University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STAFF ENGAGEMENT

Staff Engagement within an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education:
An Evaluation Study

by

Lauren Kathleen Sullivan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Lauren Sullivan
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I could never have embarked on the journey of writing a dissertation with the support and
guidance of these phenomenal women who shared the adventure with me:
Dr. Sundt, you have shown me what it is to be a force to be reckoned with in any
organization. I had the privilege to watch you facilitate a two-day strategic planning session for
the leadership team within my organization. It was an opportunity to witness what you teach in
the classroom, effectively work within an organizational context. You taught me to be confident
in my role within the organization and that my study has a purpose within higher education. In
addition, you welcomed me into your home so I could develop my literature review and focus on
the purpose of my research study. I appreciate the time I was able to spend with you and your
generous family (best snack selection ever!). Thank you for allowing me to be your student.
Dr. Ferrario, thank you for joining my dissertation committee without hesitation. I
appreciate the opportunity to have you evaluate my research study and provide me with
feedback.
Dr. Jones, I will be forever grateful to you for helping me find my scholarly voice and
giving me the guidance to use it. The support, enthusiasm, and confidence you showed me
during my time as a graduate student paved the way for me to earn a Doctor of Education degree
from the University of Southern California. Thank you for being willing to continue the
academic journey with me, and serving on my committee.
I am grateful to all my friends and family who supported me in my efforts to write this
dissertation. A few special acknowledgements to the following people:
Cindy, my mentor, you are one of the most important and influential women in my life.
You know I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for you.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

3

Sabrina, my friend and statistician, gratis for the incredible adventure in Modena,
Italy….and for teaching me statistical significance.
Emmanuel, my CIO, thank you for resolving all technological problems that any
dissertation writer has faced, you made my student life easier.
My squad, you are the most incredible women in the world and I’m lucky to call each of
you my friends: Aimee (my cheerleader, you were always excited to hear about my school life!);
Carolyn (you will always be my Beyonce, HR manager, and life coach); Christina (you have no
boundaries, if there is a car or plane, you will be there!); Christy (my one and only news anchor,
who always shows up and never lets me down); Kate (you make like beautiful and almost
convinced me that a literature review could be fun); Kelli (is there anything you can’t do? You’re
my super hero!); and Marisa (you make life an adventure, whether we are at home or in a foreign
country – tell the kids their “Go Dr. Loo Loo” signs are still hung in my office).
Lastly, my Trojan family. You all were the reason I looked forward to Tuesday and
Thursday nights. What an incredible honor to know such insightful, kind, generous and funny
people. The world should be excited about what we are going to do next!

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………...……………………………..6
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………...8
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 10
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................................... 15
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................. 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................... 17
Stakeholder’ Performance Goals .............................................................................................. 19
Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................................................. 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 20
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................................................ 21
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 22
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... 24
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors Influencing Employee
Engagement............................................................................................................................... 24
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................. 25
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 28
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY................................................................................ 40
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 40
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................................................ 40
Assessment of Performance Influences .................................................................................... 42
Assessment of Assumed Influences on Staff Engagement ....................................................... 43
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ..................................................................... 47
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 47
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 48
Role of Investigator................................................................................................................... 51
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 52
Trustworthiness of Data ............................................................................................................ 53
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 56
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

5

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................58
Findings for Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................... 58
Description of Stakeholder Group . ………………………………………………………...…58
Findings for Motivation Influences .......................................................................................... 69
Findings for Organization Influences ....................................................................................... 83
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 96
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN . 100
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................. 100
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 106
Strengths and Weakness of the Approach .............................................................................. 117
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 118
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 118
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 120
References .................................................................................................................................. 122
APPENDIX A Recruitment Email for Survey............................................................................ 127
APPENDIX B Interview Questions for Staff Members ............................................................. 136
APPENDIX C Protocol for Interview ......................................................................................... 138
APPENDIX D Recruitment Email for Interview........................................................................ 140
APPENDIX E Consent to Participate in Interview..................................................................... 141

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Stakeholder Performance Goals 19

Table 2. Summary of Assumed Influencers on Staff Engagement 36

Table 3. Assumed Knowledge, Motivation & Organizational Influences 42

Table 4. Assumed Knowledge Influences and Proposed Assessments 43

Table 5. Assumed Motivation Influences and Proposed Assessments 43

Table 6. Assumed Organizational Influences and Proposed Assessments 46

Table 7. Regional Campus 60

Table 8. Employment Title within the SON 60

Table 9. Years of Employment within the SON 61

Table 10. Participation on Staff Council 61

Table 11. Participation on Coordinating Council 61

Table 12. Staff Members’ Perceptions of Their Own Levels of Engagement 62

Table 13. Demographics 64

Table 14. Understanding of Purpose for the ASGMNE 67

Table 15. Ways to Views/Voice through ASGMNE 68

Table 16. Motivation Assumed Influence 1 Staff Council 71

Table 17. Motivation Assumed Influence 2 Coordinating Council 73

Table 18. Motivation Assumed Influence 2 Staff Council 75

Table 19. Motivation Assumed Influence 2 Coordinating Council 75

Table 20. Motivation Assumed Influence 5 Staff Council 79

Table 21. Motivation Assumed Influence 5 Coordinating Council 81

Table 22. Organizational Assumed Influence 1 Staff Council 84

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

7

Table 23. Organizational Assumed Influence 1 Coordinating Council 84

Table 24. Organizational Assumed Influence 2 Staff Council 85

Table 25. Organizational Assumed Influence 2 Coordinating Council 86

Table 26. Organizational Assumed Influence 3 Staff Council 87

Table 27. Organizational Assumed Influence 3 Coordinating Council 89

Table 28. Organizational Assumed Influence 4 Staff Council 92

Table 29. Organizational Assumed Influence 4 Coordinating Council 92

Table 30. Organizational Assumed Influence 6 Staff Council 94

Table 31. Organizational Assumed Influence 6 Coordinating Council 94

Table 32. Summary of Knowledge Influences 96

Table 33. Summary of Motivation Influences 97

Table 34. Summary of Organizational Influences 98

Table 35. Findings and Recommendations for Motivation Influences 100

Table 36. Findings and Recommendations for Organizational Influences 103

Table 37. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 107

Table 38. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluations 109

Table 39. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behavior 110

Table 40. Components of Learning for the Program 112

Table 41. Components of Measure Reactions to the Program 113

Table 42. Evaluation Tool 114

Table 43. Evaluation Tool 115

Table 44. Dashboard 116

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Staff Engagement Conceptual Framework 41
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

9

ABSTRACT
Organizational models, such as shared governance, are often used by colleges and universities
to increase the meaningful opportunities faculty members can have to share in decision-making
with administrators. As staff members continue to increase in the share of college and
university’s overall budgets, they are also being identified as key players in meeting the
institution’s educations goals and student learning outcomes. With additional numbers of staff
on campus, all members of higher education should expect more participation from both faculty
and staff, especially in shared governance activities. The problem of practice being addressed
in this project is the facilitation of staff engagement within a shared governance model, which
aimed to increase staff engagement in the organization’s governance structure. To this end, the
aim of this project was to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues and
organizational factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff participation in the academic
shared governance process at an institution of higher education. A convergent parallel mixed
methods design was used to compare survey data to interview data. The results from the
quantitative and qualitative data sets validate several gaps in assumed motivational and
organizational influences. Recommendations for practice to address motivational and
organizational influences are provided. Future research could be undertaken to create a large-
scale study on staff engagement within higher education.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

10

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Increasing employee engagement at institutions of higher education has been an ongoing
effort for administrators seeking to improve the overall effectiveness of their organization.
Organizational models, such as shared governance, are often used by colleges and universities to
increase the meaningful opportunities faculty members can have to share in decision-making
with administrators (Birnbaum 2004; American Association of University Professors, 2001).
However, as more individuals, whose expertise falls out of the purview of academics, are hired,
institutions of higher education are becoming deficient when it comes to creating engagement
opportunities and feelings of inclusion among non-faculty members (Kezar, 2000). The
American Association of University Professors (2001) recommends soliciting a variety of
opinions and views that relate to the educational goals of the institution, specifically when
functioning within a shared governance model. However, faculty members often see themselves
as the only individuals capable of driving an institution’s priorities, which can create an “us –
them mentality” when it comes to non-faculty members (Astin & Astin, 2000, p. 43). This type
of mentality can lead to a cultural gap, as well as a decrease in trust, between faculty and non-
faculty members. As the number of non-faculty members, also referred to as staff, at institutions
of higher education continues to increase significantly, researchers suggest that faculty members
must learn to adjust to a dynamic shift in shared decision-making (Rhoades & Slaughter, 2004;
Tierney & Lechuga, 2004).
Faculty members have the knowledge and expertise to guide institutions of higher
education in defining admission standards as well as overseeing curriculum development,
instruction, research, and promotion and tenure (Birnbaum, 2004; Astin & Astin, 2000).
Institutional committees like a faculty senate provide faculty with the opportunity to share their
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

11

voice and participate in decisions related to the college or university. As staff members
continue to increase in the share of college and university’s overall budgets, they are also being
identified as key players in meeting the institution’s educations goals and student learning
outcomes (Rowley, 1996). Additionally, staff members are increasingly assuming leadership
roles in higher education due to their expertise (Rhoades & Slaughter, 2004). These areas of
expertise often fall out of the purview of curriculum development; therefore, staff members often
focus on increasing student engagement, managing information technology and finance for the
organization. With additional numbers of staff on campus, all members of higher education
should expect more participation from both faculty and staff, especially in shared governance
activities.
Background of the Problem

According to Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen & Dolmans (2016), specific elements like
organizational structure and culture must be synergized to improve accountability and the overall
educational experience for students. Although institutions of higher education provide more than
research and academic services, staff members rarely have a chance to engage in the strategic
planning, as well as other major forms of meetings, within an institution of higher education
(Bok, 2003; Hill, 1993). In fact, the number of staff members at institutions of higher education
has increased however, their participation in governance councils remains almost non-existent
(Rhoades & Slaughter, 2004; Tierney & Lechuga, 2004). This leads to a dichotomy between two
major stakeholder groups in higher education: faculty and staff members. Historically,
governance structures of institutions of higher education have privileged faculty members in
decision-making (Bok, 2003; Hill, 1993). For example, faculty members are provided with the
opportunity to oversee curriculum development, instruction, research and promotion and tenure
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

12

(American Association of University Professors, 2001). While faculty focus mainly on
research and teaching, staff members function within various departments like Student Affairs,
Information Technology, Assessment, Institutional Effectiveness and Finance. These
departments deliver important functions like receiving and distributing formula funding for the
institution; increasing student success and engagement; managing institutional accreditation and
accountability; and keeping the organization competitive with online learning opportunities. For
example, student affairs practitioners are often experts in the area of student development, yet
many institutional structures and policies still exclude this group of staff members from
participating in joint decision-making (Astin & Astin, 2000).
Prior to the 1960’s, higher education focused on creating engaged citizens who would give
back to their communities upon graduation. During the 1980s, a dynamic shift entered the
higher education culture when policymakers began to view colleges and universities as a private
good, which lead to decreased public funding and an increase in student loans (Rossi, 2014).
This introduced a new metaphor for the institution of higher education: the institution as a
business, the student as a customer. Many institutions began treating students as customers and
focusing on retention and engagement, similar to the business world and its clients (Rossi, 2014).
Additionally, colleges and university focused on increasing their enrollment rates by enhancing
their amenities in an effort to reduce competition with other schools. Notably, staff and
administrators started being hired at a greater rate, when compared to full-time faculty, which
has lead to some faculty members experiencing feelings of disempowerment (Rosenberg, 2014;
Rossi, 2014).
Despite the increase of staff, one of the inhibiting elements of the higher education
organizational structure, which still remains, is lack of staff engagement in decision-making
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

13

(Bendermacher, et. al., 2016). Historically, shared governance was designed to increase
faculty participation in high level institutional decision making, at a time when the perception
was that administrators were running institutions without regard for faculty needs or opinions
(Bok, 2003; Hill, 1993). In 1966, the AAUP formulated a statement about governance in higher
education, which advocated for faculty to have a voice in curriculum, research and promotion
and student life (AAUP, 1966). The AAUP also included a brief statement advocating for
student participation within the institution. The only group within the institution not included
was staff members.
The Statement on Governance of Colleges and Universities (1990) identifies stakeholders
(faculty, administrators, students and others) as the participants who should be included in shared
decision-making; however, their level of responsibility to, and knowledge of, the matter within
the institution should determine the value placed on each groups’ input. Education level is often
a factor in gaining status within institutions of higher education; when a group of individuals all
have some formal education, the group is then sorted by level of education to determine who gets
the most influential role (Helliwell & Putnam, 2007). College and university staff members’
levels of education vary from a high school diploma to a terminal degree, whereas faculty
members often hold graduate-level or terminal degrees. Therefore, the faculty members are
more likely to have influence over decision-making because of their educational backgrounds.
This type of hierarchy can exclude the unique perspective staff members’ have while functioning
in their role within an institution of higher education. Successful planning among shared
governance boards should include a variety of opinions and views, and relate to the educational
goals of the institution (AAUP, 2001).
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

14

Shared governance is difficult to define because it is applied differently within each
organization (Hess, 2004). The literature did not reveal if any other institution of higher
education is attempting to use a shared governance model to increase the engagement of staff
members. However, many healthcare systems do use shared governance as a model to increase
employee voice and shared decision-making. Shared governance models provide structures,
which allow members of healthcare organizations to use their expertise to influence policies and
practice, historically a privilege only reserved for hospital administrators and managers (Hess,
2004). Although governance models are created to increase employee voice and participation, it
is the employee’s level of knowledge of, and commitment to, the organization, which will help
indicate success (Hess, 2004).
The professional school being examined in this study is one of those relatively early
adopters that rewrote its governance structure to reintroduce a staff voice into “all school”
matters. The new structure will allow staff members to participate on councils and task forces,
despite education or departmental level. The context in which this change occurred includes
complexities such as regional campus expansions, an increase in degree offerings and large
student enrollment numbers as well as the continuous hiring of new faculty and staff. The
professional school saw that with this growth, greater organizational effectiveness was required.
With the belief that an effective governance process, one that included staff, would improve
organizational effectiveness and increase employee engagement, the organization being studied
launched an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education. (ASGMNE).
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues
and organizational factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in the
ASGMNE.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

15

Importance of Addressing the Problem

Organizations that create an inclusive environment for stakeholders are more likely to have
support for a shared vision and sense of empowerment among team members (Wheeler &
Sillanpaa, 1998). Feelings of belonging can create a culture where employees experience high
levels of engagement. Organizational cultures with high levels of engagement and satisfaction
can expect larger profits and retain employees who are motivated to work more efficiently (Abel,
2013). Despite these benefits, organizations such as colleges and universities are often deficient
when it comes to creating engagement opportunities and feelings of inclusion among faculty and
staff (Kezar, 2000). With the ever-changing dynamics within colleges and universities,
identifying an effective organizational model can have a positive impact on employees’
engagement (Bisas, 2011).
Most research on engagement has been studied at an organizational level; however, Shuck &
Wollard, (2010) emphasize engagement as an individual choice. Therefore, these researchers
argue that organizations, which study the engagement of the individual employee, can create
better interventions. For example, in a study led by McCloskey (1999), staff nurses who
experienced lower social integration within their organizations experienced feelings of low
motivation, and organizational commitment when compared to staff nurses who experience high
social integration. The ASGMNE was developed in the likeness of shared governance and
professional practice models with an aim to increase engagement among nursing staff in shared
decision-making
1
Communication and an infrastructure which supports shared decision-making
is a key factor in shared governance (Erikson, Hamilton, Jones, & Ditomassi, 2003). Therefore,

1
Source is SON organizational website. Actual URL not provided to maintain anonymity
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

16

evaluating the effectiveness of the ASGMNE in increasing staff engagement is important to
meeting organizational goals and identifying if changes need to be made to the model (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Indeed, including non-faculty members in decision-making related to higher education
policies and procedures can increase engagement, reduce compartmentalization and create a
culture of quality (Bendmacher, et. al. 2016; Davies, 2007). When staff members are not
included in decision-making related to their area of expertise, they may eventually lose their
commitment to the institution and experience a decrease in feelings of motivation to excel in
their departments.
Organizational Goal

The problem of practice being addressed in this project is the facilitation of staff
engagement within a shared governance model, specifically the ASGMNE that was intentionally
designed to increase staff engagement in the organization’s governance structure. Studying staff
engagement within the ASGMNE model aligns with the organization’s goal to achieve an
effective and efficient governance process and increase engagement for staff. By May 2018, the
ASGMNE Staff Council will create a strategic plan to address staff engagement within the SON.
This plan will be presented at the May 2018 SON Organizational Meeting. Further, by
December 2018, staff members will report at least a 10% increase in reporting levels of
engagement, when compared to the results in this study. The researcher determined this goal
because it will establish a baseline of staff engagement within the ASGMNE. Additionally,
exploring the staff members’ perceptions and experiences within the ASGMNE will identify
facilitators to increase staff engagement.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

17

Description of Stakeholder Groups

The organization selected for this study is a school of nursing (SON), which is part of a
university’s health sciences center with a service region of 108 counties, expanding over 131,000
square miles in the southwest part of the United States. In addition to a SON, the university’s
health sciences center has Schools of Biomedical Sciences, Medicine, Pharmacy, Professional
Health, and Public Health. The SON offers face-to-face, online and distance education programs.
There are four entry pathways to prospective students seeking to earn a Bachelor of Science in
Nursing (BSN) degree: Traditional BSN, Second Degree BSN, Veteran-BSN, and RN-BSN.
The SON also offers Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice degrees. The
nursing students are the largest stakeholder group within the SON. According to the university’s
Fact Book (2016), there were 1,756 students enrolled in the SON in the fall of 2016. By
ethnicity, the student population breakdown consists of: 63% non-Hispanic White, 16%
Hispanic, 8% African American, 6% Other, 5% Asian and .8% American Indian (Fact Book,
2016). The Fact Book reports 86% of the nursing students to be female. The ages of the students
have not been published for the public.
In addition to students, shareholders for the organization include faculty, staff, alumni,
advisory board and community members. The university’s health science center employees
2,076
2
staff members and 517
3
faculty members (Fact Book, 2016). The SON employs almost
172 staff members and 129 faculty members
4
. The SON also has an advisory board made up of
stakeholders across the southwest part of the United States, which include several Chief Nursing

2
Full-time only
3
Full-time only
4
Number does not include recurrent faculty
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

18

Officers, a bank president and a former member of the Board of Regents. The SON is
currently researching existing data in an effort to report information about alumni demographics
and employment status.
Prior to the ASGMNE, faculty governance was defined by bylaws, which defined their
roles and responsibilities to the School of Nursing. Non-faculty members were not involved in
the governance structure. In the summer of 2012, a group of faculty members met with the dean
for the school of nursing and proposed the development of a new governance structure and
practice model for the organization. The dean agreed to allow the faculty to move forward with
the development of a new governance structure, along with his directive to include the non-
faculty members. A task force of 11 stakeholders was created and charged with creating a
governance structure for faculty and staff. The task force members were made up of seven
faculty members, four tenured and three on the tenure track, and four staff members. Of the
seven faculty members, five held an administrative position of director level or higher. Of the
four staff members, two held an administration position of director or higher. The chair of the
task force was a faculty member.
In an effort to move to an ideal state of shared governance, the task force created five
councils, each with a purpose and functioning with appropriate bylaws:
Coordinating Council – to ensure coordination, collaboration, and communication
among all councils to support the school of nursing strategic plan. Faculty
Council – to ensure efficient, effective and equitable operations within the School
of Nursing. Program Council – to ensure excellence in the quality and continued
improvement of the School of Nursing Educational program. Staff Council ‐ the
recognized voice of SON staff that fosters efficient, effective, and equitable
operations
5
.

5
ASGMNE Proposal to the SON Dean
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

19

Staff Council membership requires representation from each department mentioned in the
previous paragraph. All staff members may participate in the voting process to elect staff
council representatives. To ensure a fair representation among all campuses, regional
representatives are included in these groups during voting. Membership may not last longer than
one year. Staff council is made up of 10 representatives who have been employed by the SON
for a minimum of one year. Of the 10 representatives, only one has an administration position as
a director. Staff council members meet once a month to discuss business. Three of the staff
council members participate on Coordinating Council, which is made up of representatives from
all councils.
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, the stakeholder
population of focus for this study is non-faculty members, known as “staff.” Staff members
work within one of the following departments: Administrative and Faculty Support, Business
and Finance, Career Services Center, Information Technology, Student Affairs, or the SimLife
Center. Staff may hold various professional roles within the organization, which range from
Administrative Assistant to Associate Deans. All staff and faculty members meet together twice
a year, once in October and then in May, to attend the SON Organization Meeting.
Stakeholder’ Performance Goals
Table 1.
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The School of Nursing's mission is to educate students for practice in evolving healthcare
systems and to advance knowledge and practice through research, service, and community
engagement.
Organizational Performance Goal
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

20

To foster a rich and supportive environment through the use of a shared governance model
with team members who are committed to the successful achievement of its mission.
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By May 2018, the ASGMNE Staff Council will create a strategic plan to address staff
engagement within the SON.

By May 2018, Staff Council will present the strategic plan to address staff engagement at the
SON Organization Meeting.

By December 2018, staff members will report at least a 10% increase in reporting levels of
engagement within the ASGMNE, when compared to the results in this study.
Stakeholder Group for the Study

The stakeholder population of focus for this study is staff members of the SON, who
function within an ASGMNE. As the researcher explored staff engagement within an ASGMNE,
participants who identified as staff members met the standards of desired sample for the study.
For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational
issues and organizational factors that served as barriers or facilitators to staff members’
engagement. The SON employee stakeholder group is made up of almost 58% staff members;
therefore, if the SON is at risk of not meeting the staff members’ needs then the chance of being
able to meet the institutional mission and goals is less likely to happen. Additionally, the
strengths and opportunities for change, which impact staff engagement, could be generalizable to
the university’s health sciences center, which is made up of 80% staff members.
Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which ASGMNE is meeting its
goal of engaging staff members in the shared governance process. The Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis model will help to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets and
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

21

barriers that are impacting the achievement of the organizational performance goal. While a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholders to be focused on in this evaluation are staff members. The questions that guide the
evaluation study are as follows:
1. To what extent is the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education
achieving its goal of engaging staff members in the governance process of the
organization?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving
that goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,

motivation and organizational resources?

Clark and Estes (2008) identify the use of evaluation as an essential factor when
attempting to identify an organizational gap. Using evaluation can drive performance
improvement and help leaders make decisions regarding the value of organizational initiatives
and processes. Therefore, an evaluation of the ASGMNE is expected to inform the researcher
and the organization about the degree to which the organizational model has made an impact on
staff engagement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This project will employ a mixed method data gathering and analysis of knowledge,
motivation and organizational context (Clarke & Estes, 2008). Using survey and interview
questions, literature review and content analysis, the researcher will assess the SON staff
members’ engagement, within a shared governance model. Research solutions will be
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

22

Definitions
The following definitions were used to guide this study:
Behavioral engagement: Behavioral engagement goes beyond the employee survey and allows
researchers and practitioners to observe behavior (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
Cognitive engagement: Cognitive engagement is described as how “employees think about and
understand their job, their company, their culture, and their intellectual commitment to the
organization (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 105).
Engagement: Khan (1990) was of the first researchers to define 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).
However, researchers currently studying engagement do not believe there is an absolute
definition of engagement; rather they describe it as more of a purposeful behavior, which aligns
with the organization’s mission (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
Emotional engagement: Emotional engagement is the “feelings and beliefs held by those who are
engaged” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 105).
Faculty Member: An instructor or professor with access to positional power and has academic

expertise (Astin & Astin, 2000)

Shared Governance: two definitions are provided because one form of governance is used in
higher education while the other form is used in nursing. The organization being studied used
the healthcare definition in order to create a unique model for nursing education:
Shared governance refers to the shared responsibility between administration and faculty for
primary decisions about the general means of advancing the general educational policy
determined by the school's charter. (Flynn, 2005, p.l). Vanderbilt University Medical Center uses
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

23

a definition of shared governance developed by Tim Porter ‐O’Grady: “a professional practice
model, founded on the cornerstone principles of partnership, equity, accountability, & ownership
that form a culturally sensitive & empowering 11 framework, enabling sustainable &
accountability ‐based decisions to support an interdisciplinary design for excellent patient care”
(VUMC, n.d., para. 1).
Staff Member: Any individual at an institution of higher education who does not

have an academic employment function (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2016).
Organization of the Project
The ASGMNE represent a new pathway for staff members to engage in shared-decision
making and increase their level of engagement. However, there is little information about
increasing staff engagement at institutions of higher education, therefore, the call for research in
this particular area of study is essential. Chapter One details the rationale for the study by
outlining the significance of discovering the barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in the
ASGMNE. Chapter Two provides an overview of existing literature that pertains to employee
engagement and participation as well as employee voice. In addition, the theoretical framework
of KMO, which will be the foundation for this study, will be further examined.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

24

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Chapter Two presents an overview of existing literature that pertains to the assumed
causes of the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps relating to staff
engagement within an institution of higher education. The first section focuses on knowledge and
skills and is divided into three types of knowledge: declarative, procedural and metacognitive.
The following section will explore motivational influences, specifically focusing on self-efficacy
and expectancy value theory. The last section will review cultural models and settings which
influence engagement within an organization.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors Influencing Employee
Engagement
Organizations, which create an inclusive environment for stakeholders, are more likely to
have a shared vision and sense of empowerment among team members (Wheeler & Sillanpaa,
1998). Feelings of belonging can create a culture where employees experience high job
satisfaction. However, organizations such as colleges and universities are often deficient when it
comes to creating engagement opportunities and feelings inclusion among faculty and staff;
therefore, institutions of higher education need to identify new approaches (Kezar, 2000). With
the ever-changing dynamics within colleges and universities, identifying an effective
organizational model can have a positive impact on employees’ satisfaction, performance and
involvement (Bisas, 2011). Although higher education leaders recognize the need for an
effective organizational model to drive organizational culture, they do not believe “business and
managerial models of leadership” effectively translate into practice (Burke, 2010, p. 51).
Therefore, understanding the barriers and facilitators to staff participation can help increase
employee engagement and performance.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

25

The literature about employee engagement is vast; most prior studies on employee
engagement explored employee involvement, satisfaction and burnout (Saks, 2006). These
studies have revealed engaged employees have higher feelings of satisfaction with their
employer, contribute more of their talent and skills to the organization and can align their role to
the mission of the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Erickson, 2005). Literature
concerning staff engagement within a higher education organization is limited; therefore,
constructing the assumed causes of performance gaps can further enhance employee engagement
among staff within institutions of higher education. To achieve goals, organizations must close
existing gaps between identified and actual performance measures (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Therefore, gap analysis framework is effective in identifying performance problems because it
provides researchers and practitioners with a process to analyze and identify the causes behind
organizational performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). The authors of the gap analysis
framework used for this study assert that all the factors, which influence human performance, fall
into one of three categories: knowledge and skills, motivation, or organizational factors.
Knowledge Influences
The literature reviewed in this section focuses on the knowledge and skills which
influence staff engagement. The section focuses on knowledge types and knowledge influences.
Lack of organizational goal achievement is often caused by a gap in employee(s) knowledge
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals must be knowledgeable of how to perform a task effectively
in order to meet an organizational goal or outcome; however, many employees are unaware of,
or unwilling to identify, a deficiency in knowledge or skill set (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
Taxonomy for Educational Objectives provides a framework for learning and embodies four
types of knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). These types are declarative, procedural, conceptual and
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

26

metacognitive. Three of these knowledge types will be used to identify assumed knowledge
influences affecting staff engagement.
Declarative Knowledge Influences. The first type of knowledge is declarative, meaning
that learners know major elements or facts related to a subject in order to be effective within a
role or resolve an issue (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Declarative knowledge refers to an
employee’s knowledge related to his or her job requirements, such as needing to master a
specific skill set in order to meet an expected outcome (Krathwohl, 2002).
Staff know what their role is in the shared governance model. Staff members must
understand how their organizational role functions within the ASGMNE in order to meet goals,
perform their jobs more effectively, and have a better attitude about the organization model
(Ryan, Schmidt & Johnson, 1996; Scappe, 1996; Ganzach, 1998). Lack of understanding of how
to function within an organization model can cause staff members to struggle as they attempt to
perform their job functions (Schuler, 1975). Staff members who can describe what the
ASGMNE is and how their role aligns with it can create an identity within the organization
which will lead to a stronger self-image (Khan, 1990). Additionally, staff members who
understand their role are more likely to have meaningful work experiences, thereby, are more
likely to experience feelings of loyalty to the SON (Saks, 2006 ).
Staff know what the goal is for the governance process. Additionally, a gap can develop
between the staff member and his or her attempt to meet the organization’s goals or desired
outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, staff members need to understand the goals for
governance process in order to develop purposeful practices, which align with the organizational
performance aims (Bandura, 1991).
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

27

Procedural knowledge influences. The third type of knowledge is procedural, which
means the learner knows how do something. For example, an employee is able to describe the
steps necessary to accomplish a performance task (Krathwohl, 2002; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011).
Staff members understand the steps necessary in order to meet organizational goals.
Essentially, staff members are able to put their knowledge into practice (Scappe, 1996). Despite
various roles, all staff members must be able to “use and refine” their existing skillsets in order
to complete existing projects and tasks (Leiter & Maslach, 2003, p. 96).
Staff members manage their workloads. Staff who are able to manage their workloads
are far more likely to meet organizational goals and avoid burnout. Individuals with workloads
which exceed their capacity to meet their job requirements will often suffer from fatigue or
burnout (Leiter & Maslach, 2003).
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Learners who are able to think strategically and
are aware of when and why they need to complete a task are using metacognition, the third
knowledge type (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Employees who can evaluate their
performance or use self-regulation are applying metacognitive knowledge to their professional
practice (Baker, 2009). Knowing what and how is not sufficient enough for an organization to
be successful, employees must understand when and why to apply knowledge (Rueda, 2011). To
determine what a staff member knows about his or her job functions, or required job skills, an
administrator can either ask the individual to articulate what they do or perform a self-assessment
(Baker, 2009).
Staff use self-reflection to monitor their engagement. The use of self-reflection can
increase engagement among staff members because it creates a form of thinking specific to the
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

28

individual’s role (Hao, 2000). In addition, it can allow the employee to identify opportunities
for personal growth and reflect on how his or her job functions are in alignment with the
organizational mission and goals. It could also help discover a gap in knowledge of
understanding how a staff member sees him or herself functioning within the ASGMNE.
Motivation Influences
Motivation is a key factor in addressing organizational performance problems (Rueda,
2011). When motivation is coupled with knowledge, an individual is more likely to accomplish
a task or a goal (Clark and Estes, 2008). There are many motivational constructs for researchers
to consider using in an effort to address a performance problem. For the purpose of this study,
the researcher identified expectancy value and self-efficacy theories to examine the motivation,
as it relates to staff member engagement within the ASGMNE.
Expectancy value theory. Expectancy value theory explains how attributions of prior
successes and failures can influence an individual’s choice to pursue a task. When faced with a
task, one must determine what his or her expectations are for accomplishing a task and how
much he/she values the perceived task (Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser & Davis-Kean, 2007;
Eccles, 2009). The expectations an individual will attach to a task will determine if he/she
believes the task is achievable. Often an individual’s expectations and perceptions are based
upon previous experiences (Wigfield, et al, 2007). Therefore, if the answer is “yes,” the
individual will be more confident and motivated to complete the task.
Belief that one can successfully achieve a task is strong predictor of an individual’s
ability to persist and exert mental effort when facing a challenge (Eccels, 2009). Eccels and
Wigfield (2002) identified four constructs an individual may consider to determine if he or she
will actively choose to do the task. The first construct is attainment value, which will determine
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

29

if an individual has a personal interest in pursuing the task. In addition, there is also intrinsic
value, which will help an individual decide if a task could be interesting or enjoyable. Utility
value focuses on future goals for an individual therefore; it can be viewed as an opportunity to
achieve either long or short-term goals. Lastly, there is cost value which can cause an individual
to experience anxiety when choosing to pursue a task due to fear of not knowing whether the
outcome may be a failure or a success (Eccels and Wigfield, 2002). As described, expectancy
value theory can guide an individual to determine if he or she can do a task, and later if he or she
will choose to do the task.
Staff members’ expectations and values. The value and meaning employees discover
in their work impact their motivation, which in turn leads to increased or decreased levels of
engagement. The constructs of expectancy value theory explain the importance of a staff
member having an interest in engaging in the ASGMNE as well as considering how the model
aligns with that individual’s personal goals. Since shared governance incorporates shared
decision-making, it is important for staff members to believe they can influence decision-making
within the organization, or have some level of control over their own projects and tasks.
Staff members believe that participating in the shared governance process will help
them influence decision-making within the organization. Employees who are given the
opportunity to participate in decision-making, or have a means for communication, share
feedback or information, are more likely to increase their commitment to the organization and
strengthen trust between the line-management relationship (Farndale, et. al, 2011). However,
role conflict and/or role ambiguity can arise when employees feel like they have no power over
their role within the organization (Leiter & Maslach, 2003).
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

30

Staff members believe they should and can share their voice. Employee voice can
play an important role in engagement especially when a staff member is attempting to engage in
the ASGMNE. Employee voice is the process in which an organization provides opportunities
for individuals to affect decision-making. Depending upon the employees’ perceptions of how
their voice is heard and able to influence decision-making is a key factor in engagement
(Farndale, Van Ruiten, Kelliher & Hope-Hailey, 2011). Employees’ behavior and commitment
to their organization is often influenced by their trust in their supervisor and peers; specifically,
feelings of trust increase when they are invited to participate in decision-making (Cook & Wall,
1980).
Staff members are able to cultivate relationships among team members. Relationships
among staff members with their supervisors and co-workers also affect the value they place on
their role within the organization, as well as how engaged they choose to be in their role.
Positive relationships among employees create a greater sense of belonging and social identify
within the organization (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). For example, staff members who can
experience social interactions with peers and supervisors can feel a sense of membership within
the organization. Feeling like a member of the organization can resolve conflict more quickly
and reduce negative feelings (Leiter & Maslach, 2003). Employees who are able to cultivate
relationships which are made up of trust and reliability can lead to individuals aiding each other
in tasks and create a space for feedback (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004; May, 1990).
Staff members experience feelings of value and recognition within a reward system for
their participation in the shared governance process. The outcomes of the relationship among
team members can be predicted through the employees’ perception of how they are treated,
especially when charged with carrying out organizational processes and procedures (Masterson,
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

31

et. al., 2000). Therefore, reward systems are also vital to ensuring employees add value to
their role and task expectations within the organization. Rewards systems can be monetary,
intrinsic and social; therefore, employees who feel at least acknowledged by the organization are
more likely to be healthy both mentally and physically while on the job (Leiter & Maslach,
2003).
Self-Efficacy Theory. Self-efficacy is critical to motivation because it is the self-
perception individuals have about their capabilities. Essentially, self-efficacy will determine if a
person will attempt a task or decide if he/she can be effective in achieving an outcome (Pajares,
2009). An individual’s efficacy can be affected through personal or observational experiences in
addition to exchanges with other people and receiving feedback. Self-efficacy can affect an
individual’s confidence, persistence and resistance when facing a challenging circumstance or a
new experience (Pajares, 2009). Individuals with high self-efficacy usually choose difficulty
tasks, expend greater effort, are able to persist longer and manage feelings of fear and anxiety
(Rueda, 2011). Notably, high self-efficacy can increase feelings of motivation (Pajares, 2009).
Ultimately, increasing self-efficacy can help employees become more effective team members.
Staff members’ self-efficacy. Employee engagement is considered to be a factor in
organizational success (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Therefore, it is important to consider
the impact of self-efficacy of staff members to be effective in their roles.
Staff members believe that their role within the organization is meaningful. In
institutions of higher education, staff members are often classified as organizational members
who support those responsible for research and academics (Kusku, 2003). This classification
reduces staff members to a homogenous workforce, rather than recognizing them as individuals
with areas of expertise. Additionally, this broad categorization of staff members can influence
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

32

the degree to which they feel valued within an organization and how they perceive their roles
within the organization (Bendermacher, et. al., 2016). This in turn can lead to employees
becoming self-conscious in their roles and rather than focusing internally, they allow the
perceptions of other employees to influence how they perceive themselves within the
organization (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004).
Staff members are confident in the abilities and motives of other organizational
members. Bandura (1997) identified social support as an opportunity to strengthen the efficacy
of individuals who function in a lower position within their organization. Employees can
perceive the support, or lack of, as a reflection of how the organization values them (Saks, 2006).
Feelings of safety are experienced by employees who function within organizational cultures
which encourage them to try new approaches to a task or project, without the fear of
consequence (Saks, 2006; May et. al., 2004; Khan, 1990).
Organizational Influences
This section of the paper focuses on the final cause of performance gaps: organizational
culture. Barriers often exist when employees do not have the tools, processes or procedures
needed to meet performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Since employees can identify the
organization as a barrier to meeting performance goals, researchers should explore organizational
issues when conducting a gap analysis. Clark and Estes (2008) recommend researchers consider
various approaches in order to identify existing barriers: environment, group and individual. The
environment of an organization can reveal how an institute aligns employee’s job functions with
its performance goals; therefore, studying the culture of groups can reveal how employees’
beliefs can impact their ability to meet performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally,
examining the culture of individuals can assist researchers in identifying how an individual uses
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

33

knowledge and skills as well as motivation to meet desired performance outcomes (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is the shared values and beliefs among group members, which
influence their meaning and purpose (Schein, 2004; Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996). Shein
(2004) describes values as “shared basic assumptions” which have been adapted and integrated
into a group, thereby defining their culture and how they will function (p. 17). Attempting to
understand organizational culture and basic assumptions can guide group members in developing
a shared knowledge and identity as well improve performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Shein,
2004).
Cultural models. Cultural models are the obscure values and beliefs within an
organization. Beliefs translate into “non-discussable assumptions” once group members begin
operationalizing them to guide decision-making and behavior (Schein, 2004). An organizational
mission can espouse beliefs however, if the mission does not align with the underlying
assumptions then it can be challenging for organizational members to decipher something like
social norms. Underlying assumptions often guide organizational members on how to act, think
and feel however, when challenged, can cause some group members to experience feelings of
anxiety (Schein, 2004). Therefore, organizations must go beyond the surface level of mission
statements and strategic plans to change behavior of group members (Clark & Estes, 2008). As
the dynamics change in higher education, the cultural model is a key factor in fostering change
(Kezar, 2001). According to Clark & Estes (2008) organizations which attempt to bring about
change successfully “provide adequate knowledge, skills, and motivational support for
everyone” (p. 118). Organizational change is often a non-linear process; therefore, it can be a
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

34

challenging experience for all members of the group and eventually lead to conflict (Morgan
& Brightman, 2000; Birnbaum, 1989).
Staff members demonstrate the social norms of the organization. As the SON moves
forward on the inclusion of staff members within the ASGMNE, legitimizing the their role
within the model will be critical especially when engaging in decision-making with faculty
members (Kezar, 2001). Trust among group members is gained when each individual can
perceive others as using group values and the organization’s best interest to drive individual
decision-making and (Tyler, 1998). Since group values increase levels of trust among members,
new group members, such as staff members within the institution of higher education, must be
socialized to the social norms and values system of the group (Tierney & Lechuga, 2004).
Staff members create positive relationships with at least one faculty member in the
organization. The social exchange among faculty, staff and administrators will strongly
influence staff members’ level of engagement in the ASGMNE. Social exchange is the forming
of relationships and social norms are often established by the organization (May, 1990). Given
that faculty members are categorized by their focus on research and academics and staff are often
classified as members who support those responsible for research and academics, the dichotomy
which exists between the two groups could create a barrier to organizational change (Rueda,
2011; Kusku, 2003). Should staff members create their own sub-groups, they are more likely to
form their own social norms and influence the behavior of other staff members (May, Gilson &
Harter, 2004).
Staff members have positive perceptions of processes and procedures. Staff members
need to perceive equity within the organization. As the SON uses the attempts to increase staff
engagement, opportunities must exist for staff to participate within the organizational model
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

35

(Farndale, et. al, 2011; Khan, 1990; May, 1900). Additionally, staff members must perceive
the organization’s policies and procedures as fair and mutually beneficially to all members
within the organization (Saks, 2006; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman &
Taylor; 2000).
Cultural settings. Cultural settings can reveal the indicators of a cultural model through
strategic plans and policies as well as the physical environments and interactions of
organizational members. If these indicators do not align with the organizational model, group
members can experience inefficient processes and feelings of frustration (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational settings, which are structurally empowering are likely to increase employees’
feelings of trust (Moore & Hutchinson, 2007). When employees perceive something within the
organization as unfair, it is likely that they believe there is inequity among team members.
Perceived inequity could be when an employee’s colleague receives a promotion or additional
resources. Additionally, fairness typically aligns with how employees view how they are
rewarded for their time and effort (Leiter & Maslach, 2003).
The organization provides resources to staff members. Notably, employees’ perceptions
of how processes and procedures are carried out within the organization are often related to
resources (Saks, 2006; Masterson, et. al., 2000). There are three types of resources: physical,
emotional and psychological. Employees who need physical resources are often actively moving
all day, or may be sitting in the same office chair and staring at a computer. Disengagement
from the activity occurs when employees feel like they can no longer meet physical demands
(May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). Emotional labor is a feeling an employee can experience while
performing his or her role, whether it is working on a task or communicating with clients.
Should a staff member experience continuous feelings of exhaustion due to the amount of
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

36

emotional labor they are experiencing, he or she needs resources to help manage emotions
(May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). Lastly, the amount or complexity of tasks and projects can often
overwhelm employees psychologically or cognitively. Organizations which provide resources to
help employees manage cognitive overload are likely to prevent disengagement from the job
(May, Gilson & Harter, 2004).
The organization has a reward system that incentivizes staff participation in shared
governance. Staff members need to experience feelings of value and recognition within the
social reward system (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Leiter & Maslach, 2003).
The organization provides opportunities for employees to communicate or influence
decision-making. Staff should be empowered by policies to propose change and improve work
functions (Fandale, et. al., 2011).
A summary of assumed influencers on staff engagement in institutions of higher
education are noted in the table below:
Table 2.
Summary of Assumed Influences on Staff Engagement in Institutions of Higher Education
Assumed Influences Organizational Behavior
Research Literature
Theoretical Foundation
Knowledge (Declarative)

Staff know what their
role is in the shared
governance model

Staff know what the goal
is for the governance
process

(Saks, 2006; Ryan,
Schmidt & Johnson,
1996; Ganzach, 1998)

(Krathwohl, 2002; Khan,
1990; Shuler, 1975)

(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Knowledge (Procedural)

Staff members understand
the steps necessary in
(Scrappe, 1996; Leiter &
Maslach, 2003)

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

37

order to meet
organizational goals

Staff members manage
their workloads

(Leiter & Maslach, 2003)

Knowledge (Metacognitive)
Staff members use self-
reflection to monitor
their engagement

(Hao, 2000)

(Bandura, 1997; Pajares,
2006)
Motivation (Expectancy Value)
Staff members believe
that participating in the
shared governance
process will help them
influence decision-
making within the
organization

Staff members believe
they should and can share
their voice

Staff members are able to
cultivate relationships
among team members

Staff members
experience feelings of
value and recognition
with a reward system for
their participation in the
shared governance
process

(Farndale, Van Ruten,
Kelliher & Hope-Hailey,
2011; Leiter & Maslach,
2003)

(Farndale, et. al., 2011;
Cook & Wall, 1980)

(May, Gilson & Harter,
2004; Leiter & Maslach,
2003)

(Masterson, Lewis,
Goldman & Taylor, 2000;
Leiter & Maslach, 2003)

(Bandura, 1997; Clark &
Estes, 2008)

(Bandura, 1997)
Motivation (Self-Efficacy)
Staff members believe
that their role within the
organization is
meaningful

(Kusku, 2003;
Bendermacher, et. al.,
2016; May, Gilson &
Harter, 2004; Kusku,
2003)

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

38

Staff members are
confident in their abilities
and motives of other
organizational members

(Saks, 2006; May, et. al.,
2004; Khan, 1990)

(Bandura, 1997)
Organizational Barriers
(Cultural models)
Staff models demonstrate
the social norms of the
organization

Staff members create
positive relationships
with at least one faculty
member in the
organization

Staff members have
positive perceptions of
processes and procedures

(Tierney & Lechuga,
2004; Kezar, 2001; Tyler,
1998)

(Rueda, 2011; May,
Gilson & Harter, 2004;
Kushku, 2003; May,
1990)

(Farndale, et. al., 2011;
Saks, 2006; Rupp &
Cropanzano, 2002;
Masterson, et. al., 2000;
May 1990)

(Khan, 1990)
Organizational Barriers
(Cultural settings)

The organization
provides resources to
staff members

The organization has a
reward system that
incentives staff
participation in shared
governance

(Saks, 2006; May, Gilson
& Harter, 2004;
Masterson, et. al., 2000)

(Leiter & Maslach, 2003;
Rupp & Cropanzano,
2002)

The organization
provides opportunities
for employees to
communicate, or
influence decision-
making

(Farndale, et. al., 2011)

As supported by the literature in Chapter Two organizational goals are influenced by
knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational elements (Clark & Estes, 2008). Group
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

39

members who lack knowledge or skills to be effective in their roles can create a barrier in
meeting organizational goals. Individuals who experience decreased feelings of motivation often
function in their roles less efficiently and will not persist when experiencing a challenge. Gaps
caused by organizational influencers can lead create ineffective processes and a decrease in
performance among group members (Clark & Estes, 2008). Chapter Three will describe the
methodology used to validate the framework for this study.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

40

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues
and organizational factors that serve as barrier or facilitators to staff’s participation in the
academic shared governance process at an institution of higher education.
This study was guided by three research questions:
1. To what extent is the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education
achieving its goal of engaging staff members the governance process of the organization?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving
that goal?
3.What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,

Motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework selected to guide this research study was a gap analysis
framework, which will help the researcher to analyze and identify the causes behind
organizational performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Conceptual frameworks are models that
are used by researchers to plan, and make meaning, of their study. Additionally, frameworks
help researchers find evidence to support their study as well as establishing validity and
credibility (Maxwell, 2013). For this research study, the gap analysis framework focused on
knowledge, motivation and organizational elements related to achieving the organizational goal.
Therefore, the conceptual framework selected for this study guided the researcher to discover
facilitators and barriers to staff engagement within higher education. There are three factors
which can cause a gap in meeting performance goals: knowledge and skills, motivation and
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

41

organization. To achieve goals, organizations must close existing gaps between identified and
actual performance measures (Clark & Estes, 2008). Figure 1 provides the conceptual framework
for this study.
Figure 1.
Staff Engagement Conceptual Framework

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

42

Assessment of Performance Influences
Chapter Two provided an overview of the existing literature on employee engagement,
higher education, and shared governance, specifically studying the knowledge and skills,
motivation and organizational factors which influence the stakeholder group within this study.
Table 3 provides a list of influencers, which were explored in this study.
Table 3.
Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Assumed Influences on Staff Engagement
Source Knowledge and Skills Motivation Organizational Barriers
Learning,
Motivation, and
Organizational
Theory
Staff know what the
goal is for the
governance process

Staff members use
their self-reflection to
monitor their
engagement
Staff members believe
that participating in the
shared governance
process will help them
influence decision-
making within the
organization .

Staff members believe
they should and can
share their voice

Staff members are
confident in their
abilities and motives
of other organizational
members
Staff members have
positive perceptions of
processes and
procedures

Research
Literature
Staff know what their
role is in the shared
governance model

Staff members
understand the steps
necessary in order to
Staff members are able
to cultivate
relationships with team
members

Staff members
experience feelings of
value and recognition
with a reward system
Staff models
demonstrate the social
norms of the
organization
Staff members create
positive relationships
with at least one faculty
member in the
organization
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

43

meet organizational
goals

Staff members
manage their
workloads

for their participation
in the shared
governance process

Staff members believe
that their role within
the organization is
meaningful

The organization
provides resources to
staff members

The organization has a
reward system that
incentives staff
participation in shared
governance

The organization
provides opportunities
for employees to
communicate, or
influence decision-
making
Assessment of Assumed Influences on Staff Engagement
Tables six, seven and eight describe how each of the assumed influences related to staff
engagement will be assessed throughout the study. Two data collection tools were used: a
survey, and an interview. The survey provided a baseline of assessment and was followed-up
with a semi-structured interview.
Knowledge Assessment
Table 4 describes the assumed knowledge influences related to staff engagement. The
table also includes how each influence will be assessed through interviews.
Table 4.
Assumed Knowledge Influences and Proposed Assessments
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Influence Assessment
Staff members know how to
share their voice/views within
the ASGMNE
Survey:
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

44

Ask staff members to identify pathways to share their
voice/view within the ASGMNE

Staff know what the purpose is
for the governance process
Survey:
Provide list of roles and ask staff members which
they think best describes their role within shared
governance

Staff members understand the
steps necessary in order to meet
organizational goals

Survey:
Ask staff members to list steps they take to meet
organizational goals
Interview:
Ask staff members to describe how the functions of
their assigned tasks align with organizational
outcomes
Staff members manage their
workloads

Survey:
Ask staff members to rank their ability to manage
existing workload
Ask staff members to rank their ability to improve
their practices
Interview:
Ask staff members how they mange their workloads
Staff members use self-
reflection to monitor their
engagement

Survey:
Ask staff members how often they use self-reflection
Interview:
Ask staff members how they incorporate self-
reflection

Motivation Assessment
Table 5 describes the assumed motivation influences related to staff engagement. The
table also includes how each influence will be assessed through interviews.
Table 5.
Assumed Motivation Influences and Proposed Assessments
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

45

Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Staff members believe that
participating in the shared
governance process will help
them influence decision-making
with the organization

Survey:
Ask staff members to rate how much they value
participating in decision-making
Interview:
Ask staff members to describe the value of shared
decision-making. Is it meaningful to them to
participate?
Staff members believe they
should and can share their voice

Survey:
Ask staff members how effectively they are being
included in the process of sharing employee voice
Interview:
Ask staff members how they incorporate their
employee voice
Staff members are able to
cultivate relationships among
team members

Survey:
Ask staff members to rate their level of trust with
colleagues, supervisors and faculty members
Interview:
Ask staff members to describe their relationships
with colleagues, supervisors and faculty members
Staff members experience
feelings of value and recognition
with a reward system for their
participation in the shared
governance process

Survey:
Ask staff members to how important it is to be
recognized as contributors to the organization
Interviews
Ask staff members to explain how the reward system
within the organization

Staff members believe that their
role within the organization is
meaningful

Survey:
Ask staff members to rate how valued they feel
Interview:
Ask staff members what it means to feel valued
within the organization
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

46

Staff members are confident in
the abilities and motives of other
organizational members
Interview:
Ask staff members if they believe colleagues are
committed to doing high quality work to support the
organization

Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
Table 6 describes the assumed organizational influences related to staff engagement. The
table also includes how each influence will be assessed through interviews.
Table 6.
Assumed Organizational Influences and Proposed Assessments
Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence Assessment
The organization provides resources
to staff members
Survey:
Ask staff members if they have the materials and
equipment to complete tasks and projects
successfully
Interview:
Ask staff members how resources are made
accessible to them
The organization has a reward system
that incentives staff participation in
shared governance
Survey
Provide an open-ended question asking staff
members to list incentives to participate in the
ASGMNE
Interview:
Ask staff members what incentives exist to
participate in shared governance
The organization provides
opportunities for employees to
communicate, or influence decision-
making
Survey:
Ask staff members to rate the process put in
place to participate in the shared governance
model, in order to communicate ideas or
feedback
Interview:
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

47

Ask staff members how they provide feedback
or share ideas
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder population of focus for this study was staff members of a School of
Nursing who function within an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education.
The participants were full-time staff members of the School of Nursing and function within the
Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education. The participants met the following
inclusion criteria to participate in in the second phase of the study:
Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Must self-identify as a non-faculty member of the organization and confirm
curriculum development is not a function of his or her position description. This criterion
ensured participants have not held a faculty member position within the School of Nursing.
Historically, faculty members have had more opportunities to engage within an institution of
higher education, specifically the organization being analyzed for this study.
Criterion 2. Never participated on a council, which the dean is, or was, a member of
prior to, or during, the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education. This
criterion ensures participants have not engaged at a leadership level within the School of
Nursing.
Criterion 3. Has been employed by the School of Nursing since September 2014. This
criterion ensures participants have a sense of the organizational culture. However, must not
identify as an employee of the organization’s federally qualified healthcare center.
Instrumentation
For this study, two data collection tools were used: a survey, and an interview. The
survey was sent to all staff members in order to provide a baseline assessment of staff’s
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

48

satisfaction with their level of engagement with the shared governance process. The interview
was semi-structured following a protocol derived from the factors identified in Chapter Two and
to clarify, or help interpret, any findings from the survey. Those factors addressed during the
interview are identified in Table 5. Using a semi-structured interview approach allowed the
researcher to be flexible in how questions were asked of participants in order to gain unique
perspectives and discover new concepts related to the study topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To evaluate factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in an academic
shared governance model, the researcher asked questions, which align with the gap analysis
framework and based upon influencing factors discussed in Chapter Two. The interview
questions are provided in Appendix B.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The researcher did not begin the study until after receiving approval from the Institution
Review Boards (IRB) of Human Subjects at the University of Southern California and the
organization of study. Once approval was received from both IRB boards, the researcher began
recruiting participants through the use of a gatekeeper. The gatekeeper sent a formal recruitment
e-mail to all SON staff members. The e-mail provided information about the purpose of the
study, participant criteria, the amount of time needed for the interview, and the researcher’s
contact information. The study will consist of two phases, survey phase and then an interview
phase.
Phase One
Survey
The first phase of the study collected data through the use of a survey. The second phase
of the study collected data through interviewing. After collecting data from both phases of the
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

49

study, the researcher analyzed them separately and then compared the results. The researcher
aimed to survey 60% of staff members who meet the criteria listed in Chapter 3.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
A one-time, online self-administered survey was used to collect data from non-faculty
members, who met the criterion for the second phase of the study. Using an online survey aids
researchers who aim to collect data from a convenience sample of non-faculty members. Some
of the best reasons for using an online survey for this research study include: easy access, and
permission, to email addresses; being member of an organization which is accustomed to using
online surveys; and when you want to compare data among different groups of respondents
(Fink, 2013). Due to the available access of names and contact information, the researcher used
a single-stage sampling procedure to recruit non-faculty members from the SON to participate in
the first phase of the research design study (Creswell, 2014). As noted, the data from the first
phase of the study was used to compare results to the data collected in phase two.
Phase Two
During the second phase of the study design, the researcher interviewed six staff
members, individually, from the SON, who met the criteria listed in Chapter 3.
Sampling Strategy and Rationale
To gain a more in-depth insight from staff members from the institution of higher
education being studied, the researcher interviewed the participants. Interviewing is the most
popular form of data collection among qualitative researchers because it provides researchers the
opportunity to obtain information, which centers on the experiences and perceptions of a
participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, interviewing is a collection method used by
researchers to gain the best information, which could be missed through observations (Merriam
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

50

& Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). A set of interview questions was used to collect data from
staff members, who met the criterion for the study.
Recruitment
Due to the available access of names and contact information, the researcher used a
single-stage sampling procedure to recruit staff members from the SON to participate in the
research design study (Creswell, 2014). The executive administrative assistant to the Associate
Dean for Research was used as a gatekeeper to contact potential participants due to the
relationship of the researcher with the potential study participants. The gatekeeper sent a formal
recruitment e-mail to all SON staff members. The e-mail provided information about the
purpose of the study, participant inclusion criteria, the amount of time needed to participate in
the interview portion of the study, and the researcher’s contact information. It was
communicated to potential participants that joining the study were voluntary. See Appendix D
for recruitment email.
Interviews
Once potential research participants confirmed their interest, the researcher provided each
of them with the project description, a list of interview questions in an effort to give participants
a higher level of comfort with the topic, as well as an opportunity to decline from participation
(Krueger & Casey, 2009). Prior to the beginning of the interview, the researcher provided all
participants with an informational form, with a request for their signature to acknowledge their
involvement with the study. The consent form ensured the participants recognize that their
engagement in the study is: voluntary, confidential and of little risk (Glesne, 2011).
Additionally, participants were informed that the interview would be digitally recorded and they
may end their involvement at any time in the study. All participants were informed that no
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

51

incentive would be provided for participation. The researcher also read aloud a script, with the
same information provided in the consent form, at the start of the recording. All participants
recruited were fluent in English; therefore, the interviews were conducted in English. No
participants were expected to be hearing or visually impaired.
Interviews were expected to last for 30 minutes. Participants who work at the flagship
campus interviewed in person. Interviews were one-on-one in a small, private room located on
the flagship campus of the institution of higher education. A closed environment was created to
ensure the participants could feel their safe during the interview, and to provide confidentiality.
The participant who works at a regional campus was interviewed over the telephone. Telephone
interviewing is the best method for researchers who do not have “direct access” to the
participants (Creswell, 2007, p. 133). Although it is recommended to interview research
participants in their environment (Creswell, 2007; Taylor & Bogdan, 2008), the participants who
does not work at the flagship campus, lives in another region of the southwest United States.
However, all participants share the experience of working for the SON at least for two years, and
all work on a higher education campus. The researcher has a private office, which was a closed
environment to conduct the telephone interviews. Once the study is complete, and the researcher
successfully defends the dissertation, the results will be shared with all participants.
Role of Investigator
The researcher is a staff member who is employed by the organization being studied for
this dissertation. With the experience of being the co-chair of Coordinating Council during the
inaugural two years of the new organizational model, the researcher facilitated meetings with the
dean, senior leaders, faculty and staff members. Having been exposed to discussions related to
the business of the organization and how the organizational model is supposed to work with two
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

52

groups, the researcher did assume participants would describe the challenge of increasing their
engagement within the organization. Additionally, the researcher expected some participants to
share information, which could create themes of marginalization, incivility and lack of
participation. A gatekeeper was asked to interview any participant who reports directly to the
researcher. The researcher did clarify that the data being collected for this study is to complete a
degree requirement at the University of Southern California.
Limitations and Delimitations
The first limitation to this study was the number of participants. Although 36 participants
started, only 22 completed the survey. Therefore, most of the assumed influencers were not
validated because the quantitative data was statistically significant. Low participation numbers
could be related to the staff receiving multiple survey requests throughout the year from both the
SON and the health sciences center. Another consideration is the length of the survey created by
the researcher. The number of questions, and length of time to take the survey, could have
exhausted the participant. Lastly, the wording of the questions may have been confusing to the
participant, or if he or she, was unfamiliar with the ASGMNE, then he or she may not have felt
capable of completing the survey.
Another limitation the researcher anticipated is generalizability. External generalizability
is limited because the organization being studied is an SON and the barriers and facilitators
being evaluated focus specifically on staff engagement within an ASGMNE. Therefore, it will
be up to the reader to determine how generalizable the research findings in this study are to
his/her own population and setting (Maxwell, 2014). Internal generalizability is also limited
because only non-faculty members of the organization were able to participate in the study. The
data analyzed for this study, which is at an institution of higher education, did not include faculty
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

53

members; therefore, recommendations, which derive from data analysis, may only apply to
non-faculty members (Maxwell, 2013).
A delimitation to this study is the inclusion of participants who identify as faculty
members or any other individual who cannot self-identify as a staff member at the organization
being studied for this dissertation. Additionally, interview and survey questions will only align
with the gap analysis framework used to guide this study.
The familiarity the participants have with the researcher could have established a sense of
trust between them and help them feel at ease and comfortable when being interviewed. A
disadvantage to this established relationship is the participants could choose to not expose any
negative experiences or perceptions they have about the institution of higher education being
studied (Creswell, 2007). Should the dissertation committee members find the relationship
between the researcher and participants to be a threat to validity, a gatekeeper with a qualitative
research background, was to be used to interview the participants.
Trustworthiness of Data
The researcher for this study used a convergent parallel mixed methods design, which
required two distinct phases for data collection. The first phase of the study collected data
through the use of a survey. The second phase of the study collected data through interviewing.
After collecting data from both phases of the study, the researcher analyzed them separately and
then compared the results. This type of research design assumes “different types of information”
will be collected and likely “yield results that should be the same” (Creswell, 2014, p. 219).
Additionally, participants who completed the survey were from the same purposeful sample of
those who participated in interviews; thereby, making this approach a significant part of the
design to fully explain the phenomena. Creswell (2014) further explains using the same sample,
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

54

“…ultimately, researchers make a comparison between the two databases and the more they
are similar, the better the comparison” (p. 222). The survey phase had a larger sample of
participants (N = 36), when compared to the number of interview participants (N = 6). The
cause behind unequal sample sizes is due to the purposeful design of the study: the quantitative
phase is meant to provide meaningful statistics, which are generalizable, and the qualitative
phase gathers more extensive information through interviews (Creswell, 2014).
Chapter Two provided the reader with a synthesized review of research pertaining to staff
engagement through the lenses of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture.
The review of literature guided the researcher to identify assumed influencers for facilitating
staff engagement within the ASGMNE. Therefore, the assumed influencers used to design the
survey were the same influencers used to develop the interview questions. Although the survey
tool used to collect data was not a validated scale, it was developed based upon evidence-based
research regarding staff engagement. Survey questions pertaining to motivation were developed
in likeness of Bandura’s (2005) Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. A content expert
conducted a thorough evaluation of the literature review and the survey questions. Constructive
feedback was provided to the researcher in order to ensure survey questions would align with the
literature in order to collect meaningful data. All feedback from the expert was used to finalize
the survey questions for this study.
Qualtrics is an online survey tool that was used to capture data in phase one of the study.
A statistician was hired to be the expert for the statistical analysis of the survey data. The
statistician used a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences to run statistical tests on the survey
data. The analysis of the quantitative data will provide the reader with the means, standard
deviations and range of scores among the data sets. Eta squared was used to compare the results
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

55

of the two major participant groups: Staff and Staff Council Members and Staff and
Coordinating Council. w Results will be provided in order to validate the strength and reliability
of any existing relationships between the assumed influencer and survey results.
Similar to the development of the survey questions, semi-structured interview questions
were developed based upon research discovered within the literature review. The content expert
also provided a thorough review of the semi-structured interview questions to ensure they were
research-based and could collect meaningful data. To ensure accuracy of the findings in the
qualitative phase of the study, the researcher used coding. Coding is described by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) as “…some sort of short-hand designation to various aspects of your data so that
you can easily retrieve specific pieces of the data” (p. 199). Therefore, the researcher used the
assumed influencers, identified in the literature review, and similar to the use of “phrases” within
the coding process, to guide the discovery of answers to the research questions. This approach is
what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) would describe as “responsive to the purpose of the research”
in that these pre-set categories align with the research questions (p. 212).
All interview participants were provided copies of his or her transcribed interview prior
to coding. Due to a smaller number of participants, qualitative software was not used to code
data. Rather, the researcher created a code book in order to sort the data into categories of pre-
set and emergent codes; and, thus, attempted to conduct an exhaustive review in order to ensure
categories were appropriately assigned to the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the
researcher aimed to provide the reader with , rich descriptions, and intended to be transparent
with any information, which was contrasting to the themes (Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, the
researcher used reflexivity to reduce any personal bias.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

56

The researcher used a side-by-side comparison to analyze the data. The comparison
will provide the reader with a report on the quantitative statistical results and then a discussion
on the qualitative results, which will either validate or not validate the statistical results
(Creswell, 2014). The comparison will also provide the reader with a discussion to resolve any
differences, which exist between quantitative and qualitative results.
Ethics
The researcher did not begin the study until after receiving approval from the Institution
Review Board of Human Subjects at the University of Southern California. Once approval was
received, the researcher began the first phase of the study and recruited participants.
The researcher sent a recruitment email to all staff members of the organization about the
purpose of the study, participant criteria, the estimated amount of time required to complete the
survey, and the researcher’s contact information. An informational form was also provided at
the start of the survey. The form ensured the participants recognize their involvement in the
study was: voluntary, confidential and of little risk (Glesne, 2011). All participants were
informed that no incentive would be provided for participation. Once the study is complete, and
the researcher successfully defends the dissertation, the results will be shared with all
participants.
The second phase of the study began once the survey was completed. The researcher
began recruiting participants for interviews through the use of a gatekeeper. The gatekeeper sent
a formal recruitment e-mail to all staff members to participate in an interview. The e-mail
provided information about the purpose of the study, participant criteria, amount of time needed
for the interview, and the researcher’s contact information. Once potential research participants
confirmed their interest, the researcher provided each of them with the project description, a list
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

57

of interview questions in an effort to give participants a higher level of comfort with the topic,
as well as an opportunity to decline from participation (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Prior to the
beginning of the interview, the researcher provided all participants with a consent form, with a
request for their signature to acknowledge their involvement with the study. The consent form
ensured the participants recognize their engagement in the study is: voluntary, confidential and
of little risk (Glesne, 2011). Additionally, participants were informed that all interviews would
be digitally recorded and that they may end their involvement at any time in the study. The
researcher also read aloud a script, with the same information provided in the consent form, at
the start of the recording. All participants were informed that no incentive would be provided for
participation. Once the study is complete, and the researcher successfully defends the
dissertation, the results will be shared with all participants.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

58

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Chapter Four will present the results of this study through an overview of the assumed
influences according to Clark & Estes’ (2008) KMO framework. A discussion will be provided
for each assumed influence as well as any existing validation for the assumed influence. Survey
and interview data were used to collect and analyze the knowledge, motivation and
organizational facilitators and barriers, which effect staff members’ engagement within the
ASGMNE.
Findings for Knowledge Influences
The first phase of this study began with a collection of a 41-item survey using an
electronic data tool called Qualtrics. Likert scales of 1-6 and 1-10 were used for survey
questions, which allowed participants to rate their frequency of engagement and satisfaction as
well as self-efficacy. Survey questions, which pertained to the overall effectiveness of the
ASGMNE, used a Likert scale of 1-10. There were eight demographic questions that asked
participants to identify factors such as campus location, years of service to the organization and
degree of education. One open-ended question was used to identify any incentives that existed
for participating on an ASGMNE council. A total of 69 staff members met the criteria to
participate in the survey. Of the 69 potential participants, 36 staff members started the survey
and provided consent; however, only 22 participants finished survey. Therefore, the
participation rate was 32%. The survey ended with demographic questions in order to collect
data about the staff members’ years of employment, current job title, campus location, and
council membership. Unfortunately, up to 14 participants’ answers were missing from
demographic data.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

59

Qualitative data were collected in the form of individual interviews. There were 69
potential staff members who met the criteria to participate in an interview. The researcher aimed
to interview 10 staff members however only six consented to participate in an interview. Five
interviews were completed in person and one participant interviewed over the telephone. All
interviews were recorded, with participant’s written and oral consent. The Office of Institutional
Research, for the organization of study, required written consent from each participant prior to
his or her interview (Appendix E). A CITI trained transcriptionist, approved by the organization
of study, transcribed interviews. Transcripts were later coded and analyzed by the researcher.
Validation Criteria
An assumed influencer was considered validated if statistical significance was found to
exist within the quantitative data. If the interview data revealed 65% of participants suggested a
gap existed, then that gap is validated. The interview data must reveal that 65% of the
participants identify a gap exists among the assumed influencers for a gap to be validated.
Description of Stakeholder Group
The organization for this study was a school of nursing located within a health sciences
center in the southwest region of the United States. The organization remained unidentifiable
throughout the study in order to provide the nursing school anonymity. Participants in this study
were staff members in the School of Nursing. Staff members are defined as individuals who do
not participate in curriculum development or provide direct academic instruction to students.
However, staff members who function within a role, which supports the organization’s federally
qualified health center, were excluded. As noted earlier, 22 meeting these criteria completed the
survey. Following the survey, six staff members participated in a semi-structured interview with
the researcher.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

60

Almost 91% of the survey respondents (n = 22) worked at the largest School of
Nursing campus, which is physically located on the health sciences center flagship campus. Of
the participants, 53% identified themselves as a coordinator, which is a mid-level position within
the School of Nursing. Over 50% of participants had been employed within the SON for a
minimum of three years, and over 30% had been a member of Staff Council and/or Coordinating
Council. The tables below provide the reader a representation of the demographics.
Table 7.
Regional Campus
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Abilene 1 4.5
Austin / San
Antonio
1 4.5
Lubbock 20 90.9
Total 22 100.0
Missing System 14

Total 36

Table 8.
Employment title within the SON

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Administrative
Assistant
2 10.5
Analyst 2 10.5
Coordinator 10 52.6
Manager 1 5.3
Director 3 15.8
Assistant or Associate
Dean
1 5.3
Total 19 100.0
Missing System 17

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

61

Total 36

Table 9.
Years of Employment with the SON

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid 1 to 2 Years 1 4.8
3 to 5 Years 8 38.1
6 to 10 Years 6 28.6
11 to 15 Years 3 14.3
16 or More
Years
3 14.3
Total 21 100.0
Missing System 15

Total 36

Table 10.
Participation on Staff Council

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Yes 8 38.1
No 13 61.9
Total 21 100.0
Missing System 15

Total 36

Table 11.
Participation on Coordinating Council

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Yes 7 33.3
No 14 66.7
Total 21 100.0
Missing System 15

Total 36

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

62

Questions 12, 13 and 17 on the survey were used to explore staff members’ perceptions
of their own levels of engagement and satisfaction within the ASGMNE. Responses are higher
for members of Staff and Coordinating Councils when compared to non-council members.
Differences in scores are not significant. Scores are based on a Likert scale of 1 to 10.
Table 12. Staff members’ perceptions of their own levels of engagement and satisfaction within
the ASGMNE
Have You Participated On Staff
Council?
On a scale
from 1 – 10,
please rank
the degree to
which you
feel engaged
within the
ASGMNE
On a scale
from 1 – 10,
please rank
the degree to
which you
believe your
level of
engagement
has increased
since
ASGMNE
On a scale of
1 – 10, how
satisfied are
you with your
overall
engagement,
whatever it is,
with the
ASGMNE
Yes Mean 7.75 7.38 7.88
N 8 8 8
Std. Deviation 3.536 3.543 2.900
No Mean 4.38 4.69 5.54
N 13 13 13
Std. Deviation 2.844 3.225 2.961
Total Mean 5.67 5.71 6.43
N 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 3.469 3.523 3.091

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

63

Have you participated on Coordinating
Council?
On a scale
from 1 – 10,
please rank
the degree to
which you
feel engaged
within the
ASGMNE
On a scale
from 1 – 10,
please rank
the degree to
which you
believe your
level of
engagement
has increased
since
ASGMNE
On a scale of
1 – 10, how
satisfied are
you with your
overall
engagement,
whatever it is,
with the
ASGMNE
Yes Mean 9.57 9.86 9.71
N 7 7 7
Std. Deviation 1.902 1.464 2.059
No Mean 3.71 3.64 4.79
N 14 14 14
Std. Deviation 2.128 2.061 2.007
Total Mean 5.67 5.71 6.43
N 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 3.469 3.523 3.091

Six staff members elected to participate in a one-hour interview with the researcher.
There were nine open-ended research questions during the interview (see Appendix B). Five
interviews took place in a private classroom space on the flagship campus. One interview took
place over the telephone. The researcher reserved a private classroom space in order to protect
the anonymity of the participants, which could have been threatened should the interviews been
held in the researcher’s office on campus. The researcher scheduled the interviews on the same
day, and each session had a minimum of 30 minutes between each interview slot to ensure
participants did not overlap or have an opportunity to engage with each other. The phone
interview was conducted in the private office space of the researcher. Of the six participants,
five were female and one was male. There are two councils which allow staff members to join
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

64

within the ASGMNE structure. The first council is Staff Council, which is made-up only of
staff members. Staff members are able to participate within the ASGMNE by being selected, by
a vote among peers, to the Staff Council. Coordinating Council is made up of representatives
from all councils, along with the administration leaders and the dean for the SON. Members of
Staff Council are given the opportunity to join Coordinating Council, by a vote among Staff
Council members. Four of the six participants are members of Staff Council, and, of those, two
are also members of Coordinating Council. Five participants work on the flagship campus and
one works at a regional campus. Staff members were given the opportunity to select a
pseudonym to protect their identity. Table 13 provides the reader a representation of the
demographics.
Table 13.
Demographics
Participant Description
Mary Section Coordinator
Member, Staff Council
Non-Member, Coordinating Council
Campus: Flagship
Ethnicity: Mexican-American
Age: 30-40
Yvonne Sr. Business Assistant
Non-Member, Staff Council
Non-Member, Coordinating Council
Campus: Flagship
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

65

Ethnicity: White
Age: 30-40
Katherine Section Coordinator
Non-Member, Staff Council
Non-Member, Coordinating Council
Campus: Flagship
Ethnicity: White
Age: 30-40
Diana Coordinator
Member, Staff Council
Member, Coordinating Council
Campus: Flagship
Ethnicity: White
Age: 30-40
Jay Coordinator
Member, Staff Council
Member, Coordinating Council
Campus: Flagship
Ethnicity: White
Age: 30-40
Dawn Coordinator
Member, Staff Council
Non-Member, Coordinating Council
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

66

Former Member, Task Force for Creating
ASGMNE
Campus: Regional
Ethnicity: White
Age: 40-50

Declarative knowledge.
Assumed influence 1: Staff are able to explain the ASGMNE. There were no relevant
survey questions for this assumed influence. Interview question # 4 was used to gather evidence
for this assumed influence. Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence.
All participants, excluding one, demonstrated confidence as they attempted to explain, in their
own words, the ASGMNE. These participants shared their thoughts through a lens, which
seemed to make the ASGMNE to create meaning to them. For example, Katherine shared her
thoughts on what the ASGMNE means to her:
I think it is taking the opinions, voices, of all people within the School of Nursing
– staff, faculty, or organization – and allowing them to have an opinion or a voice
whether or not what their thoughts are or what ends up happening – that’s not
really the big thing behind it. It’s more than just allowing…making sure people
know they have a say in what’s going on and not just those at the top of the org
chart or just those in academic affairs.

Diana’s explanation corroborated Katherine’s belief about the ASGMNE being a structure to
include all voices, not just those in an authoritative role, “…everybody has a voice and decisions
are made based on input from everyone – not just the administration.” Yvonne’s description
further explained the ASGMNE was a structure for individuals to represent all members of the
organization, “…everybody who is in the organization, if they can’t all be at the table at one,
they have a representative at the table for them.” Mary asserted, “…wherever you are in the
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

67

ranks…it is your privilege and your opportunity to say what you mean [about] things that you
feel need to happen for your group…” Jay was the only participant who admitted he was unsure,
“I’m still not 100% sure I understand all of it…but it pretty much re-engages staff in the
decision-making process” After sharing, Jay asked the researcher if his explanation was ok, “Is
that ok?”
Assumed influence 2: Staff know what the goal is for the governance process.
Questions 1 and 2 on the survey were used to gather evidence for this assumed influence.
Survey results did not validate a gap in declarative knowledge regarding staff members
understanding of the goals for the ASMNE. Table 14 provided staff members the opportunity to
select all answers they believed applied to the purpose of the ASGMNE. All but one answers
correctly aligned with the purpose of the ASGMNE. There was only one answer which would
indicate a gap in knowledge, which was “I am not sure why the ASGMNE was created.” Less
than 10% of survey participants selected “I am not sure why the ASGMNE was created.”
Table 14.
Of the following, what is your understanding of the purpose for the Academic Shared
Governance Model for Nursing Education (ASGMNE)? Select All That Apply.

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Increase Staff
Engagement
8 24.2
Provide a meaningful
governance structure
21 63.6
I am not sure why the
ASGMNE was created
3 9.1
Total 32 100.0
Missing System 4

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

68

Total 36

Table 15 provided staff members the opportunity to select all the answers they believed
applied to how the ASGMNE equips staff with a way to share their views and voice. The correct
answer was “Designating staff representatives on Staff Council and Coordinating Council.” Of
the responses, almost 66% of survey participants selected the correct answer. Less than 7% of
participants selected “I am not sure how the ASGMNE provides staff with a way to share their
voice.” There were no relevant interview questions for this assumed influence.
Table 15
Which of the following provides staff with a way to share their views/voice through the Academic
Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education (ASGMNE)?
Select All That Apply.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Designating staff
representatives on Staff
Council and
Coordinating Council
21 65.6
Ensuring each staff
member has the
opportunity to vote on
major school decisions
9 28.1
I am not sure how the
ASGMNE provides
staff with a way to
share their voice
2 6.3
Total 32 100.0
Missing System 4

Total 36

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

69

Procedural knowledge influences.
Assumed influence 3. Staff members understand the steps necessary in order to meet
organizational goals. There were no relevant survey questions for this assumed influence.
Interview question # 1 was used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview results
do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. All participants were able to describe their
functions, which ranged from recruitment, admissions and enrollment to data management and
planning and assessment, and how they aligned with the overall mission of the organization. For
example, Katherine, who works in admissions and enrollment, shared “I try to help ensure
applicants are aware of the requirements to get into the graduate school…so that the faculty have
the best pool of applicants from whom to select.” She further elaborated, “I work to ensure
[enrolled students] feel supported during their time with us to they can be successful.” Mary,
who also works in admissions, stated, “We work hard to make sure our processes are fair and
ethical and that we serve the student that way, within the guidelines of the School of Nursing.”
Yvonne described her function within the organization as one that makes reports for
“…leadership to use to make decisions.”
Assumed influence 4. Staff members manage their workloads. There were no relevant
survey questions for this assumed influence. Interview question # 1 was used to gather evidence
for this assumed influence. Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence.
Most interviewees describe “time management” as a skill to be successful in their roles. All
participants describe using a “calendar” as a tool to manage time, reminders and for event
planning. Several interviewees, such as Katherine, Dawn and Diana, described “planning in
advance” as a useful resource to ensuring they can accomplish goals and responsibilities within
their roles.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

70

Metacognitive knowledge influences.
Assumed influence 5. Staff use self-reflection to monitor their engagement. There were
no relevant survey questions for this assumed influence. Interview question # 2 was used to
gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview results do not indicate a gap for this
assumed influence. Participants during the interviews all acknowledge self-reflection as
meaningful personal and professional growth, and to keep themselves engaged within the
organization. Mary stated, “I set personal goals for myself…Is this goal something that is going
to help me not within the SON but if I want to branch out, is this something that is going to help
me in the future or maybe personally?” Jay shared that he uses reflection continuously, “I’m sort
of constantly either maybe changing my goals or thinking about my goals.” Yvonne described
the annual self-assessment as a useful tool in reflecting on successes the prior year, “…did I
actually grow as an employee and …am I accomplishing anything in the SON?”
Findings for Motivation Influences
Expectancy value theory.
Assumed influence 1. Staff members believe that participating in the shared
governance process will help them influence decision-making within the organization.
Questions 22, 24, 25 29 and 33 on the survey were used to gather evidence for this assumed
influence. Survey results suggest a gap in motivational influences regarding staff members’
beliefs towards participating in shared governance and influencing decision-making, when
compared to members of Coordinating Council.
Survey results show averages for the answers tend to be higher for members of Staff
Council for all statements; however, differences are not significant. Some of the etas are large,
which indicates some statements could be significantly different if the sample size was larger.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

71

Table 16
Assumed Influence 1 Staff Council
Have You
Participated On
Staff Council?
My
participation
in an
ASGMNE
council is
important to
the mission
and strategic
goals of the
SON
I believe
incorporating
the input of my
employee voice
is an important
function of the
ASGMNE.
I am
satisfied
with how the
ASGMNE
model is
structured to
include me
in the
process of
decision-
making.
I can utilize
my
employee
voice and
participate
in decision-
making
without
being on an
ASGMNE
I believe it is
important for
the SON to
recognize staff
members
contributing to
the shared
governance
process.
Yes Mean 4.88 5.00 3.75 4.00 5.25
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std.
Deviation
1.642 1.604 1.753 1.512 1.389
No Mean 3.46 4.23 3.46 3.46 4.62
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std.
Deviation
1.561 1.641 1.664 1.808 1.758
Total Mean 4.00 4.52 3.57 3.67 4.86
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std.
Deviation
1.703 1.632 1.660 1.683 1.621

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
My participation in an
ASGMNE council is
important to the mission and
strategic goals of the SON
.413 .171
I believe incorporating the
input of my employee voice
is an important function of
the ASGMNE.
.235 .055
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

72

I am satisfied with how the
ASGMNE is structured to
include me in the process of
decision-making.
.086 .007
I can utilize my employee
voice and participate in
decision-making without
being on an ASGMNE
council
.159 .025
I believe it is important for
the SON to recognize staff
members contributing to the
shared governance process
.195 .038

Survey results show all averages for the answers are higher for Coordinating Council
than for the Non-Coordinating Council group. Etas are very large indicating a significant
statistical difference among responses from staff members and staff members who serve on
Coordinating Council. Differences are statistically significant for all except for two:
incorporating the input of the employees’ voice and important for SON to recognize staff
members.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

73

Table 17
Assumed Influence 1 Coordinating Council
Have you
participated on
Coordinating
Council?
My
participation in
an ASGMNE
council is
important to
the mission
and strategic
goals of the
SON
I believe
incorporating
the input of my
employee
voice is an
important
function of the
ASGMNE.
I am satisfied
with how the
ASGMNE
model is
structured to
include me in
the process of
decision-
making.
I can
utilize my
employee
voice and
participate
in
decision-
making
without
being on
an
ASGMNE
I believe it is
important for
the SON to
recognize
staff members
contributing
to the shared
governance
process.
Yes Mean 5.57 5.71 5.00 5.00 5.71
N 7 7 7 7 7
Std.
Deviation
.787 .756 1.155 .816 .756
No Mean 3.21 3.93 2.86 3.00 4.43
N 14 14 14 14 14
Std.
Deviation
1.477 1.639 1.406 1.617 1.785
Total Mean 4.00 4.52 3.57 3.67 4.86
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std.
Deviation
1.703 1.632 1.660 1.683 1.621

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
My participation in an
ASGMNE council is
important to the mission and
strategic goals of the SON
.669 .447
I believe incorporating the
input of my employee voice
is an important function of
the ASGMNE.
.529 .280
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

74

I am satisfied with how the
ASGMNE is structured to
include me in the process of
decision-making.
.623 .389
I can utilize my employee
voice and participate in
decision-making without
being on an ASGMNE
council
.574 .329
I believe it is important for
the SON to recognize staff
members contributing to the
shared governance process
.383 .147

Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Interview results
revealed participants positively describe the creation of Staff Council as a pathway to increasing
staff engagement and employee voice within the ASGMNE, and that is has become a “refined
voice” for staff members (Questions #5, 6, and 7). Dawn explained the value of staff having the
opportunity to participate on councils, “Councils are probably better off having a staff member
on there…faculty don’t always know the rules. Staff knows the rules…I think that is a benefit for
the programs to have people who know the rules on their councils.” Mary described how her
membership on Staff Council has helped increase her involvement in the SON, “I am branching
out and being a part of shared governance; I’m being part of another task force – things within
the SON that I would not have done before.” Yvonne shared, “I think [ASGMNE] has made me
feel more engaged; to be able to say things; do things; stand up for what I believe more; and not
just “fill a space in a seat” type thing.” Yvonne is not a member of Staff or Coordinating council;
however, she asserts, “Anybody who says they don’t have a voice is probably somebody who
doesn’t know who to talk to or who maybe isn’t the right person to talk to and their ideas have
been shut down.” Notably, because of her role in the SON, Yvonne is asked to present at
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

75

Coordinating Council during the quarterly meetings. She shared, “I now know who is on these
councils.”
Assumed influence 2. Staff members believe they should and can share their voice.
Questions 23 and 27 on the survey were used to gather evidence for this assumed influence.
Survey results indicate little to no gap in staff members’ belief that they should and can share
their voice. However, survey results do indicate responses are higher for members of Staff and
Coordinating Councils when compared to non-council members. Differences in scores are not
significant. Scores are based on a scale of 1 to 6.
Table 18.
Assumed Influence 2 Staff Council
Have You Participated
On Staff Council?
Using my employee voice to
influence decision-making is
important to me.
I believe incorporating the input of
employees’ voice is valued by SON
leadership.
Yes Mean 5.00 4.13
N 8 8
Std. Deviation 1.604 1.246
No Mean 4.54 4.08
N 13 13
Std. Deviation 1.664 1.754
Total Mean 4.71 4.10
N 21 21
Std. Deviation 1.617 1.546

Table 19
Assumed Influence 2 Coordinating Council
Have you
participated on
Coordinating
Council?
Using my employee voice to
influence decision-making is
important to me.
I believe incorporating the input of
employees’ voice is valued by SON
leadership.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

76

Yes Mean 5.86 4.71
N 7 7
Std. Deviation .378 1.113
No Mean 4.14 3.79
N 14 14
Std. Deviation 1.703 1.672
Total Mean 4.71 4.10
N 21 21
Std. Deviation 1.617 1.546

Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Yvonne shared, “I’m asked to
come in and really give my opinion on how things might affect a job…I offer suggestions and
ask questions.” Katherine, when talking about her department, stated “I’m not shy about
speaking up in meetings if I think something can be done better or a different way or if things are
working well, I point it out. So, I do think my opinion is taken into consideration.” However,
during her interview, Diana shared concern about the leadership within the SON, “I think as staff
it’s mostly ‘are the people at the top listening to us…or at least hearing or asking the opinions
that it mostly affects?’ Because sometimes, I don’t think so.” She continued on, “The Admin
make all of these decisions and we just have to comply with it and go on and make it work…but
there was no discussion with us, the ones that it affects most of all.”
Assumed influence 3. Staff members are able to cultivate relationships among team
members. There were no relevant survey questions for this assumed influence. Interview
questions 3 and 7 were used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview results do
not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Participants in who were members of Staff
Council shared similar stories of how Staff Council increased their ability to cultivate
relationships. For example, Dawn stated, “I like Staff Council. I like how it gives us ways to
interact with other departments that we don’t normally interact with. And they definitely go on
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

77

my resource list, ‘Well, I know this person in this department. Let me call them’…they’re all
part of the big plan for the organization.” Mary described an increase in engagement due to her
involvement on Staff Council and taking the initiative to ask her team members their thoughts on
various organizational topics, “there is a little bit of an increase of staff engagement within
talking about, ‘what do you feel about this?’” Other participants described their relationships
with team members very positively, “we solve the problems of the world at our lunches and have
a great deal of humor in the process, so it makes for a good working relationship.” Diana shared,
“I think everybody has a pretty good relationship and that’s why people here at the SON stay in
their roles as long as they do”
Assumed influence 4. Staff members experience feelings of value and recognition for
their participation in the shared governance process. There were no relevant survey questions
for this assumed influence. Interview question 8 was used to gather evidence for this assumed
influence. Interview results reveal a gap in staff members’ feelings of value and recognition for
their participation in the shared governance process.
Dawn had a unique opportunity as a participant on the task force, which helped create the
ASGMNE. She shared,
…they wanted to be able to have staff in [faculty] council meetings…I said ‘I
hope you didn’t do all of this so that your staff can be your secretaries for your
council’ and they’re like ‘But they’re better at it.’ And lots of staff members that
are way better pay grades than me said ‘don’t do that. That’s going to piss your
entire staff off.

Diana, a member of both councils, gave an example of how she feels about her
participation on Coordinating Council, “We just show up. They kinda give us updates on what’s
happening on our campuses. How are we making any changes within the school? We’re just not
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

78

accomplishing anything is my feeling.” Katherine shared her concern of faculty finding of
value in staff participating in the ASGMNE,
I don’t think all of the faculty or even staff are on board with shared governance.
Faculty don’t necessarily want staff to be a part of it because it is ‘academic’
shared governance so they want to focus on academic affairs…I don’t really know
how it’s shared governance when you’re not taking into consideration half of your
workforce. I mean, what’s the difference? If staff weren’t included, what’s really
different in how it was before?

However, Yvonne and Mary had opposing views from the other participants. For
example, Yvonne stated “Being in this shared governance model, you’re encouraged to be a part
of the meeting, so you actually get to sit and listen to the response.” During her discussion about
the ASGMNE, Mary shared, “You have a space in this organization and it’s not just for you to
fill, it’s for you to say something.”
Self-Efficacy Theory.
Assumed influence 5. Staff members believe that their role within the organization is
meaningful. Questions 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 on the survey were used to gather evidence for this
assumed influence. Survey results indicate a gap in staff members’ believing that their role is
meaningful, when compared to Coordinating Council members. Scores are based upon a Likert
scale of 1 – 10.
Members of Staff Council have a higher mean for every single statement. However, none
of these differences are significant given the small sample size. Additionally, the table showing
the effect size, eta squared, indicates that a larger sample size, especially the ones over .1, could
indicate an actual difference.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

79

Table 20.
Assumed Influence 5 Staff Council
Have You
Participated On
Staff Council?
In the
column, rate
how
confident
you are, as of
now, in your
ability to
accurately
explain how
the
ASGMNE
model works
In the column,
rate how
confident you
are, as of now,
in your ability
to describe
how your
professional
job functions
meet the goals
of the
ASGMNE
In the
column, rate
how
confident
you are, as of
now, in your
ability to
participate
effectively in
the
ASGMNE
model
In the column,
rate how
confident you
are, as of now,
in your ability
to be effective
when you
participate in
decision-
making when
it related to
your role
within the
SON
In the column,
rate how
confident you
are, as of now,
in your ability
to be effective
when you
attempt to
participate in
decision-
making
related to the
business of
the SON
Yes Mean 6.13 6.25 7.13 7.63 7.25
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std.
Deviation
2.696 2.605 2.748 2.446 2.493
No Mean 4.31 4.00 4.85 6.23 5.69
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std.
Deviation
2.869 3.512 2.882 2.948 2.955
Total Mean 5.00 4.86 5.71 6.76 6.29
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std.
Deviation
2.881 3.321 2.986 2.791 2.831

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
accurately explain how
the ASGMNE model
works
.314 .099
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

80

In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
describe how your
professional job
functions meet the
goals of the ASGMNE
.337 .114
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
participate effectively
in the ASGMNE model
.380 .144
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
be effective when you
participate in decision-
making when it related
to your role within the
SON
.249 .062
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
be effective when you
attempt to participate in
decision-making related
to the business of the
SON
.274 .075

There is a statistical significant difference between members of Coordinating Council and
non-Coordinating Council members’ confidence of how to meet organizational goals. The table
below shows the eta squared to be high. Therefore, the difference is not only statistically
significant, it is large.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

81

Table 21.
Assumed Influence 5 Coordinating Council
Have you
participated on
Coordinating
Council?
In the
column, rate
how
confident
you are, as
of now, in
your ability
to accurately
explain how
the
ASGMNE
model works
In the column,
rate how
confident you
are, as of now,
in your ability
to describe
how your
professional
job functions
meet the goals
of the
ASGMNE
In the
column, rate
how
confident
you are, as
of now, in
your ability
to participate
effectively in
the
ASGMNE
model
In the column,
rate how
confident you
are, as of
now, in your
ability to be
effective
when you
participate in
decision-
making when
it related to
your role
within the
SON
In the column,
rate how
confident you
are, as of now,
in your ability
to be effective
when you
attempt to
participate in
decision-
making
related to the
business of
the SON
Yes Mean 7.71 7.86 9.00 8.86 8.57
N 7 7 7 7 7
Std.
Deviation
2.498 2.734 2.082 2.340 2.573
No Mean 3.64 3.36 4.07 5.71 5.14
N 14 14 14 14 14
Std.
Deviation
1.985 2.499 1.730 2.431 2.248
Total Mean 5.00 4.86 5.71 6.76 6.29
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std.
Deviation
2.881 3.321 2.986 2.791 2.831

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

82

In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
accurately explain how
the ASGMNE model
works
.683 .466
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
describe how your
professional job
functions meet the
goals of the ASGMNE
.655 .428
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
participate effectively
in the ASGMNE model
.797 .636
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
be effective when you
participate in decision-
making when it related
to your role within the
SON
.544 .296
In the column, rate how
confident you are, as of
now, in your ability to
be effective when you
attempt to participate in
decision-making related
to the business of the
SON
.585 .342

Interview questions 8 and 9 were used to gather evidence for this assumed influence.
Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. All participants revealed they
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

83

found meaning in their roles within the SON. Yvonne shared that the ASGMNE gave her a
sense of purpose, “When I’m asked to come in and talk to councils, I feel like ‘Oh, I can actually
share what I know and what I do’…It’s not, ‘you’re not a part of this council or this committee –
go away.’ And that’s what it was before.” Mary explained her ability to share information and
justify decisions had increased, which made her feel like a valuable team member, “I can go back
and then relate to them in just kind of a general conversation…and then they may understand
more of why things happen or why things can’t happen.” Mary also described her role on Staff
Council as increasing her self-worth, “…it gave me a self-worth of ‘I am a voice for somebody
else that really can’t or really won’t think they have a voice’” Diana, who is a member of both
councils stated, “We’re an important part of creating those nurses that go out into the world.”
Assumed influence 6. Staff members are confident in the abilities and motives of other
organizational members. Interview question # 3 was used to gather evidence for this assumed
influence. Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Positive
relationships with supervisors were described by all participants who interviewed with the
researcher. Yvonne described her relationship with her supervisor as one built on trust, “We trust
one another. My supervisor trusts that I will get the job done.” Katherine described her
relationship as “comfortable” and explained, “She and I have regular meetings where I can
discuss anything I need…so we can find solutions to make it so that I’m able to be effective in
my role…” Participants demonstrated a variety of opinions in describing other organizational
members. For example, Mary shared that she and her colleagues all share a similar goal, “…the
specific colleagues that I work closely with, I think we’ve made a relationship that we are here
for the students and so that drives us to do better.” However, Jay shared, “We’ve had a couple of
instances where we had some employees that were just overall maybe not committed to the
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

84

organization or just, overall maybe the job wasn’t what they thought it was and they really
didn’t contribute much.”
Findings for Organizational Influences
Organizational Culture
Assumed influence 1. Staff members demonstrate the social norms of the organization.
Questions 30 and 31 on the survey were used to gather evidence for this assumed influence.
Survey results indicate responses are higher for members of Staff and Coordinating Councils
when compared to non-council members. Differences in scores are not significant. Scores are
based on a scale of 1 to 6.
Table 22.
Assumed Influence 1 Staff Council
Have You
Participated On Staff
Council?
I trust my staff colleagues to listen
to me and respond respectfully to
my ideas when working on shared
governance issues.
I trust my staff colleagues to listen
to me and respond respectfully to
my ideas when working on shared
governance issues.
Yes Mean 5.25 5.00
N 8 8
Std.
Deviation
1.282 1.309
No Mean 4.38 3.46
N 13 13
Std.
Deviation
2.329 2.295
Total Mean 4.71 4.05
N 21 21
Std.
Deviation
2.004 2.085

Table 23
Assumed Influence 1 Coordinating Council
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

85

Have you
participated on
Coordinating
Council?
I trust my staff colleagues to listen
to me and respond respectfully to
my ideas when working on shared
governance issues.
I trust my staff colleagues to listen
to me and respond respectfully to
my ideas when working on shared
governance issues.
Yes Mean 6.29 6.00
N 7 7
Std. Deviation .756 .816
No Mean 3.93 3.07
N 14 14
Std. Deviation 1.979 1.817
Total Mean 4.71 4.05
N 21 21
Std. Deviation 2.004 2.085

Assumed influence 2. Staff members create positive relationships with at least one
faculty member in the organization. Question 28 on the survey was used to gather evidence for
this assumed influence. Survey results indicate responses are higher for members of
Coordinating Councils when compared to Staff Council members and both groups of non-
council members. Differences in scores are not significant; however, Non-Staff Council
members scored higher than Staff Council members when responding to the question about
faculty valuing employee voice. Scores are based on a scale of 1 to 6.
Table 24.
Assumed Influence 2 Staff Council
Have You Participated On Staff
Council?
I believe incorporating the input of my employee voice is of
value to faculty members.
Yes Mean 3.50
N 8
Std. Deviation 1.852
No Mean 3.54
N 13
Std. Deviation 2.066
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

86

Total Mean 3.52
N 21
Std. Deviation 1.940

Table 25
Assumed Influence 2 Coordinating Council
Have you participated on
Coordinating Council?
I believe incorporating the input of my employee voice is of
value to faculty members.
Yes Mean 4.86
N 7
Std. Deviation 1.069
No Mean 2.86
N 14
Std. Deviation 1.956
Total Mean 3.52
N 21
Std. Deviation 1.940

Interview question # 3 was used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview
results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. All participants during the interviews
described a positive working relationship with at least one faculty member in the SON.
However, several participants shared the difficulty in working with select faculty members.
Katherine shared, “There are some faculty, I believe, that look down on staff, though, and don’t
value staff as much as others. And I don’t know if that stems from them not understanding the
importance of [us] within the academic organization or what…” However, Mary believes, staff
and faculty members, despite varying levels of education, share the same purpose in the SON, “I
don’t feel that I am different than faculty. We are all here for one purpose. We’re all equal and
whether I have a degree or I don’t have a degree…”
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

87

Assumed influence 3. Staff members have positive perceptions of processes and
procedures. Questions 18, 19, 20 and 21 on the survey were used to gather evidence for this
assumed influence. Those who are on the Staff Council rate it as more effective than non-
members. Differences are not statistically significant.
Table 26.
Assumed Influence 3 Staff Council

Have You Participated On Staff
Council?
Please rate
Staff Council,
on a scale
from 1 – 10
with 1 being
not effective
and 10 being
extremely
effective, as a
function for
staff members
to increase
their level of
engagement
in the
ASGMNE
Please rate
Staff Council,
on a scale
from 1 – 10
with 1 being
not effective
and 10 being
extremely
effective, as a
function for
staff members
to increase
employee
voice in the
ASGMNE
Please rate
Coordinating
Council, on a
scale from 1 –
10 with 1
being not
effective and
10 extremely
effective, as a
function for
staff members
to increase
their level of
engagement
in the
ASGMNE
Please rate
Coordinating
Council, on a
scale from 1 –
10 with 1
being not
effective and
10 extremely
effective, as a
function for
staff members
to increase
employee
voice in the
ASGMNE
Yes Mean 7.63 7.75 6.75 5.25
N 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation 2.722 2.605 3.412 3.412
No Mean 6.46 6.23 5.92 5.92
N 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation 2.961 3.113 2.871 3.013
Total Mean 6.90 6.81 6.24 5.67
N 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 2.862 2.960 3.032 3.104

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

88

Please rate Staff Council,
on a scale from 1 – 10
with 1 being not
effective and 10 being
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
their level of engagement
in the ASGMNE
.202 .041
Please rate Staff Council,
on a scale from 1 – 10
with 1 being not
effective and 10 being
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
employee voice in the
ASGMNE
.255 .065
Please rate Coordinating
Council, on a scale from
1 – 10 with 1 being not
effective and 10
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
their level of engagement
in the ASGMNE
.136 .018
Please rate Coordinating
Council, on a scale from
1 – 10 with 1 being not
effective and 10
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
employee voice in the
ASGMNE
.108 .012

Results for Coordinating Council are also below. Coordinating Council scores higher
with their ratings and all differences are significant. Therefore, being part of the Coordinating
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

89

Council seems to have more of an effect on rating effectiveness of both councils than being
part of the Staff Council. Scores are based on a scale of 1 to 10.

Table 27.
Assumed Influence 3 Coordinating Council
Have you participated on Coordinating
Council?
Please rate
Staff
Council, on
a scale from
1 – 10 with
1 being not
effective
and 10
being
extremely
effective, as
a function
for staff
members to
increase
their level
of
engagement
in the
ASGMNE
Please rate
Staff
Council, on
a scale from
1 – 10 with
1 being not
effective
and 10
being
extremely
effective, as
a function
for staff
members to
increase
employee
voice in the
ASGMNE
Please rate
Coordinating
Council, on
a scale from
1 – 10 with 1
being not
effective and
10 extremely
effective, as
a function
for staff
members to
increase
their level of
engagement
in the
ASGMNE
Please rate
Coordinating
Council, on
a scale from
1 – 10 with 1
being not
effective and
10 extremely
effective, as
a function
for staff
members to
increase
employee
voice in the
ASGMNE
Yes Mean 9.00 9.00 8.86 8.00
N 7 7 7 7
Std. Deviation 2.309 2.082 2.478 2.517
No Mean 5.86 5.71 4.93 4.50
N 14 14 14 14
Std. Deviation 2.568 2.758 2.401 2.739
Total Mean 6.90 6.81 6.24 5.67
N 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 2.862 2.960 3.032 3.104

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

90

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
Please rate Staff Council,
on a scale from 1 – 10
with 1 being not
effective and 10 being
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
their level of engagement
in the ASGMNE
.530 .281
Please rate Staff Council,
on a scale from 1 – 10
with 1 being not
effective and 10 being
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
employee voice in the
ASGMNE
.536 .288
Please rate Coordinating
Council, on a scale from
1 – 10 with 1 being not
effective and 10
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
their level of engagement
in the ASGMNE
.626 .392
Please rate Coordinating
Council, on a scale from
1 – 10 with 1 being not
effective and 10
extremely effective, as a
function for staff
members to increase
employee voice in the
ASGMNE
.545 .297

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

91

Interview question # 7 was used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview
results do indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Overall, participants said Staff Council has
been working increase staff engagement. However, all participants identified various ways the
ineffectiveness they identify in Staff Council’s role in staff engagement. For example, Jay shared
“[Staff Council] is helping to develop relationships outside of our job duties…so maybe we’re
more engaged and we think of people as persons more than job duties.” As Jay continued
speaking, he revealed, “I’ve been on this council for a year and I’m still sorta like, what’s the
real value in what’re we’re doing? Like, I want this committee to be very progressive and
sometime I don’t really know that we’ve done that.” Diana, a member of Staff and Coordinating
Council, shared, “[Staff Council] are not as effective as I thought perhaps they could be or
envision it to be. Coordinating Council is about the same. I just kind of envisioned us doing
more…there are all these big decisions happening…if staff had a voice in it, would it have been
different?” Neither Katherine nor Yvonne are members of the councils and both shared themes
about the lack of increase in staff engagement. Katherine asserted, “…until the majority of
faculty can understand the importance of staff…I don’t see Staff Council being able to make a
huge difference overall in staff engagement” Yvonne stated “I don’t see a lot of engagement…I
don’t know if staff are more engaged.” Dawn, a member of Staff Council shared, “I’ve been just
as guilty to go to those meetings and not communicate. Because when you’re in a big group like
that, it’s easy to happen.”
However, Participants do positively identify Staff Council as being a function to increase
employee voice. Mary recognized Staff Council as “…really kinda of breaking the barrier are on
‘you are able to have a voice within the SON’” Katherine shared,”[Staff Council] allowed staff
to have a voice because we have Staff Council representatives that sit on Coordinating
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

92

Council…staff do have a voice – a small voice – but a voice.” Dawn said “…it’s more of a
group effort that comes from a committee versus one person.”
Cultural settings.
Assumed influence 4. The organization provides resources to staff members. Question
34 on the survey was used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Survey results indicate
responses are higher for members of Staff and Coordinating Councils when compared to non-
council members. Differences in scores are not significant. Scores are based on a 1 to 6 scale.
Table 28.
Assumed Influence 4 Staff Council
Have You Participated On
Staff Council?
The organization provides me with the materials and equipment I
need to participate effectively in the shared governance process
Yes Mean 5.25
N 8
Std. Deviation 1.035
No Mean 3.85
N 13
Std. Deviation 1.725
Total Mean 4.38
N 21
Std. Deviation 1.627

Table 29
Assumed Influence 4 Coordinating Council
Have you participated on
Coordinating Council?
The organization provides me with the materials and equipment I
need to participate effectively in the shared governance process
Yes Mean 6.00
N 7
Std. Deviation .000
No Mean 3.57
N 14
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

93

Std. Deviation 1.399
Total Mean 4.38
N 21
Std. Deviation 1.627

Interview questions 1 and 7 were used to gather evidence for this assumed influence.
Interview results do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. All interviewees agreed they
have most of the resources they need to complete their assigned functions within the
organization. Resources mentioned during interviews included “quality teammates,” “budgets,”
“information,” and “technology.” Additionally, several participants shared during their
interviews, they were recipients of funds for staff development. Yvonne shared, “I’ve needed to
ask Staff Council for funds…for staff development to go to conferences and speak as well as
learn.” Jay stated, “I would say any resource that I need that I can justify purchasing, I don’t
have any problems getting it.”
Assumed influence 5. The organization has a reward system that incentivizes staff
participation in shared governance. The survey had one open-ended question, which asked for a
list of incentives to participate on an ASGNE council. No answers were received. Interview
question # 7 was used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview results do
indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Diana shared, “It’s a lot on top of the things you’re
already assigned to do. People want to be involved, but then you get them more involvement and
it is like, ‘man, that’s a lot to do.’” Katherine asked, “Are there incentives? I don’t know.” Mary
shared, “I think it’s more of a, ‘if you participate, you’ll feel better about yourself’ type thing”
and Jay stated, “Every now and then you get a free meal.” Dawn said, “It’s not that I don’t enjoy
being on Staff Council because I do, but it does take up time from your regular day.”
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

94

Assumed influence 6. The organization provides opportunities for employees to
communicate or influence decision-making. Question 29 on the survey was used to gather
evidence for this assumed influence. Survey results indicate responses are higher for members of
Staff and Coordinating Councils when compared to non-council members. Differences in scores
are not significant. Scores are based on a 1 to 6 scale.
Table 30.
Assumed Influence 6 Staff Council
Have You Participated On
Staff Council?
I can utilize my employee voice and participate in decision-
making without being on an ASGMNE council
Yes Mean 4.00
N 8
Std. Deviation 1.512
No Mean 3.46
N 13
Std. Deviation 1.808
Total Mean 3.67
N 21
Std. Deviation 1.683

Table 31.
Assumed Influence 6 Coordinating Council
Have you participated on
Coordinating Council?
I can utilize my employee voice and participate in decision-
making without being on an ASGMNE council
Yes Mean 5.00
N 7
Std. Deviation .816
No Mean 3.00
N 14
Std. Deviation 1.617
Total Mean 3.67
N 21
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

95

Std. Deviation 1.683

Interview question 5 was used to gather evidence for this assumed influence. Interview results
do not indicate a gap for this assumed influence. Participants during the interviews seem to
share similar views of the value of council memberships in order to be engaged in decision-
making and information sharing within the organization. Diana shared, “I am on Staff Council
and the Coordinating Council so I get to be involved in those meetings so I know a lot more than,
perhaps, somebody who is not participating actually in those councils.” Jay stated that he was
comfortable sharing his ideas despite membership on Staff Council, “I think if you have an issue
or suggestion, you just contact [Staff Council] and they can work it through the system. But if I
had a great idea or something, I feel comfortable that I could go to whoever was in charge of that
particular thing and share those thoughts.”
Conclusion
Survey and interview data validated four gaps in assumed motivation and organizational
influences. The following section will provide the reader with an overview of all the assumed
influencers, and indicate which were validated by statistically significant data within the study.
Knowledge Influences
Lack of organizational goal achievement is often caused by a gap in employee knowledge
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals must be knowledgeable about how to perform a task
effectively to meet an organizational goal or outcome; however, many employees are unaware
of, or unwilling to identify, a deficiency in knowledge or skill set (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
study did not discover any gaps in assumed knowledge influences. Table 32 provides the reader
with an overview of assumed knowledge influences.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

96

Table 32.
Summary of Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Staff know what their
role is in the shared
governance model (D)

N
Y
Staff know what the
goal is for the
governance process
(D)

N
Y
Staff members
understand the steps
necessary in order to
meet organizational
goals (P)

N Y
Staff members manage
their workloads
(P)

N Y
Staff members use self-
reflection to monitor
their engagement (M)

N Y
* (D)eclarative; (P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
Motivation Influences
Motivation is a key factor in addressing organizational performance problems (Rueda,
2011). When motivation is coupled with knowledge, an individual is more likely to accomplish a
task or a goal (Clark and Estes, 2008). This study validated three gaps among the assumed
motivational influences. Table 33 provides the reader with an overview of assumed knowledge
influences.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

97

Table 33.
Summary of Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Staff members believe
that participating in the
shared governance
process will help them
influence decision-
making within the
organization

V Y
Staff members believe
they should and can
share their voice

N Y
Staff members are able
to cultivate
relationships among
team members

N Y
Staff members
experience feelings of
value and recognition
for their participation in
the shared governance
process

V Y
Staff members believe
that their role within the
organization is
meaningful

V Y
Staff members are
confident in the
abilities and motives of
other organizational
members

N Y

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

98

Organization Influences
Addressing organizational performance problems is a key factor in closing existing gaps
and barriers to achieving goals (Rueda, 2011). When motivation is coupled with knowledge, an
individual is more likely to accomplish a task or a goal (Clark and Estes, 2008). This study
validated two gaps among the assumed organizational influences. Table 34 represents an
overview of the assumed organization influences.
Table 34.
Summary of Organization Influences
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Staff members
demonstrate the social
norms of the
organization
N Y
The organization
provides resources to
staff members
N Y
The organization has a
reward system that
incentives staff
participation in shared
governance
V Y
The organization
provides opportunities
for employees to
communicate, or
influence decision-
making
N Y
Staff members create
positive relationships
with at least one faculty
member in the
organization

N

Y
Staff members have
positive perceptions of
V Y
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

99

processes and
procedures

Chapter Four presented the results of this study through an overview of the assumed
influences according to Clark & Estes’ (2008) KMO framework. The gaps identified pertain to
motivation and organizational culture. Chapter Five will address recommendations and solutions
to the existing performance gaps.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

100

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN
Chapter Four presented the results of this study through an overview of the assumed
influences according to according to Clark & Estes’ (2008) KMO framework. The gaps
identified that impact the stakeholder group’s ability to meet the performance goal pertain to
motivation and organizational culture. Therefore, Chapter Five addresses research question 3:
What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of motivation and
organizational culture? Solutions to existing gaps will be presented throughout this chapter, in
addition to plans for implementation and evaluation. The New World Kirkpatrick Model will be
used as a framework for the proposed solutions to respond to performance gaps (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
As stated in Chapter Four, the surveys and interviews did not validate any assumed
knowledge gaps. However, if a larger number of staff members had participated in the survey,
some assumed knowledge influences could have had statistically significant results and validated
a gap in one of the knowledge areas. Therefore, some invalidated knowledge gaps will be
addressed in the implementation and evaluation plan, which will provided later in this chapter.
Motivation Recommendations
Chapter Four revealed members of Coordinating Council had significantly statistically
higher scores for three assumed influencers related to motivation. Table 35 represents the
assumed motivation influences, and the recommendations for the study.
Table 35.
Findings and Recommendations for Motivation Influences
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

101

Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Staff members believe
that participating in the
shared governance
process will help them
influence decision-
making within the
organization

V Y Show staff members
the connection between
their role and
organizational goals to
help increase desire to
participate in sharing
feedback and ideas
(Farndale, Van Ruten,
Kelliher & Hope-
Hailey, 2011; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Leiter &
Maslach, 2003;
Bandura, 1997)

Provide expert
training for Staff
Council to create
strategic plan
focusing on staff
engagement, and
how to increase
participation
among non-council
members
Staff members
experience feelings of
value and recognition
for their participation in
the shared governance
process

V Y Describe realistic
benefits of participating
on staff council (Clark
& Estes, 2008;
Masterson, Lewis,
Goldman & Taylor,
2000; Leiter &
Maslach, 2003)
Prepare Staff
Council members
to lead effectively
in their role in
order to feel like
contributors to the
organization
through the use of
effective strategic
planning, agenda
planning and
communication
Staff members believe
that their role within the
organization is
meaningful

V Y Focus on positive
feedback (Clark &
Estes, 2008;
Kusku, 2003;
Bendermacher, et. al.,
2016; May, Gilson &
Harter, 2004; Kusku,
2003)

Provide
performance
feedback loop for
Staff Council and
staff members.

Expectancy value theory. Prior successes and failures can influence an individual’s
abilities to accomplish a task. In addition, success and failures can impact a person’s perception,
as well as their expectations, of being able to achieve a task (Wigfield, et. al, 2007; Eccles,
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

102

2009). The concepts of expectancy value theory can help explain how staff members may
perceive their role within the ASGMNE. For staff members to attempt to participate in shared
decision-making, they must believe they can influence organizational outcomes with their ideas
and feedback (Farndale, et. al, 2011). Therefore, providing learning, as well as facilitating,
opportunities for all staff members to participate in the ASGMNE, could increase staff members’
beliefs that they can influence decision-making.
During the first year of the ASGMNE, members of Coordinating Council attended a two-
day training with a strategic planning expert from an external organization. This expert led the
Coordinating Council members in developing a three year strategic plan, facilitated goal setting,
and meeting norms among faculty and staff members. This study revealed staff members who
are members of Coordinating Council have a more positive overall perception of the ASGMNE.
Therefore, providing Staff Council members with a similar training from an expert in strategic
planning could increase the knowledge of Staff Council members in conducting the business of
the organization and being the voice of the overall staff team. Additionally, the guidance of
creating a communication map will help drive intentional and purposeful information sharing
from Staff Council to all staff members.
Self-Efficacy. A person’s motivation is affected by the perception he or she has about
their own capabilities to achieve a task or a goal (Parajes, 2009). Notably, individuals with great
self-efficacy exhibit higher levels of persistence and are willing to take on challenging projects
or duties (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, staff members must maintain high levels of motivation in
order to increase their participation in, and dedication to, working towards meeting
organizational goals, especially when collaborating with a faculty member, an administrator or
supervisor (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

103

As noted in Chapter Four, survey and interview data revealed positive relationships
with between staff members and their supervisors. Interviewees described feedback as a tool
used by supervisors, which helped them believe they were effective their roles. Staff Council
could utilize a feedback loop to increase their effectiveness within the ASGMNE in addition to
increasing the belief among council members that their time and energy serving on the council is
meaningful, impactful, and valuable.
Organization Recommendations
Chapter Four revealed members of Coordinating Council had significantly statistically
higher scores for two assumed influencers related to organization. Table 36 represents the
assumed organization influences, and recommendations for the study.
Table 36.
Findings and Recommendations for Organization Influences
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization has a
reward system that
incentives staff
participation in shared
governance
V Y Staff members need to
experience feelings of
value and recognition
within the social
reward system (Rupp &
Cropanzano, 2002;
Leiter & Maslach,
2003).
Provide incentives
for participating
on a council
Staff members have
positive perceptions of
processes and
procedures

V Y Opportunities must
exist for staff to
participate within the
organizational model
(Farndale, et. al, 2011;
Khan, 1990; May,
1900).
Create a culture
which seeks
participation of all
team members

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

104

Cultural settings. Environmental settings, policies and strategic plans can reveal an
organization’s cultural setting. These things can impact an individual’s beliefs of how they are
valued within the organization. For example, the ASGMNE includes staff engagement within
the strategic plan; however, the lack of equitable incentives among faculty and staff members’
participation on a council may cause frustration among staff members and lead them to believe
they are not as valued as faculty members. Incentives must be developed for staff members who
serve on Staff Council.
Monetary incentives are not always an available resource within an organization.
Therefore, it is important to consider how other groups, such as faculty members, are incentive
with the SON for their participation on a council or committee. For example, faculty are often
encouraged to participate on committee and councils because it can strengthen their chance for
promotion and tenure. Therefore, staff members should receive a similar incentive where they
can receive a higher score on their performance review, if they serve on a committee or council.
Additionally, the literature in Chapter Two revealed the value of status within an organization
(Kezar, 2000) therefore, it may be important for Staff Council members to consider including
their Staff Council membership in their professional signatures. This could formally recognize
service to the organization and help other staff members easily identify Staff Council members.
Lastly, time can be used as an incentive for serving as a council member. Receiving a day off
each semester for their service in order to focus on self-care activities is an example of using
time as a reward or incentive. Ultimately, all members of the organizations contributing to the
ASGMNE councils should be rewarded, not just a select group.
Cultural models. A cultural model is often responsible for the social norms within an
organization; hence, it can be the key to creating a dynamic change within an organization
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

105

(Shein, 2004; Kezar, 2001). The role, and value, of staff members must be legitimized
within the ASGMNE (Kezar, 2001). Therefore, providing opportunities for staff members to
engage with members outside of their own sub-groups, where they can contribute to decision-
making and idea sharing can increase the positive perception of staff members and their role
within the organization (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). This can help increase the interactions
between faculty and staff members, thus helping to bridge the gap which often exists between the
two groups on campus. Faculty who understand the purpose of staff members roles with the
organization can increase feelings of trust and respect, while decreasing staff members’
perceptions that believe faculty do not believe staff should be part of the ASGMNE.
Members of Staff Council cannot be the only group who are able to effectively
participate in the ASGMNE. All staff members need to have an opportunity to get involved and
contribute to the organization. The SON must be an organization which seeks a culture of
participation by all members, not just through council membership. The use of task forces can
provide staff members an opportunity to get involved in the ASGMNE, for a limited time, to
determine if they are interested in a position on Staff Council, as well as help them to decide how
to manage their should they decide to serve on a council. Additionally, Staff Council can assign
action committees to goals aligning with the strategic plan and allow staff members to serve on
those working groups. In the end, this ripple effect of task forces and committee creates an
opportunity for more engagement opportunities for staff to contribute to the organization despite
membership on Staff Council.
Member of Staff Council, particularly those who serve on Coordinating Council, must
believe faculty find their contribution to the ASGMNE to be valuable. Creating additional
opportunities for faculty and staff to work together and learn to value each other’s roles within
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

106

the organization can increase feelings of trust and appreciation. Staff Council can be the
pioneer council to seek opportunities for inter-professional team building and providing sub-
committees of mixed groups who are aiming to meet organizational or council goals. Staff
Council could also provide educational opportunities for staff and faculty to learn to more
effectively with each other.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was used as the framework to implement and
evaluation the ASGMNE, a model aimed at increasing staff engagement within an institution of
higher education. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) use four levels to evaluate training
program. The levels are provided in a descending order in which researchers and trainers should
use when evaluating a program. Level Four is titled “Results” and identifies the target
outcome(s) of the training program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Three focuses on
“Behavior” which will determine the degree to which participants apply learned behavior
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Two “Learning” aims to evaluate if learners are using
their newly acquired knowledge and skills (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level One is
“Reaction” and it will measure how well participants received the training (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Using this model can guide researchers and trainers on how effective their
initiatives were for participants.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues
and organizational factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in the
ASGMNE. The problem of practice being addressed in this project was the facilitation of staff
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

107

engagement within a shared governance model, specifically the ASGMNE that was
intentionally designed to increase staff engagement in the organization’s governance structure.
Exploring staff engagement within the ASGMNE model aligns with the organization’s goal to
achieve an effective and efficient governance process and increase engagement for staff. The
proposed training plan aims to increase staff engagement, while focusing on the stakeholder
group, Staff Council.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 37 provides the Results and Leading Indicators, which are targeted outcomes for a
training plan. The table is divided into two desirable outcomes: external and internal. The
external outcomes aim to increase national recognition for the organization and the internal
outcomes are set to increase staff engagement using strategic planning, goal setting, and
incentives.
Table 37.

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
The organization will
increase national
recognition for developing
an effective shared
governance model to
increase both faculty and
staff engagement
a) The number of podium and
poster presentations at state and
national conferences

Number of other institutions of
higher education using
governance models which
include staff presenting at state
and national conferences
b) The number of publications

Number of other institutions of
higher education using
governance models which
include staff publishing articles
on the topic
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

108

c) Staff report higher
engagement and satisfaction
rates
Compare SON staff satisfaction
survey from 2014-2016 to
results in 2018-2019

Compare SON staff satisfaction
survey results from 2018-2019
to the health sciences center
staff results

Internal Outcomes
Increase Number of Staff
Members of ASGMNE
Coordinating Council
The number of staff on
ASGMNE Coordinating Council
Compare number of staff on
ASGMNE Coordinating
Council in 2017 to number of
staff on ASGMNE Coordinating
Council in 2018
Staff Council will create a
strategic plan to increase
staff engagement
Increase in the number of staff
members demonstrating
engagement behaviors
Compare staff engagement
survey in 2017 to the results in
2018-2019
Staff Council will identify
incentives and/or rewards
to staff members who
participate on Staff
Council
Staff members are able to
describe an incentive and/or
reward for participating on Staff
Council
Staff Council will collect data
from a survey, after they launch
a strategic plan for engagement.
Compare this study’s results
regarding incentives and
rewards to a new survey, created
by Staff Council to collect new
data to verify if the assumed
organizational gap has been
closed.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The critical behaviors are an effective outcome for researchers and
trainers to use to determine if participants are applying what they have learned into practice
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The behaviors must be clearly defined in order to effectively
influence the results in Level Four (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The critical behaviors
identified in Table 38 include the development of a strategic plan for increasing staff engagement
and removing barriers, which cause problems in communication among staff members.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

109

Table 38.

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Staff Council to
identify facilitators for
all staff members to
participate in
decision-making
The number of
effective methods
being used to increase
communication and
feedback among all
staff members
Determine if the
methods have
effectively increased
staff beliefs that they
can participate in
decision-making

Bi-annual – after
facilitators have
been put into effect
2. Staff Council will
review previous
council agendas for
completeness to
determine if gaps
exist or information
being discussed does
not align with SON
business
Agenda topics are
able to align with
ASGMNE goals
Staff Council Chair
will review agenda item
requests and determine
if appropriate to add to
agenda
Monthly - prior to
when meetings are
scheduled to take
place
3. Staff Council will
be responsible for
sharing information
from Coordinating
Council
Agenda includes
standing item for
updates from
Coordinating Council
meetings
Staff Council Chair or
Secretary will provide
written and verbal
communication to Staff
Council members
Quarterly - after
Coordinating
Council Meetings
4. Staff Council will
be responsible for
sharing information,
to all staff members
The preferred
communication
strategies, identified
by staff members, will
be used to
communicate
information
Staff Council Chair or
Secretary will provide
written communication
to all staff members
Monthly – after
each Staff Council
meeting

Bi-annual – after
SON Organization
meeting
5. Staff Council will
identify
incentives/rewards for
participation
Policy created for
non-monetary
incentive/reward
system developed for
Staff Council
members
Members of Staff
Council will receive an
incentive/reward for
participating on Staff
Council
Annually – after one
year of active
service to the
council

Required drivers. Members of staff council will need support and accountability in
order to function effectively within the ASGMNE. Receiving guidance from an expert in
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

110

strategic planning will aid Staff Council in creating an effective strategic plan with
measurable goals and outcomes for items noted in Table 39.
Monthly reports about the status of strategic plan goals will hold members of the Staff
Council accountable to Coordinating Council and the staff members within organization. This
will also help increase communication and transparency of the Staff Councils status of meeting
goals and increasing engagement. Monthly reports can also be an indicator of feedback and if
Staff Council is responding to the needs of staff members, and being an effective voice for staff
within the organization.
Rewards such as public acknowledgment at the all school meeting by the dean could
incentive Staff Council members.
Table 39 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of Staff Council
members.
Table 39.
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job aid on how to use
technology to communicate
information effectively
Bi-annually 1, 3, 4
Staff Council meeting with
experienced facilitator to
guide goals and time frames
Annually 2, 3
Staff Council meeting to
check on strategic plan goal
statuses
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Job aid on how to create an
effective agenda
Bi-annually 2, 3
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching from
administrators and facilitators
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Feedback from staff members Annually 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

111

Rewarding
Public acknowledgement
when employee engagement
scores increase
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Incentives/Rewards for
participating on Staff Council
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4

Monitoring. Three strategies could be used to ensure that the Required Drivers occur: 1)
Staff Council can be recognized at Coordinating Council and SON Organization meetings for
creating a strategic plan to increase staff engagement; 2) Staff Council can be recognized at
Coordinating Council and SON Organization meetings for their progress on meeting strategic
plan goals; and 3) surveys can be used bi-annually to determine if staff satisfaction has increased
since the creation of Staff Council’s strategic plan.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, most notably
the Staff Council strategic plan, the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Describe how to function effectively within the ASGMNE (D)

2. Identify the steps necessary to meet organizational goals (P)

3. Manage workloads (P)

4. Use self-reflection to monitor council (M)

Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
training program which will guide Staff Council members to create an effective strategic plan
which will align with the ASGMNE and organizational goals. The learners will attend a
synchronous workshop on how to communicate effectively to other stakeholders within the
organization, specifically staff members. Additionally, they will attend training on how to best
share information through the use of electronic, written and oral forms of communication.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

112

Learners will also have an opportunity to develop an effective strategic plan under the
guidance of an expert. This will be a synchronous workshop. The learners will be guided
throughout the development of their strategic and establishment of measurable goals. This
ensures the learners align their goals with the ASGMNE and the organization. Learners will
receive immediate feedback from the expert and then have an opportunity to present the strategic
plan to the members of the organization.
Components of learning. It is important for learners to believe they are able to apply
their knowledge to practice. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate the declarative and procedural
knowledge methods for the trainings. Table 40 describes the evaluation methods and timings
used to guide the components of learning.
Table 40.
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through the development of
strategic plan. Ensure Staff Council is on track
with meeting their goals.
Initially during strategic planning session and
then periodically during monthly meetings
Knowledge check through development of
agenda
Initially during first quarter of meetings then
annually.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Application of the skills to develop an agenda.
For example, Staff Council will create an
agenda which aligns items Staff Council and
ASGMNE business
Monthly meetings
Application of the skills to develop a strategic
plan
Monthly meetings
Application of the skills to communicate
effectively to staff members
Monthly reports
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Staff council online post assessment - do they
demonstrate value in what they do
Each quarter, after 3 meetings
Staff member online post assessment - do they
demonstrate value in what Staff council does
After bi-annual organization meeting
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

113

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Staff council post assessment/self-efficacy
scale - do they believe they can be effective in
their roles (Anonymous)
Each quarter, after 3 meetings
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create a staff council action plan During strategic planning meeting

Level 1: Reaction
Table 41 helps focus on formative and summative approaches to evaluate engagement,
relevance and customer satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluation methods
include: observations, pulse checks and dedicated observers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 41.
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Evaluation of training - instructor observation Immediately following the first training
Six month follow-up
12 month follow-up
Completion of job aids On going since it’s bi-annual
Attendance at meeting - pulse check Monthly
Evaluation of staff council meetings -
dedicated observer
Monthly - following meetings
Relevance
Evaluation using PollEverywhere - pulse check Immediately following the first training
Six month follow-up
12 month follow-up
Customer Satisfaction
Evaluation using PollEverywhere - pulse check Monthly - after meetings

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the trainings, the
expert(s) will have an opportunity to use PollEverywhere to monitor how everyone is feeling
about the information they are being trained on as well as if they have any questions.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

114

PollEverywhere allows for anonymous and real-time feedback, which everyone can see
during a training, workshop or presentation.
Table 42.
Evaluation Tools
Component L2 Item
Knowledge Provide a training on the ASGMNE and how
to develop a strategic plan for staff
engagement
Skills Explain how to use employee voice
effectively
Attitude I believe that it is important for me to work
effectively and efficiently within the
ASGMNE in order to reach organizational
goals
Confidence I am confident that I can use my voice to
express ideas and give meaningful feedback in
order to help drive decision-making
Commitment I am committed to being a member of the
ASGMNE

Component L1 Item
Engagement This training program helped me learn about
my role in the ASGMNE
Relevance I am committed to creating an effective
strategic plan for staff engagement
Satisfaction I am glad the SON created the ASGMNE

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Following the first training
on using communication effectively, learners will have an opportunity to create a survey to
determine how staff and other organizational members prefer to receive communication. Once
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

115

the plan has been developed, Staff Council will create a plan to communicate to staff and
other organizational members. Staff Council members will utilize preferred methods of
communication and then survey staff and organizational members’ satisfaction with Staff
Council’s dissemination of council and school business bi-annually. Staff Council will also have
an opportunity to develop a strategic plan under the guidance of an expert during a workshop.
Once the strategic plan is developed, along with measurable goals, the Staff Council members
will be responsible for creating a timeline for achieving goals and reporting on them quarterly to
Coordinating Council and bi-annually the organization.
The administration will administer a survey to Staff Council members six months after
the training to explore how effectively they are translating what they learned at the workshops
and putting it into practice.
Table 43.
Evaluation Tool
Component Item
Reaction I am able to function as an effective staff
council member in the ASGMNE
Learning I understand how to create a strategic plan for
staff engagement
Behavior I am using my voice to share ideas and
meaningful feedback
Results An effective strategic plan for staff
engagement was created for all staff members
within the organization

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

116

Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level Four goal for staff council members is to create a strategic plan to increase staff
engagement within the ASGMNE. Members of staff council will send out an engagement survey
to all organizational staff members and use the data to create a strategic plan to increase staff
engagement within the organization. In order to establish a baseline score, staff council will aim
to have 100% participation on the first engagement survey. Once the results have been reviewed,
the staff council members will use the data to create an effective strategic plan to increase staff
engagement. The plan will include measurable goals and staff members will have an opportunity
to evaluate the plan, and their level of engagement, with another survey one year after
implementation. Quarterly pulse checks will be used for staff council members in order to check
on their progress in meeting strategic plan goals.
Table 44.
Dashboard
Metric Target Actual Rating
Percent of staff council members who attend the training
for effective strategic planning and goal setting
100% TBA TBA
Staff members complete initial engagement survey in order
to create a baseline score of “highly satisfied”
100% TBA TBA
Staff members complete engagement survey one year
following implementation of strategic plan for staff
engagement and report “highly satisfied” on survey
10%
higher
than
baseline
score
TBA TBA

Summary
With the belief that an effective governance process, one that included staff, would
improve organizational effectiveness and increase employee engagement, it is vital that members
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

117

of staff council learn to function effectively within the ASGMNE and create a strategic plan
for staff engagement. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) is an effective framework to
report the progress of the staff council members and how valuable the ASGMNE is to increasing
staff engagement within institutions of higher education.
Strengths and Weakness of the Approach
The stakeholder group, which benefits most from this study, are staff members of the
organization, specifically the members of Staff Council. Staff Council has been in creation for
almost four years; however, they have yet to develop a strategic plan to increase engagement
among staff members due to low response rates to surveys. The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analysis framework will provide the Staff Council with evidence-based recommendations, based
upon all of the data received from surveys and interviews, and guide them to develop an
effective strategic plan for staff engagement.
Staff members receive surveys from the university, from the school, and from Staff
Council numerous times during a semester; therefore, survey fatigue may have set-in by the time
they received the survey for this research study. The researcher should have considered an
incentive to participate in the survey. However, the opportunity for staff members to speak
about their experiences and perceptions of the new governance model has not been made an
opportunity outside of this study.
The purpose of selecting only staff members for the stakeholder group for this study was
to determine the facilitators and barriers, which exist in the ASGMNE and how those factors
impact staff engagement. Given that staff member are typically not included in shared
governance models in higher education, it would be of value to have included the faculty
members in the stakeholder group and then conduct a comparative analysis of the data collected
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

118

from the faculty and staff groups. Faculty members’ experiences within the shared
governance structure, especially when it comes to committee participation and employee voice
could be drastically different than that of the staff members. That data could reveal an incredible
story to share with the organization. It could be the evidence needed to discover if there is a
dichotomy between the two groups, especially concerning engagement and employee voice.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this research study. Validity must be established
through the scores of survey measures to confer the validity of the interview findings (Creswell,
2014). The survey response rate was 32%; however, the sample size of this study was small (n =
36). A small sample group creates a limitation for this study. For instance, some of the etas
were large; yet, a statistically significant gap in most of assumed influences could only be
indicated if there was a larger sample. Another limitation to this study was the convergent
parallel design method. This type of method allows the researcher to gather quantitative and
qualitative data separately, and then analyze and compare them. Other mixed methods
approached build upon one phase upon the findings of the other phase, which helps explain
phenomena in better details (Creswell, 2014). Lastly, the convergent parallel design method
assumes that the results from both data groups will yield similar results. However, when there is
divergence, which can create a weak approach to the research unless further analysis is
conducted by the researcher (Creswell, 2014).
Future Research
Future research should include a large-scale study of staff engagement within higher
education. The literature review revealed a gap in the study of staff engagement in higher
education. Higher education studies on engagement focus on faculty and students. However,
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

119

engagement studies outside of higher education focus on employee, which was very
beneficial in discovering barriers and facilitators for engagement and employee voice. Yet,
higher education is a different culture than cooperate America. Therefore, it is of value for
researchers of engagement to explore higher education culture and its effect on staff members’
engagement. For example, student affairs practitioners must be able to work effectively with
faculty to create a successful learning environment for students. Therefore, identifying and
sharing promising practices can help other faculty and student affairs groups work together in a
more effective manner.
Additionally, researchers could include a comparison of rewards and incentives among
faculty and staff in regards to their participation on councils and committees as well as
onboarding practices. However, one must consider the inflexible staff members have when
compared to faculty members and how that is a factor in determine the right kind of incentive for
participating on a council or committee. Increasing engagement through participation on
committees cannot lead to a staff member prioritizing new responsibilities over already
established ones, or hired role becomes unmanageable because of time away from the office.
Additional opportunities for research should also include a comparative analysis of
faculty members’ experiences and perceptions on civility within institutions of higher education
vs those of staff members. There is an abundance of research on civility and faculty members
within higher education; however, if we expect to close the gap which exists between faculty and
staff, civility is a topic which must be addressed. Communication practices, conducting business
at meetings, and creating agendas are all factors which can all impact the perceptions of civility,
particularly for staff members who are adapting to a historical environment in which norms were
established by faculty members.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

120

Conclusion
As stated in Chapter One, the number of staff members at institutions of higher education
has increased; however, their participation in governance councils remains almost non-existent
(Rhoades & Slaughter, 2004; Tierney & Lechuga, 2004). Identifying effective organizational
models, which can increase staff engagement and employee voice on campus can empower
individuals who are often in the minority in shared decision-making. In addition, staff members
can experience higher levels of motivation and increased commitment to the organization. Little
to no literature exists on staff engagement within institutions of higher education. This study
sought to evaluate the shared governance model a School of Nursing created in an effort to
increase staff engagement within the organization. The Clark and Estes (2008) framework was
used to identify any knowledge, motivation or organizational gaps, which may create barriers for
staff engagement within the ASGMNE.
Minimal gaps were found in influencers related to motivation and organizational culture.
Among the results and findings, participants did indicate they do not believe their participation
within the shared governance process will help them influence decision-making in the
organization. Additionally, survey results found a statistical difference among staff members
and council members when asked if they believe their role within the organization is meaningful.
Participants were unable to identify incentives or a reward system to encourage participation in
the ASGMNE. Interviews revealed participants are unsure if Staff Council is making a
difference in staff engagement.
Recommendations for increasing staff engagement within the ASGMNE focus on Staff
Council creating a strategic plan specific to staff engagement, and creating a measurable goals
for the council. Staff Council should receive a formalized training on how to create a strategic
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

121

plan as well as agendas for meetings and how to create a reward system for participation.
Staff Council is viewed as a facilitator for increasing staff engagement; however, there is a lack
of confidence among participants and council members’ as to how effective the council is in
actually increasing staff engagement. A formalized training program for Staff Council
development should help members of Staff Council understand their roles and how to better
serve all staff members. Staff Council members represent staff therefore, they must ensure all
staff believe their voices are being heard and that they are creating pathways to provide feedback
and participate in decision-making. Ultimately, this can lead to increase staff satisfaction and
engagement within the organization.
As the number of staff members on the campuses of institutions of higher education
increase, it is pertinent for researchers and administrators to explore effective methods to
increase staff engagement. These efforts will lead to increased motivation, and employee
commitment to meeting organizational mission and goals.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

122

References
Astin, A. & Astin, H.S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social
change. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI.
Acton, C., Boswell, C., Cherry, B., Franco, L., Francis-Johnson, Lane, L., Meriwether, C., P.,
Opton, L., Owen, L., Reid, M., Saunders, J. & Shumard-Kager, C., (2013). Texas Tech
University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing Faculty / Staff Shared Governance:
A Proposed Process. Retrieved from: http://www.ttuhsc.edu/son/shared-
governance/files/proposed_process_report.pdf
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved

from http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.

Anonymous (2005). What does employee engagement look like? The Business Communicator, 5
(8), 1-2.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269-

290.
Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New

Directions For Higher Education, 2004(127), 5-22.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the worlds greatest

managers do differently. Simon and Schuster.

Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

123

Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The

intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 11(2), 189-203.

Cook, S. G. (2013), Tips for Advancing to Dean of Students. Women in Higher Education,

22: 25. doi:10.1002/whe.10491

Corbin, J. and A.L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. 3
rd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
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. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.Annual review of

psychology, 53(1), 109-132.

Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved

from http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson. Chapter 6, pp. 162-183.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with vision? The role of vision,

mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger

(Eds.), Second international handbook of research in educational leadership and

administration (pp. 9–40). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

124

In Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 33-68). Springer Netherlands.

Hao, Y. (2000). Relationship between Teachers' Use of Reflection and Other Selected Variables

and Preschool Teachers' Engagement in Developmentally Appropriate Practice.

Heffner, S., Kennedy, S., Brand, J., & Walsh, P. (2011). Develop your leaders, transform your
organization. Harvard Business School Publishing. Retrieved from harvardbusiness.org.

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human relations, 45(4),

321-349.

Kahn, W. A.. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work.The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/256287

Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. Journal of Higher

Education, 722-743.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016b). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.

Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview.
Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied

research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Chapter 2, pp. 29-31.
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research.
(3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage. Society

for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1-12.

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal

of management development, 21(5), 376-387.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

125

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Moorman, R. H., & Grover, S. (2009). Why does leader integrity matter to followers? An

uncertainty management-based explanation. International Journal of Leadership

Studies, 5(2), 102-114.

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital.Journal of

democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Rhoades, G. (2005). Capitalism, Academic Style, and Shared Governance. Academe, 91(3), 38-

42.

Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (2004). Academic capitalism in the new economy: Challenges and

choices. American Academic, 1(1), 37-59.

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? The Academy
of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Schein, E. (2004). A conceptual model for managed culture change. In Organizational culture

and leadership (3rd ed., Chapter 16, pp. 319–336). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

126

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schuler, R. S. (1975). Role perceptions, satisfaction, and performance: A partial

reconciliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 683.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Fact Book (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.ttuhsc.edu/hsc/factbook/documents/2015.pdf

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing (2013). Texas tech university

health sciences center school of nursing 2013 – 2018 Strategic Plan. Retrieved from

http://www.ttuhsc.edu/son/mission.aspx

Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. M. (2004). Restructuring shared governance in higher education.

Jossey-Bass.

Weiner, L., Bresciani, M. J., Hickmott, J., & Felix, E. (under review). A document analysis of

professional standards expected for student affairs practitioners. Georgia Journal of
College Student Affairs

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis ‐Kean, P. (2007). Development

of achievement motivation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

127

APPENDIX A – Recruitment Email for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Lauren Sullivan, M.Ed.

Staff Engagement within an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education
Dear Staff Members:

You are invited to participate in a survey that will contribute to my dissertation. Your participation
is completely voluntary and anonymous. This document explains information about this study.
You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues and
organizational factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in the academic
shared governance model process at an institution of higher education.

If you choose to be involved in my study, your involvement will consist of completing an online
survey, which will take an estimated 15 minutes of your time. The link is provided within this
email.

You qualify for participation if you meet the following requirements: a non-faculty member of
the organization since September 2014 who does not have curriculum development as a function
of your position description; and never participated on a council, which the dean is, or was a
member of, prior to launch of the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education. If
you would like it, a summary of findings will be provided to you at the conclusion of the project.

If you have any questions in regards to this study, you can contact me by telephone (806) 743-
2748 or via e-mail me at lsulliva@usc.edu You may also contact Dr. Melora Sundt, who is
supervising this study, at sundt@rossier.usc.edu

USC also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You may
contact them with questions at (213) 821-1154. You may also contact them by mailing them at:
The Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, 3720 South Flower Street, Third Floor, Los
Angeles, CA, 90089.

By accessing the survey, you consent to participate in the study. However, you may exit out of
the survey at anytime, and you may skip any questions you wish. All participants will have
complete anonymity.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

128

1. Which of the following is correct: The ASGMNE model was created in order to:

a) Increase staff engagement
b) Provide a meaningful governance structure
c) Identify a new mission statement
d) Create a school-wide reward system
e) I’m not sure why it was created

2. Which of the following is correct: The ASGMNE model provides staff with a way to share
their views/voice through:

a) Designating staff representatives on Staff Council and Coordinating Council

b) Ensuring each staff member has the opportunity to vote on major school
decisions

c) Giving direction to the dean through Conversations with the Dean

e) I’m not sure how the ASGMNE provides staff with a way to share their voice
3. The ASGMNE was designed to help staff and faculty in a number of ways. From the list
below, please select items you see as being the most important benefits of ASGMNE for you in
your role in the School.

• I am able to operationalize institutional policies
• I know how to obtain professional development opportunities
• I am able to participate in decision-making
• I have access to resources in order to function in my role effectively
• I know how to communicate feedback within the ASGMNE structure
• I know how to complete a performance evaluation
• I am able to use quality improvement to drive performance
• I have not experienced any benefits from the work of the ASGMNE
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

129

4. On a scale from 1 – 10, please rank the degree to which you feel engaged within the
ASGMNE

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I am not
engaged
at all
I am moderately engaged I am
highly
engaged

5. On a scale from 1 – 10, please rank the degree to which you believe your level of engagement
has increase since the launch of the ASGMNE

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
My level of
engagement
never
changed
My engagement
increased moderately
My level of
engagement
has highly
increased

The following list of questions are intended to explore your level of interest in the Academic
Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education (ASGMNE).

6. During the course of an average work month, how much time do you spend engaging in
activities related to the ASGMNE (like attending a meeting, reading information sent by Staff
Council or Coordinating Council, reviewing various ASGMNE council minutes)?
o Less than 30 minutes
o 30 minutes to 1 hour
o 1 to 2 hours
o 3 to 4 hours
o More than 4 hours

7. The effort I put into trying to patriciate in shared governance is acknowledged:

• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• Annually
• Never
• I don’t try to participate in shared governance
8. The effort I put into trying to learn more about shared governance is acknowledged:
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

130

• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• Annually
• Never
• I don’t try to participate in shared governance

9. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to accurately explain how
the ASGMNE organizational model works.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot
do at
all
Moderately
certain can do
Highly
certain
can do

10. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to describe how your
professional role aligns with the ASGMNE model.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot
do at
all
Moderately
certain can do
Highly
certain
can do

11. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to participate effectively
in the ASMNE model.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot
do at
all
Moderately
certain can do
Highly
certain
can do

12. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your knowledge to become a
member of an ASGMNE council.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

131

Cannot
do at
all
Moderately
certain can do
Highly
certain
can do

13. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to navigate the
ASGMNE website in order to find resources and councils’ minutes.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot
do at
all
Moderately
certain can do
Highly
certain
can do

14. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to manage your
workload and participate on an ASGMNE council.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot
do at
all
Moderately
certain can do
Highly
certain
can do

15. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to be effective when you
participate in decision-making when it related to your role within the SON.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not
effective
at all
Moderately
certain I can be effective
Highly
certain I
am
effective

16. In the column, rate how confident you are, as of now, in your ability to be effective when you
attempt to participate in decision-making related to the business of the SON.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not
effective
at all
Moderately
certain I can be effective
Highly
certain I
am
effective

17. I believe it is important to spend time reflecting on my performance within the SON
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

132

18. My participation in an ASGMNE council is important to the mission and strategic goals
of the SON
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

19. Using my employee voice to influence decision-making is important to me
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

20. I am satisfied with how the ASGMNE model is structured to include me in the process of
decision-making
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

21. I believe incorporating the input of my employee voice is an important function of the
ASGMNE
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

22. I believe I have the support of my supervisor to participate in a ASGMNE council.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

23. I believe incorporating the input of employees’ voice is valued by SON leadership.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

24. I believe incorporating the input of my employee voice is of value to faculty members
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

25. I can utilize my employee voice and participate in decision-making without being on an
ASGMNE council

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

133

26. I trust my staff colleagues to listen to me and respond respectfully to my ideas when working
on shared governance issues
0 1 2 3 4 5
I don’t
work
shared
governance
issues with
staff
members
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree

27. I trust my faculty colleagues to listen to me and respond respectfully to my ideas when
working on shared governance issues
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I don’t
work
shared
governance
issues with
faculty
members
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

28. My supervisor encourages me to use part of my work time to participate on a ASGMNE
council
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

29. I believe it is important for the SON to recognize staff members contributing to the shared
governance process.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

30. The organization provides me with the materials and equipment I need to participate
effectively in the shared governance process.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

31. Please rate Staff Council, on a scale from 1 – 10 with 1 being not effective and 10 being
extremely effective, as a function for staff members to increase their level of engagement in the
ASGMNE

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

32. Please rate Staff Council, on a scale from 1 – 10 with 1 being not effective and 10 being
extremely effective, as a function for staff members to increase employee voice in the ASGMNE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

33. Please rate Coordinating Council, on a scale from 1 – 10 with 1 being not effective and 10
being extremely effective, as a function for staff members to increase their level of engagement
in the ASGMNE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

34. Please rate Coordinating Council, on a scale from 1 – 10 with 1 being not effective and 10
being extremely effective, as a function for staff members to increase employee voice in the
ASGMNE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

35. On a scale of 1 – 10, how satisfied are you with your overall involvement, whatever it is,
with ASGMNE?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I am not
satisfied
I am moderately satisfied I am
highly
satisfied

36. In the box below, please list the incentives that you are aware of (if any) that encourage staff
to participate as a member of an ASGMNE council member:

37. In which SON regional campus are you located?
o Abilene
o Amarillo
o Austin / San Antonio
o Dallas
o Lubbock
o Odessa

38. What is your position?
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

135

o Administrative Assistant
o Analyst
o Coordinator
o Manager
o Assistant Director
o Director
o Assistant or Associate Dean

39. How long have you worked for the SON?
o Less than 1 year
o 1 to 2 years
o 3 to 5 years
o 6 to 10 years
o 11 to 15 years
o 16 or more years

40. Have you participated on Staff Council?
• Yes
• No
41. Have you participated on Coordinating Council?
• Yes
• No
•
42. What degree of education do you hold?
• GED
• High School
• Associates Degree
• Bachelor’s Degree
• Master’s Degree
• Doctoral Degree

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

136

APPENDIX B – Interview Questions for Staff Members
Demographics:
1. How many years have you been employed as a staff member in the School of Nursing?
2. What is your classification as assigned by Human Resources? ie, business analyst, unit
coordinator, manager, director, ect…
3. Which group does your role within the SON best align with: Students, Faculty or
Operations?
Questions:
4. Tell me about your role in the SON.
a. Can you describe how the functions of your assigned tasks align with
organizational outcomes?
b. What resources do you need to be successful in your role? Are these resources
made available to you?
c. Do you work autonomously or with a team?
d. How are you effective in your role?
e. How do you utilize resources that could be made available to you by Staff
Council?
f. How do you manage your workload?
5. Can you explain how you make meaning of the annual self-assessment?
a. How is the self-assessment used for self-reflection?
b. How do you set goals for the next academic year?
c. How do you communicate your needs to your supervisor?
6. Can you describe your relationship with colleagues within the SON?
a. Do you have a friend within the organization?
b. How does trust influence your relationships with individuals in the SON?
c. What is your relationship with faculty members like?
d. What is your relationship with your supervisor like?
e. Do you think your colleagues are committed to doing high quality work to
support the organization?
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

137

7. As you know, the School of Nursing adopted an Academic Shared Governance
Model for Nursing Education (ASGMNE) two years ago. An aim of the ASGMNE is to
increase employee voice and engagement.
a. What does the term shared governance mean to you?
b. What does the term staff engagement mean to you?
8. How has the ASGMNE increased your sense of belonging within the organization?
a. What resources or communication pathways are established to help you
communicate ideas or feedback within the SON?
b. How has your involvement in the SON increased?
c. How has your knowledge of the operations of the SON increased?
9. How do you participate in decision-making in your department?
a. How does you supervisor ask for feedback or input related to decisions or
planning?
b. What does having a voice within the organization mean to you?

10. Tell me how staff council is working to meet the goal of increasing staff engagement.
a. How has staff engagement changed since the creation of staff council?

b. In what ways would you say it has been effective? In what ways might things
need to be improved?

c. How are staff members recognized within the SON? Is this an effective reward
system?

d. What incentives exist to participate in Staff Council?

11. Some may say staff members should not be included in the academic shared governance
model in nursing education. What would you say to them?

12. How do your experiences as a staff member connect you to the School of Nursing and
shape your perception of the School of Nursing?
a. What are some challenges of being a staff member?

b. What are some benefits of being a staff member?

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

138

APPENDIX C – Protocol for Interview
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Lauren Sullivan, M.Ed.

Staff Engagement within an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues and
organizational factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in the academic
shared governance model process at an institution of higher education.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

The protocol for participating in this study would involve an interview, which will be captured
via audiotape and note taking. The researcher does not anticipate the interview to last no longer
than one hour.

Participants for this research study must self-identify with the following requirements: a staff
member of the organization since September 2014; curriculum development is not a function of
position description; and never participated on a council, which the dean is, or was a member of
prior to, or during, the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Participants will be asked to create a pseudonym in an effort to protect their identity during the
study. Participants will be informed that all interviews will be digitally recorded and that they
may end their involvement at any time in the study. The researcher will also read aloud a script,
with the same information provided in the consent form, at the start of the recording.
Recordings will be kept in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office. A transcriptionist and the
dissertation chair will have access to the recordings. Participants will be able to review their
interview transcripts before they are reviewed by the researcher. Upon one year after
successfully defending her dissertation, the researcher will destroy the audio recordings. A
summary of findings will be provided to the participants of the study, in addition to the dean of
the School of Nursing being evaluated for this study. The purpose of disseminating the findings
of the study is to aid in the development of an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing
Education.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

139

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. (Remove this statement if the data are anonymous)

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator: Lauren Sullivan via lsulliva@usc.edu or by phone at (806) 831-5368
or Dissertation Chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, who is supervising this study, at sundt@rossier.usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

140

APPENDIX D – Recruitment Email for Interview
On behalf of Lauren Sullivan, a doctoral student at the University of Southern California (USC),
I am sending the below information to you concerning her evaluation study of how staff council
is able to meet its purpose of fostering efficient, effective, and equitable operations, within an
Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education. This study is part of her
requirements to complete her dissertation. I am sending the information to you to protect your
privacy.

The protocol for participating in this study would involve an interview, which will be captured
via audiotape and note taking. I anticipate the interview to last no longer than one hour.

Participants for this research study must self-identify with the following requirements: a non-
faculty member of the organization since September 2014 and confirm curriculum development
is not a function of your position description; and never participated on a council, which the dean
is, or was a member of prior to, or during, the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing
Education. A summary of findings will be provided to you at the conclusion of the project.

If you have any questions in regards to this research study, you can contact me by telephone
(806) 743-2748 or via e-mail me at lsulliva@usc.edu You may also contact Dr. Melora Sundt,
who is supervising this study, at sundt@rossier.usc.edu

USC also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You may
contact them with questions at (213) 821-1154. You may also contact them by mailing them at:
The Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, 3720 South Flower Street, Third Floor, Los
Angeles, CA, 90089.

If you would like to participate in this study, please email me stating your willingness to
participate. Your consideration of participation in this study is greatly appreciated.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT

141

Appendix E – Consent to Participate in Interview
CONSENT TO TAKE PART IN A RESEARCH STUDY

This is a research study for people who voluntarily choose to take part. Please take your time to make a
decision, and discuss the study with your personal doctor, family, and friends if you wish.

STUDY TITLE: Staff Engagement within an Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing
Education

INVESTIGATOR(s): Lauren Sullivan, M.Ed. and Barbara Cherry, DNSc, MBA, RN, NEA-BC

CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

Principal Investigator: Lauren Sullivan via lauren.sullivan@ttuhsc.edu or by phone at (806) 743-2748

Principal Investigator: Barbara Cherry via barbara.cherry@ttuhsc.ed or by phone at (806) 743-9209

Dissertation Chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, who is supervising this study, at sundt@rossier.usc.edu

(You may contact the investigator(s) at the number(s) listed above during normal business hours if you
develop any of the conditions listed in Question 5 of this form or if you have any unexpected
complications.)

INSTITUTION: Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Nursing
Campuses: Abilene, Lubbock, Odessa

1. 1. Why is this study being done?
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues and organizational
factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff’s participation in the academic shared governance model
process within an institution of higher education. Exploring staff engagement within the Academic Shared
Governance Model in Nursing Education model aligns with the School of Nursing’s goal to achieve
an effective and efficient governance process and increase engagement for staff.

2. What will happen during this study?

The protocol for participating in this study involves an interview, which will be captured via audiotape
and note taking. All participants will receive the interview questions in advance and be able to select a
pseudonym in order to guarantee confidentiality. The researcher does not anticipate the interview
to last no longer than 30 minutes.

Participants for this research study must self-identify with the following requirements: a staff member
of the organization since September 2014; curriculum development is not a function of position
description; and never participated on a council, which the dean is, or was a member of prior to,
or during, the Academic Shared Governance Model for Nursing Education.
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

142

Participants who work at the flagship campus will be interviewed in person. Interviews will be
one-on-one in a small, private room located on the flagship campus of the institution of higher
education. A closed environment will ensure participants feel safe during the interview, and to
guarantee confidentiality. Participants who work at a regional campus will be interviewed
over the telephone.

3. How much time will this study take? Interviews are expected to last for 30 minutes.

4. Are there any benefits to me if I take part in this study? Participants will be given the opportunity
to share their experiences and perceptions with the shared governance model.

5. What are the risks or discomforts to me if I join this study? Participation is voluntary, confidential
and is only a slight risk of loss of confidentially

6. What other choices do I have if I don’t take part in the research study?
Taking part in this study is your choice. You do not have to take part in this study. If at any time you
decide not to be in the study, it will not affect any benefits or rights to which you are entitled. Your
participation in this study will not affect your employment status.

7. What about confidentiality and the privacy of my records?
We will keep your involvement in this research study confidential to the extent permitted by law.
In addition to the staff carrying out this study, others may learn that you are in the study.
This might include federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP), Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center (TTUHSC) representatives, and the TTUHSC Institutional Review Board (a committee
that reviews and approves research). These people may review and copy records involving this
research.

Study results that are used in publications or presentations will not use your name.

8. Will I receive anything for taking part in this research study? There is no incentive available to
participating in this study.

9. Does anyone on the research staff have a personal financial interest in this study?
No

10. What if I am hurt by participating in this study?
It is very unlikely that you will be hurt by participating in this study, but if so, Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center and its affiliates do not offer to pay for or cover the cost of medical
treatment for research related illness or injury. No funds have been set aside to pay or reimburse
you in the event of such injury or illness.

11. What if I have questions?
For questions about this study, contact the Investigator, Lauren Sullivan at (806) 743-2748 or
STAFF ENGAGEMENT

143

lauren.sullivan@ttuhsc.edu

If you would like to speak to someone who is not involved in the study about your rights as a
participant, research-related injuries, or any other matter related to the study, you can call the
TTUHSC EthicsPoint Hotline: 1-866-294-9352.

Or, you can file an EthicsPoint report online:
https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/12958/index.html. Please choose the
“Regulatory Compliance” option when making an online report.

Your signature indicates that:
• this research study has been explained to you,
• you have been given the opportunity to ask questions, and
• you agree to take part in this study.

You will be given a signed copy of this form.

Printed Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date Time

Signature of Parent/Guardian Date Time
or Authorized Representative

I have discussed this research study with the subject and his or her authorized representative, using
language that is understandable and appropriate. I believe I have fully informed the subject of the
possible risks and benefits, and I believe the subject understands this explanation. I have given a
copy of this form to the subject.

Signature of authorized research personnel who Date Time
conducted the informed consent discussion

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Organizational models, such as shared governance, are often used by colleges and universities to increase the meaningful opportunities faculty members can have to share in decision-making with administrators. As staff members continue to increase in the share of college and university’s overall budgets, they are also being identified as key players in meeting the institution’s educations goals and student learning outcomes. With additional numbers of staff on campus, all members of higher education should expect more participation from both faculty and staff, especially in shared governance activities. The problem of practice being addressed in this project is the facilitation of staff engagement within a shared governance model, which aimed to increase staff engagement in the organization’s governance structure. To this end, the aim of this project was to evaluate the knowledge and skills, motivational issues and organizational factors that serve as barriers or facilitators to staff participation in the academic shared governance process at an institution of higher education. A convergent parallel mixed methods design was used to compare survey data to interview data. The results from the quantitative and qualitative data sets validate several gaps in assumed motivational and organizational influences. Recommendations for practice to address motivational and organizational influences are provided. Future research could be undertaken to create a large-scale study on staff engagement within higher education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Effective engagement of minority alumni: an innovation study

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

PDF

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

PDF

Diversity and talent: how to identify and recruit classical music students from among underrepresented populations

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

Reaching the mission through employee engagement and service orientation in a zoological setting: an evaluation study

PDF

Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Civic engagement in American schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Sullivan, Lauren Kathleen (author)

Core Title Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 05/02/2018

Defense Date 03/22/2018

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

Tag Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational model,shared governance,staff engagement

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Jones, Stephanie (committee member)

Creator Email lauren.sullivan@ttuhsc.edu,lauren_sullivan_2000@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-498796

Unique identifier UC11268404

Identifier etd-SullivanLa-6304.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-498796 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SullivanLa-6304.pdf

Dmrecord 498796

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sullivan, Lauren Kathleen

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

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