University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Role Understanding as a Pillar of Employee Engagement: An Evaluation Gap Analysis

Kevin Leitch

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

May 2023

ii

© Copyright by Kevin Leitch 2023
All Rights Reserved

iii

The Committee for Kevin Leitch certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Susanne Foulk
Kenneth Yates
Adrian Donato, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
This study examined the concept of employee engagement and the impact of engagement
programs, as evidenced in both personal and organizational outcomes. This project was a gap
analysis to examine the KMO influences that interfere with organizational performance. The
stakeholder group chosen for this study was an employee group with an innate understanding of
the organization and the ability to outline pragmatic change within that space. By combining the
interpretive potential of a gap analysis framework with an accepted training evaluation model,
the study’s findings include evidence-based recommendations supported by appropriate actions
and an approach that improves its opportunity for successful implementation. Research-based
recommendations were shared in support of sustaining the many influences that were deemed to
be assets and needs. The findings identify challenges and opportunities and inform
recommendations associated with implementing a role-to-mission engagement.

v
v
Dedication
To Julia, for your support through all things.
I am the better for our few simple decades together.
On work; I have appreciated our many conversations
about organizations and what we get right and what we do not among our teams.

vi
vi
Acknowledgements
I am thankful for my dissertation committee led by Dr. Adrian Donato and aptly
supported by Dr. Kenneth Yates and Dr. Susanne Foulk. Each mentor offered me guidance and
support along the path to publication. To Dr. Donato, for his steadfast and unwavering support of
me, and to this class, for what seemed like a very long time. Thank you.
To Dr. Ken Yates, my sincere thanks for your questions, supervision, and challenges to
my problem of practice that further informed this work, as well as guided my own questions to
issues both within and outside of this work. Thanks also for your good work with USAid, COIN
and the bilateral effort of my long ago past.
To Dr. Foulk, I feel as though I need to send flowers. Your support of my early chapters
was beyond expectation, and your willingness to give of your personal time is noted and deeply
appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. Monique Datta, who guided my first paragraphs and
pages.
I’d also like to thank my good friend Dr. Ron Thacker for his never-ending support
throughout this endeavor and to Lucky-13, our cohort and the countless personalities who helped
shape my curiosity and understanding. The process was all the more achievable through the
relationships created throughout this effort.

Fight On!

vii
vii
Table of Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................1
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................2
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................3
Organizational Problem of Practice .....................................................................................3
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................5
Stakeholders Performance Goals .........................................................................................5
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................................6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................7
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .......................................................................7
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................12
Influences on the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................13
History of Employee Engagement .....................................................................................13
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus .................................................................................25
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ................................26
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context .........................................................................................43
viii
viii
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................45
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................51
Data Analysis Plan .............................................................................................................53
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................54
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................55
Ethics..................................................................................................................................56
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................57
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................58
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................59
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................60
Determination of Assets and Needs ...................................................................................61
Study Cut Score .................................................................................................................63
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.....................................................................64
Motivation ..........................................................................................................................91
Organization .....................................................................................................................116
Summary of Influences ....................................................................................................133
Summary ..........................................................................................................................136
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................137
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................138
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................139
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study ..................................................................139
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..............................................................................139
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..........................................140
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................148
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ....................................................................166
ix
ix
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................166
Future Research ...............................................................................................................167
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................168
References ....................................................................................................................................171
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ......................................................................................................194
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................198
Appendix C: Document Analysis ................................................................................................201
Appendix D: Summary of the Influence ......................................................................................203
Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation .............................................................................................209
Appendix F: 3 Month Evaluation ................................................................................................212
Appendix G: Strategic Plan .........................................................................................................214

x
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Global Goal & Stakeholder Performance Goals 6
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Engagement Needs for Employees 24
Table 3: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 30
Table 4: Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments 36
Table 5: Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments 41
Table 6: Knowledge Determination as Need or Asset 133
Table 7: Motivational Determination as Need or Asset 134
Table 8: Organizational Determination as Need or Asset 135
Table 9: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 150
Table 10: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 153
Table 11: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 154
Table 12: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 160
Table 13: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 162
Table D1: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 203
Table D2: Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendation 205
Table D3: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendation 207

xi
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of Work-Time Focus With Corresponding Levels of Employee
Engagement 9
Figure 2: Characteristics of Employee Engagement 10
Figure 3: American Workforce Engagement 25
Figure 4: Cooper Aerospace Organizational Influences 44
Figure 5: Demographics Description of Qualified Volunteer Participants 61
Figure 6: Results of Survey Question 1: What Are the Recommended Steps to Follow When
Encountering Challenges in Your Role? 65
Figure 7: Results of Survey Question 5: I Prioritize My In-Role Procedures to Achieve
Mission Success 68
Figure 8: Results of Survey Question 72
Figure 9: Results of Survey Question 6 I Make the Necessary Adjustments to Improve the
Influence of My Role in Organizational Outcomes 75
Figure 10: Results of Survey Question 4 I Know How to Organize My Processes &
Procedures Within My Role to Most Greatly Leverage the Company Mission 79
Figure 11: Results of Survey Question 7 I Reflect Upon My Performance at the End of My
Workday 83
Figure 12: Results of Survey Question 8 I Reflect Upon My Performance on Good Days As
Well as Bad Days 86
Figure 13: Results of Survey Question 16 It Bothers Me When I Underperform in My Role 89
Figure 14: Results of Survey Question 3 Choose the Best Company Mission 92
Figure 15: Results of Survey Question 10 I Value the Iterative Process of Performance
Improvement 95
Figure 16: Results of Survey Question 9 I Make Adjustments to My Work-Output When the
Mission Demands 98
Figure 17: Results of Survey Question 11 I Enjoy Being Engaged in Processes Related to
Identifying Root Causes of Issues 102
Figure 18: Results of Survey Question 12 I Am Confident That My Role Influences
Organizational Outcomes 105
xii
xii
Figure 19: Results of Survey Question 15 I Believe My Actions at Work Translate Directly
to Our Organizational Success 108
Figure 20: Results of Survey Question 13 To What Degree Do You Believe That Your
Organization Grows From Individual Effort? 111
Figure 21: Results of Survey Question 14 I Generally Maintain a Positive Attitude at Work 114
Figure 22: Results of Survey Question 17 My Organization Uses Event-Based and Annual
Evaluations to Improve My Performance 117
Figure 23: Results of Survey Question 18 My Organization Communicates the Results of
My Evaluations to Me 120
Figure 24: Results of Survey Question 20 I Trust That I Can Share Concerns Within My
Team 122
Figure 25: Results of Survey Question 21 I Believe My Organization Carries the Trust of the
Employees 125
Figure 26: Results of Survey Question 22 I Would Recommend This Organization as a
Trusted Work Space 128
Figure 27: Results of Survey Question 19 My Organization Uses the Results of My
Employee Evaluations to Improve the Overall Organization 131
Figure 28: Program Metrics Pre- and Post-Program Implementation 164

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This gap analysis study addresses the problem of employee engagement within a for-
profit aerospace sector business. Employee engagement is a term used to identify an individual’s
level of connectedness to their workplace organizations (Harter, 2018). Specifically, engagement
references that person’s commitment to their work and their workplace. Understanding the
employee’s role, as it influences organizational outcomes, is emphasized throughout this study in
an effort to develop increased organizational performance. Corporations and their subsets are
keenly aware of the need to connect employee work effort to organizational goals by providing
value, guidance and consistency, and yet are failing in this effort. Organizations miss the
opportunity to improve operational and individual performance by as much as 51%, as indicated
by year-end returns (Towers-Perrin, 2006). This value in underperformance represents the
improvement gap. If these same organizations could connect the employee to their role and
ultimately to the organization’s vision, year-end performance could increase by that same value.
While the preponderance of managers still believes engagement is occurring and their
organizations are managing this channel to improvement, the data shows otherwise (Miller,
2020).
Background of the Problem
The literature and subsequent data derived from multiple studies suggest increased
dissatisfaction in the workplace today (Gallup, 2017; Harter, 2018; Mofoluwake & Oluremi,
2013; Peiro et al., 2019). Dissatisfied employees are less focused on their work and organization
and are generally referred to as being disengaged (Harter, 2018). Employees who are
demonstrably enthusiastic and authentically committed to their work are considered to be
engaged and make up 34% of today’s workforce in the United States (Harter, 2018; MacLeod &
2

Clarke, 2009). The remaining population of employees (66%) remains disengaged in their
workspace and is either actively disengaged or not-engaged (2018). These variances in employee
engagement erode businesses and personal productivity equal to the group’s collective power
(MacLeod & Clarke, 2009). Disengaged (not engaged or actively disengaged) employees make
up 66% of American employees and present a cross-section of emotionally disconnected people
(Harter, 2018). This lack of connection jeopardizes organizational performance, can sabotage
organizational returns, and can erode personal performance and well-being (Pater & Lewis,
2012). Actively disengaged employees exist in a despondent work experience (Schindler, 2019).
Employees who are not engaged may enjoy some job satisfaction, though they are generally
disconnected from their workplace and its organizational mission (Harter, 2018). Employees in
the not-engaged category, working at minimum performance measures, make up 53% of the
American workforce (Harter, 2018).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of employee engagement is important to solve for multiple reasons. An
individual’s sense of purpose and value to the organization erodes when employees struggle to
engage (Morgan, 2016; Wagner & Harter, 2014). The workplace provider/director relationship
represents an important portion of our work life, and engagement gives meaning to an
individual’s sense of value (Mashlah, 2015). When the individual’s personal connection to their
organization erodes, so erodes that individual’s sense of stability and their performance gap
increases (Black & Marshall-Lee, 2011). Employee personal health can also decline as
engagement and their sense of value and purpose decline (Harter & Adkins, 2015). The impact
of this can be seen both at home and at the organization as employees miss work. The
ramifications are evident in additional coworker loading, undone work, and customer and
3

stakeholder delays. Ultimately, many organizations do not realize their year-end potential due to
a lack of engagement.
Organizational Context and Mission
Cooper Aerospace operates an international organization of businesses that serve the
commercial and defense-related aerospace markets. Cooper Aerospace (Cooper) is managed
under the Raymond Technologies (Raymond) umbrella. Raymond companies include businesses
that design, manufacture and distribute aircraft engines, aircraft interiors, communications,
LASER warning, and survivability systems for its global end-users. Headquartered in the eastern
United States, the 70,000-people-strong organization cites being dedicated to redefining
aerospace, relentlessly tackling the toughest challenges in their industry. Cooper imagines ways
to make the skies and the spaces they touch smarter, safer, and more amazing than ever. Along
with their customers, Cooper charts new journeys and reunites families. They protect nations and
save lives. Cooper believes in the power of intelligence and partnership to guide its customers
into the future. The paths Cooper paves with their stakeholders lead to limitless possibility, and
the bonds they form propel us all higher again and again. Cooper is constant in its evolution,
connected to its customers, compelling as it steps forward, and redefining aerospace.
Organizational Problem of Practice
The organizational performance problem providing the foundation for this study is the
lack of employee engagement. Employees at Cooper Aerospace are not engaged. Disengaged or
disenfranchised employees at Cooper Aerospace affect year-end returns and coworkers’
attitudes. National percentages of disengagement show that 53% of the American workforce
remains underperforming, with valuable employees leaving for the potential of a better
organization (Harter, 2018; Harter & Adkins, 2015).
4

Engagement has many components, including stakeholder goals, value creation
(Freudenreich et al., 2020), strategic planning and decision making (Noland & Phillips, 2010),
innovation (Alvarez & Sachs, 2021; Goodman et al., 2017) and others. This study suggests that
engagement is driven by employees’ knowledge and motivation and by how their role
contributes to the organization’s performance. Cooper management believes this knowledge and
motivation is lacking. While Cooper employs an engagement and well-being program, not every
employee is allowed to attend the entirety of these programs, which includes coursework;
scenario review; mentor assignments and off-site leadership programs. To fulfill the Cooper
mission and realize year-end returns, it is imperative that Cooper introduce a pragmatic approach
to employee engagement, with its employee base enthusiastic, focused and committed to their
work and their workplace. The purpose of this dissertation was to explore these knowledge,
motivation, and organizational issues supporting a conceptualized framework of training and
influence that will allow the stakeholders greater potential through increased engagement.
Organizational Performance Goal
Cooper Aerospace has an established performance goal that by July 2023, it will be 100%
compliant with the Raymond Technologies organizational training requirement of every
employee knowing their role. This study focuses on one component of engagement, highlighting
knowing how employee role contributes to the organization’s mission. The overall approach will
include the organization’s “individual role-to-organizational mission” plan. This approach was
established after initially meeting with Cooper’s leadership when it was determined that
“suspect” areas for evaluation existed within the current engagement and well-being framework.
Cooper Aerospace’s performance improvement is intimately linked to both Raymond
Technologies’ organizational performance improvement and to the employee’s personal work
5

capacity. This awareness for role capacity is to be based upon employee description of their
performed duties, combined with management’s expectations for that role. The approach itself
informs both the employee and the organization of what they are doing and what is possible
when the two elements leverage one another (Braun et al., 2012). Together, these descriptions
present a representation of employee and organizational success. The achievement of Cooper
Aerospace’s performance goal will be measured through the findings of Raymond Technologies
audits beginning in 4Q22. Currently, Cooper Aerospace is 75% compliant with Raymond
Technologies’ organizational training requirements, which include a number of processes
completed, revenue gained against past years’ performance, and general onboarding training
(sexual harassment, health and safety). The performance gap is 25%.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
achieving the organization’s performance goal; Cooper stakeholder groups include employees,
managers, administration and the customer base. Employees most greatly impact achievements
in realizing engagement improvements. Managers most significantly impact the ongoing
guidance and motivation empowering employee action. Administration is an equally important
element in the effort to ensure continued focus on this important program and all the more
important in their effort to select high-performing talent for the next level of training while
ensuring training programs accessible to everyone.
Stakeholders Performance Goals
The organizational vision is that Cooper Aerospace seeks to redefine aerospace to
become the most admired defense and aerospace systems company through our world-class
people, innovation and technology.
6

Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal is that by July 2023, Cooper Aerospace will be
100% compliant with (parent) Raymond Technologies’ organizational training requirement of
“knowing your role.” Table 1 presents the goals.

Table 1
Global Goal & Stakeholder Performance Goals
Stakeholder 1 goal Stakeholder 2 goal Stakeholder 3 goal
Raymond Technologies Cooper aerospace managers Cooper aerospace employees

By April 2023, Raymond
Technologies will
conduct an audit of
Cooper Aerospace to
determine progress of
program.

By May 2023, 100% of Cooper
Aerospace management will
implement compliance
procedures in their daily
activities.

By July 2023, Cooper
Aerospace employees will
increase their on-the-job
engagement by 100 %.

7

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, this study specifically centered on Cooper Aerospace employees located across a
specific site location as the stakeholder group of focus. When analyzing employee engagement
levels and the greatest potential for achievement of organizational goals, the employee group is
most appropriate. The goal of this stakeholder group, as supported by Raymond Technologies, is
that 100% of Cooper employees will improve their on-the-job engagement in compliance with
improved Raymond Technologies’ organizational training requirements.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
This project aimed to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that interfere with organizational performance. The analysis began by
generating a list of assumed influences on Cooper Aerospace’s employee engagement needs. The
following is a list of questions that assist in guiding the gap analysis;
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to
employees’ engagement based on how their role contributes to the organization’s
performance?
2. What are the recommendations for 100% engagement based on employees’ role in
organizational performance?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that clarifies
organizational goals and identifies the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization, was implemented as the conceptual
framework. The methodological framework is a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics.
8

Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that interfere with organizational
goal achievement will be generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These
influences will be assessed using surveys, focus groups and interviews, and content analysis.
Research-based solutions will be recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Definition of Terms
Committed employee: The employee is aligned with the organizational vision and works
with dedication in their individual role, supportive of that vision.
Employee engagement: A focused, or passionate, approach to work where additional
discretionary effort is applied, not applied, or counter applied (engaged; disengaged; actively
disengaged). As shown in Figure 1, Gunter and Magrone (2019) detailed differences in
performance between the engaged and the actively disengaged organizations (ends of the
engagement spectrum) are shown. Work units with employees scoring in the upper percentile
significantly outperform those in the lower percentiles across key organizational measurements:
profitability; sales; productivity; customer; quality; patient safety; safety; shrinkage (waste or
theft); low turnover; high turnover; absenteeism (Gunter & Magrone, 2019).

9

Figure 1
Percentage of Work-Time Focus With Corresponding Levels of Employee Engagement

Note. From Employee engagement. A work supporting Gallup by A. Gunter and L. Magrone,
2019, May 20, Oregon Business.

Organizational performance: The final output, or result, as measured against the
organization’s intended outcomes, goals and objectives.
Organizational vision: A comprehensive future-state picture of an organization, which
helps to provide widespread direction by presenting a vision of what the organization desires to
achieve.
Role importance: Role importance references an employee’s understanding of their
individual work-role and how the importance of that work-role supports the organizational
mission and vision. Creating a framework for engagement is necessary to ensure employee
inclusion and provide a path to training that informs understanding of individual roles and those
10

roles’ influence on the organization’s growth potential. Companies cannot achieve success
without energetic team members who embrace the organizational mission and vision (Welch,
2015). Figure 2 presents research findings about employee experiences demonstrating an
awareness of organizational commitment.

Figure 2
Characteristics of Employee Engagement

Note. Adapted from Help Employees Connect With Their Work & Workplace by Business
Management Daily, 2021. (https://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/50082/help-employees-
connect-with-their-work-workplace/pdf/). Copyright 2021 by Business Management Daily.

11

Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in discussing organizational performance, engagement and
individual commitment. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the initial
concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current
literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of organizational performance, engagement
and well-being, support and interventions, policy, and funding will be addressed. Chapter Three
details the assumed interfering elements and methodology when it comes to the choice of
participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps and recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.
12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This study examined the concept of employee engagement and the impact of engagement
programs, as evidenced in both personal and organizational outcomes. Successful employee
engagement programs inform the employee of their roles’ importance and promote a deeper
connection between the organization and its stakeholders, allowing a broader approach to
expanding individual roles when organizational cultures promote these programs (Harter, 2018;
Vance, 2006). Employee engagement effects often include workplace transparency, real
communication, and empowerment initiatives (Black & Marshall-Lee, 2011; MacLeod & Clarke,
2009). Similar supporting initiatives seek to connect the employee with their organization by
offering inclusion options in the employee’s workspace and workplace demographics. Examples
might include leadership actively engaging in a particular department, or newly hired associates
of a particular skill-set being included among a like-associate collective, such as an
organization’s “young engineers,” or even assignment by gender in industry, such as “Women In
Aerospace” (Mor-Barak, 2000; Pater & Lewis, 2012).
The topic remains of particular importance, as under-engaged employees account for
66% of today’s U.S. workforce (Gallup, 2017; Harter, 2018). Studies (Harter & Adkins, 2015;
Pater & Lewis, 2012) indicate this lack of at-work focus witnesses nearly 50% of the national
workforce actively considering leaving their current organization for another and the potential
for a greater sense of personal value-at-work. The intent of this chapter is the review of relevant
literature underpinning employee engagement. Chapter Two opens with a review of the factors,
variables and causes that influence employee engagement. The review also includes a discussion
of the conceptual framework of employee engagement, its contemporary view, the role of culture
as an influence, and the identification of engagement benchmarks and milestones. The final
13

section of the review introduces the influences affecting the performance of Cooper Aerospace
employees themselves, as viewed through the lenses of knowledge, motivation and
organizational (KMO) influences using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
Many factors influence employees as they navigate their daily duties. Daily influences
can include those affected by organizational culture, interpersonal exchange, and expectations
(Perrewe et al., 2000). Engagement is also influenced by its framework and includes the historic
identification and construct, engagement’s contemporary view, the benefits of engagement, the
role of culture, benchmarks in engagement, and barriers to engagement. This section profiles
each of these influences in detail.
History of Employee Engagement
Employee engagement emerged as a formal concept from Kahn’s (1990) work, which
built heavily on the earlier influence of Goffman’s (1961) work in sociology. Goffman suggested
a connection between theatrical performance and people’s behaviors in their everyday lives. The
connection is an engagement in individual behavior to guide others’ impressions by altering their
behavior. Kahn considered that behavior details the psychological experiences within the
workplace and outlined the conditions of how an employee came to be engaged. Kahn suggested
that higher-performing employees understood their own “sense of return on investments of self,
in role performance” (p. 705). Their work offered an approach to understanding the
psychological landscape of an individual’s position within the workspace and whether that
existing workspace framework was structured to support the at-work focus of its people (Kahn,
1990). Kahn’s work further posited that actions of the “preferred-self yields behaviors that bring
alive the relation of self to role” (p. 700). This association of self-to-role presented the concept
14

that connects the conceptualized understanding of one’s role to its ability to leverage personal
effort and to affect change at the employee-role level.
Later associations developed the concept and highlighted the organizational benefits of
an engaged workforce, positively influencing benefits to employees, their customer relationships,
and organizational performance outcomes. Specifically, advancements in research surrounding
organizational returns (Black & Marshall-Lee, 2011; Harter, 2018), employee health and well-
being improvement (Harter & Adkins, 2015; Mattke et al., 2013; Peiro et al., 2019), and
management feedback and autonomy within the workspace (Mashlah, 2015; Menguc et al.,
2013), has helped to create deeper engagement for individual and organizational success.
Contemporary View of Employee Engagement
As Kahn’s work evolved, so did the definition of what genuine engagement included.
Engagement references an employee’s intent to become actively engaged at work, or more
deeply defined as an employee’s experiencing connected meaningfulness and a sense of safety to
give discretionary time to their workplace (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2012). Employee engagement
includes a three-tiered approach that addresses the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains
(Saks, 2006). Engaged employees have a higher sense of value in their workspace, for their
position and themselves (Bailey et al., 2017; Goffee & Jones, 2013; Harter, 2018). Employee
engagement also includes the disengaged or those less interested in putting forth their
discretionary time (Harter, 2018). Formally known as the non-engaged, they spend their work
time focused on details outside of their workspace, including leaving their jobs for the idea of a
better set of circumstances, a better job, a better manager or a better life (Harter, 2018). The non-
engaged have several commonly overheard names, from clock-watchers to [sic] work-cationers,
and even the high-performing military has a moniker for underperformers, suggesting someone
15

might be “on the ROAD,” an acronym for retired on active duty, as evidenced by members not
being proactively engaged or committed to their work (Gardner, 2013). Simply put, this group is
underperforming in its workspace (Harter, 2018; Harter & Adkins, 2015). Finally, the actively
disengaged comprise roughly 13% of today’s total workforce (Gallup, 2019; Harter, 2018; Harter
& Adkins, 2015). The actively disengaged act out in the workplace and often speak out against
managers, leadership, organizational direction and policies. This 13% is synonymous with
having a small but greatly effective section of saboteurs within the building, each actively
working against organizational progress (Pater & Lewis, 2012).
While being widely accepted as supporting organizational improvement and empowering
people, today’s implementation of engagement programs remains inconsistent among
intervention practitioners (Zigarmi et al., 2014). Research indicates organizations often develop
self-created tailored engagement programs based on perceptions of organizational needs. There
is consistent evidence that details a lack of academic structure within an organization’s
development of employee engagement programs (Maslach et al., 2001; Robinson et al., 2004;
Shuck & Reio, 2011). This lack of structure remains an opportunity for further research.
Benefits of Engagement
The literature revealed five benefits of engagement to improve organizations (Harter,
2018). These benefits are satisfaction, confidence, individual health, positivity, and reduced
absenteeism. This study sought to determine if these are present among the Cooper Aerospace
stakeholder group and are further described below.
Satisfaction develops as employees begin to fully understand and embrace their role as it
supports organizational goals, and those employees and management teams identify areas for
personal growth and opportunity (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bakken & Dobbs, 2016; Black &
16

Marshall-Lee, 2011; Harter, 2018). Personal growth and opportunity are key aspects of
individual satisfaction (Heshmat, 2019).
Competence is fostered in individuals who understand the importance of their role and its
connection to organizational goals, finding themselves capable of doing more in support of the
impact of their role (Czarnowsky, 2008; Goffee & Jones, 2013; Heshmat, 2019; Rothbard, 2001;
Schaufeli et al., 2002). Competence must be aligned with confidence, allowing the collective
strength of what Griffin and Taversky (1992) referred to as the “weighing of evidence and the
formation of beliefs” to ensure the foundation for achievement (Fu et al., 2017)
Individual Health has been seen to improve when actively engaged, as employee
satisfaction improves and positive behavior toward coworkers and the organization increases,
along with general well-being and a reduction in employee sick time (Bhuvanaiah & Raya, 2014;
Harter & Adkins, 2015; Peiro et al., 2019). Employees feel greater energy when increasing
competence, increasing a sense of well-being (Heshmat, 2019).
Positivity is important to organizations seeking to counter competition, improve their
return on investment, and improve their offering of a positive workspace that is attractive to
individuals and customers and supportive of organizational well-being and longevity (Barrick et
al., 2014; Bowen, 2016; Miller, 2020). Positivity in the workplace is also said to improve culture
by offering hope and a sense of well-being (Oades et al., 2016). Further, according to Oades et
al. (2016), each of these serves to strengthen resilience, motivation and individual engagement.
Absenteeism is reduced within organizations that support engagement programs that
improve employee attitudes about work and serves to improve attendance, as poor health
(employee absenteeism) costs organizations in the U.S. nearly $530 Billion each year
(Congressional Budget Office, 2017; Integrated Benefits Institute, 2018).
17

Role of Organizational Culture on Engagement
Holsapple and Joshi’s (2000) research into the factors that influence managing
knowledge within organizations reveals that employees can connect their level of individual job
engagement to their personal satisfaction level if they have a system of approach (Seiger et al.,
2011). This type of awareness allows individuals to mark the positive connection with meaning,
or value and allows the employee to have greater potential for self-efficacy and positive
outcomes for both employee and organization alike (Bandura, 2007; Harter et al., 2008; Leach et
al., 2003; Musgrove et al., 2014). Organizations that promote learning and empowerment of this
type, inclusive of others, and recognize the value of the individual as they support the total
organization begin to introduce a new motivation to the employee base by providing achievable
goals and the inherent role motivations to develop the capacity to reach those goals (Harter,
2018; Kappel, 2018). Organizations must sustain this engagement and empowerment culture to
create higher-achieving people, teams and divisions (Andrew & Sofian, 2012; Meyer et al.,
2012).
Benchmarks in Engagement
Five engagement benchmarks emerged from the literature. The benchmarks are listed as
improved attitudes, mutual expectations, positive workplace culture, employee development
programs, and employee role-to-vision, which are explained below.
Improved attitudes include a committed approach to working through difficult workplace
problems as one clear benchmark as engagement begins to develop (Harter, 2018; Williams et
al., 2017). Engagement strategies result in improved attitudes as engagement increases, creating
an organic process for improvement (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017).
18

Mutual expectation is the shared understanding of the employee’s and the organization’s
expectations for each other, which helps to recognize obligations and a framework for
consistency (Lotko et al., 2016; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Employees must know what is
expected of them to perform to organizational expectations. Expectations among individuals and
organizations include fair appraisals and recognition and organizational mobility, or an
individual’s ability to move into new roles and opportunities (Pearce & Randel, 2003).
Positive workplace cultures offer meaning through workplace interactions, promoting
confidence, respect and trust. These positive experiences can demonstrate an appreciation and an
example of stakeholder value, further promoting meaningfulness (Agarwal, 2018; Geue, 2018).
Building strong and resilient workplace cultures is a key element of leadership responsibilities;
this idea of a positive culture allows approachability and an openness to new ideas and
encouragement across generational workforces (Day & Leggat, 2015).
Employee development programs offer a demonstrative initiative for individual
improvement through education, increasing individual performance by strengthening individual
awareness and creating a pipeline to high-performing talent for the organization. Development
programs demonstrate a tangible path to personal advancement and an organizational leadership
identification program (Freedham, 2020; Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2018).
Employee role-to-vision references an individual’s understanding of their work-role
functions and how that role influences the organization’s mission and vision (Harter, 2018;
Harter & Adkins, 2015). Furthermore, the employee must accept the organizational direction for
that individual to positively impact outcomes related to their role within that organization (Orhan
et al., 2014).
19

Employee engagement has been linked to a personal commitment and an individual’s
decision to give of their discretionary time, or that time during working hours not dedicated to
some other organizational endeavor, for the betterment of the organization (Daly, 2009; Harter,
2018; Paillé & Boiral, 2013).
Requirements for Engagement
Four factors have been identified as organizational requirements to provide the
foundational environment for engagement built upon Bandura’s personal, environmental,
behavioral, social cognitive model. I intended to determine whether these factors are present at
Cooper Aerospace or whether a program should be improved to ensure a foundation for
engagement. The four organizational requirements are presented below;
Information flows through every position and across all aspects of the organization; It
exists in quantitative and qualitative formats, allowing meaning-making & benchmarking,
targeted campaigns and performance gauging (Bandura, 2007; Daft, 2001; Lawler, 1986;).
Knowledge allows individual employees a tangible understanding of what is required to
contribute to the organization’s performance. Knowledge exists across departmental boundaries
and serves to collectively support problem-solving, co-management and decision making
(Bandura, 2007; Berkes, 2009; Carayannis, 1999).
Power allows individual employees to delegate authority in their processes without
additional approvals. Power has been stated most simply by Day and Leggat (2015) as the ability
to influence a target. Employees require delegation of responsibility, specifically within budget,
process and procedure, to ensure swift decision making and performance efficiencies in the effort
to influence these targets (Bandura, 2007; Peyton et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017;).
20

Reward includes a variety of incentives, from employment itself to structured bonus
schedules and profit-sharing. Reward also includes satisfaction in the role of mission execution,
a positive customer exchange, in one example, and well as its function in improving
organizational citizenship (Bandura, 2007; Marinova et al., 2010). A reward can also include
special, or intrinsic, incentives, such as departmental sales targets or other organizational goals
(Harlow, 1949; Pink, 2009).
The organizational requirements listed above offer a high-level example of the preferred
environment for engagement, allowing for the development of the framework of a community of
stakeholder participation in organizational engagement.
Barriers to Engagement
Barriers to engagement exist in many forms, though they primarily reside within the
relationship between personal and organizational expectations (Rothwell, 2014). I included the
required interview and survey tools to determine whether barriers to engagement are present at
Cooper Aerospace. Obstacles to individual and organizational improvement include;
Lack of Understanding of the Desired End State
Beyond morale, engagement espouses role satisfaction, motivation, pride in the
organization, and loyalty and dedication to progress (Cox, 2020; Hearn, 2017; Whyte, 2018).
Clarification of role and direction in the execution of organizational goals is known to improve
individual satisfaction and reduce employee turnover (Hassan, 2013).
Lack of Commitment
Lack of commitment of the individual in their role and a consistent cynicism to
improvement among individuals and management alike exists as a barrier to engagement.
Organizations operating under conditions such as these may find individuals suggesting a
21

conspiracy among programs and initiatives, serving only to provide the organization with
overworked employees and underpaid hourly returns (Cox, 2020; Rothwell, 2014; Turunen,
2014).
Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy can create an unalterable framework, forcing organizations to follow a path
through procedure and policy, which does not allow the necessary nimble response to a scenario
existing outside of the organizational framework. An inability to support individual approaches
to problem-solving can alienate hard-working individuals, introducing solutions to unusual
problems (Hearn, 2017; Pandey et al., 2014).
Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance is inherently viewed through many lenses and typically includes
inequalities in expectation, where a single worker might be expected to perform additional hours
over an employee having a larger family. The worker having familial obligations is often viewed
as having fewer available hours. Conversely, those employees without children can be seen as
not having a family at all, regardless of a spouse, significant other, or other outside factors and
obligations (Pradhan et al., 2016; Russo & Monadin, 2019).
Confused Approach to Processes
Confused approach to processes is included for its ability to avert operational
consistency, thereby creating a confused approach to processes. Managements’ capricious
decision making at the first-line-leader level confuses the employee base as it often responds to
surface issues versus analysis of the root cause. Further, stakeholders expect consistency in their
leadership, ensuring that questions and concerns that may arise will be managed dependably
(Ceschi et al., 2017; Zhang & Highhouse, 2018).
22

Organizations and their employee stakeholders must understand the connection between
personal engagement and organizational growth to realize the collective potential for
improvement (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009). When considering barriers, organizational culture
itself can be a primary deterrent to progress when employees fear open discussion and expression
of individuality in their workspace (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991).
Inconsistencies in leadership, allowing dominant groups, or personalities, to manage to
their advantage at others’ expense, and lack of communication are known threats to
organizations and services to create a culture that weakens organizations to their foundation (Van
Rooij & Fine, 2018). Inconsistencies in practice allow organizational practitioners greater
authority in creating specific-to-business training, which may offer greater error in organizational
outcomes than would a formal approach to engagement structure (Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Shuck & Reio, 2011). There are still other barriers to improvement, as research using the cultural
background as a primary focus shows a small fraction of managers in non-western settings who
fear an aware workforce will divert from the task at hand or overshadow their own management
efforts (Elnaga & Imran, 2014).
The concept of engagement can be visualized using Figure 2 combined with engagement
definitions. The stages of engagement depict the American workforce and include the following
groups and their percentage of the workforce population: 34% includes the engaged, working in
the realm of self-actualization and creating a positive workspace for themselves and their
organizations. The disengaged, 53% of Americans, work day to day, not availing themselves of
additional work, nor are they working to improve themselves, or their organizations, as they
spend time actively seeking other opportunities, and finally, the actively disengaged. The
23

actively disengaged, roughly 13% of the American workforce, minimally perform, exercise
discretionary days off, exploit sick time, and actively work to undermine the organization.
Environmental Scan
Assumed stakeholder needs based are based on preparatory inquiry. Prior to the study,
prior information was developed through an environmental scan of early conversations with
department heads, human resources, and team leads within the site-specific organization. The
environmental scan assisted in developing assumed stakeholder needs based on this preparatory
inquiry. An environmental scan includes external opportunities and threats that could impact the
organization (Choo, 2001). The impetus for the conversations which evolved into the scan began
as a source of validity to the study itself, informing whether employee engagement was an issue
worth researching at this site and, if so, its extent. Managers and leads each had positive
comments about their teams and included questions about consistency and commitment to
performance. The information presented in the following pages and tables presents these
assumed needs.
The following framework (Table 2 and Figure 3) details the study’s focus using
stakeholder KMO influences to present a conceptualized understanding of the setting and its
participant view.

24

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Engagement Needs for Employees
Employee engagement assumed needs at
Cooper Aerospace
Clark and Estes’s gap analysis theory
influence
Shared expectations to ensure obligations and
a framework for consistency
Knowledge influence
Employee role-to-vision, presenting how
one’s role influences the organization’s
mission and vision
Knowledge influence
Information flow, allowing meaning-making
and benchmarking functions from employee
learning
Knowledge influence
A tangible understanding of contributions
through knowledge sharing
Knowledge influence
Committed approach to working through
difficult workplace problems
Motivation influence
Reward, including incentives, satisfaction and
notoriety
Motivation influence
Positive workplace culture, creating meaning
through interactions, promoting confidence,
respect and trust
Organizational influences
Employee development programs serving to
increase individual performance by
strengthening individual awareness
Organizational influences
Power is a delegated authority that affords
performance efficiencies and swift decision
making
Organizational influence

25

Figure 3
American Workforce Engagement

Note. From Will Your Agile Transformation Improve Employee Engagement? by Vitality
Chicago. (https://vitalitychicago.com/blog/will-your-agile-transformation-improve-employee-
engagement/) Copyright 2023 by Vitality Chicago, Inc.

Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is the Cooper Aerospace employees,
focusing on those employed at a specific eastern United States location, which focuses on
aerospace and defense-related product manufacturing and sales. While other interested
stakeholders in the organization are poised to play a role in improving self-efficacy for the
employees in this location, the most compelling outcomes for this promising practice research
will involve noticeable changes in employees’ behaviors, beliefs in their approach to the
organization, and improvements in individual carrying capacity. Additionally, individual
26

improvement development relies on internal and environmental factors, and only through
considerate research on this group will those internal factors become accessible (Bandura, 1977,
1986, 1997, 2007; West & Shanafelt, 2007). The following framework details the study’s focus
using stakeholder KMO influences to present a conceptualized understanding of the setting and
its participant view.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
In this section, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework is employed in this
study. The gap analysis is appropriate, as it provides a structured framework and process for
problem-solving based on understanding stakeholder goals in correlation to current
organizational goals. The analysis identifies assumed performance influences in the KMO areas
based on general theory, context-specific literature and an existing understanding of the
organization.
The KMO framework specifically targets what information, individual stimulus and
workplace influences are present, using research to determine valid influence over perceived
influence in the effort to determine what is needed for improvement, bridging the gap between
the current state and the future state of performance. The following sections detail the assumed
influences specific to the stakeholder group.
Knowledge
Cooper employees experience common learning through the four knowledge types, as
described in the revised version of Benjamin Bloom’s 1956 seminal work, Bloom’s Taxonomy,
and include the following: declarative factual, declarative conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive (Anderson et al., 1999; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956, 2001).
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) defined these as factual knowledge, being the basic elements
27

[employees] must know to be acquainted with a discipline or to begin to define causal factors in
their attempt to solve problems. According to Anderson and Krathwohl, conceptual knowledge is
the interrelationships among the basic elements of knowledge within a larger structure of
understanding that enable them to function together and to understand concepts based on the
foundation of information. Further, procedural knowledge is the supporting structure of how to
do something entirely through to completion; the authors identify this as a method of inquiry and
criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods. They continue to identify
metacognitive knowledge as being the knowledge of cognition in general, as well as awareness
and knowledge of one’s own cognition. The connection of performance to consequence is
highlighted within procedural knowledge, as practitioners engage in conditionalized knowledge,
allowing them an understanding of when and where to use it (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Discussion follows with each of the knowledge influences presented and categorized by the
knowledge types where these address the Cooper Aerospace employee’s understanding and
awareness of their role, as that role contributes to the greater organization.
Cooper Employees Know How to Complete the Steps for Role Achievement (Procedural
Knowledge)
Cooper Aerospace’s engagement goals require the development of employee procedural
knowledge. Successful application of these developing skills will include the steps to connect
their own roles, and the organization’s goals, to ensure their positive contribution to achievement
(Cho & Linderman, 2019; Rothwell, 2014). This influence is categorized as procedural
knowledge and is relevant to the stakeholder group (Cooper Aerospace employees) for its
inherent value in connecting personal value to role within the organization (Dean, 2011;
Tapaninaho & Kujala, 2018).
28

Employees within any organization must know the general steps of completing their role
to align with their specific organization’s mission and guidance (Adhikari, 2015). Further
identification includes the following elements as both knowledge components and core
knowledge components in supporting the successful execution of an employee’s role:
 Job identification: (Title or classification, as in manager, or Level I/II)
 Basic function: (Leads departmental team or supports department)
 Duties: (Tasks related to executing a role to organizational expectations)
 Responsibilities: (Broader role - ensuring organizational outcome)
 Delegation of authority: (Identifies tasks hierarchically delegated to this role and those
delegated from this role to others)
 Working relationships: (Inter-and intra-business working relationships)
 Working conditions: (Expectation of environment, hours and facilities)
Clark and Estes (2008) indicated that all stakeholders lose when missing the steps
between individual role-to-organizational mission and vision.
Cooper Employees Know How to Delineate Mutual Expectations Around Performance Goals
(Procedural Knowledge)
Cooper Aerospace’s employees need to know how to outline expectations for their
performance goals and the organization’s goals. By delineating how to reach each set of goals,
both organization and individual, are aligned as expectancies become mutually reinforcing
(Earley & Lituchy, 1991). Employees must understand what it takes to ensure success in their
role (Jackovickas, 2020). Coupling this understanding of role with organizational goals and
expectations ensures the employee a positive connection to organizational growth and deeper
levels of engagement. Further, a direct effect of role-to-mission understanding is presented as
29

affording the employee awareness of the steps of how they will increase their own personal
effort to improve their at-work capabilities and more greatly impact their position (and
organizational outcomes; Black & Marshall-Lee, 2011; Cho & Linderman, 2019; Jenkin et al.,
2011).
Cooper Aerospace Employees Know How Their Role Has Influenced Organizational Vision
(Metacognitive Knowledge)
Cooper Aerospace employees need to practice self-reflection on what is required of their
role to influence the organization. LaVoie (2017) emphasized that employees are active
participants in influencing their level of role-response to meet work-challenges. Awareness has
been broadly defined as “understanding the activities of others, providing context for your own
activity” (Kim et al., 2019, p. 48). Awareness affords an understanding of workplace activities
through the lens of the individual and assists in providing context to role-player activities. This
reflective awareness level advises the individual employee of their contributions as relevant to
the entire organization (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992).
One of the benefits of reflecting on personal progress as employees is addressed as
instruments of change, including developing job knowledge and employee role-to-mission
confidence. Research (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017) reveals the value of the employee’s effort to
alter role-response. Osborne and Hammoud (2017) suggested that employees need a framework
from which to further self-develop to support a foundation for consistent and recurring
improvement through reflection. Because of engagement’s ability to leverage a population
toward higher-performance, organizations must include role-to-mission awareness as a function
of recurring training to ensure an inclusive and consistent approach to creating a durable and
sustainable organization (MacNaughton & Medinsky, 2020; Rockwood, 2020). Table 3 presents
30

a review of Cooper Aerospace’s vision, mission, stakeholder goals, and the assumed knowledge
influences with knowledge type and assessment of Cooper Aerospace employees as developed
through the environmental scan.

Table 3
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
Organizational mission
From the smallest details to the highest pursuits, Cooper Aerospace is dedicated to redefining
aerospace and together with its customers, relentlessly tackle the toughest challenges in our
industry. And, every day, we imagine ways to make the skies and the spaces we touch
smarter, safer and more amazing than ever.
Organizational vision
To create a better world, chart new journeys, protect nations and save lives through the use of
our products and services.
Organizational goal
By July 2023, 100% of Cooper Aerospace will be in compliance with parent organization’s
organizational engagement training requirements
Stakeholder goal
Cooper Aerospace Stakeholder Goals: By December 2023, Cooper Aerospace employees will
increase their on-the-job engagement by 75 %, in compliance with Raymond Technologies
organizational engagement training requirements.
Cooper Aerospace employees know
the steps for role achievement
Knowledge
procedural
Approach employee stakeholders to
determine the level of procedural
knowledge they possess regarding
their role in improving
organizational goals.
Interviews: “Thinking about your
role…”
Can you tell me what steps you follow
to know you are achieving
expectations on your job?.
Can you share about the procedures
you follow when your duties and
responsibilities are unclear?
31

Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
Can you tell me what was included in
your initial work training regarding
steps to success in your role?
Survey:
What are the recommended steps to
follow when encountering challenges
in your role?

Cooper employees know how to
delineate mutual expectations
around performance goals
Knowledge
procedural
Request employees to outline their
expectations for performance goals
in support of the organization’s goals
and mission. Sample direction
includes:
Interview: “Thinking about your role
in the company..”
Describe the process you go through
to ensure that your expectations for
success in your role, meet
organization performance goals?
Share what steps you follow when
formulating mutual expectations
with your colleagues?
Survey:
What elements are necessary to
delineate mutual expectations around
performance goals?
Using the list below, choose the
company mission.
Cooper Aerospace, seeks to redefine
aerospace, to become the most
admired defense and aerospace
systems company through our world-
class people, innovation and
technology.
Cooper Aerospace will be the
dominant company in the world
today-tomorrow-and into the future.
At Cooper, we expect customers and
shareholders to continue to support
our businesses through shared
confidence and trust. Cooper
believes in what is best for all.
32

Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
Cooper aerospace employees knows
how their role has influenced
organizational vision

Metacognitive
Employees will be asked to detail their
experiences, with areas for both
improvement and sustainment in
their assigned position
(Reflect/Adjust). Sample direction
includes:
Interview: “Reflecting on your own
role” ...
Describe how you know that you are
meeting the expectations of your
colleagues?
Can you talk me through a time when
fulfilling your role was very
effective in supporting the
company’s goals?
Can you talk me through a time when
your role wasn’t as effective as it
could have been?
Can you talk me through a time when
you gave thought to your own
performance and either decided to
make a personal change, or sought
management’s support in making
changes to the process?
Survey:
I am confident I know how my role
supports the organization (Likert)
Using the scale below, to what degree
do you reflect on your performance,
at the end of an event, or workday?
(1 through 10, with 10 being highest)
I reflect on my performance on good
days as well as bad days? (Likert)
To what degree do you make
adjustments to your in-role-behavior
when assessing in-role-demands?
(Likert)

33

Motivation
The following section examines existing literature relevant to Cooper Aerospace
employees and their connection to organizational goals. Employee motivations include a desire
to achieve and to understand the connection between individual roles and organizational goals
(Holsapple & Joshi, 2000). Motivation is generally defined as any action created through a
combination of intrinsic or extrinsic factors which serve to inspire that action (Murray, 2011;
Rigby et al., 1992). Motivation includes the interest, or reasoning, behind the action or that
which drives us to complete the action or event. Its importance is founded on the desire to act to
create a certain result or achieve something of personal value (Peyton et al., 2019; Pintrich,
2003). The approach to understanding motivation lies in individual perspective and includes
several variables, which will be discussed in the following section. The listed variables of
individual motivation are value, self-efficacy and mood (Bandura, 2007; Ellemers et al., 2004;
Rueda, 2011).
Intrinsic Value
Intrinsic value is defined as that value that has importance (is valuable) in and of itself.
When something has value for its own sake, such as the value of good work or a job well done, it
can be said to have intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is not captured by measures but rather by a
relationship to interest (Batavia & Nelson, 2017; Zimmerman, 2014). Bandura and Schunk
(1981) tested their hypothesis to success by identifying participants’ motivation through goal
setting, cultivating competencies and intrinsic interest. One person might offer that they like the
mountains, while others opt for the sea; this use of location offers one example of intrinsic value.
Another example, more closely related to the execution of job duties, includes taking extra time
to work on a project or talking to the customer about a solution to their problem for the value
34

created in the process of improving that space. Learning and motivation are developed and
enhanced when individuals connect performance failures to their own effort rather than to their
own abilities (Anderman & Anderman, 2009).
Emotions
Emotions, the second variable in this review, is widely defined as a settled way that a
person generally feels, as reflected in their behavior, about an idea, concept, or situation, and can
include a concept, the approach to the day itself, or influence organizational effectiveness and
work projects (Shoraj & Llaci, 2015). Emotions are an attitude that affects the way we approach
matters, can alter the way individuals think about those matters, influences our thoughts, and
advises us on how to feel about things (Chaiklin, 2011). Successful engagement programs align
individual employee goals with organizational goals by providing a clear and attainable path to
achievement and personal success in line with business objectives (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976;
Shoraj & Llaci, 2015; Vroom, 1964). The following section illustrates Clark and Estes’s (2008)
framework from the motivation perspective.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy theory is a construct that addresses an individual’s understanding of how
their own efforts directly impact their participation outcomes. Specifically, self-efficacy
references their capacity to manage processes and behaviors supportive of achieving a given goal
(Bandura, 1994, 1997). Self-efficacy, the third variable in this review, is theorized across many
fields and expects performance differences to be maximized when encountering obstacles and
adversity. Self-efficacy is studied within business organizations, as well as within athletic
organizations. Self-efficacy is commonly recognized as a self-evaluation. These cognitive
behaviors influence the individual to expend energy equal to the amount required to attain the
35

goal (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1994, 1997, 2007; Weinberg et al., 1979). The impact of self-
efficacy in the promotion of individual work engagement, as employees self-influence through
attitude and in proactively shaping the way that they approach work, is further evidenced through
positive interactions with peers and supervisors (Consiglio et al., 2015; Harter et al., 2008).
Motivation Influences
The following section details the motivation influences at Cooper Aerospace as
developed through the prior environmental scan. In this section, the literature supportive of the
highlighted motivation influences is reviewed. Clark and Estes (2008) identified three
components in the influence of motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Using
this construct in the connection to stakeholder goals highlights key elements in stakeholder-to-
role motivations.
Cooper Employees Value the Process of Performance Improvement. Employee task
goals create the opportunity for role and process improvement, as managed through modeling,
evaluation and assessment (Jeffrey, 2009; Sun & Choi, 2013). Through this process, employees
build role understanding and personal capacity related to organizational performance and the
attainment of collective goals. Positive outcome expectancy and an intrinsic value-over-time, are
created through team members’ understanding of the improvement processes (Atkinson, 1957;
Doménech-Betoret et al., 2017; Eccles, 2006).
Cooper Employees Maintain Positive Attitudes About Their Role in Organizational
Success. Attitude refers to an individual’s emotional state, as it informs that person’s “certainty
about the consequences of action” (Clark et al., 2018). Stakeholder engagement goals are
identified as requiring an understanding of role mastery, allowing employees a learned
awareness for themselves in the workspace (Eccles, 2006; Poortvliet et al., 2015). Employee
36

alignment through learning improves individual motivation and the foundation for commitment.
We can improve our thinking by increasing its scope, thereby increasing our capacity for
improving our attitudes (Bar, 2009). Linking Cooper employees’ roles to the organizational
vision seeks to realize that same capacity for improvement. Employees and team members who
espouse this construct are said to be among those who understand the scope of their duties and
seek opportunities for personal growth despite encountering adversity (Duckworth, 2017;
Bandura, 2006). Table 4 also presents the assessments using interviews and surveys in support of
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis employed throughout this study.

Table 4
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Assumed motivation influences Motivational influence assessment
Value: intrinsic

Cooper employees value the
process of performance
improvement

Approach team members to determine what they value to
solve workplace problems and to what level they value
they place on that process. Sample direction includes:
Interview: “Considering the value of learning in this
position..”
Can you talk to me about those things that you value most
about improving processes?
Survey:
I enjoy engaging in performance improvement processes.
(Likert Scale)
I enjoy being engaged in processes related to identifying
root causes. (Likert Scale)
Self-efficacy

Cooper employees are confident
about executing behaviors
supporting organizational success
Approach team members asking about their levels of
confidence in the outcomes of their role, related to their
roles influence upon organizational goals.
Sample direction includes:
Interview:
Can you talk to me a little bit about to what degree do you
feel confident executing behaviors for organization’s
successes?
Can you talk to me a little bit about how you feel about your
ability to impact organizational success?
Survey:
37

Assumed motivation influences Motivational influence assessment
Sample direction might include:
I am confident in my daily performance. (Likert Scale)
To what degree does your organization grow from
collaborative individual effort? (Likert)
Emotion; attitudes
Cooper employees maintain
positive attitudes about their role
in organizational success.

Emotion
Cooper Employees maintain
positive attitudes about their role
in organizational success.
Approach team members to determine the levels of positive
emotion to implement strategies for personal improvement.
Sample direction includes:
Interviews: “Thinking about your approach to remaining
positive about your role…”
Tell me how you feel when you learn of your contribution to
your organization’s successes?
Tell me about a time when you felt like you had real success
in your role?
Survey: (Likert scale: 1 through 10)
I generally feel the following emotion at work: Joyful to
Angry (1-5 Likert Scale)
I believe my actions at work are directly related to
organizational success. Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree (1-5 Likert)
It bothers me when my performance does not yield positive
benefits to the organization. Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree (1-5 Likert)

Cooper Employees Increase Confidence About Their Role in Organizational
Success. Engagement programs include a broader approach to fostering individual motivation,
allowing for the expansion of individual roles when employees are committed to the
improvement process (Gruman & Saks, 2011; Pintrich, 2003). Employees persist in their effort,
introducing success and confidence and fostering the development of organizational trust and
personal satisfaction. As employees persist, their role confidence increases, as does the sense of
individual value, assisting in fostering longevity and focused commitment to achieving
organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011; Schaufeli et al., 1999).
38

Table 4 lists the organization’s vision, mission, stakeholder goals and three motivational
influences as they relate to employee engagement as developed through the prior environmental
scan.
Organization
In this section, the literature supportive of the highlighted organizational influences will
be reviewed. Effective communication and the foundations for building trust are key elements in
developing and sustaining a positive workplace culture. Clark and Estes (2008) highlighted
succinct communication as increasing organizational effectiveness, engagement, and
performance levels, benefiting trust building and employee retention. The environmental scan
supported prior findings in this area as well.
Cultural Models and Settings
Culture is also observed in the individual, where culture resides in employees’ behaviors
and interactions with other employees as well as in interactions with the organization as a whole
(Schein, 2004). Organizational culture is defined as an organization’s shared values and
assumptions (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010). Values and assumptions speak to an alignment
between organizational beliefs and organizational direction (mission and vision). An
organization’s culture can be analyzed based on the cultural settings and cultural models that
exist in it (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The values and assumptions within that culture are
shared across organizations to create cultural settings and models and create organizational
energy and identity (Bennett, 2006; Miscenko & Day, 2015).
Cultural settings are concrete and include the employees themselves, their primary and
additional tasks, the how and why tasks are completed, and the social context in which their tasks
are performed (Jhangiani, 2022; Kane, 1991). Culture greatly influences individual and
39

organizational performance, and its models refer to cultural practices and shared mental schema
within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Mayer et al., 2012; Pater & Lewis,
2012). To ensure a pragmatic review of Cooper’s culture and how that culture influences the
organization, cultural models and settings must be observed.
Stakeholder Specific Factors
The cultural setting within many employee support programs can be dynamic and often
unpredictable due to changing management and the population served (Kane, 2006). Using a
cultural settings perspective highlighted during the environmental scan, three specific factors
may be at work to explain the cause of organizational problems within employee support
programs: (a) employees are overwhelmed by an overabundance of tasks, (b) high rates of
employee turnover prevent team members from remaining with the organization long enough to
develop expertise in their role, and (c) management may be insensitive to cultural development
(Holsapple & Joshi, 2000; Taras et al., 2011).
Cooper Aerospace Employees Need Role Support Through Timely Evaluation.
Organizations must provide a consistent framework of engagement that is inclusive, equitable
and clearly aligned with stated organizational engagement goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Through
fair and equitable evaluations and creating a culture of engagement, organizations promote a
deeper connection between employees and the institution. All organizational leaders must
embrace their engagement programs as a tool for growth and increased performance (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Organizations benefit when their members are empowered to create new
behaviors and practices to improve their role in the workspace (Goffee & Jones, 2013).
Aligning organizational behavior expectations through design policies that align with an
equitable approach to engagement processes ensures an equitable and sustainable approach to the
40

process. Organizations are stronger when their employees are fairly evaluated, avoid internal
competition, are similarly focused on the resulting actions of their roles, and subsequently
support the organization’s efforts against outside competition (Ben-Hur & Avagyan, 2018).
Further, engaged employees effort a faster customer response, greater communication among
teams and increased workplace contribution, realizing additional positive impacts when
organizations work to create a culture of engagement (Elnaga & Imran, 2014). Health and
Wellness also improve when organizations implement and sustain engagement programs.
Furthering this understanding, the RAND Corporation found in a study of 1,800 workers that
these programs can help with lifestyle-related diseases. Workplace wellness programs are a key
element in improving workplace engagement (Mattke et al., 2013). Organizations will see
improvements in time, productivity and a reduction in healthcare costs when organizations
support engagement programs (Bhuvanaiah & Raya, 2014).
Cooper Aerospace Employees Need an Organizational Culture of Trust.
Organizational communication is seen to be one key to improving general attitudes; it supports
awareness and inclusion, averting some individuals’ “cyclical, ruminative thinking and absence
of breadth” (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000). Wicker (1985, p. 1094) called these “conceptual ruts,”
otherwise forcing a recurring return to negative thoughts. People generally have an intrinsic
desire to feel valued and safe and that their work is important. Further to the idea that people
desire safety, providing a culture of engagement creates trust, further creating a sense of safety
among Cooper employees (DiDomenico & Ryan, 2017).
This engagement environment repeatedly rewards when organizations are able to sustain
the processes and foster a trusting membership (Clark & Estes, 2008). Harter (2018) suggested
that ensuring clear and consistent communication aligns individuals with organizational direction
41

and provides a level of understanding which equates to comfort, and a sense of inclusion, serving
to scaffold inclusion and employee commitment.
Cooper Aerospace Employees Need the Organization to Support Their Mastery of
On-the-Job Skills. To improve stakeholder confidence and develop improved relationships
between participants. Hameed and Waheed (2011) identified stakeholders as preferring
organizational leaders being involved in their work performance, assisting in enhancing leader-
follower relationships and engagement. Additionally, the employee-manager relationship is
deepened by increased involvement and coaching. Coaching, pragmatically supportive of job-
skills development and, ultimately, mastery, is typically informal but can include formal
sessions, with goals-setting and documentation for later follow-up. In the workplace setting,
coaching includes employees being valued as a partner in the process of performance
improvement and includes both personal and organizational goal setting (Agarwal, 2018).
Table 5 presents the organizational influences examined in this study.

Table 5
Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Assumed organizational
influences affecting
Cooper employees
Organization influence assessment
Cultural model 1: Cooper
Aerospace employees need
role support through timely
evaluation

Approach team members to determine what organizational
evaluations most improve workplace performance. Sample
direction includes
Interviews:
Interview team members to understand levels of structured
performance evaluations. Sample direction includes;
Tell me about a time when the organization supported your
performance by evaluating your work.
Tell me how your team works through process and department
performance issues.
42

Assumed organizational
influences affecting
Cooper employees
Organization influence assessment
Tell me how your organization provides employee evaluations.
Survey:
Survey for perceptions of organizational use of evaluation of
personnel, processes, systems and/or procedures related to
evaluating performance. Sample questions include:
Using the scale below, how well does your organization use
evaluations to improve individual performance?
Using the scale below, how well does your organization
communicate the evaluation’s results to the individual
employee?
Using the scale below, how strongly do you believe your
organization uses the results of evaluations to improve the
overall organization?
Cultural Model 2: Cooper
Aerospace employees need
an organizational culture of
trust.
Interview:
Interviews participants to understand expectations for trust
levels, supportive of both transparency and inclusion within
the organization. Sample direction includes:
Tell me about how trust is shared here.
Tell me the ways that the organization holds all employees
publicly accountable.
Tell me about a time when you felt the company was especially
trustworthy.
Survey:
Using the scale below, to what level do you feel you can share
concerns within your team?
Using the scale below, Is there trust within your organization?
Would you recommend this organization as a trusted place to
work?
Cultural setting 1: Cooper
Aerospace employees
need the organization to
support their mastery of
on-the-job skills
Interview:
Tell me about your own experiences with employee training &
development.
Tell me about how the company provides job-skills mastery
training.
Tell me how your supervisor provides role-coaching.
Survey:
Using the scale below, The organization provides me the tools
or processes I need to do my job effectively.
Using the scale below, The organization supports me in the
ongoing mastery of my job skills (Likert Scale)

43

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
This section discusses the conceptual framework of engagement and improving
individuals and their organizations. Miles et al. (2014) defined conceptual framework as
something tangible to be seen or read, and that explains the primary topic of study (p. 18).
Researching more deeply into the subject, Maxwell (2013) concluded the concept is more of an
embodiment of beliefs held regarding the subject or idea, with the concept’s intent being to
inform the research study and assist in refining the study’s goals and assessments.
While each of the potential influences, listed using the KMO construct of Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, are independent of each other, it is important to note that they are
not isolated from each other. This chapter intends to demonstrate that these influences build upon
each other, leveraging inherent strengths and combining learning and environment to create
employee commitment through an understanding of role importance as it supports organizational
goals. In practice, the KMO tables present the influences most affecting Cooper Aerospace
employees in executing their duties. Figure 4 presents the influence of employee knowledge,
employee motivation, and Cooper Aerospace. as an organization, working to achieve the
engagement goals set forth through this study’s work.

44

Figure 4
Cooper Aerospace Organizational Influences

45

Cooper Aerospace employees are shown at the center of the above depiction, as this
group is central to the study. Cooper employees reside within the entirety of the organization,
with stakeholder goals surrounding all. Cooper employees are influenced by knowledge through
training and experience. Employee knowledge, coupled with an understanding of their role,
leverages motivation such that employees are influenced to improve in those roles. Success
creates a positive environment, as detailed by Clark and Estes (2008), which fosters motivation.
The interaction between the organization and the employees is reciprocal and exists within the
sphere of the organization. Cooper Aerospace Stakeholder Goals are depicted externally to the
employees and the organization. Stakeholders include employees, leaders, customers,
community, and shareholders. Cooper Aerospace’s knowledge and motivation, supported by a
strong and vibrant culture, extend outwardly to achieve stakeholder goals.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the value of employee engagement and the
harnessing of strengths inherent to an organization focused on empowerment in the achievement
of individual, organizational and stakeholder goals. The current literature, reviewed in Chapter
Two, examines the key influences affecting Cooper Aerospace employee engagement and
promotes a greater understanding of a complex workplace environment. Employee KMO
components serve to influence employees and the organization itself. Influence can positively or
negatively affect the organization, and while independent of one another, the three will be
presenting and working in concert with one another, leveraging to create a synergy of
empowerment. Chapter Three will present the study’s methodological approach

46

Chapter Three: Methodology
The research methodology supporting Chapter Three included the conduct of analysis,
framed in part by the KMO resources structure, to ensure the achievement of Cooper’s
improvement goals. Chapter Three presented the studies research design, the methods used for
data collection, and the analysis employed in the pursuit of the study’s guiding questions:
1. What are the KMO influences that contribute to employees’ engagement based on
how their role contributes to the organization’s performance?
2. What are the recommendations for 100% engagement based on employees’ role in
organizational performance?
Chapter Three acknowledged the stakeholder group of focus as appropriate and described
the strategy of sampling and recruitment. Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis was employed
for its support of a formal approach through its conceptual framework, leveraged through survey
and interview. Following this, data collection methodologies and the strategies for developing
and implementing each measurement (and its instrument) and an overview of data analysis
techniques used to compile and process the data were presented. Continuing, the next section
presents the processes involved in the study’s mixed-methods effort to ensure the quantitative
findings’ reliability and overall validity and its ethical, credible and trustworthy qualitative
findings. Finally, Chapter Three concluded with a reflection on its approach to ethically aligned
data collection and the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group chosen for this study is the Cooper Aerospace employee group
assigned to the Spalding facility. This stakeholder group is appropriate for their innate
understanding of the organization and ability to outline pragmatic change within that space.
47

Further, as the action group, these local stakeholders are capable of empowering organizational
improvement and communicating management calls to action in real time. The site’s employee
base consists of 801 people across 10 departments (administration: facilities and
finance/accounting; purchasing, customer service and contracts/engineering; quality and program
management/operations; manufacturing/business development: marketing). Human resources is
not included in data collection beyond assisting recruitment and general support to mitigate the
perception of participant bias. The final study used a smaller sample, more appropriate in the
current space and time of organizations working away from the office due to the pandemic. The
stakeholder group supported the inquiry series and included 12 people across nine departments
whose experience ranged from 1–5 years (25%); 6–10 years (25%); 11–20 years (25%); 21 and
more years (25%). The study included an invitation to the entirety of the 12-person sample (N =
12). The sample achieved a response rate of 12 employees preferring to respond as 53% male
and 47% female, and 0% non-binary, or having preferred not to respond.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The final survey question asked the participants about their willingness to be interviewed.
Those respondents agreeing to the interview were asked to self-identify by responding to an
email I sent to thank all participants for their effort to assist in organizational change and
improvement. Participants meeting the formal sampling criteria of full-time employment at the
subject facility are understood to have completed that volunteer self-identification.
Criterion 1
The first interview criterion includes the employee having an interest in the
organization’s improvement, as identified through their survey responses. While this criterion
48

seems simply put, it is not assumed that each survey participant is actively engaged in
organizational improvement
Criterion 2
The second interview criterion includes the employee representing one of the
organization’s key operational departments. This criterion affords department members an
organizational voice and the opportunity to speak from that space.
Criterion 3
The third interview criterion includes maximum variation in years of service. This
criterion avoided any overrepresentation of experience levels and ensured the inclusion of the
wide range of ages and time on the job.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy employed in this study follows the semi-structured format. Semi-
structured is appropriate for this effort for its ability to guide the topic while allowing for
explorative discussion (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The research location included a private space
within Cooper Aerospace human resources facilities for all participants. Cooper Aerospace
initiated a work-from-home policy during this program. Zoom Video Communication was added
to ensure a protected interview space, with Microsoft Teams being added as a secondary
redundancy.
The criterion uses the purposive strategy, ensuring a particular data set was met for
participant inclusion in the interview series. This purposeful, or non-probabilistic, approach is
appropriate for this study’s space for its capacity for unambiguous response. Purposeful
sampling avoids aggregated or average opinions and instead seeks to exact explicit experience
based on special experience or proficiency (Chein, 1981; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton,
49

2015). Once the survey taker agreed and sent their e-intent to participate, a response was
returned to them, outlining the interview process, format and notification of audio recording,
reiterating the interview being guided by the institutional review board, and thanking them for
their commitment to improvement supporting the organization’s vision. In response, six survey
takers agreed to the secondary sampling phase: the interview. The minimum number of
interviews was determined to be no less than six, allowing capture of the wide array of
departmental experiences, and assumed a breadth of data would be developed before research
saturation could occur. The primary demographic criterion for the interview is years of
experience, coupled with my desire to ensure multi-departmental representation. Volunteer
interviews will be scheduled and at no time will overlap with other interviews, assisting to ensure
confidentiality and anonymity.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
Participants must be employed at the Spalding site for not less than 1 year, having
completed all necessary Cooper Aerospace onboarding and certification processes. This ensured
the participant understood the organization’s direction and review cycles.
Criterion 2
Participants must be committed to creating an organization of improvement during their
time at Cooper Aerospace. This created a benchmark for participants to begin to measure effort
and change processes.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The approach to recruiting participants included a strategy aligned with Merriam and
Tisdell’s (2016) purposeful sampling. This technique, employed in support of quantitative data
50

gathering, sought to include total participation from the target organization’s selected audience.
In this case, the target is Cooper Aerospace’s stakeholder group of focus. The quantitative data
were gathered with the intent to disaggregate by organizational department, years of experience,
and gender. Confidentiality was maintained throughout the process and further ensured to each
participant by including the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
(USC-IRB) formal guidelines in each request for participation. The sample population was
reduced to 12 overall, supporting researcher resource constraints and the general inability to
source from an organizational population no longer in the traditional workspace due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. This population is appropriate (12 = x), as sampling included participants
from each of the organization’s departments and included perceptions of participant
intersectionality as viewed through the lens of gender and experience (Crenshaw, 1989).
The survey included Robinson and Firth Leonard’s (2019) approach to design, which
considers comprehensibility and an improved process for crafting easily followed questions, and
improved percentages of completion. This process, intended to allow ease of completion, higher
response rate, and higher levels of commitment and introspective response, was guided by Fink’s
(2013) guide for survey development and the approach to connecting individual job performance
to higher-level organizational goals. The stakeholder group was approached through the
supporting effort of the higher organization’s human resources department, which assists in the
recruitment effort by alerting department heads of the near-term survey request. Specifically, the
request for support included asking management to include 12 employee names from their
organization and, of these, to include employees of varying experience. Research participation
was not made available to employees outside of the Spalding facility. Stakeholders were polled
for their interest in a future interview, supporting detailed data collection. Responses for interest
51

in future interviews included 100% participant response, supportively, for a total of six
employees agreeing to the additional interview data collection.
Documents and Artifacts Criteria and Rationale
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) advised that using documents and artifacts “as data” is not
inherently different from interviews or surveys. I gained approval through the key management
stakeholder and the human resources department to make use of a past Cooper Aerospace annual
survey in the determination of stakeholders experiencing similar past inquiry. Using the Cooper
Aerospace Annual Surveys revealed information allowing a connection between existing data
points and recent findings. The annual surveys present a data collection that informs each of
Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO influences that are relevant to this study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The study leverages a triangulated approach, building upon the interview, survey, and
document analysis series of inquiry. I intended to purposefully include participants who would
most greatly inform this study, assisting in quantifying organizational issues affecting
performance. I managed the data derived from these methods to assist in presenting the
justification for improvement. The interview series allows team members an opportunity to
follow a guided series of generally open-ended questions supportive of qualitative inquiry.
Building on this, the survey method affords employees an entry into organizational change and
an opportunity to participate in further studies.
Interviews
The interview series includes six individual interviews for the majority of participants.
Any data derived from the first session and later deemed to be important to warrant greater
understanding would trigger a request for a second interview. The interview sessions re-
52

introduced the researcher from the survey session and the interview agenda and intent (Appendix
A). The interview included 22 questions. Each question was aligned with the research goal to
understand the KMO influences related to the problem of practice. The protocol followed a
single format, ensuring consistency from session to session. Qualitative data collection relies on
the interview protocol to develop understanding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Protocol questions
were created with reference to the conceptual framework of engagement described in Chapter
Two.
Interviewees were selected among those survey respondents who had opted to be
included in further research. I was challenged to ensure an appropriate cross-section of the
organization was represented within the final group. Each participant was interviewed once, with
a second interview potential if a deeper understanding of inquiry was required based on the
initial response data. Interviews were scheduled for 30 minutes each. Interviews used the Zoom
Virtual Communications tool for those working from home. The on-site space provided a safe
approach, away from other workers and participants were warmly welcomed by staff researchers,
assisting in creating a comfortable space (Bogdan & Biklen, 2017).
Interviews included a return to agenda if participants strayed too far afield of the
guidance, and narratives were edited using field notes and authorized recordings. Summaries
were added to convey participant mood and sense of commitment and to identify outlying
themes across the field of interviews.
Surveys
The survey instrument (Appendix B) consists of 22 questions created in support of Clark
and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis framework. The questions were developed using a
knowledge development concept, which included participants describing the organization’s
53

mission and then tying the importance of their role to that mission, as measured against the
employee’s perceptions. Participants were identified by the order in which they were
interviewed, ensuring their connection to the survey document. The development of questions
and the direction of the survey itself was crafted to create a meaningful response that would
support meaning in developing considerations for improvement. The survey was administered
through Qualtrics, ensuring a lower social desirability bias and greater accuracy in response
(Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Documents and Artifacts
Document analysis is the third method of collection used for triangulation. The
referenced documents include Cooper annual surveys (employee engagement surveys) collected
through the human resources department over the past 3 years. These works support this study,
comparing the data from previous years with that of recent surveys. Researching new data to
existing data informs the collected data in the development of information (Kost & Correa da
Rosa, 2018).
The annual survey, an organization-wide employee satisfaction survey, was compared to
the stakeholder group of focus assessments to quantify individual understanding of role
requirements as they relate to organizational performance.
Data Analysis Plan
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) advise that data analysis is the process of sense-making,
supporting the gathering, rendering and interpretation of resultant information. Data analysis in
this study included employee interactions through past and current annual survey responses,
additional specialized survey inquiry, and interviews in combination with documentation and
scholarly articles relevant to this subject. Creating research through informed data analysis
54

allows an evaluation of engagement in addition to identifying areas for improvement as present
through inquiry. Clark and Estes (2008) discussed evaluation as being an essential element of
success.
All data were coded throughout data collection to ensure a consistent approach to
analysis, ensuring quality. Coding affords the researcher an indexing solution to introduce and
maintain a framework of identification, or thematic categorization (Gibbs, 2018). Data and
information outcomes learned from this effort support identifying practices associated with high-
performing engagement programs.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) discussed credibility and trustworthiness in their
description of the quality survey. They concluded that quality [sic: interactions] “can only come
from an effort to empathize with, and understand respondents” (p. 3). This approach to creating a
quality question drives the respondents’ approach accurately. This assists in creating trust and
credibility between participants and creators. Merriam and Tisdale suggested that credibility is
the validity of the study methods being credible for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), while
Maxwell (2013) posited the researcher’s integrity and the validity of their analysis as directly
correlating to trustworthiness. I ensured credibility and trustworthiness by communicating any
changes from the script and reiterating the protection protocols, which included participant
anonymity and confidentiality.
Reflexivity bias was managed through self-reflection regarding participation in any bias,
assumption, perspectives in industry, or other orientation influencing the study. Additional
strategies included a formal audit of series methodologies and processes (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). As a potential research instrument, the researcher’s role was consistently included in the
55

process of self-reflection. I intended to create a greater awareness at the study’s inception by
reviewing predisposition and inherent attitudes, as they might affect openness to the process.
Communicating the need for unbiased language, untethered to assumptions and preconceptions,
and promoting an approach supportive of improvement also served to promote the study’s
credibility and trustworthiness.
Further oversight included organizational administration review and complete
transparency in this study. This approach to methodology is in keeping with an appropriate
approach to processes, formulation and openness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additional
reliabilities were underpinned by creating questions that were simply responded to and further
supported credibility and trustworthiness, kept confidentially secure (Fink, 2013). Maxwell
(2013) advised that this type of strategy avoids participant associations with “systematic bias.”
Validity and Reliability
This study used triangulation strategies through interviews, surveys, and document
analysis, which served to strengthen both its validity and reliability. Triangulation ensures a
connectedness between each of the strategies, and much like the surveyor triangulates a position
based on known points of land, obtaining more than one view, or perspective, affords a clarified
view of all (Gibbs, 2008). Validity and reliability in research include the usefulness of its
methods of measurement. Reliability equates to measuring consistency, while validity equates to
its accuracy (Middleton, 2020). Further supporting a study’s validity is respondent validation, or
member-checking. Member-checking is a technique in which participants (respondents) are
provided the results of their study responses, allowing their review for accuracy and whether
their experience resonates in the printed response (Birt et al., 2016).
56

Validity in the case of this study was supported through the construct of its sample
questions. Salkind (2017) advised that three forms of validity are most often used among survey
measurements: content-based validity, criterion-based validity, and construct-based validity.
Content-based validity provides that the test is equitably sampled across the spectrum of items to
be tested, while criterion-based validity references the test’s utility within the context of time and
space. Concurrent criterion relates to today (in the now), while predictive-criterion references a
future utility. Finally, construct-based validity is linked to an underlying, or foundational,
construct that may be difficult to quantify (Salkind, 2017). Associating the idea of an underlying,
or foundational, construct with a paradigm assists in understanding this idea of a connection to
measure pre-existing knowledge or theory (Middleton, 2020; Salkind, 2017). Measuring cause
and effect requires two additional considerations through the test’s design (internal validity) and
its utility to generalize the test results across a field of situations (external validity; Salkind,
2017). Employee engagement is supported by the study’s construct-validity, where variables are
grouped together to form constructs (Salkind, 2017).
Reliability has been stated to be the degree of consistency of a particular measurement
tool. A reliable tool of measurement measures accurately, each time, independent of tests,
participants, or time (Creswell, 2014). Validity is not a function of reliability. A repeatable and
consistent test could be invalid if the testing measurement does not accurately reflect the sample
(Boateng et al., 2018).
Ethics
The responsibility to ensure a dependable and trustworthy study is of paramount
significance to the research’s credibility and its many participants. Studying human subjects
demands a deep respect for all participants, protection for all participant information, and a moral
57

obligation throughout the many interactions with people (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In support
of participation, study respondents volunteered for the interview and observation series based on
the survey question, which sought to understand interest in further participation. Participant
identities were not made known among respondents nor to those other than me. Interviews
included written notes and audio recordings, in-person, and audio-visual recordings for those
participating using Zoom virtual communication. Participants reviewed and formally signed an
informed consent form detailing the study and its researcher and advising the study would create
notes of participant narratives and the recordings supporting this methodology. Participants were
advised of the process to protect the recorded data in a secure and encrypted file (Glesne, 2015;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I undertook coursework to submit the study to the University of
California - Institutional Review Board (USC-IRB).
I sustain a senior professional role within the organization, within a non-operational,
customer-facing department and an internal-facing consulting role. Significant interest in the
study’s outcome is based primarily on creating a higher-performing organization and transferring
that capacity to our customers, creating durability in long-term business relationships. My
researcher and professional dual role was well vetted through consistent communication that
both this program and the organizational study intended to create higher-performing teams
among participants and advocates within the organization. At no time were employees directly
supervised by me included in the study.
Limitations and Delimitations
Potential for anticipated limitation exists within the context of this study. These
limitations are deemed to be outside of the span of control of the researcher. Limitations may
include respondent commitment, potential fear of reprisal and subsequent early exit from the
58

study and the potential for reduced participation in given areas of response which might be more
closely associated with the participant in their employee role.
Limitations may include participant truthfulness, which may alter accuracy. Study
questions were intended to counter any potential for creating sensitivities or other respondent
thoughts for a departmental reprise. Additional limitations may include a lack of participation, as
imposter syndrome causes respondents to fear being seen as lacking the skills for inclusion in the
study or potentially lacking the skills necessary for their workspace.
Delimitations may include the study’s approach. The study focuses on a select few
participants, as the company is now working from home. This introduces a potential for a
reduced breadth of data, and site-based paradigms, not representative of a larger organization.
Conclusion
The study aimed to examine gaps in the levels of engagement of a participant stakeholder
group of focus. Chapter Three presented the methodological approach to improving employee
engagement at Cooper Aerospace. This approach was delivered through a carefully triangulated
evaluation of participants through the use of past and present survey information, interviews, and
surveys intended to assess participant engagement. This chapter also presented the importance of
trustworthiness, validity, and ethics as key elements in the scholarly research approach. The
following chapter introduces the study’s results and findings.

59

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to discover the KMO needs, or assets, that influence
employee role understanding at Cooper Aerospace, as that organization seeks to improve in-role
performance. The questions guiding this study were:
1. What are the KMO influences that contribute to employees’ engagement based on
how their role contributes to the organization’s performance?
2. What are the recommendations for 100% engagement based on employees’ role in
organizational performance?
Cooper employees assumed knowledge influences were developed using conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive attributions. Based on this study, the research determined whether
Cooper employees understood organizational goals, the goals of their departmental teams and the
personal impact of their own in-role performance on organizational vision. Initially, it was
assumed that Cooper employee’s knowledge needs included (a) how to align work-role
understanding to organizational vision (conceptual knowledge); (b) how to approach in-role
performance to efficiently complete their work (procedural knowledge); (c) how to plan and
monitor their ongoing individual role-performance (metacognitive knowledge). Key motivational
influences were also initially assumed to include Cooper employees’ confidence in their own
potential for improvement and in the inherent value of their performance in enhancing the
organization’s performance through self-efficacy and performance value. Finally, Cooper
employees’ organizational influences introduce cultural models and settings that promote in-role
performance development. Cooper Aerospace must create paths to employee improvement that
allow in-role development and promote a culture that fosters in-role awareness.
60

This study used a mixed-methods approach to validate the assumed influences and
employed qualitative and quantitative data. The study specifically used surveys, interviews and
data collection methods supporting the assessment of Cooper Aerospace employees’ apparent
knowledge, motivations and organizational influences on their in-role understanding to leverage
organizational improvement. The intent of this study was to determine whether the potential for
performance improvement existed among a group of qualified aerospace employees. The results
and findings discovered from this study are organized hereafter by the KMO influences
categorized above.
Participating Stakeholders
As mentioned in prior chapters, the study’s participating stakeholder group of focus
includes the 12 employee participants derived from across the many departments within the
Spalding location of Cooper Aerospace. The stakeholders, in general, include the 801 full-time,
part-time, and contingent employees of the respondent facility. As the manufacturing location is
supported by hundreds of new hires and short-term employees, the qualified stakeholder total
was reduced to 287 full-time employees with a tenure of no less than 1 year. The participating
group was recruited using corporate sponsorship and subsequent calls for volunteer participants
among those with full-time employment of no less than 1 year. The participating volunteer
stakeholder group of 12 included five females and seven males of varying work experience,
ethnicity and age for a total participation of 4.2% of the eligible stakeholders, as presented in
Figure 5.

61

Figure 5
Demographics Description of Qualified Volunteer Participants
Participant Stakeholder Gender Age Years In-Role
Respondent 1 F 33 8
Respondent 2 M 50 12
Respondent 3 M 30 6
Respondent 4 M 46 18
Respondent 5 M 32 4
Respondent 6 F 27 3
Respondent 7 F 23 1
Respondent 8 M 38 11
Respondent 9 F 26 2
Respondent 10 M 50 28
Respondent 11 M 29 4
Respondent 12 F 31 4

As advised in Chapter Three, an independent interviewer was engaged in support of data
collection, given the relationship between Cooper Aerospace and the volunteer participants. The
interviewer received requests to participate through the company’s call for volunteers. The
interviewer approached each of the 12 participants, seeking their support for both the survey and
follow-on interviews, with 6 survey respondents agreeing to be interviewed.
Determination of Assets and Needs
This study was informed using surveys, interviews, and document analysis. The surveys
(Appendix A) were shared among the volunteer participant group and included 22 questions
62

developed to affirm stakeholder KMO influences affecting their in-role performance. The survey
findings yielded a generally similar consensus among the respondents. The survey intended to
measure the group for gaps in KMO influences impacting the potential for in-role performance
improvement. The survey included questions designed to indicate where potential gaps existed
among the participants’ perceptions of their workplace. The survey revealed a unanimous
response regarding perceived needs, with specific responses regarding questions of
organizational trust. The survey’s 22 questions included eight knowledge-related questions, eight
questions related to participant motivations, and eight questions highlighting organizational
influences. One additional question sought to identify respondents interested in participating in
the interview portion of the study. Fifty percent of the stake-holding group responded in support
of interview participation (n = 6).
The interviews proved to be more varied, with the majority of data points being shared
equally across the group and highlighting the specific identification of an apparent gap. The
interview portion of the study was also supported by an independent interviewer. The
independent interviewer used an interview guide (Appendix B) to pose 22 questions to the
participants that focused on confirming the KMO needs and assets influencing the group’s
potential for in-role performance improvement. The interview guide included nine questions
supporting the participant’s conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge, five questions
regarding the intrinsic value and self-efficacy influences of motivation, and nine questions
focused on organizational cultural models and settings.
Data analysis was also employed and included a comparison of past organizational
annual surveys to assist in informing this study’s findings (See Appendix C). The review of these
documents assisted in substantiating discovered and historical influences as either needs or assets
63

and underpins the views of the stakeholder group. The review of aged records was imperative to
this study as that data further advised of the overall strength of the converging data as sound.
Study Cut Score
The study employed a cut-score approach to determine workplace influences as needs,
assets, or a combination of both, labeled as mixed. The cut-score level was set at 80% due to the
study’s smaller sample size. Delineating a higher value cut score ensures higher reliability while
reducing variability and potential for bias in the findings (Simmons, 2018). Respondents
indicating agreement at 80% or above affirmed an influence as an asset (Survey n = > 9.6,
Interview n = < 4.8). Respondents indicating agreement at 79% or less affirmed a need (Survey n
= > 9.5, Interview n = < 4.7). Influences determined as being mixed were developed from
surveys and interviews posting cut-scores between 77% and 82%, respectively. The cut score is
supported by triangulating the survey, interview, and data analysis information to further identify
any known or emerging performance gaps and to inform the potential for improvement.
Additional weighting was added to the interview sessions for their richness and robust
narratives in the individual story development and subsequent depiction of stakeholder
engagement and working life examples at the Spaulding facility. While the survey inquiry
offered clarity and understanding of perceptions and issues of importance, the interview inquiry
allowed researchers a deeper review through the collection of non-verbal data and probing
questions asked when encountering themes and sequels. The interview was therefore weighted
more heavily, as this inquiry was considered most reflective of employee behaviors.
Differences in response types were apparent among those respondents with over 10 years of
experience at this facility. The four stakeholders with over 10 years on-site, all male with a
median age of 46, demonstrated strong correlation with company messaging when in salaried
64

roles. Those employees in hourly roles demonstrated strong correlation with mistrust of
management.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
This study assumed the stakeholder group is affected by conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge influences, impacting their ability to improve their in-role
performance. Specifically, the study assumed the participant group must know how their role
supports their departmental process (conceptual knowledge). Further, the participants must know
the steps to be successful in their role and the steps for seeking solutions when encountering
challenges to success (procedural knowledge). Finally, the study assumed the participating
stakeholders must know how to constructively plan their approach to success in their role
(metacognitive knowledge).
The following survey sections are presented using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
modeling, highlighting the KMO influences discovered within the stakeholder organization.
Each of the survey questions is listed, as they are relevant to that specific influence. Survey
questions were purposely addressed in this manner to ensure the respondent was afforded a new
review of their experience from which to approach their response, avoiding what Staveteig et al.
(2017) identified as the development of respondent themes and inquiry fatigue.
Assumed Knowledge Influence (Procedural Knowledge): Cooper Aerospace Employees
Know the Steps for Role Achievement
Survey Findings
The survey identified each of the 12 respondents as equally able to offer basic steps for
role achievement. Survey participants responded to the question, “What are the recommended
steps to follow when encountering challenges in your role?” Two respondents chose to delegate
65

responsibilities to organizational peers in what came to be understood through the interview to be
the employee’s reference to seeking additional departmental support. All respondents had been
in their current role for not less than one year and were generally able, as evidenced by the 100%
compliance in responding positively regarding their knowledge of challenge mitigation,
determining this influence as an asset.

Figure 6
Results of Survey Question 1: What Are the Recommended Steps to Follow When Encountering
Challenges in Your Role?

66

Interview Findings
Each participant described the steps they follow to know they are achieving expectations.
All respondents were able to articulate the steps they use to ensure functional expectations. All
participants listed generally similar steps and processes to follow, leading to success within a
framework of varied “departmental” vocabulary. Respondent 1 advised that they follow a
standard by first reviewing an organizational document, “followed by talking to my team in the
morning stand-up, and that consists of key leaders, where we’ll discuss the items on the
]document] I’d reviewed that morning. If there are divergent discrepancies, we rectify it then, or
drive consensus to ensure expectations.” Respondent 2 referenced their effort to ensure
“continuous improvement” in the process of their work, while Respondent 5 made a similar note,
calling their focus to improve, “process development.” Respondent 5 added, “I know personally
because I’m managing the department, and there are deadlines and discussions that are required
by my supervisor and by the customer. Gates, or milestones, if you will. So, these are great steps
to ensure I know if I’m achieving expectations.”
Respondents 3, 4 and 6 each referenced a transactional process, where each participant
“remained on schedule” (R3), “kept to the schedule” (R4), and must continually “hit my
scheduled targets” (R6) to ensure they were achieving expectations. Respondent 6 specifically
advised that they “might need to follow a schedule or deadline, but otherwise, I manage myself
based on targets and make sure I am hitting those, and if I am not, I will talk to my boss about
why.”
Specifically, all respondents were able to enunciate the path to solution, although from
varied points of reference or specific organizational definition.

67

Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys (2017–2020) revealed no similar inquiry seeking to
understand whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the
steps to in-role achievement, nor was there any reference to what initial success-in-role training
had been received.
Summary
The assumed influence, identifying employees’ knowing the steps to role achievement, is
considered an asset based on the data. All participants in both the survey and interview sessions
were able to articulate their processes. Triangulating data analysis did not impact the influence,
as no history of vision or approach to achievement was included in any past annual survey
(2017–2020).
Survey Q5: I Prioritize My In-Role Procedures to Achieve Mission Success
The survey asked a second question of this type, seeking to delve more deeply into
individual responses to personal adjustments in in-role behavior, as that behavior influences in-
role success (Figure 7). The resulting data informed the research to varied responses, identifying
the developing information as interesting and requiring triangulation to further identify themes.
One respondent advised that they strongly disagreed when surveyed whether they prioritize in-
role procedures to achieve mission success. A second respondent offered that they neither agreed
nor disagreed with the statement, suggesting no commitment to adjusting in-role behavior to
meet organizational needs. Third and fourth survey respondents offered that they somewhat
agreed with their prioritizing behavior to ensure mission success, while the remaining eight
participants were unanimous in strongly agreeing that they prioritize in-role procedures to ensure
mission success.
68

Figure 7
Results of Survey Question 5: I Prioritize My In-Role Procedures to Achieve Mission Success

Interview Findings
The interviewees discussed the steps they follow when formulating mutual expectations
among colleagues. This question sought to connect stakeholder personal performance to team
and departmental expectations while informing self-awareness for prioritizing personal effort to
ensure success. The participants were positively aligned in their responses, with all fully able to
illustrate the steps for formulating mutual expectations and clearly outline their individual
prioritizing of in-role procedures in support of mission achievement. Respondent 1 articulated
their understanding of the process through their knowledge of interdepartmental operations:
Well, that goes back to that initial piece where we get together, and we talked about not
only the mission at hand but also our vision and the direction we want to take the
company, and so mutual expectations should be relatively similar, and we know we have
to do our part to ensure our jobs are completed based on the schedule, or earlier. There
may be a variance being that it’s from a departmental point of view, you know, where
69

engineering has to design or improve something, finance needs to tabulate, that kind of
thing.
Respondent 2 offered a similar response, supporting mutual expectation development
built upon team communications and consensus:
We might have [department] status meetings, and any issues related to mutual
expectations are discussed. … Then, I might go say something to another person, and it
could be that they owe me [work product] to allow my process to continue. It is in these
meetings that we discuss these things … must-haves, deadlines, mutually supporting
processes, etc.
Closely aligned with these, Respondent 3 offered ensuring consensus by “meeting once a
week, as a team, and we talk about schedule and program, timing, and each person discusses
where they are in the process.” Respondent 4 advised their continual review of project status and
the need to remain aware of their own pace, as well as the pace of others that combine to ensure
program success. Respondent 4 further articulated,
We sit in a room, and we talk about what is needed and how many days and how many
people that item might take to complete and how that fits into the overall schedule. If it
extends, then the schedule is creeping. If it is early, then we are pulling it in. That doesn’t
mean the whole schedule is pulled in just maybe one of the tasks, and that particular task
is owned by someone, maybe me, and if it is me, then I have to hustle, or you have to
hustle to ensure we stay on track. That is how we prioritize our effort.
Respondent 5 affirmed using a consensus-building approach among their team to ensure
understanding and commitment to solution:
70

We meet as a [department] team every week, and we talk about the process and stages we
are in. Sometimes these things can take a long time, and sometimes they are quick. We
just have to move that process through, and so if I, or even one of my coworkers, has an
issue with something, then that is spotlighted, and discussed, and requires focus to ensure
I am not letting them down through my own efforts, or that person is spotlighted. Not
negatively, just in terms of notifying that they have work to do to support the team. I
think we all have that mutual expectation.
Respondent 6 shared their experience in ensuring mutual expectation when discussing
their team approach to reviewing program status and the potential need for additional personal
effort:
We meet every morning in a stand-up and once a week formally, and if any issues are
creeping [extending timeline], then we talk about them at that time. I guess the mutual
expectation is that we all share what’s going on for one, and whether or not we’re the
problem, or someone else’s the problem. It is not meant to be spotlighting, it is meant to
identify any process blockage or outstanding issues, and then we work to fix it, or the
supervisor adjusts to fix it, I guess. Bottle-necks and issues occur all the time.. it is our
jobs to raise our hand so they get fixed and, hopefully, they don’t happen again.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement through prioritizing in-role procedures to achieve mission success.

71

Summary
The assumed influence that employee stakeholders know how to delineate mutual
expectations around performance goals by prioritizing their in-role procedures to achieve
mission success was affirmed through interviews and surveys. The survey presented 83%
commitment to improvement in prioritizing their workday. The interview offered a deeper
participant reflection which resulted in all respondents sharing their recognition of prioritizing
in-role procedures to achieve mission success. The data analysis effort showed only that no
annual survey has included this type of inquiry in the study’s research era. This influence was
determined to be an asset.
Assumed Knowledge Influence (Procedural): Cooper Aerospace Employees Know How to
Delineate Mutual Expectations Around Performance Goals
Survey Q2: What Elements Are Necessary to Delineate Mutual Expectation Around
Performance Goals?
Eleven of the 12 (92%) respondents were able to correctly answer the two questions in
the “choose all that apply” format regarding knowing the elements required to delineate mutual
expectations around performance goals (Figure 8). One respondent chose only one of the two
questions, (a) ensure understanding, leaving (b) meet and communicate end-state unchecked,
which was assumed to be a test-taking error, where the respondent chose “best of” and moved on
to the next question.

72

Figure 8
Results of Survey Question 2 What Elements Are Necessary to Delineate Mutual Expectation
Around Performance Goals?

Interview Findings
The interview study supported each participant as grasping the understanding of ensuring
mutual expectations as being a key element to organizational success. Respondent 1 clearly
identified a process to ensure mutual understanding:
If things were unclear, then I would assemble that same team I had mentioned and that is
[multiple departments] and perhaps [additional department], etcetera. These are key
departmental leaders now, and we go through the issues presenting the challenge and
determine the path forward, and what mutual expectations as well as what success looks
like.
Respondents 2 and 3 similarly responded that each would follow a prescribed path to
solution by reaching out to leaders closest to the process. Respondent 2 advised, “If I run into
any issues that I cannot mitigate from my desk, I go to either the [sr. departmental leader], or the
product line manager for a quick discussion to right set mutual expectations.” Respondent 3
simply responded to having a known path to solution by advising, going to their boss if “foggy
on something.” Respondent 4 concurred with their fellow participants:
73

I hold a meeting or talk to my supervisor to understand customer flow or expectations for
outcome. Or, I sometimes pick up the phone and call the customer direct. We talk it
through just to show we understand the issues or to clarify something that helps us to
understand the issues. You have to make sure everyone interprets the information
equally.
Respondent 5 similarly advised their understanding of steps to ensure mutual
expectations among team members:
If something is unclear, then I will quickly look up policy, or I might reach out to our
[department] team, or I will just go to my supervisor to clear things up if I cannot work it
out on my own.
Likewise, Respondent 6 followed along by suggesting their comprehension of the
necessary clarifying process steps: “I go straight to my supervisor when something is fuzzy, or
sometimes I will ask the [senior departmental leader] if they are part of the process flow.
Otherwise, I will not bother people outside of the path.”
Though all participants were able to focus their departmental goals and process
knowledge supporting solutions finding, the responses also lacked a structured, formatted path to
solution, instead offering a logical and functional path sourcing clarity from the next higher level
leader. Because the participants were able to illustrate mutual expectations as being a key factor
to stakeholder success, as well as identify a ready process to clarify confusion, this element is
determined to be an asset.

74

Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood delineating mutual expectations or any reference to the steps to
ensuring mutually supportive paths to in-role success and so does not impact the influence.
Summary
The assumed influence suggesting the participant group knows the steps to role
achievement was validated through the survey and interview. The document analysis portion of
triangulation was neither confirming nor denying in this case. The survey sought examples where
respondents recognized what elements were necessary to delineate mutual expectations, where
92% of participants confirmed this assumption. The interviews further informed this study and
included a discussion about employee understanding of the process to ensure mutual
expectations as being a key element to organizational success, where all participants affirmed the
importance of these solution-finding steps. Data analysis was reviewed in this case, but it did not
inform the study, as no prior work had included language supportive of mutual expectations in
support of organizational improvement. This influence was therefore considered an asset, as the
respondent group was fully knowledgeable and supportive of ensuring expectations were known
among contributing stakeholders.
Survey Q6: I Make the Necessary Adjustments to Improve the Influence of My Role in
Organizational Outcomes
The studies survey found a broad discrepancy in employee stakeholder response to the
survey question asking if they are making the necessary adjustments to improve the influence of
their in-role performance. To be considered an asset, 80% of respondents were required to
choose as a positive majority regarding making necessary role adjustments for improved
75

organizational outcomes. The survey found only 66% responding positively, identifying this as a
need. The respondents to this question were assigned to clarify their response by choosing from
five points: (a) strongly disagree, (b) somewhat disagree, (c) neither agree nor disagree, (d)
somewhat agree, and (e) strongly agree. Eight of the 12 (66%) chose strongly agree, identifying
their recognition of in-role adjustments to influence performance improvement for organizational
outcomes. Two (16.7%) somewhat agreed to their adjustment in effort, while one (8.3%) opted
to neither agree nor disagree, and still one other (8.3%) advised they are making no effort at all
to adjust to the needs of the organization. While 10 (82%) identified their adjusting to
organizational needs, two (16.7%) advised either disinterest in answering the challenge or did
not recognize the need to adjust their in-role effort to ensure organizational success. As identified
above, ten chose positively (82.7%), as depicted in Figure 9. Therefore, the survey element of
this influence was considered an asset.

Figure 9
Results of Survey Question 6 I Make the Necessary Adjustments to Improve the Influence of My
Role in Organizational Outcomes
# Field Choice Count
1 Strongly Disagree 8.3% 1
2 Somewhat Disagree

3 Neither Agree or Disagree
8.3% 1
4 Somewhat Agree
16.7% 2
5 Strongly Agree
66% 8
12

76

Interview Findings
The interview study sought to build upon the last question, “What steps do you follow
when formulating mutual expectations for your colleagues” by asking respondents to “describe
how you know that you’re meeting the expectations of your colleagues.” Respondent 1 listed the
process-driven approach:
Again, it goes back to those morning meetings. I think that we know there is an
expectation for a deliverable. Again, it is a department that must deliver this or that and,
and we need to see whether that’s on track or not. And how I am meeting their
expectation? I’m in a higher role, but basically the team with the expectation
understands their role and has to perform to that deliverable or timeline. They march to
that.
Respondent 2 offered an innate understanding of their recognizing the need to meet
collegial expectations when answering, “It is the same in the meetings, where I might tell another
(role identifier) that I need something from them on a given date and I will know if I am delaying
someone, or I am actually helping them claw some schedule back.” Respondent 3 answered in
the same manner, offering a strong sense of knowing they were meeting the expectations of
colleagues, when they had answered, “well, I am on track, and either on a schedule or ahead of
schedule and I am able to support the workload.” Respondent 4 advised their awareness of
meeting expectations when efficiently offering, “I am on schedule. If not, I hear about it from the
person I owe or the program manager talking about schedule creep. Yeah, you know pretty quick
if you are not supporting in my team.” Respondent 5 offered an anecdotal response, suggesting a
team-related approach to reviewing expectations when answering:
77

We just have to move the process through, and sometimes its schedule, and sometimes it
is a clause, or a test, and so, if one of my coworkers has an issue with something, then
that is spotlighted, and requires focus to ensure I am not letting them down through my
own efforts. And, it is the same for my coworkers not letting me down.. or the
organization, really.
Respondent 6 referenced several layers of process oversight when mentioning those roles
designed to manage progress. Their response included, “I am either on track or supporting them
with a project or some process build, and I am keeping their program on track – it is often
mutually supporting, and there is a program manager, in addition to my supervisor, or the
product line manager, and the engineering manager.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to recognizing the need to adjust in-role
performance for organizational success.
Summary
The assumed influence that stakeholders know how to delineate mutual expectations
around performance goals to ensure the necessary adjustments to improve organizational
outcomes is viewed as a need. Necessary aspects for recognition to perform were missed or
otherwise incorrectly selected during the survey portion. The survey resulted in 67% of
respondents making the necessary adjustments in performance and 33% opting for same-level, or
lesser levels of performance when challenged to meeting organizational needs. The interview
portion showed improvement, with all participants correctly advising their recognition of
78

meeting their colleagues and organizational expectations. There is a mixed response, whereas the
interview proves the participating employee recognizes and understands how to meet
organizational expectations but advises disinterest or lack of recognition of that need during the
survey portion. Given the surveys and interview discrepancy, this influence weights the
interview as more powerful, as employees were able to share with greater literacy in response.
The influence is determined to be an asset.
Assumed Knowledge Influence (Metacognitive): Cooper Aerospace Employees Reflect on
How Their Role Has Influenced Organizational Success
Survey Q4: I Know How to Organize My Processes & Procedures Within My Role to Most
Greatly Leverage the Company Mission
To be considered an asset, all respondents are required to answer an influence-related
question above the cut score (80%), advising the reviewer of that participant’s understanding of
their ability to leverage organizational outcomes. In this case, all respondents agreed, in excess
of 80% (81.25%), that they know how to best organize their processes and procedures, as
depicted in Figure 10. This supports stakeholder participants as having the requisite knowledge
of organizing in-role behavior to leverage organizational outcomes by extension of the company
mission.

79

Figure 10
Results of Survey Question 4 I Know How to Organize My Processes & Procedures Within My
Role to Most Greatly Leverage the Company Mission
# Field Choice
Count
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neither Agree or Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 8.3
%
1
5 Strongly Agree 90% 11
12

Interview Findings
Interviewees were asked to describe the processes they follow to ensure that their
expectations for success in their own role meet organizational performance goals. All
interviewees were able to articulate how they review their work at hand against departmental
guidance and overall organizational goals. Participant 1 offered a gap-analysis type process,
supported by referencing current-state versus end-state:
Well, I think what I do almost daily is to think about the organization’s mission, and I
think about immediate needs, like, you know, whether or not we need to make a sales
target this week or this month, and I balance that against our current efforts, and where
we are in the process. So, basically, I weigh that against our current performance to
80

determine if any gaps exist. If they do, then I adjust my focus to close those gaps in
support of the mission.
Respondent 2 offered an edited but similar response, advising their recognition of
individual goals being the foundation of organizational performance goals, when saying, “Well, I
think I just make sure that I’m hitting all of my requirements and deliverables and that rolls up
into the larger picture.” Respondent 3, a stakeholder with under 5 years at the company,
suggested an organizationally aligned process:
Well, I assume that everything I’m doing is designed to meet expectations for success in
organizational performance. But I think what I would include is that I try to manage my
costs and how long I’m taking on a project because I also cost the company money and
process time. So, I guess I try to manage myself, as well as my work, to support
outcomes.
Respondent 4 walked through the process of their solution to this question:
If I’m making sure that we’re on schedule and on budget, then that’s part of the process.
But, I guess I would step through every step of my processes, which is the customer
schedule, customer hours and engineering hours on a particular program and whether or
not we are loading cost where we need to.
Respondent 5 followed suit, offering their awareness through the experience in
organizing processes and procedures within their role to most greatly leverage the company
mission:
I know that I have got a task at hand, and I will review (departmental work) for
[departmental work] and legitimacy. Things like dates and how our process might
respond to that. And all of that is reviewed against the laws of the country we’re working
81

within on that project. I review for accuracy and competency in that snapshot in time. So,
I know that my efforts meet our performance goals of that day. So, I know that if I am
doing all these things correctly and ensuring we’re working [departmental term], then I
know that I am being successful. I also have to do it quickly. Otherwise, my work is
backing up, and I am not performing, and customers are waiting.
Respondent 6 suggested the pragmatic approach when offering that in-role duties are well
thought out and aligned by the company in support of organizational goals:
I assume that whatever role I have been assigned or duties I have been assigned are in
support of organizational performance goals. But what I tried to do is make sure that I
work smartly and don’t have to add hours or create rework which costs the company
money. We only talk about rework costing money, but if I take too long, that also costs
money.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving process or any reference to the steps to
organizing processes to ensure role achievement.
Summary
The assumed influence that stakeholders know the steps for role achievement was
confirmed through the survey and interview series alone. The survey showed a positive
understanding (81.25 %) that the participating team members perform the processes and
procedures for success and how to best organize them for positive organizational outcomes. The
interview study concurred, advising the research that all participants understood the processes
and knew how to manage their workspace in accordance with leveraging organizational success.
82

This influence is considered an asset, as participating stakeholders were able to fully and readily
share their understanding of the steps and methods required for successful application for
leveraging personal effort in support of organizational goals.
Survey Q7: I Reflect Upon My Performance at the End of My Workday
Ten of the 12 participants were required to choose in the affirmative regarding their
reflection on their day’s work as that work influences organizational missions to be considered
an asset. The respondents to the above questions were asked to choose the answer that best fit
their post-work reflective behavior, with two of the questions informing the influence as an asset.
The questions included (e) strongly agree and (d) somewhat agree. Five respondents chose (e)
strongly agree, the best choice if considering reflecting on the daily effort put forth in support of
organizational goals. Four respondents chose (d) somewhat agree, a positive response for those
considering their reflecting upon daily effort put forth in support of organizational goals. Three
respondents offered neither agree nor disagree (c) in their admission of reflecting upon their
daily efforts supporting organizational goals. The influence was surveyed across the entirety of
the participants, yielding a standard deviation of 0.80, with a mean of 4.17 (1-5 scale), as shown
in Figure 11, supporting this influence as a need.

83

Figure 11
Results of Survey Question 7 I Reflect Upon My Performance at the End of My Workday

Interview Findings
Participants were asked to reflect on a time when fulfilling their role was very effective in
supporting the company’s vision. This question sought to inform the study of the respondent’s
awareness of the connection between organizational goals and their effort to meet those goals
through the performance of prior work. Respondent 1 answered the question by illustrating their
ability to creatively adjust their effort to ensure improved organizational outcomes:
I was able to divest the company of excess inventory through set sales of that inventory
on the open market. Basically, what we did was created an eBay site, where we put the
excess inventory there, and managed that site as though it was an open-door retail shop.
That was effective in supporting the company’s goals because we were able to reduce
inventory and increase sales for that quarter. We were pretty proud of that because it did
not really cost us any more to place product on the open market.
Respondent 2 included a similar effort that highlighted personal effort performed in support of a
clear end state that included defined goals and timeline:
84

I was able to work very steadily on a project for about seven days straight, including
weekends and sometimes pretty late, which allowed us to ship a product prior to last
Christmas. We shipped with like a week to go, and once shipped, we took the earnings
[accounted for the billing], so our profits were higher for that year.
Respondent 3 talked through a time when they had been supportive of organizational
goals by expending extra effort in support of the customer. They had offered that they do “what
it takes” to ensure customer success. Respondent 4 spoke of an event that allowed them to
witness all of the departmental processes combining to ensure organizational success through the
effort to exceed customer expectations. The combined work of this stakeholder, and their teams
of teams, ensured an overall effort:
That saved the company all of those man-hours. All of that newly freed scheduling
allowed opportunity to be introduced, so those engineers that completed work a month
early can now work on other programs and accountants and program managers and
business development people can focus elsewhere. We basically gain a 13th month in the
earning year because the customer is still paying whatever agreed-upon contract that was
initially proposed. Costs were reduced, but the sale price remained the same, so profit is
higher. It’s a home run.
Respondent 5 simply said, “My job is more steady, or consistent than most others, in that I am
always effective and supporting the company’s goals when I am ensuring [departmental
processes are] correct.” Finally, Respondent 6 offered their effort to ensure stop-gaps and
fundamental effort was being put forth in support of ensuring daily success when they had
answered, “I am often in charge of making sure that all of the [redacted] pieces are in place and
the product is on the way. I also have to walk the halls to make sure all the departments have
85

checked their box and the process is not stalled at any one place. That happens sometimes quite
naturally, but we cannot allow it, so I go down and make sure it is moving.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to reflecting upon daily effort as that effort
supports organizational goals.
Summary
All participants were full-time employees with not less than 1 year in their positions at
the company. Each had varying levels of consistent reflection regarding their daily in-role
performance. The survey presented nine team members identifying themselves as reflective,
while three did not have a position, identifying themselves as neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
The interviewees all identified examples of in-role effectiveness and an awareness for knowing
what was required of them and of others working within the overall process. Document analysis,
in this case, did not offer additional data points. The influence is determined to be an asset.
Survey Q8: I Reflect Upon My Performance on Good Days as Well as Bad Days
The second question of its type sought to further identify participant recognition of in-
role performance (Figure 12). When asked if the employee reflects on their work performance on
good days as well as bad, 50% chose they (e) strongly agree. Four participants (33.3%) chose
that they (d) somewhat agree, and two (16.7%) chose (c) neither agree nor disagree. The
reflective influence is seen as an asset.

86

Figure 12
Results of Survey Question 8 I Reflect Upon My Performance on Good Days As Well as Bad
Days

Interview Findings
Participants were asked to talk through a time when they had reflected on their in-role
performance on a day when that performance was not as effective as it could have been. The
question sought to identify respondent awareness for in-role performance adjustment as it relates
to immediate goals. When asked this question, Participant 1 assumed ownership of a failure by
saying:
There have been months where we are not meeting our numbers. This type of
underperformance is my fault, it occurs within my organization, and so I was not as
effective as I could have been. In those infrequent cases, what I should have done was
ensure I had communicated the need early on and followed up more than I did. There are
times when more attention upon a given matter is deserved.
Participant 2 also referenced communicating needs early:
87

I learned to ensure that I was talking about inventory of [department identifier] and
ordering certain things on time, where in the early days, I had probably just assumed all
the right parts would just show up on time for me.
Participant 3 pragmatically suggested a lack of clarity of the particular task: “Oh, I think,
if I have not been effective, it was due to my not understanding the job at hand.” Participant 4
responded in reflection of a time when team performance required greater focus, recognizing,
I have had both difficult conversations and personalities, where I could have done a better
job in sharing the company’s needs and curving poor performance earlier than I had.
Frankly, I was slow and trying to be kind, and that was not supportive of the business. I
have learned from my delay, and now I have the firm conversation early and have found
that the hard conversations are more and more rare.
Participant 5 identified their performance limitations as based on in-role experience,
suggesting, “Sometimes, if we are doing business in an area I am not familiar with, and I do not
have that experience, then I need to review my processes and that slows me down a bit, and so I
am not so effective.” Participant 6 similarly responded, adding that as the organization grew and
business began to include international accounts, so grew the lack of awareness for new
procedures and requirements to ensure customer expectation. Participant 6 advised,
There were times that I just did not know a cover sheet or a box label had to have a
statement or even that a tool could not go in a toolkit because it was prohibited
somewhere. Our shipping department had to start using new types of wood for pallets
because of some wood-boring worm. We did not know that stuff. Heck, we had a guy
lose a tape measurer at an airport because that country would not allow it to enter, and
now I know, so, yeah, it has been a learning experience.
88

Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to what tools or training was in place to ensure
role achievement.
Summary
The assumed influence that employees reflect on how their role has influenced the
organization’s vision was viewed as an asset, as most of the stakeholder group (83.3%)
responded positively. Ten of the group chose in affirmation of their awareness, while two
(16.7%) chose no position, suggesting a lack of awareness for their role or indifference to
company goals. The interviews identified a greater understanding of the influence, as every
participant offered their complete understanding of the question’s intent by responding with
logically aligned anecdotal evidence regarding their awareness of workspace issues and their
need to respond in-role appropriately. Document analysis did not offer further data, supporting
triangulation as an important factor for understanding the lack of earlier focus on organizational
improvements. The influence is determined to be an asset.
Survey Q16: It Bothers Me When I Underperform In My Role.
The survey sought to inform the influence of stakeholders maintaining positive attitudes
about their role in organizational success by asking participants if they are bothered when
underperforming in their role (Figure 13). The question sought to expand data points supportive
of understanding the employee approach to in-role performance achievement and the general
sense of performance requirements. Seven participants (67 %) offered they were being greatly
bothered when underperforming, answering (e) strongly agree, and an additional five
89

participants (33%) offered being somewhat bothered, (d) somewhat agree, when
underperforming. No participants selected less than (d) somewhat bothered. Given the strong
identification with being bothered by underperformance, this influence is listed as an asset.

Figure 13
Results of Survey Question 16 It Bothers Me When I Underperform in My Role

90

Interview Findings
Interviewees were asked how they work through in-role performance processes. The
question sought to determine the connection between in-role performance effort as it relates to
departmental performance outcomes. Respondent 1 offered their response as the same as flowed
through their managerial teams:
My team works through processes and performance issues, and departmental output
issues, really, by trying to understand the “where we need to be, and where we are now.”
And then we manage the gap. And that could be through personnel adjustments or
process adjustments or through the introduction of tools as well.
Respondent 2 offered their example of what issue examination looks like in action: “We
have a morning stand-up, and … we talk about progress. If we are lacking in a certain area, or
someone is slow, then we talk about it then, and we either find a way to assist.” Respondent 3
suggested a similar approach, offering, “We have processes and schedules to follow, and if there
is an issue within something lagging, then management tries to expedite, or sometimes they will
remove work from that person to assist.” Respondent 4 advised much in the same way, offering,
“If there is an issue, we talk about it to ensure we are on track to solution.”
Respondents 5 and 6 both mentioned being schedule driven, and where any one or group
becomes off-schedule, then the company had practices in place to, as Respondent 6 suggested,
“get them back on track.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference in what forms success can exist and thrive.
91

Summary
The survey inquiry offered a consistent response at the 90% level or above, supporting
participating stakeholders maintain positive attitudes about their roles in organizational success.
Interviews supported this effect, with each participant illustrating examples of their team
working through process and organizational performance issues. Document analysis is not a
factor in this inquiry, as no earlier forms of inquiry were discovered. This influence is
determined to be an asset.
Motivation
Assumed Motivational Influence (Intrinsic): Cooper Employees Value the Process of
Performance Improvement
Survey Q3: Choose the Best Company Mission
All volunteer participants can identify all the components of the Cooper Aerospace
mission statement. To be considered an asset, or something useful or valuable for a person or
organization, the influence must support the stakeholder group of focus. All participants
responded correctly (100%), identifying this mission statement (a) seeks to redefine (industry), to
become the most admired (industry) company through our world-class people, innovation and
technology, as a known element in the structure to understanding organizational vision, as seen
in Figure 14.

92

Figure 14
Results of Survey Question 3 Choose the Best Company Mission

Interview Findings
The six participants were asked what level of initial training they had received in support
of achieving steps in their role to meet company mission expectations. All participants (100%)
responded that no initial training was conducted, discussing the initial training as administrative,
supporting human resources and collective organizational training, including safety, sexual
harassment, and, more recently, COVID-19 protections while on-site. When asked what initial
training regarding steps to achieving in-role success had been received in support of mission
success, Respondent 1 shared;
Not one thing. My new boss called me and said he was glad I was on board and that he
would call me at the end of the week to see what I had done regarding engaging my team
to meet our metrics. I am confident in my role, but I am learning every day.
Respondent 2 suggested a disconnect between our missions and vision, advising;
None. I did not receive any success training. Each team member has their own mission
based on departmental goals, and all of those funnel into, or up, into our company vision
to meet or exceed industry. In fact, I can read it because it is on my clipboard, “[redacted]
seeks to redefine [redacted], to become the most admired [redacted] company through
93

our world-class people, innovation and technology,” but we do not support that, we do
not train anyone unless they are a machine operator, so we end up training ourselves.
Respondent 3 echoed fellow participants when stating the response as being easy as the answer
included “nothing.” Respondent 3 added that organizationally initial training includes human
resources training and sexual harassment training, and that was it. “It did not include anything
about being a success, or ensuring company success.” Respondent 4 shared a similar experience,
adding their overall knowledge of available organizational training tools when responding to
what training had been included in their initial entry training:
Nothing for this role, specifically. We have very standardized organizational training.
Initially, for HR and stuff but nothing more. We train the new people our own way, and
then down the road, there is even advanced training if you are in a professional role like
engineers or finance … or manufacturing or something.
Respondent 5 further clarified this: “For my specific role? No, there was not any. There is
initial new hire training, but it has nothing to do with telling an employee how to be successful.”
Respondent 5 added that local training is the local solution, where the department owns the
responsibility for [their] departmental and individual success:
New hires get their HR training and videos, then show up on Day 3 ready for work, but
often don’t know how to do the job, so someone three cubes down shows them how. That
is true across the entire company.
Respondent 5 suggested, in this case, that initial training occurs as incoming employees
are taught in-role success methods by a coworker in their same department. The majority of
interviewees presented this familial (same department) approach to training regarding local
94

influence in the process of initial training. “Training? Yeah, not one iota,” exclaimed Respondent
6, continuing the sentiment, “At [site location], Bill trains Sally, and Sally trains Jim.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees had received initial training emphasizing success in their role, as that role
influenced organizational outcomes or any reference to training programs informing mastering
early skills for in-role-success.
Summary
The survey showed the connection to the employee group of focus’ understanding of
what elements ensure mission achievement, highlighting the connection between individual
success and organizational mission. The interview uncovered a gap in initial employee training
being unsupportive of early in-role success. It was found that initial training programs did not
support the organizational end-state for a lack of structure related to how stakeholders would
achieve the organizational mission. Data analysis did not inform this influence beyond its
existing outside of company awareness. The motivation is evident; however, the path to
achievement requires review. As the participating employees were able to easily identify the
organizational mission, this influence was classified as an asset.
Survey Q10: I Value the Iterative Process of Performance Improvement
The survey question asking if the respondent values the iterative process in performance
improvement found that 83.3% of the tested population chose in agreement, and two respondents
(16.7%) chose either neutral or negative responses. There were negative responses annotated, as
shown in Figure 15, offering discussion for an area of opportunity. This question sought to
95

inform the study of the scale placed on the learning value gleaned from the iterative process of
improving performance.

Figure 15
Results of Survey Question 10 I Value the Iterative Process of Performance Improvement

96

Interview Findings
Participants were asked to discuss what they value most about improving their
performance in their reflections on how their role influences organizational vision. All
participants were able to articulate examples where they had found value in the process of
improvement. Respondent 1 supported this when offering that improvements often bring
additional benefits: “What I value most about improving processes includes greater efficiency
and, often, a new path to solution.” Increased motivation and increased buy-in by participants
can become a very powerful support.
Respondent 2 talked about an earlier described process improvement:
In that case alone, we improved. Two separate teams, all of their processes, and we
followed with inventory control, which made all of our efforts more efficient and also
easier for all of us as teammates. That is a win, and that is valuable. Who does not love
that?
Respondent 3 suggested that the iterative value of performance improvement includes the
customer relationship and developing stronger bonds as durable business protections when
identifying the importance of “ensuring our customers trust us” and later highlighting the
foundation of this “because that creates efficiencies.” Respondent 4 offered that “creating
efficiencies in improving the process makes the entire operation more smooth. It reduces my
stress and probably everybody’s stress. They appreciate their jobs more and appreciate each
other more.” Respondent 5 simply stated, “Anytime the process improves, it becomes easier for
everyone and faster. I value that efficiency.” Respondent 6 added their version of this similar
theme: “Things get better, and just like I said, it is better all the way around. I love that we can
make it easier. This can still be a fun place to work.”
97

Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to what in-role performance adjustment might
look like in application.
Summary
The assumed influence that participants value the process of performance improvement
was confirmed as an asset. Five participants chose (e) strongly agree, and five chose (d)
somewhat agree, for a total of 83.3%. Two chose neutrally or negatively (16.7%). The interview
supported an increase in positive response, where all participants described the value they found
in improving performance processes. Data analysis did not support, nor did it detract from this
inquiry, as the triangulation is supported by the strong values found from the survey and
interview sessions. This influence is confirmed as an asset.
Assumed Motivational Influence (Self-Efficacy): Cooper Employees are Confident About
Their Role in Organizational Success
Survey Q9: I Make Adjustments to My Work-Output When the Mission Demands
All of the stakeholders answered this question in a manner that generally trended
positively, with a mean of 88.4 (Figure 16). Eighty-three percent of participants chose response
levels of 80% or above, with three choosing 100% agreement, three choosing 80% agreement,
and four choosing 89%, 91%, 95% and 98% agreement, respectively. 2 other participants chose
78% and 70%, equating to 16% of the group. As 83% of the participating group chose positively,
the influence is seen as an asset.

98

Figure 16
Results of Survey Question 9 I Make Adjustments to My Work-Output When the Mission
Demands

Interview Findings
Participants were asked to talk through a time when they had reflected on their own
performance as it supported the organizational vision and either decided to make personal
change or sought management support in making changes to their process. The question sought
to identify respondent attitudes toward their awareness of in-role performance adjustment, as
well as of the need for organizational process adjustment. When asked to respond to this
question, Participant 1 returned to an earlier anecdote, supportive of their own actions, and added
a response supportive of process change:
Yes, exactly in the last case where we adjusted our approach to the market by adding an
eBay page which had not existed in the past, and had not ever been attempted in the past.
99

So, yeah, that’s one example of when I adjusted my effort to ensure goal achievement. I
think the other benefit, where I gave thought to my performance, was to begin to include
mid-level management in company guidance, allowing their participation in general
meetings about direction, and what I mean by that is that the shared mission and vision is
then shared with the management and, and those people then are empowered to improve
their processes, based on a shared vision.
Participant 2 discussed an in-role action-related event:
We were delayed in building a string of [department identifier] due to lack of components
being on hand. It turned out that to other teams were using the same [department
identifier] and, therefore, burning through the component inventory. So, I spoke to the
product line manager, who then spoke to the other product line managers, and we came
up with a separate set of parts and tools for our team and a separate set of parts and tools
for their teams. In the end, we shared space but did not affect each other’s work.
Participant 3 related their response to the adjustment of their throttle:
I have had to work harder when the customer expectation increases, or sometimes
smarter, to ensure we support when needed, and that means creatively sometimes. I have
also had to assist in other team calls because the customer knew me and trusted me to
support their issue. We step on the gas when we need to get things done.
Participant 4 looked inwardly when responding, offering a self-assessment and path to solution
when they offered,
I hoped you would not ask that one. Yes, there was one time I knew I was not performing
in my role. And, so, I thought about it and came to the conclusion that I did not know
enough about how I should respond or what the company expected, and, so, I spoke to
100

my supervisor in those terms and basically said, “Hey, I am not doing a good job in this,”
and he helped me get on track, and it included using an approach to our mission and
vision, which connected my job to the company’s goals. It made perfect sense to me, and
I have even shared that with new people so that they do not find themselves in the same
spot.
Participant 5 offered an experience where they had found themselves underperforming and gave
thought to their in-role processes, as further described when they said,
I did not have the particular experience in [department identifier] matter, and so, I was
slow. And so I thought about it, and I talked to my supervisor about assigning work to
come to the respective [department identifier] managers based on their experience, and
then that person would get, you know, always get a certain set of [redacted], you know, I
might have [redacted], and you know something in [redacted], and a maybe few other
assignments and I become the resident expert. So, we talked about making that change to
an alignment of work that made sense, and people could really own their space. Anyway,
it was fun to talk about it because it actually helped to become better at my job by peeling
back all of the layers.
Participant 6 also talked about a time when they were empowered by supervision to help
determine a new path to solution, advising of a similar communicative process:
I went to my supervisor and told him I wanted to go to the shipping company to have a
meeting with them about all the confusing processes. Do not forget, I do not work in the
shipping department, but I get the phone calls when the shipment is frustrated. So we did
that, we talked about our products and what was needed, and suddenly we were all in
101

agreement. It was simply an earlier communication breakdown, so I am proud of that,
actually.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to what in-role performance adjustment might
look like in application.
Summary
The assessment sought to understand if stakeholders reflect on how their role has
influenced organizational vision. The corresponding survey question asked whether participants
reflect on their work output when the mission demands, resulting in a generally positive
affirmation, as 83.3% chose in agreement. The interviews showed the participating stakeholders
were able to describe their processes for increasing their response levels, as the mission
demanded. All responded in articulation of their experience in doing what it took to understand
and respond to the issue. There were no references to recognition of in-role performance output
in the sample years using data from the organization’s annual survey. Given the survey and
interview series, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Survey Q11: I Enjoy Being Engaged in Processes Related to Identifying Root Causes of
Issues.
Seventy-five percent of the participating group identified themselves as enjoying being
engaged in processes related to identifying the root causes of issues (Figure 17). This group of
nine engaged stakeholders selected in agreement at 80% or higher, while the remaining three
stakeholders selected 79%, 60% and 25% levels of enjoying being engaged in processes related
102

to identifying root causes of issues. These three comprise the remaining 25% of stakeholders in
this inquiry. Based on the level of supporting participation, this influence is deemed an asset.

Figure 17
Results of Survey Question 11 I Enjoy Being Engaged in Processes Related to Identifying Root
Causes of Issues

# Field Choice Count
1 Strongly Agree 75% 9
2 Somewhat Agree 8.3% 1
3 Neither Agree or Disagree
8.3% 1
4 Somewhat Disagree
8.3% 1
5 Strongly Disagree
8.3% 1

12

103

Interview Findings
Participating stakeholders were asked to talk to what degree they enjoyed their role in
organizational success. This question was developed to assist the study in its understanding of
engaged stakeholder participation in the steps to performance improvement. Respondent 1
offered being “95% confident in [my] role. With five percent being the times we need to circle
leadership and talk up an issue through. And, maybe it is even only two percent where that
occurs.” Respondent 2 shared their connection to personal performance as it relates to
organizational success: “I am very confident in how my role influences organizational success.
Our product line manager ensures we understand how important each of our roles is to our bigger
company.” Respondent 3 matter-of-factly followed with a similar response: “I am very confident
in my role. I do make all of these things [role-related-processes] work, and I know that
contributes to our overall success.” Respondent 4 carried the theme, advising their being “mostly
confident. Yeah, most of the time, I am pretty confident that I am doing a good job, and that I am
benefiting the company.” Respondent 5 agreed when advising their high level of confidence
based on transactional processes:
I am very confident in my role, and I know that I enhance the organization’s success.
Frankly, because the [department identifier] are tight, and you live to the agreements in
the contract. We ship and sell based on an agreed-upon price for an agreed-upon timeline.
We live to that, and so if all goes as planned in that space and time, then I know I have
done my job, and I have contributed to the company’s goals.
Respondent 6 offered a personal example of their output as it relates to ensuring goals are
met:
104

Oh, I am pretty confident that I helped this company quite-a-many times. I have driven to
customer, to shipping brokers, to airports and other places, just to make sure something
was truly done. You know, a label, a sticker on the plastic wrap.. so the gear shipped
correctly. That is not even my role, as I have told you. I have traveled all over the place
with the [department identifier] team to make sure the customer was supported. Like our
supervisor always says, we are building relationships. … So, yeah, I am confident I help
meet our goals.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to what level of engagement existed among
participants.
Summary
The survey portion of the inquiry suggests the commitment to engagement may not be
fully shared across the population of participating stakeholders, as identified by 25% of this
group selecting less than 80% value in the process for performance improvement. Alternatively,
all participants were able to articulate their enjoyment in their roles and further highlighted
examples where they had intimated their understanding and appreciation for discovering causal
factors that, once adjusted, assisted in improving their and the organization’s overall
performance. Data analysis was reviewed and did not present recent history with a connection to
this inquiry. While the interview was supportive, the survey was not. The assumed influence that
participating stakeholders enjoy being engaged in processes related to identifying the root causes
of issues is considered an asset.
105

Survey Q12: I Am Confident That My Role Influences Organizational Outcomes
All of the study’s respondents selected their choice using a sliding scale tool. Three
(25%) selected a confidence level lower than 80%. Two participants (16.7%) chose confidence
levels within the 80% bracket. Four participants (33.3%) selected confidence levels in the 90%
bracket, and three identified their confidence levels as being 100%. Only three participants
(25%) chose being fully confident that their role influences organizational success, as depicted in
Figure 18.

Figure 18
Results of Survey Question 12 I Am Confident That My Role Influences Organizational
Outcomes

106

Interview Findings
The interviewees were asked to discuss their confidence in their ability to impact
organizational success. The interviews proved valuable, as each of the participants was able to
identify their appreciation for their personal role-impact. Participant 1 noted their personal
benefit in achieving success: “I feel very good about my efforts here and do whatever it takes to
ensure we are successful. I said as much about my inventory resolution story, where we had gone
on eBay, but really, we do whatever it is that it takes.” Participant 2 offered their understanding
of the connection and potential differences between personal performance and the organization’s
approach to performance:
I feel like I myself contribute to the organization’s success. But I also think sometimes, it
falls short because the organization is focused on other product lines and shipping higher
value products versus the one that might be actually due at the customer dock.
Participant 3 added their ability to consider their level of output to the work at hand:
Yeah, I feel very strong about my ability to impact success. As I said, sometimes we wear
hats, and we have to adjust to make it work. And I do that. So, sure, I know not everyone
does, but that’s how I am. I want the customer to appreciate us and order more next year.
Participant 4 humorously offered,
I can negatively impact it more that I can positively impact it I think. But I can keep it
level and on track. I am good at the pulling-things-in a bit part, and that is not too hard,
but by a few weeks, or even months, takes a bit of skill and a lot of luck.
Participant 5 expanded on this when discussing their own output and how that level of
effort is connected to organizational goals:
107

I think that I have great ability to impact, depending on what the customer is expecting
[department identifier] allows me a lot of latitude in some cases where I might make a an
effort to change something. I should say. Insert language that is more supportive of our
effort. Maybe there is an opportunity for a [department identifier], or some other benefit
that could benefit our company in the long run. You have to know your role pretty well,
though, to know that there are additional things you can be doing, rather than just
enduring or processing work, you can actually own it. That’s the real impact to benefiting
the company.
Participant 6 added their being very confident in the process and of their awareness for its
personal benefit: “I feel great about it. I truly feel like I can make a difference, and that is why I
still work here! I feel like I can make a difference for the customer.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to levels of confidence for their role as it relates to
organizational success.
Summary
The survey included a scaled response, where 75% of the stakeholder participants
selected levels above 80% confidence. Twenty-five percent of participants selected between 50
and 69% confidence that their role influences organizational success. The interviews offered
greater insight into stakeholder levels of confidence, with all participants describing their
awareness of how their role impacts organizational performance. Triangulation included the
survey, interview, and document analysis. The influence is determined to be an asset.
108

Survey Q15: I Believe My Actions at Work Translate Directly to Our Organizational Success
Survey responses were slightly adjusted in this response to inquiry, supporting attitudes
about stakeholder roles in organizational success. All respondents (N = 12) participated, with
seven (58.3%) selecting (e) strongly agree and five (41.7%) selecting (d) somewhat agree
regarding positivity in their in-role behavior. These responses identify a foundation of belief that
100% (average) of the surveyed population generally agrees that their in-role behavior, or actions
at work, directly translate to organizational successes. No respondents selected below 90%
agreement, as depicted in Figure 19.

Figure 19
Results of Survey Question 15 I Believe My Actions at Work Translate Directly to Our
Organizational Success

109

Interview Findings
The interviews asked the participants to share a time when the organization supported
their performance by evaluating their work. The questions sought to inform the study regarding
the company’s commitment to guiding stakeholders through evaluation and the stakeholders’
positive attitudes about organizational commitment to individual improvement. Respondent 1
added their engagement with supervision as a “quarterly conversation between my boss, about
the organization, and where we are headed.” Respondent 2 explained how their role enjoys
immediate response to performance:
It works, or it does not work. My work is readily apparent, and so it is a daily evaluation,
right? We also have annual reviews once a year. They are kind of painful. They take
about a week, and we cover the whole year’s work effort. We talk about how we are
doing and what I might be interested in doing.
Respondent 3 followed suit, offering, “Formally, we have annual evals, but my work is
evaluated by someone every time I finish something.” Respondent 4 expounded on the annual
survey, saying that the surveys “are pretty arduous, and it seems like managers are trying to
remember what happened 11 months ago.” Respondent 4 offered this solution to recall, advising,
“I keep a diary. My programs are so historical and so heavily laden with schedule that my work
history is really easily revisited, and I can see how to evaluate myself.” Respondent 5 added their
being “evaluated at each step of my process,” while Respondent 6 suggested a broader-reaching
evaluation, as that review connects the organization to customer perceptions:
We get evaluated every year, formally though it is really just going through the motions.
But I mean the customer and my teammates evaluate my work almost daily. Certainly,
when we are working on projects, and we’re staying up to speed on the schedule, and it
110

ships on time, and the customer likes it, and it all works correctly, then my work is
evaluated, right?
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed only the annual survey itself as evidence
in seeking to inform stakeholders of their roles’ importance and how that information can
support personal development and organizational improvement.
Summary
The survey inquiry was strongly supportive in identifying participating stakeholders as
maintaining positive attitudes about their in-role actions translating directly to organizational
success. As identified here, stakeholders believe their actions at work translate directly to
organizational success. All participants selected generally agree (either somewhat or strongly) in
the basic tenet that growth is founded on their individual effort. The interview portion supported
this in anecdotal evidence and may have discovered an additional need to support inquiry into
the approach and role-to-organizational outcomes connections of the annual survey itself. Data
analysis does not offer support in this inquiry. There is an apparent additional opportunity
discovered, identifying a general sense of stakeholder participant disconnectedness from the
basis for conducting the existing annual survey. Given the study’s survey and the discussion
elements of this inquiry, this influence is determined to be an asset, with potential for
opportunity in an alternate area supporting the annual survey as a tool for feedback and
discussion.
111

Assumed Motivational Influence (Attitude): Cooper Employees Maintain Positive Attitudes
About Their Role in Organizational Success
Survey Q13: To What Degree Do You Believe That Your Organization Grows from Individual
Effort?
The survey portion of this inquiry found eight (8) participants (66%) selecting levels of
agreement above 80% in their belief that individual or personal effort develops organizational
growth. Three participants (25% of the group) agreed within the 70% level, and one selected
within the 50% belief level. The survey findings inform this influence as a need, as shown in
Figure 20.

Figure 20
Results of Survey Question 13 To What Degree Do You Believe That Your Organization Grows
From Individual Effort?

112

Interview Finding
The interview began by asking participants to talk about how they felt when learning of
their own contribution to the organization’s success. The question sought to develop the
connection between individual role output and the employee’s sense of their effort directly
relating to positive organizational outcomes. Respondent 1 offered their recognition of role
achievement: “I feel like I am doing my job correctly. I see that in the profit and loss statement,
of course, but moreover, I see it in the faces of my team members and later, through discussions
with my boss.” Respondent 2 added they “feel like I am where I am supposed to be.” Respondent
3 continued this theme, advising they “like it because it makes me feel proud about what I do,
but also about the organization. Really, our team, I should say.” “I feel great,” offered
Respondent 4, who added, “We are all the same. We want to do a good job, and we want our
processes to be good and supportive of the plan. Yeah, it makes me feel good.”
Respondent 5 simply said, “Oh, I love it. It is terrific to know you’re doing well and
getting that type of performance gratification.” Respondent 6 spoke through relevant experience
when describing a time that was particularly rewarding for them when they said,
I just love it. It is not every day, of course, but sometimes, just once in a while, the
customer will send a note, or we will be on-site with them, and they will tell us, “Hey,
thank you” for that thing, or they will introduce me to a new person, and they will say,
this is the guy that saved us last year, and that feels really good. That means I am part of
the team, and it means that our company is seen as the go-to solution. I love that. We
made that happen.

113

Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to employee understanding of what role-to-
mission performance achievement might include.
Summary
The survey element of this inquiry offered only eight respondents (67%) selected their
remaining positive about their role in organizational success, at 80% or above. The entire
stakeholder group of focus participated, and it was found that four respondents (33%) selected
below 80% in their belief of their individual effort equating to organizational growth. The
finding shows the influence as a need. The interview offered a contrasting view of individual
contribution as personal output influenced organizational outcomes. Further, these personal
contributions were illustrated in the interview sessions as having a recognizable impact on the
individual contributor themselves. Triangulation included document analysis and found that no
earlier annual survey had delved into similar inquiry. Given the outcome of the interview
inquiry, the influence was more aptly articulated and is determined to be an asset.
Survey Q14: I Generally Maintain a Positive Attitude at Work.
All survey respondents generally maintain a positive attitude at work, according to their
selected response to Question 14, as shown in Figure 21. Six participants chose 100%, and six
chose 90%, underpinning the survey’s average of 95% positivity. The strong response to this
inquiry determines that this influence is an asset.

114

Figure 21
Results of Survey Question 14 I Generally Maintain a Positive Attitude at Work

Interview Findings
The interviewees discussed their experiences promoting positivity through anecdotal
evidence of personal success through in-role achievement. The question sought to identify
personal experience in having real success in an assigned role. Respondent 1 offered their own
history when responding to the question about success:
I mapped out the organization and where I felt the strong points and weak points existed.
And then, I focused on fixing the weak points, either by placing people over that space or
by adjusting our model. It worked, and we became the highest-selling facility by the end
of that year. I am super proud of that effort.
Respondent 2 included a similar response when discussing their own role achievements, stating:
I mentioned working to get the end-of-year shipment out. I felt great about that. Mostly
because we all work together, but also because we had to work hard together, and in the
end, it paid off. Also, I think I felt so great about it because no one else does what I do. I
115

am the only [role identifier], and that made me feel pretty good that I was part of that
process, that we worked hard and won..and the customer won.
Respondent 3 told of a time when they had been required to support a customer on-site,
where the shipped product had arrived 2 years before and had gone unused by the customer:
You can imagine. It was pretty dusty and totally covered in sand. This was Saudi Arabia,
and the containers were pretty hammered, even though they were brand new. I was very
proud that I was able to unearth these things and get them up and running with minimal
effort or additional expense.
Respondent 4 took a different approach to response, as they discussed role achievement through
organizational paths:
I think one of the bigger things that made me feel successful is coaching one team
member. And this was just a person who was on loan to the team for a project, but they
needed some coaching on schedule and how to create some efficiencies in their desk
space. And I feel pretty proud of that and not only for the connection but also for the
improvement in that person’s performance. And I know they were happy to have had the
open discussion and know that they were appreciated.
Respondent 5 spoke of a time when they were able to suggest a contractual insertion,
allowing for greater remuneration to the company: “Largely beneficial, and not at all my role.”.
Respondent 6 also chose an example where they had been able to support the next generation of
personnel: “I feel successful when I can think of new solutions, or I also feel especially
successful when we’re training new people, and they seem to really get the customer
connection.”

116

Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference in what forms success can exist and thrive.
Summary
The survey inquiry was strongly aligned with the participating stakeholders generally
maintaining a positive attitude about their role in organizational success. With a 95% alignment
to this inquiry, it can be said that this influence is an asset. The interviews upheld this alignment,
with each of the participants responding in support of their own experience in positivity,
referencing how that made them feel and oftentimes how that effort was seen within the
company or by the customer. The data analysis effort yielded no historical reference to similar
inquiry. The survey and interview sessions were sufficient to ensure this influence remains an
asset.
Organization
Assumed Organizational Influence (CM): Cooper Employees Need Role Support Through
Timely Evaluation
Survey Q17: My Organization Uses Event-Based and Annual Evaluations to Improve My
Performance
The survey sought to inform the influence of stakeholders needing role support through
annual evaluations yielded mixed results. The stakeholder group was surveyed if their
organization uses events and annual evaluations to improve individual in-role performance. In
response, four participants (33%) selected (e) strongly agree, four (33%) chose (d) somewhat
agree, two (16.7%) selected (c) neutrally, and two chose (b) somewhat disagree. As participation
117

included only 66% selecting positively, the influence is determined to be a need. Results are seen
in Figure 22.

Figure 22
Results of Survey Question 17 My Organization Uses Event-Based and Annual Evaluations to
Improve My Performance

118

Interview Finding
The interview asked participants how their organization provides employee evaluations
and how often, to which Respondent 1 suggested their following structured guidelines: “We
manage quarterly evaluations, and then one annual. I am not sure everyone is punctual, but we
certainly manage the annual.” Respondent 2 said equally as much: “We do the annual event
evaluation. But I think they are supposed to do it a little more often.” Respondent 3 intimated
potential improvement: “They are starting to change now. I mean, they are starting to try to have
one on one discussions every few months as well.” Respondent 4 agreed with Respondent 2:
“We do annual evals, but I think they are supposed to be maybe every 6 months, or even
quarterly. I think people are too busy to manage that.” Respondent 5 offered their department
being fully engaged when saying, “My supervisor makes sure we do them,” and then added a
question of confidence in how that information is shared upward: “I am not sure that the
company makes sweeping changes based on my input.” Respondent 6 suggested that “it is a way
for me to think about all the work I did over the year, and it is a way for my supervisor to see all
the work I did, and that I know I’m doing what is requested.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to how evaluations are used in support of
organizational change.
Summary
The survey data offered a unique review of the participants’ responses regarding the
influence, suggesting stakeholders need role support through timely evaluation. Thirty-three
119

percent chose neutrally, or disagreeing, in the belief that their organization supports their
performance improvement through the use of evaluations. In some regards, among the
participating stakeholders, 33% of them believe the process simply “goes through the motions,”
as one participant stated, instead of truly using the data in support of positive change. The
interviews offered a deeper understanding of the stakeholders’ perceptions for the survey,
identifying a lack of understanding of the schedule of organizational evaluations. The interview
also exposed a lack of understanding of the potential use of the forthcoming data. In many cases,
the participants were not confident that the ensuing data were used in support of improvement.
Data analysis did not offer a deeper understanding, as there was no reference to data use in
earlier inquiries. The influence is determined to be a need.
Survey Q18: My Organization Communicates the Results of My Evaluations to Me.
The survey element of this influence sought to scaffold Cooper employees’ need for an
organizational culture of trust. This element sought to understand the connection between
organizational evaluations, stakeholder trust in the company, and its processes by asking
respondents if their organization communicates the results of their evaluations to them. Twenty-
five percent of the stakeholder participant group selected neutrally, choosing (c) neither agree
nor disagree when asked if the organization communicates evaluation results to them. Seventy-
five percent selected that they either (d) somewhat agree or (e) strongly agree that results are
shared. Given the disparity in response, presented in Figure 23 and the lack of clarity for reasons,
the influence is listed as a need

120

Figure 23
Results of Survey Question 18 My Organization Communicates the Results of My Evaluations to
Me

Interview Finding
The participant group (n = 6) was asked to share how trust is shared within their
organization. The question sought to positively connect the individual to their organization.
Interview Participant 1 talked about their sharing communications, flow-downs and discussion
about the company’s mission and vision: “Trust is built on understanding and seeing expected
outcomes.” Participant 2 offered a similar response: “Trust is based on relationships and
knowing people will come through because they have done it before.”
Participant 3 had a similar comment when only including their local team in their
response that “we trust each other on our team, but we do not share much information very
widely.” Respondent 4 expounded on this sentiment: “I do not think there is a lot of trust here.”
Respondent 4 added that the company “has a lot of rotational management..and they change a lot
of our processes every 18 months or so. We trust each other but only see poor decisions from the
121

visiting managers.” Respondents 5 and 6 offered refinement of this theme when saying, “Trust is
shared locally” and “There is trust among our smaller team,” respectively.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed no similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees understood the problem-solving processes or any reference to the steps to
role achievement, nor was there any reference to an expectation of organizational trust.
Summary
The survey element informed the influence that Cooper employees need an
organizational culture of trust, as a need, with only 75% selecting their experience in evaluations
being shared with them. This suggests a deeper inquiry to conclude how evaluations are shared
with participants and how that data is used to inform individual and organizational improvement.
The interview element offered a deeper understanding of participant interaction and how trust is
viewed across the organization. Most participants cited trust being locally evident but
approached with caution when sharing at levels outside of their immediate teams. Data analysis
was used in this case, as the question was asked during the annual survey of 2017 to 2020,
seeking to know, “Do you consider Cooper Aerospace to be a trustworthy organization?” Given
the survey and interview findings, and further supported through triangulation, the influence is
considered a need.
Assumed Organizational Influence (CS): Cooper Aerospace Employees Need an
Organizational Culture of Trust
Survey Q20: I Trust that I Can Share Concerns Within My Team.
The survey asked participants if they trusted that they could share concerns with their
team. The question sought to develop the connection between a culture of trust and the
122

individual. The question included selections of (a) I trust my team to keep things between us, (b)
Yeah, not so much, (c) I am very careful with whom I share concerns, (d) I am generally open
about my feelings, and (e) I haven’t really thought about it. One participant advised that they
have (e) never really thought about it (8.3%). Three shared being (d) generally open about their
feelings (16.7%). Three more shared being (c) very careful about with whom they share (16.7%),
and one shared their position of general trust being (b) yeah, not so much. Finally, four
participants (33%) shared their having local trust, selecting (a) trust(ing) my team to keep things
between us. The varied findings are shown in Figure 24 and present the influence as a need.

Figure 24
Results of Survey Question 20 I Trust That I Can Share Concerns Within My Team

123

Interview Findings
Interviews included all participating stakeholders (n = 6), asking them to share a time
when they had viewed the organization as being especially trustworthy. The question sought to
inform the influence that Cooper employees need an organizational culture of trust, connecting
the concept of personal risk to organizational trust and fairness. Respondent 1 offered the
company coming to the support of an employee-in-need, as they offered an example of
trustworthiness:
An employee had a family issue that required rather extensive attention, and that
employee needed to be away for a greater amount of time than our policies supported.
And so we made the decision that that employee, and any employee that would fall into
such an event, would be taken care of. And, so, I think that the company was especially
trustworthy in support of that team member.
Respondent 2 offered perspective from the customer’s point of view, mentioning “coming
through for the customer.” Respondent 3 harkened to an earlier time when “we were a smaller
organization. We were especially trustworthy because they did what they said they would do..”
Respondent 4 similarly offered, “We all wanted one thing, and that was for the company to do
well.” Respondent 5 offered their perception of the organization today: “I do not think we live it
above mid-management.” Respondent 6 also pointed to an earlier time, suggesting the old
location had “people that we are all focused on doing something good for the customer.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed one similar question seeking to
understand if stakeholders considered the organization was one of trust. There were no questions
124

nor any references to what accountability looks like beyond the organization being a culture of
trust.
Summary
Cooper employees need an organizational culture of trust, which was found to be an
opportunity through triangulation. The survey element offered seven participating stakeholders
(58.3%) being unguarded in their level of openness with their team. Four participants (33%)
remain guarded in their openness. One (8.3%) is not ready to share, advising (b) yeah, not so
much, and one (8.3%) selected (e) offering that they have not really thought about it. The
interview element asked if the participant could articulate a time when the company had been
especially trustworthy from events, as depicted through their memory. The sharing and openness
this question sought to discover were not fully realized outside of the survey, as the interview
offered only positive examples. The data analysis element was no factor in the determination, yet
the survey was weighted more heavily than the interview, as stakeholders were found to be more
open in their survey comments, identifying this influence as a need.
Cultural Model: Cooper Aerospace Employees Need an Organizational Culture of Trust
Survey Findings
The survey event sought to develop the theme of trust, asking participants if they
believed the organization carries the trust of the employees. Stakeholder participants responded
strongly, with one (8.3%) confirming that they (e) strongly agree. Three more (25%) selected (d)
somewhat agree, and three more (25%) selected neutrally. Finally, five (42%) chose that they (b)
somewhat disagree. Counting the neutral three, along with those disagreeing with the
organization carrying the trust of the employees, arrives at eight, or 67% of the total. The
125

remaining 33% included only the positive selecting stakeholders, identifying this influence as a
need, as shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25
Results of Survey Question 21 I Believe My Organization Carries the Trust of the Employees

126

Interview Findings
The interviews sought to develop this theme by asking participants to expound on the
survey question that asked to what level participants believe their organization carries their trust
by asking to share what trust looks like in their organization. Participant 1 offered their example
of what trust looks like by saying, “Trust looks like our doing what we say we are going to do,
and we follow through with our promises to our team and to our customers.” Participant 2
followed in the same tone, offering their definition of trust, including “teammates and leaders
following through with what they had said they would do, and everyone working to support the
customer.” Participant 3 paused and said, “I think we trust each other on our teams, but we do
not share much information, not very widely. … It will get used against you.” Participant 4
quickly responded in a similar vein with, well, there is trust among the team and with our
supervisor, but that is pretty much where it ends. I guess we trust the organization to do what it
says, but I can count a few times they have dropped the ball. Participant 5 took the same
approach, adding their consideration of the company: “Well, trust is something we talk about,
and we advertise it in the vision statement, but I do not think you have to look very far to see it
unraveling.” Participant 6 offered their being fully trusting to the people to their left and right: “I
trust my team, and they trust me.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed one similar question seeking to
understand if stakeholders considered the organization one of trust. There were no questions or
references to what accountability looks like beyond the organization being a culture of trust.
Summary
127

Cooper employees need an organizational culture of trust, which was found to be an
opportunity through triangulation. The survey element of this inquiry informed the study by
identifying that the majority of the participants (eight of 12) did not agree that the organization
carried the trust of its employees. This equates to 67% of the stakeholder group not being
confident in their organization. The interview element sought to further develop the connection
to trust, with most participants defaulting to local trust of their immediate teams, with little
discussion of trust above that level, though one participant advised their not sharing much
information, as it would “be used against you.” The data analysis element did not inform the
inquiry beyond the one prior annual survey question, asking if the organization was one of trust.
Given the data discovered through triangulation of the survey, interview, and data analysis, the
influence is considered a need.
Cultural Model: Cooper Aerospace Employees Need an Organizational Culture of Trust
Survey Findings
The survey element of this inquiry offered participants to select their perception of the
organization being a recommendable trusted workspace. The question sought to develop a deeper
understanding of trust between participants and the organization, using the scenario of inviting
outsiders into the current organizational climate. Two participants (16.7%) selected 100 on the
scale, indicating their complete recommendation. Three more participants selected 94, 91 and 80,
each, or simply stated as levels above 80. Seven chose levels below 80, with two (16.7%)
selecting 71 and 70, respectively. The remaining five participants (41.7%) selected a value of 50
in their response to recommending the organization as a trusted workspace. As depicted in
Figure 26, the influence is determined to be a need.

128

Figure 26
Results of Survey Question 22 I Would Recommend This Organization as a Trusted Work Space

Interview Findings
The interview asked participants to share their experience with how the organization
holds employees accountable. The question sought to connect the employee’s personal
experience in accountability among their peers with the concept of working within an
organization of trust. Participant 1 offered their support to managerial delivery:
“We ensure employees are praised publicly,” then adding, “and a general communication that an
employee has either been removed or otherwise assigned.” Participant 2 included organizational
structure when responding to the idea of accountability: “We have policies and standards and …
well, sometimes it might depend on who you are.” Participant 3 simply added that from their
perspective, they “do not think they do” hold everyone accountable. Participant 4 said as much:
129

“I do not think there is a lot of that, and it kind of depends on who you are.” Participant 5
humorously acknowledged the path of inquiry:
Oh, you’re asking all of the good questions,” and added, “I do not think they do hold all
employees publicly accountable. Not equally, I mean. Trust is low. Accountability is low.
Depending upon who you are, you can get away with a lot of things.
Participant 6 viewed the issue from their organizational position, initially advising,
At my level, we are all held accountable, and if we do well, everyone knows about it. If
we do not do well, the boss is going to talk with us. I think a couple of layers up, then you
do not see that.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed one similar inquiry seeking to understand
whether employees believed the organization to be a trusted workspace.
Summary
The survey offered insight into the influence that stakeholder employees need a culture of
trust by asking whether the stakeholder group recommends their organization as a trusted
workspace. The survey found 58.3% of participants scoring the company below 80. The
interviews identified all participants as having an understanding of what training was available to
them, though it was not determined how many of the participating stakeholders are taking
advantage of this opportunity. Data analysis found two earlier questions from the annual survey,
which asked respondents if they (a)., believed the organization was a trusted workspace, and (b).,
would recommend the organization’s “employee scholar” program to others. Given the survey’s
varied responses and the general consensus of training as optional, the influence is determined to
be a need.
130

Assumed Organizational Influence (CM): Employees Need the Organization to Support
Their On-the-Job-Skills Mastery
Survey Q19: My Organization Uses the Results of My Employee Evaluations to Improve the
Overall Organization.
The survey question sought to further develop the understanding of participant
confidence in their organization’s use of employee evaluations to improve the overall
organization. The study sought to connect the important feedback dialogue created through
evaluations with organizational improvements supporting employee skills mastery. The findings
of the 10-point survey spread were widespread, with three participants (25%) selecting in
complete agreement (10) of evaluation results being employed in the improvement of the overall
organization. One participant (8%) selected 7, two participants (16.7%) selected 6, 5, and 3
degrees of confidence, and two participants (16.7%) chose the very low 2 and 1 levels of
confidence in their evaluations being used for improvement, as shown in Figure 27.
131

Figure 27
Results of Survey Question 19 My Organization Uses the Results of My Employee Evaluations to
Improve the Overall Organization

Interview Findings
The interview element asked participants to share how the company provides job mastery
through skills training. Participant 1 described the organizational structure in place to support
ongoing mastery, mentioning “how initial training is followed up with mid-level and senior-level
coursework.” Participant 2 followed this same line, adding that the organization offers
“engineering, or finance, or most other departments courses. For engineering, it is Engineering I
and Engineering II. They have lean six-sigma, too. … Lots of courses, but I do not think a lot of
people take them.” Participants 3 and 4 offered much of the same response, allowing, “there are
132

all levels of training, depending on your department…all kinds of stuff, if that is what you want
to do.” Participant 5 added their own motivated perception of the approach to training, discussing
what the program can achieve, beyond role mastery, when they had offered, “we also are in those
courses with people outside of this site. We are meeting and getting exposure to leaders all over
the company.” Participant 6 included an in-role response instead of the more common
organizational opportunities view shared by their stakeholder group:
I already have the skills I need to be successful. Oh, I guess if I need “new forklift”
training, or specialty gas, or enclosed-space training, then I can get that, but I am not
going to take a list of classes for stuff I already do.
Document Analysis
An analysis of past employee surveys revealed one similar question seeking to
understand if stakeholders considered the organization was one of trust. There were no questions
nor any references to what accountability looks like beyond the organization being a culture of
trust.
Summary
The study sought to inform the influence that Cooper employees need an organizational
culture of trust. The survey session asked participants if the results of their evaluations were used
to improve the organization, to varied responses using a 10-point scale. Only 25% of the
participant group (three of 12) selected positively. All others (75%) selected from Levels 1 to 7.
The interviews sought to delve more deeply into the relationship between accountability and
organizational trust, asking how the organization holds all employees publicly accountable.
Participants were supportive of praise and guidance methodologies, yet they were generally
aligned with mentioning an apparent disparity in accountability, advising that some infractions
133

went without public accountability. The data analysis element was a minor factor in this inquiry,
as previous annual surveys have asked if participants view the organization as one of trust. The
influence is determined to be a need.
Summary of Influences
The following sections summarize the KMO influences for this study and their final
determination of being needs or assets. Table 6 references each knowledge influence as needs or
assets.

Table 6
Knowledge Determination as Need or Asset
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
(i.e., factual, conceptual,
procedural,
metacognitive)
Influence
determination:
Need or asset
Cooper Aerospace employees know the
steps for role achievement
Procedural Asset
Cooper Aerospace employees know how
to delineate mutual expectations around
performance goals
Procedural Asset
Cooper Aerospace employees reflect on
how their role has influenced
organizational vision
Metacognitive Asset

134

Cooper Aerospace Knowledge
Cooper Aerospace employees have a clear understanding of the steps to role achievement
and are able to delineate mutual expectations around performance goals, as well as reflect on
how their role influences organizational goals and vision. Each influence sought to ask the
employees about their level of knowledge. Table 7 shows that the participating stakeholders
understand how to ensure success in their roles, as well as to ensure mutually supporting role
expectations and identified that the majority of participants effectively reflect on their efforts to
support performance improvement. General process knowledge is affirmed as an asset.

Table 7
Motivational Determination as Need or Asset
Assumed motivational influence Motivation type
(i.e., intrinsic,
self-efficacy)
Influence
determination:
Need or asset
Cooper employees value the process of
performance improvement
Intrinsic Asset
Cooper employees are confident about their
role in organizational success
Self-efficacy Asset
Cooper employees maintain positive attitudes
about their role in organizational success
Attitude Asset

135

Employee Motivation
Cooper Aerospace employees demonstrated positive responses across the motivational
attributes. Each question sought to ask the employees about their level of motivation to
determine in-role motivation. Each of these (intrinsic, self-efficacy, and attitude) motivation-
related influences were determined to be assets among the stakeholders (Table 8).

Table 8
Organizational Determination as Need or Asset
Assumed organizational influence Influence
determination:
Need or asset
Cooper employees need role support through timely evaluation
(CS)
Need
Cooper Aerospace employees need an organizational culture of
trust (CM)
Need
Employees need the organization to support their on-the-job-
skills mastery (CS)
Need

*Cultural model (CM) cultural setting (CS)

136

Employees were unanimous in their perceptions of organizational support. In each case,
the organization was said to require an improved response to the evaluation and improvements in
trust building. The stakeholder group of focus also suggested that the organization’s skills-
mastery focus could be improved in the majority of respondents’ experience. The organization
was found to be lacking in consistency and structure to support improvised engagement through
this stakeholder group. It was inferred by the focus group that the organization was not focused
on creating long-term, dedicated team members.
Organization
Cooper Aerospace employees have identified an area of need. The participating
stakeholder group response suggests their belief that the organization did not do enough to
support individual performance improvement. The outcome further identifies opportunities for
improvement within the organizational structure of the site location. The table above shows a
strong correlation to participants being uniformly aligned with the need to improve
organizational support.
Summary
Chapter Five articulates KMO influences related to employee performance improvement
and this study’s recommendations to ensure these goals are met. The recommendations are
organized around the KMO needs identified in this study. Using the new world Kirkpatrick
model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to identify the four levels of reaction, learning,
behavior, and their subsequent results can be leveraged to support this organization.

137

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Chapter Five answers the study’s question about the recommended KMO
recommendations for Cooper Aerospace’s improved engagement. As identified in Chapter One,
this gap analysis study addresses the problem of employee engagement within a publicly held
aerospace business. Employee engagement is a term used to identify an individual’s level of
connectedness to their workplace organizations (Harter, 2018).
Specifically, engagement references that person’s commitment to their work and to their
workplace. Understanding the employee’s role, as it influences organizational outcomes, was
emphasized throughout this study in the effort to develop a path to increased organizational
performance. Corporations and their subsets are keenly aware of the need to connect employee
work effort to organizational goals, yet they are failing in this effort. Organizations miss the
opportunity to improve operational and individual performance by as much as 51%, as indicated
by year-end returns (Towers-Perrin, 2006). This value in underperformance represents the
improvement gap. If the same organizations were able to connect an employee’s understanding
of the impact of their role and ultimately to the organization’s vision, then year-end performance
could potentially increase by that same value.
Cooper Aerospace operates an international organization of businesses that serve the
commercial and defense-related aerospace markets. Cooper is managed under the Raymond
Technologies (Raymond) umbrella. Raymond companies include businesses that design,
manufacture and distribute aircraft engines, aircraft interiors, communications, LASER warning,
and fire suppression systems for its global end-users. Headquartered in the eastern United States,
the 70,000 people strong organization cites being dedicated to redefining aerospace, relentlessly
tackling the toughest challenges in their industry. Cooper imagines ways to make the skies and
138

the spaces they touch smarter, safer and more amazing than ever. Along with their customers,
Cooper charts new journeys and reunites families. They protect nations and save lives. Cooper
believes in the power of intelligence and partnership to guide its customers into the future. The
paths Cooper paves with their stakeholders lead to limitless possibility, and the bonds they form
propel us all higher again and again. Cooper is constant in its evolution, connected to its
customers, compelling as it steps forward, and redefining aerospace.
Organizational Performance Goal
Cooper Aerospace has an established performance goal that by December 2022, it will be
100% compliant with all Raymond Technologies organizational training requirements. This
study intended to determine whether engagement training was necessary during this time in
support of organizational mission expectations. If necessary, the overall approach will include
the organization’s “individual role-to-organizational mission” plan. This approach was
established after initially meeting with Cooper’s leadership when it was determined that
“suspect” areas for evaluation existed within the current engagement and well-being framework.
Cooper Aerospace’s performance improvement is intimately linked to both Raymond
Technologies’ organizational performance improvement and to the employee’s personal work
capacity. This awareness for role capacity was based upon employee description of their
performed duties, combined with management’s expectations for that role. The approach itself
informed both the employee and the organization of what they were doing and what was possible
when the two elements leveraged one another (Braun et al., 2012). Together, these descriptions
present a representation of employee and organizational success. The achievement of Cooper
Aerospace’s performance goals was measured through the findings of Raymond Technologies’
139

audits beginning in 4Q22. Currently, Cooper Aerospace is 75% compliant with Raymond
Technologies’ organizational training requirements. The estimated performance gap is 25%.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
achieving the organization’s performance goal; Cooper stakeholder groups include employees,
managers, administration and the customer base. Employees most greatly impact achievements
in realizing engagement improvements. Managers most significantly impact the ongoing
guidance and motivation empowering employee action. Administration is included, as it is an
equally important element in the effort to ensure a continued focus on this important program
and all the more important in their effort to select high-performing talent for the next level of
training while ensuring training programs accessible to everyone. Finally, Cooper’s global
customer base is a significant stakeholder in the Cooper organization as buyer and mirror-of-
trust.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
By July 2023, Cooper Aerospace employees will increase their on-the-job engagement by
75 % in compliance with Raymond Technologies’ organizational training requirements. Cooper
employees engage their work with a clear understanding of the steps to role achievement and are
able to delineate mutual expectations around performance goals, as well as reflect and adjust
their response to how their role influences organizational goals and vision.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
This project was a gap analysis to examine the KMO influences that interfere with
organizational performance. The analysis began by generating a list of assumed influences on
140

Cooper Aerospace’s employee engagement needs. The following is a list of questions that assist
in guiding the gap analysis:
1. What are the KMO influences that contribute to employees’ engagement based on
how their role contributes to the organization’s performance?
2. What are the recommendations for 100% engagement based on employees’ role in
organizational performance?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
This chapter provides recommendations for the problem of practice based on the
literature and results from the mixed-methods study. It proposes an implementation and
evaluation plan to address the gaps in performance. This chapter serves to provide a resolution
for the research questions proposed in this study. The previous chapter outlined the leading
themes of Cooper Aerospace’ participating employee stakeholder performance status. Based on
the research, chapter recommendations must focus on ensuring that the stakeholder understands
what elements support role achievement and what elements support role improvement. The basis
of this performance improvement project was derived from the recommendations developed by
Clark and Estes (2008) in their seminal gap analysis work.
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge recommendation framework supporting this chapter follows Chapter Two
of Krathwohl’s (2002) Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy and provides the foundational basis from
which to assess knowledge-related performance gaps. The approach to this framework makes use
of factual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge influences. Aligned with this framework,
this study assumed these knowledge influences would impact Cooper Aerospace employees’
ability to improve their in-role performance levels. The data collected through the course of this
141

study identifies knowledge influences that will inform the stakeholders’ ability for performance
improvement, particularly in those areas pertaining to procedural knowledge.
Participating employees identified an area where their data suggests that most (>80%) are
making the necessary adjustments to improve the influence of their in-role performance. Table
D1 (Appendix D) presents the validated knowledge influences, including recommendations
aligned with each of the theoretical principles of knowledge acquisition.
The results of this study present employee stakeholders as knowledgeable about their
duties as role-players and how their role impacts organizational goal achievement. Continued
awareness of how stakeholder roles inform the leveraged workspace, however, remains an area
for ongoing process improvement as stakeholders across the organization begin to share best
practices with the communities of practice teams. Understanding mutual expectations is a
foundational component of how leveraging one’s in-role performance to others’ in-role
performance can strengthen the organization’s productivity (Leitão et al., 2019).
Increasing Employee’s Procedural Knowledge of Working as a Jointly Aligned Team Member
To ensure performance improvement, it is imperative that team members be aligned with
other employees across the organization’s many departments. This jointly aligned focus allows
mutual support and success modeling that improves performance (Bandura, 2007; Clark & Estes,
2008). Improving the understanding of mutual expectations also supports employee knowledge
improvements. Clark and Estes (2008) identified procedural knowledge being increased when
the declarative knowledge required to successfully perform the task is available or known. Based
on learning through expert example (Bandura, 2007), employee stakeholders are positioned to
gain the necessary procedural knowledge required to improve in-role performance. The
following recommendations focus on the listed influences determined by the study as the highest
142

priority for the organization. The recommendations include introducing training presented by
subject-matter experts that supports adapting working-role behaviors that achieve organizational
goals and introduces how one’s-role influences another, as both roles leverage mutual strengths
to achieve organizational goals. This collective effort promotes a synergy that ensures, as Leitão
stated, strengthening the organization’s productivity.
Increasing Employee’s Metacognitive Knowledge of Working as a Team Member
Through the data collection, the employee’s reflection on how their role influences
organizational outcomes is determined to be an asset. Borrowing again from Bandura’s (2007)
social cognitive theory, it is recommended that expert modeling, learner practice and corrective
feedback be continued in a formal process. Formalized modeling, practice and feedback will
allow stakeholders to underscore their understanding by receiving these from industry speakers
and peers whose operational experience supports those roles. Ongoing support will include peer
collaboration and discussion, as well as learners openly talking about their thinking process as
they practice performance reflection.
Motivation Recommendations
As outlined by Clark and Estes (2008), the concept of motivation consists of three
factors: choice, persistence, and mental effort. In the context of this study, choice included the
decision to work in support of specific goal achievement. Persistence, in this effort, included the
ongoing commitment to this work, regardless of the challenges presented. Mental effort is the
thoughtful approach to learn in-role processes and procedures and to deeply considering
initiatives and outcomes in the effort to plan and mitigate risk to in-role performance
improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
143

Multiple theories support the concept of motivation, though, for this study, intrinsic
value, self-efficacy, and attitude were selected as the three most likely to inform the motivational
influences as most profound among the stakeholder group. Specifically, the data collection found
intrinsic value and personal attitude were mixed, where survey and interview sessions were not
fully aligned with one another and therefore remain listed as needs. Intrinsic value includes the
sense of personal enjoyment developed from a given experience, and attitudes include one’s
mental position reflected in their personal behavior (Pintrich, 2003). The study also found self-
efficacy theory to be a need among the stakeholder group. Self-efficacy theory considers one’s
belief that they are able to complete a certain task or process correctly (Pajares, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).
Developing High-Levels of Intrinsic Value Among Team Members
The data collection revealed that the participating stakeholders are neutral in intrinsic
value, a necessary element in achieving a sense of enjoyment in something. When team members
do not enjoy the process, they give less personal effort to that process (Eccles, 2006). Creating
value for participating stakeholders through consistent organizational support becomes an
important strategy to ensure overall performance improvement. When team members are
inherently interested in a task or project, their attention and desire for positive outcomes
increases (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Given the desire for positive
experiences, the recommendation is to include rewards as a positive outcome from performance
improvement, as evidenced by Kuvass and Dysvik (2009) in their study regarding perceived
investment in employee development and intrinsic motivations.
Positive outcome from in-role performance was highlighted as being a significant factor
in participant interest and effort given. The employee’s effort, in general, is tied to the value they
144

place on the effort to achieve the task, as well as the premise of the task itself. Together, this
consistent connection to effort and outcome is deeply determinant of persistence (Zhang et al.,
2017). Understandably, connecting employees to the reasons which underpin the effort becomes
paramount to outcome. Recommendations include the “why” of what they do, including
rationales about the importance and transferability of tasks (Pintrich, 2003), and recognizable
models, including shop-floor posters and wall-hangings depicting the end-user whose lives are
protected by company products and the business’s collective aspirational goals.
Developing High-Levels of Self-Efficacy Among Team Members
Self-efficacy describes a person’s perception of their ability to achieve a specific goal
(Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy is generally developed through a series of events
where people are influenced by outcome experiences, feedback, and the emotional effects of
success or failure in the process to complete a specific task. Self-efficacy is recognized to be
self-sustaining among individuals who attach enjoyment to achieving success in their work,
whereas the same individuals will apply additional resources where needed to ensure that success
is achieved (Çetin & Aşkun, 2019).
Recommendations for increased self-efficacy among stakeholders include developing a
training series where inclusive scenarios provide an opportunity for successful outcomes in a
controlled environment. Additional initiatives that might be implemented include recruiting new
hires with high self-efficacy, improving coaching strategies, delegating and empowering
employees to instill confidence, allowing questions and being approachable at all levels. The
data collection suggests that there are areas for improvement in this sector, which include
keeping goals clear and focused and effectively communicating need across the organization.

145

Maintaining a High-Level of Positive Employee Behavior Among Team Members
The data collection indicated that the stakeholder group of focus believes they are
capable and possess the necessary behaviors supporting satisfaction in their roles in
organizational success. It is recommended that training scenarios include leader storytelling that
focuses on past failure and positive response to that failure. Anderman and Anderman (2009)
posited that motivation, learning and performance are enhanced when participants attribute
success or failures to the effort rather than ability.
Of further recommendation are the continued specific events training where stakeholder
participants are engaged in success-oriented role play, allowing goal achievement and positive
response in a role-aligned environment. Assisting in developing positive attitudes about work
and the necessary requirements of in-role performance is a solutions-oriented approach to
leveraging outcome (Pajares, 2006).
Organizational Recommendations
As discussed in Chapter Two, Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that culture is the
window through which an organization’s potential for growth can be viewed. Culture
continuously governs all attempts at performance improvement by moderating and mediating
these processes. Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) archetype of cultural models and cultural
settings offers the two guiding frameworks. Gallimore and Goldenberg highlighted cultural
models and settings as the prominent framework for examining organizational culture. Cultural
models include the values demonstrated across the organization. The model ensures a bias for
expected behaviors, as the model creates the lens through which all actions are viewed. Cultural
settings, alternatively, manifest themselves as observations of the cultural model in action.
146

The organizational influence data collection offered clarity to the study, as stakeholder
behavior was impacted in the areas of employees needing role support provided by timely
evaluation and in the employees needing an organizational culture of trust. In particular, a culture
supporting employee performance improvement through timely evaluations was revealed as
being a gap in current processes, as was the need for a culture of trust, where employees perform
within a place of openness and fairness (Hoffman et al., 1994). Table D3 summarizes the
organizational influences and promotes recommendations tied to the
principles of organizational change.
Cultural Models: Cooper Employees Need Role Support Through Timely Evaluation
This study revealed that Cooper Aerospace supports employee evaluations to ensure
supervisory communications. The study also recommends that organizational evaluations should
begin to include the development of awareness among employee stakeholders regarding how
their individual role impacts the organizational mission. Timely evaluation of in-role
performance and employee behavior is a key developmental tool in ensuring role-to-mission
success. Organizations are improved when team members recognize the impact of their roles and
align their in-role performance with organizational expectations for success. Woerkom et al.
(2020) identified that teams that assign tasks according to strengths indicate improved levels of
engagement and performance, leveraging well-being and growth. This philosophy supposes that
Cooper employees would benefit from an active awareness of how the strengths of their
individual role, when performed well, leverages organizational growth.
Cultural Model: Cooper Aerospace Employees Need an Organizational Culture of Trust
This study revealed employee stakeholders identifying a need for an improved culture of
trust within Cooper Aerospace. Trust underpins communication, commitment, teamwork and
147

productivity. Klynn (2021) advised that trust connects team members to their organizations and
allows for risk-taking, comfort-in-change, and improved performance as employees engage in a
greater intimacy between their role and the organization. The concept of bilateral trust in the
workplace has been identified as offering a space for psychological safety, allowing reduced
stress and feelings of openness and transparency (Edmondson, 2002). Tools for building and re-
building this type of trust include following through with commitments, appropriate and
transparent communication, and universal respect. According to Wilkins (2018), trust is essential
to building and maintaining mutually respectful relationships and must continually be cultivated,
as its complexity is inherently affected by personalities and their processes.
Cultural Setting: Cooper Aerospace Employees Need the Organization to Support Their
Mastery of On-the-Job Skills
The results of the study reveal Cooper Aerospace is engaged in the conduct of training
programs that intend to indemnify the organization through the delivery of mandatory training
designed around employee role groups. In general, finance and accounting, contracts, and sales
and marketing training requirements might include Sarbanes-Oxley (Financial Audit
Requirements for Public Companies) or Graft and Bribery. Similarly, engineering may have
safety analysis or certifications training, including International Organization for
Standardization. While there is training in place, the formal curriculum does not focus on how
individual employees conduct the duties of their role. The study further identified local training
being delivered through a department subject-matter expert or by a teammate with available
time. In either case, the curriculum is not designed by the organization with organizational goals
and strategy as a focal. Carpen (2021) advised appropriate training can improve retention,
engagement and performance and offers greater opportunities within the organization. The
148

author goes on to say that the organizational approach to training should be reviewed and
changed when employee dissatisfaction and turnover are high and morale and productivity are
low. A recommendation supporting widespread learning based on organizational goals and
strategy would be to structure an in-role learning curriculum based on role groups and functional
communities and ensure leadership clearly sets the tone for business direction. For example,
leaders should communicate their vision every time they speak and establish concrete goals with
the mission prioritizations in mind.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides the
framework upon which this study’s implementation and evaluation are based. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) improve upon several training programs, identifying four levels of evaluation
that most accurately capture the training learning process. Training is broadly understood as the
promotion of learning and is further identified as a success when learners present an observable
change in their behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008). The model approaches the four levels of
evaluation from the point of output, working back toward the point of introduction. In the
author’s order, the four levels are (4) results; (3) behavior; (2) learning; and (1) reaction. The
four levels are described in the following paragraph (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Results, the fourth level in the Kirkpatrick model, is the point of departure and requires
the analyst to clarify expectations and outcomes. Behavior, the third level, defines the required
behaviors critical to level four’s expectations. Learning, the model’s second level, measures
participant skill levels, knowledge, and the motivations required to ensure their approach to
engagement will achieve organizational goals. Reaction, the model’s base level, identifies
149

participant fulfillment regarding the organizational support they have received to employ their
learning. Combined, the four levels of the model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) offer a
pragmatic framework for the analysis, assessment and execution of the recommendations which
address Cooper Aerospace employee mastery of on-the-job skills.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Cooper Aerospace’s mission defines the organization as being dedicated to redefining
aerospace and, together with its customers, relentlessly tackling the toughest challenges in our
industry. Cooper’s mission faces widespread challenges today, including rising material costs,
unexpected resignations, market segment lay-offs, and changes to customer approach, including
work-from-home and travel inconsistencies in international entry requirements. The recent
acquisition of Raymond Technologies has introduced additional change as Cooper adjusts its
branding, processes and its approach to business. Greenwood and Anas (2021) suggested that
more employees are leaving their jobs for reasons like feelings of being overwhelmed and
undervalued within the construct of an unsustainable work life. People are leaving for the idea of
a balanced life elsewhere.
The study evaluated Cooper Aerospace’s employee stakeholders to determine if
engagement training is necessary at this time. The study informs that need, advising the
introduction of role-specific training as an improvement to current programs already in place.
For Cooper to close this gap in performance, it became necessary to identify problems, plan an
approach to solution, develop the study, and enlist volunteers interested in improving their
organization. The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) frames the
implementation and evaluation of the primary recommendations for closing this gap.
150

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 9 presents the outcomes, metrics, and evaluation methods that will indicate Cooper
Aerospace’s goal progression in implementing a successful role-to-mission engagement
program. Success in this area includes increases in organizational growth, stakeholder
satisfaction, and employee commitment. Metrics and outcomes identify enhancements to
reputation and improved employee retention if success is achieved.

Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Improved appreciation for
Cooper Aerospace as
global best employer
Positive social media ratings
within relevant websites
and periodicals
Recruitment team report on
Percentage increase in new
LinkedIn followers; Annual
Survey increase in Cooper
being worthy of
“recommendation to a friend
as a good place to work”;
Increase in Indeed.com type
“Leadership Approval
Ratings”
Improved appreciation for
Cooper Aerospace as best
organization to work
within
Increase in employee
referrals; positive social
media comments on
Glassdoor.com-type sites
Recruitment team reporting of
referrals, applicants, fills and
turnover
Increased interest in
publicly announced
Cooper Aerospace open
positions.
Percentage of qualified
applicants per open
requisition
Recruitment team reporting of
applicants, fills, and turnover.
Internal outcomes
151

Outcome Metrics Methods
Employee stakeholders
increase in-role
performance
Jobs completion increase

Jobs request for additional
responsibility
Managerial and Programs
Management reporting of
goals achievement

Department managers will
maintain performance metrics
using skills-specific
measurements that include
managerial and employee
discussions for improved
performance.
Increased employee in-role
confidence and
satisfaction
Reduced departmental skill-
related errors and increased
departmental task
completion in design to
increase performance, team
member confidence and
improved attendance
Managerial and Programs
Management reporting of
improved performance in
goals achievement

Department managers will
maintain performance metrics
using skills-specific
measurements that include
managerial and employee
discussions for improved
performance.
Increases in hiring-from-
within
Percentage increase in
internal fills versus external
fills
Recruitment team reporting of
internal fills and maintaining
metrics regarding process
time and hire-related expense
(if hiring from outside the
company).
Increased retention Pragmatic focus on
individual improvement,
guided by departmental
goals, achieves greater
performance and
stakeholder confidence,
equating to
-Reduced placement costs
-Reduced severance costs
-Reduced legal costs
Director, human resources will
collect and report quarterly
data from hiring practices,
turnover, associated costs,
including severance, and will
inform senior counsel/
director, legal, with severance
information in support of
counsel’s report on costs.
152

Level 3: Behavior
Cooper Aerospace employees must demonstrate three critical behaviors to ensure the
development of a successful role-to-mission engagement program. Employees must first
demonstrate a general proficiency in their work-role. Second, the employees must demonstrate
that they know how to delineate mutual expectations for in-role performance. Third, the
employees must demonstrate on-the-job skills mastery to ensure success in the combination of
these synergies, which introduce an improved mental approach to roles and strategies, enhancing
personal and organizational growth.
Critical Behaviors
Table 10 identifies the behaviors, metrics, methods of measurement and timing in the
presentation of the identified critical factors.

153

Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
1. Cooper employees
demonstrate a
general proficiency
in their work.
Percentage increase in
status of work-in-
progress to
completions.
Managerial metrics
management,
supporting
measure of
completions.
Regular reporting
cycles; Stand-Up;
Departmental
Progress
Meetings;
Program Status
2. Cooper employees
must demonstrate
that they know how
to delineate mutual
expectations for in-
role performance
Percentage of increase
in employees who
know how to delineate
mutual expectations
for role performance
Managerial and
Programs
Management
status meetings
and metrics
Regular reporting
cycles; Stand-Up;
Departmental
Progress
Meetings;
Program Status
3. Cooper employees
must demonstrate
on-the-job skills
mastery
Percentage of increase
of employees
performing all skills of
on-the-job mastery
Managerial and
Programs
Management
reporting of goals
achievement;
monitoring of that
employee’s
contribution to
others’ success
Regular reporting
cycles; Stand-Up;
Departmental
Progress
Meetings;
Program Status

Required Drivers
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) advise that a specific collection of drivers is
paramount to ensure that the critical behaviors described above are organizationally adopted and
sustained. Specifically, the authors cite the implementation of techniques and strategies to
underpin, promote, incentivize, and monitor these critical behaviors. Underpinning
reinforcement includes training and role-related job aids supporting employee expectations for
success. Promotion includes each stakeholder engagement, where successes and challenges are
154

advertised in a review of shared best practices. Incentivizing similarly includes advertising best
practices, empowering team members through positive feedback and role appreciation. Finally,
monitoring refers to the operational cycle of reviews and includes managerial and programs
management reporting of goals achievement and monitoring of that employee’s contribution to
others’ success within the department (Table 11).

Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcement
Create a job-aid that organizes general and
specific in-role tasks, allowing
performance improvement through task-
achievement recognition.

Provide training and role-related job-aid
referencing the steps to role achievement.
Develop in 4Q22,
refining as lessons
and best practices
are improved
1, 2, 3

Provide expert demonstrations, discussions
and feedback, allowing learners to
question, model and practice higher-level
performance measures leveraging total
organizational output.

Create communities of practice that
emulate group-role best practices
Develop in 4Q22,
refining as lessons
and best practices
are improved and
new members are
onboarded.
1, 2, 3
Provide member opportunities to discuss
how reflecting upon their in-role effort
offers opportunities for improvement
(stand-up, lunch & learn, weekly
bulletin).

Communicate value-added participation
highlighting team success.
At each stakeholder
engagement/ongoin
g
1, 2, 3
155

Methods Timing Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Rewards
Include C-Level local or outside leadership
involvement with inclusion and positive
reinforcement.

Communicate stakeholder wins, where
successes and challenges are advertised
in review of shared best practices.
At each stakeholder
engagement /
ongoing
1, 2, 3
Include C-Level local or outside leadership
involvement with inclusion and positive
reinforcement.

Provide the foundation for the expectation
of in-role goal achievement.
At each stakeholder
engagement /
ongoing at every
quarterly
employee-manager
meeting
1, 2, 3
Incentivize
Continue training where stakeholder
engagement includes success-oriented
role-playing supporting positive
experiences.

Advertise best practices, empowering team
members through positive feedback and
role appreciation
At each stakeholder
engagement /
ongoing at every
quarterly
employee-manager
meeting
1, 2, 3
Provide Cooper employees participation-
based training experiences where
inclusive projects are conducted and
outcomes ensure reinforcing team
member success.

Reward individual wins through team(s)
recognition, and individual gift cards.
Monthly and/ or
quarterly
1, 2, 3
Continue training where stakeholder
engagement includes success-oriented
role-playing supporting positive
experiences.

Quarterly and/or bi-
annually
1, 2, 3
156

Methods Timing Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reward organizational wins through team
gatherings and off-site experiences and
post to the company website/ newsletter.
Monitor
Develop greater managerial and participant
interest in the existing quarterly review
plan by identifying improvements
discovered through timely evaluation.

Cooper Aerospace conducts departmental
status and goals recognition meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Provide the setting for self-assessment
using organizational goals that match the
vision and strategy of the organization
using a single, non-local, model for each
role grouping.
Employees conduct self-assessment using
goals targets set within their department
with mentor/community of practice and
managers
Weekly and as
necessary to clarify
1, 2, 3

Organizational Support
Success in the endeavor to improve the overall organization hinges upon the value that
the senior-most leaders place in the role-to-mission engagement program. Leaders at all levels
must champion this initiative to ensure continued support and sustainability. Lewis (2011),
Kotter (2007), and Sirkin et al. (2005) corroborate the need for senior management inclusion in
all phases of change management. Lewis (2011) specifically advises including senior
management as participants in change initiatives through their avenues of communication,
including newsletters, town halls and internal interviews, ensuring transparency and reducing
157

any confusion for organizational direction, increasing the potential for gap closure. Change
management must also include senior management awareness of organizational goals as they are
underpinned by group performance. Status of the initiative should be included in weekly
meetings and Gantt schedules, with senior leadership communicating the status and path forward
during the regular cycle for communications in support of the program’s objectives.
Level 2: Learning
Cooper Aerospace employees must meet learning goals to conduct the role-to-mission
engagement program employing the critical behaviors described in the earlier section.
Learning Goals
The following list of employee goals is aligned to close the performance gaps validated
through the process of this study and further described throughout Chapter Four. Cooper
Aerospace employees will be capable of the below iterative success at the completion of the role-
to-mission engagement program.
1. Demonstrate knowing the steps to role achievement (K-P)
2. Restate delineation of mutual expectations around performance goals (K-C)
3. Articulate how their role influences organizational vision (M)
4. Identify value in the process of performance improvement (I-V)
5. Demonstrate confidence about their role in organizational success (S-E)
6. Maintain positive attitudes about their role in organizational success (Attitude)
Program
To close the procedural knowledge gap identified throughout this study, a qualified,
trained and confident employee base, advised and committed to organizational excellence, is
recommended. Initial steps require that current best practices from organizationally similar
158

groups be reviewed. Participants will include the site population, identified by their role group
(administrative; finance; engineering, etc.). These site- and division-based best practices are then
distilled and validated for the total entity as organizational best practices, benefiting from
organizational review, requirements and approvals are developed.
Communities of practice (administration; finance; engineering, etc.) will manage
improvements as new best practices are introduced, ensuring organizational inclusion and
adaptations based on a specific business unit. The following list of organizational goals is
aligned to close the performance gaps validated through the process of this study.
 Timely evaluation will be provided to ensure role achievement goals are attained (O;
K-P/C)
 Leadership will develop transparent communication supporting a culture of trust (O)
 Leadership will support role-to-mission community practitioners to ensure role
mastery (O).
The development and roll-out of this procedural training is expected to take an estimated 6
months to capture the necessary differences across business units, render that data and deliver the
initial prototype training model. Weekly meetings will be required to ensure the process follows
the model and can be conducted in a hybrid environment supporting both in-person and
electronic meetings as necessary to best shape the process while ensuring in-role performance is
not compromised.
Job aids will be employed during weekly meetings as a best practice, where role-specific
individual tasks are outlined, and task completion rates are easily presented. Potential
improvements to these job aides will be managed through the same weekly meetings to update in
real-time and share as necessary with the community of practice. To close the conceptual
159

knowledge gap, the newly formed role-to-mission community of practitioners will create a one-
page role-to-mission mini-poster, which delineates the impact of the individual role as it
influences organizational success, much like that of a Kaizen chart. The poster would be created
for widespread dissemination. Closing the metacognitive gap is supported by this same effort, as
the message advised within the poster and its ongoing supervisory support includes a depiction
of how a particular community of practice (accounting; finance; marketing; engineering;
operations, etc.) can influence organizational vision and strategy. Further, the senior subject-
matter expert based at each organizational location will be identified, publishing their role among
organizational contact lists.
Additional role support will be required of first-line leaders, supervisors and managers.
This element is imperative to the success of the program, as team members require spot-
corrections and guidance through ongoing supervisory support to ensure motivation, role
satisfaction, and their sustained commitment to success. Incentives will be advertised and
awarded to those groups and business units that achieve initial, targeted, and ongoing
organizational goals.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe five separate components of Level 2 learning
required to develop a confident program implementation. Specifically, the required components
are (a) evaluating knowledge, (b) evaluating skill, (c) evaluating attitude, (d) evaluating
confidence and commitment, and (e) timing of the training event. The table below presents how
participants will be assessed in comparison with the Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Timing will include formative and summative assessments based on subject
and audience. The intent of this effort provides an effective path to determine whether the
160

achievement of the requisite levels of knowledge, skills and motivation have been derived from
the role-to-mission engagement program (Table 12).

Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Review of, and response to, the group
community of practice job-aid
Upon program implementation
Checks on learning during all stages of
training
Ongoing between training subjects and at
session(s) end
Group [department] and individual (specific
role) discussions
Ongoing between training, at session(s) end,
and during one-on-one meetings
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
Demonstration of skill required for in-role
performance
Ongoing through initial training and ongoing
in sustainment recurrency
Demonstration of abilities required for in-role
performance
Ongoing through initial training and ongoing
in sustainment recurrency
Demonstrated ability to describe secondary
and tertiary effects of their role as it
influences others, and how others influence
their role
Ongoing through initial training and ongoing
in sustainment recurrency
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Observations and interviews discussing
stakeholder attitudes toward doing their in-
role-related task
Initial entry and during recurrent training
supporting role to vision connections
Stakeholder process wins and improvements
will be shared.
Quarterly, identifying the initial and
secondary effects
Confidence: “I think I can do this.”
161

Methods or activities Timing
Observations and interviews of stakeholders
demonstrating confidence in doing their
role-related task
Initial entry and ongoing during training
Commitment: “I will do it.”
Group discussion about how they will change
behaviors when back on the job
At trainings end
Individual written plan of action to apply
lessons learned
At training’s end
Highlighting progress and best practices During department stand-up and relevant
meetings

Level 1: Reaction
It is recommended that program evaluations include measurement of the participants’
reaction to the training and learning events in which they have engaged. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) advise the components of Level 1 are engagement, relevance, and customer
satisfaction. (Table 13)

162

Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Student classroom feedback During training
Course training / facilitator observation During training
Training program evaluation Program end
Relevance
Student classroom feedback During training
Course training/facilitator observation During training
Training program evaluation Program end
Customer satisfaction
Student classroom feedback During training
Course training/facilitator observation During training
Training program evaluation Program end

Evaluation Tools: Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Immediately following program implementation, a survey will be administered effort to
collect data that will measure the effectiveness of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Levels 1
and 2. The survey is expected to reveal impacts on engagement and to what extent the event
resonated among the employee stakeholders. Participating employees are also expected to
identify to what extent their knowledge, skills & abilities, confidence and commitment to
successfully approach their role, as their role impacts organizational goals. Ongoing checks on
learning will occur initially more formally as stakeholders enter into this new process of
163

improvement and, over time, become less formal among practitioners. New hires and
transferring employees will require site-specific training as all stakeholders become familiar with
the role-to-mission engagement program. Additionally, the group(s) community of practitioners’
primary contacts will be made widely known to ensure organizationally supported back-up
training and to exist as a repository for new issues discovered during implementation. The
repository would ensure issues resolution best supportive of organizational objectives, publishing
solutions through their points of broad communication.
Evaluation Tools: Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
A month post-implementation, stakeholders will take a short survey based on the
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model as it applies to their program. Using the four levels of
the model (2016) allows a deeper review of the program’s impact on stakeholders and will
advise on their satisfaction with role performance improvement (Level 1), in-role knowledge,
skills and motivation levels (Level 2), stakeholder behaviors and mutual role understanding
(Level 3), and program results and clarifications (Level 4). Program progress will be evaluated
using role-to-mission metrics for personal output and departmental goals achievement. Data will
be collected and reviewed for similarities across the organization, and changes for
improvements, streamlining processes, and best new ideas will be incorporated into the role-to-
mission engagement program. The survey intends to advise leadership and key organizational
contacts within the community of practitioners regarding opportunities for improvement and
methods to be sustained. The survey instrument is shown in Appendix D.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Survey analysis and reporting outcomes will have a high degree of interest from
organizational and guiding leaders, as this study intends to present an affordable and sustainable
164

path to organizational performance improvement. Consistent application of role-to-mission
guidance is the key element required of employee stakeholders, and their management, as both
elements lead their subordinates, and those teammates lead up as they seek individual events-
based guidance. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) govern this process through their consistent
four levels framework. The survey’s outcome will provide a point of comparison to role output
metrics from the prior quarters. Figure 28 provides an example of the possible improvements
after the initial program implementation.

Figure 28
Program Metrics Pre- and Post-Program Implementation

165

Summary
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used as the
guiding framework from which Cooper Aerospace will consider the implementation and
subsequent evaluations of the research-based recommendations made herein in support of the
role-to-mission engagement program. In summary, the Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) presents Level 4 internal and external metrics and results, compiled and
reviewed to ensure key measurements of Cooper Aerospace employee progress. Level 3 elevated
key requirements to demonstrate three crucial behaviors, detailing stakeholder abilities to know
their role, work effectively among teams of teams, and perform work that supports desk and
department success, as well as matches the intent of that role in leveraging organizational
mission. Level 2 goals were identified as essential learning for the employee stakeholders to
achieve if engaging in the critical behaviors identified at Level 3. Stakeholders will enter this
program with guidance ensuring the requisite starting knowledge, skills & abilities, confidence
and commitment to improvement. Level 1 identified specific procedures to ascertain (a)
engagement, (b) relevance and (c) individual response to customer satisfaction. By combining
the interpretive potential of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework with the accepted
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level training evaluation model, the study’s findings
include evidence-based recommendations supported by appropriate actions and an approach that
improves its opportunity for successful implementation. Based on this study, the KMO
recommendations offered in support of Cooper Aerospace and its 70,000 employee stakeholders
and connected by a rigorous implementation and evaluation plan. This evidence-based program
delivers a ready solution, supported throughout its employee base, to its performance
improvement objective.
166

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
As previously indicated, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework is very
effective in uncovering deficiencies in organizational performance. The use of the gap analysis
framework introduces an exhaustive approach to capturing organizational obstructions and
ensures performance deficiencies are connected to gaps in KMO barriers. The framework is
considered so effective that it is unlikely that any discovered deficiency would not be easily
connected to an organizational barrier. This comprehensive approach could also be considered its
weakness. The gap analysis framework would be required to be applied to all stakeholders to be
considered for the broad entirety of Raymond Technologies. In the context of the Cooper
Aerospace study, the assessments of the KMO influences which affect the employee
stakeholders are required to complete the synopsis of all factors and considerations which
improve or degrade the end state of implementing the role-to-mission engagement program. Due
in part to resources and to time, assessing additional stakeholders was not practical and deemed
unnecessary.
Limitations and Delimitations
Chapter Three identified limitations and delimitations associated with this study: (a)
small sample size, (b) time requirements, and (c) the author’s role. The sample size ensures
Cooper Aerospace’s findings, though it precludes generalizations across Raymond Technologies,
as the parent organization is composed of even greater numbers of non-similar organizations and
teams. The sample obviates any requirements for additional methods of data collection. The
study’s time requirements were guided in great part by organizational progress windows and
guiding leadership tenure. This allotment truncated validation of the assumed influences, in
addition to stakeholder needs and further recommendations for implementation and subsequent
167

evaluation of the role-to-mission engagement program. The implementation at Cooper will serve
to support the study’s premise and will identify the influences of knowledge, motivation and the
organization as being accurate and the program itself successful. The role of the author is the
final limitation. The author continues to hold a key engagement with Cooper Aerospace and is
afforded a unique perspective from the role of consultant. This relationship increases the need to
introduce a firewall between the roles of researcher and organizational confidant and ensure
protections requisite of commercially confidential information. Ensuring impartiality became an
important element of this study and drove design toward individual performance metrics. This
confidential approach also drove decisions to forego analysis of company emails in the process
of this study.
A final delimitation pertains to the stakeholder group of focus, the employees at Cooper
Aerospace, Spaulding facility. Stakeholder and organizational success are leveraged internally.
The efficacy of the engaged employees titled with creating and implementing the program is the
paramount element to success. The program’s sponsors share additional influence and
subsequently share in its outcomes.
Future Research
Future research should include similar organizations to validate this study’s assumed
influences across a broader segment. Increasing the study’s population would avail greater and,
additionally, more robust data collection tools, including the potential for quantitative data,
which may harvest greater insight regarding the influences of knowledge, motivation, and
organizations that affect stakeholder progress. Additional areas for research include managerial
roles of influence in the implementation of organizational initiatives and in the generalization of
the recommended solution, as well as its efficacy. Effectively, the study’s results have yet to be
168

realized due to implementation, regardless of the strengths of the new world Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Continued evaluations would ensure
credibility to the recommended approach to solutions, and implementing the program and
assessing its progress among Raymond organizations would assist in this effort.
As mentioned, future research should also examine stakeholders outside of this study’s
stakeholder group of focus. Further study should explore the community of practitioners as a
critical element to greater, or earlier, program successes. This study assumes a baseline for the
KMO influences affecting the community of practitioners. This group has significant sway over
the shaping of ongoing change and in the assurance that employees receive the necessary support
and ongoing guidance necessary for success. Leadership, while of specific importance in this
study, was not deeply examined within this work. Studies examining leadership and the
influences which most greatly affect them may offer greater meaning & insight and would likely
be highly prized across industry.
Conclusion
Organizations like Cooper Aerospace are challenged in myriad ways through
competition, supply chain, resource distribution, and the global economy and are required to
develop new goods and services while also managing profit and loss to ensure a future for the
brand and its many stakeholders. Cooper Aerospace includes in its mission as being dedicated to
redefining aerospace and, together with its customers, relentlessly tackling the toughest
challenges in our industry. In pursuit of this mission, Cooper Aerospace afforded the stakeholder
group of focus the opportunity to voluntarily participate in this study and inform the
development of the role-to-mission program. As identified using the gap analysis framework, the
KMO influences affecting the on-the-job engagement program were the focus of this study. The
169

data were collected from surveys, interviews, and document analysis. The resultant information,
gleaned from the data, was analyzed for potential gaps in employee output and Cooper
Aerospace’s strategic goals. The guiding questions to this study are presented below and support
the foundations of this original study.
1. What are the KMO influences that contribute to employees’ engagement based on
how their role contributes to the organization’s performance?
2. What are the recommendations for 100% engagement based on employees’ role in
organizational performance?
The data process uncovered three influences as needs to be addressed to be successful in
the implementation of the role-to-mission engagement program:
 Stakeholders must close the cultural model gap around needing role support through
timely evaluation.
 Stakeholders must close the cultural model gap regarding the development of a
culture of trust.
 Stakeholders must close the cultural settings gap around requiring the organization to
support their mastery of on-the-job skills.
Research-based recommendations were shared in support of sustaining the many
influences that were deemed to be assets, as well as the study’s identified needs. Clark and
Estes’s gap (2008) analysis framework and Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level
training evaluation model were imperative tools to this study and underpinned the
recommendations provided to support the implementation and evaluation of the role-to-mission
engagement program. This study’s findings identify challenges and opportunities and inform the
recommendations associated with the implementation of this program. Implementing the role-to-
170

mission engagement program and truly instilling the role-to-mission mindset will allow
stakeholders to assess themselves on a future date, ensuring minor course corrections are
achieved at the desk level or elevated to local subject-matter experts, or higher, to the community
of practitioners should the need be required. Through the advent of this program and its
recommendations, Cooper Aerospace can begin to reach higher, perform greater and achieve its
stated goals and strategies in support of being truly dedicated to redefining aerospace and,
together with its customers, relentlessly tackling its toughest challenges.
171

References
Adhikari, E. (2015). Understanding nuances and commonalities of job descriptions. Journal of
Training and Development, 1, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.3126/jtd.v1i0.13093
Agarwal, P. (2018, August 8). How to create a positive workplace culture. Forbes.
Agarwal, R., Angst, C., & Magni, M. (2009). The performance effects of coaching: A multi-level
analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(10), 2110–2134. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190903178054
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force?
An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945–955.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Alvarez, S., & Sachs, S. (2021). Where do stakeholders come from? Academy of Management
Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0077
Amoatemma, A., & Kyeremeh, D. (2016). Making employee recognition a tool for improved
performance: Implication for Ghanaian Universities. Journal of Education and Practice,
7(34).
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Oriented towards mastery: Promoting positive
motivational goals for students (1st ed.). American Psychological Association.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review,
64, 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
172

Bakken, R., & Dobbs, J. (2016). The relevance of four types of knowledge for leader preparation
in radically different settings: Reflections on data from a case study in Qatar and teaching
at a United States Military Academy. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership,
2(2), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.17062/cjil.v2i2.47
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2007). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5, 307–337.
Bar, M. (2009). A cognitive neuroscience hypothesis of mood and depression. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 13(11), 456–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.009
Barrick, M., Thurgood, G., Smith, T., & Courtright, S. (2014). Collective organizational
engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 111–135.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0227
Batavia, C., & Nelson, M. (2017). For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we
care? Biological Conservation, 209, 366–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003
Ben-Hur, S., & Avagyan, K. (2018). Changing employee behavior. Institute for Management
Development.
173

Bennett, E. (2006). How organizational culture and change are embedded in an organizations
intranet [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia.
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–
1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Bhuvanaiah, T., & Raya, R. (2014). Employee engagement: Key to organizational success.
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 11(4), 60–63.
Birt, S., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to
enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research,
26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Black, O., & Marshall-Lee, D. (2011). Dynamic performance management: How to deliver
more, with less, forever. Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(5), 275–282.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851111145862
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain.
McKay Co., Inc.
Boateng, G., Neilands, T., Frongillo, E., Melgar-Quinonez, H., & Young, S. (2018). Best
practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research:
A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149), 149.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2017). Qualitative research for education: An Introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
174

Bowen, D. (2016). The changing role of employees in service theory and practice: An
interdisciplinary view. Human Resource Management Review, 26, 4–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.09.002
Braun, S., Wesche, J. S., Frey, D., Weisweiler, S., & Peus, C. (2012). Effectiveness of mission
statements in organizations – a review. Journal of Management & Organization, 18,
430–444. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.4.430
Business Management Daily. (2021). Help employees connect with their work & workplace.
https://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/50082/help-employees-connect-with-their-
work-workplace/pdf/
Campbell, J., & Pritchard, R. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 63–130). Rand-McNally. (Original work published 1976)
Carayannis, E. (1999). Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and
organizational cognition: The role of knowledge management. Technovation, 19(4), 219–
231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(98)00101-1
Carpen, K. (2021). Organizational training and development models that can help your team
thrive. ViralSolutions. https://viralsolutions.net/organizational-models-for-training-and-
development-centralized-functional-customer-matrix-university-and-business-embedded/
Ceschi, A., Demerouti, E., Sartoti, R., & Weller, J. (2017, May 5). Decision-making processes in
the workplace: How exhaustion, lack of resources and job demands impair them and
affect performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(313), 313.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00313
175

Çetin, F., & Aşkun, D. (2019). The effect of occupational self-efficacy on work performance
through intrinsic work motivation. Management Research Review, 41(2), 186–201.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0062
Chaiklin, H. (2011). Attitudes, behavior, and social practice. Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, 38(1), 3.
Chein, I. (1981). An introduction to sampling. In L. H. Kidder (Ed.), Sellitz, Wrightsman &
Cook’s Research methods in social relations (4th ed., pp. 418–441). Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Cho, Y., & Linderman, K. (2019). Metacognition-based process improvement practices.
International Journal of Production Economics, 211, 132–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.030
Choo, C. (2001). Environmental scanning as information seeking and organizational learning.
Information Research, 7(1). https://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper112.html
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP, Inc.
Clifton, J. (2017). State of the American workplace. Gallup.
https://www.managementmattersnetwork.com/content-auto-
download/5b04b5b743dfd0385d3b7e3b
Congressional Budget Office. (2017). American Healthcare Act: Cost estimate. Budget
Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committees on Ways and Means and
Energy and Commerce. Government Printing Office.
Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Di Tecco, C., & Schaufeli, W. (2015). What makes employees
engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s perceptions of social
176

context over time. Career Development International, 21(2), 125–143.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2015-0045
Corporate Leadership Council. (2004). Driving performance and retention through employee
engagement: A quantitative analysis of effective engagement strategies: Corporate
Executive Board Company, Annual Review - 2004.
Cox, G. (2020, June 10). Wonder how to improve employee engagement? Remove these 5
barriers. Perceptyx. https://blog.perceptyx.com/how-to-improve-employee-engagement
Crenshaw, K. (2017). On intersectionality: The essential writings of Kimberle Crenshaw.
Perseus.
Creswell, J., & Cresswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study.
ASTD.
Daft, R. (2001). Organization theory and design. South-Western College Publishing.
Daily, B., Bishop, J., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational
citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48, 243–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315439
Day, G., & Leggat, S. (2015). Leading and managing in health services. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316161777
Dean, K. (2011). Values based leadership: How our personal values impact the workplace. The
Journal of Values Based Leadership, 1(1).
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Updated.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
177

DiDomenico, S., & Ryan, R. (2017). The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: A new
frontier in self-determination research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 145.
Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-efficacy,
satisfaction, and academic achievement: The mediator role of students’ expectancy-value
beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1193.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01193
Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992, November 1–4). Awareness and coordination in shared
workspaces [Paper presentation]. ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work. Toronto, Canada.
Duckworth, A. (2017). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner.
Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256405
Earley, P., & Lituchy, T. (1991). Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.76.1.81
Eccles, J. (2006). Families, schools, and developing achievement-related motivations and
engagement. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: theory
and research (pp. 665–691). Guilford Press.
Elias, S. (2008). Fifty years of influence in the workplace: The evolution of the french and raven
power Taxonomy. Journal of Management History, 14, 267–283.
178

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, T., & Haslam, S. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A
social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of
Management Review, 29(3), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159054
Elnaga, A., & Imran, A. (2014). The impact of employee empowerment on job satisfaction:
Theoretical study. American Journal of Research Communication, 2(1), 13–26.
Fink, A. (2013). Conducting research literature reviews. Sage.
Freedham, M. (2020, October 21). How to create an employee development and training
program. Business News Daily.
Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A Stakeholder Theory
Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. Journal of Business
Ethics, 166, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z
Fu, L., Lee, L., & Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2017). When confidence and competence
collide: Effects on online decision-making discussions. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052681
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gardner, C. (2013, January 23). Retired on active duty. Joint Base Andrews News.
https://www.jba.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/337903/retired-on-active-
duty/
Geue, P. (2018). Positive practices in the workplace: Impact of team climate, work engagement,
and task performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 272–301.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318773459
179

Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G., (2013). Creating the best workplace on earth. Organizational culture.
Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 98-106, 150.
Goffman, E. (1961). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Goodman, F., Disabato, D., Kashdan, T., & Kauffman, S. (2017). Measuring well-being: A
comparison of subjective well-being and PERMA. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
13(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388434
Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17(10), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
Greenwood, K., & Anas, J. (2021, October 4). It’s a new era for mental health at work. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/its-a-new-era-for-mental-health-at-work
Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence.
Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90013-R
Gunter, A., & Magrone, L., (2019, May 20). Employee engagement. A work supporting Gallup.
Oregon Business.
Hameed, A., & Waheed, A. (2011). Employee development and its effect on employee
performance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2(13).
Harlow, H. (1949). The formation of learning Sets. Psychological Review, 56(1), 51–65.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062474
Harter, J. (2018, August 28). Employee engagement on the rise in the U.S. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx
180

Harter, J., & Adkins, A. (2015). Engaged employees less likely to have health problems. Gallup
News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/187865/engaged-employees-less-likely- health-
problems.aspx
Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Keyes, C. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to
business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In Keyes & Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing:
Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 205–224). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-009
Harter, S., Marold, D., Whitesell, N., & Cobbs, G. (2008). A model of effects of perceived parent
and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development, 67(2), 360–374.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1131819
Hassan, S. (2013). The importance of role clarification in workgroups: Effects on perceived role
clarity, work satisfaction, and turnover rates. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 716–
725. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12100
Hearn, S. (2017, March 6). Ten barriers to employee engagement. Clear Review.
https://www.clearreview.com/5-reasons-employees-arent-engaged/
Heshmat, S. (2019, November 25). The three key elements of personal growth. Psychology
Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201911/three-key-
elements-personal-growth
Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1994, September 1). Building a culture of trust.
Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268469400400503
Holsapple, C., & Joshi, K. (2000). An investigation of factors that influence the management of
knowledge in organizations. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 235–261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00046-9
181

Integrated Benefits Institute. (2018, November 15). Poor health costs U.S. employers $530
billion and 1.4 billion work days of absence and impaired performance according to
Integrated Benefits Institute [Press release]. https://www.ibiweb.org/poor-health-costs-us-
employers-530-billion-and-1-4-billion-work-days-of-absence-and-impaired-performance/
Jackovickas, C. (2020). Five innovative approaches to employee improvement reviews.
www.firmofthefuture.com/content/5-innovative-approaches-to-employee-performance-
reviews/
Japsen, B. (2018, November 15). Poor worker health costs U.S. employers half trillion dollars a
year. Forbes.
Jeffrey, N. (2009). Stakeholder engagement: A roadmap to meaningful engagement. Doughty
Center.
Jehanzeb, K., & Mohanty, J. (2018). Impact of employee development on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment: Person-organization fit, as moderator. International Journal
of Training and Development, 22(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12127
Jenkin, T. A., McShane, L., & Webster, J. (2011). Green information technologies and systems:
Employees’ perceptions of organizational practices. Business & Society, 50, 266–314.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650311398640
Jiang, M., Wang, H., & Li, M. (2019, November 29). Linking empowering leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior toward environment: The role of psychological
ownership and future time perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2612.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02612
182

Johns-Hopkins. (2019, January 7,). U.S. health care spending highest among developed
countries. Johns-Hopkins News. https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-
health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kane, C. (2006). Management’s role in shaping organizational culture. Journal of Nursing
Management, 14, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00590.x
Kappel, M. (2018, January 4). Small business strategy. Forbes.
Kim, H., Gibbs, J., & Scott, C. (2019). Unpacking organizational awareness: Scale development
and empirical examinations in the context of distributed knowledge sharing. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 47(1), 47–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1544719
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Klynn, B. (2021). Build a culture of trust: Leading Teams [Blog post]. The Ohio State
University, Fisher College of Business.
https://fisher.osu.edu/blogs/leadreadtoday/building-a-culture-trust
Kost, R., & Correa da Rosa, K. (2018). Impact of survey length and compensation on validity,
reliability, and sample characteristics for ultrashort-, short-, and long-research participant
perception surveys. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2(1), 31–37.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.18
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 97–103.
183

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuvass, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009).. . Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 217–236.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x
LaClair, J., & Rao, R. (2002). Helping employees embrace change. McKinsey & Company.
LaVoie, A. (2017, March 21). How to engage employees through a company vision statement.
Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290803
Lawler, E. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving
organizational performance. Jossey-Bass Inc.
Leach, D., Wall, T., & Jackson, P. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An
empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903321208871
Leibler, M. (2019). Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance
management: An evaluation study (Publication No. 27788505) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Wiley., https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Lotko, M., Razgale, I., & Vilka, L. (2016). Mutual expectations of employers and employees as a
factor affecting employability. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences,
17(3), 2240–2259. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.199
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
184

MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through
employee engagement. A Special Report to Government (United Kingdom). British
Printing Office.
MacNaughton, S., & Medinsky, M. (2020). Staff training, onboarding, and professional
development using a learning management system. The Canadian Journal of Library and
Information Practice and Research, 10(2).
Marinova, S., Moon, H., & Van Dyne, L. (2010, May 19). Are all good soldier behaviors the
same? Supporting multi-dimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviors based on
rewards and roles. Human Relations, 63(10), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709359432
Mashlah, S. (2015). The role of people’s personal values in the workplace. International Journal
of Management and Applied Science, 1(9), 158.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Mattke, S., Liu, H., Caloyeras, J., Huang, C., Van Busum, K., Khodyakov, D., & Shier, V.
(2013). Workplace wellness programs study. RAND Corporation.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Mayer, D., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R., & Kuenzi, M. (2013). Who displays ethical leadership
and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical
leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0276
McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2010). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill.
185

Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged, or not to be engaged:
The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business
Research, 66(11), 2163–2170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.007
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The
nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1),
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002
Middleton, F. (2020). Reliability vs validity: What’s the difference? Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. SAGE.
Miller, S. (2020). Employers alter benefits to attract, retain employees, SHRM finds. An article,
based on 2016 strategic benefits survey findings. Society of Human Resource
Management, 11(4).
Miscenko, D., & Day, D. (2015). Identity and identification at work. Organizational Psychology
Review, 6(3), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615584009
Mofoluwake, A., & Oluremi, A. (2013). Job satisfaction, organizational stress and employee
performance: A study of NAPIMS. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 75–82.
https://journals.co.za/content/ifepsyc/21/2/EJC141143
Mor-Barak, M. E. (2000, July). The inclusive workplace: An ecosystems approach to diversity
management. Social Work, 45(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.4.339
186

Morgan, J. (2016, December 23). Here’s how to create a sense of purpose at work. Inc.
Magazine. www.inc.com/jacob-morgan/whos-responsible-for-creating-your-sense-of-
purpose-at-work.html
Murray, A. (2011). Montessori elementary philosophy reflects current motivation theories.
Montessori Life, 23(1), 22–33.
Musgrove, C., Ellinger, A. E., & Ellinger, A. D. (2014). Examining the influence of strategic
profit emphases on employee engagement and service climate. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 26, 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-08-2013-0057
Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic
management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 39–49. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00279.x
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed
anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(3), 504–511.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504
Oades, L., Steger, M., Delle-Fave, A., & Passmore, J. (2016). The psychology of positivity and
strengths-based approaches at work. Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118977620.ch1
Orhan, G., Erdogan, D., & Durmaz, V. (2014). Adopting mission and vision statements by
Employees: The case of TAV airports. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150,
251–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.051
Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace.
International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 50–67.
https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2017.16.1.04
187

Paillé, P., & Boiral, O. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and
determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 118–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.014
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-
theory/
Pandey, S., Coursey, D., & Moynihan, D. (2014). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic
Red tape: A multimethod study. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 398–
425. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576300305
Pater, R., & Lewis, C. (2012). Strategies for leading engagement. Professional Safety, 57(5), 32–
35. https://search.proquest.com/openview/602f04b97a6b5c0d2e0b74305851bdae/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=47267
Patterson, M., West, M., Shackleton, V., Dawson, J., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D., &
Wallace, A. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial
practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379–
408. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.312
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and Practice
(4th ed.). Sage.
Pearce, J., & Randel, A. (2003). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social
inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1),
81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.232
Peiro, J. M., Kozusznik, M. W., Rodriquez-Molina, I., & Tordera, N. (2019). The happy-
productive worker model and beyond: Patterns of well-being and performance at work.
188

International Journal of Public Health, 6(3).
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6388150/#B13-ijerph-16-00479
Perrewe, P., Ferris, G., Frink, D., & Anthony, W. (2000). Political skill: An antidote for
workplace stressors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3).
Peyton, T., Zigarmi, D., & Fowler, S. (2019, February 01). Examining the relationship between
leaders’ power use, followers’ motivational outlooks, and followers’ work intentions.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02620
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Poortvliet, P. M., Anseel, F., & Theuwis, F. (2015). Mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance
goals and their relation with exhaustion and engagement at work: The roles of emotional
and instrumental support. Work and Stress, 29(2), 150–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1031856
Pradhan, R., Jena, L., & Kumar, I. (2016). Effect of work-life balance on organizational
citizenship behaviour: Role of organizational commitment. Global Business Review,
17(3), 15S–29S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916631071
Rigby, C., Deci, E., Patrick, B., & Ryan, R. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy:
Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion,16(3), 165–185.
Robinson, S., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
189

Rockwood, K. (2020, May 22). How to create an effective onboarding program: Reduce turnover
by improving the new-hire experience. Society for Human Resource Management
Magazine.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3094827
Rothwell, W. (2014). Creating engaged employees: It’s worth the investment. ATD.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Russo, M., & Monadin, G. (2019). Better work-life balance starts with managers. Harvard
Business Review.
Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 602. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Saks, A., Sieger, P., Bernhard, F., Frey, U. (2011). Affective commitment and job satisfaction
among non-family employees: Investigating the roles of justice perceptions and
psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(11), 78–89.
Salkind, N. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schaufeli, W. (2012). The measurement of work engagement. In R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L.
E. Tetrick (Eds.), Research methods in occupational health psychology: Measurement,
design and data analysis (pp. 128–153). Routledge
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
190

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schindler, J. (2019, April 29). Are your employees engaged at work? Forbes.
Shoraj, D., & Llaci, S. (2015). Motivation and its impact on organizational effectiveness in
Albanian businesses. SAGE Journals, 5(2).
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2011). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do
We link theory and scholarship to current practice? Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13(4), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431153
Simmons, A. (2018, May 14). The small sample size. Sciencing.
https://sciencing.com/disadvantages-small-sample-size-8448532.html
Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. Harvard
Business Review, 83(10), 108–118.
Staveteig, S., Aryeetey, R., Anie-Ansah, M., Ahiadeke, C., & Ortiz, L. (2017). Design and
methodology of a mixed methods follow-up study to the 2014 Ghana Demographic and
Health Survey. National Library of Medicine.
Tapaninaho, R., & Kujala, J. (2018). Reviewing the stakeholder value creation literature:
Towards a sustainability approach: How businesses and organizations can operate in a
sustainable and socially responsible way (World Sustainability Series). Springer.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2011). Three decades of research on national culture in
the workplace: Do the differences still make a difference? Organizational Dynamics,
40(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.006
Towers-Perrin. (2006). Employee engagement report-2006.
http://www.twrcc.co.za/Engagedemployeesdrivethebottomline.pdf
191

Turunen, T. (2014). Lack of commitment? Work orientations of employees in a european
comparison. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(22), 65.
https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v4i2.3865
Vance, R. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding measuring
and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM Foundation.
Vitality Chicago. (2018). Will your agile transformation improve employee engagement?.
https://vitalitychicago.com/blog/will-your-agile-transformation-improve-employee-
engagement/
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. John Wiley.
Wagner, R., & Harter, J. (2014). The elements of great managing. Gallup Press.
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test
of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 1(4), 320–
331.
Welch, J. (2015). Three ways to take your company’s pulse. Strayer University: Jack Welch
School of Business. https://jackwelch.strayer.edu/winning/three-ways-take-company-
pulse/
West, C., & Shanafelt, T. (2007). The influence of personal and environmental factors on
professionalism in medical education. BMC Medical Education, 7(29), 29.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-29
Whyte, P. A. (2018). Turnaround as an experience using school culture and climate as the driver
for school turnaround (Publication No. 10936321) [Doctoral dissertation, Teachers
College, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
192

Wicker, A. (1985). Getting out of our conceptual ruts. The American Psychologist, 40(10),
1094–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.10.1094
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for
success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In Wigfield &
Eccles (Eds.), A volume in the educational psychology series: Development of
achievement motivation (p. 91–120). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
012750053-9/50006-1
Wilkins, C. (2018). Effective engagement requires trust and being trustworthy. Medical Care,
2018(October, Suppl 1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000953
Williams, P., Kern, M., & Waters, L. (2017). The role and reprocessing of attitudes in fostering
employee work happiness: An intervention study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(28).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00028
Woerkom, M., Meyers, M. C., & Bakker, A. B. (2020). Considering strengths use in
Organizations As a multilevel construct. Human Resource Management Review. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100767
Zhang, D., & Highhouse, S. (2018). Judgment and decision making in the workplace. The
handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. SAGE.
Zhang, Q., Qian, J., Wang, B., Jin, Z., Wang, J., & Wang, Y. (2017, June 07). Leaders’ behaviors
Matter: The role of delegation in promoting employees’ feedback-seeking behavior.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8(920), 920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00920
Zigarmi, D., Galloway, F., & Roberts, T. P. (2016). Work locus of control, motivational
regulation, employee work passion and work intentions: An empirical investigation of an
193

appraisal model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 231–256.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9813-2
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., & Shuck, B. (2014). Employee engagement: Job attitude or mediator
Between job attitudes and affect? In Chapman, D., Guerdat, K. (Eds.). Proceedings of the
academy of human resource development international research conference in the
Americas. Academy of Human Resource Development.
Zimmerman, M., & Bradley, B. (2019). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic value. Department of Philosophy,
Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

194

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Survey question Open/
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options (if
closed ended)

RQ
Measured
concepts
(emerging
framework)
What are the
recommended
steps to follow
when encountering
challenges in your
role?
O Nominal Positive Attitude, Ask
Questions, Work to
Set Achievable
Goals, Learn from
Feedback, Work on
Tasks that Fit your
Comfort Zone,
Delegate
Responsibilities to
Peers, Avoid
Challenges, Delay
Personal
Development,
Remain Non-
Confrontational,
Remain Focused on
Your Work,
Complete your
Tasks
1, 2
What elements are
necessary to
delineate mutual
expectation around
performance
goals?
O Nominal Ensure Understanding,
Meet &
communicate End-
State, Avoid
Communication
1, 2
Using the list below;
choose the best
company mission
C Nominal Seeks to Redefine the
industry, Will be the
Dominant Company,
Expects Customers
and Shareholders to
Support our
Business
1
195

Survey question Open/
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options (if
closed ended)

RQ
Measured
concepts
(emerging
framework)
I know how to
organize my
processes &
procedures within
my role to most
greatly leverage
the company
mission.
C

Ordinal
Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A,
Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
1, 2
I prioritize my in-
role procedures to
achieve mission
success
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I make the necessary
adjustments to
improve the
influence of my
role in
organizational
outcomes
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I reflect on my
performance, at the
end of my
workday
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I reflect on my
performance on
good days as well
as bad days
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I make adjustments
to my work-output
when the mission
demands
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I value the iterative
process of
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
196

Survey question Open/
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options (if
closed ended)

RQ
Measured
concepts
(emerging
framework)
performance
improvement
I enjoy being
engaged in
processes related
to identifying root
causes of issues
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I am confident that
my role influences
organizational
success
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
To what degree do
you believe that
your organization
grows from
individual effort
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I generally maintain
a positive attitude
at work
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I believe my actions
at work translate
directly to our
organizational
success.
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
It bothers me when I
underperform in
my role
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
My organization
uses event-based
and annual
evaluations to
improve my
performance
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
197

Survey question Open/
closed
Level of
measurement
Response options (if
closed ended)

RQ
Measured
concepts
(emerging
framework)
My organization
communicates the
results of my
evaluations to me
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
My organization
uses the results of
my employee
evaluations to
improve the
overall
organization
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I trust that I can
share concerns
within my team
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
I believe my
organization
carries the trust of
the employees
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1,2
I would recommend
this organization
as a trusted work
space
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
The organization
provides me the
on-the-job skills
mastery that I need
to do my job
effectively
C Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2
The organization
supports me in my
ongoing mastery
of my job skills

C
Ordinal Strongly Agree,
Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1, 2

198

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key
concepts
Q type
Can you tell me what steps you
follow to know you are
achieving expectations on
your job?
If overstepping
process, ask;
Tell Me More, or Can
You Offer
Examples?
1, 2
Can you share about the
procedures you follow when
your duties and
responsibilities are unclear?
Ask for examples, or
What Stands Out in
Your Process to
Remove
Uncertainty?
1, 2
Can you tell what was included
in your initial work training
regarding steps to achieving
success in this role?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That.
1, 2
Describe the process you go
through to ensure that your
expectations for success in
your role meet organizational
performance goals?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That.
1, 2
What steps do you follow
when formulating mutual
expectations for your
colleagues?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Describe how you know that
you’re meeting these
expectations of your
colleagues
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Can you talk me through a time
when fulfilling your role was
very effective in supporting
the company’s goals?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That.
1, 2
Can you talk me through a time
when your role wasn’t very
effective as it wasn’t as
effective as it could have
been?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That.
1, 2
199

Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key
concepts
Q type
Can you walk me through a
time when you gave thought
to your own performance and
either decided to make
personal change, or sought
management support in
making changes to the
process?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That.
1, 2
Can you talk to me about those
things that you value most
about improving processes?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Can you talk to me a little bit
about what degree you feel
confident in your role in your
organizations success?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Can you talk to me a little bit
about how you feel about your
ability to impact
organizational success?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Can you tell me a little bit
about how you feel when you
learn of your contribution to
your organization’s success?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me about a time when you
felt like you had real success
in your role?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Can you tell me about a time
when the organization
supported your performance
by evaluating your work?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me how your team works
through process and
department performance
issues?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
200

Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key
concepts
Q type
Tell me how your organization
provides employee
evaluations and how often?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me about how trust is
shared here?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me the way is that the
organization holds all
employees publicly
accountable?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me about a time when you
felt the company was
especially trustworthy?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me about your own
experiences with employee
training and development?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me about how the company
provides job skills mastery
training?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2
Tell me how your supervisor
provides role-coaching?
Ask, Tell Me More
About That, or Can
You Give Me An
Example?
1, 2

201

Appendix C: Document Analysis
Past similar question Posed similar question Result
The 2017–2020 annual survey
itself
Q15: I believe my actions at
work translate directly to
our organizational success.
2021 role-to-mission study
The question was not
previously posed, instead
the reference identifies the
Annual Review itself as
organizational structure
intended to connect
employees to organizational
success
Do you have the flexibility to
balance work and personal
responsibilities?

2017–2020 annual survey
Q19: My organization uses
the results of my employee
evaluations to improve the
overall organization.
2021 role-to-mission study
The intent of this question
underpins the concept of the
organization being one that
develops and promotes a
culture of trust.
The prior question (2017-
2020) was predominantly
responded to with (2) No
Would you invite friends and
colleagues to work at
Raymond Technologies
(pseudonym)?

2017–2020 annual survey
Q20 : I trust that I can share
concerns within my team.
2021 role-to-mission study
The intent of this question
underpins the concept of the
organization being one that
develops and promotes a
culture of trust.
The prior question (2017-
2020) was predominantly
responded to with (3)
Somewhat Disagree, and (4)
Strongly Disagree
Would you invite friends and
colleagues to work at
Raymond Technologies
(pseudonym)?

2017–2020 annual survey
Q21: I believe my
organization carries the trust
of the employees.

2021 role-to-mission study
The intent of this question
underpins the concept of the
organization being one that
develops and promotes a
culture of trust.

The prior question (2017-
2020) was predominantly
responded to with (3)
Somewhat Disagree, and (4)
Strongly Disagree
202

Past similar question Posed similar question Result
Do you believe the
organization to be a trusted
workspace?

2017-2020 Annual Survey
Q22: I would recommend this
organization as a trusted
workspace?
2021 Role-to-Mission Study
The intent of this question
underpins the concept of the
organization being one that
develops and promotes a
culture of trust.

The prior question (2017-
2020) was predominantly
responded to with (3)
Somewhat Disagree, and (4)
Strongly Disagree

203

Appendix D: Summary of the Influence
Summary of the Influence using knowledge, motivation, and organization.
Table D1
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated as a
Gap?
Yes, High
Probability or
No (V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cooper
Aerospace
employees
know how to
follow the
steps for role
achievement
(P).

N

Y
Procedural
knowledge
increases
when
declarative
knowledge
required to
perform the
skill is
available, or
known (Clark
& Estes,
2008).
Create a job-aid
with modeling
steps that
organizes general
and specific in-
role tasks,
allowing
performance
improvement
through task-
achievement
recognition
Job aids are
effective
when
individuals
need to
perform a new
procedure in a
domain in
which they
have
extensive
experience
(Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Cooper
Aerospace
employees
know how to

N

Y
Learners
acquire new
competencies
when experts
Create training that
provides expert
demonstrations,
discussions and
204

delineate
mutual
expectations
around
performance
goals (P).
model the
desired skills
and behavior,
and give the
learners
opportunities
to practice,
and provide
feedback
(Bandura,
2007).
feedback,
allowing learners
to question,
model and
practice higher
level performance
measures
leveraging total
organizational
output.
Cooper
Aerospace
employees
reflect on how
their role has
influenced
organizational
vision (M).

N

N
Individuals are
able to reflect
and adjust
when
completing
their project
(Clark &
Estes, 2008;
Denler et al.,
2014)
Provide member
opportunities to
discuss how
reflecting upon
their in-role effort
offers
opportunities for
improvement
(stand-up, lunch
& learn, weekly
bulletin)
Note. (P) represents procedural, and (M) represents metacognitive

205

Table D2
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendation
Assumed
motivational
influence
Validated as a
gap?
Yes, High
Probability or
No (V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
citation
Context-Specific
recommendation
Cooper
Employees
value the
process of
performance
improvement
(intrinsic).
N Y Individuals are
more
successful
when they are
working on
something
they enjoy.
(Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000;
Eccles 2009)
Provide Cooper
Employees
collaborative
opportunities and
a sense belonging
in working with
C-Level
leadership

Cooper
Employees are
confident about
their role in
organizational
success (self-
efficacy).
N Y Learners and
motivation are
enhanced
when learners
have positive
expectations
for success
(Pajares,
2006).
High self-
efficacy can
positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares,
2006).
Provide Cooper
Employees
participation
based training
experiences
where inclusive
projects are
conducted and
outcomes ensure
reinforcing team
member success.

Cooper
employees are
confident
about their
role in
organizational
success.
(attitude).
N

N People hold
given
attitudes
because these
attitudes help
them achieve
their basic
goals (Pajares,
Continue training
where stakeholder
engagement
includes success-
oriented role-
playing
supporting
206

2006; Katz,
1960)
positive
experiences
Cooper
Employees are
confident about
their role in
organizational
success.
(attribution).

N

N
Motivation,
learning and
performance
are enhanced
when
participants
attribute
success or
failures to
effort, rather
than ability
(Anderman
and
Anderman,
2009).
Continue
stakeholder
engagement
where discussions
supporting
storytelling and
anecdotal
evidence are
reviewed in
support of
experiential
outcomes. Focus
on leader failure
and positive
response.

207

Table D3
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendation
Assumed
motivational
influence
Validated as a
gap?
yes, high
probability or no
(V, HP, N)
Priority
yes, no
(Y, N)
Principle and
citation
Context-Specific
recommendation
Cultural setting:
Cooper
employees
need role
support
through timely
evaluation.
Y Y In order to close
the
performance
gap, it is
important to
understand the
strengths of
the individuals
(Gallimore &
Goldenberg,
2001).
Develop greater
managerial and
participant
interest in the
existing quarterly
review plan, by
identifying
improvements
discovered
through timely
evaluation.
Cultural model:
Cooper
Aerospace
employees
need an
organizational
culture of trust.
Y Y Employee trust
plays a critical
role in
organizations
as trusting
employees are
more
committed to
their work
(Weibel et al.,
2016;
Kahkonen et
al., 2021).
Develop a trust-
repair procedure
based on type of
failure
(performance or
integrity) that
a.recognizes b.
identifies c.
admits
destructiveness d.
takes
responsibility for
action and
consequence.
Communicates
honesty.
Cultural setting:
Employees need
the
organization to
support their
on-the-job-
skills mastery.
Y/ HP N The
organizational
approach to
training
should be
reviewed and
changed when
Provide the setting
for self-
assessment using
organizational
goals that
matches the
vision and
208

employee
dissatisfaction
& turnover
are high, and
morale &
productivity
are low
(Carpen,
2021)
strategy of the
organization
using a single,
non-local, model
for each role
grouping.

209

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation

Immediate Post-Training Evaluation
Role-to-Mission Engagement Program
Using Kirkpatrick’s Learning Levels 1 and 2

Instructions
For the following questions please use the following Likert scale:
1=Strongly agree 2=Somewhat agree 3=Somewhat disagree 4=Strongly disagree
In the space provided after each question, please describe the knowledge, motivation or
organizational awareness you have gained from working on the Cooper Aerospace Role-to-
Mission Engagement Program.

Rating Item
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I know the steps to role achievement.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I can explain how my role fits into the company’s mission.
Describe:
________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
__
210

Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I know what is required to be considered a good teammate.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I know the strategies to assist me in supporting my team
mates, as well as what strategies assist my team in
supporting my role.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I understood the learning objectives supporting completing
work assignments in support of in-role goals.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I monitor my in-role behavior within my team.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I reflect on my behaviors in support of team goals.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
211

Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I am confident in my knowledge, skills and behaviors as
they pertain to my role
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Strongly agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
I now follow the steps for my own role in alignment to
organizational goals.
Describe:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

212

Appendix F: 3 Month Evaluation
Three-Month Evaluation: Post Training - Role-to-Mission Engagement Program Kirkpatrick’s
Learning Levels 1 through 4
Instructions
For the following questions, please use the following Likert scale:
1=Strongly agree 2=Somewhat agree 3=Somewhat disagree 4=Strongly disagree
Please circle the appropriate number to indicate the degree to which you agree with each
statement.
Rating Item
Strongly Agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
Since my training I am 100% engaged in my role-to-
mission.
Describe:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Strongly Agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
The Role-to-Mission Engagement Program improved my
engagement.
Describe:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
213

Strongly Agree to strongly
disagree e
1 2 3 4
Now that I’ve gone through the Role-to-Mission
Engagement Program, I am able to communicate with
my teammates more effectively.
Describe:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Strongly Agree to strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4
After going through the Role-to-Mission Engagement
Program, I am motivated to change my engagement
behaviors.
Describe:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

214

Appendix G: Strategic Plan
Description Frequency Targets Actual Measure
Level 4: Results
Improved Process
Accuracy
Weekly Comparison to
Program Start

Improved Completion
Rates
Weekly Iterative
Improvements

Improved Confidence Weekly Comparison to
Program Start

Improved Project
Completion
Weekly Iterative
Improvements

Level 3: Behaviors
Recurring meetings:
standups and one-
on-ones
Weekly Attendance,
participation and
inclusion

Program meetings As
Necessary
Participation and
Inclusion

Team recognition Weekly Associated
measurement

Rewards Quarterly Order of merit
Level 2-Learning
Increased role
confidence
Ongoing Mgr/Team
measurements

Increased individual
goals achievement
Ongoing Mgr/individual
measurements

Increased
organizational goals
achievement
Ongoing Mgr/team
measurements

Increased individual
satisfaction
Ongoing Mgr/individual
measurements

Level 1: Reaction
215

Cooper stakeholders
are engaged
Ongoing Recurring
meetings/survey

Cooper stakeholders
are mutually
supportive
Ongoing Recurring meetings
Cooper stakeholders
are focused on role-
to-mission
assignments
Ongoing Recurring meetings
Cooper stakeholders
expose higher levels
of role satisfaction
Ongoing Survey response
Cooper stakeholders
expose higher levels
of personal
happiness
Ongoing Survey response

Cooper Aerospace Strategic Plan:
Progress and Accountability Report using Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Criteria

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the concept of employee engagement and the impact of engagement programs, as evidenced in both personal and organizational outcomes. This project was a gap analysis to examine the KMO influences that interfere with organizational performance. The stakeholder group chosen for this study was an employee group with an innate understanding of the organization and the ability to outline pragmatic change within that space. By combining the interpretive potential of a gap analysis framework with an accepted training evaluation model, the study’s findings include evidence-based recommendations supported by appropriate actions and an approach that improves its opportunity for successful implementation. Research-based recommendations were shared in support of sustaining the many influences that were deemed to be assets and needs. The findings identify challenges and opportunities and inform recommendations associated with implementing a role-to-mission engagement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

PDF

From a privilege to an option: hybrid work schedule: a gap analysis

PDF

Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare

PDF

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

Recruiting police diversity

PDF

Participating in your own survival: a gap analysis study of the implementation of active shooter preparedness programs in mid-to-large size organizations

PDF

Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Sense making in risk assessments

PDF

Management preconditions to mitigate virtual employee burnout

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Leitch, Kevin Richard (author)

Core Title Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/25/2023

Defense Date 03/02/2023

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

Tag engagement,Growth,leveraging,Mission,OAI-PMH Harvest,role

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Donato, Adrian J. (committee chair), Foulk, Susanne M. (committee member), Yates, Kenneth Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email kleitch@usc.edu,leitch.kr@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113078013

Unique identifier UC113078013

Identifier etd-LeitchKevi-11709.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeitchKevi-11709

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Leitch, Kevin Richard

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230425-usctheses-batch-1030 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu