University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

(USC Thesis Other)

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Managers’ Roles in Supporting Employee Engagement in Jewish Nonprofit Organizations

Maiya Chard-Yaron Edelson

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

May 2023

© Copyright by Maiya Chard-Yaron Edelson 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Maiya Chard-Yaron Edelson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kimberly Hirabayashi
Helena Seli
Wayne Combs, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
Jewish nonprofit organizations constitute much of the infrastructure of Jewish communal life in
the United States. Data from the Leading Edge employee experience surveys implemented from
2018–2022 suggest that workplace satisfaction in the Jewish nonprofit sector does not match the
high levels of pride employees feel for their organizations. This study focused on mid-level
managers in Jewish nonprofit organizations and their role in supporting employee engagement,
building on literature and prior studies exploring the centrality of management in organizational
life and employees’ daily experience. Utilizing interviews and document analysis, this
exploratory study utilized a modified gap analysis framework to analyze data from interviews
with mid-level managers within a major national Jewish nonprofit umbrella organization with
500 local affiliate branches, exploring knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
connected to the problem of practice. Findings share how mid-level managers apply practices to
support employee engagement influenced by knowledge, motivational and organizational
factors. Data emphasized the central role of procedural knowledge in how managers shape their
employees’ experience. Recommendations for practice identify areas where additional training,
resources and support can aid managers in fostering teams of engaged employees within the
Jewish nonprofit sector while also elevating practices that promote employee engagement as
found in study data that could be adapted for broader training within the sector.

v
Acknowledgements
The journey to completing this dissertation coincided with a time of great change in my
life—the birth of my daughter, a move, and a job change. Dr. Wayne Combs, my chair, joked
early on in this process when I let him know that all these things were going to be happening that
I should “let the dissertation be the one constant in a sea of change.” That phrase proved to be
true as this project has been a steady force in my life through a time of major transition. I want to
thank Dr. Combs and my committee, Dr. Kim Hirabayashi and Dr. Helena Seli, for their
guidance and wisdom in each part of this process and pushing me across the finish line with a
product of which I am very proud.
I remember hearing my mother, Dr. Sharon Chard-Yaron, talk about her own dissertation
research while I was in elementary school. I watched her shuttle back and forth from schools
where she was conducting her study and, ultimately, saw her cross the stage as an Ed.D., an
expert in teacher education, after decades of teaching in the classroom. This degree would not
have been possible without her support and encouragement, and I am forever grateful to her for
making it a reality. I hope this dissertation is the result of “good effort”! To Jerry, my husband,
thank you for your encouragement and support throughout my doctoral journey and particularly
with the dissertation process. From “holding down the fort” so I could dig into writing on a
weekend to always being there with positive energy when things got tough, I am grateful for you
and your commitment to education. Ariella, you were born in the summer of 2022, right in the
thick of IRB approvals and proposal defense. You joined me for class on more than a few
occasions, and you love using many of my course books as drums. I hope that this dissertation
project serves as an example to you of what you can achieve when you put your mind to
something and follow your curiosity and passions. To Sufa the pup, thank you for being patient

vi
when your walks or ball-chasing sessions had to wait until I finished a specific paragraph or
section. I hope the extra treats made it worth it.
Thank you to Jen Zwilling, Shari Merrill, and so many of my colleagues at Hillel, who
have been incredibly supportive throughout the dissertation process. To the Covenant Foundation
and Schusterman Fellowship communities, thank you for providing the boost to pursue this
degree and undertake this project. Your work makes our sector and its professionals better, and I
am inspired by all that you do. To Dr. Shira Epstein, Dr. Jeffrey Kress, Dr. Aryeh Davidson, Dr.
Barry Holtz, Dr. Ofra Backenroth, Dr. Alex Sinclair, and the current and former JTS faculty
members who first opened my eyes to the power of research in Jewish education and helped me
find a passion for inquiry in our field, thank you for being inspiring mentors and educators and
for guiding the way. To my Cohort 18 classmates in the OCL program—despite both of our on-
campus immersions being put online due to the pandemic—many of us developed true
friendships and a closeness that has been one of the best parts of this experience. Thank you for
your humor and insight. It has been incredible to learn from individuals from such diverse
personal and professional backgrounds, and I know it has enriched my own perspective and is
something I will carry with me moving forward.
To conclude these acknowledgements with words of Torah, in the Talmud, there exists a
famous discussion. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon debate, “Which is greater? Study or action?
Rabbi Tarfon answered, saying, “Action is greater.” Rabbi Akiva answered, saying, “Study is
greater.” All the rest agreed with Akiva that study is greater than action because it leads to
action.” The very nature of the EdD degree is that study should lead to action, and that is the
premise of this dissertation and my hope for the totality of my time within this OCL program.
May we all take the opportunity of study that we have been given and translate it to action!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .............................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................3
Organizational Performance Status ......................................................................................3
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................4
Stakeholder Groups ..............................................................................................................5
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................6
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................7
Definitions ............................................................................................................................8
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................10
Leadership Development in Nonprofit Organizations .......................................................11
Employee Engagement ......................................................................................................12
Surveying Employee Engagement .....................................................................................18
Employee Engagement and Relationship to Job Satisfaction and Retention ....................19
The Centrality of Managers in Organizational Outcomes .................................................21
Effective Management Practices ........................................................................................25
Intersections of Culture, Identity, and Work .....................................................................30
The Jewish Nonprofit Sector: Leadership Development and Employee
Engagement ........................................................................................................................31

viii
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................40
Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................................41
Motivation Influences ........................................................................................................45
Organizational Influences ..................................................................................................49
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................53
Summary ............................................................................................................................54
Chapter Three: Methodology of the Study ....................................................................................56
Research Questions ............................................................................................................56
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................57
Research Setting .................................................................................................................57
The Researcher ...................................................................................................................57
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................58
Interviews ...........................................................................................................................58
Document Analysis ............................................................................................................60
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................63
Ethics ..................................................................................................................................63
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................65
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................66
RQ1: How Do Mid-Level Managers in Jewish Nonprofit Organizations Apply
Their Knowledge and Experience to Create an Environment That Supports
Employee Engagement? .....................................................................................................68
RQ2: What Motivational Factors Influence Mid-Level Managers in the Jewish
Nonprofit Sector to Remain in Their Current Role and to Create an Environment
Where Employees Are Engaged? ......................................................................................94
RQ3: What Organizational Factors Influence How Mid-Level Managers in Jewish
Nonprofit Organizations Navigate Their Professional Roles and Settings to
Support Positive Employee Engagement? .......................................................................102
Additional Findings: Prior Experiences’ Impact on Current Approach ..........................112

ix
Summary ..........................................................................................................................114
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................116
Discussion of Findings .....................................................................................................116
Manager Behaviors Driving Employee Engagement ......................................................117
Manager Adaptation of Knowledge .................................................................................118
Manager Responsibility for Engagement Drivers ............................................................119
Motivation and Managerial Relationship With Employees .............................................120
Cultural Models and Settings ...........................................................................................122
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................124
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................128
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................129
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................130
References ....................................................................................................................................133
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................146
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ..................................................................................150
Appendix C: KMO Crosswalk .....................................................................................................151

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Chart of KMO Influences and Associated Concepts in Study ........................................52
Table 2: Data Sources and Related Influences ..............................................................................62
Table 3: Demographics of Participating Managers .......................................................................67
Appendix C: KMO Crosswalk .....................................................................................................151

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Dynamic Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................54

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Employees in Jewish nonprofit organizations in the United States describe their
workplace as a “great place to work” at a rate 14% below the broader U.S. employment sector,
despite 87% of employees feeling pride in their organization’s work and mission and 89% of
employees understanding how their work directly contributes to their organization’s mission and
goals (Leading Edge, 2022). This is a problem because workplace culture can have a significant
impact on employee recruitment and retention, organizational reputation, and possibly
fundraising capability and organizational capacity (Leading Edge, 2018). Employee engagement
and job satisfaction have a direct relationship with employee retention (Coetzee & Stoltz, 2015;
Terera & Ngirande, 2014), an issue of concern for Jewish nonprofit organizations (Kelner et al.,
2004). Positive employee attitudes toward their workplace can be a major asset to organizations
and are linked to greater organizational outcomes (Fulmer et al., 2003).
Context and Background of the Problem
Nonprofit organizations are the structural backbone of the Jewish community in the
United States (Cohen, 2011). In addition to synagogues and Jewish day schools that provide
formal opportunities to engage in religious and spiritual life and intensive Jewish education,
organizations such as Jewish Federations, social service agencies, Jewish community centers,
and hundreds of other community-facing nonprofits provide vital outlets for the community to
convene and engage in their cultural and identity practices. These organizations serve the needs
of a population estimated to be 5.8 million people in the United States who identify as part of the
Jewish community (Pew Research Center, 2021). While the nature and landscape of these
communal organizations have evolved over the past several generations, the professionals who
2

lead, manage, and work in these organizations are vital to these organizations’ existence and
progress (Cohen, 2011).
As the realities and needs of the American Jewish community have evolved, so too have
the organizations working to serve it and the professionals who comprise their workforce. A
group called Leading Edge was created in 2014 to better understand and address a perceived
leadership succession crisis for Jewish nonprofit organizations (Bridgespan Group, 2014). Since
2016, Leading Edge has conducted an extensive employee experience survey, which 2022
collected data from 12,387 employees representing 257 organizations (Leading Edge, 2022). The
data and findings from these annual surveys cover a range of topics, including employee
engagement, perceptions of opportunities for advancement within the field, employee and
manager relationships, salary transparency, and equity issues. The Leading Edge studies, coupled
with earlier research inquiries into leadership development in the Jewish nonprofit sector
(Bridgespan Group, 2014; Kelner et al., 2004), help create a backdrop for the problem identified
above, which is the focus of this study.
The 2022 Leading Edge survey found that 87% of respondents felt proud to work for
their organization, yet only 69% would recommend their organization as a great place to work.
This number is 14% lower than the U.S. benchmark set by Culture Amp, an organization that
surveys over 2 million employees in the United States (Leading Edge, 2022). Sixty-two percent
of respondents saw themselves still working at their organization in 2 years, and only 41% felt
they had opportunities for advancement at their organizations (Leading Edge, 2022). These
sector-wide data points indicate inconsistencies between professionals’ satisfaction with their
workplace, attitudes toward retention, and perceptions of advancement with the feeling of pride
in one’s work and organization. As further explicated in Chapter Two, employee engagement is a
3

multidimensional concept that touches on different aspects of the employee experience and role
and considers how organizational and environmental factors interact with personal motivations
and attitudes. Employee attitudes toward their work, perceptions of their advancement, and
whether they would recommend their workplace as a great place to work are factors linked to
employee engagement (Leading Edge, 2021).
Organizational Context and Mission
JLOC International (a pseudonym) is a global organization with a primary focus on North
America, working in over 500 communities of college-aged students and young adults in the
Jewish community. The mission of JLOC International is to inspire Jewish students to create and
sustain connections to Jewish life and learning. JLOC International is an umbrella organization
that supports local affiliates and chapters by providing resources in the form of training, financial
support, human resources, and programmatic initiatives. Many local affiliates are stand-alone
501c3 nonprofits, but some are embedded into local community partner organizations or
university campuses. It is the largest and most prominent organization working with this age
demographic (18- to 25-year-old young adults) in the Jewish nonprofit sector and is approaching
its centennial year.
Organizational Performance Status
JLOC International is an annual participant in the Leading Edge employee experience
survey, collecting data in aggregate from employees based in North America working in the
local community affiliates. Seventy-four percent of employees completed the 2021 survey: 718
out of 974 who received it. Ninety percent of respondents indicated they feel pride in working
for JLOC International (mirroring the sector-wide Leading Edge mark), and 77% indicated they
would recommend the organization as a great place to work (JLOC International, 2022). While
4

77% would recommend their organization as a great place to work, just over half of respondents
see themselves working at JLOC International in 2 years, and only 41% see opportunities for
advancement at the organization (JLOC International, 2022). These data points raise questions
on why the percentage of employees who would recommend JLOC International as a great place
to work is lower than the percentage who feel pride in their work and why the perceptions of
advancement and attitude toward longevity in the institution are relatively low in an organization
whose employees feel a deep sense of connection and pride in the mission.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Jewish nonprofit institutions play a fundamental role in providing social services and
community structures for the Jewish community as well as, in many cases, the broader
community. These organizations directly impact people’s lives, and their success is central to the
Jewish community and its ability to thrive and meet the needs of the target population (Leading
Edge, 2021). The professionals who comprise the workforce leading and managing these
organizations are central to the organization’s success or failure (Kelner et al., 2004), and
understanding their experience and how to better support them is critical to strengthening the
sector’s work and ability to achieve organizational goals and maximize impact.
Beyond the scope of the Jewish community, this study provides an example of a
professional field within the nonprofit sector that directly serves a cultural community with
immigrant roots in the United States and has created a significant communal landscape. In its
exploration of the stated problem of practice, one of this study’s aims was to uncover the unique
circumstances of being a communal professional within one’s affinity/identity group and how
personal and professional orientations can intersect, overlap, or conflict. This study sought to
provide specific and tangible recommendations to better understand and address how managers
5

can more effectively create environments that engage employees in their work and workplace
experience and how sustaining such environments can benefit employee recruitment and
retention, organizational outcomes, and workforce development. Employee engagement
correlates to important outcomes both on the individual employee and organizational level,
including productivity, reduced burnout, and better outcomes for customers and beneficiaries of
the organization’s work (Akingbola, 2017).
Stakeholder Groups
There are five key stakeholder groups related to this problem of practice. The first is
JLOC International’s national staff and leaders, who provide significant human resources and
training support for local employees. Even though each local affiliate has its own workplace
culture and practices, professionals from the national organization provide financial and other
resources that can shape priorities and provide support to local staff. The second stakeholder
group is local executive leadership. Employee engagement is important to local executive
directors as they pursue annual organizational performance goals and manage resources
dedicated to employee recruitment, development, and retention. The third key stakeholder group
is local mid-level managers. This group manages much of the day-to-day experience of
employees and the general workflow of local affiliates. The fourth stakeholder group is
comprised of students and participants in the organization’s programming. This group is the
focus of the organizational mission, and their experience can reflect how well the organization is
doing in employee engagement. The fifth stakeholder group is donors, partner agencies,
foundations, and the organization’s financial supporters.
6

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete analysis would look at all stakeholders above, this study focused on
local mid-level managers of affiliates within the national JLOC International organization.
Supported by literature and prior research presented later in Chapter Two, managers represent a
key driving force behind the workplace experience and engagement of employees. While chief
executives (Bridgespan Group, 2014) and early-career professionals (Samuels & Chapman,
2020) in the Jewish nonprofit sector have been the subject of significant research and resource
allocation, there is limited prior research focused specifically on mid-level managers within the
Jewish nonprofit sector. This study aims to analyze how their role relates to and could potentially
help solve the stated problem of practice.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
There are several possible research avenues one could take to understand the stated
problem of practice and recommend approaches for solutions. In an effort to explore how the
employee experience is shaped within Jewish nonprofit organizations, the purpose of this
exploratory research was to understand the role of mid-level managers in supporting employee
engagement within the Jewish nonprofit sector, leading to recommendations to advance Jewish
professional leadership as a desirable and meaningful career path for highly skilled and
motivated professionals. This study explored how mid-level managers and leaders in
community-based Jewish nonprofit organizations utilize their knowledge, understand, and
leverage motivational influences, and manage organizational factors to shape the employee
experience and impact employee engagement. Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit organizations apply their knowledge
and experience to create an environment that supports employee engagement?
7

2. What motivational factors influence mid-level managers in the Jewish nonprofit
sector to remain in their current role and to create an environment where employees
are engaged?
3. What organizational factors influence how mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit
organizations navigate their professional roles and settings to support positive
employee engagement?
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
To explore the research questions, this study used a modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis, focusing on how knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences impact
the key stakeholder group relative to the stakeholder group goal addressing the problem of
practice. The modified gap analysis framework fits the problem of practice explored in this study
as it enables deep and nuanced exploration of how KMO influences impact mid-level managers’
ability to implement practices that drive employee engagement and what types of support and
interventions might improve performance and outcomes.
The gap analysis model is driven by performance improvement and utilizes information
gleaned from tangible and observable factors in the workplace and in individuals’ experiences to
aid in forming recommendations for addressing the problem. Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis refutes the notion that simple, across-the-board training should produce positive results
for everyone. Instead, the model relies on research and discovery to explore how KMO factors
relate to the problem of practice and to produce solutions that directly address them for the
specific context of the organization and the people involved. This problem-solving model
enables the researcher to discern what factors within the KMO umbrella categories contribute to
8

the observed challenge, helping to clarify the problem at hand and lead to recommendations for
solutions.
This study uses qualitative methodology, incorporating interviews and document analysis
to provide robust data to address the research questions through the theoretical framework
described above. While the research questions and initial problem of practice were derived based
on the findings of quantitative studies from the Leading Edge group, qualitative inquiry enables
individuals in this specific stakeholder group to more fully share their experiences and
perspectives, providing rich data from which to learn and form recommendations for addressing
the problem. Interviews give a strong voice to this group of managers, paint a picture of their
professional realities, and create a better understanding of this vital yet often overlooked cohort
of professionals, while document analysis provides a broader lens on the workplace experience
across professional roles within this sector.
Definitions
This section provides definitions of key terms used in the study to understand the
problem of practice. Technical terms related to the theoretical framework are defined in the
literature review, and cultural terms that arise during interviews and focus groups are defined in
the results section.
Jewish community: For purposes of this study, demographic statistics or descriptors
related to the Jewish community in the United States are defined as individuals who identify as
Jewish by religion and as Jews of no religion (Pew Research Center, 2021).
Jewish nonprofit organization: There is not a set definition for a Jewish nonprofit
organization, but this descriptor is used to note organizations that comprise the communal fabric
of organized Jewish life and include organizations whose purpose is religious, educational
9

(including schools and camps), social service and welfare, community relations, overseas
connections (including Israel engagement, education, and advocacy organizations), culture and
heritage, and additional classifications (Burstein, 2011).
Organization of the Dissertation
This organization is comprised of five chapters. This, the first, lays out the problem of
practice, research questions, theoretical framework, and methodological approach. Chapter Two
will consist of a review of literature related to various aspects of the problem of practice. Chapter
Three describes the methodology in greater detail, including data collection instruments and
context and framing for study participants. This study focused on mid-level managers with
personnel responsibilities within a single national organization with hundreds of local affiliates
across North America, utilizing semi-structured interviews and document analysis from a
selection of local chapters. Chapter Four shares the findings of the study, and Chapter Five
focuses on recommendations moving forward, both for practice and for future research.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The key areas of literature that support this study include a discussion of the concept of
employee engagement, the centrality of the manager role in organizational outcomes and
discussion of effective management practices, a historical review of the Jewish nonprofit sector
as well as an analysis of observations and trends surrounding leadership development and sector-
wide cultural norms in the Jewish and general nonprofit fields. Nonprofit organizations serve a
mission and purpose that range across a vast landscape of social services, arts, education, cultural
interests, and beyond. The growth of the nonprofit sector in recent decades has led to a
significant impact on social change (Crutchfield & Grant, 2012). The nonprofit sector grew by
8% from 2002 to 2012, with over 1.4 million nonprofit organizations registered in the United
States at that time (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014).
While the recession in 2008–2009 impacted the nonprofit sector and saw a reduction in
the number of registered organizations, the subsequent growth in charitable dollars coming
through these organizations (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014) indicates that public interest and
commitment to this sector is established. Nonprofit organizations rely on both professional and
volunteer leadership to perform their work and act on their mission. The professional and
workplace skills required of those working in the nonprofit sector are varied and require
engaging with a diverse group of stakeholders (Ronquillo et al., 2017). Binder (2016) suggested
that professional opportunities in this sector not only support the staffing needs of this growing
field of organizations but also address the desire of individuals to engage in meaningful work
that enacts social change.
Working in the nonprofit sector can lead to higher levels of job satisfaction, despite lower
pay than private sector alternatives, though it is possible that the population electing to work in
11

this field have higher levels of altruism and are predisposed to find greater joy in this work
(Binder, 2016). Looking at a global population of employees in both the public and private
sectors, Kuchinke et al. (2011) found that work was second only to family as a central
component of an individual’s life valuation and overall happiness. Understanding how people
choose their professional path, engage with work as part of their life experience, and the impact
these decisions have on both the individual employees and the organizations is crucial to
improve organizational outcomes.
Informing the specific work on the Jewish community and its professional workforce is
some discussion of other cultural groups with communal infrastructure in the United States and
how questions of personal identity and professional role overlap and intersect. To put the
findings from data collection in the context of broader literature around mid-level management,
this review includes a discussion of studies and trends apparent in general business and
organizational management literature about this key stakeholder group, their impact on strategy
and decision making within an organization, and various approaches to change management that
incorporate mid-level management. As an introduction to the methodology of the study, the
theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in forming and analyzing data are shared in this
review, alongside findings from studies that incorporate these concepts in their analysis of
similar settings and problems of practice.
Leadership Development in Nonprofit Organizations
The increase in the number of nonprofit organizations over the past several decades,
coupled with the pending retirement of the baby boomer generation, which holds many of the
senior leadership roles in the sector, has created a concern over the number of new leaders and
managers that will need to be developed (Linscott, 2011; Ronquillo et al., 2017). Within the
12

general nonprofit sector, challenges such as limited pathways for advancement, insufficient
professional development, and financial challenges for both organizational capacity and
individuals’ needs present concerns for retaining and developing professionals (Linscott, 2011).
The identification and development of promising professionals are central to succession
planning upon eventual leadership transition and require effort and buy-in from multiple
stakeholders, including lay boards and funders (Gothard & Austin, 2013). Despite the concerns
around employee and leadership retention and turnover, 84% of respondents on a nonprofit
employment practices survey indicated they do not have a formal retention strategy, and most of
those organizations do not have active plans to create one (Ronquillo et al., 2017). When
executive leaders in nonprofits leave, most of the individuals hired for those roles come from
outside the organization (Ronquillo et al., 2017). The perception from emerging leaders in this
sector that executive-level roles lack development opportunities, mentorship, and network
support are key factors in their understanding of these roles (Ronquillo et al., 2017), highlighting
the importance of network development and preservation of institutional memory. Leadership
development has a strong connection to employee engagement, as learning, development, and
opportunities for career growth are key drivers of engagement (Akingbola, 2017).
Employee Engagement
Engagement in the workplace is a multidimensional construct that has received
significant attention in the literature over the past 2 decades (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Despite an
increased focus on employee engagement since the early 2000s, Gallup’s 2015 study found that
only 32% of U.S. employees (across sectors) are engaged in their workplace. However,
employees in the nonprofit sector have higher levels of employee engagement than other sectors,
13

which could be expected given that employees are generally drawn to the mission of an
organization rather than compensation and other benefits (Akingbola, 2017).
Engagement is considered a key predictor of outcomes for the individual employee, their
team, and the organization, as engaged employees tend to produce better work and results
(Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). Employee engagement has become a focal point in organizational
research since the early 2000s because many organizations understand the possibility of a
relationship between employee engagement and retention, customer satisfaction, and overall
improved organizational performance (Gupta & Sharma, 2016). Employee engagement has
multiple definitions and interpretations of how it differs from work or job engagement and
relates to job satisfaction and retention (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
Kahn (1990), who presented the first definition in the literature, suggested that employee
engagement is contingent on certain preconditions: meaningfulness (perception of the individual
of the value and importance of their job), safety (feeling that one can fully participate in the
workplace and associated social system without fear of negative impacts on self, status, or
career), and availability (individual psychological capacity to do the work and fulfill job
requirements). Kahn defined engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to
their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively,
and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Through analysis, Kahn found that
individuals in the organizations he studied seemed to ask themselves three questions and choose
to engage or disengage based on their perception of the responses: How meaningful is it for me
to bring myself into this performance? How safe is it to do so? How available am I to do so?
(Kahn, 1990, p. 703). Kahn posited individual characteristics of employees, as well as
organizational qualities, drive beliefs of employees around these three questions. Kahn
14

emphasized organizational factors connected to work tasks and roles affecting meaningfulness,
the social system and relationships within an organization as influencing feelings of safety, and
self-perceptions of confidence and consciousness influencing availability.
In their national workforce survey, Gallup defined engagement as individuals feeling a
positive sense of involvement and commitment to their work (Gallup, 2015). Other definitions of
employee engagement focus on the discretionary effort employees put into their work, the
connection an employee has to their job and the individuals in their workplace orbit: their
manager, coworkers, and other employees (Akingbola, 2017). Gupta and Sharma (2016)
discussed employee engagement as a bidirectional effort between an employee and the
organization; the organization must put in the effort to engage employees, and, in return,
employees apply discretionary effort toward the organization’s collective goals and values,
increasing motivation to contribute to organizational success.
One approach to defining employee engagement has considered the concept of
engagement to be the antithesis of burnout. This approach considers energy, involvement, and
efficacy to be markers of the state of engagement and the direct opposites of a state of burnout
(Maslach et al., 2001). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) conducted a quantitative study of employees
in four different organizations and sectors to explore the relationship between burnout and
engagement and how job demands, resources, health problems, and turnover intention interact
with each concept. They found support for the notion of burnout and engagement being opposite
states that can be influenced by mediating factors.
Key drivers of employee engagement include the investment of senior managers in
employee well-being, authority and autonomy for employees around decision making (as
appropriate), ample resources for employees to complete job tasks, opportunities for
15

advancement, learning, and career growth, rewards and recognition, and relationships with
coworkers (Akingbola, 2017). Gupta and Sharma (2016) identified employees’ feelings of being
valued and involved in their workplace and decision making as the primary driver of
engagement, encompassing practices such as managers listening to employees, involving
employees in decision making, giving employees opportunities to develop in their jobs, and
providing opportunities for employees to voice their opinions (Gupta & Sharma, 2016). The
working environment and relationships with coworkers and one’s team are significant drivers of
employee engagement (Anitha, 2013).
The discussion in the literature presents differing approaches to the definition and
measurement of employee engagement. In part, the discussion focuses on how and if employee
engagement overlaps or correlates with other related concepts, such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Rich et al. (2010) considered engagement
to be a more complete representation of an employee’s experience and reality than narrower
concepts such as job satisfaction or involvement. Rich et al. (2010) conducted a study of
firefighters and their supervisors to better understand the antecedents of job engagement and the
link between antecedents, engagement, and job performance. Their results suggest that practices
that build engagement among employees can lead to superior job performance, both with regard
to task outcomes and what is called “organizational citizenship behavior” (Rich et al., 2010, p.
631). They found the antecedents of value congruence between employee and organization,
perceived organizational support (including supervision), and core self-evaluations (high level of
confidence in one’s own abilities and effectiveness) to be strongly linked to employee
engagement, and suggest that management practices focus on increasing these factors in the
workplace (Rich et al., 2010).
16

One conceptual framework for employee engagement is the job demands-resources
model (JD-R), which presents that job demands on an employee and resources available form a
framework to understand key drivers of employee engagement or lack thereof (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). The JD-R accounts for the idea that while different professions and
workplaces have specific characteristics, they can be generally classified into job demands or job
resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands are aspects of a role that require sustained
physical or psychological effort and thus have costs. Job resources are organizational, physical,
psychological, or social aspects of a job that are necessary to achieve work goals, reduce the
costs linked to job demands, or lead to personal growth and learning (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007). Resources might include strong interpersonal connections (managers, coworkers, team
climate), how a job role is designed (autonomy, decision making, makeup of tasks, feedback
processes), and extrinsic benefits from the organization (salary, job security, advancement
opportunities; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Saks & Gruman, 2014).
The JD-R model also incorporates the impacts of job demands and resources on strain
and motivation in the workplace (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Work overload, emotional
demands, or jobs designed ineffectively can cause strain, while effective job resources can
positively impact both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and increase work engagement (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2007). Job resources can serve as a buffer for high strain and job demands,
reducing burnout and increasing motivation (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands are not
clear predictors of engagement or disengagement, though there is a relationship between job
demands and burnout (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
Crawford et al. (2010) found that job demands can be either hindrances or challenges,
with the former negatively related to engagement and the latter positively related (though both
17

hindrances and challenges can lead to burnout). The JD-R model indicates that employees can
actively seek job resources and challenges (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018), suggesting the model
isn’t stagnant, but the employee experience can shift based on the balance between demands
(hindrances and challenges) and job resources.
Saks and Gruman (2014) sought to integrate both Kahn’s theory of engagement (1990)
and the JD-R (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Their model accounts for the central role of
leadership style in impacting both job resources and demands, which in turn impact the
psychological conditions for employees and lead to varying types of employee engagement (Saks
& Gruman, 2014). The Saks and Gruman model (2014) accounts for different types of employee
engagement, which might include task and work engagement, deep organizational connection
and engagement, and engagement with the group or team, acknowledging the broad concept of
engagement at work and the fact that employees can have different levels of engagement with
various aspects of their role. One trend in recent literature on employee engagement is that the
state of engagement can fluctuate within people based on the specific time frame and situation
they are in (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018).
High levels of employee engagement in nonprofit organizations are linked to positive job
performance, improved retention, and increased positive behaviors in the workplace
environment, even outside of one’s work tasks (Aboramadan & Dahleez, 2020). Employee
engagement in the nonprofit sector may connect with the values, personal mission, and intrinsic
motivation of individual employees, which could connect to an increase in their perception of
overall job satisfaction (Akingbola & van den Berg, 2019). Employee engagement is linked to
important individual outcomes for employees in the workplace (putting forth increased effort,
greater investment of energy in work tasks, increased access to positive emotions, and increase in
18

desired behaviors and attitudes) that could have a positive impact on overall organizational
outcomes and performance (Akingbola, 2017).
Surveying Employee Engagement
While some organizations have implemented change strategies and solutions that connect
directly to an employee’s work tasks and performance, other organizations have implemented
employee engagement surveys but have not acted upon the results, which can measure employee
engagement but do not provide the specific strategies needed to improve it (Gallup, 2015).
Distributing employee engagement surveys but not acting on the results can lead to negative
outcomes in employee morale and overall engagement (Gable et al., 2010). Employee
engagement efforts are most impactful when integrated into everyday work tasks and the flow of
how employees work together and produce the work of the organization, including skill-building
around management, clarifying workplace expectations and communications, and providing the
tools and resources employees need to do their jobs well (Gallup, 2015). In a study of a nonprofit
health organization, Gable et al. (2010) found that the communication of survey results, plans to
implement initiatives as a direct result, and how changes are going was central to the use of
survey tools in both the perception of the survey process and the increase in employee
engagement. Bakker and Albrecht (2018) noted that many organizations are moving away from
survey implementation as a stand-alone tool and are understanding the need to incorporate
concepts related to employee engagement (such as hiring practices, performance feedback and
management, and training and professional development) into ongoing human resources
practices.
19

Employee Engagement and Relationship to Job Satisfaction and Retention
How employee engagement might connect to job and workplace satisfaction, as well as
workforce retention and turnover, has been explored in both the general business and nonprofit
sectors. While job satisfaction and employee engagement are not synonymous, engagement (both
with a specific job or role and an organization as a whole) can mediate how antecedents impact
job satisfaction (Akingbola, 2017). In a review and analysis of literature and prior studies
focused on employee engagement and job satisfaction, Akingbola (2017) determined that there is
an association or relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction (but it is not
necessarily predictive or causal) and that employee engagement can play an important role in
mediating antecedents and overall job satisfaction. Job satisfaction relates most closely to
individual circumstances and qualities, relationships with supervisors, characteristics of one’s job
(including stress levels, autonomy, individual intrinsic interest in the role), and the overall
working environment (Akingbola, 2017).
In a study focused specifically on nonprofit organizations in Canada, Akingbola and van
den Berg (2019) examined what factors contribute to engagement and how engagement connects
with organizational consequences. Building on the literature, they looked at value congruence,
job characteristics, and rewards and recognition as antecedents of nonprofit employee
engagement. Akingbola and van den Berg (2019) suggested that employee engagement has a
stronger impact on consequences (such as intention to quit, organizational commitment, and
positive behaviors in the workplace) than the direct effects of the antecedent variables mentioned
above. Their findings suggest that a connection to the values and mission of an organization
could have a deeper effect on behavior than a connection to a specific job (Akingbola & van den
Berg, 2019).
20

Studies have suggested a relationship between employee engagement and turnover
intentions (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The tangible and intangible costs of turnover are not
unique to the nonprofit sector, as the time and financial implications of needing to recruit and
train employees can be significant, and other employees in the organization must often cover the
workload of vacant positions, compromising the quality and quantity of work that can be
accomplished (Barak et al., 2001; Ronquillo et al., 2017). For organizations doing relationship-
based work, the loss of stakeholder relationships, institutional memory, and social capital is an
additional detriment to high turnover rates (Pepelko, 2020).
Within the nonprofit sector, employees providing direct service to recipients of the
organization’s work have the highest rates of turnover (Ronquillo et al., 2017). Reasons for
voluntary turnover can include organizational and individual factors and connect to burnout and
stress that an employee might feel in their job or overall workplace (Ronquillo et al., 2017),
which connects this important topic to the conversation around employee engagement and job
satisfaction. In a study looking specifically at employees in child welfare, social work, and
human services organizations, Barak et al. (2001) discussed personal and work-related
demographic factors, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and organizational
resources and environment as key antecedents to voluntary turnover. They found that the best
predictors of intention to voluntarily leave a job are organizational and professional commitment,
burnout, and job satisfaction (Barak et al., 2001).
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) considered burnout to be the antithesis of engagement in
their model and found that burnout is related to turnover intention, while positive engagement
has a mediating role between job resources and turnover intention for employees. Sense of
belonging is an important component of job satisfaction, and a lack thereof can lead to
21

employees considering leaving a position—a sense of satisfaction from the direct work and
commitment to the organization or the mission are key conditions for retention (Barak et al.,
2001). Selden and Sowa (2015) found that specific workplace practices such as strong
onboarding protocols and leadership succession planning have negative effects on voluntary
turnover (which is a positive for the organization).
Other tangible workplace factors, specifically the manager-employee relationship, also
have a significant role in reducing voluntary turnover (Selden & Sowa, 2015). A distinction
noted in the discussion of a study focused specifically on the nursing field is the difference
between commitment to a specific organization and commitment to a field or specialty when it
comes to discussing turnover and job satisfaction (Lum et al., 1998). The results of the study
included individuals with high levels of commitment who indicated openness to a job change
(Lum et al., 1998). This observation connects with the idea that turnover and job change is not
always an indicator of low commitment or satisfaction (Lum et al., 1998), rather the experience
of an employee in a role can lead to them seeking a new position seen as building on their
experience if advancement is not possible within their organization.
The Centrality of Managers in Organizational Outcomes
In Gallup’s 2015 State of the American Manager report, findings indicated that at least
70% of the variance in employee engagement was related to their experience with managers.
Managers impact the daily experience of employees and the ongoing functions of an
organization. The engagement level of a manager themselves also greatly affects whether the
employees they manage are engaged in their work (Gallup, 2015). Gallup utilized competencies,
such as ability to overcome obstacles, capability to motivate and build employee morale, strong
relationship building, and ability to make good decisions for the team and organization, as core
22

to the definition of a successful manager (Gallup, 2015). Managers, a group that can be defined
differently depending on organizational size and scope, generally refer to those who report to top
or executive-level management and who supervise or manage front-line employees. This group’s
perspective and function are shaped by their work interfacing between groups that otherwise
might be disconnected (Wooldridge et al., 2008). They are in a critical position for task
management, communication, and problem solving in many different types of organizations
(Tyrell, 2014).
While some studies indicate that managers’ resistance to change can be a significant
inhibitor of enacting organizational advancement (Harrington & Williams, 2004), other findings
suggest that mid-level managers can be agents of change when utilized effectively (Wooldridge
et al., 2008). Looking closer at specific process systems and how mid-level managers are
engaged or disengaged from them can be an indicator of whether an organization will experience
issues with role conflict and dysfunction or will effectively form and implement strategy
(Wooldridge et al., 2008). Chen et al. (2017) examined under what conditions mid-level
managers would take on roles of synthesizing information and “championing alternatives,”
defined as “upward roles” (Chen et al., 2017, pp. 702–703), as opposed to simply implementing
or supervising processes and changes demanded of them by top management. While findings
indicate that mid-level managers participate more often in information synthesis than
“championing alternatives,” Chen et al. found that job security, strong relationships with internal
and external stakeholders, and motivation connected to autonomy are key predictors of whether
mid-level managers will take on higher-level behaviors such as forming and suggesting
alternative solutions and effectively and proactively synthesizing information.
23

Bish and Becker’s 2016 study of nonprofit managers uncovers sector-specific qualities
for successful outcomes, in addition to more traditional managerial requirements. These include
personal experience, knowledge of the specific content area related to the discipline, and strong
self-awareness and an understanding of one’s own background, as critical to success for
nonprofit managers (Bish & Becker, 2016). Nonprofit orientation is also found as a success
factor, which includes commitment to the sector as a whole and connection to the organization’s
mission and values (Bish & Becker, 2016). Given the importance of managers and management
ability in overall employee engagement and the relationship between employee engagement and
successful organizational outcomes (Aboramadan & Dahleez, 2020), it is not surprising that the
relationship between these factors is of interest to both researchers and practitioners.
Wooldridge et al. (2008) reviewed various studies and literature on middle management
and concluded that the impact mid-level managers have on organizational outcomes goes beyond
the implementation of strategy and tasks, as it can have a significant impact on strategy
formation and organizational change. At times, tensions can build in mid-level managers’
accountability to desired organizational targets or metrics and their focus on building strong
relationships with subordinates (Harrington & Williams, 2004). Alhaqbani et al. (2016) found
that lower tiers of employees report their own lack of engagement with an organizational change
initiative when they perceive the mid-level management group is not committed to the process.
Discordance, lack of trust and transparency between management levels, insufficient
communication, and perception of employee non-involvement can all be detrimental to
effectively implementing new initiatives (Alhaqbani et al., 2016). Additionally, Bish and Becker
(2016), whose study focused on nonprofit organizations, found that while management as a
whole is responsible for sharing and communicating their vision to all parts of an organization,
24

mid-level managers translate that vision for the team, bridging vision with tasks and
implementation strategies.
When looking at employee engagement and retention broadly, the way that managers
incorporate values and consider strategies to advance employee engagement is important for
outcomes such as general employee job satisfaction and commitment and lowering intention to
quit (Akingbola & van den Berg, 2019). Managers are in a key position to negotiate how
antecedents to employee engagement (value congruence, job satisfaction, and rewards and
recognition) connect to consequences and outcomes for employees and the organization
(Akingbola & van den Berg, 2019). The working environment is heavily influenced by how
managers interact with employees, which can play a significant role in employee retention and
mitigating common issues around job stress and burnout in nonprofits (Selden & Sowa, 2015).
In an analysis of the community college system, Tyrell (2014) shared a model that
demonstrates how mid-level managers’ self-understanding and expectations of their role within
the organization, career trajectory, and understanding of their relationships and importance in
completing tasks and projects evolve as they move through various stages of their experience.
Similarly, senior administrators’ understanding of the role of these mid-level managers is a
dynamic process (Tyrell, 2014), which can change how tasks and projects are delegated or
assigned and how a senior administrator views the manager as a partner in leading the
organization. Based on their review of prior literature, Harrington and Williams (2004)
advocated for the empowerment of mid-level managers to determine decisions related to their
work areas, receive additional resources to meet goals, and more effectively empower employees
in their area. Kim (2002) also found that a more participatory strategic planning process leads to
higher employee engagement and job satisfaction.
25

Managers’ own motivation and engagement with their workplace and role are also
important to consider, in addition to this group’s impact on the broader employee population.
Lee and Wilkins (2011) compared managers’ job motivations in the public and nonprofit sectors
and found that managers in nonprofit organizations were more likely to opt for those roles due to
a desire for increased responsibility and family-friendly policies. The variety and autonomy
nonprofit managers feel in their work are greater than those in the public (governmental) sector
(Lee & Wilkins, 2011). Selden and Sowa (2015) suggested that managers’ motivations around
increased responsibility and flexibility indicate that too much rigidity in positions in the
nonprofit sector could lead to additional turnover. Giving managers room to grow, learn, and
have autonomy in their positions (while ensuring they have a strong understanding of their
responsibilities and work) could lead to better outcomes (Selden & Sowa, 2015).
The literature focused on managers, specifically those with personnel and supervision
responsibilities and who report to executive leadership, highlighting the integral role this group
can play in the culture of an organization as well as the organization’s ability to achieve
outcomes. Employee engagement, organizational outputs and ability to effectively implement
systems and create change, and overall communication can all rely on the managerial tier of
professionals and their motivation and ability to do their job effectively.
Effective Management Practices
Noting the role managers play in the employee experience at an organization, and thus
organizational outputs and outcomes, this section shares literature on effective management
practices, largely in the context of creating and managing engaged employee teams. Gilley et al.
(2010) surveyed 689 graduate students employed in various sectors to identify competencies
used by managers to build teams in the workplace. Their findings identified involving employees
26

in decision making as the most impactful practice managers can employ to foster engaged
employee teams, followed by coaching, effective communication, motivational practices, and
helping employees grow and develop their skills through goals and a training plan. Additional
studies support the notion that effective management practices involve a range of competencies
that include interpersonal qualities alongside hard skills that can be taught or trained.
Mishra et al. (2014) focused on open communication as characterizing positive work
environments that foster employee engagement. Their findings emphasized two-way
communication channels between managers and employees as an avenue for building trust and
supporting employee engagement. Particularly with the increase in digital and electronic
communications in the workplace, Mishra et al. identified training around face-to-face
communication, dialogue, and giving and receiving feedback as key skills for managers.
Building on leadership and management communications in internal organizational
health, Tao et al. (2022) conducted a study in April 2020, amid the start of the COVID-19
pandemic and shutdowns, identifying the impact of managerial communication and language on
satisfying employee needs and organizational engagement during a time of uncertainty and
crisis. Tao et al. found that the use of empathetic language, direction-giving, and meaning-
making (clarifying individuals’ work as it related to the larger organizational plan)
communications between managers and employees positively impacted autonomy and
competence and sustained employee engagement. These findings lead to specific
recommendations related to crisis communications and internal management within an
organization but point to management and leadership in taking care of employees’ psychological
and emotional needs, particularly when working through a challenging time (Tao et al., 2022).
27

Albrecht et al. (2015) posited that employee engagement needs to be an undercurrent in
human resource management policies, practices, and procedures rather than a concept limited to
measurement and discussion within a survey or similar mechanism. Basing their
recommendations on prior research related to workplace and employee motivational factors and
their relationship to employee and organizational outcomes and “competitive advantage” (p. 8),
Albrecht et al. recommended four human resource management practices or areas of focus to
promote employee engagement. The first was selection, referring to the process of hiring
employees and using evidence-based processes to identify applicants who are most likely to be
engaged by the work. The second was socialization, focusing on employee onboarding and
socialization to reduce the anxiety and uncertainty of newcomers in an organization as well as
build enthusiasm for the role and the workplace. The third was performance management,
embracing a dynamic, mutual process of goal setting, ongoing feedback, and creating a climate
of trust and empowerment for employees. The fourth was training, ensuring a mix of job
demands and resources, using training to enhance and build an employee’s personal resources,
and engaging in job crafting with employees.
Additional research underscores the approach that managerial interventions or tactical
approaches to employee management and supporting engagement should be integrated into
organizational culture and practices, not stand-alone programs or one-off solutions. Leiter and
Maslach (2010) observed that management interventions can be done individually, with a
specific work group, or with an entire organization in mind. They presented a framework for
management interventions that focus on the work environment and conditions, creating settings
that are more conducive to employee engagement and less conducive to burnout (Leiter &
Maslach, 2010).
28

Building from a study of an organizational survey, framed as a checkup, conducted by a
church-based organization in 2006 whose leadership was concerned about the potential for
burnout in their employees given the intense, mission-driven nature of their work, Leiter and
Maslach (2010) discussed how this type of preemptive organizational checkup can reveal early
predictors for challenges or dynamics that might be emerging within specific workgroups or
parts of an organization. They identified various interventions managers might undertake around
energy (balancing demands and resources, focusing on employee health, improving safety in the
workplace) and motivation (increased resources to support growth and learning and improved
ability to attain goals), noting that the most effective way to enact interventions is by impacting
ongoing processes (i.e., supervision as a continuous mentoring process rather than anchored
around a goal setting form revisited once or twice a year).
Similarly, Gruman and Saks (2011) discussed performance management strategies with a
focus on supporting employee engagement, noting the relationship between engagement and
positive organizational outcomes. Rooting their recommendations on a breadth of prior research
on employee engagement and models of performance management, Gruman and Saks presented
models for integrating employee engagement concepts into performance management. These
models include goal setting, inclusive of both organizational and individual developmental goals,
the acknowledgement and dynamic process of a “psychological contract” (p. 129), ensuring the
employee and the manager have a mutual understanding of each other’s expectations and
obligations, ongoing coaching, and facilitation of job engagement through the provision of
resources, job design, and ensuring a good fit between tasks and an employee’s skills, needs, and
values (Gruman & Saks, 2011).
29

Gruman and Saks (2011) further discussed the preconditions for successful and
productive appraisal of job performance and feedback, particularly trust between a manager and
subordinate. Luthans and Peterson (2002) found that employee engagement had a partial
mediator effect on managers’ self-efficacy and belief in their abilities as managers and leaders of
the team. Employees who have strong emotional connections with their managers and who
believe their manager has a vested interest in their growth and development, as well as their
participation in work processes, are more likely to respond well to those managers (Luthans &
Peterson, 2002). Engaged employees improve the self-efficacy of their managers, which in turn
leads to the reverse effect—efficacious managers produce highly engaged teams of employees
(Luthans & Peterson, 2002).
While the research focuses on a wide range of workplace settings and employee and
manager demographics, Schroth (2019) shared findings and recommendations focused on
Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2013) in the workplace. Schroth noted that this
generation generally has less prior work experience than previous generations and that they came
of age in a digital and social-media-oriented society. Changing cultural values around parenting
and upbringing (linked to what she terms a “culture of safety,” p. 6), high levels of commitment
to equity and inclusion, and higher levels of anxiety and depression reported than prior
generations are some of the contextual factors that impact the way Generation Z approaches their
workplace as compared to previous groups (Schroth, 2019). Schroth focuses her
recommendations for practice on managing job expectations with clear discussion on job tasks
and expectations (the psychological contract), utilizing robust onboarding tools, and strategically
and purposefully working with Generation Z employees toward increased autonomy (and
accountability) and ongoing coaching.
30

While there are other areas of management-related research that discuss best practices
more broadly, these pieces of research link the conceptual notion of employee engagement with
the practicalities of management and suggest specific practices and tools that managers can
employ in building and nurturing teams of engaged employees.
Intersections of Culture, Identity, and Work
The ways in which personal cultural, religious, or ethnic identities interact with
organizational mission and workplace engagement are not unique phenomena in the Jewish
communal sector. The past 3 decades have seen a doubling in the number of nonprofit
organizations serving ethnic and cultural nonprofits that seek to preserve various groups’
traditions and identities (Kim et al., 2021). Leaders in nonprofits working in specific
communities must balance the power of leveraging shared identity within the organization to
galvanize employees’ motivation while not alienating those stakeholders (both internal and
external) whose identities might differ (Yip et al., 2010). Community-facing nonprofits must
balance meeting the needs of diverse stakeholder groups while nurturing strong relations with the
community they primarily serve (Ni et al., 2022).
In religiously oriented nonprofits, the unique identity of the organization can impact a
myriad of decisions and operational systems, including staff training and development, resource
allocation, program implementation, and lay leadership recruitment (Sinha, 2013). Preserving the
unique identity of faith-based and cultural community-oriented nonprofits can help with their
longevity and stability and ensure that some of the highly specific needs of such communities are
being met (Sinha, 2013). There is a long history of community-based organizations serving the
specific needs of immigrant communities, which might include social service needs, preserving
links to countries and cultures of origin, and supporting crucial advocacy efforts on issues
31

important to that group (Cordero-Guzmán, 2005). In a study of nonprofits serving the Asian-
American community, Ni et al. (2022) found that the diversity of identities within the umbrella
of “Asian-American” adds to the complexity of meeting the needs of an ethnic group that is
comprised of a range of perspectives, cultures, and backgrounds.
For professionals choosing a career path in nonprofits working with specific cultural,
religious, or ethnic groups, personal and professional identities can overlap and intersect. The
ability of staff working most closely with the organization’s participants or recipients of services
to identify with that population is central to organizational culture and the nature of its work
(Cordero-Guzmán, 2005). Identity is a fluid and dynamic concept, and when personal identity is
linked with various layers of workplace identities, individual self-concepts of employees interact
with each other and can become communal and organizational identities that impact workflow
and organizational culture (Ashforth et al., 2011). The questions of how personal religious,
cultural, and ethnic identity relates to one’s professional identity when working for an
organization serving one’s own community require further exploration, but this study’s results,
focused on the Jewish communal sector, could inform trends relevant to other groups as well.
The Jewish Nonprofit Sector: Leadership Development and Employee Engagement
Many of the trends and findings shared above about the general nonprofit sector inform
the Jewish nonprofit sector as well. Since the focus of this study is the Jewish nonprofit sector, it
is helpful to discuss some of the specific historical realities, cultural phenomena, and data and
research on the network of nonprofits serving this specific cultural community.
Jewish Organizational Life: Historical Context
Organizations have long made up the backbone of American Jewish communal life
(Burstein, 2011). As Jewish immigrants made their way to the United States, they set up
32

institutions to help facilitate the basic elements of Jewish practice as well as provide social
services for the community (Wertheimer, 1995). The diversity, size, and scope of these
organizations have evolved dramatically over the past century and a half (Burstein, 2011), and
frequent attempts to take a census of the American Jewish community have, at times, struggled
to obtain quality, reliable data—a struggle found with the study of many different cultural,
religious, and ethnic groups (Burstein, 2011). Organizations like synagogues, national civic
organizations, and schools and their registries and contacts have served as important resources to
attempt to understand the size and demographics of the Jewish community (Burstein, 2011),
though more recent studies have expanded methodologies to better capture data from individuals
not formally affiliated with organizational life and include some of the nuances of Jewish
identity (Pew Research Center, 2021).
In the past few decades, the landscape of Jewish communal organizations has evolved to
include both well-established agencies with long histories of service in their communities to
smaller, newer, and innovative organizations providing niche services in communal engagement
and education (Cohen, 2011). As the sector continues to grow and shift with changing
demographics, needs, and trends in Jewish communal life, so too does the reality of the
professional leaders who work in these institutions.
Jewish Communal Professionals
As organizational life has evolved in the Jewish community, so too has the population of
individuals choosing to work professionally in the sector. The scope of professional roles within
the broad-reaching spectrum of Jewish communal life expands past traditional conceptions of
rabbis, teachers, and social workers. Jewish communal professionals encompass a range of
administrative, managerial, and programmatic roles in addition to clergy and social service
33

positions (Cohen, 2011). The literature contains some discussion of how the term “Jewish
communal professional” is defined, whether by the nature of the organization or agency (no
matter the content or function of the role) or whether the identity and educational background of
the individual have a place in the definition (Cohen, 2011).
Cohen’s (2011) demographic study of Jewish communal professionals in 2009 found that
most Jewish communal professionals, particularly from older generations, came from highly
affiliated backgrounds and had significant prior personal experience with Jewish institutions
(Cohen, 2011). Younger employees had a weaker sense of belonging in the Jewish community,
despite having relatively high rates of organizational affiliation in their personal backgrounds
(Cohen, 2011). More recently, fellowship programs focused on early-career professionals have
surfaced in established Jewish organizations. These programs provide intensive cohort
experience, professional skill-building, and personal growth to attract and retain talented
professionals (Samuel et al., 2021).
Studies have found some variance in how and if professionals in the sector self-identify
as “Jewish communal professionals” or see working in the community as their long-term career,
or whether they identify more closely with the broader nonprofit sector or their specific focus
area. Cohen (2011) found most professionals see themselves in their current roles as primarily
working in Jewish life, but Belzer’s (2020) qualitative work showed that some individuals
identify very strongly with their specific organization (but perhaps not the sector) or define
themselves as educators or nonprofit leaders working within the Jewish community, rather than
the community itself as the defining characteristic their role. Some of the resistance to
identifying as a” Jewish communal professional” was linked to poor perception and criticisms of
the field (Belzer, 2020). An alumni evaluation of an early-career fellowship (Samuel et al., 2021)
34

indicated that more than half of these early-career professionals saw the role as connected to
their long-term careers.
Cohen’s 2009 quantitative study, which was conducted amid an economic downturn and
recession that deeply impacted Jewish organizational life, indicated that the effects of the poor
economy significantly impacted professionals in the field, largely through declining
compensation, increased work hours to cover responsibilities left open by cutbacks, and greater
instability for newer professionals in the field (Cohen, 2011). This suggests the need for
understanding how external phenomena can impact the everyday life of professionals in their
roles.
In addition to the demographics shared by Cohen’s 2009 study, other inquiries have
elaborated on the relationship between personal and professional identities for those working in
the Jewish communal sector. The integration of work and personal life persists as a theme of
why many people choose this line of work (Belzer, 2020). The desire to share common values
with coworkers, find authenticity in one’s work, and live out personal values and priorities in the
workplace are largely positive aspects of organizational culture that keep many professionals in
the field (Belzer, 2020). Despite these benefits, significant challenges have been documented as
aspects of Jewish communal life with which professionals manage, such as friction between
funder priorities and individual desires and the associated power dynamics, as well as navigating
how and when to talk about or engage difficult political topics in the communal landscape
(Belzer, 2020). The at-times challenging dynamics around politics versus values and how these
issues are articulated by Jewish professional leaders are seen as significant potential roadblocks
to long-term retention and recruitment of leadership (Kurtzer et al., 2019).
35

Recruitment and Retention Strategies and Approaches in Jewish Communal Life
Given the importance of a strong and stable workforce for Jewish communal
organizations, significant energy has been put into strategizing about how to recruit and retain
top-performing individuals for this field. Scholars and thinkers focused on Jewish communal life
have discussed the recruitment and retention challenge for decades, citing demographic shifts,
including the pending retirement of baby boomers as well as the dramatic increase of communal
organizations in the 1990s, thus increasing the number of jobs without sufficient trained
professionals to fill them (Edell, 2002).
There is a historical perception of a pipeline “crisis,” with inadequate numbers of
qualified and trained professionals ready to take on open roles in the Jewish communal sector,
ranging from early career to executive roles (Kelner et al., 2004). Recommendations have
included expanding professional development programs to focus on necessary skills and
increasing lay leaders’ involvement in selecting and training professionals (Edell, 2002), and
researchers have looked to a variety of adjacent fields in both the private and nonprofit sectors
for guidance on the best approach to challenges around recruitment and retention (Kelner et al.,
2004). A persistent question surrounding professional development is the scope and nature of
interventions. Given the range of skills various jobs in the sector require, some programs bring
together professionals in similar positions for skill-specific training (i.e., classroom teachers in
Jewish day schools), while other interventions take a field-wide approach and cast a broader net
to bring together professionals in different types of roles for education and training (Kelner et al.,
2004).
Issues around compensation have surfaced in the literature on Jewish communal
professional retention. Walfish et al. (2013) conducted a Jewish communal professional
36

compensation survey, gathering over 1,700 responses largely from social media networks and
cohorts of professionals. A key finding was a significant pay gap between executive leaders and
middle management and early-career professionals, in addition to a gender gap in every
respondent age cohort (Walfish et al., 2013). Core recommendations from the 2012 study include
additional salary transparency and development of field-wide compensation benchmarks, and
increased flexibility in the workplace to address the gender disparities “in a workplace culture
that seems to force Jewish communal professionals to choose between prioritizing a top-level
career and raising a family” (Walfish et al., 2013, p. 10). Young (2013) proposed creating a set
entry-level salary for Jewish communal professionals at a higher level than the current average,
coupled with extensive management and training conducted in collaborative environments across
organizational boundaries within the sector as key to retaining and advancing high-performing
professionals.
From Leadership Pipelines to Leading Edge and Workplace Engagement
Analysis of professional leadership development in the Jewish communal sector has
evolved to focus both on the individuals—professionals’ skills, motivations, and abilities—as
well as the broader workplace and field-wide culture and how that might impact professional
recruitment, retention, and development (Bridgespan Group, 2014). As noted previously, in the
1990s, a significant call was made to increase professional development programs for Jewish
communal leaders, largely based on fears that senior leadership positions would go unfilled or be
filled by underqualified individuals (Edell, 2002). While several leadership development
programs specific to the Jewish nonprofit world have emerged in the past few decades, there is a
deficit in on-the-job training programs, quality supervision focused on skill development, and
effective mentorship (Bridgespan Group, 2014). Many leadership development programs focus
37

on one national organization but do not effectively span organizations to develop sector-wide
talent development opportunities (Bridgespan Group, 2014). Of note is that a lack of middle
management positions (as compared to early-career and junior roles or executive and senior
leadership) is seen as an inhibitor to talent development and retention (Bridgespan Group, 2014).
Organizational culture in the Jewish communal sector has both positive and negative
aspects represented in the literature. Professionals can value and celebrate aspects of the culture
that allow for alignment between personal and professional identities yet lament how some
workplaces’ familial nature presents significant challenges to professional life (Belzer, 2020).
Perceptions of hierarchies and bureaucratic systems, low salaries, and issues around gender
imbalance, particularly at the highest levels of leadership, have been cited as problematic
perceptions of workplace culture in the sector (Bridgespan Group, 2014). Relationships built
within the field have a significant positive impact on professionals’ experience and their
likelihood of remaining in their role or in the field (Belzer, 2020). These could include formal
supervisory relationships but are equally likely to include informal mentors and social
connections built within the work context by people with similar qualities and values (Belzer,
2020). The connection between organizational culture and talent recruitment, retention, and
development has emerged significantly in the past 2 decades (Bridgespan Group, 2014). A case
study of workplace culture and interventions to improve it at a large communal Jewish nonprofit
agency in New York City demonstrated the importance of buy-in from all levels of employees,
particularly managers, and of effectively and clearly communicating plans and how input from
employee surveys was being mobilized into action (Ferro, 2010). Accountability systems,
improved skill-based training, and articulating workplace values and associating them with
policies or actions were all keys to success in this organization’s example (Ferro, 2010).
38

Leading Edge Surveys and Impact on Jewish Nonprofit Organizations
Leading Edge was founded in 2014 to study and better understand the Jewish nonprofit
workforce and the broader sector to improve organizational outcomes. The discussion of these
surveys and their usage connects the general literature on employee engagement and the
effective usage of surveys with specific issues in the Jewish nonprofit sector. Since 2016, it has
conducted an expansive employee engagement survey, with the 2022 version being completed
by 12,387 employees (out of 20,223 eligible individuals) in 257 organizations (Leading Edge,
2022). The survey, which is designed to give employers specific feedback and tools to integrate
into their organizations, focuses on employee engagement, key demographics (including gender,
race, and age), why people stay or leave, issues with management and supervision, salary and
compensation, and the role learning and advancement play in the workplace and employees’
overall experience (Leading Edge, 2022). Each year’s survey focuses on a few varying themes.
For example, the 2021 survey included factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they
impacted employee experience. However, each examines the same key factors to facilitate year-
to-year comparisons. The surveys solidify the notion that employee engagement and workplace
culture have a direct impact on organizational success and outcomes (Leading Edge, 2021).
Individual organizations participating in the survey are given their results, which presumably
they can use to design and implement changes and interventions as necessary. The focus of the
Leading Edge surveys on Jewish nonprofit organizations bridges the general data on employee
engagement and its link to individual employee and organizational outcomes (Akingbola, 2017)
with the specific conditions and realities in this sector.
Several key findings in recent Leading Edge surveys relate directly to concepts in this
study. Leading Edge (2018) found that employees understood how their work directly related to
39

the mission and goals of their organization at rates far higher than those in other industries. As
noted above, the 2018 survey unearthed the gap between employees’ pride in their organization
(84%) and their willingness to recommend their workplace to others (69%), particularly in
comparison to general U.S. data gathered by Culture Amp (a 16% difference). Results showed
that employees had positive perceptions of and experiences with their immediate managers but
that fundamental management practices were still weak. The survey revealed a gap related to
those who would like to advance in their organizations but do not see opportunities for
advancement. It is worth noting that the question was specifically about the employee’s current
organization, not the sector at large. There was room for improvement in confidence in top
leadership (both professional and volunteer) in organizations. The data also demonstrated a
gender gap in understanding how compensation, salaries, and raises were determined, with men
reporting greater understanding than women (Leading Edge, 2018).
Leading Edge (2019) conducted an analysis with a heightened focus on differences
between those reporting they wished to leave their organizations within the next year and those
who intended to stay for 5 or more years. Decisions to stay or leave were heavily predicated on
employees feeling enabled and motivated to do their best work, their experience with leadership,
the availability of opportunities for learning and advancement, and employees’ sense of well-
being. Leading Edge noted that organizations that were repeat participants in the survey
performed better in several metrics, suggesting that the engagement survey being embedded into
organizational culture and relating to direct changes in the workplace could lead to positive
results.
Leading Edge distributed and analyzed its 2021 survey amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Leading Edge noted the circumstances around the pandemic had a significant impact on
40

workplaces, raising conversations around flexibility and the relationship between work and
personal life in new ways that challenged many organizations but also opened opportunities to
discuss changes in organizational culture. The 2021 survey revealed common strengths that are
seen consistently in survey results across the years: a deep understanding by employees of how
their work contributes to the mission and goals of the organization, a feeling of pride in working
at the organization, confidence that their immediate manager treats them with respect, and a
belief that the organization provides high-quality programs and services to the intended target
population. Common areas for growth are greater transparency around how salaries and raises
are determined, a feeling that there are not enough people to do the work of the organization and
a need for more advancement opportunities.
The Leading Edge surveys, which now reach a significant proportion of the Jewish
nonprofit sector as a whole, are important indicators of change and evolution in the field and a
desire to improve workplace culture, employee engagement, and overall outcomes for both
professionals and organizations in the sector. Research results and data that link findings to
specific workplace practices can affect change in employee experience, training of managers,
onboarding of new professionals, and other areas, leading to better employee and organizational
outcomes (Selden & Sowa, 2015). The frame of reference of the Leading Edge surveys provides
important context for this study and how broader concepts around employee engagement and
workplace satisfaction have been employed in direct efforts to assess and improve the specific
situation in the Jewish nonprofit sector.
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework provides a structure to identify how
KMO influences could contribute to performance gaps within a specific environment or setting.
41

Focusing on a specific stakeholder group (in the case of this study, mid-level managers in Jewish
nonprofit organizations), analysis of how these influences relate to the experience and
environment of the stakeholders can lead to specific recommendations for interventions or tools
to improve outcomes. Within each umbrella category of KMO lie different influences and factors
that will be further explored in the literature review and expanded upon with research results.
Procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge align with varying tasks and activities
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), present differently in the workplace and in performance gaps,
and call for different solutions. Motivational influences, including self and collective efficacy
and intrinsic motivation, are explored in the literature review and shared in the results.
Organizational culture, shaped by models and settings, is the primary influence explored in the
study, though since the study is cross-organizational but within the same professional field,
sector-wide cultural factors are explored as well. Organizational culture is directly connected
with leadership practices and behavior (Schein, 2017), and this study’s focus on middle
management explores how this stakeholder group is the recipient of organizational culture set by
leaders above them and how they contribute to culture transmission with their key managerial
and supervisory role in their organizations.
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge influences can play an important role in performance gaps both when there
are specific skills needed to complete tasks required as part of one’s role and when a task or
activity toward a goal will require novel problem solving and application of different types of
knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge gaps can be addressed by job aids, specific
information, training, or ongoing education. The intervention is determined by the specific
context and circumstances of the employee and the setting (Clark & Estes, 2008).
42

Knowledge incorporates several classifications of cognitive skill that require an
individual to access and apply knowledge and skills differently. Factual knowledge refers to
specific terminology or details, while higher-order thinking connects to conceptual knowledge:
understanding broad categories and concepts, theories, and ideas. Procedural knowledge includes
understanding when to use specific procedures. Metacognitive knowledge includes a more
contextual understanding of when to apply skills and concepts, strategic knowledge, and self-
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Workplace learning and addressing knowledge gaps in the workplace are vital to closing
performance gaps and improving organizational performance, as well as individual growth
(Boud & Garrick, 1999). Morris and Austin (2014) evaluated a leadership development program
serving the Jewish nonprofit sector and discussed the manifestations of knowledge that leaders
need to succeed, noting the centrality of making sense of the complex and unknown, exercising
authority and influence, understanding how to interact with others, and developing social and
cultural awareness. While a significant proportion of the research on employee engagement
focuses on the relationships and general workplace milieu for employees, it is worth further
exploration to better understand how the different types of knowledge connect with employee
engagement and overall organizational outcomes.
Kianto et al. (2016) sought to determine the relationship, if any, between knowledge
management and job satisfaction through a study of over 800 employees in a public-sector
industry in Finland. They acknowledge the limited amount of research exploring a potential link
between knowledge management and job satisfaction, even while job satisfaction is strongly
linked to employee motivation, job performance, and organizational outcomes (Kianto et al.,
2016). Their findings indicate that while knowledge acquisition and creation were not linked to
43

job satisfaction, knowledge sharing, codification, and retention were connected to job
satisfaction (Kianto et al., 2016). These elements emphasize the interpersonal and systemic and
organizational aspects of knowledge within an organization. Rafique and Mahmood (2018)’s
findings supported the positive relationship between knowledge sharing and management and
job satisfaction, noting also that high levels of job satisfaction correlate to stronger knowledge
sharing practices in the workplace.
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge of how individual concepts and ideas
function and flow within a larger structure (Krathwohl, 2002). This includes categories or
classifications, theories, or principles that intersect or overlap to create larger ideas or processes.
Conceptual knowledge has been considered foundational to procedural knowledge (Rittle-
Johnson et al., 2015), but recent research inquiries in the field of education have explored if the
relationship between the two is bidirectional. Conceptual knowledge and understanding require
an ability to define or identify a concept or idea without engaging in a task or procedure to
uncover the meaning (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015).
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge describes knowing how to do something, knowing the criteria to
apply skills or techniques in one’s specific area, and when to use procedures (Krathwohl, 2002).
Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy of learning includes the knowledge dimension as well as a
cognitive process dimension, clarifying how knowledge is processed and applied in various
situations. Workplace learning and applications of procedural knowledge are often expected to
be acquired through work tasks, but knowledge, which is not always made explicit, often also
44

needs to be acquired through broader workplace experiences, including sociocultural context or
deeper engagement with content (Billett & Choy, 2013).
In a study of medical students and their ability to apply knowledge learned in the
classroom in workplace settings, Schmidmaier et al. (2013) found that more clinical experience
positively impacted scores on procedural knowledge exams, as did motivation and intention to
work in clinical settings (as opposed to academic settings) in the future. The combined variables
of motivation and direct experience correlated to higher scores on procedural knowledge exams
of the selected content, rather than number of years of study, usage of flashcards or training aids
more closely linked to conceptual knowledge, or any demographic variables (Schmidmaier et al.,
2013). Understanding how procedural knowledge is obtained and applied within workplace
settings is important not just for training and management purposes but also to understand the
experience of individuals in the workplace and how they apply and utilize this type of
knowledge.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge was a new addition in Krathwohl’s update (2002) to Bloom’s
taxonomy. It focuses on an individual’s knowledge about cognition and their ability to reflect on
their own learning (Krathwohl, 2002). The self-knowledge component informs how an
individual can adapt and understand their own learning processes and abilities and how they
might function (Krathwohl, 2002). Well-developed metacognitive skills correlate to better
problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking (Dawson, 2008). Metacognitive
knowledge can relate to one’s understanding of persons, tasks, and strategies and how these
might interact to impact the outcome of a given project or undertaking (Dawson, 2008).
45

In a study of intergenerational workers in an automobile company, Gerpott et al. (2017)
included metacognitive knowledge as one of the types of knowledge exchanged between
employees from different age groups and generations. Examples of how this type of knowledge
manifested in the workplace included self-reflection (both from younger and older employees)
on how to structure their schedules and organize workflow, how to best handle stressful
situations or problems, and developing a deeper understanding of “learning how to learn”
(Gerpott et al., 2017).
In the context of this study, metacognitive knowledge was actualized through role
modeling and having the opportunity to explain or discuss a particular behavior within the
context of a workplace learning program (Gerpott et al., 2017). The ability to self-reflect,
process, and analyze tasks and strategies in the context of one’s understanding of learning and
cognition and apply these reflections and understandings to workplace behaviors is a key
influence for this study.
Motivation Influences
Motivation is a key aspect of performance and has tangible benefits even in situations
where there is not an explicit performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) put
forth a model of three central facets of motivated performance. The first is active choice, the
pursuit of a goal through actions (not just intention). The second is persistence, or continuing to
work toward a goal even in the face of distractions, and the third is mental effort: the correct
balance of confidence to navigate solutions and advance work toward achieving goals.
Motivation can be influenced by specific factors in the workplace, both positively and
negatively. Work environment, managerial and other relationships in the workplace, and the
system by which goals are managed can all impact an individual’s motivation and, ultimately,
46

performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The literature on motivation theories and influences provides
key concepts that relate to this study, this specific stakeholder group, and the problem of practice
addressed herein.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that they can complete tasks and actions to
achieve goals (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is a key source of personal motivation (Zimmerman
et al., 2017). Self-efficacy’s relationship to task outcomes is dependent on context and can be
rooted in an individual’s prior experiences, social persuasion, and how individuals interpret their
prior performance and outcomes (Zimmerman et al., 2017). Self-efficacy is related to self-
regulation in that individuals make decisions on behaviors and actions, engage in self-reflection,
and plan for future action based on their belief that they can accomplish a goal (Zimmerman et
al., 2017). In a study of mid-level managers in an Italian company, Borgogni et al. (2011) found
a relationship between self-efficacy and collective efficacy and between these factors and job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. The study showed that individual employees’
perception of their immediate supervisor was more strongly connected to their personal beliefs
around self and collective efficacy than their perceptions of top management, though perceptions
of top management were central to beliefs around overall organizational efficacy (Borgogni et
al., 2011).
Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy is the individual’s perception of a group’s ability to accomplish goals
(Bandura, 2000). A group’s achievements are not just the sum of individuals’ knowledge and
skills but rather a dynamic interplay between individuals and the product of their efforts as a
collective comprised of individuals (Bandura, 2000). Given that the measurement of collective
47

efficacy is based on individuals’ understanding of group abilities and performance, the centrality
of the unit and individuals’ perceptions of a group to work well as a team is significant (Bandura,
2000). Stephanou et al. (2013) conducted a study of elementary school teachers and found that
self-efficacy had a positive relationship with collective efficacy and that higher collective
efficacy was linked to increased job satisfaction. In another study on schoolteachers, Buonomo et
al. (2020) found that collective efficacy impacted job satisfaction more than self-efficacy and
emphasized that teachers exist within a broader network of administrators, students, and parents,
and in addition to managing these relationships, they must interact with various rules and
policies and manage their individual workload—all of which impact their sense of collective
efficacy.
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is based on individuals’ interests and beliefs and is anchored to the
idea that behaviors can be ends in themselves rather than means to other outcomes or extrinsic
rewards (Harackiewicz & Knogler, 2017). People may engage in activities or behaviors because
they wish to interact with specific content or are stimulated by the content of the tasks or
activities (Harackiewicz & Knogler, 2017). Interest theory refers to interest as a state-like
existence that combines feelings of enjoyment and curiosity with cognitive aspects of attention
and self-perceptions of value and importance (Harackiewicz & Knogler, 2017). In a state of
interest, there is alignment between personal value and the importance of an activity and the
emotional experience of engaging in the activity (Harackiewicz & Knogler, 2017). While the
notion of “intrinsic” seems to imply an internal phenomenon, interest is deeply related to
external environments and the interaction between an individual and the task at hand
(Harackiewicz & Knogler, 2017). Environmental factors can be disruptive or supportive to an
48

individual’s state of interest (Harackiewicz & Knogler, 2017). Intrinsic motivation appears to be
a stronger motivational force than extrinsic motivators. In a study of library science workers,
Singh (2016) found that the relationship between employees and their work has evolved and that
autonomy and a culture of trust and respect are important factors for positive employee
engagement. The largest motivating factor for employees in Singh’s study was “engagement in
the work,” defined as an intrinsic motivational concept, and recommendations from the study
include finding the correct blend of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors to maximize
employee engagement and performance (Singh, 2016).
The notion of belonging captures the complex relationship between experiences,
environmental cues, and relationships that individuals navigate to determine their sense of
belonging (Walton & Brady, 2017). Kahn (1990) discussed the role of meaningfulness, safety,
and personal psychological availability in impacting how engaged an employee is at work.
Applying one’s personal self to work effort is a precondition for engagement.
A related framework is self-determination theory, which posits that intrinsic motivation is
based on specific psychological needs that must be met: a feeling of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Within the workplace, autonomous forms of motivation,
including intrinsic motivation, promote employee wellness and positive performance outcomes
from employees (Deci et al., 2017). Extrinsic forms of motivation that are conducted with
authenticity can also be categorized as autonomous (Deci et al., 2017).
Attainment Value
Attainment value refers to the importance of doing well on a given task (Wigfield et al.,
2018) and is considered part of subjective task value along with intrinsic motivation and utility
value. The notion of a task holding importance or meaning for an individual relates to their sense
49

of themselves and their identity (Wigfield et al., 2018). Pukkeeree et al. (2020) assessed the role
of attainment value and positive thinking on employee engagement and innovative work
behaviors through a quantitative study of data provided by 350 human resource officers. Study
findings suggest that attainment value, along with positive thinking, can serve as a moderator
affecting how employee engagement can impact innovative work behaviors.
Organizational Influences
Organizational influences, including culture, work processes, and resources, can impact
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture is pervasive in all aspects of
organizational life. Understanding an organization’s cultural profile includes how individuals
might describe unique aspects of the organization, what is valued most by those involved in the
organization, unique aspects of how work gets done, systems for giving and receiving feedback,
how change occurs, and who is involved in decision making and how decisions are made and
communicated (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Schein (2017) noted the challenges of clearly defining organizational culture. He
identifies a list of categories that can capture or encompass aspects of culture in an organization,
which include observable and tangible systems and processes (such as formal rituals and
celebrations or observable, frequent behaviors between people and physical and symbolic
structures and spaces in which the organization operates), as well as less tangible qualities such
as group norms, what values are espoused in the organization, and shared meanings in
interactions between group members (Schein, 2017). Schein also discussed the question of
whether occupations have unique cultures. The author determined that other factors (geographic
location and other cultural factors that might impact a specific workplace) make this difficult to
definitively say, but the concept of a field or occupation having specific cultural aspects connects
50

deeply with the problem of practice is at the core of this study. Bandura (2001) posited that
people both produce social systems and are the products of them, creating a reciprocal dynamic
where individuals contribute to the environmental factors in which they exist while also being
influenced by them. Professionals in Jewish organizations, in some ways, produce the culture
they are a part of, as they run the communal institutions that set the foundation for how Jewish
life happens on a regular basis. However, in other ways, they are the products and recipients of
the culture surrounding them and not immune to communal challenges and issues that could
impact the nature or scope of their work.
Cultural Models
Cultural models refer to the unspoken yet understood norms that govern a space, group or
environment. Cultural models are deeply embedded within an organization or environment and
can set the tone or expectation for how things operate and function (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Belzer’s study (2020) surfaces several cultural models present in Jewish nonprofit
organizational life, as experienced by the participants in her study. These include power
dynamics between funders and organizations and how they impact decision making, challenges
felt by those with political viewpoints different than what is understood as the majority or
mainstem in the organization, and perceived acceptance of subpar management and supervision
practices as part of the norm (Belzer, 2020). Positive cultural models found in Belzer’s study
include the integration of personal life and values and work life, as many study participants
spoke about their personal values and professional roles being in sync (Belzer, 2020). The
description of Jewish communal work environments as “familial” was used to paint a picture of
close collegiality, warmth, and kindness that can come from working in this sector (Belzer, 2020,
p. 10).
51

Cultural Settings
Cultural settings are the observable and tangible environments where cultural models are
enacted. They are the meetings, conferences, office locations, and spaces and times where
culture can be observed (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Ferro’s 2010 report on a culture
change initiative at a major Jewish nonprofit organization discusses interventions designed to
address cultural settings and their impact on the overall organizational culture. These included
specific management training programs and changing expectations around supervision tactics,
recognizing the important role (and deficiency) of good practices and the negative impact on
culture. The organization also changed policies and practices around flexible work schedules, an
example of making a change to a cultural setting and what physical workplaces look and feel like
to affect larger change (Ferro, 2010). Ferro noted that when cultural changes are implemented,
retaining the unique and authentic character of the organization is important to maintain
motivation and morale (Ferro, 2010).
Organizational culture, which is inclusive of cultural models and settings, impacts job
satisfaction, employee engagement, and intention to leave, though different models and settings
embedded into an organization’s culture might have either positive or negative impacts
(MacIntosh & Doherty, 2010). These influences are key to employee experience as well as to
understanding broader organizational and possibly sector-wide norms and trends.

52

Table 1
Chart of KMO Influences and Associated Concepts in Study
Concept in study Influence
Mid-level managers need to have knowledge of
concepts and principles related to workplace
management and employee engagement.
Conceptual knowledge
Mid-level managers need to possess the
knowledge to carry out practices that support
employee engagement.
Procedural knowledge
Mid-level managers need to self-reflect and self-
evaluate on complex systems, implicit biases
and tensions in their work and adjust work
systems and patterns as needed to effectively
support employee engagement.
Metacognitive knowledge
Mid-level managers need to have confidence that
they can apply practices to foster engaged
employee teams.
Self-efficacy
Mid-level managers need to believe in their
organization’s collective ability to accomplish
goals, including confidence in top
organizational leaders’ ability to lead, as well
as lower-tier employees’ ability to accomplish
tasks needed for organizational success.
Collective efficacy
Mid-level managers need to see the importance of
supporting employee engagement.
Task value (intrinsic motivation,
attainment value)
The organization has cultural models that shape
the environment in which employees work and
are influenced by the organization’s mission
and identity as well as surrounding influences.
Cultural models
The organization has processes that support and
reinforce values and norms in the workplace
experience and influences how managers can
support employee engagement. (Cultural
settings)
Cultural settings

53

Conceptual Framework
This study’s conceptual framework is rooted in Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis but
modified for this exploratory study. The KMO influences shared above are found in the
framework and centered on mid-level managers and their implementation of practices that drive
employee engagement, which affects organizational outcomes. Previous studies on employee
engagement (Akingbola & van den Berg, 2019; Barak et al., 2001; Tillot et al., 2012) emphasize
the relationship between individual psychological factors, individual behaviors, and interactions
with organizational and environmental elements as key to understanding employee engagement
and workplace culture. Thus, this frame provided a useful lens for this study. See Figure 1.

54

Figure 1
Dynamic Conceptual Framework

Summary
For professionals working in the general nonprofit field, questions of work identity,
workplace culture and experience, and professional trajectory are often combined with personal
values and interests. This is certainly true in the Jewish nonprofit sector and other cultural
communities. Research on general employee engagement and maximization of workplace
outcomes connects strongly to motivational influences and striving to understand what factors
motivate individuals to enter the Jewish nonprofit workforce and keep them there. Significant
55

research has examined the broader business and general nonprofit sector around mid-level
management, as this key stakeholder group holds a unique position in their proximity to both top
leadership and entry-level employees, as well as their direct responsibility for much of the direct
service and action in an organization. Understanding how this group relates to organizational
culture as both producers and consumers is key to analyzing the problem of practice in this
study.

56

Chapter Three: Methodology of the Study
This chapter lays out the methodology for inquiry focused on the research questions in
exploration of the problem of practice. The purpose of this study was to understand the role of
mid-level managers in supporting employee engagement in the Jewish nonprofit sector. Mid-
level managers are the key stakeholder group at the center of the study as an important group to
understand the broader workplace experience in this sector. This chapter restates the research
questions for the study, provides an overview of the study’s design and the research setting,
identifies the methodology for acquiring and analyzing data, and discusses issues of researcher
positionality, validity, and credibility. The philosophical worldviews underpinning the study
include elements of constructivism, as study participants shared their understanding and personal
meaning related to their experience and pragmatism, as creating a deep understanding of the
problem is intended to lead to proposed solutions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit organizations apply their knowledge
and experience to create an environment that supports employee engagement?
2. What motivational factors influence mid-level managers in the Jewish nonprofit
sector to remain in their current role and to create an environment where employees
are engaged?
3. What organizational factors influence how mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit
organizations navigate their professional roles and settings to support positive
employee engagement?
57

Overview of Design
This study employed qualitative methods of data collection, utilizing semi-structured
interviews and document analysis. Interviews enabled the sharing of deep and nuanced
perspectives from individuals in the key stakeholder group. Document analysis supported and
provided additional context to the data from interviews, incorporating tools and resources
available to those interviewed and providing a glimpse into key elements of organizational
settings. Each of these methods is further described and explicated in the following sections. In
the following table of data sources, each research question is matched with the method used to
explore it.
Research Setting
Interviewees were mid-level managers within the JLOC International network,
representing a variety of local affiliates within that organization’s umbrella. This organization
has over 500 affiliates, largely in North America, serving close to 150,000 constituents and
employing around 1,200 individuals through local organizational affiliates. The pool of potential
interviewees provided diversity in geography, employee number and budget size of the local
affiliate, and unique workplace qualities. This approach enabled deeper analysis into a single
network of organizations that share many aspects of mission, vision, target population, and
delivery methods of services. Interviewees are in managerial roles that supervise staff but are not
the chief executives of their organizations. Documents utilized are from the national JLOC
International organization as well as documents created and used by the local affiliates.
The Researcher
I have spent 13 years working professionally in the field being studied in this inquiry.
This provides me with personal experience with some of the factors and issues discussed during
58

interviews and interrogated in the subsequent analysis. I have cultural understanding of many of
the values, terms, and examples presented during study implementation. This insider perspective
can prove valuable but could also present biases. An interview protocol helped ensure that
questions followed the same broad frame for each participant, limiting bias in question selection
or assumptions about how an individual interview participant might respond. For the interviews,
answer checking with the participants helped ensure that notes and concepts drawn directly from
interviews matched the intention of the interviewees. Document analysis focused on artifacts that
are readily available across the organization studied. Careful interview introductions and
assurances of confidentiality were built into the protocol, and interview participants did not work
directly with me in a supervisory capacity.
Data Sources
As referenced above, this case study included qualitative interviews and document
analysis. Interviews were conducted to provide a deeper perspective into the key stakeholder
group at the center of the research questions. Document analysis was used to further explore
themes and trends that emerge from interviews, providing support and additional context to
findings from interview data.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews utilizing a pre-determined protocol with flexibility for
prompts or follow-up questions, as necessitated in each conversation, were the first data
collection method employed in this study. Interviews enabled study participants from the chosen
stakeholder group to share perspectives, experiences, and personal meanings that could not be
observed, a key benefit of choosing interviews as a research method (Patton, 2002). Interviews
59

ranged from 45 minutes to an hour in length via video conference technology and were recorded
with participant consent.
Participants
Interviews were conducted with 14 participants who met the pre-set criteria for the study.
They are managers in local affiliates of the national organization being studied, directly
supervise employees, and report to the chief executive or equivalent of the organization. Interest
in being interviewed was determined by an electronic survey, and the participant cohort was
selected as a representative sample of the organization’s demographics, including geographic
diversity, gender, age, and professional experience. They were in their current role for a
minimum of a year at the time of the interview.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol contained 20 questions, with the addition of a few optional
prompts or points of follow-up (Appendix A). These questions covered knowledge-based,
motivation-based, and organizational factors that play a role in the individual’s work experience.
Since interviews present data from the first-person perspective of the interviewee, the questions
focused on how the individual perceives their experience, motivation, abilities, and how they
think about their own future and career trajectory. Given the fact that the direct reports and
supervisors of the individual were not interviewed, these data were not corroborated or compared
to how others in the individual’s workplace perceive these same factors. The conceptual
framework for this study understands this stakeholder group of managers as the “center” of the
organization, as they connect upwards to executive-level leaders and downwards to entry-level
employees, providing a unique perspective on the organization.
60

Data Collection Procedures
Initial interest forms for participation in interviews were sent in October 2022, with
interviews conducted in October and November 2022. Interviews were 45 to 60 minutes in
length and were conducted via video conference. Interviews were recorded to review quotes and
listen for accuracy. Recordings were transcribed with the use of a third-party transcription
service.
Data Analysis
Analysis of transcription and notes included coding to draw together themes and tie them
to KMO influences and research questions. Upon reading transcriptions of the interviews,
emergent ideas, themes, and topics were noted and used to create codes and categories (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Using different colors, transcriptions and researcher notes were coded
corresponding to each research question, which correlated to KMO factors. This category
construction (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) started the data analysis, but as interviews and analysis
commenced, additional categories were created and included in the coding methodology. Charts
and lists of categories and corresponding responses or examples from interview data were
compiled to observe and analyze key trends that relate to the inquiry and problem of practice.
Document Analysis
The second data collection method was document analysis, through which I compiled
documents, web systems, and print/online collateral from the organization and workplaces
studied. Document analysis enables the words, language, and cultural context of the participants
to be included in the study through physical items that are part of the world of participants in
their organizational life (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Document analysis is noninvasive and
61

presents elements of the organization in a format not influenced by the presence of a researcher
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Documents and Instruments
At the outset of the study, there was not a finite list of documents to be analyzed, but
rather as data emerged from interviews, documents and artifacts were used to provide support
and additional context to findings from interviews. Documents and artifacts serve to better
understand knowledge-based and organizational factors related to the problem of practice. For
this study, the documents and artifacts gathered and analyzed during document analysis provide
context and examples for how organizational and workplace culture is created and managed and
what types of tools managers use to supervise, provide feedback, and support their teams of
employees. The documents that were used were the standard goal setting and evaluation forms
used in the organization, onboarding materials for new employees, written strategic and impact
plans for both the national organization and some of the local affiliates, course descriptions and
curricular materials for the national professional development program, and the online intranet
where resources can be shared between professionals in the organization.
Data Collection Procedures
With permission from the organization, materials were provided upon request, and all
identifying information was normalized in discussion in the study. If documents are shared
during interviews, participant consent was obtained before documents were analyzed and used in
the study.
Data Analysis
Like the approach used in interviews, codes and categories were applied as a frame in
document analysis, linking parts of documents or websites to influences and themes that emerge
62

from the other data methods and from the theoretical framework. Table 2 presents the data
sources and their related influences.

Table 2
Data Sources and Related Influences
Influence Interviews Document analysis
Conceptual knowledge X X
Procedural knowledge X X
Metacognitive knowledge X
Self-efficacy X
Collective efficacy X X
Intrinsic motivation/attainment value X
Cultural models X X
Cultural settings X X

63

Validity and Reliability
Ensuring the data’s validity and reliability is a key element in producing useful study
results. Each research question aligns with KMO influences in addressing the problem of
practice and focus of the study. The conceptual framework builds on these influences and
explicates how influences might overlap and intersect to create phenomena observed in the data.
Interview data collection is a primary focus of the processes to ensure validity and reliability.
The interview instrument was developed with feedback from instructors and was piloted prior to
being finalized for the study.
Given my positionality and relationship with the organization, member checking was
utilized with interview data to ensure that participants' comments were accurately reflected in
data analysis and conclusions. Rich, thick descriptions of narrative findings in interviews as well
as leaving a clear audit trail of data, helped solidify the reliability of the data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The usage of two data collection methods strengthens the themes and key findings from
the data. Document analysis can serve as a helpful tool to check for data validity as conclusions
and themes take shape from the interview results or to further understand gaps or contradictions
that might emerge from the data to help strengthen the study’s reliability.
Ethics
Interviewing professionals who shared personal information about their workplace
experience, present and past interactions with coworkers, and potentially sensitive information
was a significant responsibility. Participation in the interview was completely voluntary and was
not contingent on any additional factors. Any potential participants with a current or past
supervisory relationship with me were disqualified. All names and identifying characteristics of a
specific location of a workplace were removed and replaced with broad descriptors. Recordings
64

were stored on a password-protected drive to which only I had access. These practices, along
with clarifying for interviewees the purpose and intent of the study and sharing my positionality
with them, as suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2015), solidified the ethical practices for this
study.

65

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand the role of mid-level managers in supporting
employee engagement in the Jewish nonprofit sector. This approach is one angle to explore the
broader problem of practice of employees in this sector recommending their workplaces as a
“great place to work” at a rate significantly lower than the U.S. average, despite having
extremely high levels of pride in organizational mission (Leading Edge, 2022). As discussed in
Chapter Two, employee engagement is a multidimensional concept inclusive of a variety of
factors related to the workplace environment as well as employee mindset and psychological
state. The key stakeholder group in this study, mid-level managers, represent a population with
the potential to significantly impact employees’ day-to-day experiences, which is why they were
the focus of this study. The stakeholder performance goal utilizes the Leading Edge employee
engagement survey as a platform to evaluate desired improvement in key competencies and
factors related to management practices and employee engagement. Three research questions
guided this study:
1. How do mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit organizations apply their knowledge
and experience to create an environment that supports employee engagement?
2. What motivational factors influence mid-level managers in the Jewish nonprofit
sector to remain in their current role and to create an environment where employees
are engaged?
3. What organizational factors influence how mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit
organizations navigate their professional roles and settings to support positive
employee engagement?
66

Utilizing a modified gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the data builds on
knowledge-based, motivational, and organizational influences that illuminate areas of potential
growth and intervention to achieve the stakeholder performance goal and, ultimately, the
organizational goal. Findings and responses to the research questions are organized by themes
that emerged from data analysis and linked to the influences described in Chapter Two.
Participating Stakeholders
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 mid-level managers at local,
community-facing affiliates of JLOC International, a global Jewish nonprofit organization
focused on education and programming for college students and young adults. Eligibility criteria
for participation in the study included having supervision responsibilities of at least one full-time
staff member, having been in one’s role for at least a year, reporting directly to the chief
executive of the organization, and working in one of the U.S.-based organizations under the
JLOC umbrella.
An email was sent to 50 potential participants with an eligibility screening tool. 18
individuals completed the screening tool, and 14 were deemed eligible by the criteria and elected
to participate in an interview. Table 3 presents a demographic overview of the 14 participants,
including age bracket, years in current role and years working in the sector, number of full-time
equivalent employees supervised, and gender. The gender demographics of the interviewees
reflect the overall population of this cohort of professionals within JLOC International. As
represented in Table 3, participants were asked for their age bracket during the screening stage,
and all participants were under age 40. Due to the nature of local JLOC affiliates, these mid-level
managers oversee relatively small teams, with six being the largest number of direct reports.
Current job titles for participants included assistant director, associate director, and associate
67

executive director. Interviews were supplemented by analysis of various organizational
documents and resources provided by the JLOC organization and/or the interviewees themselves
that link to examples and scenarios shared through the interviews.

Table 3
Demographics of Participating Managers
Participant
descriptor
Gender Age bracket Years in
current role
Years in
sector
Number of
FTEs
managed
M1 Female 26–30 1 5 4
M2 Female 36–40 6 15 4
M3 Female <25 2 5 3
M4 Female 26–30 2 5 4
M5 Female 36–40 4 10 4
M6 Female 30–35 1 5 2
M7 Female 36–40 5 10 2
M8 Female 36–40 8 12 4
M9 Female 26–30 1 6 2
M10 Male 36–40 4 5 3
M11 Female 26–30 1 5 2
M12 Female 36–40 5 15 6
M13 Female 26–30 1 6 5
M14 Male 30–35 7 13 3

68

Through the interview conversations, participants responded to questions about their
approach to management and employee engagement, also sharing reflections about their own
roles and perspectives on what it means to be a mid-level manager. M2 half-laughed as she
described becoming an “amateur epidemiologist” while navigating operations during the
COVID-19 pandemic. M3 described herself as a “cheerleader and [emphasis added] a coach” in
describing her role with the team she manages. She reflected that mid-managers are constantly
“getting things from everyone,” noting demands from direct supervisors and reports while
balancing her own needs. Four participants who have been with their current organization for
longer than 5 years shared that their job titles have changed even as their roles have mostly
stayed the same. Their interview responses produced common themes that flowed throughout the
conversations, even as each manager and each employee team has unique identities and
circumstances.
RQ1: How Do Mid-Level Managers in Jewish Nonprofit Organizations Apply Their
Knowledge and Experience to Create an Environment That Supports Employee
Engagement?
Conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge influences were each interrogated
through the question protocol included in the appendix. The themes below emerged as indicators
of how the participating managers apply these knowledge influences in their approach to their
work with employees. While some of these themes overlap with motivational and organizational
influences discussed later in this chapter, the focus of the examples shared below is how these
managers understand concepts and bridge them to their work, adapt procedures and protocols for
their environment, and reflect on these concepts and processes to adjust as needed in support of
their work.
69

Conceptual Knowledge
Near the beginning of each interview, participants were asked to share what employee
engagement means to them. This question helped illuminate how the manager conceives of the
general concept and laid a foundation for their approach to subsequent questions. Each
participant shared a working definition based on their understanding and prior exposure to the
term. Given that the concept of employee engagement has multiple definitions and approaches
within academic discussion, it was not expected that each manager would have a uniform
understanding or definition, even though each organization represented participates in an annual
employee engagement survey. All participants grasped the notion that employee engagement
relates to factors of motivation at work, energy and alignment with job tasks, and overall
presence in the workplace.
M10 described employee engagement as meaning “a lot of different things.” He felt it
included “people’s ability to feel like the work they’re doing is meaningful, that it’s worth doing,
and that they have some impact on it.” He described the concept as including a “sense of
ownership in the job,” as well as feeling part of a team and connected to the individuals one
works with. M6 defined employee engagement as organizational culture and the way people feel
about their jobs and places of work. She observed the difference between “just clocking in and
doing what’s on their schedule and then clocking out or feeling a dedication and a passion and
emotional drive toward what they’re doing and their work.” While the specific verbiage and
examples varied from manager to manager as to their definition of this key term, all 14 relayed
an understanding that employee engagement is a key element to the employee and workplace
experience in their organization.
70

Procedural Knowledge
Both data from interviews and the supporting documents centered procedural knowledge
as a core influence in how the mid-level managers support employee engagement. Managers
were exposed to knowledge and practices from a variety of sources—training programs, peers
and colleagues, conferences, and general leadership and management resources—and they are
required by their position to shape and adapt those practices into their specific setting and for
their employee teams. The themes listed below emerged from the interviews as well as the
supporting documents referenced by participants as core to their management practice.
Employee Engagement in Practice
Particularly given the focus on intangibles as descriptors for employee engagement, how
can managers assess which employees are engaged and when and determine what supports or
interventions might be needed? Participants described several indicators they used to assess each
employee’s level of engagement, noting it can evolve and ebb and flow during the year.
Reviewing calendars to understand how employees were using their time was a common
practice. M13 said plainly, “It’s when people have calendars that are full of coffee chats and
planning, teaching, and when you have a full calendar of different things you’re doing in your
portfolio. To me, that means you’re engaged.” She later expanded,
Someone could have a lot of things on their calendar, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that
they’re ‘in it.’ But to me, if it’s a busy week in the middle of the semester and your
calendar is empty, that would suggest you’re not really engaged and that you’re not doing
the outreach, the planning, and that there’s something off there, … but, of course, having
the meetings on the calendar doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re mentally in it.
71

M11 described hearing her employees talk about projects during team meetings or one-
on-ones and evaluating their level of engagement in the work by the language and tone being
used:
Are they talking about it like a to-do list, … or are they talking about it more holistically
and bigger picture? Like, strategically being like, “This program or this new fellowship is
going to fill the gap that students have shared with us they want to learn more about?”
M14 also looked to language as an indicator for engagement, reflecting on asking employees to
share what they are working on and identifying the “excitement of ‘I have a problem I’m so
excited about because that means we can move forward.’”
M1 looked for the way employees report back to her and share their work as an indicator
of engagement:
You can be engaged but be struggling or be in tension with students, or be failing, but
still be engaged with it … if people are coming to me and telling me the truth about
things and are genuinely seeking help or seeking advice … or if they’re excited to report
back and there’s emotion there.
M2 discussed the balance of the qualitative and quantitative nature of JLOC’s work and
shared using data reports of logged meetings with students as indicators of how engaged an
employee is. She explained, “I can pull a report and say, you’ve not gone on a single [one-on-one
student meeting] in a month, so what are you doing with your time?” M2 noted that pulling
reports and utilizing data to address with an employee in a meeting is preferable to commenting
on someone’s general demeanor or personality if her perception is they have been disengaged
from their work.
72

M8 also described looking in the organization’s data management system to better
understand what her employees have been doing, who they have been reaching, and utilizing the
data to assess their level of engagement and prepare for conversations with the employee. M12
echoed the sentiment that data and tangible, observable behaviors were chief indicators of
employee engagement. She shared an example of one employee she does not believe is engaged
with the organization’s vision and mission, explaining that the way the employee is (or is not)
spending their time is the primary way she observes disengagement manifesting in the
workplace.
M10 and M14, the two male managers in the participant sample, each described using
purposeful questions as a methodology to discern the level of engagement from their employees.
In each of the examples shared, managers rely upon tangible and observable behaviors or
information to evaluate an employee’s engagement with their work, translating the behaviors or
data to inferences about the employee’s current state and determining their own approach to
managing the employee, or addressing any issues, accordingly. The methods used by most of the
managers to assess an employee’s state of engagement rely on their understanding of what tasks
and behaviors comprise the roles of those they manage and what tangible behaviors represent
being engaged in the role.
Adapting Structures and Tools for Management
Each of the interviewees described implementing various forms of structured time
(detailed onboarding plans, one-on-one supervision meetings, regular staff meetings and periodic
retreats) and tools (written, digital, and interpersonal) to manage their team and support
employee engagement. These tools are adapted from a mix of prior experience, expectations set
by their executive director/CEO, and best practices shared through training materials. The
73

specifics of the tools varied from person to person and depended on the size of their team and the
dynamic of each manager and employee team.
M6 described her team taking “a lot of intentional time to think about our work and
revisit our work.” M13 called their weekly staff meeting “a critical tool” with a combination of
“checking in with people, as people” and interactive activities such as games, writing prompts,
and Jewish learning to be followed by logistics and planning conversations. M2 created a system
of quarterly all-team retreats, noting that team meetings and planning were where she could help
the organization improve when she arrived. A recent retreat incorporated full-team strategy
discussion and personal goal setting was anchored in organizational values meant to guide their
work with students. Throughout the year, M2’s team uses Slack as an internal communication
tool (with guidelines for appropriate and expected usage), and M2 noted that she reworked her
weekly staff meeting agendas and approach this year based on feedback from her team. Like
M2’s team, several other managers listed technological tools such as Slack, Google, RingCentral
as used regularly among their teams to facilitate communication and provide support for task
management.
Twelve interviewees described specific tools or training provided by JLOC International
as integrated into their management approach, namely a goal-setting document template and the
national organization’s signature course on management and supervision. They also describe the
access to professionals from JLOC International and the experience of professional gatherings as
integral to their knowledge-sourcing for how to effectively manage toward employee
engagement. For M11, a newer manager, she felt that access to these types of training and
resources was a reminder that “we’re all kind of doing the same work, just in different places.”
The goal-setting template creates space for goals related to the individual employee’s work
74

portfolio, as well as space to identify a behavioral goal and learning goal. The form is meant to
be discussed and signed by supervisor and supervisee and revisited during periodic reviews.
Some managers noted utilizing the curriculum from the supervision course regularly during the
year. M11 used the slower winter season in the office to review the materials from the course,
and M13 shared that she is “always thinking” about elements of the course, materials shared, and
ways to integrate what she learned in the course into her staff meetings. The structured settings
and tools described in this section demonstrate how the managers adapt and apply knowledge
they gained through formal training and courses as well as their lived experience as professionals
to try and meet the needs of their specific workplace and implement practices that support
employee engagement.
These practices and structures are largely informed by prior experience or knowledge
from external sources, but the approach within is shaped by the managers themselves. This
process embodies procedural knowledge, understanding how concepts can work in practice and
how to activate methods previously learned while adjusting and reflecting on one’s practice to
meet the needs of the situation. Additionally, while all 14 managers described structured times
and set practices devoted to team meetings, individual supervision, and group planning, there is
significant energy focused on the informal spaces and practices managers utilize to build
employee relationships and foster engagement. Some of these practices are intentional, and some
are the natural result of the physical work environment or space.
M5 described an average day filled with unscheduled conversations with individuals on
her team, helping them think through challenges and problem-solve. M1 shared similar
experiences when trying to calculate how much of her time is spent on management, noting the
structured time of meetings and retreats does not capture the full picture of what she does to lead
75

and support the team of employees she manages, which includes “hallway conversations,” pop-
ins, and frequent emails. M9 intentionally integrates informal “pulse checks” at the start of each
meeting to give employees the opportunity to share how they have been taking care of
themselves, what they are excited about, and provide some positive feedback, which feels critical
to her in a work environment that she described as high-pressure at times.
M11 explained that her programming team meetings weren’t just “me telling them what
to do” but described them as “collaborative,” with staff checking in with each other about their
specific focus areas and providing input and support. While sharing about his team’s approach to
managing collective workload, M10 talked about his employees as “a team that cares about one
another as people” and recalled instances where the group would collaborate to alleviate
workload from individuals who might be overwhelmed, dividing tasks according to individual
capacity and strengths. M6 described the shared space her organization occupies with other
groups has having limited privacy. She reflected,
The nature of being so close together, we tend to do a lot of “Hey, can I run this idea by
you? Hey, what do you think of this?” … Just casual and chitchatting throughout the day
that makes the hierarchy of our staff structure feel a lot more casual, both from me down
and all the way down. … Everyone is really involved in everything, for better or worse.
M4, whose organization also functions within a shared workspace alongside other
organizations, described a similar dynamic, laughing that in addition to structured one-on-one
supervision meetings with her team:
We do 15-minute check-ins twice a week on the days we’re not doing our one-on-ones,
where we stand in the middle of the office. It’s very fun. We stand in the middle office,
and everyone shouts at each other what we’re doing, … and if anything sparks joy or
76

anyone has a question, we then do a question round. So, everyone says exciting things
they’re doing, then we do a question round, then we go “BREAK,” and we all leave. It’s
very fun.
Relationship Building
One of the skill areas of practice the managers use to foster employee engagement is
purposeful relationship building. All participants shared examples of the importance of the
manager-employee relationship in their work and success around employee engagement. Many
described the intentionality with which they approach relationship building as part of their
management role. M10 felt relationship building is the starting point for employee engagement,
observing that
What we’re doing is really personal, and we all have a different sort of emotional and
social connection to it and all these other spiritual dimensions. I think getting to know
who’s coming to work in the morning and why are you coming here and what do you
think that means and what does it look like, I think is the most essential component of
doing employee engagement.
M5 joked about having a “superpower” of intuition, picking up on small changes in an
individual employee that might be indicating they need additional support. When picking up on a
potential issue, she “talks it out” with the staff member, always asking, “What can I do to help
you get through this?” M3 reflected on her team’s demanding environment and noted that she
tries to strike a balance between the collective, organizational needs and the individual needs of
the people on her team, seeing them as people first just as much as they are seen as professionals.
M11 described the relationships she has built with her employees as “true friendships” in
addition to supervision relationships, noting, “It’s kind of hard to not be authentic with
77

somebody who you have a good personal relationship with, and it’s not just business all the
time.” M9 shared she “takes a genuine interest in the people that I supervise … I want to know
how they’re doing and what they’re interested in and what their future plans are and how we can
support them.” M14 observed that emotional perceptiveness from a manager is a useful quality,
noticing that people are feeling frustrated or upset and recognizing that while it might be because
of something happening outside of work, it might be related to the work environment and
building a relationship of trust enables him as a manager to ask about it and check in with the
employee from a place of support. M9 sees her role as manager as supporting and encouraging
the employees on her team, helping them with what they need in terms of resources or strategic
direction.
The intentionality behind the relationship building between manager and employee, from
the manager’s perspective, echoes the skills needed in the community-building work in which
JLOC organizations are regularly immersed. While some of the managers might be natural
relationship-builders, some of the skills required to build relationship and rapport with
employees are central to the supervision training program several participants had completed.
Exercises and training focused on active listening and “rapport skills” are included in the
curriculum. The examples shared by the participants during interviews indicate a purposefulness
behind creating these types of relationships as integral to supporting employee engagement.
Individualizing Approach to Management
Twelve participants spoke extensively about adapting and individualizing their
management and supervision style and strategy for each employee depending on their needs,
skill set, and temperament. Oftentimes, the manager creates a personalized action plan with an
employee to complete a project or work through a challenge, adjusting the plan for the strengths
78

and areas of growth for the individual employee. M2 shared that she has different systems for
each employee, adjusting her management style for each person and each meeting, noting that
some people thrive with pre-written agendas and focused task-oriented conversation, and
admitting that employees sometimes need more emotional support and utilize their supervision
time with her as such.
When reflecting on how she assesses employees’ performance, M2 noted that she “could
answer that differently for each individual employee” but explained that her organization was
bound to a specific assessment and evaluation form monitored by the large, local community
funding organization of which they are a part. Similarly, M7 shared she
[tries] to encourage each staff member to sort of personalize and take the lead on how
we’re working together. … Are they someone who wants to do a SMART goal type of
supervision session, or do they want something that’s a bit more open and flowing, but I
still ask them to send an agenda.
M10 felt particularly passionate about the individualization process of supervision, noting
“everyone needs a little bit of different ‘something,’” and framing his approach with
How do you orient yourself to this work, and how do the things we need you to do or the
stuff you’re tasked with fit into the way you think about your connection and your
obligations and why you choose to do it and how it fits into your own sort of, like,
meaning framework?
M10 prides himself on identifying employee’s strengths and taking a non-linear approach
to dividing tasks, using the example of Jewishness and Jewish life as an example of a complex
area where the organization is comfortable with individuals having different orientations and
backgrounds and it being “messy, more complex, and interconnected.” He shared,
79

I like finding ways for people to be able to bring out the strengths that we have that
complement one another and to see that whether you’re new or you’ve been here for 100
years, you have something to learn, and you have something to offer.
M12, who is trained as an educator, reflected on how individualization played a role in
her management approach at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: “I think figuring out how to
differentiate, like differentiated instruction, but differentiated management supervision for each
person was a piece of that time.” M12 drew on the supervision training course she had completed
as well as an intensive workshop she attended to reference a matrix approach to understanding
and evaluating an individual’s skill and motivation and said, “You have to supervise people
differently, … and [the matrix tool] has become my bible for supervision.”
M3 noted she has learned that understanding individual employees’ place in life, age, and
experience and what they need from her as a manager has been an important growth element in
her role. Experience and generational differences will be discussed later, connected to efficacy
and motivational influences, but M3’s reflection on the different needs of her employees and
how it forces her to adapt her management style is an example of how managers apply
knowledge and a skill set to the tasks that comprise their management role. M11 also referenced
her own adaptation to meet the needs of different employees, describing her role as “filling in for
their needs, and also figuring out what my strengths are that they could best benefit from.”
Utilizing Effective Hiring Practices
A recurring reflection was the importance of hiring decisions, meaning not just the
structure of onboarding but the decision-making aspect of determining who would join the team
in the first place. M1 shared, “I think employee engagement starts from the moment you hire
80

someone. … You don’t always know who you’re hiring, or who you’re inheriting.” M9 reflected
on her management style:
I’m not a micromanager. I trust the people that we hire. Something that was said to me
that I now say to [my employees] is, like, “I deeply believe that we hire the right people
to do the job,” and my role is to support them and encourage them.
M14 referenced the hiring process multiple times:
There’s a certain amount of education and selection that happens through the interview
process. … Ideally, you pick someone who comes here and is already 90-something
percent aligned and ready to go, and it’s just small redirections and tweaks in supervision
generally.
Reflecting on what tools he uses to manage his team to get them engaged, M14 shared,
There’s structures, but honestly, hiring is the most important thing. If you have the wrong
people, it doesn’t matter how many beautiful, thoughtful structures you have. Because
I’ve been there also, … but either with skills or with attitude or with whatever, if they’re
not the right person for the role, it’s kind of pointless. So, we roll the dice when we hire.
There’s just no way around it.
M5 expanded on her approach to hiring individuals with values alignment and passion for
the organizational mission to also include work ethic and past performance:
We want to be the best that there is out there, so I will only hire the best. And that really
weeds out a lot of people because they can’t take the pressure. … People are bought in
upfront. I’m upfront that I … that we have high expectations.
Some managers recognized the temporary nature of any given staff team, particularly in
an organization that employs many early-career professionals. M6 felt
81

We are really lucky with the staff that we have found and hired and who have been drawn
to us in that we have a really dedicated team and I trust them. … [I] trust they are here for
the right reasons and to drive the mission forward. … I worry when we have staff
changes. … I’m fearful for the next time we have to bring someone on that our best
option is going to be someone who isn’t as reliable as the people that I currently have.
This focus on hiring, specifically candidate selection, emphasizes the importance of
employees whose skills align with the tasks required of a job and whose values align with the
organization, connecting to the manager’s sense of collective efficacy of their team. This also
potentially links to the intrinsic motivation of the employee and their connection to their work
role. Additionally, based on the examples shared by participants, many managers might base
their opinion of an employee’s abilities and fit early in their tenure, and the hiring process and
manager confidence at the time of hire could impact how the manager views and treats the
employee moving forward.
Applying the Practice of Goal Setting
Building on M8’s comments on how she broke down the steps needed to achieve the
team’s collective goals, a key theme in the interviews was the centrality of goal setting as led by
the managers, both for individual employees and collective employee teams. Notably, guiding
employees through goal setting is a central component of the supervision course taken by several
of the managers and is featured in the management templates used by most of the organizations
in their structured supervision systems. M3 shared a 22-page impact strategy plan she had
assembled with her executive director and campus support director from JLOC International,
with each team member having their own strategy page and clearly delineated “ownership” and
82

accountability for each part of the plan, going so far that each person has their goal sheet framed
on their desk.
While the practice of goal setting (as laid out in the supervision curriculum and the
management template used by the majority of the organizations) is designed to improve efficacy,
several managers shared potential challenges with collective goal setting and employee
confidence and ability to reach them. M6 shared,
Think our goal [of how many students to reach] this year is aggressive. And I think we
are working hard towards it, … and we have all the tools to contribute really aggressively
towards the goal. … I’m worried part of reaching the goal is out of our control. We can
only work so hard to achieve our goal that is half based on student response, … and, so,
there is a fear that I have that we’re not going to reach out goal, but I don’t think it’s
because of efforts that my team will or will not make.
M14 reflected on his organization’s collective goal setting by saying,
They were ambitious goals, and there was a whole conversation I had with our executive
director. … It was like, “I want this to be aspirational, but I don’t want to be so ambitious
that it’s deflating and crushing,” … so I think we landed in the sweet spot. At least, I
hope we did.
He noted that his team has one less person than the previous year, but they had raised their
student outreach goal, which he acknowledges was an active choice they made.
Three managers shared examples of how “aggressive,” in their description, goal setting in
terms of targets and outputs, they believe, leads to higher levels of drive and production of their
teams. M10 feels
83

It’s really important to give people opportunities to be challenged. … To give them
something that’s maybe a little bit harder than they’re ready for, but comfortable enough
that they can take risks and find a lot of success, … but when they stumble a little bit,
there’s not a huge cost to it.
M5 connected her team’s “aggressive” goal setting back to the hiring and onboarding process: “I
get really competitive people who just want to do the work. … It’s working with the person on
what motivates them internally to get them back to where they have to go in order to reach the
goals.” In discussing collective goal setting, M5 shared,
I think our goals are just high enough for us to reach, but I think they’re attainable. …
The big battle I have happens in November and then again in March, when they’re going,
going, going, and then they slow down. … There’s a lot of pressure, there’s a lot of
excitement, a lot of personality.
She observed some of her employees are “7s” on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of energy and drive,
when some people are “11s,” and her role as manager is to push to keep them motivated. M3 also
described her organization and team as having “a lot of pressure, and I think we drive a really
aggressive ship” but noted the supportive nature of the environment to help employees solve
problems and remove perceived roadblocks. M3 observed that while she might feel or absorb
some of the pressure, her team should feel the “work is fun” and noted if they aren’t “finding joy
[in the work], then something is off in terms of alignment.”
The link between goal setting and team communications was a concept several managers
shared as integral to how they approach managing their team and alleviating potential issues
around misunderstood expectations or lack of clarity on what needed to be accomplished. M9
shared her approach for galvanizing her team around large, collaborative programs (such as
84

hosting a Passover Seder for hundreds of students). Describing it as a “reverse engineering”
approach, she leads them through a visioning exercise to describe the product or result they want,
how they want students to describe it, and then laying out what steps need to be taken to achieve
that vision, and clearly articulating, as a group, what everyone’s unique role and responsibility is
in that plan. M13 and M14 shared similar approaches, particularly to large, complex projects,
describing a collaborative process where individual staff members come to understand their role
in a larger, collective project that connects directly to organizational and team goals.
Throughout the interviews, goal setting emerged as a primary tool managers use to align
employees’ work tasks and expectations with the desired outcomes of the organization’s work.
Designed as a tool to increase both self and collective efficacy within employee teams, the
examples shared by the managers described goal setting almost as a gas pedal that can be driven
by the manager. Push too hard, and they can be crushing and not motivational. Don’t accelerate
enough, and you will not go anywhere.
Supervising Experienced Professionals
When discussing managing employees who have prior workforce experience, managers
shared how they approach these professionals differently than those earlier in their careers.
Understanding how managers adapt management and supervision practices to meet the specific
needs of their employees is discussed previously, but in this section (focused on motivational
influences), the focus is on how these management scenarios impact both the manager’s self-
efficacy and potentially the experience of the employee. Eleven managers supervise
professionals or manage employees with significant prior experience (in addition to management
of entry-level or early-career professionals). Several managers noted the different needs of more
experienced professionals, changing how they approach management and, at times, changing the
85

nature of the relationship. M1 described her relationship with a more senior professional that she
supervises as a “thought partnership” with more collaboration and a higher level of trust than her
early-career employees. M12 shared that while she previously had an ongoing supervision
document with her team, she stopped doing it with her more experienced employees because she
felt they were coming in with a base skill set already and needed her more for conversations
about the work rather than “drilling them for details.” M13 shared similar experiences, noting
that more experienced professionals had been in the workforce longer and “know the ropes,”
going on to say, “They know what’s expected of them, what they need to do, and they need a lot
less from me [than early-career professionals].”
Five of the managers described a unique dynamic when supervising professionals with
less experience in the organization than they do but more subject-specific or content-based
experience than the manager. Namely, several of the managers supervise rabbis who function as
educators within their organizations and shared challenges in determining the right approach to
guide them and keep them engaged in the work. M7, M5, and M4 describe embracing the fact
that they have more organizational experience than their rabbinic supervisee, focusing on skills
and guidance in areas of operations and program strategy rather than content. M4 and M14
acknowledged that the rabbis they supervise have significantly more Jewish content knowledge
than they do and described the supervision situation as “uncomfortable” (M14) and
“challenging” (M4).
The range of responses to how managers approach their employees with more experience
or deeper academic or Jewish content credentials than their own present challenges around how
these scenarios potentially impact efficacy and motivation. On the one hand, for managers, there
is relief in knowing these more seasoned members of the team have been in the workforce,
86

understand the flow of a workplace, and have experience with accountability. On the other hand,
gaps in content knowledge can produce uncomfortable dynamics for some of the managers.
Supervising New Professionals
Employing and managing entry-level and early-career professionals is a significant part
of leading staff within the JLOC organization. Just as leading teams with more experienced
professionals impact the experience of managers, so does the widespread experience of
managing younger employees. These employees are largely part of Generation Z.
Most interviewees felt confident in their approach to managing early-career
professionals, characterizing it as focused on skill-building and helping these newer
professionals adapt to the workforce more broadly. M9 based her confidence as a manager with
newer professionals as rooted in her confidence in her own experience with the organization and
field. The skill sets required for entry-level positions match skill areas in which managers have
experience and confidence. Several managers observed their approach to supervising early-
career professionals balances the skills necessary to accomplish tasks required by their roles with
learning workplace behaviors and, more generally, how to function as a professional, balancing
work and personal life boundaries.
M6 shared an example of teaching an early-career professional on her team how to
appropriately request vacation time and handle communications and expectations around time
away. M2 explained that, from her experience, “early-career professionals need more
handholding. They need to learn how to work.” M5 shared,
I treat them like they know nothing at all. That’s, unfortunately, what I have to do. You
start from zero, and I try to explain this to the rest of my leadership team. … I was like,
“Have no expectations. You’re literally dealing with a baby.”
87

M5 shared that after a year, she adjusts how she treats early-career professionals, noting they are
ready to have conversations and take on projects they were not ready for the prior year, and
shifting to having substantial conversations about their career aspirations and what skills and
experiences they would need to advance.
Some more experienced managers noted that while they had been supervising early-
career professionals for several years, they observed some key differences in the current
generation of entry-level employees. M4 felt “they need so much more training.” M6 shared,
There are changes in employee engagement that are being driven by having Gen Z
employees who are asking for different things than previous employees have asked for
and millennial supervisors who are feeling caught in between what changes they want to
advocate for and what changes they think are crossing the line.
M6 described Gen Z employees as “not wanting to go through the steps of learning the process,
they just want the information handed to them.” M5 shared similarly,
This new generation, they cannot problem-solve. And it’s been sucking up a lot of my
time. … So, often, my Gen Zs, they want to quit. … When things get hard, I say, “What
will it take for me to have you change your mind?” Sometimes, the thought of quitting is
something they just blurt out to me, but it’s really not that extreme. Maybe it’s like,
“Ugh, I just need to take a Friday off.”
Several managers noted that they felt their workplaces would need to continually adapt to
meet the needs of each new generation of employees, remain relevant, and attract the early-
career professionals upon which the organization relies heavily. M11 said, “Everyone seems to
be having staffing problems and staffing shortages. People have options, and people want to be
happy.” M14 reflected,
88

I think there’s a lot of ink spill about early-career professionals and all the coddling that
they need. And I definitely roll my eyes sometimes when I hear or read something or a
[early-career professional] says something. But I think, ultimately, whenever that
happens, I think, “Oh, is there something I can do to make their job easier and more
meaningful so they can do the work?” Because people want to work. They want to find
meaning in their work.
M5 felt that, especially after the COVID pandemic, her workplace needed to do more to
sustain employee engagement in general, and particularly with younger employees, including
more schedule flexibility during the summer and shorter Friday workdays for those not working
late Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath) programs. M2 noted the early-career professionals in her
organization might be influenced by friends in corporate settings who not only make
significantly more in salary but were also able to work from home, when JLOC’s campus and
community-focused work, which also often includes odd hours, does not generally align with
that type of work arrangement.
For most of the interviewees, their experience managing early-career professionals
includes high levels of self-efficacy around their ability as managers to teach skills, prioritize
projects alongside those employees and make decisions, but comes alongside frustrations around
workplace demeanor and evolving needs from entry-level employees.
Prioritizing Burnout Prevention
Discussion of and fears around employee burnout were shared by 10 managers and
represented the second most frequent code in the interviews. Most of the interviewees conveyed
an understanding that burnout was a potential issue at their organizations, and as managers and
89

supervisors, they feel positioned to mitigate its impact on employees and take a proactive
approach to prevent burnout.
M11 commented on “rewarding and celebrating” success because “otherwise they can get
burnt out and disengage.” During a time of staff transition, M11 shared she made the decision
with her team to eliminate some intensive programming due to lower staff capacity: “And it’s
okay because we are going to put our best quality forward, … and I think that’s quality over
quantity because we are only a staff of three right now.” Similarly, M6 reflected on lessons
learned around staff capacity and burnout earlier in the year. Her organization had changed its
approach to programming at the start of the academic year and loaded additional events into the
first 3 weeks of the year, realizing later that the new approach had not yielded significant new
growth in students reached but that the staff entered the rest of the semester more tired and with
less capacity for the remaining months until winter break.
M9, who had previously noted the high standards of her organization, reflected that
[The high standard] demands a lot in terms of bandwidth, capacity, time, and energy, ….
and so, with that, I try to be really sensitive to employee needs. … I can look at past
employee track records, and [this organization] has a habit of burning people out. And so,
I try to be really, really intentional and ensuring that people feel valued and an important
part of the organization, and that their work matters, and that they’re contributing to
something much bigger than themselves.
M14 takes the approach that burnt-out employees simply will not do good work, so preventing
burnout is about reaching for organizational excellence in the work. He shared, “I think it’s self-
defeating even from a ‘productivity standpoint.’ … People are more effective when they’re
90

balanced and rested, and they make better decisions in difficult situations. At least that’s my
philosophy.”
M2, a seasoned manager, reflected on her self-care decisions over the summer and shared
calendaring decisions she made to adjust schedules and provide days off adjacent to holidays
where the staff needs to work to address and prevent potential burnout issues. Most of the
interviewees appear to operate with an understanding of what burnout could do to their teams
and an embedded belief that workplaces such as JLOC could be predisposed to higher rates of
burnout. Mitigation could come in the form of tangible resources, policies, or general
management approaches, but several conversations presented dual themes of burnout prevention
alongside discussions of “aggressive” goal setting and pushing for deep alignment between
personal values and work tasks.
Building Culture
The organizational structures of the JLOC affiliates represented in the interview pool
largely enabled the mid-level manager to serve as a key “culture builder” for the organization
and professional team. The operating model is one that allows managers to play a lead role in
structuring and facilitating the cultural settings where their employee teams gather, learn, and
communicate. These include regular staff meetings, organizational retreats, and individual
supervision meetings. For most managers, these functions comprise over 50% of their time in
their work role. These functions are described as integral to their position in the organization,
while the executive director/CEO necessarily focuses largely on external stakeholders and
challenges. This reality positions many of the managers who participated in the study to be the
culture builders of their organizations. Most of the participants reflected on this reality and
shared how they approach culture management with their employees.
91

Facilitating Trust, Honesty, and Openness
A significant theme that emerged from interviews with participants was their efforts to
build and sustain an organizational culture, or at least a culture among the employees they
manage, of mutual trust. Several managers shared examples of how they attempt to weave trust
and communication into the fabric of how their team functions and described learning that
honesty and openness were qualities that their employees responded well to in the process of
gaining that trust. M9 felt that trust was a marker of employee engagement, and M11 said she
sought to “establish a culture of trust to be able to say, ‘you can come to us with anything,’ and
build those authentic relationships.” M9 reflected on the start of her tenure and an approach she
took as a new manager in the organization of asking the staff what she should know that she
might not be aware of.
Across the board, nearly each of the 10 staff members praised the organization’s students,
community, and leadership but said that unclear communications and unclear expectations were
an issue, giving M9 a focus point to start from as she began her role as associate director. M4,
whose organization has fewer financial resources than some peer campuses of its size, named
trust as an important resource in preventing employee burnout by providing flexible schedule
options and enabling employees to build a schedule that works for them and enables them to
complete their jobs: a perk built on the trust she has with her staff.
For some of the managers, building a culture of honesty and openness came alongside
their own comfort in being vulnerable with their employees and recognizing they do not always
have the right answer right away. Several managers shared their experiences during the COVID-
19 pandemic when they were working through operational plans and expectations in a time of
great uncertainty. M1 shared,
92

And so, what did it mean that school was then being shut down and going online? The
biggest thing for me was I really thought that as a manager, I had to come in with all the
answers, and I had to stand up in front of a team and say, “OK, everyone, here’s the
plan.” … And I’m becoming increasingly comfortable saying, “I don’t know what the
plan is, but we’re going to build it together. What do you all think?”
She reflected, “Sometimes, it’s important to show that you’re human, too.”
M7 shared a similar experience when recalling how they onboarded two new employees
during the pandemic. She laughed as she remembered trying to train them with the instructions:
“We’d like you to build community, but don’t go within six feet of anyone, and do most of it
online … it was the silliest thing I’ve ever said out loud.” However, reflecting on her leadership
and her team’s experience during the pandemic months, she noted, “A lot of it was just the
honesty of ‘we don’t know how to do this yet.’ … We are figuring it out together and engaging
them with the process.”
Engaging in Role Modeling as an Intentional Practice
For several of the managers, serving as a role model to their team in key areas such as
work-life rhythm, organizational values like Jewish pluralism, and interpersonal exchanges is
core to their position as leaders to reinforce the organizational culture they aim to support. In his
reflections on how he demonstrates his connection to the organization’s mission, M10 said
simply, “It’s the difference between the stuff that we say and the stuff that you see, do, and act
on.” M2 explained that her organization’s senior leadership had explicit conversations about role
modeling for the larger staff, sharing an example of stepping out of a meeting to greet a
prospective student and family. M13 felt a deep responsibility to model healthy work-life
boundaries for her staff, citing her perception that the tendency in Jewish nonprofit work is for
93

people to “overwork” and have “blurred boundaries.” M11 described introducing a gratitude
exercise into regular programming staff meetings to “create a culture of gratitude” in response to
the knowledge that the staff “works so hard and sometimes it doesn’t feel like anyone is noticing
or necessarily appreciating it.” M12 credited “how leadership models the culture” as an
important element in creating a positive staff environment where employees feel comfortable
approaching senior leadership in the organization. The underlying current in these examples is
the managers sensing the type of culture they hoped to create and support in their workplace as
being countercultural to what their perceptions are of workplaces in the Jewish nonprofit sector.
For some managers, role modeling as a strategy to reinforce values and build culture
connects deeply to JLOC International’s pluralistic approach to Jewish life. M4 shared,
I think role modeling is really important when it comes to the mission and values we have
as a [JLOC International] movement. For me, I role model Jewish values that connect to
our mission. If we’re going to enrich Jewish lives, I have to live authentically Jewishly.
That doesn’t mean going to Saturday services every week or whatever, but I think role
modeling being a good person, going the extra mile for my students, and being
knowledgeable about Jewish things.
M2 felt that “people conflate Judaism with [JLOC] and [JLOC] with their Jewish identity” and
described the importance that put on each interaction with a student who walked through her
organization’s door, whether it was for a meeting, a program, a holiday, or even to use the
organization’s compost bins.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The questions in the interview protocol that were designed to probe for the use of
metacognitive knowledge asked participants about how they knew whether their staff members
94

were engaged, how they assessed employees’ roles on the team, and how they led their teams
through a complex project or challenging time and their approach to engaging staff through the
process. Participant responses demonstrated the managers’ ability to observe situations, ask
thoughtful and probing questions of employees to gain additional perspective and information
and determine procedures or actions as a result. The findings did not support a pervasive usage
of metacognitive knowledge as part of their management practice toward employee engagement.
This does not mean that the managers do not employ this type of knowledge or are not capable of
infusing metacognition and additional reflective practice into their approach. Simply, the
findings did not support metacognitive knowledge as a key influence. The recommendations for
practice in Chapter Five will further address this.
RQ2: What Motivational Factors Influence Mid-Level Managers in the Jewish Nonprofit
Sector to Remain in Their Current Role and to Create an Environment Where Employees
Are Engaged?
The motivational influences explored through the interview protocol were self and
collective efficacy, along with intrinsic motivation. Managers need to have confidence that they
can apply practices that foster teams of engaged employees and have confidence in their
organization (and team)’s ability to accomplish goals. Intrinsic motivation and task value have
the potential to be a key motivational influence as managers understand the need to keep their
employees engaged and consider how employees’ values and interests are aligned with their
work roles and tasks, which can play a role in several aspects of hiring and management.
Self-Efficacy
Managers had varying responses when sharing their belief in their own ability to manage
their team to keep them engaged and their belief in their team’s ability to accomplish the goals
95

set out by the organization each year. Managers’ self-efficacy related to their ability to apply
practices to foster employee engagement did not align completely with years of experience.
Some new managers had uncertainty about their abilities. For example, M1 has been in her role
for one year and noted, “I haven’t even settled in my role enough to know what resources to
adapt,” while also sharing multiple management tools, podcasts, and professional development
avenues she utilizes to glean tactics to integrate into her practice to gain confidence and
experience. M9 acknowledged she is “still very much learning” and that even though she had
supervised in a prior organization, “this almost feels like my first time really supervising people
and especially supervising people that supervise other [emphasis added] people, which is a
challenge in and of itself.”
Even some experienced managers shared uncertainty in their ability to manage for
employee engagement. M7 has been in her role for 5 years and explained, “Staff meetings
always feel like a bit of a struggle, and sometimes they feel really great. … I feel like I am still
trying to figure out how do I get folks more a part of the meeting.” M12, similarly, is an
experienced professional and manager, and shared that she doesn’t feel she is good at getting
employees aligned to the organizational mission and vision if they didn’t come to the role
already aligned, attributing her team’s alignment to “luck” during the hiring process.
However, most of the interviewees have moderate to high levels of confidence and self-
efficacy when it comes to their belief in their ability to manage employees and support employee
engagement. M10 credited his background as a teacher as giving him the confidence to manage
people and build relationships with his team. Other managers noted their specific teams as a
reason they, individually, felt confident in their ability to manage the team and nurture
engagement.
96

When discussing whether they, as the managers, believe their team can accomplish their
collective goals and if their employees believe they can accomplish the goals laid out, responses
varied. M5 reflected on her role relative to her employees’ efficacy, noting she felt “a lot of them
have an inflated sense of self-confidence” and seeing her role as “bringing it down to reality. …
Saying, ‘That’s cool, I’m down if you want to do this, but you’re not there yet.’” M8 discussed
the process of metrics and quantitative goal setting her team undergoes, noting that the current
year was the first time she felt that she guided her team on the specific steps it would take to
achieve their goals, making them feel more attainable. M3 referenced the popular television
show Ted Lasso, sharing that she made a paper sign that says “BELIEVE” and hung it in her
team’s office, just as the character (a soccer coach) does in the show. Her team will hit the sign
whenever they hit a goal, have a good day, or even when they have a bad day. M3 also noted that
the efficacy of her team members varies depending on the aspects of their work. In some areas,
they have high levels of confidence (i.e., student outreach, programming), and in others (i.e.,
interpersonal dynamics, complex political issues, challenges around antisemitism), they have less
confidence and more proactively seek guidance from her and other senior leaders in the
organization.
Attainment Value
While intrinsic motivation was initially a focus for motivation influences, study findings
supported attainment value as a key concept for the mid-level managers and their approach to
fostering employee engagement in their organizations. Attainment value refers to the importance
of doing well at a task (Wigfield et al., 2018), which in the case of this study, is supporting
employee engagement specifically within the mission-focused context of JLOC International.
Within the definitions of employee engagement shared previously as an example of conceptual
97

knowledge being utilized by the managers, the high value placed on supporting employee
engagement was clear. M4 spoke about how the perception of the high stakes of the work of
JLOC (“we say we’re basically saving Judaism, and I think that’s a lot of pressure”) was also a
reminder of “why we’re doing this work, which I think is really important.” M6 spoke about her
perception of the direct connection between employee engagement and “whether we are
successful or unsuccessful as a team,” reminding her why supporting the engagement of her team
is a high priority for her as an assistant director and manager.
Alignment of Values and Mission
Most interviewees shared a perspective that they felt successful professionals in the
Jewish nonprofit sector were inherently motivated and engaged in the work due to their values
and personal qualities, basing their opinion on their own motivation and connection to the work
of JLOC. Reflecting on her personal connection to the organization’s values and mission as a
manager, M8 shared, “I think I get motivated around how being engaged with the Jewish
community can be nourishing and helpful, healing, educational, and inspiring for college
students.” M13 noted.
Every single person on our team is passionate about the Jewish future and ensuring the
Jewish future. That’s, like, big vision, lofty language, but we all feel personal, I think,
stakes in helping as many Jewish students as possible connect to the richness that
Judaism has to offer in our lives. … I think every single one of us is passionate about
that, and that’s why it’s such an amazing team.
M5 reflected on her experience as a seasoned manager:
I realized one of the things I needed from a team in order for them to buy into what we do
every day is to get people who really, really love being Jewish and that express
98

themselves Jewishly in different ways. I like to create a diverse team in order to have our
staff kind of look like our student population. But if people don’t really love being
Jewish, they don’t see the point of doing this work, then I can’t get them engaged, and I
can’t get them excited for our goals or mission and all that.
M2 indicated that success in the work could be correlated to the intrinsic motivation
employees feel due to connection to the mission and values of the organization, impacting her
confidence as a manager in their ability to do their job well. She noted,
I think my students … can see through bullshit. They know who is here for the long haul
and is interested in this and cares about them as people versus the people who are here
because they’re on a contract or they have a 2-year fellowship or whatever. … This is our
career, not a job.
Job Crafting
All 14 interviewees shared instances where they had engaged in jobcrafting alongside
employees, shaping or adjusting the employee’s work role after they had already been working at
the organization. The pervasiveness of this practice suggests motivation by the managers to align
job expectations and tasks with employees’ skills and interests in order to maintain employee
engagement as the desired outcome. In some instances, jobcrafting was a means to extend the
tenure of an employee whose skills and experience had grown and who otherwise might have left
the organization. In other instances, it was to adjust a position to be a better fit for an employee
who was not seeing success but whom the organization wished to retain for various reasons.
When participants described the process and circumstances around these changes and
decisions, the motivational factors linked to job retention were implicit, but the managers needed
to exhibit a deep understanding of what their organization needed and how to adapt an
99

individual’s skills to meet those needs. Four of the managers shared their process for specifically
retaining an early-career professional who had concluded a 2-year fellowship managed in
partnership with JLOC International, moving them out of the “fellow” role and into another full-
time position at the organization. In these instances, the professional had been successful and
there was mutual interest in remaining with the organization even after the conclusion of the 2-
year fellowship term.
In each of these examples, the manager engaged the professional in a dialogue about how
their new role would look, what responsibilities they would add, and what they would no longer
be responsible for. M11 retained an early-career fellow in an educator position after the 2-year
fellowship concluded, adding a focus on curriculum development that matched an area of growth
and interest for the employee. M14’s organization retained a fellow by restarting a role that
hadn’t been filled in the organization for several years, noting that there was mutual interest from
both the organization and employee for her to stay, but there was less concern about the specifics
of the role. M8 recalled sitting down with her early-career fellow and having an open discussion
about what he (the employee) was excited about in continuing his work, what new areas he
wanted to explore, and collaboratively putting together a new portfolio. She noted,
I just felt like it was a really good process and a new step in their development and
thinking organizationally about what we needed and how to meet those needs, and how to
have [the employee] be really excited about a third year and growth in his job.
M5 shared a similar experience, but noted that, ultimately, she and the executive director
got to determine the individual’s job description. She explained that she asked the employee,
What are the top three things you love about your job? … We talked about it, gave her a
title, … and redid her job description with her. We sat down together. … I said, “You
100

might get some of the things that you want, but not everything, but this is really helpful.”
She was part of the process, so she really likes the role and feels bought into it. She feels
a little bit of power because she got to create her own job description with me.
Some managers shared examples of jobcrafting that emerged in direct response to
specific academic credentials or skill sets an employee had, moving away from a “standard” job
description of a role and shaping it to match the credentials of the employee. M9 recalled when
one of her employees came on board at the same time she did, hired by the executive director.
The employee had more experience and a broader skill set than was required by the position. In a
conversation with her executive director about staff retention, particularly given their concerns
about their rural geographic location as a difficult region to which to recruit early-career
professionals, M9 spoke with the executive director about ensuring the employee had
opportunities to expand his skill set. By adjusting the employee’s role, they gave him
opportunities to grow and hope that incentivized him to stay longer.
M4 also noted retention of high-performing professionals as a priority with jobcrafting,
also given her organization’s remote geographic location and historic challenges attracting high-
quality employees. She asked an employee, “What sparks joy? What makes you feel excited?”
and took their input on crafting an updated job description that reflected their interest. M4’s
jobcrafting process included considering her own job responsibilities, as the employee was
interested in projects that fell under her portfolio. M4 echoed sentiments shared by other
managers, noting that adjustments must be “collaborative because you’ve got to want to do it. If I
tell you to do something you’re not going to want to do, you’re not going to do it well.”
For some managers, jobcrafting occurred when they felt the individual employee was a
good fit for the organization, but their job role and tasks weren’t a match for their skill set. M10
101

shared this type of example, explaining that he worked to break down tasks connected to the
person’s job with them to help them succeed, acknowledging they stretched themselves to try
and find success. During the process of asking the employee to stretch their skills and put
themselves out of their comfort zone, they recognized the organizational skills of the individual
and gave them new responsibilities that matched their strengths. M10 said,
It gave them a sense of ownership, and it also brought them onto the team. … So, the
stuff that was hard felt a little bit easier to commit to because they know that they were
making a positive contribution.
Several managers noted they were conscious, when jobcrafting, to not add too much to an
employee’s plate without removing some responsibility for fear of overworking or burning out
the employee. M1 discussed a new project that she knew one of her employees would be
successful in managing:
[I was trying] to be considerate about not approaching her and saying, “Here’s something
you’re doing now,” but, instead, having a conversation like, “Hey, there’s a really
exciting opportunity coming up to launch this new program. You are the person that I
thought of. But I don’t want to add this to your portfolio if you don’t have capacity for it.
How do you feel about this opportunity, and what’s a way that we can make you
successful by doing it?” Because I know, personally, I would never want anyone to
surprise me by adding something to my portfolio that I didn’t feel connected to or have
capacity for.
Collective Efficacy
The study findings did not address the collective efficacy of the mid-level managers as a
group across the JLOC organizations. The interviews illuminated how the managers perceived
102

their work team’s ability to accomplish the goals set as a group and fulfill the organization’s
mission, which will be further discussed with organizational influences linked to the third
research question.
RQ3: What Organizational Factors Influence How Mid-Level Managers in Jewish
Nonprofit Organizations Navigate Their Professional Roles and Settings to Support
Positive Employee Engagement?
Throughout the interview conversations, managers shared both explicit and implicit ways
that organizational culture, influences, and factors shape their workplace broadly and,
specifically, how they relate to both their role as managers shaping the overall employee
experience within the organization. As noted in Table 3, these managers are part of JLOC
organizations with relatively small teams. They each have a handful of direct reports and even
the largest local JLOC affiliate included in this study has a total staff roster of 18 employees.
These are not large organizations with significant subdepartments but rather small to medium-
sized teams that work in close physical proximity to each other in a hyper-local community. The
organizational structure and makeup are integral to how cultural settings and models present
themselves in the experience of managers and their work.
Cultural Settings
Many of the cultural settings where organizational behaviors take place are discussed as
part of the procedural knowledge section, as the mid-level managers are the individuals who are
shaping and creating many of these spaces for their teams. However, organizational and external
factors influence the managers and their experience and ability to implement practices that
support employee engagement. Several managers talked about time-off policies, flexible work
schedules when employees work evening or weekend programs, and other cultural settings that
103

they oftentimes manage or oversee in their roles but that are set by the board of directors, chief
executive, or JLOC International as a policy expectation.
Access to a Global Network
Training seminars run by JLOC International and other organizations proved to be an
important source of knowledge for the participants, as several acknowledged their access to these
resources as a tangible way their organization supports employee engagement and their own skill
development. The organizational format of JLOC creates the cultural setting where it is
positioned as the provider of a significant amount of professional development and vehicle for
the transmission of practices and tools for all aspects of the work, even while the local
organization must adapt and adjust the content to fit their specific circumstances.
Being part of a global network of peer professionals is a powerful influence for several of
the managers in their work. M13 explained,
I feel fortunate that the more years you have in the movement [term used to describe the
global JLOC organization], you just gain more and more connections. And I’m always
trying to talk to different assistant directors to talk about best practices and tools for
management since it’s relatively new to me.
M11 described gatherings and opportunities gained through the national network as “a
rejuvenation. … We’re all kind of doing the same work, just in different places.”
In addition to their own participation in the signature supervision course referenced
earlier, several managers noted the benefit of access to professional development programs for
their employees, oftentimes at subsidized or minimal cost to the local organization due to
underwriting by JLOC International. Managers referenced a new professionals institute that they
integrated into the onboarding of their employees, a design-thinking intensive some local
104

organizations participated in, and cohort-based opportunities for several of the early-career
positions. These opportunities are tools that managers can utilize to support employees in their
works role and promote engagement and are also skill-building settings for managers to enhance
their own ability and confidence in their role. Particularly for training and gatherings run by
JLOC International, these opportunities also shape the language, expectations, and culture being
woven into local JLOC affiliate teams.
In addition to the content shared, personal connections and cohorts are created that can
serve as a key cultural setting for some JLOC employees. Some managers cited this cultural
aspect of training and convenings as being a primary motivator for encouraging participation.
M1 reflected that she actively seeks external support in managing her team:
I want to connect them to other professionals and other people who they can seek out as
mentors with the full recognition that I can be their supervisor, but in order for them to
really stretch and grow, I want them to have a lot of people they feel they can turn to in
their network.
M13 noted that her own experience as a manager was bolstered by deep connections to other
assistant directors, citing her ability to reach out for advice and to learn new tools for
management and general best practices.
In reflecting on the external training and cohort connections formed through in-person
gatherings, it is notable that the prior 2 years have minimized these face-to-face opportunities for
employees due to gathering restrictions and the COVID-19 pandemic. This was not explicitly
discussed during the interviews but is a consideration when examining the broader cultural
impact of these organizational factors on the employee experience.
105

Manager/Executive Relationship
Twelve participants referenced their working relationship with the executive
director/CEO of their organization while describing several different areas of their work,
approach to decision making, and team management. Manager and executive relationships were
not specifically addressed in the interview protocol, but managers described how they work with
their executive director (ED) largely in discussing the manager’s ability to make important
decisions and feel confident in how they are leading their team.
Managers who felt they had a strong and trusting relationship with their executives had
high levels of confidence in how to guide their teams and foster employee engagement. M3 felt
alignment between the middle manager and ED was key to accomplishing organizational goals
and ensuring the mission and vision are connecting with work tasks, noting the “great rapport”
she and her ED share. M13 described the ED of her organization as her “biggest tool,” noting his
knowledge and experience as an asset to her team, often experienced by them through her ability
to gut-check and ask advice from him. She said, “Any time I’m not sure what to do, or someone
is struggling, and I’m not quite sure what the solution is, usually I’ll talk to him about it. And
then that becomes my tool.” M14 reflected on the challenge of guiding staff through the COVID
pandemic (particularly when personnel cuts were made and his organization had to make
difficult decisions around staffing) and noted he learned from his ED how transparency can be
powerful when leading through tough moments as she had open and frank conversations with
staff around decisions the organization was going to need to make.
Some managers shared more complicated dynamics related to their ED and how they
understood their role as the mid-manager. M10 views himself as a translator and an interrupter.
He noted that sometimes direction or priorities come from his ED or the board of directors, and
106

he needs to adapt the direction into work plan, or “how we’re actually [emphasis added] going to
do it,” and how potential friction or challenge will be dealt with. In approaching his role as the
mediator between direction that comes from more senior leadership and how that will translate to
his employee team’s work, M10 reflected that they’ve seen “progress to the point where there’s
more understanding and less tension that comes up.” M10 also noted that when tension does
arise in mediating ED or board direction with the work of the employees managed by M10,
We know the response isn’t “this person is telling me the wrong thing. … They’re out of
touch and have no idea,” but rather “I think this is where this is coming from. Let me ask
and find out and let’s have this conversation.”
M9 also noted that “in middle management, we have this really interesting dynamic of
being responsible for our employee well-being, but not necessarily in the driver’s seat of making
overall organizational decisions, which can create some tension.” In each of these examples, both
the positive description of executive/mid-manager relationships and the more complex or
challenging, the mid-managers expressed an understanding of their role as the bridge between
the day-to-day work of student-facing employees and the larger organizational perspective of the
chief executive.
Financial Resources for Employee Engagement
Several managers noted how their organization’s financial resources, whatever their
status, play a role in their ability as managers to impact employee engagement. One area for
those with more significant financial resources was additional professional development or
offering of experiences to staff outside the regular workflow. M2 described her organization’s
professional development budget as nearly “unlimited,” citing external immersive educational
programs in Jerusalem and California as examples of opportunities they routinely offer
107

employees. M1 and M14 referenced a wellness stipend given to each employee to be used at
their own discretion and without judgement. In the absence of significant available funds for
“extra” professional development or material perks, M4’s organization relies on benefits such as
a monthly mental health day and small gifts to show appreciation and provide support for their
staff.
Compensation and Pay
Compensation and pay increases were presented by several directors as an organizational
factor that could impact employee engagement, but one of which the managers were oftentimes
not in direct control. M6 shared,
This was the first job that I had ever taken where the organization that I worked for
directly raised my salary. … I’m not personally raising my salary, but I had never worked
for an organization where we can only pay for that if we get the money to pay for it. And
so, I think it is challenging to operate with the budget in mind and what that can mean for
staff engagement.
M14 felt that high compensation was not a motivational component of employee engagement on
its own but reflected that an organization being able to hold a baseline of acceptable
compensation was important for an employee to feel that they could be focused on their work
goals.
Living in an extremely high cost-of-living part of the country, M14 noted his
organization had to maintain a large budget to achieve that “baseline” for their staff. M10 called
out poor compensation for early-career professionals as bad, not only in his organization but
across the Jewish nonprofit sector. He noted significant disparities in pay between early-career
professionals and top organizational leaders, suggesting the gap as having an impact on
108

individuals’ career trajectories in the Jewish nonprofit sector. M6 described being hyper-aware
of the fact that her salary, and that of others, came directly from their local fundraising efforts.
The first time she has ever been part of a smaller nonprofit where the connection between
compensation and local efforts to raise funds was so apparent. She felt knowledge of how
delicate the budget balance could be put additional pressure on how the staff performed their job
duties and could impact employees’ engagement in their roles.
The examples shared by the participants demonstrating how the financial standing of
their specific organization could impact employee engagement is notable, as the JLOC affiliates
interviewed have small to mid-size nonprofit budgets, and the mid-managers have an acute
awareness of what type of financial resources and opportunities are available for their
employees.
Balance of Performance Goals and Expectations
The procedural knowledge section described how managers utilize goal setting with both
individual employees and the collective teams at their organizations to help prioritize tasks and
projects and keep employees focused on the team’s goals with regard to participation and impact.
The specifics on how goals are set and measured indicate that the managers rely on procedural
knowledge to perform their duties, but findings from interview transcripts and documents
suggest the role of performance goals and group expectations as an important cultural setting
within JLOC organizations.
With a broad mission of inspiring commitment to Jewish life and learning among the
large and diverse population of Jewish college students on campus, creating benchmarks and
goals is not only part of the procedural responsibility of managers and other leaders in the
organization but has become embedded into the vernacular and culture of individual affiliates
109

and their employee teams. The most recent strategic plan of JLOC International sets out to define
excellence through metrics and benchmarks in terms of student engagement, laying out
aspirational goals for breadth (the percentage of students reached) and depth (the percentage
reached a significant number of times or with what is defined as a high-impact experience),
financial health, and fundraising capacity.
Managers described how this culture impacts their approach to goal setting and generally
keeping their employees motivated and engaged in reaching their metric goals. M3’s
organization created a comprehensive impact plan focused on student engagement, referenced
earlier as an example of procedural knowledge, as M3 described the process of compiling the
plan and using it to ensure each individual employee is clear on their role within the larger
picture of organizational goals. The plan opens with a “background” section discussing the
organization’s vision of meeting and inspiring “each and every one” of the estimated 3,500
Jewish students on their campus. The document continues to break down “a diverse set of
strategies and code of ethics to further the mission and vision” of their organization: radical
welcoming, inclusion, place matters, and relationships first. These specific values underscore a
culture that M3 describes as “driving hard” but “very supportive.”
M8 shared,
I get really stuck on these metric numbers and the numbers we set for ourselves, and I’m
trying to push it. … In general, I think people feel like what we’re setting is attainable.
And we don’t always reach them. Then, I always feel like there’s 10 million reasons, 10
million things that get in our way all the time. So, yeah, you know how that goes.
M2 discussed the balance of quantitative and qualitative in evaluation and general understanding
among the team of how they are doing:
110

A goal has been met, but maybe that wasn’t the right goal, or maybe it was a superficial
goal. And what we actually need is something a little bit deeper. But I think if you ask
any of the people if they were successful in their jobs, they would say yes.
M6 referenced the balance of “aggressive” and “attainable” in how goal setting impacts
team culture and efficacy:
We have all the tools to contribute towards that goal. I’m worried that part of reaching
that goal is out of our control. … There’s only so much. … We can only work so hard to
achieve a goal that is half based on student response, … and so, there is a fear that I have
that we’re not going to reach our goal, but I don’t think it’s because of efforts that my
team will or will not make.
M1 reflected on her specific JLOC organization:
We are a leading JLOC in a lot of ways, and I think that sometimes causes people to rest
on their laurels. If they look [in our database] and they see that we’ve passed 1,000
engagements [with students]. … I never want them to think that we’ve reached [our
goal]. It’s always we should be striving for more and better and we should be looking at
other schools and seeing what they’re doing, and see what major trends in the movement
are and really be listening harder and reaching further. And so, it’s the tension of yes,
they’re doing great at their jobs, and if they were somewhere else, they would probably
be overperforming, … but at a JLOC our size in this place we’re in, I’d say I wouldn’t
always be satisfied with what is happening, and I’m always pushing them to be better.
M14 referenced a “sweet spot” between “aspirational” and “so ambitious that it’s
deflating and crushing.” The relationship between managers and their teams and how goals shape
and frame not only the day-to-day and week-to-week tasks and projects that comprise their work
111

but also the culture and values around how collective and organizational efficacy is molded is a
cultural model that emerged from the data in this study.
Cultural Models
The individual organizations represented through the interviews are part of several
communities, each with its own cultural models and settings that surround the orbit of the JLOC
affiliate. These include broader American culture (including political division, media), the
specific campus or community in which the JLOC organization operates, the Jewish nonprofit
sector, and JLOC International as an umbrella organization or “movement,” as many of the
managers referred to it. Most managers felt that the specific norms, values, and practices
reinforced in their workplace were the strongest cultural influence that impacted their work
around employee engagement. Several cited their specific campus culture as having a deep
impact on their students, which in turn impacts the work of the employees and how they, as
managers in the organization, approach engagement. The managers whose organizations have
strong relationships with the college or university whose students they serve noted how the
culture of the campus felt pervasive in their own organization, which was oftentimes magnified
during the COVID-19 pandemic when JLOC organizations were navigating their own
operational decision making alongside campuses.
Geography was another influence potentially impacting managers’ ability to support
employee engagement. For some, working at a campus in a remote, rural area or “college town”
presented challenges in recruitment and retaining young staff for longer than a couple of years.
Other campuses in large cities and dense urban areas must grapple with a high cost of living and
employees being surrounded by friends and neighbors working in more lucrative job industries,
112

or for those also working in the Jewish nonprofit sector, working in a position with more
predictable hours or set schedule than student-facing work on campus with JLOC.
The discussion about Generation Z employees and the differences in workplace
expectations between managers, who are mostly millennials, and early-career professionals was
one of the more common examples of broader culture’s impact on managers and their ability to
engage employees. For M5, she cited a “boomer mentality” and resistance to adapting workplace
practices to be more flexible and meet the current expectations of professionals as a potential
danger to her organization’s culture and ability to recruit and retain employees. Similarly
referencing the multi-generational stakeholders of JLOC, M10 described differences in political
beliefs between his organization’s board of directors and involved students but also noted that
even between the more involved students and students who were more of the periphery, there are
likely differences in political beliefs and associations. He shrugged these differences off as
having a significant impact on the organization, citing the strong organizational culture “as a
community” as an antidote to the division political differences might create. For M8, political
division around American politics, as well as how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is discussed on
campus, has historically been a source of stress and challenge for staff, taking “a lot of student
energy and emotional energy and affecting the team here.”
Additional Findings: Prior Experiences’ Impact on Current Approach
While not directly asked or probed in the question protocol, several of the managers
discussed their prior experiences being supervised and managed as having a significant impact
on how they approach their work as managers currently and their approach to supporting
employee engagement. M12 noted that she “inherited” tools from the previous associate director
at her organization, who had been her manager when she (M12) was in a different role at the
113

same organization. M12 reflected on her experience being managed by the prior associate
director and taking approaches that worked for her, as the supervisee, into her own approach to
her current role as a manager. In addition to management tools, M12 reflected on her experience
with that same prior manager engaging her in a conversation about her professional future at the
organization, setting the tone for how personal goals and career development could be integrated
into supervision. M9 shared a similar experience, recounting how a previous ED she worked
with at another organization would ask her at the end of every meeting, “What do you need from
me? What can I do for you?” This is a practice she carried over into her own management in her
current role.
Prior negative experiences also impact how managers engage in management and
approach employee engagement. M11 shared that she felt she “always had a supervisor that was
not necessarily prepared to supervise somebody or give that dedication and focus on really
supporting somebody’s well-being,” which motivated her to approach a supervision training
course she took with extra diligence. In describing his definition of employee engagement, M14
discussed “maximizing staff’s potential,” reflecting,
[I have] been in positions where I felt stints of time where I don’t feel like I’m
empowered or that I have the tools I need to do my job well, … and it feels bad, and I just
do a worse job. … So, really, [employee engagement] is about clarity of purpose, having
the resources to make sure you can be successful, trust, and excitement.
M4 shared a motto she ascribes to: “You don’t leave jobs, you leave employers,” noting
why she left her prior position at another Jewish nonprofit organization:
The boss made it so bad to work there that, even though I loved what I was doing, I had
to deflect everything away from my employees because I also supervised in that role, and
114

I took the brunt of it. So, I was constantly beaten down. So, I try to do the exact opposite
when it comes to my [current] role, … making sure my employees are feeling fulfilled,
satisfied with their roles, not overworked, and that they’re getting opportunities to
enhance their careers.
M2, who has worked in the Jewish nonprofit sector for 15 years, similarly noted that past
negative experiences with management and employee engagement gave her the charge to ensure
employees on her team do not have the same experience. She shared,
I do not want a single person to leave here saying, “I do not feel like this was a good job.”
… I don’t want anyone to leave the Jewish professional world because of my
management style or our organization’s culture.
These examples point to how these managers reflected on prior experiences and have
consciously integrated those learnings and reflections into their current practice as managers.
These findings are important as they speak to the potential impact employee experiences can
have on the broader sector as individuals internalize their own experiences and apply learned
practices to employees working under their supervision as they advance in their careers.
Summary
This study utilized interview conversations with 14 mid-level managers of local JLOC
International affiliates, complemented by document analysis, to explore the role of managers in
supporting employee engagement. As discussed extensively in Chapter Two, employee
engagement is multidimensional and encompasses several aspects of the employee experience,
including relationships with coworkers and managers, resources available to employees, the
demands and challenges inherent in a role or workplace, and the psychological and social-
emotional experience of being part of a specific team and environment. With these building
115

blocks of employee engagement in mind, interview questions focused on knowledge-based,
motivational, and organizational influences, with the manager themselves as the key stakeholder
due to their significant responsibility of managing much of the professional staff (particularly
community-facing, programmatic employees). Ultimately, the organizational and stakeholder
goals relate to the employee experience and the degree to which employees feel engaged in their
work, but the premise of this study is that mid-level managers are key to achieving those
outcomes.
Several themes emerged that address the research questions. Managers need knowledge
of key concepts and practices related to staff management and are regularly required to adapt
these concepts and practices to fit the frame of their organizations and, specifically, each
employee’s needs. The nature of JLOC’s work is built around relationships, community building,
and nurturing the identity of young adults. The nuance of the organization’s work reflects in the
approach many of the managers take to their jobs, focusing on team building, matching
individual interests and skills to job tasks, and facilitating spaces that feel collaborative and
encouraging.
The motivational influences, self and collective efficacy and intrinsic motivation,
highlight the relationship between the work of JLOC and employees’ personal identities and
values and raise questions on how managers can both drive their teams to excel and ensure that
the goals set by the organization and with individuals are achievable based on the human,
financial, and other resources available to them as a small nonprofit. The organizational
influences raised do include some external factors, but for this group mid-level managers view
themselves as key creators and guardians of organizational culture and frameworks that
circumvent the employee experience.
116

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This chapter includes a discussion of the study findings presented in Chapter Four against
the backdrop of the literature presented in Chapter Two, recommendations for practice and for
future research, a brief discussion of limitations and delimitations of the study, and a conclusion
for the dissertation.
Discussion of Findings
The problem of practice explored in this study is the gap between the high levels of pride
that professionals in the Jewish nonprofit sector feel for their organizations and mission and the
significantly lower percentage who would recommend that workplace as a great place to work
(Leading Edge, 2022). This problem is expansive and potentially touches on several areas of
organizational structure and the employee experience. As one pathway to explore this problem,
the purpose of this study was to understand the role of mid-level managers in supporting
employee engagement within the Jewish nonprofit sector, leading to recommendations that can
continue to advance Jewish professional leadership as a desirable and meaningful career path for
highly skilled and motivated professionals. Chapter Four presented key themes that emerged
upon analysis of the interviews with 14 mid-level managers in local JLOC International affiliate
organizations, along with several documents and artifacts referenced in their conversations and
relevant to the research questions.
The selection of mid-level managers as the key stakeholder group and focus of interviews
for this study was based on the foundation of research indicating that managers play a significant
role in the everyday experience of employees. While the study did not focus on the managers’
own experiences and level of work engagement, the research questions and interview protocol
did focus on what mid-level managers do on a daily basis that might connect with the employee
117

engagement of those on their teams, specifically how they obtain and process knowledge to
translate it into action, how the motivational concepts of self and collective efficacy and task
value impact their work with their employee teams, and what organizational factors impact the
general environment and norms in which they are managing their employees.
Manager Behaviors Driving Employee Engagement
Several of the management practices shared by participants and included in the themes
emerging from the study align with effective manager behaviors for driving engagement and
building employee teams discussed in the literature. Mishra et al. (2014) discussed the role of
open communication and manager-employee dialogue as key to building trust and fostering
employee engagement, which was one of the key elements many of the managers are focused on
in building their teams and attempting to shape, or re-shape, organizational norms and values.
Albrecht et al. (2015) described effective management toward employee engagement as
weaving drivers of engagement into multiple aspects of the employee experience, not just
focusing on biannual reviews or occasional surveys to assess how employees are or aren’t
engaged at work. Participants in this study shared several ways that they work to both assess
employee engagement in an ongoing manner and to adjust workload and specific tasks and
projects as needed. Albrecht et al. (2015) discussed the processes of selection (hiring),
socialization, performance management, and training as key managerial responsibilities that
contribute to engaged employee teams. Each of these processes was brought forth by participants
in this study when discussing their work in leading their teams and working to foster employee
engagement. The content and approach in each of these areas vary from person to person, and
some of these are areas discussed below in recommendations for practice, but managers in this
study seem to grasp that these are key areas of focus to drive employee engagement.
118

Gruman and Saks (2011) shared models for how both individual and organizational goal
setting can and should be integrated into management to support employee engagement and help
drive positive organizational outcomes. The discussion with study participants on how goal
setting for both individual employees and their collective work teams aligns with this practice
and is reinforced by the goal setting/performance management document used by most of the
participants. Once again, this study shows alignment between a management practice supported
by the literature as driving employee engagement and what the managers in the study are doing
in their roles. However, the variability in how these tools are used and adapted and the approach
each manager takes to practices such as goal setting or hiring or feedback conversations does not
present a clear picture of the managers are using them effectively. This is supported by additional
metrics from the 2022 Leading Edge survey, where 90% of respondents feel their manager treats
them with respect, but only 70% feel the feedback they get from their manager is useful for their
growth, and 45% feel their organization’s performance review process helps them grow and
improve. This resonates with the strong emphasis on relationship building from this study’s
findings as a focus area for managers but raises questions in the effectiveness of direct
management and feedback processes in helping employees feel supported on a path for growth
and improvement in their work.
Manager Adaptation of Knowledge
The study findings demonstrate that mid-level managers are actively relying on
conceptual and procedural knowledge in their work roles. Through training, on-the-job learning
and academic experiences, they are exposed to concepts and ideas specifically linked to
employee management and the various components of employee engagement. Procedural
knowledge is central to these mid-level manager roles, as they must adapt concepts and apply
119

them in their specific work contexts and in a fast-paced work environment. Each participant
shared examples of taking concepts related to managing teams of employees and supporting
engagement and operationalizing them through structures and tools in the workplace.
Participants reflected on their length of tenure, comfort in the role, and familiarity with the tasks
required of them as impacting the degree to which participants would make changes in their
approach. In the conceptual framework, knowledge in key areas of practice is embedded into the
role of the mid-level manager, and their ability to process and adapt knowledge for application
into the workplace environment has a direct impact on the engagement of their employees in the
work.
Manager Responsibility for Engagement Drivers
When considering the literature and research on specific drivers of employee engagement
and analyzing the participants’ responses, these mid-level managers hold significant
responsibility over many, if not most, of the areas that directly contribute to employee
engagement. The conceptual framework presented shows the state of employee engagement
flanked by both the job demands-resources balance model and the preconditions for engagement
Kahn (1990) discussed in the original conception of the idea of employee engagement:
psychological safety, meaningfulness in the work, and capacity or availability to be present and
engaged. These models center the employee and their status around the state of engagement, but
the conceptual framework for this study suggests that the mid-level manager who supervises the
employee shapes or influences how those engagement drivers or antecedents affect the
employee.
Akingbola (2017) discussed the role of connections between an employee and their
coworkers and managers as a key driver of engagement, including the level of investment of
120

their manager and the amount of authority and autonomy given to employees around decision
making in their work role. Team dynamics and specific role responsibilities and decisions are
generally in the purview of the mid-level managers who supervise the bulk of the staff in
organizations such as JLOC. The JD-R (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) looks at engagement as a
balance between job demands and the resources available for employees to address those
demands, both in terms of personal capacity and accomplishing tasks.
The managers in this study shared ways that they work to balance both the demands on
their employees and the resources available, though in many instances, the ED or board of
directors have significant oversight of key resources (especially financial) and responsibility for
outcomes that lead to some of the demands placed on employees. The examples shared by study
participants of how they work with their ED are indicative of how the relationship between mid-
level managers and executives has implications not only for the work experience of those two
professionals but other employees and their workplace experience.
Motivation and Managerial Relationship With Employees
The study’s findings discussed the degree to which individual and collective goal setting
is largely the result of conversations between the mid-level manager and employees. Participants
shared the challenge of striking a balance between appropriately challenging goals that
emphasize the value of excellence, growth, and a bias for action and ensuring that employees do
not burn out or that the goal is so far-reaching that it becomes unattainable and diminishes
employee confidence and motivation. The role of attainment value was a key theme in the
study’s findings, particularly as managers discussed how employees were either aligned with the
values of the work, leading to motivation (and, in their perception, higher performance), or they
were not.
121

The practice of jobcrafting is an example of an active management practice to align a role
with an individual employee’s skills and interests, hopefully retaining them while meeting the
needs of the organization as well. The discussion of hiring practices and the notion shared by
several study participants that employee engagement starts with the hiring process connects with
the perceived centrality of values alignment in how employee engagement is framed in the
Jewish nonprofit sector. As noted in Chapter Four, several participants spoke about early-career
professionals and the way they approach their work as sometimes deviating from the
expectations of the manager, based on their own experience as professionals and experience with
prior employees. This tension touches multiple aspects of the workplace experience. Schroth
(2019) discussed this tension among Generation Z, most notably regarding the psychological
contract between an employee and their manager or the employer at large.
The reactions by managers who seek employees with deep, personal values connections
to the organization’s pluralistic Jewish mission and approach their work as a calling rather than a
job elevate the notion of attainment value as a central factor impacting employee engagement, at
least from the perspective of the managers based on their own experiences. Yip et al. (2010)
discussed the importance of balancing strong identity connections of employees working in
communities with which they identify (which can bolster employee motivation) with the
potential to alienate stakeholders or beneficiaries of the organization’s work who might identify
differently. This balance requires a nuanced approach from the mid-level managers seeking to
hire employees with passion and excitement for the organization’s mission and, specifically,
their own Jewish identity and experience without creating staff teams that are too monolithic or
whose approach to Jewish identity differs from that of many of the students and young adults
that campus or JLOC community is seeking to reach. The conceptual framework considers
122

motivational influences as part of the mid-level manager’s role as well in terms of how they
utilize procedural knowledge to frame and adapt tasks, lead goal setting for individual employees
and collective teams, and work to align the values and interests of employees with projects that
represent needs of the organization to meet its goals. The alignment of employee values to work
tasks is often facilitated, at least in part, by the manager.
Cultural Models and Settings
The findings presented in Chapter Four discuss both cultural models and settings within
the JLOC organizations and the way that external influences might impact how managers relate
to values and norms that become part of the organizational culture. Just as Belzer (2020) found
that many professionals in the Jewish nonprofit sector describe their workplace relationships and
dynamics as familial, the participants spoke about their efforts to build deep relationships with
their employees as part of their approach to management. Belzer found that these close
workplace relationships could be a positive or a negative attribute, depending on the individual
and their situation. The challenging power dynamics or political friction found in Belzer’s 2020
study and referenced by Kurtzer et al. (2019) as a significant challenge facing Jewish leadership
were not core to this study’s findings. Some study participants perceived themselves as an
intermediary between their employees and the organization’s executive leadership or board of
directors, working to balance the demands and expectations of one with the realities or capacity
of the other, but these dynamics did not emerge as central to organizational factors that might
impact employee engagement as described by the mid-level managers in this study the way they
have been present on prior studies focused on executive-level leaders.
Cultural settings refer to the observable environments where the values and norms of the
organization are enacted and lived out. This study’s findings support the notion that mid-level
123

managers are oftentimes creators or co-creators of these environments within workplaces such as
JLOC. They facilitate regular staff meetings, organize retreats and goal-setting sessions for their
full staff teams, and in many ways, function as the most visible leadership figure within the
physical space of the organization, as the executive is often focused on external stakeholders. At
the same time, the managers are participants in national gatherings of the JLOC organization,
professional development programs, and conferences where they are the consumers or
participants in broader cultural settings for the national organization or the sector.
This study’s findings emphasized more of the local cultural settings and models largely
created and/or reinforced by the mid-level managers on site. Participants spoke more about other
local influences, such as campus culture, or broader, national cultural influences, such as
generational qualities or political divisiveness, as impacting their local environments and their
approach to management more than the broader Jewish nonprofit sector. This dynamic is
reflected in the conceptual framework, as mid-level managers are both shaped by cultural models
and cultural settings and play a central role in creating them for their local organizations and
employee teams.
Through the scope of this study, the findings address the problem of practice by
illuminating ways to positively impact employee engagement by focusing on the role of mid-
level managers in shaping the employee experience. Employees in the Jewish nonprofit sector
feel great pride in their organization’s mission and purpose, so that area does not seem to require
significant intervention. What the Leading Edge surveys and other literature suggest is that
despite these feelings of pride and connection, elements of the workplace experience must be
adjusted so that the same employees recommend their organization as a great place to work and
see themselves continuing to learn, grow, and advance within that organization. This study holds
124

together the research-supported drivers of employee engagement along with the findings of how
mid-level managers can be most effective in their role to support positive organizational
outcomes and suggests that focused interventions to help managers with their role of overseeing
the day-to-day employee experience might have an impact on the broad base of employees in the
sector.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on this study’s findings, three recommendations for practice focus on investment
in the mid-level manager to support broader employee engagement in the organization.
Recommendation 1: Invest in Joint Executive and Manager Training
Twelve interviewees discussed the organizational influence of their working relationship
with the chief executive of their organization in the context of how it impacts their ability to
manage employee teams and foster employee engagement. Based on this study’s findings,
stronger executive and mid-manager relationships boosted manager self-efficacy and confidence
regarding organizational goals and around making decisions connected to employee work roles
and tasks. Chen et al. (2017) found that greater autonomy for managers is a key predictor on
whether the manager will engage in higher-order leadership behaviors, such as synthesizing
information and forming and suggesting alternative solutions to organizational challenges.
Given the fact that employee management and oversight is such a significant part of the
role of these mid-level managers, stronger executive and manager relationships could ensure that
managers are operating with greater trust of the executive leader and that they have the
autonomy to make decisions, adjust the balance of job demands and resources referenced in
multiple models of employee engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Saks & Gruman, 2014)
and make changes to the environment to secure the antecedent conditions for employee
125

engagement (Akingbola, 2017; Rich et al., 2010). An additional possible effect of increasing
manager efficacy and autonomy is positively impacting the managers’ engagement in their roles,
though the focus with this intervention is impact on broader employee engagement.
The format of joint executive-manager training could manifest in several different ways.
The annual global conference for JLOC International generally includes dedicated time for
professional cohorts. This time could be adjusted to include blocks for ED roles and
assistant/associate director roles to come together and participate in discussions and
programming on key issues relevant to the organization and their work. There could also be
ongoing cohort groups of executives and managers that meet throughout the year (perhaps with
regional campuses or similarly sized campus communities) to participate in workshops
specifically on employee experience. The intended outcome of this type of intervention is greater
manager confidence in their ability to make decisions in their role and increased trust between
the executive and the manager, leading to more manager autonomy, which could positively
impact employee engagement for the broader team.
Recommendation 2: Ongoing Coaching for JLOC Managers to Supplement Existing
Supervision Training
Many of the study participants discussed an intensive course on supervision they had
participated in under the auspices of JLOC International. While the managers could discuss
concepts from the course and use the course materials in their ongoing work, there is no
coaching or training following the course intensive to guide managers in how to adapt the
concepts to their specific work environment. Given the variability in staff size, prior experience
of the managers as supervisors, and the unique circumstances of each JLOC organization,
126

managers must adapt key concepts from the supervision course (and other sources of knowledge)
and apply them effectively.
JLOC International, in its capacity as the global umbrella organization that provides
training resources, grants, and other forms of support to local JLOC organizations, could provide
coaching for 1–2 years following completion of the signature supervision course. Coaching
could be done individually, or managers could be placed in cohorts of like-sized campus
communities, providing an additional element of peer support while navigating the challenges of
managing employees and sustaining engaged teams of professionals. Several of the topics raised
in the interviews for this study, such as adjusting to Generation Z in the workplace, managing
employees with deeper subject-specific content knowledge than you as the manager, effective
goal setting, and adjusting work roles and task expectations of employees, could be discussed
and processed with an experienced coach and group of peers to promote more effective
application of procedural knowledge and encourage metacognition and reflective practice.
As noted in Chapter Four, study findings heavily supported procedural knowledge as a
primary influence in how managers work to support employee engagement but did not indicate
metacognitive knowledge as a prevalent factor in the managers’ practice. The addition of an
ongoing coaching experience could allow for the time and space for metacognition to develop in
the practice of mid-level managers, engaging them in reflection on their practice, learning, and
growth and ultimately advancing their development as leaders and shapers of the employee
experience within their organizations and the broader sector.
Recommendation 3: Scaling Effective Management for Employee Engagement Sector-Wide
The study findings illuminate how these mid-level managers center several drivers of
employee engagement in their approach to managing their teams: team connections, dedicated
127

supervisor relationship, effective goal setting, and meaning-making in work tasks. The 2014
Leadership Pipelines study found a wealth of leadership development programs for early-career
professionals in the Jewish nonprofit sector and significantly fewer opportunities for those in
mid-career or senior positions (Bridgespan Group, 2014). Many of the programs that do exist are
within specific organizational verticals (i.e., within the JLOC International network or within the
Jewish Federations of North America network or similar national affiliate organizations).
While leadership development is not solely focused on employee engagement, the
management practices embodied by the study participants lay a strong foundation for a larger-
scale, sector-wide program that bridges what is known about employee engagement (largely due
to the prevalence and growth of the Leading Edge employee experience surveys within Jewish
nonprofit organizations over the past 5 years), and tactical management and team leadership
practices. The third recommendation is for the development of a sector-wide management
training and leadership development program for mid-level managers that bridges the findings
from the Leading Edge employee experience survey and research-supported best practices and
drivers for employee engagement and creates an impactful leadership development program
specifically for mid-level managers in Jewish nonprofit organizations, incorporating
professionals from various organizations within the sector and bolstering support for managers in
a variety of communal settings. This program could serve as a talent development initiative and
pipeline for future executive-level positions that open within the field (addressing the concerns
laid out by the Leadership Pipelines study), but it could also boost retention of quality
professionals within mid-level management roles, which are so crucial to the overall employee
experience in the sector and supporting desired organizational outcomes.
128

Limitations and Delimitations
Naturally, this study has limitations and delimitations. One limitation is that even with
parameters and procedures put in place to ensure confidentiality, participants might not have
been fully truthful or shared their full perspectives. The time limitations of this study provided a
narrow window for data collection, capturing the emotions and responses of participants at that
time but not allowing for follow-up questioning or data collection at other points during the year
or in later time frames. Another limitation of this study is that the description provided by study
participants of their work settings, strategies, and tactics they use to support employee
engagement might or might not be received by their employees in the manner which they are
intended. Additionally, while there is some variance within the data set in terms of age,
experience, and geography, the types of individuals who might choose to work for this
organization could be different than if another nonprofit with a different target population was
chosen, even if it were another nonprofit in the Jewish communal sector.
A key delimitation, boundaries set in the study’s design, is that data focused on a single
network of a national organization. Additionally, the choice to primarily focus on mid-level
managers is a conscious approach, supported by the literature on this professional population and
its importance, to explore the problem of practice. A different approach could have been chosen,
focusing on early-career, executive, or other professional subgroups, and might produce different
results. Local JLOC affiliates are relatively small organizations, and the managers in this study
oversee employee teams of two to eight and are part of local organizations that employ three to
15 individuals. Conducting this study with managers in larger Jewish nonprofit organizations
might have produced some different findings.
129

Recommendations for Future Research
The process of analyzing participant responses and reading literature related to this study
presented several possible avenues for future research. One approach could be to interview
multiple stakeholder groups within the same organization and evaluate how each group
approaches employee engagement to assess whether there is alignment between front-line
employees, managers, and executive leaders of the organization. While the focus of this study
was the role of mid-level managers in supporting broader engagement of the employee teams
they oversee, another pathway for research could dive deeper into the mid-level manager role
and the career choices and trajectories for the individual in this tier of organizational leadership.
Multiple inquiries (Kelner et al., 2004; Leadership Pipelines, 2014) discussed the challenge of
supporting a leadership pipeline that brings top-level talent into executive roles in the Jewish
community, and a study on the career pathways of mid-level managers in the sector could inform
the training and development strategies for this cohort whether they are seeking executive roles
or wish to remain in management roles that are oftentimes closer to program delivery).
The discussion on generational differences in the workplace and how it could impact
employee engagement as well as managerial style presents possible future research questions.
One approach could be understanding generational differences in management style and how the
current generation of entry-level employees experience the workplace, particularly following the
COVID-19 pandemic that deeply impacted both workplaces and college campuses that are
producing employees for the current workforce. Specifically for Jewish nonprofit organizations,
the generational differences explored might include evolutions in Jewish identity and how those
impact communal professionals. As noted in Chapter Two, the stress of political and communal
pressures is believed to have an impact on executive leaders in the Jewish nonprofit sector and
130

could contribute to attrition and challenges with recruitment (Belzer, 2020; Kurtzer et al., 2019).
While those themes did not emerge significantly in this study, a further area of research could be
to explore the impacts on executive leaders and how those challenges are perceived and
experienced by the broader employee base in the organization.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand the role of mid-level managers in supporting
employee engagement in the Jewish nonprofit sector. This approach was one pathway to address
the broader problem of employees in this sector recommending their workplace as a great place
to work at a rate significantly lower than the U.S. benchmark, despite feeling incredibly high
rates of pride in their organization’s mission and purpose (Leading Edge, 2022). The gap
between the feeling of pride in the type of work one does and the reality of whether one would
recommend to a friend or a colleague to work there suggests challenges with the workplace
experience itself.
Employee engagement was chosen as the primary concept to explore because it is
multidimensional and incorporates several different aspects of the employee experience,
inclusive of tangible resources and opportunities, and more intangible aspects of the nature of the
work and connection to coworkers. Mid-level managers were chosen as the key stakeholder
group due to the centrality of their role in the day-to-day employee experience. The modified
KMO analysis enabled specific knowledge-based, motivational, and organizational influences to
be explored to help identify elements of the work experience that could impact employee
engagement and how mid-level managers are connected to those influences as it pertains to the
experience of the employee teams they manage.
131

The importance of this study is that it focused on a large group of communal
organizations that serve a population of roughly 5.8 million people in the United States, and it
presents an example of a nonprofit sector that brings together personal identities with
professional roles, a concept which spans beyond the Jewish communal sector and could be
relevant to other cultural communities and the institutions that serve them, or even the broader
nonprofit sector, which has a heavy emphasis on mission. This study utilized broader literature
on effective management styles and the concept of employee engagement and analyzed it with
the overlay of specific research on the Jewish community and its professionals. The study
findings were largely based on the voice and experience of mid-level managers within JLOC
International, an expansive national network within the Jewish communal sector. Prior program
interventions and research on the sector have largely focused on entry-level employees,
executives, or broad groups of communal professionals. There is limited other research
specifically focused on mid-level managers and the content of their work in supervision,
management, and truly shaping the workplace experience for a large segment of the sector’s
workforce.
The recommendations for practice focus on interventions at the manager level that could
impact engagement more broadly for Jewish nonprofit professionals, investing in the sector’s
current cohort of mid-managers and their learning, growth, and development. This focus could
both improve the skills of mid-managers and their ability to manage and lead teams of engaged
employees and address the challenges of retention and leadership pipeline to executive roles,
which have been discussed in the literature.
Reflecting on the apparent gap between employee pride and connection to mission and
their workplace satisfaction, the data and findings from the managers included in this inquiry
132

suggest that the problem does not solely lie with the management and supervision experience of
employees. While, sector-wide, the Leading Edge survey results (2022) still suggest specific
management practices such as performance review processes and feedback are areas for growth,
additional areas such as opportunities for advancement and salary transparency are noted as
common struggles negatively impacting employee engagement that are not in direct control of
most mid-level managers. The findings and data shared in this study illuminate some of the
important ways managers within the JLOC network work daily in a holistic way to shape the
employee experience and keep their employees engaged. Several of these practices can serve as
examples of how drivers of employee engagement and management practices can be linked, but
additional factors contributing to challenges with employee satisfaction and retention need to be
explored and addressed within the Jewish nonprofit sector.

133

References
Aboramadan, M., & Dahleez, K. A. (2020). Leadership styles and employees’ work outcomes in
nonprofit organizations: The role of work engagement. Journal of Management
Development, 39, 869–893. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-12-2019-0499
Akingbola, K. (2017). Engagement, satisfaction, and nonprofit organizations. In. J. Ward & J.
Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 185–203).
Taylor & Francis.
Akingbola, K., & van den Berg, H. A. (2019). Antecedents, consequences, and context of
employee engagement in nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 39(1), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16684910
Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee
engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An
integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
2, 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2014-0042
Alhaqbani, A., Reed, D. M., Savage, B. M., & Ries, J. (2016). The impact of middle
management commitment on improvement initiatives in public organisations. Business
Process Management Journal, 22, 924–938. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2016-0018
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
63(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
134

Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., & Corley, K. G. (2011). Identity in organizations: Exploring
cross-level dynamics. Organization Science, 22(5), 1144–1156.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0591
Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development
International, 23, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among
child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from
past research? A review and metanalysis. The Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661.
https://doi.org/10.1086/323166
Belzer, T. (2020). When what you do is who you are: The intersection of Jewish organizational
culture and identity. Center for Religion and Civic Culture, University of Southern
California. https://crcc.usc.edu/when-what-you-do-is-who-you-are-the-intersection-of-
jewish-organizational-culture-and-identity/
135

Billett, S., & Choy, S. (2013). Learning through work: emerging perspectives and new
challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(4), 264–276.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621311316447
Binder, M. (2016). … Do it with joy!”–Subjective well-being outcomes of working in non-profit
organizations. Journal of Economic Psychology, 54, 64–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.03.003
Bish, A., & Becker, K. (2016). Exploring expectations of nonprofit management capabilities.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 437–457.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015583313
Borgogni, D. R., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee
perceptions of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203020050
Bridgespan Group. (2014). Cultivating the next generation of leaders for Jewish nonprofits:
Findings from interviews and research.
https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/library/leadership-development/building-a-field-
specific-leadership-pipeline
Buonomo, I., Fiorilli, C., & Benevene, P. (2020). Unravelling Teacher Job Satisfaction: The
Contribution of Collective Efficacy and Emotions Towards Professional Role.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 736.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030736
136

Burstein, P. (2011). Jewish nonprofit organizations in the US: A preliminary survey.
Contemporary Jewry, 31(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-010-9028-5
Chen, C. A., Berman, E. M., & Wang, C. Y. (2017). Middle managers’ upward roles in the
public sector. Administration & Society, 49(5), 700–729.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714546326
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Coetzee, M., & Stoltz, E. (2015). Employees’ satisfaction with retention factors: Exploring the
role of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 83–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.012
Cohen, S. M. (2011). Profiling the professionals: Who’s serving our communities? Journal of
Jewish Communal Service, 86(1/2), 200–215.
Cordero-Guzmán, H. R. (2005). Community-based organisations and migration in New York
City. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 889–909.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830500177743
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2012). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact
nonprofits. John Wiley & Sons.
137

Dawson, T. L. (2008). Metacognition and learning in adulthood. Developmental Testing
Service, LLC.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work
organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-
113108
Edell, D. E. (2002). Professional recruitment and retention: A call to action. Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, 79(1), 61–66.
Ferro, S. (2010). Creating a culture of professional engagement. Journal of Jewish Communal
Service, 85(1), 195–199.
Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Are the 100 best better? An empirical
investigation of the relationship between being a “great place to work” and firm
performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 965–993.
Gable, S. A., Chyung, S. Y., Marker, A., & Winiecki, D. (2010). How should organizational
leaders use employee engagement survey data? Performance Improvement, 49(4), 17–25.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20140
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. (2015). State of the American manager. https://www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-
american-manager.aspx
138

Gerpott, L.-W., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). A phase model of
intergenerational learning in organizations. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 16(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0185
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., McConnell, C. W., & Veliquette, A. (2010). The competencies used by
effective managers to build teams: An empirical study. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 12(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310365720
Gothard, S., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Leadership succession planning: Implications for nonprofit
human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 272–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.684741
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement.
Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004
Gupta, N., & Sharma, V. (2016). Exploring employee engagement—A way to better business
performance. Global Business Review, 17(3, suppl), 45S–63S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916631082
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Knogler, M. (2017). Interest: Theory and application. In A. J. Elliot, C.
S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and
application (pp. 334–352). The Guilford Press.
Harrington, D., & Williams, B. (2004). Moving the quality effort forward–the emerging role of
the middle manager. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(4), 297–
306. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520410546833
JLOC International. (2021). Leading edge employee experience survey results [Unpublished
report].
139

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kelner, S., Rabkin, M., Saxe, L., & Sheingold, C. (2004). Recruiting and retaining a
Professional workforce for the Jewish community: A review of existing research.
Brandeis University
Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Heilmann, P. (2016). The impact of knowledge management on job
satisfaction. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20, 621–636.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0398
Kim, M., Potochnick, S., & Olson, K. (2021). The prevalence of ethnic, cultural, and folk
nonprofit organizations in increasingly diverse communities: A case of demand
heterogeneity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021100721
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.
Krathwohl. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4),
212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuchinke, K. P., Ardichvili, A., Borchert, M., Cornachione, E. B., Cseh, M., Kang, H.-S., Young
Oh, S., Rozanski, A., Tynaliev, U., & Zav’jalova, E. (2011). Work meaning among mid‐
level professional employees: A study of the importance of work centrality and extrinsic
and intrinsic work goals in eight countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
49(3), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411111413217
Kurtzer, Y., Adland, N., Baird, J., & Tucker, G. (2019). Courageous leadership: The challenges
facing Jewish leadership in a partisan age. Shalom Hartman Institute.
140

https://static.hartman.org.il/dev/uploads/2019/09/Courageous-Leadership-White-
Paper.pdf
Leading Edge. (2018). Are Jewish organizations great places to work? Results from the third
annual employee experience survey. https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/are-jewish-
organizations-great-places-to-work-results/
Leading Edge. (2019). Are Jewish organizations great places to work? Results from the fourth
annual employee experience survey. https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/are-jewish-
organizations-great-places-to-work-2019
Leading Edge. (2021). Are Jewish organizations great places to work? Results from the Fifth
Annual Employee Experience Survey. https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/are-jewish-
organizations-great-places-to-work-employee-experience-survey-2021
Leading Edge. (2022). Are Jewish organizations great places to work? Results from the Sixth
Annual Employee Experience Survey. https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/are-jewish-
organizations-great-places-to-work-employee-experience-survey-2022
Lee, Y. J., & Wilkins, V. M. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public
and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02305.x
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2010). Building engagement: The design and evaluation of
interventions. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 164–
180). Psychology Press.
Linscott, K. G. (2011). Filling the leadership pipeline: Driving forces and their effect on the next
generation of nonprofit leaders. SPNHA Review, 7(1), 4.
141

Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., & Sirola, W. (1998). Explaining nursing turnover intent:
job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational commitment? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199805)19:3<305::AID-JOB843>3.0.CO;2-N
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self‐efficacy. Journal
of Management Development, 21(5), 376–387.
MacIntosh, E. W., & Doherty, A. (2010). The influence of organizational culture on job
satisfaction and intention to leave. Sport Management Review, 13(2), 106–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2009.04.006
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
McKeever, B. S., & Pettijohn, S. L. (2014). The nonprofit sector in brief 2014. Urban Institute.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement: The expanded
role of internal communications. International Journal of Business Communication,
51(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525399
Morris, Z. A., & Austin, M. J. (2014). Leadership development in the Jewish nonprofit sector.
Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 89(1), 126.
Ni, L., Dai, Y., & Liu, W. (2022). Dynamics between fragmentation and unity: Identity and
nonprofit relationship management in the Asian American community. Public Relations
Review, 48(2), Article 102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102157
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.,). Sage.
142

Pepelko, K. M. (2020). Untangling turnover: Why development directors leave and what
nonprofit organizations can do about it. SPNHA Review, 16(1), 7.
Pew Research Center. (2021). Jewish Americans in 2020.
https://www.pewforum.org/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/
Pukkeeree, P., Na-Nan, K., & Wongsuwan, N. (2020). Effect of attainment value and positive
thinking as moderators of employee engagement and innovative work behaviour. Journal
of Open Innovation, 6(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030069
Rafique, G. M., & Mahmood, K. (2018). Relationship between knowledge sharing and job
satisfaction: A systematic review. Information and Learning Science.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional
relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational
Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.
Ronquillo, J. C., Miller, A., & Drury, I. (2017). Trends in nonprofit employment. In J. Word & J.
Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 29–43). Taylor
& Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181585-3
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21187
Samuel, N., Rieser, M., & Rose, R. (2021). Ezra and Springboard alumni report, Fall 2020:
Evaluation of Hillel International’s Springboard Fellowship. Brandeis University.
143

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
Schmidmaier, R., Eiber, S., Ebersbach, R., Schiller, M., Hege, I., Holzer, M., & Fischer, M. R.
(2013). Learning the facts in medical school is not enough: Which factors predict
successful application of procedural knowledge in a laboratory setting? BMC Medical
Education, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-28
Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review,
61(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006
Schunk, U., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In D. H. Schunk & E.
L. Usher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., p. 10–26). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Selden, S. C., & Sowa, J. E. (2015). Voluntary turnover in nonprofit human service
organizations: The impact of high performance work practices. Human Service
Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(3), 182–207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1031416
Singh, R. (2016). The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators on employee engagement in
information organizations. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
57(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.57.2.197
Sinha, J. W. (2013). Unintended consequence of the faith-based initiative: Organizational
practices and religious identity within faith-based human service organizations. Nonprofit
144

and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 563–583.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012462457
Stater, K. J., & Stater, M. (2019). Is it “just work”? The impact of work rewards on job
satisfaction and turnover intent in the nonprofit, for-profit, and public sectors. American
Review of Public Administration, 49(4), 495–511.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018815261
Stephanou, G., Gkavras, G., & Doulkeridou, M. (2013). The role of teachers’ self-and collective-
efficacy beliefs on their job satisfaction and experienced emotions in school. Psychology,
4(03), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.43A040
Tao, W., Lee, Y., Sun, R., Li, J. Y., & He, M. (2022). Enhancing employee engagement via
leaders’ motivational language in times of crisis: Perspectives from the COVID-19
outbreak. Public Relations Review, 48(1), Article 102133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102133
Tillott, S., Walsh, K., & Moxham, L. (2013). Encouraging engagement at work to improve
retention. Nursing Management, 19(10).
Towers Perrin. (2003). Understanding what drives employee engagement–The 2003 Towers
Perrin Talent Report.
Towers Watson. (2014). The 2014 global workforce study.
Tyrell, S. (2014). Construction of the mid‐level management position. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2014(166), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20098
Walfish, M., Herring, A., Rosen, M., Smolen, J., Snyder, T., Warshenbrot, R., & Korb Weiss, N.
(2013). Toward transparency: An analysis of the 2012 Jewish Communal Professional
Compensation Survey. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 88(1/2), 3–11.
145

Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and
application (pp. 272–293). The Guilford Press.
Wertheimer, J. (1995). Jewish organizational life in the United States since 1945. The American
Jewish Year Book, 95, 3–98.
Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Eccles, J. S. (2018). Achievement values: Interactions,
interventions, and future directions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 116–
134). The Guilford Press.
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on
strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management,
34(6), 1190–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324326
Yip, J., Twohill, E., Ernst, C., & Munusamy, V. P. (2010). Leadership in faith‐based nonprofits:
The power of identity boundaries to bind and blind. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 20(4), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20005
Young, M. S. (2013). The $54,000 Strategy: A bold solution to undervaluing our Jewish
professionals. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 88(1/2), 12.
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2017). The role of self-efficacy and
related beliefs in self-regulation of learning and performance. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and
application (pp. 313–333). The Guilford Press.

146

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Zoom conference (use USC account)
Introduction: Hi, [interviewee name]. Thank you again so much for taking time to speak
with me today. As I explained in our emails, I am a doctoral student at USC’s Rossier School of
Education and am working on my dissertation research, which focuses on the role managers play
in the employee experience in Jewish nonprofit organizations. I’m looking forward to speaking
with you today and learning more about your work and your experience.
As I mentioned before, the interviews are confidential. Your name, organization, any
personal identifiers will not be shared in the study results or findings. And even though, as you
know, I work for [JLOC International], the content of our conversation is confidential to my
colleagues, to your director, to everyone but you and me. The study findings will be shared in a
way that protects the confidentiality of participants. Do you have any questions about this?
Do you give me permission to record our conversation? This will help me be able to go
back and listen to the recording and make sure I accurately reflect what you share.
[Hit record]
I have about 20 questions for you. Feel free to skip any you don’t want to answer, or
come back to one.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
First, I know you completed this on the interest survey, but can you just confirm for me:
• Your role/job title
• How long you’ve been in that role
• How long you’ve been with [JLOC] and what other roles you’ve held in the
organization
147

• Any other work you have done in the Jewish nonprofit sector
• What your management/supervision responsibilities are in your current role, and what
percentage of your job you would guess management comprises?
Now, we will move on to the interview questions.
1. Describe what employee engagement means to you? What does work engagement
mean to you?
2. What is your belief in your organizations’ values and mission?
3. How do you demonstrate your organization’s values and mission?
4. Does your team connect to your organization’s values and mission?
(Probe) How have you observed this?
5. How do you encourage your team’s connections to organizational values and
mission?
(Probe) Have you run into challenges in this area? How have you handled them?
6. How do you manage your team to get them engaged?
7. What tools or resources do you use to manage your team, and how do you adapt those
tools for your organization’s needs?
8. Can you share an example of a time you decided to make adjustments in someone’s
role or job responsibilities? What did that process look like?
9. Throughout the year, how do you know if staff members on your team are engaged in
their work role?
10. How do you assess your team and each individual employee?
(Probe) How do you assess their performance outcomes?
(Probe) How do you consider their role on the team?
148

11. Think about a time you’ve had to lead your team through a complex project or a
challenging time. What was your approach to engaging your staff in the process?
How did you determine your approach?
(Probe) What was effective, and what wasn’t? How did you know?
12. How do you feel about your ability to maintain employee engagement.
13. How do you feel about your ability to manage employees at different stages of their
career?
(Probe) How do you engage early-career professionals?
(Probe) Does that strategy change for later career professionals?
14. Is your staff confident they can do their jobs effectively?
15. Do you believe your team, as a whole, can accomplish the goals laid out each year?
(Probe) Why or why not?
16. Does the team believe they can support the organizational mission?
(Probe) How do you know?
17. How does your organization support employee engagement?
18. What resources does your organization provide to support employee engagement?
(Probe) What resources are lacking?
19. How does workplace culture at your organization impact how you manage your team
and engage employees?
(Probe) How does broader (JLOC) culture impact how you manage and engage
your team?
(Probe) Jewish nonprofit sector’s culture?
20. What other cultural influences impact the employee experience in your organization?
149

Is there anything else you would like to share, or wish I had asked you?
[End recording]
Thank you so much for your time today. If any questions come up, please don’t hesitate
to be in touch with me by email. I look forward to sharing results of the study with you, if you
are interested.

150

Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol
When reviewing selected documents, consider the following questions and note
responses:
• How is this document used? Is it used as intended?
• Who authored this document and how is it accessed?
• What problem or need is this document trying to address?
• Did this document come up in interview or focus group conversations? How?
• How does this document connect with the stated problem of practice and research
questions?
• Using the codes generated from interviews, focus groups, and survey analysis, where
(if at all) are these themes represented in the document? How does the document
relate to responses and data from other forms of collection and analysis?

151

Appendix C: KMO Crosswalk
Influence in study Interview question Document analysis
Knowledge
Mid-level managers need to
have knowledge of
concepts and principles
related to workplace
management and employee
engagement. (K-C)
Describe what employee
engagement means to you?
What does work engagement
mean to you?

Professional development
curricula; training and
onboarding documents
for managers.
Mid-level managers need to
possess the knowledge to
carry out practices that
support employee
engagement. (K-P)
How do you manage your team to
get them engaged?
What tools or resources do you
use to manage your team, and
how do you adapt those tools for
your organization’s needs?
Can you share an example of a
time you decided to make
adjustments in someone’s role or
job responsibilities? What did
that process look like?
Performance and feedback
documents; goal setting
forms; professional
development curricula
Mid-level managers need to
self-reflect and self-
evaluate on complex
systems, implicit biases
and tensions in their work,
and adjust work systems
and patterns as needed to
effectively support
employee engagement. (K-
M)
Throughout the year, how do you
know if staff members on your
team are engaged in their work
role?
How do you assess how things are
going with your team and with
each individual employee?
(Probe) How do you assess their
performance outcomes?
(Probe) How do you consider
their role on the team?
Think about a time you’ve had to
lead your team through a
complex project or a challenging
time. What was your approach
to engaging your staff in the
process? How did you determine
your approach?
(Probe) What was effective, and
what wasn’t? How did you
know?
Performance and feedback
documents
Staff meeting/retreat
agendas and notes
152

Influence in study Interview question Document analysis
Motivation
Mid-level managers need to
have confidence that they
can apply practices to
foster engaged employee
teams. (Self-efficacy)
How do you feel about your
ability to maintain employee
engagement?
How do you feel about your
ability to manage employees at
different stages of their career? ‘
(Probe) How do you engage
early-career professionals?
(Probe) Does that strategy change
for later career professionals?
Is your staff confident they can do
their jobs effectively?

Mid-level managers need to
believe in their
organization’s collective
ability to accomplish goals,
including confidence in top
organizational leaders’
ability to lead as well as
lower tier employees’
ability to accomplish tasks
needed for organizational
success. (Collective
efficacy)
Do you believe your team, as a
whole, can accomplish the goals
laid out each year?
(Probe) Why or why not?
Does the team believe they can
support the organizational
mission?
(Probe) How do you know?
Organizational Strategic
Plan (if available)
Staff retreat and planning
documents
Mid-level managers need to
see the importance of
aligning their employees’
values and interests with
their work to support
employee engagement.
(Intrinsic motivation;
attainment value)
What is your belief in your
organizations’ values and
mission?
How do you demonstrate your
organization’s values and
mission?
Does your team connect to your
organization’s values and
mission?
(Probe) How have you observed
this?
How do you encourage your
team’s connections to
organizational values and
mission?

153

Influence in study Interview question Document analysis
(Probe) Have you run into
challenges in this area? How
have you handled them?
Organization
The organization has cultural
models that shape the
environment in which
employees work and are
influenced by the
organization’s mission and
identity as well as
surrounding influences.
(Cultural models)
How does workplace culture at
your organization impact how
you manage your team and
engage employees?
(Probe) Does broader (JLOC)
culture impact how you manage
and engage your team?
(Probe) Jewish nonprofit sector’s
culture?
What other cultural influences
impact the employee experience
in your organization?

Performance and Feedback
Documents, Professional
Development Curricula,
Organizational strategic
plan, staff retreat agendas
and notes
The organization has
processes that support and
reinforce values and norms
that influence the
workplace experience and
how managers can support
employee engagement.
(Cultural settings)
How does your organization
support employee engagement?
What resources does your
organization provide to support
employee engagement?
(Probe) What resources are
lacking?

Onboarding documents;
Professional development
curricula

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

Effective engagement of minority alumni: an innovation study

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

Evaluating technical support provided in online education for students with disabilities

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study

PDF

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

PDF

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

A study of manager reflective practice

PDF

An assessment of a nonprofit organization’s effort to increase its staff diversity

PDF

Creating a culture of connection: employee engagement at an academic medical system

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Understanding workplace burnout in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Stop the revolving door: the influence of emotionally intelligent leadership practices on employee retention in non‐profit human service organizations

PDF

Understanding the varied effects of leadership on employee retention in high stress work environments

PDF

Violence experienced by registered nurses working in hospitals: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Edelson, Maiya Chard-Yaron (author)

Core Title Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/15/2023

Defense Date 03/31/2023

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

Tag employee engagement,Jewish,Jewish community,Jewish leadership,managers,modified KMO,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Combs, Wayne (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email chardyar@usc.edu,maiyacy@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113126797

Unique identifier UC113126797

Identifier etd-EdelsonMai-11853.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-EdelsonMai-11853

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Edelson, Maiya Chard-Yaron

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230516-usctheses-batch-1045 (batch), 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.

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