in China, found that greater innovation
performance was associated with an increase in firm CSR activity and investment. Furthermore,
the study found a positive relationship between CSR and innovation performance, a measure of
how innovative a corporation is that is critical in the technology industry.
Retention and Turnover in the Tech Industry
In a study of over 300 non-management employees in Taiwan who completed a
questionnaire focused on the factors that influence turnover intentions in the tech industry, Kao
(2017) found that one of the factors that influences and predicts turnover intentions best is
organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover, Baron et al. (2001), analyzing a sample of high-
technology start-ups, found that changes in the employment models or blueprints embraced by
organizational leaders increase turnover, which in turn adversely affects subsequent
organizational performance.
Furthermore, Tang et al. (2021), in a study including a survey of 697 employees from
China’s eight major tech companies that aimed to investigate the effect of person-organization fit
and person-job fit on employees' turnover intention, found that companies in the high-tech
industry often regard workers as their main source of value creation. This study found that
developing strategies for sustainable development could impact employee retention intention.
Additionally, based on a two-wave survey of working professionals in high-tech industry,
Lin (2020) found that passion, social support, and perceived self-centered leadership relate to
18

turnover intention and the effects of job self-efficacy and social support on career commitment
are moderated respectively by passion.
Strategies for Encouraging Access to Volunteer Programs
A major issue in organizing corporate volunteer programs, like CSR programs, concerns
the strategies that are most effective for recruiting employee participation. Peterson (2004), in a
survey of over 300 mid-western state university alumni examining the relationship between
recruitment strategies used by companies and participation in volunteer programs, found six
main recruitment strategies to be most effective: publicizing information concerning the needs in
the community and the opportunities to volunteer, organizing team projects in which employees
work together as a group on a volunteer project, offer a matching incentive program in which the
company makes a financial donation to a cause chosen by the employee in return for a specified
number of volunteer hours contributed by the employee, recognize employee volunteer
contributions through articles, awards, and commendations, encourage participation in volunteer
projects that develop job related skills or benefit the company and acknowledge the participation
in job performance evaluations, and offer hours off from work to participate in volunteer
activities. Additionally, the results suggest that the most effective recruitment strategies depend
on the age of the employee. Organizations are encouraged to match recruitment strategies with
the characteristics of the potential volunteers and the nature of the volunteer project (Peterson,
2004).
Furthermore, Shavit and Carstensen (2017), engaged in a study of 150 participants aged
18–82 who answered an online survey in which they were presented with advertisements for a
hypothetical volunteer opportunity, found that the type of advertisement or communication
impacted the likelihood of engaging in volunteer work.
19

Additionally, in a study of 594 volunteers between 18 and 73 who completed an online
survey, Mullan et al. (2021) found that individuals with stronger intentions are more likely to
engage in volunteering, highlighting the important role of intention in volunteering engagement.
Organizations could increase volunteering intentions via releasing promotional information
denoting the benefits of volunteering (Mullan et al., 2021). Moreover, individuals with a history
of volunteering were found to be more likely to engage in volunteering, consistent with previous
studies (e.g., Marta et al., 2014; Rosen & Sims, 2011) and suggests that individuals who form
volunteering habits may be more likely to engage in volunteering.
The Gap Analysis Framework
To drive significant organizational change, one must first understand the underlying
factors impacting the attempt to achieve a particular goal. The gap analysis framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008) offers a step-by-step approach for identifying these potential performance gaps.
Clark and Estes (2008) espouse that performance gaps within an organization can be driven by
knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors. Before closing a gap, goals must be clearly
defined. Then, an organization must analyze any gaps between current and desired performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) helps identify the
underlying factors driving performance gaps, such as the knowledge and skills of employees,
their motivations, and any organizational barriers that impede an organization from achieving its
goals.
BTCI has an organizational goal that by December 2023, BTCI will have completed the
implementation of its strategic plan to make its CSR program accessible to all of its junior-level
technology employees. Additionally, BTCI has a stakeholder goal, which is that all JLTEs will
choose to access the CSR program by September 2022. First, the knowledge influences of the
20

stakeholder of focus, JLTEs, were analyzed. Motivational influences were analyzed thereafter,
and finally, the organizational influences impacting the access of JLTEs to CSR programs were
examined.
To illustrate the influences that impact employee access to CSR programs at BTCI,
particularly among JLTEs, the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences were
explored according to the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge is one of three dimensions that were explored to discover what may impact
employee access to CSR programs within an organization. Clark and Estes (2008) posit that, due
to human nature and societal norms, most people are unwilling to share any gaps in knowledge
they may have. However, an entire organization will benefit from improving employee
knowledge or from closing employee skill gaps.
There are several different types of knowledge in which an employee may have a
particular gap. The four types of knowledge, according to Krathwohl (2010), are factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the understanding of
content that solves a problem in a particular situation. Conceptual knowledge concerns the
relationships between pieces of information and making meaningful connections. Procedural
knowledge is the knowledge of how to do something. Finally, metacognitive knowledge is a
measure of self-awareness and overall cognition (Krathwohl, 2010). Table 2 summarizes the four
knowledge types.

21

Table 2
The Knowledge Dimension
Knowledge type Description
Factual The necessary information that an individual must be familiar with in
order to solve problems in a subject or discipline. Elements such as
terminology and specific details form the building blocks of an
individual’s understanding of larger relationships within a subject or
discipline.
Conceptual The interrelationship between elements of factual knowledge within a
broader structure that enables them to work together. These broader
structures include classifications, categories, principles, generalizations,
theories, and models.
Procedural How to do something or conduct an inquiry as well as the criteria for
choosing between alternative algorithms, technologies, methods, or
procedures.
Metacognitive Knowledge of cognition in general as well as an awareness of and
knowledge about one’s cognition. Metacognitive knowledge includes
knowledge of strategies and an understanding of their use and
effectiveness.

Note. Adapted from “A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview,” by D. R. Krathwohl,
2010, Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218 (https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2).
Copyright 2010 by D. R. Krahwohl.
22

Several knowledge needs were identified to further explore the knowledge influences that
impact JLTEs’ choice to access BTCI’s CSR program.
Understanding How CSR Program Participation Can Enhance Performance
JLTEs need to understand how participating in the CSR program can positively impact
their skill development and future career opportunities. The first pieces of knowledge that JLTEs
require are the knowledge of what skills they need to be successful, how to obtain or learn these
skills if they do not have them, and what management expects from them in their role. This
knowledge is conceptual. Participating in a CSR program is one method by which employees can
obtain the skills they need to succeed in their roles now and in the future while driving
engagement. Employee engagement is positively correlated with organizational commitment and
negatively correlated with the intention to quit. According to Saks (2006), there is a relationship
between engagement and organizational performance. Furthermore, corporate engagement in
CSR programs is positively associated with corporate reputation and branding (Behrend et al.,
2009), employer attractiveness (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Gully et al., 2013; Jones et al.,
2014), and the intent to apply for jobs and remain employed (Bauer & Aiman‐Smith, 1996;
Greening & Turban, 2000; Gully et al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2006). Dögl and Holtbrügge (2014)
found that CSR had a significant and positive impact on employee outcomes such as business
performance, skill development, and career growth. By engaging employees through CSR,
organizations such as BTCI can enhance employee performance, improve engagement, and
positively impact retention.
Comprehension of Available Support to Achieve Goals
JLTEs need to know the steps required to leverage the available support, tools, and
resources that may impact their success. This type of knowledge is procedural knowledge
23

because it necessitates that employees understand the process by which they may find the
support programs and individuals that can help them achieve their career goals. Employee
engagement and retention are driven by the investment and support that employees receive from
their organization (Konrad & Mangel, 2000). Cavanaugh and Noe (1999) suggest that the most
common model for employment in the United States includes three components: personal
responsibility for career development, commitment to a particular kind of work rather than a
particular employer, and an expectation of job insecurity. If organizations are making employees
personally responsible for their own career and skill development, then they must provide these
employees with access to developmental opportunities (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999). Saks (2006)
noted that managers should also understand that retaining employees is a long-term process that
requires continuous engagement to ensure that the impact. The American Psychological
Association (2019) recommends that employees take the following common steps to access
available support: cast a wide net, be practice, take advantage of technology, follow your
interests, seek out peer support, improve your social skills, ask for help. If employees have
access, and thereafter choose to access, support and development programs, they may be less
likely to leave the organization.
Reflection On and Understanding of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
JLTEs need to reflect on their skills and their development. This type of knowledge is
metacognitive, as it involves employees reflecting on their skills and the impact that skill
development programs like CSR programs can have on their future development. Flavell (1976)
described metacognition as “one’s knowledge concerning one’s cognitive processes or anything
related to them.” Metacognitive reflection has proven useful in helping learners develop and
improve their skills (Bozorgian, 2012; Vandergrift, 2002, 2003, 2004; Vandergrift &
24

Tafaghodtari, 2010). JLTEs should have a deep understanding of their skills and abilities and
how to develop themselves if they choose to access the CSR program. Employees in the
technology industry need to understand their own knowledge and ideas regarding the benefits of
developmental programs such as CSR programs. Table 3 summarizes the referenced motivational
influences according to the type of motivation and explains the knowledge influence assessment
methods.

25

Table 3
Assumed Knowledge Types, Knowledge Influences, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Knowledge type Knowledge influence Knowledge influence assessment
Conceptual JLTEs need to know what
knowledge and skills are required
to access the CSR program. They
need to know how CSR programs
can support their skill
development.
Interviewed JLTEs at BTCI
regarding the knowledge and
skills needed to access CSR
programs and their knowledge of
how CSR programs can assist
them in their skill development

Procedural JLTEs need to know the steps
required to leverage the available
resources, support programs (such
as CSR programs), teams, and
individuals to assist them.

Interviewed JLTEs at BTCI about
the resources and support
programs available to them

Metacognitive JLTEs need to be able to reflect on
their knowledge and skills and
develop strategies to support their
career growth at the organization
(such as participating in the CSR
program).
Interviewed JLTEs at BTCI about
their reflections and
metacognitive practices regarding
their skill development and their
ideas concerning CSR that
supports that development

Motivational Influences
Motivation is driven by the ideas that employees develop about themselves as business
professionals. Motivation is also associated with employees’ ability to perform their jobs
effectively (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) demonstrated how gaps in organizational
26

performance often result from motivational factors. Three particular drivers of motivation have
received extensive investigation: (a) self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman,
1989), which is defined as confidence in one’s ability to organize and utilize the skills necessary
to successfully perform a task; (b) attribution (Weiner, 1985), which is defined as one’s ideas
about the causes behind success or failure when attempting to achieve a goal; and (c) expectancy
(Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1991), which refers to one’s beliefs or expectations that a behavior or
action will result in particular outcomes. These drivers, two of which have been addressed in this
study, play a significant role in motivating behavior. To further explore the motivational
influences that impact BTCI’s organizational goal of improving employee access to the CSR
program and their stakeholder goal of all JLTEs choosing to access the CSR program, several
motivational requirements were identified.
Belief in the Mission of the Organization
JLTEs must believe in the mission of the organization and understand how accessing the
CSR program both furthers the mission of the organization and is aligned with their personal
values (Rosso et al., 2010). According to Schaltegger and Burritt (2018), the ethical motivations
for why an organization might engage in CSR can be divided into four groups: (a) reactionary
concern for short-term financial interests, (b) reputational concern, (c) genuine concern for
improving social and environmental performance, and (d) desire to collaborate and to facilitate
social relations and participation beyond the organization. To retain employees who are
concerned with ensuring their values are aligned with the mission of the organization,
organizations must demonstrate genuine concern for and belief in CSR. Fairlie (2011) proposed
that employee retention results from employees realizing their purpose and values through their
work. JLTEs must believe in and align with their organization’s mission and values. If employees
27

attribute their lack of motivation or engagement to a disconnect between their values and those
of the organization, they are at risk of leaving the organization and will be unwilling to
participate in developmental programs such as CSR programs.
Opportunity for Enjoyment and Other Activities While Working
JLTEs need to understand how CSR program access can improve their happiness at work
(SHRM, 2014). The perceived value employees place on their job is directly influenced by
whether they believe they can be successful in their careers while also pursuing and achieving
personal enjoyment and joy (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006). According to Rueda (2011), the higher a
person perceives the value of a task, the more likely they will actively choose to participate and
persevere in their job, leading to joy upon completing the task. The implementation of CSR
programs by organizations can be associated with the personal values of individual leaders,
managers, and employees who have found joy in participating in CSR programs (Hemingway &
Maclagan, 2004). Research shows that the decision to volunteer and access CSR activities is
complex and driven by a diversity of individual motivations (Peloza & Hassay, 2006). If
employees feel obligated to access CSR programs and thus develop a sense that participation is
mandatory, their motivation to participate may diminish, and participation may no longer be
considered an enjoyable experience (Omoto & Snyder, 2002).
Employees across geographies and industries desire to engage in experiences at work that
induce happiness. Specifically, many employees’ motivation to succeed is not garnered from
their regular work activities but from other sorts of experiences such as volunteering and
community service that their employer may make available to them (Weber & Geneste, 2014).
Organizations need to understand the personal motivations and desires of their employees to
28

retain them and ensure their continued engagement. Table 4 categorizes the referenced
motivational influences by motivation type and explains assessment methods.

Table 4
Assumed Motivation Type, Motivational Influence, and Motivational Influence Assessment
Motivation type Motivational influence Motivational influence assessment
Attribution JLTEs must believe in the
mission of their organization
and share in its values, in order
to access CSR programs where
these values are demonstrated.
Interviewed JLTEs at BTCI about their
sense of belonging to their
organization and whether their values
are shared by the organization and
demonstrated through its investments
in activities such as CSR programs.
Expectancy JLTEs must have the opportunity
to experience joy at work and
pursue non-typical activities
such as CSR programs.
Interviewed JLTEs at BTCI about their
experiences of joy at work and
whether or not access to non-work-
related programs (such as CSR
programs) have contributed to this
joy.

29

Organizational Influences
An evaluation of organizational influences was conducted to have an effective and
complete gap analysis and to achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
The following section examines assumed organizational barriers that may impact the stakeholder
goal of all JLTEs choosing to access the CSR program.
Cultural Models, Settings, and Climate
An organization’s culture can profoundly influence organizational transformation and
change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004). Cultural models illustrate the shared values and
beliefs within organizations (Erez & Gati, 2004; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004).
Organizational culture directly reflects everyday life within organizations (Rueda, 2011). A
cultural model is a shared paradigm that serves as a mental model for how the world works and
includes beliefs, values, and perceptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). A cultural setting, by
contrast, is a visible and tangible manifestation of culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Investments and decisions made by leadership often reflect the values and motivations of the
organization and its employees (Schein, 2004; Schneider et al., 1996). Therefore, investments in
culture-building programs, such as CSR programs, can be essential for enhancing organizational
culture and the perceptions and beliefs that employees have regarding the organization they work
for (Schneider et al., 1996). The culture of an organization has a powerful influence on its
employees. Organizational culture is further reinforced by leadership communication and
behavior, organizational structures, and investments (Schein, 2004). Exploring and analyzing the
organizational and cultural influences and possible gaps pertaining to employers in the
30

technology industry will provide information relevant to supporting employees who wish to
access CSR programs.
Investing in a Culture of Skill Development and Social Responsibility
Organizations must foster a culture of continuous skill development and social
responsibility. For JLTEs, culture can be understood by analyzing the investments that
organizations make, particularly organizations’ employee support and development programs.
Several studies on employees’ perceptions of their organization’s CSR practices have found that
CSR program participation is related to higher employee retention levels and more favorable
views of senior management (Gross & Barrett, 2011). Konrad and Mangel (2000) suggest that
organizational investments may support employees’ motivation for remaining employed. Konrad
and Mangel further suggest that organizations in today’s highly competitive talent market must
depend on creative programs that support employees’ skill development and career growth.
Employees in the technology industry need to see their organization’s financial and non-financial
investment through the expansion of access to unique developmental and volunteer opportunities
(such as CSR programs) and the explicit support of the organization’s leaders.
Mentorship, Training, Support, and Rewards
The organization should provide mentorship, training, support, and rewards to all JLTEs
as encouragement to access its CSR programs (SHRM, 2014). Providing all JLTEs with
experienced CSR mentors may lead to the personal, professional, and intellectual growth and
development of the mentee (Klein & Dickenson-Hazard, 2000; Lee et al., 2000). Effective
mentoring and training programs drive retention by focusing on the problem-solving ability and
self-efficacy of both the mentor and the mentee (Reich, 1986; Bell, 1997; Waters et al., 2002).
Mentor and skill-development programs sponsored by an organization can develop teamwork,
31

improve conflict resolution, and drive collaboration (O’Brien-Pallas et al., 2004). Providing
increased access to programs such as CSR can promote critical thinking, enhanced decision-
making, and emotional intelligence, which all are skills many leaders deem necessary for success
and career growth.
Additionally, the organization needs to provide adequate benefits and rewards to JLTEs
who successfully participate in the CSR program. Charness and Gneezy (2009) found that
financial incentives can have a positive impact on habit formation and employee outcomes such
as performance. If employees are financially motivated to access CSR programs (e.g., paid
volunteer engagements, promotion or bonus opportunities upon completion, etc.), this can lead to
other positive business outcomes such as improved retention and performance.
Table 5 identifies two organizational influences. Each of these organizational influences
is an essential cultural factor influencing the success of the stakeholder goal of all JLTEs
choosing to access the CSR program.

32

Table 5
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Assumed organizational influences Organizational influence assessment
Cultural Model: The organization needs to
foster a culture of continuous skill
development and social responsibility in
order for employees to access the CSR
program.
Interviewed BTCI employees about their
organization’s investment into programs
they care about that provide developmental
opportunities (such as CSR programs) and
its potential benefit to their careers and
impact on their levels of joy and
engagement.
Cultural Setting: The organization needs to
provide mentorship, training, support,
and rewards to JLTEs.
Interviewed BTCI employees about their
access and exposure to mentors,
developmental programs, and financial
incentives and its impact on their retention.

Table 6 provides a comprehensive mapping of the assumed needs and influence
categories.

33

Table 6
Mapping of Assumed Needs and KMO Categories
Category Assumed need
Knowledge influences
Conceptual JLTEs need to know what knowledge and skills are required
to access CSR programs. They need to know how CSR
programs can support their skill development.
Procedural JLTEs need to know the steps required to leverage the
available resources, support programs, teams, and
individuals who can assist them (such as CSR programs).
Metacognitive JLTEs need to be able to reflect on their knowledge and skills
and develop strategies to support their career growth at the
organization (such as participating in the CSR program).
Motivational influences
Attribution JLTEs need to believe in the mission of the organization and
share in the organization’s values in order to want to access
the CSR programs where these values are demonstrated.
Expectancy JLTEs need the opportunity to experience joy at work and
pursue non-typical activities, such as participating in the
CSR program.
Organizational influences
Cultural model The organization needs to foster a culture of continuous skill
development and social responsibility in order for
employees to desire to access the CSR program.
Cultural setting The organization needs to provide mentorship, training,
support, and rewards to JLTEs.

Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This research leveraged the gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes (2008). This
framework explores and identifies gaps between stakeholder performance and desired
performance in organizations. Knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors associated
with employee access to CSR programs were compiled through a literature review. Information
was gathered regarding organizational and stakeholder performance through interviews and data
34

analysis. The knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) model was applied during the
interview phase and assisted the analysis. Knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors
influence an employee’s desire to access CSR programs. This research was intended to gain
insights into these knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that lead to increased
employee access to the CSR program. The conceptual framework (see Figure 2) illustrates the
idea that employees that access CSR programs are more likely to remain employed by their
present employer than those who do not (holding other factors such as pay, culture, and work-life
balance constant).

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

35

Research Design and Methodology
This research is qualitative and supported by peer-reviewed research. According to
Krauss (2005), qualitative research is a scientific method of observation used to gather non-
numerical data while focusing on meaning-making. The researcher endeavored to learn more
about how to drive increased access to these CSR programs. Qualitative research is useful for
determining potential solutions to problems of practice using words, observation, document
analysis, and experiential tools (Creswell, 2014; Duke & Martin, 2011; McEwan & McEwan,
2003).
The specific strategy of inquiry leveraged in this research was in-depth, purposeful
interviews. Purposeful interviews of 11 JLTEs and five former program participants allowed for
an in-depth exploration of the problem of practice and for the identification of emerging themes
(Creswell, 2014; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Interviews provided participants with the best
opportunity to share their feelings, thoughts, and intentions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By
interviewing, investigating, and learning from the stakeholder of focus, JLTEs, and former
program participants, a secondary group who provided a different yet important perspective, the
researcher discovered more about the impact that employees’ participation in the CSR program
could have on employee retention and how to drive increased access to the CSR program. The
interview method was useful for this research, as it led to credible and dependable results (Guba
& Lincoln, 1994).
Further details can be found in the appendices. Appendix B describes the data collection
and analysis process. Appendix C considers the ethics and role of the researcher. Appendix D
provides the interview questions asked to the JLTEs. Appendix E presents the interview
questions asked to the CSRAs. Appendix F contains a crosswalk of the knowledge, motivational,
36

and organizational influences. Appendix G houses the information sheet for exempt research,
which describes the study, participant obligations, and issues of confidentiality.
Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that impact JLTEs’ access to CSR programs at BTCI. The following
research questions guided the study:
1. What are the knowledge and motivational needs required for JLTEs to access CSR
programs at BTCI?
2. What is the relationship between BTCI’s organizational culture and context and JLTEs’
knowledge and motivation as they relate to access with respect to CSR programs at
BTCI?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions to
improve JLTEs’ access to CSR programs at BTCI?
The following paragraphs review collected data in relation to the conceptual and theoretical
framework of the study. The analysis explores the influences driving employee access to CSR
programs at BTCI. As previously shared, the methodology of this study is qualitative and
leverages a semi-structured interview approach. Interviews were conducted with 11 JLTEs to
explore the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors driving access to the CSR
program. In addition, five CSRAs were interviewed. These individuals offered a unique
perspective on the CSR program itself and its impact on employee retention. The following
section describes the stakeholder groups in detail. This section is followed by the study’s
findings, including an in-depth analysis of the interview data.
37

Participating Stakeholders
The 16 participating stakeholders for this study were all employees of BTCI, with 11
from the primary stakeholder group and five from the secondary stakeholder group. The primary
stakeholder group for this study was comprised of 11 junior-level employees with skills in
critical technology areas (e.g., AI, analytics, cloud, open source, quantum, security). These are
the individuals who the organization needs and aims to retain to execute its business strategy and
can be influenced by the various knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors. A
secondary participating group consisted of CSRAs. These are individuals who are currently
employed by BTCI, have already participated in BTCI’s CSR program, and could provide a
unique viewpoint regarding CSR and the impact that participation in the CSR program had on
their own engagement and retention. These CSRAs also provided valuable feedback on ways to
improve employee access to the CSR program. Interviews were conducted over a two-week
period and took place virtually over video conferencing software due to the COVID-19
pandemic and organizational circumstances and limitations such as social distancing, lack of
office access, and more. The average JLTE had two years of experience, and the average
interview lasted 38 minutes (including ~10 minutes of introductory or warm-up conversation
focused on the research, informed consent, the researcher’s positionality and role, how the
participant was feeling, etc.). The average CSRA had 12 years of experience, and the average
interview lasted 38 minutes (again including ~10 minutes of introductory or warm-up
conversation). With regard to sex, seven (64%) participating JLTEs were female, four (35%)
were male. Three CSRAs (60%) were female, two (40%) were male. With regard to race and
ethnicity, five (45%) JLTEs were white, four (36%) were Asian, one (9%) was Black, and one
38

(9%) was mixed race. Three (60%) CSRAs were White, one (20%) was Asian, and one (20%)
was mixed race.
Table 7 includes a description of the participating stakeholders.
39

Table 7
Participant Description

Participant Stakeholder Experience Ethnicity
JLTE 1 Junior-level technology employee 2 years Asian
JLTE 1 Junior-level technology employee 2 years Asian
JLTE 2 Junior-level technology employee 3 years Asian
JLTE 3 Junior-level technology employee 3 years Black
JLTE 4 Junior-level technology employee 2 years White
JLTE 5 Junior-level technology employee 3 years White
JLTE 6 Junior-level technology employee 1 year Asian
JLTE 7 Junior-level technology employee 2 years White
JLTE 8 Junior-level technology employee 2 years Mixed
JLTE 9 Junior-level technology employee 2 years White
JLTE 10 Junior-level technology employee 3 years White
JLTE 11 Junior-level technology employee 9 years Mixed
CSRA 1 CSR program alumni 9 years Mixed
CSRA 2 CSR program alumni 11 years White
CSRA 3 CSR program alumni 17 years White
CSRA 4 CSR program alumni 10 years Asian
CSRA 5 CSR program alumni 12 years White
40

Determining Needs
The assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs identified in the
literature review were either supported or not supported as needs based on an analysis of the
interview data. The assumed needs were supported when five or more JLTEs shared a given
opinion or sentiment regarding an assumed need. Conversely, the assumed needs were not
supported when fewer than five JLTEs shared a given opinion or sentiment regarding an assumed
need. The interview data from the CSRAs helped to support the linkage between CSR program
participation and employee retention. Their input was also valuable in the formation of
recommendations for improving employee access to the CSR program. Table 8 displays the
thresholds used for evaluating the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs.

Table 8
Thresholds Used for the Evaluation of Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational
Influences
Assertion Threshold
Supported When five or more JLTEs share a given
opinion or sentiment regarding an assumed
need.
Not supported When fewer than five JLTEs share a given
opinion or sentiment regarding an assumed
need.

41

Findings of Assumed Knowledge Needs
The assumed knowledge needs that were identified and later supported via the interviews
are the following:
● JLTEs need to know what knowledge and skills are required to access CSR programs
(conceptual).
● JLTEs need to know how CSR programs can be supportive of their skill development
(conceptual).
● JLTEs need to know the steps required to leverage the available resources, support
programs (such as CSR programs), teams, and individuals to assist them (procedural).
● JLTEs did not provide evidence that reflecting on or engaging in metacognitive behavior
with respect to their knowledge and skills and career development strategies (such as
participating in the CSR program) is necessary to access the CSR program
(metacognitive).
Three types of knowledge influences, following Krathwohl (2010), were analyzed. The first
influence concerns conceptual influences, where the participants know what knowledge and
skills are required to access CSR programs and how CSR programs can help them develop their
skills. The second knowledge influence explored was procedural, where the participants know
steps required to leverage the available resources and developmental programs such as CSR
programs. The third knowledge influence that was explored was metacognitive, where the
participants are able to reflect on their knowledge and skills and develop strategies to support
their career growth at the organization, such as participating in the CSR program.
Table 9 summarizes the knowledge influence findings based on the interview analysis.

42

Table 9
Assumed Knowledge Influence Findings
Knowledge influence Finding
Conceptual: JLTEs need to know what knowledge and skills are required to
access CSR programs. They need to know how CSR programs can support
their skill development.
Supported
Procedural: JLTEs need to know the steps required to leverage the available
resources, support programs, teams, and individuals to assist them (such as
CSR programs).
Supported
Metacognitive: JLTEs need to be able to reflect on their knowledge and skills
and develop strategies to support their career growth at the organization, such
as participating in the CSR program.
Not supported

JLTEs Need to Know What Knowledge and Skills Are Required to Access CSR Programs.
They Need to Know How CSR Programs Can Support Their Skill Development (Supported)
First, conceptual influence, in which participants know what knowledge and skills are
required to access and participate in CSR programs and how CSR programs can help them
develop their skills and careers – are explored (Krathwohl, 2010). One of the key findings
regarding needs related to accessing the CSR program included the need for simplified and
comprehensible application criteria. Another key finding was that employees needed to be
informed of the value of CSR programs can have in developing their skills and careers. Seven
out of the eleven (63.6%) JLTE participants could not accurately explain the specific knowledge,
43

skills, and other application components required to access and participate in the CSR program.
Participants supported a lack of clarity and understanding regarding the CSR program eligibility
criteria as well. JLTE 1 remarked,
Is [the CSR program] something where I’m trying to gain a new set of skills I didn’t have
before? Then maybe. But also, I think it depends on what those skills are. Right? They
should be more clear about what can be gained up front.
JLTE 1 is expressing confusion about the overall purpose of the program and a lack of
understanding about the skill and career development opportunity the CSR program presents to
employees. This lack of understanding regarding the skill and career development opportunity
can influence whether or not an employee chooses to access and participate in the CSR program.
This demonstrated gap in conceptual knowledge indicates a potential loss in the CSR program’s
perceived value. The participants are unaware of what possible skills they could develop through
participating in the CSR program.
While all JLTEs interviewed (100%) supported the notion that they believed participation
in the CSR program would be beneficial to growing their careers and developing their skills, 10
of the 11 (90.9%) participating JLTEs felt more transparency and enablement regarding the exact
skills that could be practiced and gained during the course of the CSR program would be
beneficial.
JLTE 7 detailed,
[BTCI employees] don’t understand that the best asset of the [CSR program] is to give
top-performing [BTCI employees] an opportunity to... develop their skills and help a
local community in need and then bring back everything they’ve learned and apply it to
their jobs after completion of their service.
44

JLTE 7’s comments contradict the notion that the JLTEs understand how the CSR program can
help them develop their skills and careers. This is in line with responses from several other
participants, who stated that, if more employees understood the developmental component of the
CSR program, they would be more likely to access the program. JLTE 3 said, “I couldn’t tell you
what skills I might gain without really knowing what sorts of projects are available to employees.
I’m not sure that’s made very clear to us. That’s definitely something I’d like to learn more
about.” JLTE 3 details how they are somewhat aware of what skills could be gained through
program participation, and this is something they want to learn more about but has not been
made abundantly clear to employees. JLTE 9 said,
I think [CSR program participation] definitely helps you develop skills in collaboration,
consulting, problem-solving. But the program could definitely be a lot more clear to
employees about this because I think more people would apply if they knew.
JLTE 9 believes that participating in the CSR program would certainly be a developmental
opportunity but also expressed concern that the organization does not adequately advertise this
opportunity to employees.
This evidence supports the conceptual knowledge need. Table H1 in the appendices
summarizes all participant responses regarding the transparency of the CSR program’s skill and
career development potential. JLTEs need to know what knowledge and skills are required to
access the CSR program. Moreover, JLTEs need to know how the CSR program can support
their skill development.
45

JLTEs Need to Know the Steps Required to Leverage Available Resources, Support Programs,
Teams, and Individuals to Assist Them (Supported)
The second knowledge influence explored was procedural, where the participants know
the steps required to leverage the available resources and developmental programs such as the
CSR program (Krathwohl, 2010). Only 1 of the 11 JLTEs (9%) could accurately describe how to
access BTCI’s CSR program. The other participants reported a general approach for finding the
information (e.g., search on BTCI’s intranet) but did not have a concrete understanding of how to
access the program. This division by level of understanding is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3
CSR Program Accessibility

46

Four of the eleven (36%) JLTEs did not know how to access the CSR program, and 6 of
the 11 (55%) had only a general idea of how to access the CSR program. Combined, 10 of the 11
JLTEs (91%) did not have the procedural knowledge required to access the CSR program.
Several JLTEs voiced their frustration about this lack of procedural knowledge. JLTE 4
remarked,
Another thing that I think will be great to enhance participation is just to make a clear call
to action on the homepage because sometimes those pages are a little bit confusing. BTCI
has so many ways to apply for things and sometimes you have to email somebody …
because right now I’m not sure about the application process.
JLTE 4 described how, for an employee interested in the CSR program, determining how to
access the program and the individuals who can assist them can be confusing. Another
participant, JLTE 1, remarked,
Why do they always have to make this stuff so hard to figure out? Whether it’s trying to
take a college class, or find a mentor, or whatever, it’s just never easy to actually find the
person in charge of something or how to get more information.
JLTE 1 illustrated that program access is not only an issue related to the CSR program but is
pervasive across the organization. It can be difficult for employees to learn more about the
program and to find individuals within the company who can assist them. This comment echoes
other participants’ suggestion to provide more direction to the application process, possibly by
streamlining and standardizing application processes across the organization. Interviewed
employees expressed significant confusion concerning the steps employees must take to access
the CSR program. This point is supported by JLTE 6, who said, “I honestly haven’t considered
participating in the program and can’t say that I know how to access the [BTCI CSR program].”
47

JLTE 6 has not considered participating in the CSR program and does not know how to access
the program in order to participate. This comment was echoed by JLTE 3, who remarked, “I’m
sure there’s a website or something where you can apply, but I’ve never seen it. So I don‘t think I
can say I exactly know how to access [BTCI’s CSR program]. These comments by JLTE 6 and
JLTE 3 support the idea that employees lack the procedural knowledge required to access the
CSR program in the first place, which represents a significant barrier to participating in the
program. CSRA 2 mentioned,
They need to do a better job marketing the program in general but also in explaining to
employees and their managers how to apply and reminding them every once in a while. If
just a single email comes once or twice a year and [employees] forget to save it, what
happens?
CSRA 2 highlighted another component of the procedural knowledge need. The organization
needs to do a better job of marketing and promoting the CSR program because its employees
lack the basic knowledge on how to access the CSR program in the first place.
The key interview evidence and analysis supports the procedural knowledge need. JLTEs
need to know how to access the available resources, support programs, teams, and individuals to
assist them (such as CSR programs).
JLTEs Need to Be Able to Reflect on Their Knowledge and Skills and Develop Strategies to
Support Their Career Growth at the Organization, Such As Participating in the CSR Program
(Not Supported)
The third knowledge influence explored was metacognitive, where the participants are
able to reflect on their knowledge and skills and develop strategies to support their career growth
at the organization, such as participating in the CSR program (Krathwohl, 2010). Findings
48

regarding metacognitive influences showed that, while participants largely practiced
metacognitive behaviors (all 11; 100%), none could attribute these metacognitive practices to
their desire to access the CSR program. JLTE 1 commented,
It’s important for me, at the end of the day, to kind of pause and see what might have
gone better or not, and I actually keep notes at the top of my notebook for things I may
want to try for this week just so I can kind of see it as well because that’s important for
me too... but I don’t think that necessarily impacts my engagement at work. It’s kind of
something I do on my own.”
JLTE 1’s sentiment was supported by several of their colleagues who participated in this study.
Reflective behavior was practiced regularly and even viewed as important. However, the JLTEs
struggled to see the link between engaging in metacognitive behavior and their own
development. JLTE 9 said,
For me, it is very important to just... take a look at what we did well, what we didn’t do
well. And next time, I will usually try to change what we didn’t do well and keep the
good parts. So, I just think it’s nice to have. I don’t think that I’m spending too much time
reflecting on what programs are going to get me to the next level. I need to think more
about that.
JLTE 9 provided a bit more specificity. What one focuses on when one reflects is essential. JLTE
9 engages in regular reflection and improves work outcomes in that way but is not spending time
reflecting on what programs they could participate in to grow their skills and career. JLTE 4
details,
When I finish a project or a task or something, … [reflection] just generally helps me
remember the activity I went through and [is useful] for my own peace of mind. I think
49

[reflection is] a good way to think about how I can apply it to what I’m going to do next.
So if you finish something, it’s like, okay, that was great. We did x, y, and z,... but what
did I get out of it? And where can I use that skill now? So I think that’s big. But I’m not
spending enough time focused on where those next opportunities can come from.
JLTE 4 clarified some of the nuances concerning metacognitive behavior. They view reflection
as an excellent way to think through how to apply a skill. Nevertheless, they are not actively
spending time reflecting on what sorts of programs within the company or what other
opportunities exist to support this skill development. Regarding their own experience
participating in BTCI’s CSR program, CSRA 4 said,
It got me to think that I can see that impact with the clients that I’m working with. How [I
am capable] of making that impact. When I got home after [the CSR program], I realized
that we didn’t know anything at the beginning. And I think for all of us, it was a bit of a
wake-up call that this is real, that there’s real people to help. I also felt more responsible
for delivering that specific thing as an individual rather than when I used to work in a
team together with other developers, which is more of a joint effort. Before [the CSR
program], I was hungry for something that would really stretch me.
CSRA 4 had the opportunity to participate in the program and reflect on their experience upon
returning home. Only after reflecting did they realize how much they had learned and gained
through the experience.
With this evidence and analysis, the metacognitive knowledge need could not be
supported. JLTEs may indeed need to be able to reflect on their knowledge and skills and
develop strategies to support their skill development at the organization, such as participating in
the CSR program. None of the participants of this study, however, made this connection.
50

Findings of Assumed Motivational Needs
The assumed motivational needs identified are as follows:
● JLTEs need to believe in the mission of the organization and share in its values in order to
want to access the CSR program, where these values are demonstrated (attribution).
● JLTEs need the opportunity to experience joy at work and pursue non-typical activities,
such as participating in the CSR program (expectancy).
Table 10 summarizes the motivational findings. Each assumed motivational influence is listed
along with whether it was supported or not.

Table 10
Assumed Motivational Influence Findings
Motivational influence Finding
Attribution: JLTEs need to believe in the organization’s mission and share in
its values by being provided access to the CSR program, where these values
are demonstrated.
Supported
Expectancy: JLTEs need the opportunity to experience joy at work and pursue
non-typical activities, such as participating in the CSR program.
Supported

51

JLTEs Need to Believe in the Organization’s Mission and Share in Its Values by Being
Provided Access to the CSR Program, Where These Values Are Demonstrated (Supported)
All 11 JLTEs (100%) and all five CSRAs (100%) believed it was important that their
organization share their values. However, only 3 of the 11 (27%) JLTEs felt that CSR was a
significant part of BTCI’s culture and mission, whereas 100% of CSRAs felt it was significant.
CSRA 5 stated,
By nature of the fact that [BTCI] is investing all of this time and resources into the [CSR]
program means that they care enough for it to exist. Otherwise, they would just cut it
from the budget. So I think that BTCI clearly cares.
CSRA 5 made the connection between resource investment and missions and values. What the
organization invests its time and money into, it must value. JLTE 9, however, believes differently
and stated,
Well, you don’t really see [BTCI] investing all of this time and money into CSR. A lot of
our money is spent marketing our products instead of the impact those products have on
the world. I don’t think CSR is a big part of [BTCI’s] mission or culture... I think it
speaks volumes that the program sits in the marketing department.
JLTE 9 expressed a belief shared among the majority of JLTEs but not CSRAs. JLTE 9 is
alluding to the notion that, because BTCI is spending its resources in other areas and because the
marketing department runs the CSR program, BTCI does not value the CSR program. In turn,
this could lead to the formation of negative ideas about why BTCI has the CSR program in the
first place. That is, one could believe the program exists for purely for promotional purposes
rather than a genuine desire to give back and solve some of the world’s most pressing problems.
Based on this interview analysis, the researcher concluded that the CSRAs were more likely to
52

believe CSR is a significant part of the organization’s mission, values, and culture compared to
the JLTEs. CSRA 1, for example, said,
I think the programs are not that well known within the company. So I think we should
find a way to advertise them more to bring them to more people. How can more people
have access to it? I don’t think I thought [BTCI] really believed in this sort of work until I
participated myself. It always seemed like some program only a tiny fraction of
employees got to participate in but when I did it myself, I really felt aligned to the
company in a significant way.
CSRA 1 explained the linkage between program participation and the belief that the organization
shares in the values and mission of its employees. CSRA 1 highlighted that it was only through
participating in the CSR program that they felt genuinely aligned to the company’s values.
Additionally, only two of nine participants (22%) who answered the question felt that BTCI was
investing sufficient resources into promoting its CSR programs, as shown in Figure 4.

53

Figure 4
Perceived Sufficiency of CSR Program Promotion

Aligning with the finding that only 3 of the 11 (27%) JLTEs felt that CSR was a
significant part of BTCI’s culture, only two of nine (22%) participants felt that sufficient
resources were being allocated to promote the CSR program. JLTE 11 emphasized the
importance of promoting the CSR program by stating, “you don’t know what you don’t know. If
more employees knew about the [CSR program], there would definitely be more who would
want to join in.”
Moreover, there is an apparent disconnect between the JLTEs’ perception that the
organization values employee participation in the CSR program and the perception that the
organization invests enough resources into promoting its employee development programs.
Figure 5 displays participants’ perceived goals for participating in the CSR program from the
point of view of employees.
54

Figure 5
Perceived Company Goals for CSR Program Participation

Among the interviewed JLTEs, 80% believe that BTCI wants its employees to participate
in the CSR program. The CSR program’s lack of promotion, however, directly conflicts with the
notion that CSR is viewed as a core company value and the notion that the organization wants its
employees to participate. This evidence and analysis support the attribution motivational need.
JLTEs need to believe in the organization’s mission and share in its values by being provided
access to the CSR program, where these values are demonstrated.
JLTEs Need the Opportunity to Experience Joy at Work and Pursue Non-Typical Activities,
Such As Participating in the CSR Program (Supported)
Interview analysis revealed that developmental opportunities outside of employees’
typical job roles helped increase their joy at work. For example, JLTE 7 said, “I’m a huge fan of
organizations that allow you to pause your current contexts and see what you can see,
experiencing something new, looking at the world a different way.” JLTE 7 highlighted the idea
55

that, when organizations provide their employees with FWAs, this can lead to joy in the
workplace (as discussed in the literature review). By allowing employees to pause their current
activities and dive into something meaningful and aligned with their values that can lead to
happiness, organizations are actively investing in engaging and retaining their employees.
Every interviewed JLTE and CSRA (all 16; 100%) felt that participation in the CSR program
would or did directly contribute to the joy they experienced at work. The perceived value
employees place on their job is directly influenced by their beliefs regarding whether they can
succeed in their careers while also pursuing personal joy (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006). JLTE 10
said,
Why do anything if you don’t think it’s going to ultimately make you happy? I would
love to participate in the [CSR program], and I will apply when I meet the qualifications.
I think this sort of work is super cool and it would be a lot of fun.
JLTE 10 thinks that you should do things that make you happy and that participation in the CSR
program is one of those things that would make them happy. JLTE 1 remarked,
[Engaging in the CSR program] will probably improve the quality of my work and give
me better relationships, and then also just increase my happiness probably. I’ve seen
participants’ pictures and stories they post on social media, and they seem very happy and
motivated both during their deployment and when they return.
JLTE 1 is confident that the CSR program comes with significant benefits, including happiness,
and supports this by observing CSRAs’ happiness. JLTE 4 described,
I’ve spoken to others who have participated in the [CSR program], and they’ve all said it
was an amazing experience, and they seemed super happy; so [yes], I do think it would
probably help me to find some joy at work.
56

JLTE 4 believes participating in the CSR program would help them experience joy at work, as
they spoke to CSRAs and observed their happiness after participating.
This evidence and analysis support the expectancy motivational need. Table H2 in the
appendices provides a full summary of the participants’ responses regarding the impact of
participating in the CSR program on the joy experienced at work. JLTEs need the opportunity to
experience joy at work and pursue non-typical activities, such as participating in the CSR
program.
Findings of Assumed Organizational Needs
The assumed organizational needs identified are the following:
● The organization needs to foster a culture of employee development and social
responsibility through access to its CSR program (cultural model).
● The organization needs to provide mentorship, training, support, and rewards to JLTEs
that access the CSR program (cultural setting).
Table 11 summarizes the organizational findings. Each assumed organizational influence
is listed along with whether it was supported or not.

57

Table 11
Assumed Organizational Influence Findings
Organizational influence Finding
Cultural model: The organization needs to foster a culture of employee
development and social responsibility through access to its CSR program.
Supported
Cultural setting: The organization needs to provide mentorship, training,
support, and rewards to JLTEs that access the CSR program.
Supported

The Organization Needs to Foster a Culture of Employee Development and Social
Responsibility Through Access to Its CSR Program (Supported)
Another component of Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework is the organizational
influences affecting JLTEs’ access to CSR programs. A cultural model is a shared paradigm that
serves as a mental model for how the world works, and cultural models illustrate the shared
values and beliefs within organizations (Erez & Gati, 2004; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Schein, 2004). For the cultural model influence assessment, participants were asked to describe
their company culture and share how CSR may or may not support their retention within that
culture. Only 5 of the 11 JLTEs (45%) believed that CSR is a significant part of BTCI’s culture
and mission. This finding highlights that BTCI needs to do a better job of showing employees its
commitment to CSR. When asked for feedback on how the organization could better foster a
culture of employee development and CSR, the most common response from participants (8 of
the 11 [73%] JLTEs and four of the five [80%] CSRAs) was that managers should ensure they
are supportive of their employees participating in the CSR program. A concrete expression of
58

this was recommended in the form of job security. This need for support was manifested as a
concern by JLTEs, who were worried that their career or position in the organization would
suffer as a result of participating in the CSR program. For example, JLTE 6 commented on
BTCI’s culture as follows:
Literally, everyone says ‘yes’ to everything here. And if you don’t, kind of say, wait, I
can’t actually do this, you might be seen as non-collaborative or not a team player. You
need to have the privilege to say ‘Well, I’m going to take three months, six months,
whatever it is, to step away from my role and [participate in the CSR program].’
This comment by JLTE 6 highlights how the organization’s cultural model does not support
employees’ desires to prioritize their professional development by participating in the CSR
program. JLTE 1 wondered, “If I’m leaving my job for six months or something, am I going to
be supported? And I’m not going to be at a disadvantage when I get back?”
JLTE 1 was concerned that participating in the program will actually harm their career
development. This concern was further validated by CSRA 2, who, upon returning from
participating in the program, had new management that was not supportive and understanding of
their time spent participating in the CSR program. CSRA 2 recalled,
Compared to the previous chain of management, when I was coming back and my
management told me, ‘Yeah, let’s treat this as a nice vacation for you.’ Like, what? You
are not understanding why [BTCI] is doing it. So [it’s] really dependent upon whom
you’ve reported to in this experience.
Following the completion of the program, CSRA 2 unfortunately returned to a new manager who
was uninformed of the benefits of the CSR program and CSRA 2’s reasons for participating. This
supported JLTE 1’s fears about being unsupported or at a disadvantage upon returning from the
59

program. Participants also shared that they felt they would value the suggestion to participate in a
CSR program more if this suggestion was communicated directly by their manager. JLTE 7
stated, “If [my manager] recommended the [CSR program] in a team meeting, I would jot it
down and then if they said it again in my 1-on-1, I would definitely be like, ‘Oh, I should
definitely look at this.’” JLTE 7 demonstrates the impact a manager’s influence can have on
employee decision-making.
To depend on managers, who already carry a significant burden, to rally participation in
CSR programs requires more investment and initiative toward gaining buy-in from the managers
themselves. CSRA 1 shared how a manager’s support is not always guaranteed: “A lot of people,
when they, you know, want to have a career conversation, it really is about if their manager is
being supportive or not, and a lot of them are not.”
CSRA 1 revealed an important issue. Leadership saying CSR is a corporate value or a
critical part of the organization’s mission is not enough. Managers must believe in CSR is
valuable as well and actively support these programs among their employees. CSRA 1’s
anecdotal experience with a lack of manager support was also echoed by JLTE 11, who shared a
unique aspect of BTCI culture:
There should be some way of changing managers’ mindsets of letting people go and kind
of doing their own thing for a little bit to work on their own development. I think
managers are really afraid of losing good people and having to backfill them.
JLTE 11 highlighted how there is a culture of fear present in the managerial community. Because
managers may be afraid of letting people on their teams go, they may be actively preventing
access to the CSR program. It is clear from the interview data that managers have a considerable
influence on both BTCI’s organizational culture and JLTEs’ access to CSR programs.
60

Participants shared that they would be more likely to consider participating in CSR if it was
suggested and supported by their manager. These statements provide evidence that fostering
greater access to CSR programs requires demonstrating the value of participation and ensuring
risks to the participating employees are minimized.
This evidence and analysis support the organizational model need. The organization
needs to foster a culture of employee development and social responsibility through access to its
CSR program.
The Organization Needs to Provide Mentorship, Training, Support, and Rewards to JLTEs
That Access the CSR Program (Supported)
A cultural setting is a visible and tangible manifestation of culture (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). The cultural setting assessment asked the study population to describe how
the organization’s culture supports their access to CSR programs. Participants were asked if they
felt they would be rewarded in a tangible way if they chose to participate in the CSR program.
Six of the eleven JLTEs (55%) responded that they felt supported by the organization, yet only 2
of the 11 JLTEs (18%) stated that they had guidance or mentorship concerning skill and career
development opportunities. Four out of the nine participants (44%) who were asked this question
felt that they would be rewarded tangibly. Out of those four, only one participant expected this
reward to come from the organization directly. For all other participants, the opportunity to
participate in the CSR program itself was considered the reward. JLTE 4 summarized,
It seems like the rewards are all intangible right now. Like … have a great experience,
build your skills, meet other people, do this immersive thing in another country. So I
think the selling points are all intangible. But I wouldn’t expect for me to get more pay or
a bonus out of it. It seems like the bonus comes from the experience itself. I think if there
61

was a tangible award attached, I think a lot more people would probably be interested [in
participating].
JLTE 7 considered participating in the CSR program to be not only a reward but recognition for
being a top-performing, highly valued employee:
The greatest asset of the [CSR program] is to give top-performing [BTCI employees] an
opportunity to contribute to a developing country or community or business in a safe
environment. So that way, they can develop their skills and help a local community in
need and then bring back everything they’ve learned to their jobs after completing their
service.
JLTE 7 explained how the simple act of allowing employees to participate can be considered a
reward by employees. JLTE 1 said,
I feel like, personally, to be engaged long-term, I need to feel like I am being invested in.
I feel like [BTCI] has so much to offer, but the enablement and support into how to access
those offerings are hard to come by. I wouldn’t need to be rewarded for participating in
developmental programs. I think the reward is having the opportunity to learn and grow.
JLTE 1 is asking BTCI for more help concerning mentorship, training, and support. With a bit of
guidance, JLTE 1 would receive much more out of the substantial developmental offerings such
as the CSR program that BTCI makes available to its employees. CSRA 3 detailed,
We have some bureaucracy and burden at [BTCI], but when we have innovative ideas,
when I have things to highlight, or that I think we should make a change or an impact or
something could be done better, I always experience that the company is open to hearing
and [allows me to] voice my opinion. I do feel like we have a culture of support, but it
needs to be improved. Did I expect that I would receive some little trophy when I
62

returned from my project? No. But would that have been nice and motivating and
engaging? Yes, I think so.
CSRA 3 explained how, while a tangible monetary reward or other reward was not expected for
participating in the program, they would have likely been engaged and motivated by such a
reward. CSRA 2 said,
We had training with a team mentor who had previously participated in the CSR program
for several weeks before we were deployed on our projects. This guidance was invaluable
to our success and helped to alleviate some of our fears before we were deployed. I think
that’s something more [BTCI employees] should have access to. It should be a part of our
culture that employees have someone to guide them towards the right types of
development programs.
CSRA 2 revealed that employees need to have a cultural setting in the workplace that provides
mentorship to those looking to access developmental opportunities. This evidence and analysis
support the organizational setting influence need. The organization needs to provide mentorship,
training, support, and rewards to JLTEs.
Findings Summary
The conceptual framework supporting the interview questions addressed the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) assumed for JLTEs. Three
types of knowledge inputs derived from Krathwohl (2010) were analyzed. The first knowledge
input regarded conceptual influences, where the participants know what knowledge and skills are
required to access CSR programs and how CSR programs can help them develop their skills. The
second knowledge influence explored was procedural, where the participants know the steps
required to leverage the available resources and developmental programs, such as the CSR
63

program. The third knowledge influence explored was metacognitive, where the participants are
able to reflect on their knowledge and skills and develop strategies to support their career growth
at the organization, such as participating in the CSR program.
This study also explored motivational and organizational influences. The two
motivational influences were attribution – where participants believe in the mission of the
organization and share in its values by being provided access to the CSR program, where these
values are demonstrated (Weiner, 1985) – and expectancy, where participants have the
opportunity to experience joy at work and pursue non-typical activities such as participating in
the CSR program (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1991).
The organizational influences included both cultural models and cultural settings. A
cultural model is a shared paradigm that serves as a mental model for how the world works and
includes beliefs, values, and perceptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). BTCI’s cultural
model influences include how the organization fosters a culture of employee development and
social responsibility through access to its CSR program. A cultural setting is a visible and
tangible manifestation of culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). BTCI’s cultural setting
influences the extent and impact of the organization’s mentorship, training, support, and rewards
to JLTEs that access the CSR program.
Six of seven assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs identified were
supported as actual needs. The assumed conceptual and procedural knowledge needs were
supported. The assumed metacognitive knowledge need was the only need that was not
supported. The assumed attribution and expectancy motivational needs were also supported.
Finally, the assumed cultural model and cultural setting organizational needs were supported as
well.
64

The interview data revealed that the knowledge influence assumptions were only partially
supported. There are needs in knowledge in general that impact access to the CSR program.
Specifically, there was a lack of clarity regarding the knowledge and skills required to access the
CSR program (conceptual) and a lack of understanding regarding the steps required to leverage
the available supportive resources and programs (procedural). Findings regarding the
metacognitive influences showed that, while the majority of participants already practiced
metacognitive behaviors, none attributed these metacognitive practices to their access to the CSR
program. Therefore, metacognitive influences were not supported as knowledge needs.
The interviews support the notion that both motivational influences are needs. The
interviews highlighted that participants need to engage in activities where their values and the
company’s values are actively demonstrated. The study participants highlighted their desire to
pursue greater joy in the work that they do. From an attribution influence perspective, the sample
population communicated a strong belief that CSR programs are a significant part of the
organization’s culture and mission. JLTEs felt they would be more connected to the
organization’s culture and mission if they had the opportunity to participate in the CSR program.
Every CSRA responded that they felt more connected to the organization’s culture and mission
after participating in the CSR program. The need regarding expectancy influences was also
supported, as all participants responded that participation in the CSR program would contribute
to their joy at work.
The cultural model influence was also supported. All participants expressed that
participation in the CSR program would help them develop their careers and skills but that not
enough resources were invested into these programs. Concerning the cultural setting, only half of
the participants responded that they believed there were tangible rewards to participating in the
65

CSR program. Furthermore, for those who believed there were tangible rewards for participation,
those rewards were intrinsic rather than material and company-provided. Table 12 summarizes
the analyzed knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs of this study.

66

Table 12
Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
Influence Finding
Knowledge influences
Conceptual: JLTEs need to know what knowledge and skills are
required to access CSR programs. They need to know how CSR
programs can support their skill development.
Supported
Procedural: JLTEs need to know the steps required to leverage the
available resources, support programs, teams, and individuals to assist
them (such as CSR programs).
Supported
Metacognitive: JLTEs need to be able to reflect on their knowledge and
skills and develop strategies to support their career growth at the
organization, such as participating in the CSR program.

Not supported
Motivational influences
Attribution: JLTEs need to believe in the organization’s mission and
share in its values by being provided access to the CSR program,
where these values are demonstrated.
Supported
Expectancy: JLTEs need the opportunity to experience joy at work and
pursue non-typical activities, such as participating in the CSR
program.

Supported
Organizational influences
Cultural model: The organization needs to foster a culture of employee
development and social responsibility through access to its CSR
program.
Supported
Cultural setting: The organization needs to provide mentorship,
training, support, and rewards to JLTEs that access the CSR program.
Supported

67

While this study is limited to only one organization and 16 participants, it is vital to
understand employees’ perspectives across the technology industry (and other industries). A
larger group of employees and CSRAs covering different organizations and geographic areas
would uncover any misalignment between the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
efforts in place that leadership is prioritizing as a part of its broader CSR strategy. As JLTE 8
stated, “I think that when you focus on [how to make the world a better place] and you are
courageous and you take steps to do that and you never lose sight of that... the business results
will follow.” To address the third research question and the responses and interventions
suggested to address the problem of practice, suggested solutions and recommendations are
provided in the next section.
Solutions and Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influences in Table 13 represent the complete list of supported knowledge
influences that are consistent with the interview analysis and findings and supported by the
literature. According to Krathwohl (2010), the four types of knowledge are factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the understanding of content needed
to solve a problem in a particular situation. Conceptual knowledge concerns the relationships
between pieces of information and making meaningful connections. Procedural knowledge is the
knowledge of how to do something. Finally, metacognitive knowledge is a measure of self-
awareness and overall cognition (Krathwohl, 2010). Table 13 shows the recommended solutions
for meeting needs related to each type of knowledge based on theoretical principles.
68

Table 13
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge influence Principle and citation Content-specific
recommendation
JLTEs need to know what
knowledge and skills are
required to access CSR
programs. They need to
know how CSR programs
can support their skill
development (Conceptual).
Kratwohl (2010) describes
how conceptual knowledge
focuses on the relationships
between pieces of
information and making
meaningful connections.
CSR programs can
significantly impact
employee outcomes like
skill and career growth
(Dögl & Holtbrügge, 2014).
Reinforcement and practice
enhance recall and learning
(Mayer, 2011; Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide JLTEs with training
on the CSR program in
general and on its impact
and provide guidance on
how to discuss the CSR
program with their
managers.
Provide JLTEs the criteria by
which they will be selected
and the skills required to
participate up front on the
program homepage.
Connect JLTEs with CSRAs
who share their experiences
with their teams and
business units to reinforce
the benefits of participation.
JLTEs need to know the steps
required to leverage the
available resources, support
programs, teams, and
individuals to assist them
(such as CSR programs)
(Procedural).
Kratwohl (2010) describes
procedural knowledge as
the knowledge of how to do
something. Employee
retention is driven by the
support employees receive
from their organization
(Konrad & Mangel, 2000).
Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform a task is known
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide JLTEs with targeted
emails, reminders, Slack
messages, and prepared
executive communications
with clear steps on how to
access and participate in the
CSR program.
Provide JLTEs with live
training webinars and
knowledge-sharing office
hours to learn more about
accessing the program and
hearing from CSRAs on the
support available.

69

Conceptual Recommendations
JLTEs need to know what knowledge and skills are required to gain access to
developmental programs like CSR. JLTEs need to understand how CSR program participation
can positively impact their skill development. Furthermore, junior-level technology employees
need to understand how to obtain or learn those skills. This type of knowledge is conceptual.
Participating in a CSR program is one method by which employees can obtain the skills they
need to succeed in their roles now and in the future. The recommendation, therefore, is for BTCI
to provide every one of its JLTEs with training on the CSR program and its impact, as well as
guidance on how to discuss the CSR program with their managers.
JLTEs and their managers should know that corporate engagement in CSR programs is
positively associated with corporate reputation and branding (Behrend et al., 2009), employer
attractiveness (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Gully et al., 2013; Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2014),
and the intent to apply for jobs and remain employed (Bauer & Aiman‐Smith, 1996; Greening &
Turban, 2000; Gully et al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2013). Dögl and Holtbrügge (2014) demonstrated
the significant and positive impact CSR has on employee outcomes like business performance
and career growth.
Second, BTCI must clearly articulate the criteria by which applicants will be selected and
the skills required to access the program up-front on the program homepage. It is likely that each
unique project within the CSR program at BTCI will require a different mix of skills and
experience (e.g. marketing, design, programming, business development, law, etc.). That,
however, does not preclude BTCI from making a core set of key skills and experiences required
to access the program transparent to employees. Reinforcement enhances learning (Mayer, 2011;
Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). By reinforcing the criteria, BTCI can make it easier for employees
70

to access the CSR program. The skills and experiences required to access the program should be
easy to locate on the CSR program homepage and included in the promotional material provided
to employees.
Additionally, the recommendation is that BTCI showcase the CSR program alumni and
share their experiences with their teams and business units to reinforce the benefits of
participation. By engaging employees through CSR programs, organizations like BTCI can
enhance the employee experience and positively impact retention (Dögl & Holtbrügge, 2014).
BTCI has an opportunity to improve participation in the CSR program by having employees
hear, first-hand, from program participants about the impact participation had on their lives.
Procedural Recommendations
JLTEs need to know the steps required to leverage the available resources, support
programs (such as CSR), teams, and individuals available to assist them. Kratwohl (2010)
describes procedural knowledge as the knowledge of how to do something. Procedural
knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to perform a task is known (Clark et
al., 2008). The researcher recommends that BTCI send targeted and customized emails,
reminders, Slack messages, and prepared executive communications to all employees they wish
to retain with clear steps on the process to access the CSR program.
Additionally, the researcher recommends that BTCI host live training webinars and
knowledge-sharing office hours for interested employees to learn more about how to access the
program and hear from CSR program alumni on the support available and learn more about their
unique experiences. Employee engagement and retention are driven by the support employees
receive from their organization (Konrad & Mangel, 2000). By hearing live from program alumni
71

and receiving training and support directly from the organization, BTCI can drive the desire for
more employees to access the CSR program.
Motivational Recommendations
The assumed motivational influences included attribution – where participants believe in
the mission of the organization and share in its values by being provided access to the CSR
program, where these values are demonstrated (Weiner, 1985) – and expectancy, where
participants have the opportunity to experience joy at work and pursue non-typical activities such
as participating in the CSR program (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1991).
Table 14 represents the motivational needs that were supported through qualitative
interviews with the JLTEs.

72

Table 14
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Motivational influence Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendations
JLTEs need to believe in the
organization’s mission and
share in its values to access
CSR programs where these
values are demonstrated
(Attribution).
Employees want to
understand their
environment and analyze
their organization to better
understand how they fit into
its mission (Meece et al.,
2006). Fairlie (2011)
proposed that employee
engagement results from
realizing one’s purpose and
values through work.
Motivation is enhanced if a
person values a task (Rueda,
2011; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Pintrich, 2002).

Provide JLTEs attributional
re-training regarding the
organization’s mission and
values and how CSR is
included.

Provide attributional
examples and executive
communications of BTCI
practicing its mission and
values through its CSR
program.
JLTEs need the opportunity
to experience joy at work
and pursue non-typical
activities, such as
participating in the CSR
program (Expectancy).
The perceived value
employees place on their
job is directly influenced by
their belief that they can
succeed in their careers
while also pursuing
personal joy (Fredricks &
Eccles, 2006). CSR
program access can improve
their happiness at work
Ensure JLTEs have access to
the right resources and
information regarding the
non-typical work activities
available at BTCI, such as
the CSR program.

Ensure JLTEs have support
from their managers in
accessing the CSR program.
73

Motivational influence Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendations
(SHRM, 2014). For many
employees, the motivation
to succeed is not garnered
from regular work activities
but from other sorts of
experiences such as
volunteering and
community service that
their employer may make
available (Weber &
Geneste, 2014).

Demonstrate early-on to
JLTEs the likelihood their
participation in the CSR
program will be recognized
and rewarded.

Clark and Estes (2008) underscored how a myriad of factors can influence motivation,
which in turn can influence employee access to CSR programs. The majority of the participants
interviewed expressed that it is important for them to work for an organization that shares their
values. Clark and Estes (2008) demonstrated how organizational performance needs often result
from motivational factors. Two particular drivers of motivation were discovered during the
course of this study: attribution, which is defined as one’s ideas about the causes behind success
or failure when attempting to achieve a goal (Weiner, 1985), and expectancy (Bandura, 1986;
Schunk, 1991), which refers to one’s beliefs or expectations that a behavior or action will result
in particular outcomes.
Attribution Recommendations
Junior-level technology employees need to believe in the organization's mission and
share in its values to access CSR programs where these values are practiced and
74

demonstrated. Employees want to understand their environment and analyze their
organization to better understand how they fit into its mission (Meece et al., 2006). JLTEs
need to understand how CSR program participation furthers the organization's mission and
is aligned with their values (Rosso et al., 2010). Fairlie (2011) proposes that employee
engagement results from realizing one's purpose and values through work. Based on this
evidence, the researcher recommends that BTCI ensure all employees have access to
attributional re-training around the organization's mission and values and how CSR is
included. This training should be thorough and accessible immediately upon joining the
organization and reinforced annually as required learning for all employees.
Furthermore, the researcher recommends that BTCI provide timely and consistent
examples (including executive-sponsored internal and external communications) of BTCI putting
its mission and values to practice in the real world through the CSR program, along with
guidance on how employees can get involved. Employees want to understand their environment
and analyze their organization to better understand how they fit into its mission (Meece et al.,
2006). And motivation is enhanced when employees value the task (Rueda, 2011; Clark & Estes,
2008; Pintrich, 2002). If employees can see how others like them are serving the organization’s
mission through participation in the CSR program, they may be more likely to access the CSR
program.
Expectancy Recommendations
JLTEs need to have the opportunity to experience joy at work and pursue non-typical
activities such as CSR program participation. Expectancy value theory contends that people will
be motivated if they believe in their ability to perform the work, are confident that their efforts
will produce the desired outcome and equate the successful completion of the task with
75

something they value (Northouse, 2016). The perceived value employees place on their job is
directly influenced by employees' beliefs that they can succeed in their careers while also
pursuing personal joy (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006). For these reasons, the researcher recommends
that BTCI ensure JLTEs have access to the right resources and information regarding the non-
typical work activities available at BTCI, such as the CSR program. Promoting the CSR program
along with other non-typical clubs and activities is a great way to incentivize employees to
access these programs. which in turn may drive retention.
Furthermore, CSR program participation can improve employees' happiness at work
(SHRM, 2014). For many employees, motivation to succeed is not garnered from regular work
activities but from other sorts of experiences such as volunteering and community service that
their employer may make available (Weber & Geneste, 2014). The researcher recommends that
BTCI ensure JLTEs have support from their managers in accessing the CSR program.
The perceived value employees place on their job is directly influenced by
employees' beliefs that they can succeed in their careers while also pursuing personal joy
(Fredricks & Eccles, 2006). By ensuring managers support their employees in accessing the
CSR program, BTCI has an opportunity to drive improved access to the CSR program and, in
turn, employee retention.
The final recommendation is that BTCI demonstrate early-on to JLTEs the likelihood
their participation in the CSR program will be recognized and rewarded. According to Rueda
(2011), the higher the perceived value of a task, the more likely a person is to participate and
persevere in a job. JLTEs should be confident they will be recognized and rewarded after
successfully participating in the CSR program.
76

Organizational Recommendations
Organizational influences explored in this study included cultural settings and cultural
models. A cultural model is a shared paradigm that serves as a mental model for how the world
works and includes beliefs, values, and perceptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). On the
other hand, a cultural setting is a visible and tangible manifestation of culture (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Table 6 presents the complete list of organizational influences supported by
the research, which is based on the most frequent responses provided during the interviews and
the literature. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organizational and stakeholder goals are often
not achieved due to a lack of resources and stakeholder goals that are not aligned with an
organization’s mission and goals. Organizational culture directly reflects everyday life within
organizations (Rueda, 2011). Cultural models illustrate the shared values and beliefs within
organizations (Erez & Gati, 2004; Schein, 2004).
Furthermore, investments into and decisions concerning cultural settings made by
leadership often reflect the values and motivations of the organization and its employees (Schein,
2004; Schneider et al., 1996). Therefore, investments in culture-building programs, such as CSR
programs, can be essential for enhancing organizational culture and the perceptions and beliefs
that employees have regarding the organization they work for (Schneider et al., 1996). As
indicated in Table 6, these organizational influences were supported as being required if
stakeholder goals are to be achieved. Table 15 also shows the recommendations addressing these
influences, which are based on theoretical principle.

77

Table 15
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organizational influence Principle and citation Context-specific recommendations
Cultural model: The
organization needs to
foster a culture of
continuous skill
development and
social responsibility in
order for employees to
access the CSR
program.
Cultural practices and shared
mental schema within an
organization are considered
cultural models (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001).
Konrad and Mangel (2000)
indicate that organizational
investments may support
employees’ motivation for
remaining employed.
Employees want their
organizations to invest in
their development (Konrad
& Mangel, 2000). Fairlie
(2011) proposed that
employee engagement
results from realizing one’s
purpose and values through
work.
C-Suite publishes a series of
videos (along with the annual
CSR report) explaining BTCI’s
CSR-related efforts and the
investments the organization
makes in this area. BTCI senior
leaders should actively
encourage all employees to
access the CSR program and
highlight the skills employees
can gain by participating.
Recognize and showcase CSRAs’
stories, both internally at BTCI
and externally, upon their
completion of the program.
Cultural setting: The
organization needs to
provide mentorship,
training, support, and
rewards to JLTEs.
Denison (1984) states that the
primary and fundamental
identity of an organization is
based on its organizational
culture: the set of values,
Ensure all JLTEs are provided with
a mentor, ideally a mentor who
has already participated in and
successfully completed the CSR
program.
78

Organizational influence Principle and citation Context-specific recommendations
beliefs, and behavior
patterns. Mentor, support,
and skill-development
programs sponsored by the
organization can help
develop teamwork,
collaboration, and
engagement (O’Brien-Pallas
et al., 2004). Pairing
employees with experienced
mentors may lead to the
personal, professional, and
intellectual growth and
development of the mentee
(Klein & Dickenson-
Hazard, 2000; Lee et al.,
2000). Charness and Gneezy
(2009) found that
incentives, such as
recognition and rewards,
can positively impact habit
formation and employee
outcomes, such as
performance.
Provide dedicated and ongoing
support to employees before,
during, and after their
participation in the CSR program
to ensure the best outcomes for
participants, BTCI, and BTCI’s
partners and stakeholders.
Provide an opportunity for all CSR
program participants to be
recognized in front of their peers
and their management chain
upon successful completion.
Reward CSR participants with
physical (e.g., plaque) and virtual
(e.g., badge) awards for
successfully participating.
Ensure this experience is
captured in the performance
management and recognition
systems as examples of
employees going “above and
beyond.

79
Cultural Model Recommendations
The organization needs to foster a culture of continuous skill development and social
responsibility. For junior-level employees in the technology industry, culture can be understood
by analyzing the investments that organizations make, particularly in their employee
development programs. A study on employees' perceptions of their organization's CSR practices
found that actively participating in CSR programs is related to higher employee engagement and
more favorable views of senior management (Gross, 2011). Konrad and Mangel (2000) share
that organizational investments may support employee motivation to remain employed and
organizations must depend on creative programs that support employee skill development and
career growth. Therefore, the researcher recommends that BTCI publish a series of videos
featuring senior business leaders (along with the annual CSR report) explaining BTCI's efforts
concerning CSR and the investments the organization makes in this space. The researcher
recommends that BTCI senior leaders actively encourage all employees to access the program
and emphasize the skills that employees can gain by participating in the CSR program. Prior to
the filming and publishing of these videos, BTCI’s CSR program leadership and corporate
communications teams should ensure BTCI’s senior business leaders have the knowledge and
information they need to effectively communicate these ideas to employees.
Additionally, the recommendation is that BTCI invest in showcasing CSR program
alumni’s stories upon their return both internally at BTCI and externally. Employees in the
technology industry need to see their organization's investment in corporate social responsibility,
both financial and non-financial, by expanding access to unique developmental and volunteer
opportunities (such as CSR) and showcasing the amazing work their employees to in this space
both to other employees internally but also externally to the market. Employees and job-seekers

80
exploring their next opportunities will analyze the organization to better understand how they can
fit into its mission (Meece et al., 2006). The organization can influence employee motivation by
ensuring employees see the value their work tasks can bring to the world through showcasing
stories and examples of this work in action (Rueda, 2011; Pintrich, 2002).
Cultural Setting Recommendations
The organization needs to provide mentorship, training, support, and rewards to junior-
level technology employees (SHRM, 2014). Providing employees with access to CSR programs
and pairing those participants with experienced CSR mentors may lead to the personal,
professional, and intellectual growth and development of the mentee (Klein & Dickenson-
Hazard, 2000; Lee et al., 2000). Effective mentoring and training programs drive engagement
and retention by focusing on problem solving and self-efficacy on the part of both the mentor
and the mentee (Reich 1986; Bell, 1997; Waters et al., 2002). Mentor and skill development
programs sponsored by the organization can develop teamwork, improve conflict resolution, and
drive collaboration (O'Brien-Pallas et al., 2004). For these reasons, the researcher recommends
BTCI invest in providing all JLTEs with a mentor. These mentors would be selected by CSR
program leadership and will have previously participated in the CSR program or been connected
to other corporate volunteer programs. These mentors should go through a dedicated training to
ensure they are prepared for this additional responsibility.
Second, BTCI is recommended to provide dedicated and ongoing support before, during,
and after CSR program participation to ensure the best outcomes for participants and key
stakeholders. This support would come directly from the CSR program staff and would be
available to participants during every stage of the project and would be known as subject matter
experts on the procedures and processes required to successfully participate in the program.

81
Providing dedicated support can promote critical thinking and enhanced decision-making which
are necessary to successfully participate in CSR programs (Rupp et al., 2006; Porter & Kramer,
2006).
Additionally, the organization needs to provide an opportunity for CSR program
participants to be recognized in front of their peers and management chain upon successful
completion along with adequate benefits and rewards to junior-level technology employees who
successfully participate in the CSR program. Charness and Gneezy (2009) found that incentives
and rewards can have a positive impact on performance. If employees are incentivized to access
and participate in CSR programs (e.g., paid volunteer engagements, promotion, or bonus
opportunity upon completion), this can lead to other positive business outcomes such as
improved retention and performance (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Charness & Gneezy, 2009). The
researcher recommends that BTCI provide an opportunity for all CSR program participants to be
recognized in front of their peers and their management chain for their contributions to BTCI and
the world. Moreover, it is recommended that BTCI reward CSR participants with both a physical
token of recognition (ex. a plaque/trophy/award) and a virtual token of recognition (ex. LinkedIn
skill badge) for having successfully participated. Finally, the researcher recommends that CSR
program participation is captured in the company's performance management and recognition
systems as examples of employees going above and beyond.
Implementation: A Reimagined CSR Program
A reimagined CSR program, one with enhanced access for all employees, must be
delivered efficiently and methodically. The first step in implementing a reimagined CSR program
is to start with the organization’s leadership. The CSR program should have the organization’s
most senior leaders involved in its transformation, improvement, and implementation (Clark &

82
Estes, 2008). Interview data revealed that JLTEs lack the needed knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences required to access BTCI’s CSR program. Furthermore, due to the
ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, the organization needs to reimagine how to deliver and
execute the CSR program in a world with limited international travel and in a remote and virtual
environment until the majority of the world’s people have been vaccinated and/or herd immunity
has been achieved and travel is unrestricted once again. Within the next three months, the CSR
program leadership will launch a pilot version of a reimagined, remote-friendly CSR program
accessible to a cohort of JLTEs and each quarter will measure the engagement and attrition of its
CSR program participants from the time they begin participating in the program to two years
post-participation. If the pilot program is successful, the organization will then recruit all JLTEs
to participate in the reimagined CSR program. Finally, the CSR program leadership will analyze
both qualitative and quantitative data regarding employee engagement and attrition data from
CSR program participants and make recommendations to the organization’s leadership regarding
program progress and success, future areas of investment, and ongoing program development.
Table 16 addresses both the KMO findings and the overall implementation plan for the
organization so that it may execute the recommended actions should the pilot program prove
successful. This implementation plan is a package of solutions that will be delivered on a given
timeline due to time and resource restrictions.

83
Table 16
Implementation Plan Table
Recommended action Need addressed (KMO) Timeframe
Provide JLTEs with training on the CSR program in
general and on its impact and provide guidance on
how to discuss the CSR program with their
managers.
Conceptual (K) October
2021
(ongoing)
Clearly articulate the criteria by which applicants will
be selected and the skills required to access the
program up front on the program homepage.
Conceptual (K) September
2022
(ongoing)
CSRAs share their experiences with JLTEs and their
teams and business units to reinforce the benefits of
participation.
Conceptual (K) September
2021
(ongoing)
Send targeted emails, reminders, Slack messages, and
prepared executive communications with clear steps
on how to access the CSR program.
Procedural (K) September
2022
(ongoing)
Host live training webinars and knowledge-sharing
office hours for employees interested in learning
more about accessing the program and hearing from
CSRAs on the support available.
Procedural (K) September
2021
(ongoing)
Ensure all employees have access to attributional re-
training regarding the organization’s mission and
values and how CSR is included.
Attribution (M) October
2021
(ongoing)
Provide attributional examples and executive
communications of BTCI practicing its mission and
values through its CSR program.
Attribution (M) June 2022
(ongoing)
Ensure JLTEs have access to the right resources and
information regarding the non-typical work
activities available at BTCI, such as the CSR
program.
Expectancy (M) September
2022
(ongoing)

84
Recommended action Need addressed (KMO) Timeframe
Ensure JLTEs have support from their managers in
accessing the CSR program (no fear of consequence
or retaliation for accessing the program).
Expectancy (M) September
2022
(ongoing)
Demonstrate to JLTEs the likelihood their
participation in the CSR program will be
recognized and rewarded by showcasing others
being recognized and rewarded and communicating
this to those who wish to access the CSR program.
Expectancy (M) September
2022
C-Suite publishes a series of videos (along with the
annual CSR report) explaining BTCI’s CSR-related
efforts and the investments the organization makes
in this area. BTCI senior leaders should actively
encourage all employees to participate in the CSR
program and highlight the skills employees can gain
by participating.
Cultural model (O) December
2021
(ongoing)
Recognize and showcase CSRAs’ stories, both
internally at BTCI and externally, upon their
completion of the program.
Cultural model (O) September
2021
(ongoing)
Ensure all JLTEs are provided with a mentor, ideally
a mentor who has already participated in and
successfully completed the CSR program.
Cultural setting (O) September
2022
Train/upskill all JLTEs on the benefits of
participating in the CSR program and the skills
needed to be successful.
Cultural setting (O) September
2022
(ongoing)
Provide support to employees before, during, and
after their participation in the CSR program to
ensure the best outcomes for participants, BTCI,
and BTCI’s partners and stakeholders.
Cultural setting (O) September
2022
(ongoing)

85
Recommended action Need addressed (KMO) Timeframe
Provide an opportunity for all CSR program
participants to be recognized in front of their peers
and their management chain upon successful
completion.
Cultural setting (O) September
2021
(ongoing)
Reward CSR participants with physical (e.g., plaque)
and virtual (e.g., badge) awards for successfully
participating and ensuring this experience is
captured in the performance management and
recognition systems as examples of employees
going “above and beyond.”
Cultural setting (O) September
2021
(ongoing)

Evaluation and Measures of Success
By December 2023, BTCI’s goal is to have completed the implementation of its strategic
plan to make the CSR program accessible to all of its junior-level technology employees. From a
qualitative perspective, a sample of JLTEs who have not already participated in the CSR program
and a sample of CSRAs will be asked to take part in quarterly interviews in a similar form to
those used in this study. The interview data will be analyzed to determine whether or not the
studied knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs have been met by the recommended
actions and whether participation rates in the program have improved. As in this study, employee
interviews will allow participants to provide honest and candid responses in a safe environment.
By using interview data corresponding to each knowledge, motivational, and organizational
need, BTCI will be able to pinpoint where the organization is succeeding or failing with respect
to improving access to its CSR program. Table 17 provides a summary of the supported needs,

86
the recommendations to fulfill those needs, and the corresponding interview questions that will
be used to evaluate the success of the implemented recommendations.

Table 17
Assessment Questions Corresponding to Supported Needs and Recommendations
Category Supported need Assessment question
Conceptual JLTEs need to know what knowledge and
skills are required to access CSR
programs. They need to know how CSR
programs can support their skill
development.
Do you feel supported in your pursuit of acquiring/maintaining these
skills? Do you have easy access to skill and career development
programs? If yes, is the CSR program one of those you would
consider? Why or why not? Do you know what skills and
experiences are required to participate in the CSR program? Has
your manager spoken to you about the benefits of CSR program
participation? Have you heard any CSRAs share their experiences?
Procedural JLTEs need to know the steps required to
leverage the available resources,
support programs, teams, and
individuals to assist them (such as CSR
programs).
Do you feel supported in your pursuit of acquiring/maintaining these
skills? Do you feel like your organization invests enough resources
into employee development? Do you have easy access to skill and
career development programs? Do you know how to access
development programs like CSR? Do you know how to leverage
these programs for your professional development? Have you
received targeted messages and emails regarding the CSR program?
Have you joined any live training or office hours?

87

Category Supported need Assessment question
Attribution JLTEs need to believe in the mission of
the organization and share in its
values by being provided access to
the CSR program, where these values
are demonstrated.
Do you know your organization’s mission? If so, what is it? Do you
feel like CSR is a significant part of your organization’s culture and
mission? Would better access to the CSR program improve employee
buy-in to the organization’s mission? Would/did your participation in
the CSR program make you feel more or less connected to the
organization’s mission? Why? What about its values? Business
strategy?
Expectancy JLTEs need the opportunity to
experience joy at work and pursue
non-typical activities, such as
participating in the CSR program.
What brings you joy at work? How is the organization contributing to
your development? Happiness? Would participation in a CSR
program contribute to your joy at work? Has your manager spoken to
you about the CSR program? Would they be supportive of you
participating?

88

Category Supported need Assessment question
Cultural model The organization needs to foster a
culture of employee development
and social responsibility
demonstrated through access to
its CSR program.
What is your view of the organization’s culture? Why? Do you feel like
your organization’s leaders are concerned with CSR? Have they
encouraged you to participate in the CSR program? Have you
considered participating in the CSR program? Do you feel like
employees are aware of the program? Do they have easy access to it?
Do you feel like CSR is a significant part of your organization’s culture
and mission? Why?
Cultural setting The organization needs to provide
access to mentorship, training,
support, and rewards to JLTEs.
How is the organization supporting your development career growth? Do
you feel you have easy access to mentorship, training, and support
programs? Do you feel like you have been trained on the benefits of
CSR program participation? Do you feel like you are rewarded in a
tangible way if you choose to participate? Do you feel like the
organization wants its employees to be aware of the CSR program and
actively participate? Do you feel like you were rewarded in a tangible
way for participating? Why or why not? Do you feel like you were (or
would be) recognized for participating in the CSR program?

89

90
From a quantitative perspective, employee access rates in the CSR program will be
measured quarterly along with the corporate standard employee engagement and attrition data to
determine if the program is having its intended impact. CSR program access rates, engagement
metrics, and retention data will be summarized for the organization as a whole and for individual
business units. By December 2023, BTCI’s goal is to have completed the implementation of its
strategic plan to make the CSR program accessible to all of its junior-level technology
employees. BTCI has an internal people analytics practice within its HR department that is
responsible for designing and delivering employee surveys, and this team would be primarily
responsible for measuring and analyzing employee engagement. The attrition data is available
directly from the HR management system, and analyzing employee attrition reports, including
those focused on specific skill categories, is a regular practice at BTCI. Moving forward, every
quarter BTCI will measure the CSR program’s Net Promoter Score (NPS), which is an index
ranging from -100 to 100 that measures the willingness of employees to recommend the CSR
program to others (Reichheld, 2003). It will be used as a proxy of employees’ overall satisfaction
with the organization’s employee offerings and loyalty to the organization. An NPS below zero
would indicate that BTCI’s CSR program has a number of issues. A score between 0 and 30 is
acceptable; however, such scores would still indicate room for the CSR program to improve. An
NPS over 70 means that BTCI’s employees adore the CSR program and that the program is
generating considerable excitement throughout the company. Moreover, while an NPS will
certainly be collected and analyzed for the CSR program experience overall, each of the
recommended actions corresponding to knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs can
be measured by an NPS as well. To avoid overloading employees, only a subset of
recommendations will have their NPSs measured and analyzed, including the rewards of

91
physical trophies and virtual badges, learning and enablement offerings about the CSR program,
manager training regarding the impact of the CSR program, targeted Slack and email messages,
and alumni storytelling and showcases.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are influences outside of the researcher’s control that may address
shortcomings or restrictions regarding the research methodology or findings (Creswell, 2014).
Examples of limitations include the various forms of researcher and participant biases. In this
study, the researcher was limited in several ways. Self-selection bias exists because the only
employees in the technology industry that the researcher could interview were currently
employed by BTCI. Additionally, a limited number of knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences were addressed due to time constraints and the small participant
population. The researcher could have unintentionally caused self-reporting bias, as participants
could have provided untruthful responses due to fear of corporate retaliation. Another limitation
was the lack of access to updated program documentation due to changing program dynamics
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting the extent of the data collected to interview data
only.
Delimitations are characteristics of a study that limit the scope that the researcher has
control over (Creswell, 2014). This study, which is purposeful and limited in scope, focused on a
small population of 11 JLTEs still currently employed by BTCI and five CSRAs. The results of
this study may not necessarily apply to other organizations or other CSR programs in the same
way they apply to BTCI. A complete and thorough analysis would include CSRAs still currently
employed by BTCI, CSRAs no longer currently employed by BTCI, non-participants,
executives, local and global enterprise and government leaders, non-profit partners, and more.

92
Although these inputs are of tremendous value, this study focused specifically on current JLTEs
at BTCI.
Moreover, this study was limited to JLTEs and CSRAs still currently employed at BTCI.
There are other stakeholders and many additional, unexplored factors that influence employee
access to CSR programs, which include but are not limited to compensation, benefits, career
growth opportunities, diversity, inclusion, belonging, the economy, and more. The researcher
believes that this particular study highlights some key factors that influence employee access to
CSR programs and is hopeful this research may lead to additional research in this area in the
future.
Recommendations for Future Research
The researcher engaged in regular reflection during the course of this study, and
additional research areas were identified along the way. First, like all other parts of life, the
COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered how we work and how CSR programs are run.
Employee retention programs were likely impacted by the pandemic as well. Therefore, it is
recommended that future studies explore how CSR programs must adapt to a post-COVID
world. How can employees participate remotely? How can CSR programs continue to serve
people and communities in need when travel is limited and a pandemic continues to rage in
poorer, less developed, less vaccinated parts of the world?
Furthermore, more than 2.3 million women have left the workforce in the U.S. since
February 2020, bringing their labor participation rate to levels not seen since 1988 (National
Women’s Law Center, 2021). In December 2020 alone, women accounted for 100% of the
jobs lost. It is recommended that this study be extended to other organizations and employee
segments, particularly as concerns women. Given the lopsided impact of the pandemic on

93
women in the workplace, a specific focus on how CSR programs could help retain women
during and after the pandemic is vital for understanding the influences driving women in
particular away from the workplace. In fact, 25% of women are considering leaving the
workforce or downshifting their careers, according to a Lean In and McKinsey and Company
study (2020).
Furthermore, there is an opportunity to explore the intersection of diversity and CSR
as they relate to employee retention. Future research should attempt to learn if different
influences are driving retention for employees from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
Moreover, future research should hope to discover if socioeconomic status or upbringing
impact employees’ views of CSR or if different genders or sexual orientations respond
differently to participation. Researchers should also aim to determine whether age plays a
role in the importance employees place on CSR.
This research did not include interviews with the executive team, key program
stakeholders and partners, or employees other than the JLTEs and CSRAs who agreed to
participate. Future research may wish to explore whether these results are replicable across
different employee populations, organizations, industries, geographies, and cultures. Future
research could also explore how different business leaders’ views on CSR impact their
employees’ retention.
Moreover, researchers should explore the impact CSR programs are having on
developing nations. This research focused on the employees participating in CSR programs
rather than the people the CSR programs serve in developing countries. Furthermore, this
research is solely qualitative, consisting of a convenience sampling of 11 JLTEs and five
CSRAs. Future researchers may wish to recruit a larger sample with representatives from

94
every job role and market in the company and use quantitative analysis. Such an expansion of
the study population may lead to variations in findings based on factors not explored in this
study.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that impact JLTEs’ access to CSR programs at BTCI. The study
focused on a core group of organizational, field, and stakeholder goals supported by a
literature review highlighting the importance of the problem of practice. Clark and Estes’s
(2008) framework was used to identify the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences affecting JLTEs’ access to CSR programs. With the identified knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences, data was collected via interviews with 16
participants (11 junior-level employees with critical technology skills and five CSR program
alumni). These interviews supported the majority of previously explored influences.
With the technology industry reporting the highest attrition rates in the global job
market, research into new methods that may drive employee retention is of the utmost
importance. Organizations in the technology industry are investing significant time and
resources into developing new and improved methods for engaging and retaining their most
critical employees. From this research, it became evident that focusing on this particular
problem of practice, which affects JLTEs specifically, was incredibly informative. There is a
clear and present need for organizations to reinforce their CSR as a means for driving
employee retention and business results. By improving employee access to CSR programs,
organizations may future-proof their workforce for years to come. The researcher’s sincere
hope is that more organizations consider making CSR programs accessible to everyone and

95
focus on how to best transform existing CSR programs to ensure they remain core corporate
programs in a post-pandemic world.

96
References
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an
employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-
253. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006289817941
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R.,
Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). Longman.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire
for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.81.2.199
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the
research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), 383-
398. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240903188398
Balakrishnan, C., Masthan, D., & Chandra, V . (2013). Employee retention through employee
engagement – A study at an Indian international airport. International Journal of Business
and Management Invention. 2(8), 9-16.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. (2001). Labor pains: Change in organizational
models and employee turnover in young, high-tech firms. The American Journal of
Sociology, 10(4), 960–1012. https://doi.org/10.1086/320296

97
Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influence of ecological
stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(4), 445-458.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02251780
BCG (2009). The business of sustainability: Imperatives, advantages, and actions. https://image-
src.bcg.com/Images/BCG_The_Business_of_Sustainability_Sep_09_tcm9-170158.pdf
Behrend, T. S., Baker, B. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). Effects of pro-environmental recruiting
messages: The role of organization reputation. Journal of Business and Psychology,
24(3), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9112-6
Bell, C. R. (1997). The bluebird’s secret: Mentoring with bravery and balance. Training &
Development, 51(2), 30-33.
https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA19224996&sid=googleScholar&v=2.
1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=10559760&p=AONE&sw=w
Blair, R. (1995). A cognitive development approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath.
Cognition, 51(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-p
Bode, C., Singh, J., & Rogan, M. (2015). Corporate social initiatives and employee retention.
Organization Science, 26(6), 1702-1720. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1006
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Bozorgian, H. (2012). The relationship between listening and other language skills in
international English language testing system. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2(4), 657-663. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.657-663

98
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based
perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
006-9071-z
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
BTCI Annual Report. (2018). Website not provided to protect organizational identity.
BTCI CSR Program Website. (2020). Website not provided to protect organizational identity.
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., and Jiang, K. (2013). Win-win-win: the influence of company-
sponsored volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs, and business units. Pers.
Psychol. 66, 825–860. doi: 10.1111/peps.12019
Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. (2006). Prior occupational experience,
anticipatory socialization, and employee retention. Journal of Management, 32(3), 343-
359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280749
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy
of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
Cavanaugh, M. A., & Noe, R. A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational
components of the new psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20(3), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3<323::AID-
JOB901>3.0.CO;2-M
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Incentives to exercise. Journal of the Econometric Society,
77(3), 909-931. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7416

99
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-
organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279063
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Dhanesh, G. S. (2014). CSR as Organization–Employee Relationship Management Strategy: A
Case Study of Socially Responsible Information Technology Companies in India.
Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 130–149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913517238
Del Baldo, M., & Baldarelli, M. G. (2017). Renewing and improving the business model toward
sustainability in theory and practice. International Journal of Corporate Social
Responsibility, 2(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0014-z
Dögl, C., & Holtbrügge, D. (2014). Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation
and employee commitment: An empirical study in developed and emerging economies.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(12), 1739-1762.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.859164
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher: A Journal of Research‐Based Classroom Practice, 65(1),
9-22. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.65.1.2

100
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53(4), 583-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00190.x
European Commission (2021). Corporate social responsibility and responsible business conduct.
Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship, and SMEs.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sustainability/corporate-social-responsibility_en
Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes:
Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13(4), 508-525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431679
Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of
Intelligence (pp. 231-235). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fletcher, L., Alfes, K., & Robinson, D. (2018). The relationship between perceived training and
development and employee retention: The mediating role of work attitudes. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(18), 2701-2728.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1262888
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. (2008). Opportunity platforms and safety nets:
Corporate citizenship and reputation risk. Business and Society Review, 105(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/0045-3609.00066
Frankenfield, J. (2021). Technology sector. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/technology_sector.asp
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial
outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 698-
713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.698

101
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gallup. (2017). State of the American Workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx
Gartner. (2020). Businesses revisit IT spending as economic and political uncertainty lessens.
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-01-15-gartner-says-global-it-
spending-to-reach-3point9-trillion-in-2020
Gartner. (2021). Gartner HR research finds 68% of employees would consider leaving their
employer for an organization that takes a stronger stance on societal and cultural issues.
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-03-04-gartner-hr-research-
finds-sixty-eight-percent-of-employees-would-consider-leaving-their-employer-for-an-
organization-that-takes-a-stronger-stance-on-societal-and-cultural-issues
Glavas, A., and Piderit, S. K. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate
citizenship on employees. J. Corporate Citizensh. 36, 51–70. doi:
10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2009.wi.00007
Glavas, A. (2009). Effects of corporate citizenship on employees: Why does doing good matter?
[Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses
and Dissertations.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=case1247063961&di
sposition=inline

102
Grabinska, B., Kedzior, D., Kedzior, M., & Grabinski, K. (2021). The impact of csr on the
capital structure of high-tech companies in Poland. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland),
13(10), 5467–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105467
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive
advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254-280.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030003900302
Grissom, J. A. (2012). Revisiting the impact of participative decision making on public employee
retention: The moderating influence of effective managers. The American Review of
Public Administration, 42(4), 400-418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011404209
Gross, J. J., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Emotion Generation and emotion regulation: One or two
depends on your point of view. International Society for Research on Emotion, 3(1), 8-
16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380974
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y . S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y . S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage.
Gully, S., Phillips, J., Castellano, W.G., Han, K., & Kim, A. (2013). A mediated moderation
model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel
Psychology, 66(4), 935-973. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12033
Haar, J. M., & White, B. J. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship and information technology
towards employee retention: A study of New Zealand firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 23(1), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00178.x
Handzic, M., & Chaimungkalanont, M. (2003). Enhancing organizational creativity through
socialisation. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 57-64.
https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejkm/article/view/710/673

103
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.87.2.268
Hausknecht, J. P., Rodda, J., & Howard, M. J. (2009). Targeted employee retention:
Performance-based and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying. Human
Resource Management, 48(2), 269-288. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20279
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33-44.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online
courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
Jena, L. K., & Pradhan, S. (2018). The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior: A
study of workplace spirituality and employee retention in Indian industries. Performance
Improvement, 57(9), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21805
Johar, G. V ., Birk, M. M., & Einwiller, S. A. (2010). How to save your brand in the face of crisis.
MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-save-your-
brand-in-the-face-of-crisis/
Jones, C. B., & Gates, M. (2007). The costs and benefits of nurse turnover: A business case for
nurse retention. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 12(3), Manuscript 4.
http://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.V ol12No03Man04

104
Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. (2014). Why are job seekers attracted by corporate
social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. The
Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 383-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0848
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Jui-Tang Kao, & Wan-Jing April Chang. (2017). The Factors that Influence the Turnover
Intentions in High-tech Industries-A Role Perspective. Journal of Business
Administration, 115, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3966/102596272017120115001
Kennedy, E., & Daim, T. U. (2010). A strategy to assist management in workforce engagement
and employee retention in the high-technology engineering environment. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 33(4), 468-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.001
Klein, E., & Dickenson-Hazard, N. (2000). The spirit of mentoring. Reflections on nursing
leadership, 26(3), 18-22.
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1225-1237. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0266(200012)21:12<1225::AID-SMJ135>3.0.CO;2-3
Kossivi, B., Xu, M., & Kalgora, B. (2016). Study on determining factors of employee retention.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(5), 261-268. http://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.45029
Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative
Report, 10(4), 758-770. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1831

105
Kumar, V ., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of
Marketing Research, 53(4), 497-514. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0044
Kundu, S. C., & Lata, K. (2017). Effects of supportive work environment on employee retention:
Mediating role of organizational engagement. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 25(4), 703-722. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2016-1100
Lee, J. J., Bell, L. F., & Shaulskiy, S. L. (2017). Exploring mentor’ perceptions of mentees and
the mentoring relationship in a multicultural service-learning context. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 18(3), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417715203
Lee, L., & Chen, L. F. (2018). Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational
analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 948-
960. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1511
Lin, C.P. (2020). Exploring career commitment and turnover intention of high-tech personnel: a
socio-cognitive perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
31(6), 760–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380061
Liedtka, J. M. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and organizational value
systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(1), 805-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383780
LinkedIn. (2018). LinkedIn reveals the latest turnover trends.
https://news.linkedin.com/2018/3/linkedin-data-analysis-reveals-the-latest-talent-
turnover-trends
Lockwood, N. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR's
strategic role. HR Magazine, 52(3), 1-11.

106
Ma, Q. K., Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2018). Keep them on-board! How organizations can
develop employee embeddedness to increase employee retention. Development and
Learning in Organizations, 32(4), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-11-2017-0094
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89
Marsden, T. (2016). What is the true cost of attrition? Strategic HR Review, 15(4), 189–190.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-05-2016-0039
Marta, E., Manzi, C., Pozzi, M., & Vignoles, V . L. (2014). Identity and the theory of planned
behavior: Predicting maintenance of volunteering after three years. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 154(3), 198–207.
https://doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/00224545.2014.881769
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
McEwan-Adkins, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's
not, and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The Effect of Relevance Instructions on
Reading Time and Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 88–
102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.88
McKinsey (2020). Women in the Workplace 2020. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace

107
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic
implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2006.00580.x
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 487-503.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research. Jossey-Bass.
Mignonac, K., & Richebé, N. (2013). ‘No strings attached?’: How attribution of disinterested
support affect employee retention. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 72-90.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00195.x
Morgan, J. (2017, March 10). Why the millions we spend on employee engagement buy us so
little. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/03/why-the-millions-we-spend-on-
employee-engagement-buy-us-so-little
Mullan, B., Liddelow, C., Charlesworth, J., Slabbert, A., Allom, V., Harris, C., Same, A., &
Kothe, E. (2021). Investigating mechanisms for recruiting and retaining volunteers: The
role of habit strength and planning in volunteering engagement. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 161(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1845113
NWLC (2021). A year of strength and loss: The pandemic, the economy, and the value of
women’s work. https://nwlc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/Final_NWLC_Press_CovidStats.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice. Seventh edition. Los Angeles: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

108
O'Brien-Pallas, L., Thomson, D., Hall, L. M., Ping, G., Kerr, M., Wang, S., Li, X., & Meyer, R.
(2004). Evidence-based standards for measuring nurse staffing and performance.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George_Pink/publication/228738285_Evidence-
Based_Standards_for_Measuring_Nurse_Staffing_and_Performance/links/0912f50db2cd
9eb590000000/Evidence-Based-Standards-for-Measuring-Nurse-Staffing-and-
Performance.pdf
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community: The context and process of
volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846-867.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764202045005007
Orlitzky, M. (2005). Payoffs to social and environmental performance. The Journal of Investing,
14(3). https://joi.pm-research.com/content/14/3/48
Orlitzky, M., & Shen, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, industry, and strategy. Industrial
Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 346-350. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/iops.12064
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and finance
performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 403-441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
Osterhaus, E. (2015). Leveraging software to improve succession planning. Software Advice.
https://www.softwareadvice.com/hr/industryview/succession-planning-report-2015/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.

109
Peloza, J. P., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good
deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 357-379.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5496-z
Peterson, C. H. (2005). Employee retention: The secrets behind Wal-Mart’s successful hiring
policies. Human Resource Management, 44(1), 85-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20044
Peterson, D. K. (2004). Recruitment Strategies for Encouraging Participation in Corporate
Volunteer Programs. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 371–386.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020872.10513.f2
Pintrich, P. R. (2010). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-
and-corporate-social-responsibility
Presbitero, A., Rojas, B., & Chadee, D. (2016). Looking beyond HRM practices enhancing
employee retention in BPOs: focus on-employee organization value fit. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(6), 1 – 18.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09585192.2015.1035306?journalCode=rijh
20
Reich, M. H. (1986). The mentor connection. Personnel, 63(2), 50-56.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ330844
Reichheld, F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46-
54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14712543/

110
Rosen, H. S., & Sims, S. T. (2011). Altruistic behavior and habit formation. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 21(3), 235–253. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/nml.20023
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical
integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91-127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
Rueda. R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V ., & Williams, C. (2006). Employee reactions to
corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of
Organization Behavior, 27(4), 537-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. L. (2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with
sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2),
241-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schiebel, W., & Pöchtrager, S. (2003). Corporate ethics as a factor for success—the measurement
instrument of the University of Agricultural Sciences (BOKU), Vienna. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 8(2), 116-121.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540310468715

111
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-
4), 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
Shavit, Y., & Carstensen, L. . (2017). Recruiting volunteers by focusing on emotional meaning:
The role of framing and experience. Innovation in Aging, 1(1), 1201–1201.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.4370
SHRM. (2014). Workplace flexibility survey. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-
forecasting/research-and-surveys/pages/2014-workplace-flexibility-survey.aspx
SHRM. (n.d.). Managing for employee retention. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-
and-samples/toolkits/pages/managingforemployeeretention.aspx
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560
Shuck, B., Adelson, J., & Reio, T. (2017). The employee engagement scale: Initial evidence for
construct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource
Management, 56(6), 953-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21811
Siddiqui, D.A. (2020. The impact of employee engagement on employee retention: The role of
psychological capital, control at work, general well-being and job satisfaction. Human
Resource Research, 67(4).
Stirpe, L., & Zarraga-Oberty, C. (2016). Are high-performance work systems always a valuable
retention tool? The roles of workforce feminization and flexible work arrangements.

112
European Management Journal, 35(1), 128-136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.04.002
Tang, Y., Shao, Y.-F., Chen, Y.-J., & Ma, Y. (2021). How to Keep Sustainable Development
Between Enterprises and Employees? Evaluating the Impact of Person–Organization Fit
and Person–Job Fit on Innovative Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 653534–
653534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.653534
Taneja, S., Sewell, S. S., & Odom, R. Y . (2015). A culture of employee engagement: A strategic
perspective for global managers. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(3), 46-56.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-06-2014-0062
Tanwar, K., & Prasad, A. (2016). Exploring the relationship between employer branding and
employee retention. Global Business Review, 17(3), 186-206.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916631214
Valentine, S., & Fleischman. (2008). Ethics programs perceived corporate social responsibility
and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 77, 159–172. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z
Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement & commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring
and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/hr-
today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Employee-
Engagement-Commitment.pdf
Vandergrift, L. (2004). 1. listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000017
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learning how to listen does make a
difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470-497.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x

113
Visser, W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In A. Crane, A
McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 473-499). Oxford University Press.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1998). The corporate social performance-financial
performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G
Waters, L., McCabe, M., Kiellerup, D., & Kiellerup, S. (2002). The role of formal mentoring on
business success and self-esteem in participants of a new business start-up program.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 107-121.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016252301072
Weber, P. C., & Geneste, L. (2014). Exploring gender-related perceptions of SME success.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 15-27.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-04-2013-0038
Wu, W., Liu, Y., Chin, T., & Zhu, W. (2018). Will green CSR enhance innovation? A
perspective of public visibility and firm transparency. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(2), 268–.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020268
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and methods of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Wolf, M., & Terrell, D. (2016). The high-technology industry, what is it and why it matters to our
economic future. Beyond the numbers: Employment and Unemployment, 5(8), 1-7.

114
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-5/ the-high-tech-industry-what-is-it-and-why-it-
matters-to-our-economic-future.htm
Work Institute. (2019). 2019 Retention Report.
https://info.workinstitute.com/hubfs/2019%20Retention%20Report/Work%20Institute%2
02019%20Retention%20Report%20final-1.pdf
Workforce Planning for Wisconsin State Government. (2005). Employee Retention.
http://www.workforceplanning.wi.gov/category.asp?linkcatid=18
Younge, K. A., & Marx, M. (2016). The value of employee retention: Evidence from a natural
experiment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 25(3), 652-677.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12154
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.3290

115
Appendix A: Definitions
Employee Retention is a process in which employees are encouraged to remain with the
organization for the maximum period of time or until the completion of its objectives (Singh &
Dixit, 2011).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the economic, legal, discretionary, and ethical
expectations that society has of an organization (Carroll, 1979).
Employee Engagement is the harnessing of employees’ selves to their work roles (Kahn,
1990).

116
Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis
The data collection and analysis process is explained in detail in the paragraphs that
follow. The sampling approach and criteria, the methods and instrumentation, interview protocol
and procedures and more are covered in depth..
Sampling Approach and Rationale
In qualitative studies, the sampling approach should maximize discovery and insight
while ensuring the ability to obtain information about the key research areas (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study used criterion-based selection and convenience sampling targeting junior-level
technology employees (JLTEs) and CSR program alumni (CSRAs). These employees had skills
critical to the success of BTCI (ex. AI, security, etc.) and the proper years of experience to be
considered junior-level (less than five) and could provide the best insights into the challenges
and processes associated with accessing and participating in the CSR program and its impact on
employee retention. An internal skills database enabled the purposeful selection of participants
for outreach to only those employees who met the criteria. Three main criteria were used for
interview sampling:
1. Employees currently employed by and working full-time at BTCI with less than five
years of working experience in the technology industry.
2. Employees who, based on previous analysis and a managerial evaluation, have been
deemed to possess a key skill or multiple skills in a critical technology category (e.g.,
artificial intelligence (AI), cloud, analytics, open source, quantum, and security).
3. Former CSRAs currently employed by and working full-time at BTCI.

117
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Inquiry analysis is particularly useful when researching problems of practice in
professional and business contexts (Clark & Estes, 2008). Qualitative research uses words,
communication, and observation to discover insights that may not have been revealed through
quantitative research alone (Creswell, 2014; Duke & Martin, 2011; McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
Investigating factors that may lead to improved employee access to CSR programs that may lead
to improved employee retention was a suitable topic for qualitative analysis (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Purposeful interviews of JLTEs and CSRAs allowed for a thorough exploration of the
problem of practice (Creswell, 2014; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). The collection of interview
data from JLTEs and CSRAs provided a clear picture of the current culture and climate for
JLTEs at BTCI. The interviews also assisted in exploring the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational factors influencing employee access to CSR programs at BTCI (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Interviews and analysis occurred in two phases. Phase 1 involved conducting interviews
with the study cohort of JLTEs to investigate the potential influences identified in the conceptual
framework. The interviews provided JLTEs the opportunity to share their feelings, thoughts, and
motivations with a particular focus on access to the CSR program (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The second phase involved conducting interviews with the study cohort of CSRAs to discover if
their participation in the CSR program impacted their retention and garner their feedback on
methods to improve employee access to the CSR program. The interviews provided CSRAs with
the opportunity to share their feedback, thoughts, and motivations regarding access to the CSR
program and their participation in the program. Figure B1 depicts the data collection process.

118
Figure B1
Data Collection Design Adapted from Creswell (2014)

Interviews
Protocol
The interviews were conducted virtually over video conferencing software (Zoom). The
interviews were recorded and stored in a private, password-protected folder. The interviews were
semi-structured and used a list of preselected interview questions. The semi-structured interview
protocol provided the researcher with the flexibility to probe participants’ answers and to clarify
incomplete or ambiguous responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994). This approach was
expected to lead to the most thorough and insightful participant responses (Patton, 2002). The
interviews were a combination of standard questions, open-ended questions, and unstructured
conversation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher found many valuable insights came out
of the unstructured conversation. The researcher purposefully recruited participants who could
fully support the focus of the research and are either currently JLTEs at BTCI and possess a
critical skill or have previously participated in BTCI’s CSR program. Participants were recruited
via email and followed-up with via Slack. The open-ended questions used in a semi-structured
environment allowed the researcher to obtain richer responses and support relationship-building
throughout the interaction. The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 current
JLTEs and five CSRAs to evaluate the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences of
Phase 1 Phase 2

119
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework. The interviews contained open-ended questions along with
identified potential follow-up prompts containing probing and clarifying questions. Each
interview began with more general opening questions before transitioning to deeper, more
substantive inquiries.
Participating Stakeholders
The main stakeholders in this study were JLTEs with skills in critical areas (e.g., AI,
analytics, cloud, open source, quantum, security). These are the individuals the organization
needs to execute its business strategy and can be influenced by the various knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors. The CSRAs comprised a secondary participating group.
These individuals have already participated in BTCI’s CSR program and could provide a unique
viewpoint on CSR and the impact that participating in the CSR program had on their own
retention and could also provide valuable feedback on methods for improving employee access
to the CSR program. Interviews with CSRAs, who also tended to be more experienced by a
number of working years, required fewer probing and follow-up questions and proved to be more
insightful when providing recommendations for improving CSR program access. Interviews with
JLTEs, on the other hand, required more preparation on the part of the researcher to ensure the
interviews remained conversational and delivered insights relevant to the influences being
investigated.
Interview Procedures
Prior to conducting the interviews, the researcher obtained informed consent from
participants to confirm their voluntary participation and to assure participants that their data
would remain confidential and secure (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher was careful to
reiterate with participants that his role as the researcher was entirely separate from his role at

120
BTCI. A description of the study was provided to participants, and the researcher discussed all
interview procedures and answered all participant questions. A verbal affirmation of informed
consent was obtained after the researcher read from a prepared script and answered participant
questions. The researcher conducted virtual interviews via conferencing software at times
convenient to the participants to minimize inconvenience (Patton, 2015). The researcher hosted
35- to 60-minute virtual interviews over video conferencing software with currently employed
JLTEs and CSRAs. With informed consent and the permission of participants, the researcher
recorded the interviews using the video conferencing software recording feature and used the
real-time transcription application to automatically transcribe the interview recordings. The
researcher then stored the transcripts in private, encrypted, password-protected virtual folder on
Google Docs. Participants were informed that the recordings would be transcribed, their video
recordings would never be viewed and would be immediately deleted upon successful
transcription, and their personal data and information would be kept entirely confidential. The
interviews were designed to take place 100% remotely and virtually. Given the number of
questions and the number of interviews required, the total amount of interview time with
participants required was around 25 hours. To protect the identities of the interviewees,
participant names were not recorded. Instead, temporary labels were assigned to aid data analysis
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Recruitment was assisted by the use of BTCI’s internal employee
directory that provided contact information and reflected the job role of the potential study
participants. To minimize confusion on the part of participants regarding the researcher’s role,
initial outreach came directly from the researcher’s USC email address. The researcher made
virtual (email for initial outreach, Slack and email messages for follow-up) requests to conduct
interviews with each of the participants.

121
The interview questions and protocol were designed to support the research questions and
the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences of employees. The interviews were
semi-structured and provided the researcher with the opportunity to ask probing and follow-up
questions and to engage in natural conversation. Many of the recommendations for methods to
improve CSR program access came from the CSRAs who had already accessed and participated
in the program. The interview questions were shepherded by Patton’s (2015) six categories to
elicit detailed descriptions of participants’ experiences and behaviors, opinions and values, and
knowledge related to the researcher’s conceptual framework and research questions. Knowledge
influences highlighted what JLTEs knew about the skills required to be successful in their job
roles and in how they may gain access to and participate in programs such as the CSR program
to develop their skills. The motivational influences explored concerned JLTEs’ beliefs regarding
their organization’s culture and mission and whether these aligned with their personal goals and
ideas and whether participation in developmental programs such as the CSR program would
make them more skilled employees. The organizational influences centered around the
organization’s focus on building a culture where CSR is a core practice and the researcher
investigated their willingness to invest in every employee having access to developmental
program participation such as CSR. The methods used in the study are explored further.
Data Analysis
Written transcripts of the raw, recorded interviews served as the primary analyzed material
along with the researcher’s notes. The recorded interviews themselves were deleted once the
transcriptions were made available and a unique identifier was assigned. Data analysis involved
“working with the data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, coding it, synthesizing
it, and searching for patterns” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 159). The transcripts and interview

122
notes were reviewed and analyzed in order to make useful comparisons and draw conclusions
and key insights (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The process of directly coding the written transcripts
and deleting video recordings and hand-written notes enhanced confidentiality, as the researcher
was left with nothing but raw data and participant codenames following the interviews. Even if
the data were to be hacked or stolen, the information could never be traced back to the study
participants. Data analysis and coding was performed in Microsoft Excel. The researcher copied
individual question responses from the unique written transcripts, in response to questions that
were aligned to a given assumed knowledge, motivational, or organizational influence, into
individual cells within an Excel spreadsheet that were labeled with unique participant identifiers
(e.g. JLTE 7). These responses were then compared across participants to find themes and draw
conclusions. Responses with a similar opinion or sentiment were shaded with a particular color
(e.g. blue). This method of data analysis, in which an influence was assumed to be supported if
five or more JLTEs shared a given opinion or sentiment about a certain topic, was simple yet
effective. By using Microsoft Excel, the researcher could easily copy and paste information,
compare cells within the spreadsheet, hide labels when necessary, delete erroneous language
found in the transcriptions, all with relative ease.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As an employee and leader within the studied organization and as a previous participant
in BTCI’s CSR program, the researcher was able to relate to the issues and experiences that
CSRAs mentioned. These factors may have increased the risk of the researcher bringing personal
bias into the data collection and analysis process, which could impact the credibility of the
results (Maxwell, 2013). Consequently, it was crucial for the researcher to maintain their role as

123
a researcher and avoid assuming their role as an employee of the studied organization, as a
former program participant, and as a business leader.
The researcher engaged in regular self-reflection to mitigate the impact of underlying
biases. This took the form of many conversations with the researcher’s doctoral committee chair
and classmates. In addition, self-reflection included journaling, meditation, and exercise
(typically hiking). Moreover, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that a peer review process helps
ensure a study’s credibility and objectivity. To this end, the researcher leveraged his network of
colleagues and doctoral committee when formulating the study’s recommendations. Each
classmate and committee member who reviewed the research questions had a unique point of
view and feedback whether on the stakeholders of focus, the way in which the questions were
written, whether the question was relevant to the research, and more. The researcher kept the
data collection and analysis activities separate, that is to say the researcher focused on
interviewing rather than analyzing during the interviews, in order to ensure the quality of the
interviews and research outcomes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Purposeful interviews of JLTEs and
CSRAs allowed for a thorough exploration of the problem of practice (Creswell, 2014; McEwan
& McEwan, 2003). The researcher mainly relied upon the transcriptions when performing data
analysis. Before analysis could begin, each transcript was read through twice, thoroughly, in
order to catch and fix transcription mistakes and to become more familiar with the material. Any
physical, written notes or virtual notes that were taken were shredded or deleted immediately
after review. The researcher reviewed all data collected to minimize errors when interpreting
responses from previous note-taking and interviewing activities (Merriam & Tisdell 2016).

124
Appendix C: Ethics
This research served the interests of the researcher as an individual, the researcher’s
employer (BTCI), large organizations (particularly those in the technology industry), the
University of Southern California, and non-profit organizations that partner with large companies
who wish to engage in CSR. The researcher has a particular interest in CSR due to personal
experiences that the researcher found to be motivating, engaging, impactful, and inspiring. The
researcher is a previous participant in BTCI’s CSR program and keeping the researcher’s own
opinions aside during this research process was particularly challenging. The researcher is also a
leader within BTCI’s HR department and could have unintentionally influenced participant
responses due to social-organizational dynamics. Confirmation bias could have led the researcher
to unintentionally conduct the study by encouraging a certain result. Additionally, question-order
bias could have been present based on the way one question can influence the responses to
another question. The researcher could have unintentionally engaged in leading question or
wording bias, putting words in a respondent’s mouth, or leading them to a desired response.
Moreover, the researcher could have unintentionally created an environment where social
desirability bias was present in that, given the researcher’s position at BTCI, even though the
separation of this study and the researcher’s role at BTCI was clearly articulated, participants
could have wanted to be accepted and liked by the researcher and responded accordingly.
The researcher’s epistemology is rooted in the idea that knowledge is constructed and
relative. The researcher’s ontology is that humans, by nature, are social beings that desire to meet
their basic physiological needs and to live in peace. Contemporary employees in the technology
industry want more than just a paycheck. They desire opportunities and experiences that provide
purpose. The researcher believes that humans have free will, but that free will may be influenced

125
or limited by things like genetics, the environment, socio-economic status, race and ethnicity,
education, and more. This study, aligned with the researcher’s ontology, is a mix of economics,
social-organizational psychology and philanthropy.
The researcher’s axiology, the values that guide the research, are rooted in the ideas of
progress and change. Through this work, the researcher hopes to add to the body of knowledge in
this subject area and inspire others to engage in aligned research. Through this research, the
researcher may influence organizations to adopt and invest in CSR programs, potentially
improving their employee retention rates and business outcomes while solving some of the
world’s most pressing problems simultaneously. There is always the underlying notion of self-
promotion in all of this work; however, the overlying value is one of societal development,
solving problems that would improve the lives of many.

126
Appendix D: Interview Questions for Junior-Level Technology Employees
The following interview questions are rooted in the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational (KMO) influences framework of Clark and Estes (2008). The researcher asked
participants a series of prepared questions, which were followed by probing and clarifying
questions to ensure each participant could provide their full perspective and reflections. The
order of the questions was designed to facilitate the conversation. The interview process was
slightly modified and enhanced over time as the researcher engaged in the interview process and
improved the overall interview experience and the fluidity of the question-and-answer process.
The researcher used the following interview questions:
● What is your job role?
● What skills are required to do this job well?
● Do you feel supported in your pursuit of acquiring/maintaining these skills?
● Do you have access to skill and career development programs?
● What types of programs might be beneficial for you in developing your skills?
● Would the CSR program be one of them? Why or why not?
● What kind of support do you need in your pursuit of acquiring/maintaining these skills?
● Do you feel like your organization invests enough resources into employee development?
● Do you know how to access development programs like CSR?
● Do you know how to leverage the programs like CSR for your professional development?
Why or why not?
● Have you accessed any of these programs to date? Why or why not?
● If yes, can you tell me about a time when you accessed and participated in
developmental/support programs?

127
● How did you access that particular program? What was your experience like?
● Is self-reflection a part of your work or personal activities?
● What brings you joy at work?
● What experiences do you believe you need to have to grow your skills and career?
● Do you think better access to CSR programs would help you to grow your career? Why
or why not?
● Would participation in programs like CSR help you grow your skills? Why or why not?
● Do you know your organization’s mission? If so, what is it?
● Do you feel like CSR is a significant part of your organization’s culture and mission?
Why or why not?
● Would better access to the CSR program improve employee buy-in to the organization’s
mission?
● Would/did your participation in the CSR program make you feel more or less connected
to the organization’s mission? Why? What about its values? Business strategy?
● Can you share a time when you felt particularly connected to the organization’s mission?
● What contributed to that connection?
● How is the organization contributing to your development? Happiness?
● Would participation in a CSR program contribute to your joy at work?
● Can you share a story about a time when you were particularly happy at work?
● Do you feel like you’re being invested in? Why or why not?
● What is your view of the organization’s culture? Why?
● Do you feel like your organization invests enough resources into promoting its employee
development programs such as CSR initiatives?

128
● Have you considered participating in the CSR program?
● In what ways does the organization make employees aware of the CSR program? If
aware, how did you become aware of the program? If unaware, why do you think you are
unaware of the CSR program?
● Do you have any recommendations or feedback regarding access to the CSR program?
● Do you feel like CSR is a significant part of your organization’s culture and mission?
Why or why not?
● Do you feel you have access to mentorship, training, and support programs?
● Do you feel like you are rewarded in a tangible way if you choose to participate?
● Do you feel like the organization wants its employees to be aware of the CSR program
and actively participate?
● How might the organization encourage greater access to CSR programs?
● What about employee participation – is there any feedback you could provide regarding
participation in the program or how the organization could encourage greater
participation?
● Is there anything we did not discuss regarding access to the CSR program that you would
like to add?

129
Appendix E: Interview Questions for CSR Program Alumni
The following interview questions are rooted in the KMO influences framework of Clark
and Estes (2008). The researcher asked a series of prepared questions, which were followed by
probing and clarifying questions to ensure the participant could provide their full perspective and
reflections. The order of the questions was designed to facilitate the conversation. The interview
process was slightly modified and enhanced over time as the researcher engaged in the interview
process and improved the overall interview experience and the fluidity of the question-and-
answer process. The researcher used the following interview questions:
● What is your job role?
● What skills are required to do this job well?
● Do you feel supported in your pursuit of acquiring/maintaining these skills?
● Do you have access to skill and career development programs?
● What types of programs might be beneficial for you in developing your skills?
● Would the CSR program be one of them? Why or why not?
● Do you feel like your organization invests enough resources into employee development?
● How did you learn about the CSR program?
● Can you tell me about a time when you accessed and participated in the CSR program?
● How did you access that particular program? What was your experience like?
● Is self-reflection a part of your work or personal activities?
● What brings you joy at work?
● What experiences do you believe you need to have to grow your skills and career?
● Do you think access to the CSR program helped you to grow your career? Why or why
not?

130
● Did it help you grow your skills? Why or why not?
● Do you know your organization’s mission? If so, what is it?
● Do you feel like CSR is a significant part of your organization’s culture and mission?
Why or why not?
● Would better access to the CSR program improve employee buy-in to the organization’s
mission?
● Did your participation in the CSR program make you feel more or less connected to the
organization’s mission? Why? What about its values? Business strategy?
● Can you share a time when you felt particularly connected to the organization’s mission?
● What contributed to that connection?
● How is the organization contributing to your development? Happiness?
● Did participation in the CSR program contribute to your joy at work?
● Can you share a story about a time when you were particularly happy at work?
● Do you feel like you’re being invested in? Why or why not?
● What is your view of the organization’s culture? Why?
● Do you feel like your organization invests enough resources into promoting its employee
development programs such as CSR initiatives?
● In what ways does the organization make employees aware of the CSR program?
● Do you have any recommendations or feedback regarding access to the CSR program?
● Do you feel like you were rewarded in a tangible way for participating?
● Do you feel like the organization wants its employees to be aware of the CSR program
and actively participate?
● How might the organization encourage greater access to CSR programs?

131
● What about employee participation – is there any feedback you could provide regarding
participation in the program or how the organization could encourage greater
participation?
● Is there anything we did not discuss regarding access to the CSR program that you would
like to add?

132
Appendix F: Crosswalk of KMO Influences
Category Assumed need Assessment question Assessment tool
Knowledge influences
Conceptual Junior-level
technology
employees (JLTEs)
need to know what
knowledge and
skills are required
to access CSR
programs. They
need to know how
CSR programs can
support their skill
development.
What is your job role? What skills
are required to do this job well?
Do you feel supported in your
pursuit of acquiring/maintaining
these skills? Do you have easy
access to skill and career
development programs? If yes, is
the CSR program one of those
you would consider? Why or why
not?
Interviews
Procedural JLTEs need to know
the steps required
to leverage the
available
resources, support
programs, teams,
and individuals to
assist them (such
as CSR programs).
Do you feel supported in your
pursuit of acquiring/maintaining
these skills? Do you feel like your
organization invests enough
resources into employee
development? Do you have easy
access to skill and career
development programs? Do you
know how to access development
programs like CSR? Do you know
how to leverage these programs
for your professional
development?
Interviews
Metacognitive JLTEs need to be
able to reflect on
their knowledge
and skills and
develop strategies
to support their
career growth at
the organization,
such as
participating in the
CSR program.
Is self-reflection a part of your
work or personal activities? What
brings you joy at work? What
experiences do you believe you
need to have to grow your skills
and career? Do you think better
access to CSR programs would
help you to grow your career?
Would participation help you
grow your skills?
Interviews

133
Category Assumed need Assessment question Assessment tool
Motivational influences
Attribution JLTEs need to
believe in the
mission of the
organization and
share in its values
by being provided
access to the CSR
program, where
these values are
demonstrated.
Do you know your organization’s
mission? If so, what is it? Do you
feel like CSR is a significant part
of your organization’s culture and
mission? Would better access to
the CSR program improve
employee buy-in to the
organization’s mission?
Would/did your participation in
the CSR program make you feel
more or less connected to the
organization’s mission? Why?
What about its values? Business
strategy?
Interviews
Expectancy JLTEs need the
opportunity to
experience joy at
work and pursue
non-typical
activities, such as
participating in the
CSR program.
What brings you joy at work? How
is the organization contributing to
your development? Happiness?
Would participation in a CSR
program contribute to your joy at
work?
Interviews
Organizational influences
Cultural
model
The organization
needs to foster a
culture of
employee
development and
social
responsibility
demonstrated
through access to
its CSR program.
Do you feel like you’re being
invested in? Why or why not?
What is your view of the
organization’s culture? Why? Do
you feel like your organization
invests enough resources into
employee development programs
such as CSR initiatives? Have you
considered participating in the
CSR program? Do you feel like
employees are aware of the
program? Do they have easy
access to it? Do you feel like CSR
is a significant part of your
Interviews

134
Category Assumed need Assessment question Assessment tool
organization’s culture and
mission? Why?
Cultural
setting
The organization
needs to provide
access to
mentorship,
training, support,
and rewards to
JLTEs.
How is the organization supporting
your development career growth?
Do you feel you have easy access
to mentorship, training, and
support programs? Do you feel
like CSR is a significant part of
your organization’s culture and
mission? Do you feel like you are
rewarded in a tangible way if you
choose to participate? Do you feel
like the organization wants its
employees to be aware of the
CSR program and actively
participate?
Interviews

135
Appendix G: USC Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Addressing Employee Retention in the Technology Industry: Improving
Access to Corporate Social Responsibility Programs

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Ryan M. Mancinelli

FACULTY ADVISORY: Dr. Alexandra Wilcox

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to better understand the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
factors impacting employee access to corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs that may
impact employee retention. You are invited as a possible participant because you are a junior-
level employee possessing a critical technology skill or you have previously participated in a
CSR program. Sixteen participants will take part in the study.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
This qualitative research study involves interviews with various stakeholders of the researcher’s
organization. The confidential interviews will be private video-conference conversations
conducted via Zoom and lasting up to 60 minutes. The participant will choose a date and time of

136
their convenience. The participant may elect for an audio-only interview. The interview will be
recorded for transcription purposes to allow the researcher to focus on the conversation. The
participant may decline recording.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation in the interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information from the interviews will be used.

You may choose to hide your identity in the video recording via the Zoom functionality that
masks your name in the participant’s name caption. At the end of the interview, you may strike
any part of your response from the record so that it is not considered in the research. The
transcript is generated automatically by Zoom. Only the Principal Investigator will have access
to the interview transcripts. You may request a copy of the interview transcript. Interview
recordings and transcripts are held securely and are deleted after the study is complete – no later
than August 31, 2021.

137
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will not result in negative
consequences. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation
in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Ryan M. Mancinelli is the Principal Investigator for this study. The University of Southern
California faculty advisor is Dr. Alexandra Wilcox. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact Ryan M. Mancinelli (rmancine@usc.edu) or Dr. Alexandra Wilcox
(amwilcox@usc.edu).

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a
research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. If you have any questions about your rights as a research
participant, please contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at
(323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

138
Appendix H: Summary of Participant Responses
Table H1
Participant Responses Regarding the Transparency of the Skill Development Opportunity of the
CSR Program
Participant Response Meaning
JLTE 1 “Is [the CSR program] something
where I’m trying to gain a new set of
skills I didn’t have before? Then
maybe. But also, I think it depends
on what those skills are. Right? They
should be more clear about what can
be gained up front.”
JLTE 1 is expressing confusion about
the overall purpose of the program
and a lack of understanding about the
skill and career development
opportunity the CSR program
presents to employees. This lack of
understanding regarding the skill and
career development opportunity can
influence whether or not an employee
chooses to access and participate in
the CSR program. This demonstrated
gap in conceptual knowledge
indicates a potential loss in the CSR
program’s perceived value. The
participants are unaware of what
possible skills they could develop
through participating in the CSR
program.
JLTE 2 “I think the marketing around the
program is fairly clear in explaining
what sorts of skills can be gained
and experiences are available to
participants.”
JLTE 2 is the only participant who felt
that the program was clear enough in
their explanation of the skill and
career development opportunity the
CSR program represents.

139
Participant Response Meaning
JLTE 3 “I couldn’t tell you what skills I might
gain without really knowing what
sorts of projects are available to
employees. I’m not sure that’s made
very clear to us. That’s definitely
something I’d like to learn more
about.”
JLTE 3 details how they are aware of
what skills could be gained through
program participation, and this is
something they want to learn more
about but has not been made
abundantly clear to employees.
JLTE 4 “Like I mentioned, I’ve spoken to
others who have participated in the
[CSR program] and they’ve all said
[participating] definitely helped
them grow their consulting and
public speaking skills and
collaboration skills. I do think they
were the ones who let me know
about the opportunity, though, not
necessarily the company or program
marketing.”
JLTE 4 is aware of some of the skills
that could be gained through
participating in the program
participation because they had spoken
to CSRAs. However, their awareness
therefore did not come from
information shared by the company.
JLTE 5 “Well, again, I can’t really say for sure
since I haven’t participated yet, but
knowing in other volunteer programs
I’ve been a part of, there was
definitely an opportunity to grow
your skills, all sorts of skills really.”
JLTE 5 believes the CSR program
would likely lead to skill
development because they have
enjoyed other service-oriented
volunteer programs in the past, but
they were unsure of which skills the
CSR program could specifically
provide.

140
Participant Response Meaning
JLTE 6 “I think the opportunity is more about
helping people than developing
yourself but it’s a nice benefit along
the way. I’m not really sure what
skills I could learn by participating
[in the CSR program.]”
JLTE 6 would join the program for
philanthropic reasons over personal
development reasons, but they are
unsure which skills could be
developed by participating in the CSR
program.
JLTE 7 “[BTCI employees] don’t understand
that the best asset of the [CSR
program] is to give top-performing
[BTCI employees] an opportunity
to... develop their skills and help a
local community in need and then
bring back everything they’ve
learned and apply it to their jobs
after completion of their service.”
JLTE 7’s comments contradict the
notion that the JLTEs understand how
the CSR program can help them
develop their skills and careers. This
is in line with responses from several
other participants, who stated that, if
more employees understood the
developmental component of the CSR
program, they would be more likely
to access the program.
JLTE 8 “Certain skills are definitely required
to join the program, but I’m not
really sure if there’s new or other
skills to be gained in the process.
I’m sure there are, probably, but I
don’t know off the top of my head.”
JLTE 8 knows that certain skills and
experiences are required to access and
participate in the program but could
use more information, including
information regarding where and how
to apply to the program and the
precise skills and experiences that one
could gain by participating.

141
Participant Response Meaning
JLTE 9 “I think [CSR program participation]
definitely helps you develop skills in
collaboration, consulting, problem-
solving. But the program could
definitely be a lot more clear to
employees about this because I think
more people would apply if they
knew.”
JLTE 9 believes that participating in the
CSR program would certainly be a
developmental opportunity but also
expressed concern that the
organization does not adequately
advertise this opportunity to
employees.
JLTE 10 “I think people love to learn. So, since
I know others who have really
enjoyed participating in this
program, I’m sure they learned
something from it. I can’t say
specifically what but I’m certain
they did learn something.”
JLTE 10 thinks that participating in the
CSR program is certainly a
developmental opportunity based on
their observations of CSRAs but
could not say with any specificity
what skills may be developed.
JLTE 11 “I think a lot of it is just knowledge
and knowing that [the CSR program]
exists and the parameters of it and
how you can be eligible to
participate. So, that kind of
enablement process would be great
for [employee] access. People don’t
really know what they can gain by
participating, and that is a shame.”
JLTE 11 supports the notion that
employees need to be enabled and
trained with respect to how one can
gain eligibility for the CSR program.
Without the necessary conceptual
knowledge, employees are unable to
access the CSR program because they
do not know what can be gained by
participating in it.

142
Table H2
Participant Responses Regarding the Impact of the CSR Program on Happiness
Participant Response Meaning
JLTE 1 “[Engaging in the CSR program] will
probably improve the quality of my work
and give me better relationships, and
then also just increase my happiness
probably. I’ve seen participants’ pictures
and stories they post on social media, and
they seem very happy and motivated
both during their deployment and when
they return.”
JLTE 1 is confident that the CSR
program comes with significant
benefits, including happiness, and
supports this by observing CSRAs’
happiness.
JLTE 2 “Maybe [CSR program participation]
would make me enjoy the work I do a
little bit more? I don’t know. I think an
opportunity to engage in work like this
would make me happy. At least in the
short-term.”
JLTE 2 thinks that participating in
the CSR program would make
them happy and perhaps enjoy
their everyday work more as well.
JLTE 4 “I’ve spoken to others who have
participated in the [CSR program], and
they’ve all said it was an amazing
experience, and they seemed super
happy; so [yes], I do think it would
probably help me to find some joy at
work.”
JLTE 4 believes participating in the
CSR program would help them
experience joy at work, as they
spoke to CSRAs and observed
their happiness after participating.
JLTE 5 “Well I can’t really say for sure since I
haven’t participated yet, but knowing
JLTE 5 believes they would find joy
participating in the CSR program

143
how much I enjoy volunteer programs,
and I was always that person who joined
a bunch of clubs in college; I think I
would really enjoy it.”
because they have enjoyed other
service-oriented volunteer
programs in the past.
JLTE 6 “You don’t really get those opportunities at
[BTCI] every day, so I definitely think I
would be happy participating in the [CSR
program].
JLTE 6 believes they would
definitely find happiness through
participating in the CSR program
primarily because of how unique
the opportunity is.
JLTE 7 “I definitely plan on applying to the [CSR
program]. I know other people who had
an awesome time, and I’ve kind of been
in a little bit of a rut lately career-wise,
not knowing what to do next. It would be
awesome to participate. I think it would
make me happy for sure.”
JLTE 7 believes that participating in
the CSR program would make
them happy, especially since they
know others who have
participated, and it made them
happy.
JLTE 8 “I think participating in the [CSR
program] would probably make me
happy. That’s probably a safe
assumption.”
JLTE 8 believes it is safe to assume
that they would find joy by
participating in the CSR program.
JLTE 9 “I think [CSR program participation]
would make me happy for the moment. I
don’t know. I think like everything in
life, joy and happiness are fleeting. I
definitely would be happy when I was
participating, but I don’t know how I
would feel when I got back.”
JLTE 9 believes that participating in
the CSR program would bring
them joy but also expressed
concern that joy may only be
momentary.
JLTE 10 “Why do anything if you don’t think it’s JLTE 10 thinks that you should do

144
going to ultimately make you happy? I
would love to participate in the [CSR
program], and I will apply when I meet
the qualifications. I think this sort of
work is super cool and it would be a lot
of fun.”
things that make you happy and
that participation in the CSR
program is one of those things.
JLTE 11 “Absolutely. That’s an easy yes for me. I
know I would have a blast participating
in the CSR program. I’ve always enjoyed
volunteer work.”
JLTE 11 thinks participating in the
CSR program would absolutely
bring joy to them at work. They
have historically found joy in
programs of this nature and
believe they would find it again.
CSRA 1 “I had a ton of fun in the [CSR program].
It wasn’t really the reason why I joined,
but it would have been hard to just, you
know, do this sort of work helping people
who need it and not enjoy that.”
CSRA 1 recognizes the joy they
experienced through participating
in the CSR program, even though
it was not the main reason why
they chose to participate.
CSRA 2 “You know I think these sorts of programs,
by nature, make you enjoy the work.
You’re helping people, the planet,
society, whatever. Knowing you might
have helped people, even for a little bit,
makes you happy. When I returned, I was
really happy about the impact we made
but also sad the experience was over.”
CSRA 2 believes that CSR
programs, because of their
philanthropic nature, make
participants happy. CSRA 2 felt
happy about the impact they had
through participating in the
program.
CSRA 3 “I really think the sad part is I may not
ever find that much joy at work again!
My day job at [BTCI] is nothing like the
While noting the dichotomy
between their regular role and
their role in the CSR program,

145
work we did in the [CSR program]. My
team and I wanted to work all weekend
because it made us happy to be helping.”
CSRA 3 details how the program
made them happy because they
helped others.
CSRA 4 “Joy is an interesting thing. We’re always
in pursuit of it, right? Well, it was easy to
pursue in [the CSR program]. Just to
wake up every day knowing you only
had a short period of time to complete
your project. It definitely made me happy
to have delivered a solution to our
partners who really needed our support.”
CSRA 4 expresses that it was easy
to pursue or find happiness when
participating in the CSR program.
CSRA 5 “I didn’t go into [the CSR program] with
the expectation that I was going to have a
lot of fun or be on some sort of vacation.
I joined the program to work on
something that matters, something
meaningful that I could have an impact
on. The amazing time that I had, friends I
made, experiences I will never forget,
that was all icing on the cake for me. The
fact that [BTCI] allowed me to have such
an amazing and joyful experience while
building my skills is awesome. It made
me respect [BTCI] a lot more.”
CSRA 5 considers the joy that
comes with participating in the
CSR program to be an unexpected
yet welcomed reward. While
experiencing joy was not the main
goal for CSRA 5 when they chose
to participate in the program, joy
was one of the direct results of
their experience.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impacting employee access to corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Sixteen participants took part in the study. The qualitative research methods used included interviews with 11 junior-level technology employees and five CSR program alumni, supported by data analysis. Interviews provided participants with the best opportunity to share their feelings, thoughts, and intentions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview transcripts and notes were analyzed to make helpful comparisons and draw conclusions and key insights (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The research revealed a lack of clarity in the knowledge and skills required to access CSR programs (conceptual knowledge) and a lack of understanding of the process or steps required to access these types of supportive programs (procedural knowledge). Two motivational needs were discovered as well through the interview and analysis process. Participants expressed a need to engage in activities where their values and the company's values are actively demonstrated. The study participants highlighted a desire to pursue greater joy in the work they do. From an attribution influence perspective, every CSR program alumnus (100%) communicated they felt more connected to the organization's culture and mission after participating in the CSR program. All participants conveyed that participation in a CSR program would contribute to their joy at work. A cultural model influence was also supported as a need as all participants (100%) expressed support for the idea that participation in a CSR program would help grow their careers and develop their skills. Only half (50%) of the participants responded that they believed there were tangible rewards provided to those who participate in the CSR program. Furthermore, for those who did believe there were tangible rewards for participation, those rewards were deemed intrinsic rather than company-provided.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Exploring the experience of acquired employees within an organization following acquisition

PDF

Keeping virtual team members engaged in their roles: an impossible task or a paramount necessity for an increasingly globalized world

PDF

Clearing the way: pathways to retention of women in engineering

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

PDF

Corporate America after Ursula Burns: building a pipeline of Black female executives

PDF

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Addressing physician burnout: is there a relationship with leadership behaviors?

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Industry 4.0 impacts on U.S. food industry executive self-directed learning

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Achieving the educational mission: are Connecticut K-12 school nurses valued?

PDF

Sense making in risk assessments

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Mancinelli, Ryan M. (author)

Core Title Addressing employee retention in the technology industry: improving access to corporate social responsibility programs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/28/2021

Defense Date 07/26/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag corporate social responsibility,employee engagement,employee retention,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wilcox, Alexandra (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Grant, Derisa (committee member)

Creator Email mancinelli.ryan@gmail.com,rmancine@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15659670

Unique identifier UC15659670

Legacy Identifier etd-Mancinelli-9923

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mancinelli, Ryan M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu