University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 1

Relationship between Employee Disengagement and Employee Performance among Facilities
Employees in Higher Education: An Evaluation Study
by
Rian Medlin

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

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Rian Medlin
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 2

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my daughter, Martine. It is a pleasure showing her the
world and all the opportunities that are available to her in it. And to my late cousin Alex. Her
passing made it very clear that tomorrow is not promised. She was on the road to becoming a
prolific scholar. I may not be, but we will still have a doctor in the family.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank my family and friends for the support and
encouragement throughout this process. To my dissertation committee, Dr. Helena Seli, Dr.
Kimberly Ferrario, and Dr. David Cash, thank you for guiding me through the process.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 4

ABSTRACT

This study employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the relationships between employee
disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education. Facilities
employees are often invisible from the critical deliverables of an educational institution. However,
evaluating their experience can illuminate the impact, even if indirect, of these employees on the success
of an institution of higher education. This evaluation study explored the organization, motivation, and
knowledge influences that affect facilities employee being able to perform at a high level and exceed
expectations in their performance evaluations. Using a gap analysis as the conceptual framework, this
mixed method study included a review of the literature, as well as a survey and interviews with the
primary stakeholder group of the study, facilities employees. Key findings included that the organization
needs to develop a stronger culture of trust, communication and participative decision-making. Facilities
employees would benefit from more formalized and frequent training to increase their organizational
cultural competence, as well as knowledge and skills with increased opportunities to reflect on their own
abilities and path to success. The study provided recommended solutions to close the organizational,
motivation, and knowledge influences and an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to assess
program outcomes.
Keywords: facilities employee, organizational cultural competence, employee performance

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 5

Table of Contents
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 9
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND MISSION ................................................................................................................................... 9
ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11
RELATED LITERATURE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................. 14
DESCRIPTION OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS .................................................................................................................................... 15
STAKEHOLDER GROUP FOR THE STUDY ......................................................................................................................................... 16
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT AND QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 18
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................................................................................................... 19
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................................................ 21
DEFINING EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 22
THE CLARK AND ESTES (2008) GAP ANALYTIC CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 34
FACILITIES EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATIONAL, MOTIVATIONAL AND KNOWLEDGE INFLUENCES ........................... 35
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE INTERACTION OF FACILITIES EMPLOYEE KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION AND
THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT..................................................................................................................................................... 51
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 57
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 57
INTERVIEW SAMPLING (RECRUITMENT) STRATEGY AND RATIONALE.............................................................................. 59
DATA COLLECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION .............................................................................................................................. 60
DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
CREDIBILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS ........................................................................................................................................... 63
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 64
ETHICS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 67
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 69
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 69
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 88
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE TO ADDRESS KMO INFLUENCES ............................................................................ 88
INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 103
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 115
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 118
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 133
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 6

APPENDIX A: SURVEY ITEMS ....................................................................................................................................................... 133
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...................................................................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX C: TRAINING SURVEY ............................................................................................................................................... 142
APPENDIX D: OBSERVATION CHECKLIST............................................................................................................................... 144
APPENDIX E: EVALUATION OF TRAINING .............................................................................................................................. 145

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 7

List of Tables

Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ................. 17
Table 2. Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goal ............................................................ 42
Table 3 Assumed Motivational Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments ................... 47
Table 4. Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment ........ 51
Table 5. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 89
Table 6. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .......................................... 94
Table 7. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ......................................... 99
Table 8. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ....................... 105
Table 9. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................. 107
Table 10. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ........................................................ 108
Table 11. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. .................................... 111
Table 12. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. .................................................. 113
Table 13. Dashboard to Monitor Progress. ................................................................................ 115

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 8

List of Figures

Figure 1. Interaction of stakeholder knowledge and motivation within organizational cultural models and
settings. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 2. There is open and honest communication between managers and employees. ................................ 72
Figure 3. I feel I can easily communicate with members from all levels of the organization. ...................... 72
Figure 4. I know what is expected of me in my position. .......................................................................................... 74
Figure 5. I feel valued at work. .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 6. My supervisor seems to care about my feedback. ..................................................................................... 76
Figure 7. At work, my opinions seem to count to my supervisor. .......................................................................... 77
Figure 8. The mission/purpose of CCCD makes me feel my job is important. .................................................. 79
Figure 9. I see a clear link between my work the College’s goals and objectives. ............................................ 79
Figure 10. In my position, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. ........................................... 80
Figure 11. The organization’s rules make it easy for me to do my job. ................................................................ 82
Figure 12. I have made a change in my work during the last year to improve performance. ........................ 83
Figure 13. My co-workers are committed to doing quality work. .......................................................................... 83
Figure 14. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my job right. ........................................................... 85
Figure 15. I have access to ongoing professional development opportunities. ................................................... 85

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 9

Chapter One: Introduction

Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Employee disengagement has a profound negative effect on organizational morale and
productivity. Employee engagement programs have become a staple in US organizations over the
last few decades as the link between engagement and profit has been supported with increasing
evidence (Czarnowsky, 2008). Despite the link to positive organizational health through
engagement and the development of innumerable employee programs, employee engagement is
declining. In 2015, US Companies spent $720 million on employee engagement programs, however,
approximately 70% of employees in the US are categorized as disengaged, leading to a loss of
productivity that has been estimated to cause a $450 to $550 billion drain on the US economy
(Gallup, 2016). Organizational data has been aggregated and analyzed over numerous years, which
has shown the effect of employee disengagement on the bottom line of an organization’s budget
and performance (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001; Bonny, Goode, & Lacey, 2015; Christian & Ellis, 2013).
According to Gallup (2016), employee disengagement causes roughly 30% of all business failures
as well as impacting retention rates of employees, and researchers have found it difficult to
conduct studies that are both relevant and consistent to increase the influence of employee
engagement programs on organizational stability (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001).
Organizational Context and Mission

The Clair Community College District (CCCDD, a pseudonym) is a public community
college district that provides instructional, vocational and professional up-skilling to students
through a variety of certificate and associate degree offerings. The mission of CCCD is to be an
institution of excellence, innovation and accessibility that provides students with the skills
necessary for transfer education, workforce-skills development and the achievement of learning
outcomes that align to their professional and personal goals. CCCD was opened in the late
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 10

1960’s. It is one of 115 community colleges in the California Community College system, which
is the largest community college system in the United States. Clair Community College District
students are between the ages of 18 and 80 and are predominantly Latino/Hispanic (45%) and
Caucasian (35%). Currently, there are 45% female and 55% male students for a total enrollment
of nearly 20,000 students.
The District employs over 600 employees across 40 academic and administrative
departments to support the mission and vision of the district to provide pathways to student
success. Employees are between the ages of 18 and 75 as well, and are predominantly Caucasian
(55%) and Latino/Hispanic (20%). The District employs staff in three major categories:
management, faculty, and classified staff. Management employees have supervisory
responsibilities over other employee groups and provide leadership to the District in achieving
its organizational goals and mandates. Faculty members engaged in direct instruction,
counseling, librarianship, athletics and other related instructional activities. Classified staff
members perform a wide variety of clerical, technical, maintenance, and instructional support
activities in support of district programs and activities including fiscal services, student services,
academic affairs, human resources, campus safety, public information, economic development,
and facilities planning and operations.
There are 55 classified and management employees in the facilities planning and
operations department in the areas of custodial, grounds, maintenance, and telecommunications.
Employees in this department are 7% female and 93% male, predominantly 41% Caucasian and
34% Mexican/Chicano, and largely (63%) over the age of 40. These employees are responsible
for the upkeep of the physical space of the organization (classrooms, office space, laboratories,
etc.) including maintaining the grounds, performing janitorial duties, repairing and altering
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 11

District buildings, facilities and fixtures including carpentry and tile, painting, plastering,
plumbing, heating/air conditioning and electrical trades work.
Organizational Goal

The overall organizational goals of CCCD are academic excellence, innovation and
accessibility. Achieving these goals relies on the performance of district employees that work to
provide these opportunities to students. An engaged workforce is essential to sustain and drive
initiatives that develop a culture of excellence, innovation and accessibility. Engagement
provides motivation to contribute to overall organizational success and willingness to apply
discretionary effort to accomplish tasks important to the achievement of organizational goals
(Wiley, 2010). However, leadership in CCCD recognized that its facilities department had a
significantly higher attrition rate and issues related to performance than other areas within the
organization. It is common for departments to have turnover during a year of approximately two
employees due to retirement, transfer, promotion, or employment outside the organization. It is
uncommon for employees to be terminated during their probationary year. For example, during
the 2017-18 fiscal year, CCCD terminated four employees during their probationary year. Only
one employee was outside of the facilities department. Performance issues that are prominent in
this department are failure to perform duties required of the position, willful disobedience or
insubordination of supervisors, excessive absenteeism and exhaustion of leave benefits resulting
in dock time. On average, five of the 55 facilities employees are released each year during their
probationary period for performance issues. This is an attrition rate of approximately 9%, or
retention rate of 91%, in the department. While a turnover rate of approximately 10% is
considered healthy and normal across the entire organization but high for within one department
(Gallup, 2016). The facilities department is responsible for the majority of turnover in the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 12

organization, which is an indicator of an employee engagement problem. The high turnover in
the area keeps the department in a constant state of flux, need for recruitment, and training new
employees.
Facilities employees are often invisible from the critical deliverables of an educational
institution. However, evaluating their experience can illuminate the impact, even if indirect, of
these employees on the success of CCCD. Therefore, the organizational goal explored in this
study was whether CCCD can improve its retention of facilities employees through employee
engagement initiatives by 40%, reducing the attrition rate to approximately 5% from 9%. The
achievement of CCCD’s goal in this matter was measured by the employee retention rates
monitored through June 2019. This goal was set by the leadership of the facilities planning and
operations department in collaboration with Human Resources through examination of the
department’s high turnover rate and performance evaluations over the last ten years.
Related Literature

Studies have found a positive relationship between employee engagement and
organizational performance outcomes such as employee retention (Baumruk & Gorman, 2006;
Clifton, 2008; Kaliannan & Adjovu, 2015; Markos & Sridevi, 2010; Simha & Vardhan, 2015).
According to Baumruk and Gorman (2006), engaged employees consistently demonstrate three
general behaviors which improve organizational performance: 1) Say-the employee advocates
for the organization to co-workers, and refers potential employees and customers; 2) Stay-the
employee has an intense desire to be a member of the organization despite opportunities to work
elsewhere, and 3) Strive-the employee exerts extra time, effort and initiative to contribute to the
success of the business. Further, as explained by Kaliannan and Adjovu (2015), employee
engagement is a critical tool in talent management. Engaged employees enhance the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 13

organizational image through reduced employee attrition. Their commitment to the organization
positively correlates to the organization being perceived as a responsible company (Kaliannan &
Adjovu, 2015). Conversely, disengaged employees are more likely to display the following: “(1)
spinning - wasting effort and talent on tasks that do not matter much; (2) settling - not showing
full commitment, yet not dissatisfied enough to leave; or (3) splitting - not sticking around for
things to change in their organization” (Markos & Sridevi, 2010, p. 10).
With 70% of all US employees considered disengaged, employee disengagement is a
phenomenon that affects both academic and business domains. The majority of the research on
employee engagement has been conducted in the private sector (Byrne & MacDonagh, 2017;
Consiglio, Borgogni, Di Tecco, & Schaufeli, 2016). This is a significant research gap, as the
public sector has much to offer the discussion, given the inherent difference in the role of
leadership within higher education institutions. Public sector employers, including higher
education organizations, are characterized by hierarchical, centralized organizational structures
(Boyne, 2002) and a strong trade union presence (Truss, 2013). Byrne and MacDonagh (2017)
assessed that public sector managers often have little flexibility or scope to effect significant
change around rewards and aspects of job design. Both have been found to be important
contributors to high levels of engagement in the private sector (Christian et al., 2011; Saks,
2006).
The traditional focus of organizational development, as it pertains to employees, has
centered on the concept of employee engagement as an essential contributor to the financial
health and stability of an organization (O’Brien et al., 2004). According to Kaliannan and
Adjovu (2015), this has led to organizations investing heavily in the development of employee
engagement programs. More recently, a shift has occurred in research to study the failure of
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 14

employee engagement programs to solve the disengagement problem (Galagan, 2015; Guaspari,
2015). This is due to an increased awareness of the deeper causes of disengagement that
organizational programs do not address (Bandura, Caprara, & Zsolnai 2010; White, Bandura, &
Bero, 2009). Further, the continued economic drain on organizational productivity as a result of
more disengaged workers in the workforce is a catalyst for research in this area (Johnson, 2016;
O’Brien et al., 2004).
Employee disengagement has been explored as a type of deviant behavior, where the
moral and ethical norms of an environment no longer apply to the employee (Bandura et al.,
2010; Johnson & Buckley, 2015; White et al., 2009). Moral conduct occurs through self-
regulatory mechanisms, which are fluid even as an individual adopts a set of moral standards.
For an individual to behave outside moral standards, there are psychosocial maneuvers that can
be used to selectively disengage moral self-sanctions (Fida et al., 2015; White et al., 2009).
However, employee disengagement as a factor of morality is only half of the puzzle.
Understanding the reasons an individual may begin to shift their moral compass was also critical
to the study. Deviant organizational behavior focuses on the employee and their experience or
feelings regarding their organization (Johnson, 2016; Bolin & Heatherly, 2001; Bonny et al.,
2015). This is a departure from the traditional studies of the subject, which centered on
organizational health and the retention of employees through incentive programs. Recently,
more researchers have sought to find the source of the negative emotions that lead employees to
become disengaged (Johnson, 2016; Bolin & Heatherly, 2001; Bonny et al., 2015).
Importance of the Evaluation

It was important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relationship to the
performance goal of a 40% increase in retention of facilities employees for a variety of reasons.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 15

If CCCD does not increase the retention of its facilities employees, it will not be meeting its
mission as an institution of excellence. While attrition can occur for many reasons,
disengagement is one of them and of particular interest in this study because of its impact on
organizational culture. High-turnover and employee disengagement creates a perception that
organizational loyalty and mutual respect is lacking, which contributes to inefficient teamwork,
a culture of isolation, and shallow employee investment (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Mirvis,
2012; Moore et al., 2012). Additionally, a growing body of evidence documents the importance
of developing an organizational culture with a workforce that feels valued and engaged, creating
social capital through teamwork to increase employee and organizational performance (Fox et
al., 2001; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Mirvis, 2012; O’Brien et al., 2004). Evaluating the
organization’s performance directly affects the goals of the stakeholders to assess their
performance and contributions to positively impact the achievement of CCCD’s mission of
student success.
Description of Stakeholder Groups

There are several stakeholder groups that play a key role in providing quality education
at in a community college distrct. The stakeholders at CCCD include students, employees, state
agencies and external partners. Employee engagement is critical to developing credibility in the
organization. The stakeholder group that receives the most focus for engagement is the faculty
employees for their delivery of instruction, which has a direct effect on student success.
However, all employee groups have an impact on the culture of the organization
contributing to creating an environment conducive to student access, learning and success. To
demonstrate this, Human Capital Media Research and Advisory Group (HCMR-AD) in
partnership with HR solutions companies, Cornerstone OnDemand and Ellucian, conducted the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 16

2016 study “Empowering Employees.” The study provided important feedback from 469
professionals at various academic institutions surveyed for their input on how their institutions
are engaging their workforce. Participants overwhelmingly responded that student success
depends on the efforts of both faculty and staff. On respondent noted, “Engaged employees are
happy employees and happy employees are more customer focused and willing to help. That has
a huge impact on student success” (Empowering Employees, 2016, p. 6). By engaging academic
employees, institutions can indirectly address student success and access issues. Engaging the
workforce starts by examining areas of disengagement within the organization and offering
programs that addresses deficiencies.
Clair Community College District is an institution of higher education and a service
organization that is dedicated to student access and furthering their goals beyond a two-year
degree. Similar to the institutions that participated in the Empowering Employees (2016) survey,
all employees of the organization are crucial to creating and sustaining a successful and reliable
service to students. Without sustained employee engagement, CCCD would not be able to retain
its workforce or continue to offer top quality service. The reputation of the organization with its
students and external partners feeds the recruitment of employees and impacts the quality of the
commitment employees have to other stakeholders and the organization. The quality of
employee engagement in the organization is a driver of performance as well as the shape of
educational environment and student experience.
Stakeholder Group for the Study

Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, this study centered on the facilities employees of CCCD. Focusing on facilities
employees, the group with the most indirect connection to student success, was a test of the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 17

mission to be an institution of excellence. Through examination of the performance evaluations
of the facilities employees, it was determined by department leadership and Human Resources
that there is room for improvement. The majority of facilities employees earned a Meets
Standards on their annual evaluation with improvement needed in areas that correlate to
disengagement such as attendance and quality of work. The stakeholder goal proposed is that by
2019, facilities employees would earn a rating of Exceeds Standards on their annual
performance evaluation. This goal is an aspiration goal for the individual employee to achieve.
Table 1 provides an overview of the study’s organizational global goal, as well as the key
stakeholder goals.
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Organizational Mission
The mission of CCCD is to be an excellent enriching institution of innovation and accessibility
that provides students with the skills necessary for transfer education, workforce-skills
development and the achievement of learning outcomes that align to their professional and
personal goals
Organizational Global Goal
By 2019, CCCD will increase the retention rate of facilities employees by 40%.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2019, facilities employees will earn a rating of Exceeds Standards on their annual
performance evaluation.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 18

While the performance evaluation rating is a proxy for engagement, measuring the
achievement of this goal using this tool is a way to operationalize engagement and translate it
into behavior. Per Gruman and Saks (2011), performance evaluations are an essential tool in
performance management to determine deficiencies in organizational engagement initiatives as
well as developing performance goals and creating conditions for increased performance for
employees. Earning an Exceeds Standards on an annual performance evaluation is an indicator
of a high level of engagement. High evaluations of performance suggest that employees are
energetically and effectively connected to their work (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). For new
employees, the annual evaluation is also an indicator of completing the probationary year.
Job climate surveys, exit interviews, surveys and supervisor feedback provided on
performance evaluations are also used to analyze the progress of employees. These are
additional indicators that enable a deeper understanding of employee performance and
engagement. Achieving this stakeholder goal demonstrates the level of employee engagement
with the organization, in hopes to support the efforts of organizational leadership in creating a
work culture that encourages, nurtures and values employee loyalty and engagement (Gruman &
Saks, 2011). Failure to accomplish this goal could negatively affect the quality of employee
performance that impacts employee satisfaction, productivity, and retention. Further, low
employee performance impacts the organizational environment for student success.
Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which Clair Community
College District (CCCD) achieved its goal of reducing the attrition of its facilities employees
due to disengagement. While a complete evaluation study would focus on all stakeholders, for
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 19

practical purposes the stakeholders focused on in this analysis were all CCCD facilities staff
members. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
related to their performance as employees.
As such, the questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of facilities employees related to earning an
Exceeds Standards on their annual performance evaluation in the 2018-2019 Fiscal
Year evaluation cycle?
2. How does the organizational culture and context impact facilities employees’
knowledge and motivation related to earning an Exceeds Standards?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework

This project employed mixed method data gathering and analysis. Facilities employees’
perceptions of the organization and its influence on their performance in relationship to their
performance goal were assessed using document analysis, surveys, interviews, literature review
and content analysis. As a result of the study, recommendations for the organization were made.
Mixed methods studies employ an approach to inquiry that includes the collection of both
qualitative and quantitative data in order to provide a more complete understanding of the
problem of practice than can be garnered via using only one type of data (Creswell, 2014).
Informed by recommendations by Cherryholmes (1992) and Creswell (2014), this study is
founded in pragmatism due to its focus on the resolution of the problem as opposed to adhering
to a specific paradigmatic dogma. As Florczak (2014) described, participation in mixed methods
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 20

research requires that research be focused on the resolution of problems unhindered by dogmatic
paradigms, acknowledging that an external reality exists although absolute theoretical principles
do not, and that all types of knowledge should be brought to bear in the goal of understanding a
phenomenon. The problem of practice was addressed by opening the inquiry to a pluralist
approach, which involves finding value in a variety of sources of information, believing that no
research method is inherently superior to any other (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). For this
study, methods to engage the research included surveys and interviews to draw on a diverse
collection of rich data related to the problem of practice. Sourcing the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences using a mixed methods approach draws on the strength of both
approaches to triangulate and integrate the data. This resulted in a study that produced outcomes
that can reduce attrition due to disengagement and increase performance in the facilities
employee population at CCCD.
Organization of the Project

Five chapters organize this study. This chapter provides the reader with the key concepts
and terminology commonly found in a discussion about employee performance and engagement.
The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the framework for the project were
introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics of employee disengagement, performance, perceptions of value, correlations and
impact will be addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation and organizational
elements examined as well as methodology when it comes to 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 as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 21

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

With Gallup data showing a steady increase in US employees categorized as disengaged,
it is more important than ever for organizations to study and emulate best practices to reverse
this trend. This chapter reviews the major factors influencing employee disengagement.
Specifically, the following literature review will explore studies that identify certain
organizational and employee behaviors and attributes that can contribute to employee
disengagement and as a result, impact performance scores. To study the influences on this
engagement gap, the researcher examined the link between employee attitudes, perceptions and
job performance in relation to closing knowledge, motivational, or organizational gaps
(Buckingham & Coffman, 2012; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Buckingham and Coffman (2012) posit that skills, knowledge, and talents are distinct
elements of an employee’s performance, defined as:1) Skills-the how-to of a role, 2)
Knowledge-the things you know (factual) and the understandings you’ve picked up along the
way (experiential), and 3) Talent- recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior. All three
can be productively applied to enhance performance as well as used to understand employee
competencies, habits, attitudes, and drive (Buckingham & Coffman, 2012). Clark and Estes
(2008) provided a theoretical framework for understanding organizational and stakeholder goals,
and addressed organizational problems through the analysis of the three primary causes of
performance gaps: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. A performance
gap is defined as the gap between performance goals and actual performance levels (Clark &
Estes, 2008). This study used the frameworks of Buckingham and Coffman’s (2012) and Clark
and Estes (2008) for employee engagement to explore how knowledge, motivational, or
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 22

organizational factors for increasing employee engagement has contributed to high rates of
disengagement in the facilities employees at CCCD.
Defining Employee Disengagement
Employee disengagement is a widespread problem within the workplace, taking shape in
many ways. Wollard (2011) asserted that Kahn’s (1990) definition of disengagement as the
disconnection of individuals from their work roles to protect themselves from real or perceived
threats is still the leading definition of how disengagement is constructed in research. It is an
internal process that can be operationalized physically, mentally and emotionally by the
employee (Kahn, 1990; Wollard, 2011). Further, it is not considered a permanent state but a
condition that employees can fluctuate in and out of depending on the circumstances of their
work environment. It is also considered a process by which employees can enter in and out of in
stages (Wollard, 2011). The outcome of an employee first being cognitively disengaged from
their position and organization to being emotionally disengaged could be deciding to quit.
However in many cases, employees do not quit, but instead disengage in place. This stage is
defined as behavioral disengagement and can take the form of cynicism towards the
organization, passive aggressive behaviors like withholding information, absenteeism, and
incivility or lack of performance and dispassion for their role (Castellan, Roehm, & Shaw, 2016;
Wollard, 2011).
Employee Disengagement and Burnout

Employee disengagement and the concept of burnout are closely related in the literature.
Job demands can increase or decrease employee engagement at different points in an employee’s
career (Travis, Lizano, & Mor Barak, 2016; Wollard, 2011). The impact of persistent job
demands that manifest as emotional exhaustion is defined as burnout, and can erode positive
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 23

engagement leaving the employee cynical about their organization and begin to lack in self-
efficacy (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009; Travis et al., 2016). There are two primary factors
contributing to burnout, according to Schaufeli et al. (2009), both creating a conflict in values
between the employee and the organization. The first factor is the imbalance of demands over
resources and the second factor is motivation.
Assessment of burnout in the research is dominated by the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(MBI), which measures exhaustion, inefficiency and cynicism as indicators of burnout as well as
energy, involvement and efficiency as indicators of engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2009; Travis et
al., 2016). There is still debate as to how complex of a phenomena burnout is, and the
correlation of burnout to employee disengagement (Cole, Walker, Beheian, & O’Boyle, 2012).
While the MBI has been used to assess burnout as well as disengagement (Maslach, Schaufeli,
& Leiter, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2009) other studies proposed that the
two are independent states (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010). Schaufeli and his colleagues
defined engagement as “a persistent and positive affective-cognitive state of mind that is
characterized by the dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption” and constructed the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to assess these three indicators (Schaufeli et al.,
2009). However, the concern with the theory behind the UWES is that if burnout and
engagement are not polarities, they can become overlapping experiences for an employee and at
times redundant.
Employee Disengagement as Deviant Workplace Behavior
Employee disengagement is often referred to as deviant or dysfunctional behavior as it is
behavior that departs from usual or accepted standards in social environments like the workplace
(Kelloway, Francis, Prosser, & Cameron, 2010; O’Neil & Hastings, 2011; Robinson, 2008).
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 24

Deviant or dysfunctional workplace behavior assumes that employees occasionally act in ways
that affect productivity or go against the norms of an organization (Kelloway et al., 2010).
Further, disengagement is the absence of engagement, but “a cognitive decision, emotionally
charged, which manifests in behaviors that put physical, mental, and emotional distance between
the worker and their work, their peers, and their organization” (Wollard, Shuck, & Reio, 2001,
p. 529). These behaviors necessitate controls in the workplace to monitor and maintain
employee behavior in accordance with organizational expectations.
One of the challenges is that there are varying ways that disengagement has been
constructed. Each conceptualization is somewhat unique, however the terms workplace deviant
behavior and counterproductivity are used most frequently (Kelloway et al., 2010; O’Neil &
Hastings, 2011; Robinson, 2008). Behaviors that are considered deviant fall into the categories
of interpersonal and organizational deviance; interpersonal being against co-workers while
organizational is directed at the organization (O’Neil & Hastings, 2011). Many studies depend
on self-report assessments to assess the degree to which personality, job factors, and
environmental factors can be measured to explain and even predict disengagement (Berry, Ones,
& Sackett, 2007; Javed, Amjad, Faqeer-Ul-Ummi, & Bukhari, 2014; O’Neil & Hastings, 2011).
Moral Disengagement Theory
Albert Bandura’s concept of moral disengagement is a social cognitive theory positing
that there are motivators allowing an individual to convince himself/herself that the moral and
ethical norms of an environment no longer apply to them. Moral conduct occurs through self-
regulatory mechanisms, which are fluid even as an individual adopts a set of moral standards.
For an individual to behave outside moral standards, there are psychosocial maneuvers that can
be used to selectively disengage moral self-sanctions (White, Bandura, & Bero, 2009). Bandura
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 25

conceived of eight mechanisms for moral disengagement: moral justification, euphemistic
labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility,
disregarding or distorting the consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame (Bandura,
Caprara, & Zsolnai, 2000). According to Johnson and Buckley (2015), mechanisms of moral
disengagement affect the self-regulatory process in three ways: rationalization of reprehensible
behavior to seem less unethical, obscuring or distorting the negative of one’s actions on others,
and reducing identification with the targets of one’s harmful behavior. However, moral
disengagement is only half of the puzzle without understanding the reasons an individual may
begin to employ the aforementioned mechanisms. Fida et al. (2015) conducted a study to posit
that moral disengagement can be activated by perceived stress, integrating Bandura’s theory
with Spector and Fox’s stressor-emotion model developed in their 2005 study on
counterproductive work behavior (CWB). They surveyed working adults using a self-report
questionnaire that measured job stressors, negative emotions in response to work, CWB, and
moral disengagement. The study found that high levels of moral disengagement have been
associated with the experience of negative emotions such as anxiety or irritability, which causes
employees to experience job stress and then justify deviant organizational behavior (Fida et al.,
2015). To further understand how negative emotions from stress can activate disengagement,
studies have highlighted specific motivators and attitudes that allow an individual to participate
in deviant behavior.
Values and Intention
Research focusing on an employee’s emotional response to their role in an organization
or towards the organization is a departure from traditional employee disengagement research
that centered on organizational health and the retention of employees through incentive
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 26

programs. Researchers have sought to find the source of the negative emotions that lead
employees to become disengaged. For example, Johnson (2016) theorized that the four
generations currently in the workforce (Silent, Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y) have
different values and may have different reasons for disengaging from their organization. His
research is a qualitative study based on the interviews utilizing Victor Vroom’s Expectancy
Theory, which provides that a person will consciously choose one way of behaving over another
if it maximizes their positive result, and minimizes the negative (Johnson, 2016). Common
motivators of disengagement were management respect and recognition; quality of leadership;
confidence in management and the delivery of rewards; physical environment; and technology
(Johnson, 2016). The expectation of these tenets, in line with Vroom’s theory, made for a
decline in engagement when those tenets were lacking (Johnson, 2016). Brolin and Heatherly
(2001) suggested attitudes such as theft approval, company contempt, intent to quit, and
dissatisfaction have been shown to belie an individual’s propensity towards disengagement and
may lend to organizations being able to predict employee deviance and severity. All the attitude
types were shown to predict at least one of the tested deviant behaviors: absenteeism, substance
abuse, privilege abuse, and theft (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001). Further, Bonny, Goode and Lacey
(2015) tested motives and moral disengagement as it related to gender. Their study found that
females were more likely to participate in deviant workplace behavior. However, the value of
the offense can be as much as 4 times higher for males (Bonny et al., 2015).
Disengagement can be motivated by a perceived psychological contract between the
employee and the organization that becomes irrelevant with an employee’s intent to leave an
organization or from dissatisfaction with leadership. When employees plan to leave an
organization, they are less likely to maintain organizational norms and disengage (Christian &
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 27

Ellis, 2013). Leaders also influence the ethics of their employees, and the relation between the
disengagement of leaders and employees can alter the perception of unethical organizational
behavior (Bonner & Greenbaum, 2016). Employee perceptions of an ethical infrastructure may
reduce an individual's ability to rationalize and behave in unethical ways, while also motivating
employees to protect their self-image and reduce the burden of guilt (Martin, Kish-Gephart, &
Detert, 2014). Self-interest is a powerful motivator for all individuals (Martin et al., 2014). In an
effort to protect self-interests and self-image, moral disengagement can affect an individual or
group of employees particularly when the perception of that psychological contract places the
employee(s) at the bottom echelon of an organization.
Organizational Culture and Workplace Disengagement
According to Sears and Humiston (2014), the majority of employees in organizations
believe that incivility is a growing concern that is perceived to derail morale and positive
organizational culture. An employee's perception of the climate in the workplace has a profound
effect on the ability of an individual to function successfully. Studies have shown that
organizational leaders are influential in the development of work culture and in affecting
employees’ emotions (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007), as well in shaping the
requirements for emotional labor or the need for employees to control the feeling and expression
of emotion (Diefendorff, Richard, and Yang, 2008). Further, the lack of emotional competencies
(Mishra, 2012) and coping strategies (Rispens & Demerouti, 2016) among employees
contributes to poor job performance and low productivity (Mishra, 2012).
The problem of incivility and the role of emotions in the workplace are only recently
being examined as a measure of organizational health. Emotions play a significant role in how
an employee associates with the organization and how an employee reacts to perceived breaches
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 28

of the psychological contract between the employee and the organization or leadership
(McGrath, Millward, and Banks, 2015). Incivility is defined as behavior that deviates from
workplace norms of mutual respect, is relatively low in intensity, and typically is ambiguous in
its intent to harm a target (Porath & Pearson, 2012). Workplace incivility manifests as
disrespectful or rude behavior, and has been shown to create undesirable working environments,
leading to a downturn in positive organizational culture (Sears & Humiston, 2012).
In examining workplace incivility, Porath and Pearson (2012) found that the behavior
tends to occur more often from supervisors and organizational leaders to employees. Instigators
of incivility are three times more likely to be those of a higher status than the person receiving
the behavior (Porath & Pearson, 2012). The consequences of workplace incivility have been
shown to be widespread through an organization, from the psychological harm done to the
employee to the lowered productivity of an entire organization, and the cause of nearly 12% of
those experiencing uncivil treatment to resign from their positions. The negative effect of
incivility on employees has been shown to directly affect employee disengagement and the
bottom-line of organizations (Porath & Pearson, 2012). In order to better understand the
negative effect of incivility, it is important to examine the role of emotion in the workplace.
Emotional Organization
Organizations have a profound impact on the emotions of an employee. Fineman (1993)
stated that organizational theory has emerged over decades to include the “notion of the
‘emotional organization’, that is to say, a view of organizations as arenas where emotions are
produced, fabricated, managed, and exploited” (p. 297). Such organizational theory is evidenced
in the conceptual model of the five levels of emotion in the workplace developed by Ashkanasy
and Dasborough (2003). The model includes emotion sources that are organization-wide,
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 29

groups, interpersonal interactions, between persons, and within-person, emphasizing the
interrelatedness of emotional variables across all levels of the analysis. Ashkanasy and
Dasborough (2003) and Bowen (2014) suggested that emotion is a cognitive process that
manipulates information, creates perception, and results in emotion. These emotions have been
found to inform judgment related to employee experiences that have a profound effect on job
performance and organizational wellness (Pelzer, 2005).
Exploring workplace incivility and the connection to employee disengagement has seen a
rise in the literature. The root of the problem lies within what motivates negative workplace
emotions, such as the concept of psychological contract violation (Sears & Humiston, 2013;
McGrath et al., 2015). The psychological contract is the social exchange relationship between
the employee and the organization or the leadership of an organization. As such, employees are
motivated to maintain a balance between the costs and benefits from the relationship (Sears &
Humiston, 2013) and employ a process of interpreting events, or sensemaking, to understand
experiences that occur within that relationship (McGrath et al., 2015). Violation of that
psychological contract leads to an employee’s negative emotional response, such as anger,
resentment or feelings of betrayal. These emotional responses result from feeling that the
organization or leader did not fulfill their obligation to the employee (McGrath et al., 2015).
Based on empirical studies conducted by Sears and Humiston (2013) and McGrath et al.
(2015), an employee’s perception of psychological contract violation is positively correlated to
incivility, particularly among employees with a high-level of socio-emotional investment in the
organization. These employees experience an ideational conflict leading to negative emotions
and disengagement from the workplace. This link to psychological contract violation has also
been shown to manifest in hostility, often used as a synonym for incivility, as posited by Pelzer
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 30

(2005) in relation to the contribution of the negative emotions contempt, anger, and disgust to
day-to-day organizational operations. The motivator for what Pelzer (2005) coined as the
Hostility Triad is conflict between competing groups, and has been shown to function divisively
in organizations to separate employees into a hierarchy. Employees who feel their organization
has devalued them consequently may become disengaged. Pelzer’s (2005) focus on conflict
between groups, or relationship conflict (Rispens & Demerouti, 2016) also highlights the
motivating factor that general conflict at work elicits negative emotions. With conflict, be it
between the employee and the organization, leadership, or other employees, resulting in
perceptions of a breach of contract and motivating disengagement, the research is
overwhelmingly hopeful in suggesting various coping mechanisms to mitigate the negative
emotions in the workplace. These mechanisms positively impact organizational culture and
increase employee engagement.
Emotional Intelligence of Organizational Leadership
Coping mechanisms, or emotion regulation strategies, have been found to mitigate the
negative workplace emotions of employees rebounding from conflict (Rispens & Demerouti,
2016). These strategies focus on psychologically detaching from conflict or mentally
disconnecting from the conflict during work time by not engaging in retaliatory behaviors,
seeking resolution, or thinking excessively about the conflict. The researchers tested this
strategy empirically to find that employees able to detach mentally experience less negative
emotions and are able to engage more. In fact, according the Rispens and Demerouti (2016), the
degree to which participants were able to re-focus their attention to their work helped decrease
their levels of anger and contempt. The moderating effects of coping strategies were also
explored by Diefendorff et al. (2008) using the process model of emotional regulation to
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 31

empirically test which strategies of emotion regulation were used in various employee
experiences eliciting negative emotions. The five strategies for altering negative emotions at
work include situation selection (avoidance), situation modification (altering the circumstances
of the experience), attentional deployment (distraction or refocus), and cognitive change
(reappraising experiences to change their emotional impact). The researchers found that the most
common coping strategies (attentional deployment, situation selection, and situation
modification) were proactive and approach-oriented, which demonstrate that employees do use
coping strategies, though not all employees, and most coping strategies aim to mitigate the
negative emotions without avoidance. In the research on coping strategies, the employees that
most successfully mitigated negative emotions resulting from workplace conflict were shown to
have high levels of engagement and emotional intelligence (EI). It is imperative to conclude this
discussion of incivility and the effect of negative emotions on organizational culture with a brief
examination of the importance of emotional intelligence from the perspective of the employee
and leadership.
Emotional intelligence has been shown to promote positive organizational culture,
engagement, task performance, altruism, and compliant behavior among employees (Carmeli &
Jordan, 2006) It is also linked to professional satisfaction and subordinate performance among
leaders (Pastor, 2014). In relation to incivility, which has been shown to be a trickle down from
the top of an organization permeating an organizational culture with negative emotions, it is
imperative to focus attention on the emotional intelligence of organizational leadership.
According to the empirical study of Wong and Law (2002), organizational leaders with high
levels of EI effectively create positive emotions within employees, promoting emotional and
intellectual growth as well as increasing employee performance. Further, this comprehensive
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 32

study supports that emotional intelligence is of the utmost importance in workplace social
interactions (Wong & Law, 2002). As incivility has been shown to stem from negative
workplace emotions, the regulation of those negative emotions is fundamental in curtailing
uncivil working environments and employee disengagement. The solution that has been posited
is the investment in developing positive organizational culture through the mechanism of
emotional intelligence.
Facilities’ Employees and Higher Education
There is limited literature on blue-collar workers, such as facilities employees, in higher
education related to their role, perception of self or the organization, or their engagement levels.
Studies of employee engagement in higher education primarily focus on faculty, administrators,
or professional staff. However, maintenance, grounds, and custodians are the employee
subgroup who maintain the physical appearance of the campus on a daily basis. The physical
appearance of a community college campus has been positively linked to college choice by
students (Campbell & Bigger, 2008; June, 2006; Smith, 2005). Community colleges rely on
student enrollment for funding, and a lack of engagement by the employees who maintain the
overall physical space of a community college campus could impact a student’s decision to
enroll or remain enrolled with a college (Campbell & Bigger, 2008; Noel-Lewitz, 2011; Smith,
2005).
Organizational culture that assigns value to employee roles in a hierarchical fashion
creates a perception that roles seemingly most unrelated to the overall organizational goals
occupy the lowest place in the hierarchy (O’Brien et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg, 2000).
Institutions of higher education can be characterized as a hierarchical organization, where
faculty employees occupy the highest place due to direct impact on student success, while
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 33

groups that are further from that organizational mission occupy lower spots. This type of
organizational culture leads to the perception that the organization condones, implicitly or
otherwise, the devaluing of employee subgroups, impacting employee morale and performance
within affected groups. Blue-collar subgroups within hierarchical organizations such as higher
education are underrepresented in research, however there are a few of note that include blue-
collar workers overall engagement levels. For example, Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006)
examined engagement across multiple occupations and found that blue-collar workers were
consistently less engaged than other occupational groups such as educators and administrators.
According to Smerek and Peterson’s (2006) study that surveyed 2700 business
operations employees (finance, facilities and operations, human resources, and administrative
IT) at a large research university, facilities and operations employees were less satisfied in their
roles than people in any other subgroup. In fact, facilities & operations ranked lower on all work
environment factors with the largest difference being their perceptions of senior management’s
effectiveness, advancement, and professional growth opportunities. Facilities employee
participants identified as devalued, cynical and disengaged. Work motivation and performance
are defined by what benefits the individual employee or subgroup over the organization, and
perpetuates a “them vs. us” attitude among subgroup employees (Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds,
2003; Kelly & Kelly, 1990; O’Brien et al, 2004). As a result, subgroup employees tend to meet
organizational engagement programs with resistance, lack of trust, a feeling of unequal reward,
and general lack of support. Building a capacity for changing the attitude of subgroup employees
is established through empowering employees to be positive contributors to the collective
(O’Brien et al, 2004; Peters, Haslam, Ryan, & Fonseca, 2012).
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 34

Employees, as Van Knippenberg (2000) describes, tend to define themselves according
to social identity theory. Their perceived status as devalued or valued members of the
organization affects how they identify personally with the organization and within their
employee subgroup (e.g., facilities employees). Social identity theory relies on how aware
members are of their status in a group. This awareness has implications on work motivation and
performance. Subgroup employees that perceive that their membership in the organization does
not translate into recognition or appreciation of their role become less willing to exert effort on
behalf of the group (O’Brien et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg, 2000). Therefore, their
identification with the organization does not result in positive, sustained engagement.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework

Clark and Estes (2008) provided a theoretical framework for understanding
organizational and stakeholder goals, and addressed organizational problems through the
analysis of the three primary causes of performance gaps: knowledge and skills; motivation; and
organizational barriers. A performance gap is defined as the gap between performance goals and
actual performance levels (Clark & Estes, 2008). To assess gaps in knowledge, Krathwohl
(2002) identified four knowledge types to demonstrate how different types contribute to the
overall knowledge and skills employees need to possess to achieve stakeholder and
organizational goals: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation, or the drive to engage and complete a task, is manifested in
individuals actively engaging in the task, persisting at it, and investing the necessary mental
effort to achieve stakeholder performance and organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Mayer, 2011). Motivational influences underlying active choice, persistence and mental efforts
include self-efficacy, attributions, values and goals, which can be considered when analyzing
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 35

performance gaps (Rueda, 2011). Finally, organizational influences on stakeholder performance
and organizational goals to consider include organizational processes, resources and culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study addressed elements of Clark and Estes’ (2008) analysis in terms of CCCD
facilities employee’s knowledge, motivation and organizational needs in the context of
performance excellence as operationalized into earning a performance rating of Exceeds
Standards on their 2019 annual evaluation. The following consists of three sections addressing
the assumed influences on the stakeholder goal in the contexts of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences. Each of these assumed stakeholder knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences on performance was examined through the
methodology discussed in Chapter Three.
Facilities Employees’ Organizational, Motivational and Knowledge Influences

This section examines the organizational, motivational and knowledge factors that
influence facilities employee engagement and performance. This section is ordered with the
major influencer beginning the discussion, followed by the median influencer, and concluding
with the influence that is assumed to have the least impact on facilities employee engagement
and performance evaluations. The first section reviews the organizational factors that affect
employee engagement and performance, including a culture of trust, participative decision-
making, and organizational value and support. The second section discusses elements of
employee engagement and performance that are influenced by motivational factors, such as
attribution and self-efficacy. The third section discusses the need for employee awareness of
how to excel in their position and how that knowledge impacts achievement of the
organizational goal.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 36

Organizational Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), a lack of efficient and effective work processes and
material resources has a negative impact on employee and organizational performance goals.
However, efficient processes or materials are only one component of closing performance gaps.
Organizational culture permeates all facets of work, including being the process and resource
that all performance is filtered through to provide an understanding of organizational identity,
values, and function (Clark & Estes, 2008). As organizational culture impacts all efforts to
improve performance, all aspects of an organization’s culture must be considered if any
organizational change is to be effective. An organization’s culture can be analyzed based on the
cultural settings and cultural models that exist in it (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural
settings are concrete and include the employees, their tasks, how and why tasks are completed,
and the social context in which their work is performed. Cultural models refer to cultural
practices and shared mental schema within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To
support the organizational goal of retention through engagement of this population, analyzing
optimum cultural settings and models provided sound recommendation for future interventions
to improve facilities employee performance at CCCD.
Culture of trust. The first cultural model influence in the context of this study was trust.
Research shows that trust is imperative for organizational success and the achievement of
organizational and performance goals (Gould-Williams, 2003; Koohang et al., 2017; Ning &
Yan, 2009; Setiawan et al., 2016). Building a culture of trust between facilities employees and
organizational leadership is imperative for the organization to aid in increasing employee
performance. Trust is defined in Koohang et al. (2017) as the confidence between two parties
that neither will exploit the other’s vulnerability. Further, it represents how much risk an
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 37

individual is willing to accept in exchange for any resulting benefits from interacting with others
(Koohang et al., 2017). An organizational culture of trust can be created through strong or “high
commitment” Human Resources practices (Gould-Williams, 2003). These HR practices include
1) employment security, 2) selective hiring, 3) team or group work, 4) performance-related pay,
5) training and development, 6) egalitarianism, and 7) information sharing (Gould-William,
2003; Pfeffer, 1999). Gould-Williams (2003) posited that the extent to which organizational
culture embraces these HR practices communicates a level of trust from the organization
towards the employee, which in turn shapes employee behaviors and attitudes.
Trust is a significant link between organizational and employee goals. High levels of
trust lead to higher organizational and employee performance, while a lack of trust increases
levels of employee cynicism, low motivation, low commitment, dysfunction and a lack of
confidence in the organization (Gould-Williams, 2003; Koohang et al., 2017; Ning & Yan,
2009; Setiawan et al., 2016). Further, effective leadership is positively correlated to an elevated
organizational culture of trust, successful knowledge management processes and increased
organizational performance (Koohang et al., 2017). Effective leaders provide for an
organizational culture that bolsters employee engagement and enthusiasm, increasing employee
confidence in achieving individual and organizational performance goals (Koohang et al., 2017;
Ning & Yan, 2009, Setiawan et al., 2016). This study explored the degree to which facilities
employees experience a culture of trust.
Culture of participative decision-making. The second cultural model influence
focused on fostering a culture of participative decision-making. The organization needs to
convey a supportive commitment to facilities employees with regard to valuing their input in the
decision-making processes within their division and within the District. According to Lam et al.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 38

(2002), participative decision-making equates to sharing influence between hierarchical
superiors and their subordinates. Studies have found a positive link between incorporating
multiple voices into the decision-making processes of an organization and the success of
organizational goals (Lam et al., 2002; Miller & Lee, 2001; Pereira & Osburn, 2007). Further,
research has shown that participative decision-making has a positive correlation to employee job
satisfaction and performance (Lam et al., 2002). However, according to Lam et al. (2002),
employees whose performance is most benefited from involvement in participative decision-
making are those with a higher degree of self-efficacy and collective-efficacy, or the belief that
they or their colleagues are able to participate effectively. Therefore, a culture of participative
decision-making has the strongest influence on employees that are motivated and engaged. It is
essential for the success of all facilities employees in achieving performance and organizational
goals that CCCD build a culture that supports and develops capable, dedicated decision makers.
Miller and Lee (2001) found that organizational commitment to the development of such a
workforce has been shown to produce more committed and responsible employees. Therefore,
CCCD needs to encourage and support the facilities employees in developing as decision-
makers and including them in the process of department and organizational decision-making.
Culture of valuing and supporting employees. The third cultural model influence
focused on fostering a culture of valuing and supporting employees. It is imperative that the
organization convey value to facilities employees with regard to the contributions of their role in
the district, as well support Facilities as an integral department within the organization.
Organizational culture plays an essential role in how employees perceive their contributions to
their role and the organization (Carmeli et al., 2015). Whether or not the facilities employees
perceive that the organizational culture supports their acquisition and application of knowledge
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 39

and skills is an integral component to employee engagement. The influence of how
organizational culture supports employees is demonstrated through its relationship to creativity
(Carmeli et al., 2015; Zhang & Bartol, 2010) and employee led job crafting (Bakker et al., 2016;
Eldor & Harpaz, 2016).
Creativity, according to Carmeli et al. (2015), is impacted by the social constructs of the
workplace. In particular, research demonstrates that respectful engagement (RE), or positive
interrelating, in organizational culture builds capacity for employee creativity through perceived
organizational support and employee reflection on individual and organizational goals (Carmeli
et al., 2015). Relational information processing, as defined by Carmeli et al. (2015), is the
mechanism for reflection using conversation between employees to capture how actively
engaged other members of the organization are related to their goals and ways of doing work.
Creativity is further affected by social constructs linked to empowerment mediated by
leadership, another social construct that impacts organizational culture (Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
According to Zhang and Bartol (2010), employees that achieve meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact in their roles build capacity for creativity increasing their level of
engagement. Leadership that is able to infuse organizational culture with empowerment has been
shown to be an enabling process, increasing employee autonomy and participation in decision-
making processes within the organization (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). This autonomy and inclusion
in organizational decision-making provides for a metacognitive approach to acquiring
knowledge and skills to meet the expectation of leadership and maintain control of one’s work
environment. The ability of employees to assess the supportive nature of organizational culture
provides motivation for job crafting, which further increases employee engagement (Bakker et
al., 2016; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). Employee driven changes to job characteristics positively
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 40

increases employee engagement and is provided for through supportive organizational culture.
The ability for employees to self-assess, reflect, and construct their work environment requires
knowledge and skills such as social cognitive theory where employees learn by modeling and
reflection (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016).
Connection with organizational leadership. The first cultural setting influence is
communication. To aid in facilities employees’ goal setting and achievement, it is important that
the organization communicate performance expectations, professional development
opportunities, and general relevant information transparently and clearly. Studies indicate that
accurate and open communication within an organizational culture between the organization,
supervisors and employees boosts employee productivity and job satisfaction (Berger, 2014;
Men, 2014; Men & Jiang, 2016; Mikkelson et al., 2015). In additional, according to Men (2014),
organizations that adopt a culture of transformational leadership increase the effectiveness of
internal communications, particularly those that are considered symmetrical. Transformational
leadership is a leadership style that motivates employees through empathy, compassion, and
relationship building. Transformational leaders are innovative in their approach to the well-
being of employees, taking great interest in fostering a climate of trust (Men, 2014).
As such, transformational leaders often engage in frequent communication with their
employees to understand and address their needs. Symmetrical internal communication is
defined as two-way communication which facilitates open, employee-centered, horizontal
dialogue between the organization and its employees (Men, 2014; Men & Jiang, 2016).
Transformational leadership is characterized by interaction and empowering communication
behaviors by supervisors and overall organizational leadership (Men, 2014). The facilities
employees at CCCD experienced communication in a confusing way. Direct supervisors
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 41

communicated with employees and engaged in open dialogue about expectations, needs for
improvement, or opportunities for advancement. However, executive leadership over the area
communicated indirectly and often undermined what direct supervisors may have advised. The
supervisor is then put in a difficult position to either deny previous information provided or
admit the information was unsupported by the executive. The facilities employees would most
benefit from an organizational culture that fosters symmetrical communication that is driven by
transformational leadership. Open communication between the organization and its employees
increases the perception of employee value and a balance of power within the organization
(Men, 2014). Symmetrical internal communications further lead to an increase in employee’s
organizational satisfaction boosting engagement, collaboration, and dialogue (Men, 2014; Men
& Jiang, 2016; Mikkelson et al., 2015). Improving organizational culture to include transparent
and relevant information sharing would positively impact CCCD.
Availability of professional development. The second cultural setting influence is
access to professional development opportunities. Facilities employees had opportunity to
participate in offered professional development and leadership workshops; however, feedback
from this population suggested that the majority of offered workshops were irrelevant or
unhelpful. The target audience of many CCCD workshops were either administrative or
instructional. Facilities employees were provided time to attend professional development
opportunities; however, many presented a conflict with the work schedules of this population.
The organization needs to provide sufficient time and incentives for facilities employees to
engage in relevant professional development to increase employee connection to the
organization building capacity for achieving performance and organizational goals. Professional
development is part of what Senge (1990) defined as a “learning organization” as places “where
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 42

people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and
expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where
people are continually learning to see the whole (reality) together” (p. 3). Research shows that
employees in a learning organization that values professional development benefit from this
form of organizational support as it contributes to improved performance (Gumus et al. 2011;
Napitupulu et al., 2017). Further, professional development is considered imperative to meeting
organizational goals (Gumus et al., 2011). According to Gumus et al. (2011), within learning
organizations, professional development is actively promoted, facilitated, and rewarded. As
such, CCCD needs to improve its model as a learning organization, encouraging and supporting
the facilities employees in taking advantage of opportunities for professional development
(Gumus et al. 2011; Napitupulu et al., 2017; Senge, 1990).
Table 2 identifies the organizational influences that focus on trust, participative decision-
making, communication, and professional development. These influences were analyzed to
assess how organizational factors affected facilities employee engagement and performance at
CCCD.
Table 2. Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goal
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There needs to be a culture of trust between
employees and organizational leadership.
Survey or interview questions focused on
whether employees trust organizational
leadership, including immediate supervisors.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
There needs to be a culture of participative
decision-making.

Survey or interview questions focused on
whether employees feel organizational
decisions include their input, and whether they
feel their input has value.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 43

Cultural Model Influence 3:
There needs to be a culture of communicating
value for and support of facilities employees.
Survey or interview questions focused on
whether employees feel valued and supported
by the organization.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to be transparent and
clear in communicating to build a connection
with employees.
Survey or interview questions focused on how
information is communicated within the
organization and whether employees feel the
information is relevant and transparent.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs provide enough time
and support for employees to participate in
professional development opportunities to
increase perception of connection to the
organization.
Survey or interview questions focused on the
opportunities for professional development and
the support from leadership to participate.

Motivation Influences
Motivation-related influences increase employee engagement and impact facilities
employees’ pursuit of performance ratings of Exceeds Standards on their 2019 annual
evaluation. Motivation, or the drive to engage and complete a task, plays an important role in
employee engagement through employees’ active choice, persistence, and mental effort to
achieve individual and organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). Understanding
motivation of facilities employees is essential to understanding the influences in achieving high
levels of employee engagement in an organization such as CCCD. This study focused on
attribution theory, self-efficacy, and expectancy value theory. These theories examined how
facilities employees perceived organizational behavior and how they perceived value in
effectively performing their duties, influencing job satisfaction and performance.
Attribution theory. Attribution theory begins with the assumption that individuals want
to understand their environment and attempt to understand why events happen (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Both environmental and personal factors contribute to an individual’s
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 44

assessment of what caused a certain event, affecting subsequent motivation to engage in similar
activities. Weiner’s (1985; 2006) model of attribution theory emphasized that the perception of
causes of events are more important than the actual causes, particularly whether the attribution
can be characterized along three causal dimensions: locus (internal vs. external), stability (across
time or not), and controllability (i.e., skills vs. luck). Attribution theory is considered a three-
stage process where first, the behavior of an individual is observed, and then, the observer
determines that the behavior is intentional, and then the behavior is attributed to either internal
or external factors (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). In making the determination as to whether
the behavior is caused by internal or external factors, the observer considers consistency,
distinctiveness, and consensus (Vlachos, Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2013). Consistency refers to
whether the observer behaves the same in subsequent same situations, while distinctiveness is
whether that person behaves the same in different situations, and consensus is the degree to
which others would behave like the observed in the same situation (Vlachos et al., 2013). The
subjective interpretation of events and behaviors in the workplace, per attribution theory, affects
employee engagement and employee job performance (Sanders & Yang, 2016; Vlachos et al.,
2013).
Employee attributions. Weiner (1985; 2006) argued that an employee’s attributions for
performance outcomes determine subsequent reaching for high performance. Further, positive
employee perceptions of success in their position relates to increased work commitment
(Sanders & Yang, 2016). For the facilities employees, value and success are related as
perception of respect for their position in the organization effects performance. Sanders and
Yang (2016) posited that when an employee attributes work commitment to management,
organizational leaders are able to convey clear messages about what is appropriate behavior and
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 45

performance for employees, as well as convey recognition of its value. Employees are then able
to control and adjust their performance to align with leadership expectations. However, when an
employee attributes work commitment to himself/herself or the work environment, their
understanding of what organizational leaders intend and what is expected of them becomes less
clear and controllable (Sanders & Yang, 2016).
Vlachos et al. (2013) determined that charismatic leadership can be used as a predictor of
favorable employee attributions. As it relates to the facilities employees, increasing the positive
association attributed to achievement in their individual role has a positive impact in their
perception of value and their ability to control their own success, thus increasing their
performance. This study explored the facilities employee’s attributions related to performance,
achievement, and perceived value to the organization. For example, Herzberg (1964) identified
two categories of needs for achievement: hygiene factors and motivators, which are independent
and influence behavior in different ways. Employees that are dissatisfied with their jobs are
concerned about the work environment, while satisfied individuals feel contented with their role
(Dobre, 2013). Hygiene factors refers to organizational policies, supervision, working
conditions, financial security or interpersonal relations. These factors are not intrinsic to the job
and do not influence the performance capacity, but they prevent low performance due to work
restrictions. Motivators involve feelings of achievement, professional growth and recognition.
These factors have a positive effect on job satisfaction and also increase employee performance
capacity (Dobre, 2013; Herzberg, 1964). Satisfaction of hygiene factors correlates to an
elimination of dissatisfaction and work restrictions. However, per Dobre (2013), hygiene factors
have no impact on achieving superior performance. An increase in motivators will help
employees grow and develop, increasing capacity for high performance.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 46

Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to influence events that
affect one’s life and control over the way these events are experienced (Bandura, 1997). Tims,
Bakker, and Derks (2014) suggested that self-efficacy relates to performance because it
influences both the activities that people pursue and how much effort they allocate to these
activities. Self-efficacy has been linked to increased performance due to individuals perceiving
themselves as highly efficacious and performing with ample task-related effort, persisting longer
on a task despite setbacks. This self-regulatory behavior increases successful performance
outcomes. In contrast, individuals who perceive low self-efficacy may be more likely to
withdraw their efforts and fail the task (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014).
Employee self-efficacy. Chiang, Jang, Canter, and Prince (2008) posited that employee
engagement and job performance are increased by adding communication satisfaction as an
intermediary to how employees perceive that their position or duties aligning with their goals.
Positive communication has a positive effect on an employee’s assignment of value to working
harder to perform higher (Chiang et al., 2008). Research shows that employees motivated by
satisfaction report higher levels of organizational commitment (Bhuvanaiah & Raya, 2015).
Commitment and perception of job satisfaction is based on the expectation that employee
engagement has value and will result in professional achievement (Eccles, 2006). Further, value
has a correlation to employee self-efficacy, or an employee’s belief that they have the ability to
execute certain desirable behaviors such as deliver excellent performance to impact their work
environment positively (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014). Self-efficacy motivates engagement and
has been shown to affect the attribution of value to an employee’s skills and contributions in
their role by leadership and the organization (Tims et al., 2014). As it relates to the facilities
employees at CCCD, confidence that they can perform the duties of their position as expected
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 47

by the organization will positively influence the value they place on performing their job duties
at a higher level.
Table 3 identifies two motivational influences that focus on attribution and self-efficacy.
The study used these influences to analyze how motivation affects facilities employee
engagement at CCCD.
Table 3 Assumed Motivational Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions – Employees should feel that a
high level of performance is due to their own
efforts rather than due to factors outside of
their control.

Written survey item “My performance is
strongly influenced by the amount of effort I
put into my duties.”
(Strongly agree – Strongly disagree)

Interview item:
“How does a facilities employee earn an
Exceed Standards on their performance
evaluation?”

Document analysis of performance
evaluations.
Self-Efficacy – Employees should feel
confident that they can perform as expected by
the organization.

Written survey item “I am confident I can
perform excellent work for CCCD.”
(Strongly agree – Strongly disagree)

Interview item:
“What are some of the causes for low
confidence in job performance in your
organization?”

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 48

Document analysis of performance
evaluations.

Knowledge and Skills Influences
Employee engagement is maintained when employees attain the knowledge and skills
to exert certain amounts of control over their work environment (Bakker, Rodriguez-Munoz, &
Sanz Vergel, 2016; Rangnekar, 2012) and infuse their work with passion (Ho, Wong, & Lee,
2011; Zigarmi & Nimon, 2011), creativity (Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Carmeli, Dutton, & Hardin,
2015) and continuous learning (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013; Eldor & Harpaz,
2016). Employee engagement further requires employees to possess knowledge and skills to
perform the functions of their position (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008) and
achieve individual and organizational goals impacting productivity (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011; Simon, 2011). However, employee engagement is only sustained when employees acquire
knowledge and skills beyond the technical abilities to perform their role, such as social and
personal resources (Bouckenooghe, Raja & Abbas, 2014). Employee ability to successfully
apply knowledge and skills to job responsibilities and contributions to the organization increases
and sustains employee engagement and positively impacts how employees perceive their job
satisfaction, achievement, and their commitment to the organization (Ferinia, Yuniarsi, &
Disman, 2016).
Knowledge types. Four types of knowledge contribute to learning and performance:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual
knowledge refers to the basic elements employees need to know to perform their role and solve
professional problems, such as organizational terminology or specific duties related to their
position (Krathwohl, 2002). The second type of knowledge is conceptual, or how the basic
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 49

elements employees need to know relate to one another, using prior knowledge to determine
meaning in their role (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is more complex,
requiring higher critical thinking to connect patterns and relationships. The third type of
knowledge is procedural, which pertains to the deeper knowledge an employee has regarding
how to perform the functions of their role (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive
knowledge is the fourth, and last, type of knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge refers to the
ability of employees to be self-aware and able to assess and correct their approach to a task,
using appropriate skills and strategies (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognition is the
self-regulation and control of knowledge, and a main contributor to the successful transfer and
application of knowledge to various situations.
While all four types of knowledge are essential to employee engagement, the focus of
this study was on metacognitive knowledge. The metacognitive influence discussed includes
employee knowledge regarding what will lead to excellent performance in their position. This
metacognitive knowledge influence demonstrates that self-awareness and the ability to acquire,
assess, and control knowledge positively impacts an employee’s level of engagement, increasing
their overall performance and commitment to the organization.
Employee awareness of how to excel in their position. The ability to self-assess how
one can obtain or maximize excellent performance in their position is an essential component of
employee engagement (Shuck et al., 2013). This self-assessment and regulation of the
knowledge and skills required to attain high job performance is an example of metacognitive
knowledge (Rueda, 2011; Shuck et al., 2013). A facilities employee with the knowledge and
skills to determine how to find the point of excellence and maintain it within their position
positively relates to increased employee engagement and job commitment (Shuck et al., 2013).
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 50

This metacognitive approach to job skills can also lead to more consistent and positive
performance in the employee’s role and extra-role contributions to the organization (Eldor &
Harpaz, 2016; Ferinia et al., 2016). Excellence stems from the perception of and recognition of
achievement that drives performance and employee advocacy, or the interpersonal impact of an
employee that aids in promoting goodwill and cooperation among others in the organization
(Ferinia et al., 2016). According to Ferinia et al. (2016), job satisfaction is the highest
contributor to a positive workplace environment and driven by recognition of high performance
and the ease in which an organization allows employees to attain higher levels of education both
academically and professionally.
Further, job performance is positively impacted by its relationship to work passion (Ho
et al., 2011; Zigarmi & Nimon, 2011). According to Zigarmi and Nimon (2011), the
metacognitive concept of intention, or how employees determine they will cope with
organizational issues and experiences, is a major factor in the formation of work passion. Work
passion and intention are social cognitive constructs that an employee utilizes to assess work
well-being affecting how the organization and the work “matters” to the employee (Ho et al.,
2011; Zigarmi & Nimon, 2011). The experience of work passion is a metacognitive process of
self-assessment and self-regulation (Ho et al., 2011). To goal of the process is to balance
harmonious passion, associated with the voluntary view of the job as important due to the facets
of the job itself, with obsessive passion where the job is viewed as important due to pressures or
outcomes associated with the job. The ability to self-assess and self-regulate the factors
contributing to job performance are an important component in how employees see themselves
as positive contributors to their role and to the organization, increasing employee engagement
and adding to their ability to achieve the stakeholder goal (Shuck et al., 2013). As it relates to
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 51

the facilities employees at CCCD, self-regulation and self-assessment of their role as important
impacts striving to attain a higher level at which they perform the duties.
Table 4 provides the organizational mission, organizational goal, and information
specific to knowledge influence, knowledge type, and knowledge influence assessment. As
Table 4 indicates, this study used one metacognitive influence to analyze the knowledge
facilities employees of CCCD possess.
Table 4. Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Employees need awareness in
how to excel in their position.
Metacognitive ● Open-Ended Survey to
demonstrate analysis of
performance related to
excellence
● Interview focused on
leadership decisions and
assignment of tasks in
relation to self-knowledge
of performance in their
position

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Facilities Employee Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context

A conceptual framework is a system of concepts, theories, and assumptions that frames a
study and informs how various factors interact and relate to one another (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework functions as the lens or philosophical and
methodological paradigm the researcher constructs and employs to develop their study
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, that lens is constructed from four main
sources, per Maxwell (2013): experiential knowledge, existing theory and research, pilot and
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 52

exploratory research, and thought experiments. Essentially, the conceptual framework is a
coalescence of prior research on a subject (theoretical and empirical) with personal experience
and thought experiments to develop a paradigm for understanding and propose a theory about
“what is going on and why” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 40).
As a key part of research design, Maxwell (2013) posited that the conceptual framework
aids in directing the focus of the study, developing relevant research questions, selecting
appropriate methods, identifying validity threats, as well as helping to justify the research.
Therefore, the conceptual framework presented in this study considered the previous body of
research on employee engagement and the phenomena of disengagement, as well as the
conditions that led to poor performance from employees. The framework utilized previous
research in context with the evaluation of facilities employee population and the factors that
influenced the achievement of the stakeholder goal at CCCD. This aided the researcher in
identifying the methods most appropriate for the particular knowledge, motivation and
organizational needs at CCCD. Therefore, the conceptual framework constructed for this study
was informed by the pragmatic worldview (Cherryholmes, 1992; Creswell, 2014).
Pragmatism “arises out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent
conditions” (Creswell, 2014, p. 10). In this paradigm, the concern is in applications and
solutions to a problem, such as using a pluralist approach to sourcing the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influencers on employee disengagement and performance. Further, Creswell
(2014) posited that pragmatism allows for the use of both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies to provide the best understanding and recommendation for remedying a problem.
The strength of the pragmatic worldview is the ability to develop a study founded in multiple
methods from multiple perspectives that produces results that are general as well as applicable to
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 53

the individual circumstances of the organization to reduce attrition due to disengagement and
increase performance in the stakeholder population (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
While each of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are
presented as separate factors affecting employee engagement by the CCCD facilities employees,
these three elements are interrelated and do not operate in isolation. In order to achieve both the
stakeholder and organizational goals of this study, knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs were concurrently addressed (Clark & Estes, 2008). The conceptual framework presented
in this section provides a visual and narrative explanation of the ways in which knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors work together within the CCCD. These factors evaluated
how the organization can best support the achievement of employee engagement through the
goal of facilities employees earning an Exceeds Standards on their annual performance
evaluation in the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year evaluation cycle. Figure 1 illustrates this conceptual
framework.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 54

Figure 1. Interaction of stakeholder knowledge and motivation within organizational cultural
models and settings.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 55

This figure outlines the relationship between the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors influencing the organizational goal of retention of facilities employees
based on employee engagement within the CCCD, leading to the achievement of employee
engagement and the stakeholder goal. Specifically, the organizational goal in the figure is
represented by the larger purple circle as the overall problem of practice that the influencers and
phenomena exist within. Within this larger problem of practice are the influences including
organizational models and settings within the blue circle, employee motivation in the red circle,
and employee knowledge in the green circle. The arrows are bidirectional indicating that these
influences work together, informing one another, to produce the desired phenomena that is
employee engagement. Employee engagement is represented in the orange diamond. From the
achievement of employee engagement, one arrow directs the framework back towards the
organizational goal to illustrate that employee engagement contributes to the organizational goal
of retention of the facilities employees. Further, it represents the iterative aspect of the
conceptual framework. The downward unidirectional arrow that leads from the larger purple
circle to the black rectangle representing the assumed necessity of all influencers working
through the phenomena to achieve the stakeholder goal of employee performance.
Conclusion

The purpose of this study evaluated the degree to which facilities employees at Clair
Community College District (CCCD) achieved the stakeholder goal of earning an Exceeds
Standards on their 2019 annual evaluation. As such, Chapter 2 focused on the knowledge,
motivation and organizational elements related to achieving the organizational and stakeholder
goals. Chapter Two presented literature on employee engagement, performance, and perceptions
of value, correlations and impact. The literature presented supports the critical importance of
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 56

employee engagement with the organization to increase performance and retention. Chapter
Two also presented the conceptual framework depicting how these elements relate to the desired
outcomes. Chapter Three will begin with an explanation of the methodology applied to facilities
employees with SCCDD in order to determine goal progress.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 57

Chapter Three: Methods

This chapter presents the research design and methods for data collection and analysis.
As a reminder from Chapter One, this study evaluated the degree to which Clair Community
College District (CCCD) is achieving its goal of reducing the attrition of its facilities employees
due to disengagement. The research questions guiding this study were as follows:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of facilities employees related to earning an
Exceeds Standards on their annual performance evaluation in the 2018-2019 Fiscal
Year evaluation cycle?
2. How does the organization culture and context impact facilities employees’
knowledge and motivation related to earning an Exceeds Standards?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Chapter Three also clarifies how the instruments were administered and what incentives
were provided to encourage participation in the study. Information is included regarding efforts
of the researcher to ensure the validity, reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness of the
research. The chapter closes with the ethical considerations for the participants in the study, as
well as the limitations and delimitations of the research.
Participating Stakeholders

Facilities employees maintain the physical space of the organization. The physical
appearance of a community college campus has been positively linked to college choice by
students (Campbell & Bigger, 2008; June, 2006; Smith, 2005). The facilities that students see or
do not see on a campus may mean the difference between whether they enroll or not.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 58

Additionally, according to Campbell and Bigger (2008), there is evidence of a positive
correlation between school building conditions and academic achievement. Their research
showed that poor conditions of the physical campus have shown to be correlated to low student
attendance. Student attendance is a significant factor in projecting academic scores on
standardized tests (Campbell & Bigger, 2008). Additionally, the maintenance of the physical
space of the college has an impact on teacher attendance and retention. Low student or faculty
attendance impacts student success. As a contributor to the product of education and facilitation
of student success, facilities employees are also at a high risk of being disengaged from the
organization (Smerek & Peterson, (2006). Improving engagement for this population and
evaluating the impact of employee performance on organizational performance were reasons
facilities employees were the stakeholders of focus for this study.
Facilities Employee Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The criteria presented below guided sample selection.
Criterion 1. The individual must be a facilities employee with the Clair Community
College District. While all of the 56 employees were invited to participate in the initial survey,
the interviews concentrated on a non-random purposeful sampling from the survey participants
to examine their beliefs, thoughts, and experiences within the organization more in depth via
interview. It was important to include perspectives from each of the facilities employees to
examine if there is a difference in the way some employees engage and perform within the
organization as opposed to others. Furthermore, the sample included a mix of new and career
employees to determine if years of experience played a role in their performance and
engagement. Lastly, the sampling of participants for the interviews was a purposeful selection
based on those participants with less than 5 years of service in the facilities department.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 59

Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
For the survey portion of the study, the goal was to invite all facilities staff to participate
in completing an anonymous survey with the aim of achieving high participation. During a
regular monthly staff meeting, the researcher discussed the purpose of the study and invited all
employees to participate in a paper-based survey. To maintain the confidentiality of the
participants, the paper forms were placed in a conference room for employees to take after the
researcher left the room. The researcher provided a self-addressed envelope for participants to
enclose their survey and mail to the researcher. The survey captured similar and separate
experiences, beliefs and thoughts towards performance, engagement, how the facilities planning
and operations department was perceived by CCCD and how the employees perceived their role
in the mission and vision of the organization. To facilitate this, the survey took place at the
onset of the data collection process to help identify performance, engagement, and perception
themes in relation to perceptions of value and self-efficacy (Fink, 2013).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The criteria presented below guided sample selection.
Criterion 1. Interview participants were purposefully selected from participants who
completed the survey to include a representative cross-section of facilities employee
perspectives. At that at the end of the survey, participants were invited to submit their contact
information via a separate form to protect the anonymity of survey.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The purpose of the interviews was to collect data that is contextual and provided insight
into recommended solutions for performance and engagement gaps from the perspectives of a
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 60

representative cross-section of the population (Maxwell, 2013). The interview sampling strategy
was a non-random, purposeful selection. At that at the end of the survey, participants were
invited to submit their contact information via a separate form to be included as a potential
interviewee. From all received forms, seven to nine participants were purposefully selected to
participate in interviews based on having less than five years of service in the facilities
department. In an email notification to the selected interviewees, the researcher explained the
purpose of the study. The employees were offered the opportunity to expand on their survey
responses through the interviews. Interviews were arranged for seven to nine employees to
provide in-depth perspectives on their experiences, including those related to performance and
engagement with the organization and perceptions of value.
Data Collection and Instrumentation

This project employed a sequential parallel mixed method approach to data gathering
and analysis, meaning quantitative data was collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative
data collection and analysis. Using an explanatory method allows the researcher to use the
qualitative data to explain further the findings of the quantitative data (Creswell, 2014). Surveys
and interviews were utilized. This study utilized various methods to address each research
question in some manner, and each required different methods of collection and analysis. The
use of multiple methods, or triangulation, is used to confirm findings and boost internal validity
by gathering data that most authentically reflects participants' experiences (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). For each of the four methods, a rationale for inclusion and explanation of
instrumentation, administration, and analysis follows.
Surveys
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 61

The purpose of the survey instrument was to collect data from facilities employees that
lends to a generalized understanding of their overall satisfaction with CCCD. Further, this
survey connected to the conceptual framework through assessing employees’ knowledge,
motivation, attitudes, and perceptions of value as well as the impact of organizational culture on
performance and engagement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell, 2008). The researcher planned to
invite all employees in the facilities department to complete a single-stage survey.
The decision to survey all employees in this population was based on the department
being a small sample and the need to have as many participants as possible to reduce sampling
errors (Fink, 2013). These surveys were one-page paper-based surveys with English on one side
and Spanish on the other. Surveys were available in the facilities conference room where
employees frequented most often during their work time. Use of paper-based surveys over
electronic was due to many facilities employees not having regular access to a computer in their
department and further, delivering the instrument electronically would cause low completion
rates. As some of the facilities employees are primarily Spanish speakers, the researcher
provided the Spanish version on the same survey page to reduce selection errors. Further, as the
results are number-based, there was no need to translate the results for Spanish survey takers.
The survey is composed of twenty statements that the taker rated individually based on how
much they agree or disagree with the statement. The survey uses a five-point scale as follows: 5
is “extremely agree;” 4 is “agree;” 3 is “neutral;” 2 is “disagree;” and 1 is “extremely disagree.”
(See Appendix A)
Interviews
Interviewing a smaller, purposeful, stratified sample (Creswell, 2014) kept the task
manageable given the limited study window (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), as well as
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 62

representative responses and group heterogeneity (Maxwell, 2013) essential to qualitative
inquiry. Therefore, the researcher’s assistant conducted four interviews. These interviews were
one-time with four separate facilities employees. Interviews conducted via Zoom with the
employee’s permission secured beforehand.
Some of the facilities employees are primarily Spanish speakers. The researcher
provided for a fluent CITI certified interviewer to conduct the interviews that is bilingual and
able to conduct the interview in Spanish if the employee preferred. The structure of the
interviews was open-ended and semi-structured to enable the opportunity for interviewees to
provide an in-depth perspective on their experience, including those related to performance and
engagement with the organization and their perceptions of value through a guided questionnaire.
The purpose of the interview protocol was to collect data from facilities employees that
is contextual but also has flexibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, the questions asked
help provide insight into recommended solutions for performance and engagement gaps from
the perspectives of a representative cross-section of the facilities department (Maxwell, 2013).
The types of questions asked relate to the organizational influences that impact motivation and
employee performance, including experience and behavior, opinion and value, feeling, and
knowledge-based questions that yield descriptive and rich data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
(Appendix B)
Data Analysis

Frequencies were calculated. For stakeholder groups of fewer than 20, the percentage of
stakeholders who strongly agreed or agreed will be presented in relation to those who strongly
disagreed or disagreed.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 63

Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all survey results are submitted. For
interviews, data analysis began during data collection. Analytic memos were created after each
interview documenting any thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation
to the conceptual framework and research questions. Once the researcher’s assistant conclude
the interviews they were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, open coding was
utilized, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework.
A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated
into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis pattern codes were identified and
themes emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

In a mixed methods study, the use of human subjects for data collection poses potential
threats to its credibility and trustworthiness. The researcher is a Human Resources administrator
within the organization of study, and as such, it was important to disclose that the researcher has
knowledge of the employees in the study that may affect the investigation even if objectivity is
greatly exercised. Further, as a member of the organization of study, the researcher might
presume to know the stakeholder group’s responses on the study topic resulting in certain
recommendations and the resources available for the study. Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña
(2014) explained that the risks associated with researcher effects on interviews, such as bias or
reactivity, are significant. To reduce these risks, given the positionality of the researcher as in
the direct chain of command, the researcher will have the interviews conducted by a CITI
certified third party, unaffiliated with the organization.
To increase the credibility of the study, two different methods of data collection were
utilized: survey and interview. These multiple methods helped determine if the data was
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 64

genuine and that the study measured what it intended to measure (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The survey instrument and interview protocol were peer reviewed by colleagues and approved
by the dissertation committee to maintain credibility of the study. During the interview, the
researcher’s assistant ensured that the answers were recorded accurately by repeating the
response for clarity. The triangulation of using multiple sources through survey and interview
further developed credibility and trustworthiness in the study as findings were based on a broad
range of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability

Validity is the extent to which survey findings can be generalized to the broader
population, while reliability aims to improve the consistency of the study findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2009). In order to increase and maintain the validity and reliability of the study, the
researcher employed various methods to ensure that the survey instrument measured the
outcomes as intended (Salkind, 2017). To increase the validity of the research findings, the study
used a purposeful sample for the qualitative interviews, selecting seven to nine employees
purposefully from those participants that indicated they would be willing to be interviewed on
the survey form and have less than five years of service in the facilities department. To improve
reliability, the triangulation of data methodologies helped validate the reliability and consistency
of the data. To further increase reliability, the researcher offered the survey in an approach that
is familiar to the employees, in a setting with which employees were comfortable, and in
languages that were reflective of the population. Doing so, the researcher increased the
likelihood that the observed scores and true scores were as congruent as possible with minimal
gap (Salkind, 2017). Further, the instrument was tested for internal consistency. To maximize
reliability, the researcher used an analysis plan to ensure that each item or question correlated to
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 65

a key construct related to the research questions guiding the study (Pazzaglia, Stafford, &
Rodriguez, 2016; Salkind, 2017). The analysis plan maps survey items to the topics of interest
and proposes the type of analysis and presentation (such as a table or graph) for each result.
To increase validity, the researcher developed the survey instrument with a focus on
content and construct (Salkind, 2017). In establishing content validity, the researcher developed
the survey instrument through collaboration with other content experts in the field of employee
performance and engagement known to the researcher in the local community and in higher
education. These content experts assisted in refining survey items to ensure the instrument fully
represented engagement and performance criterion (Salkind, 2017). In building construct
validity, the researcher acknowledged that motivation and organizational influences are
theoretical constructs that influence perception of value, performance, and engagement. As such,
the survey instrument was designed to reflect the theoretical predictions of certain ratings to
increase validity of the study (Salkind, 2017). For example, the correlation of survey takers that
disagree that their supervisor cares about their feedback should positively correlate to employees
being disengaged.
To address potential bias, it is important to disclose that the researcher is a Human
Resources administrator within the organization of study. The survey and interview data will
remain with the researcher as part of the study and will not be made public to the organization at
large. The researcher has knowledge of the employees in the study that may affect the
investigation.
Ethics

It is imperative that ethical decisions be made with regard to all facets of the study
(Creswell, 2014). This study utilized a mixed-methods approach using human subjects to
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 66

conduct a survey among a specific population of employees and used the results to establish
questions in a sample population for in-person interviews. The same organization employs the
researcher and the research participants, which adds to the need to anticipate ethical
considerations. Per Isreal and Hays (2006), the researcher needs to be mindful to protect their
research participants and guard against misconduct or impropriety that might reflect on their
organization. The researcher is the Director of Human Resources for CCCD. It is imperative not
to betray the trust of employees that the researcher provides indirect supervision over and is the
custodian of employee records. As an employee of the organization, the researcher will not
directly benefit from the results nor will the results be used to directly affect the participants.
The researcher will emphasize their role as a researcher and explain that the only interest in
gathering data about their performance, engagement and perspectives is to benefit the study. To
maintain confidentiality and the ethical considerations of the employees, the researcher had a
third-party assistant conduct the interviews.
The IRB process helped to ensure that the study was ethical and protected the human
subjects that participated. The use of information sheets further helped ensure that employees
did not feel pressured or coerced into participation. Informed consent information was provided
to potential participants prior to data collection and included the purpose of the study, the nature
of participant involvement, and the anonymity of the participant as well as the use of a
pseudonym for the organization. The informed consent via an information sheet based on USC’s
IRB template was the researcher’s agreement with participants that their participation was
voluntary, and the information provided as a result of their participation will not be used beyond
this study. The consent forms were explicit that there was no possibility of retaliation or reprisal
as a result of participation. Ethical research requires protecting participants from harm, ensuring
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 67

their participation is voluntary, and the researcher emphasized that they have a right to withdraw
at any time without consequence (Creswell, 2014). Additionally, the researcher acquired written
consent of the organization’s institutional review board to establish permission to access
participants and minimize risk of harm.
In distributing the survey, the researcher provided a paper document for participants to
complete the survey and submit their results anonymously. Each survey included space to
indicate if the participant was interested in contributing further to the study through an
interview. Completed surveys will be maintained in the researcher’s office in a locked drawer.
Prior to conducting interviews, the researcher’s assistant conducting the interviews obtained
permission to audio record participants. Confidentiality was maintained regarding digital audio
files of interviews by being kept in a locked drawer by the researcher until they were submitted
for transcription. After the transcription of the recordings and removal of all identifiable
information, the files were deleted.
Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations are potential weaknesses in a study and are out of the researcher’s control,
while delimitations are those characteristics that limit the scope and define the boundaries of the
study (Simon, 2011). The delimitations are in the researcher’s control. A limitation of the study
may relate to the power dynamic between the researcher as an administrator and the participants
as subordinates within the same organization. This dynamic has the potential to impact the
truthfulness of responses. However, the information form clearly indicated that the study was
anonymous, another individual will conduct the interviews that is neutral, and without
possibility of retaliation or reprisal. There is still a possibility that this may not have convinced
respondents to be completely honest.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 68

There are delimitations in the study as well. The study focused on the effect of
disengagement and perceptions of value on employee performance. This may have ignored rich
data on other influences that contribute to employee performance. As explained in the
conceptual framework, the study was bound by the previous body of research on employee
engagement and the phenomena of disengagement, as well as the conditions that lead to poor
performance from employees. Employee engagement was substantially impacted by the
organizational, motivational, and knowledge influences displayed in the framework. As
facilities employees are the key stakeholder in the study, further research is necessary to
investigate the relationship between employee disengagement and performance from the
perspective of other stakeholder groups within the organization.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 69

Chapter Four: Results and Findings

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which Clair Community
College District (CCCD) achieved its goal of reducing the attrition of its facilities employees
due to disengagement. While a complete evaluation study would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes the stakeholders focused on in this analysis were all CCCD facilities staff
members. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
related to their performance as employees. As such, the questions that guided this study were the
following:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of facilities employees related to earning an
Exceeds Standards on their annual performance evaluation in the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year
evaluation cycle?
2. How does the organizational culture and context impact facilities employees’ knowledge
and motivation related to earning an Exceeds Standards?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders

The primary stakeholder group for this study was facilities employees who met the
sampling criteria outlined in Chapter Three. Survey criteria included that the individual must be
a facilities employee with the Clair Community College District. While all of the 56 employees
were invited to participate in the initial survey, the interviews concentrated on a non-random
purposeful sampling from the survey participants to examine their beliefs, thoughts, and
experiences within the organization more in depth via interview.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 70

Survey
A sample of 31 facilities employees, who met the study criteria and were provided an
information sheet, completed the survey.
Interviews
Four interviews were conducted with facilities employees who met the study criteria
defined in Chapter Three. The researcher’s assistant was iStar certified and trained by the
researcher to conduct the interviews. Transcripts were provided to the researcher via a shared
folder on Google Drive. The researcher’s assistant removed all identifying information to
maintain the interviewees’ anonymity.
Results

This section addresses the study’s first and second research questions, as follows:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of facilities employees related to earning an
Exceeds Standards on their annual performance evaluation in the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year
evaluation cycle?
2. How does the organizational culture and context impact facilities employees’ knowledge
and motivation related to earning an Exceeds Standards?
The section is organized by key stakeholder influences, including organizational, motivation,
and knowledge causes. The third research question, which addresses the recommendations for
organizational practice in the areas of stakeholder knowledge, stakeholder motivation, and
organizational influences, is addressed in the recommendations section of Chapter Five. The
following section provides key themes that emerged related to research question one and two.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 71

Organizational Results
According to Clark and Estes (2008), a lack of efficient and effective work processes and
material resources has a negative impact on employee and organizational performance goals.
However, efficient processes or materials are only one component of closing performance gaps.
Organizational culture permeates all facets of work, including being the process and resource
that all performance is filtered through to provide an understanding of organizational identity,
values, and function (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Lack of a culture of trust. Studies indicate that accurate and open communication
within an organizational culture between the organization, supervisors and employees boosts
employee productivity and job satisfaction (Berger, 2014; Men, 2014; Men & Jiang, 2016;
Mikkelson et al., 2015). As shown in Figure 2, 54.84% of respondents agreed (strongly or
somewhat) that there is open and honest communication between managers and employees. Of
this percentage, only 9.68% strongly agreed, with the remaining 45.16% somewhat agreeing.
More than a third of the respondents (35.48%) disagreed (either strongly or somewhat) that there
is open and honest communication between managers and employees.
Likewise, as shown in Figure 3, the majority of respondents (48.39%) disagreed
(strongly or somewhat) that they felt they could easily communicate with all levels of the
organization. Slightly more than a quarter of the respondents (29.03%) agreed (either strongly or
somewhat) that there was an ease in communication between themselves and the rest of the
organization.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 72

Figure 2. There is open and honest communication between managers and employees.

Figure 3. I feel I can easily communicate with members from all levels of the organization.

Similar to the findings of the survey data, the interviewed facilities employees perceived
that there is not consistent open and honest communication between managers and employees.
To illustrate, one interviewee described the communication as, “There isn’t the best information
between what we hear from our supervisor and what we hear from other people. Upper
16.13%
32.26%
22.58%
16.13%
12.90%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Q.18 I feel I can easily communicate with members
from all levels of the organization
Total
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 73

management doesn’t provide a lot of details.” Another interviewee explained the transparent
communication between managers and employees as, “We find out changes in the department
last minute or as if we should have already known the information.” In regards to
communication flow in the department, the third interviewee said, “I don’t always feel he has
my best interests in mind. Maybe because if he agrees with me on something but then he comes
back about he asks his boss and the story changes. It’s not as supportive coming back.”
Although overall, the comments supported improving the communication between employees
and management, the interviewees all shared that they felt a sense of trust and strong rapport
with their immediate supervisor.
Research shows that trust is imperative for organizational success and the achievement
of organizational and performance goals (Gould-Williams, 2003; Koohang et al., 2017; Ning &
Yan, 2009; Setiawan et al., 2016). In addition to there not being strong positive response
regarding open and honest communication between managers and employees, data demonstrate
that facilities employees do not believe there is a strong culture of trust between employees and
organizational leadership. Questions related to professional expectations and value of work were
asked of survey participants to measure their level of trust. As shown in Figure 4, only 32.26%
of respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) that they know what is expected of them in their
position. Of the total who agreed to this statement, only 9.68% strongly agreed, while 22.58%
somewhat agreed. Almost a third of the respondents (32.26%) disagreed (either strongly or
somewhat) that they did not know what was expected of them in their position.
Likewise, as shown in Figure 5, only slightly more than half of respondents (56.6%)
agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the leaders in their organizations are held accountable for
improving the level of cultural competence of their staff. Slightly less than a quarter of the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 74

respondents (20.9%) disagreed (either strongly or somewhat) that the leaders in their
organizations are held accountable for improving the level of cultural competence of their staff.

Figure 4. I know what is expected of me in my position.

Figure 5. I feel valued at work.

The comments provided in the interviews supported the survey data that there is not a
culture of trust built on professional expectations and value of work between employees and
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 75

organizational leadership. One interviewee shared, “I don’t think we're highly valued, like I said,
people think we just drive around in carts all day long, because they rarely see us doing the
work, because we're behind the scenes, there’s no trust in our work.” Another interviewee
explained that organizational trust can differ from value, stating, “I think we would all agree
though we’re valued, there’s a feeling of always having to prove we do as much as everyone
else for students.”
Likewise, the third interviewee supported the survey data that there are limited feelings
of knowing what is expected of them professionally creating a lack of organizational trust. The
interviewee commented:
Sometimes the expectation seems to be to be invisible. But we’re also supposed to take
pride in our work. You know. In the history of the Employee of the Year Award, no one
who is in facilities has been picked. A lot of us should be or at least be recognized. What
more can we do.
When asked why the interview thought it there was an expectation to be invisible, they
responded:
We have this event, which is our appreciation luncheon right before the school opens for
the semester, and they have a bunch of pictures of people from other departments. And it was
kind of degrading to all of us in facilities; they just had a picture of a custodial cart, an electrical
cart, with a bunch of trash on it. None of us were recognized in a picture like all the other
departments. So that was pretty sad.
Lack of a culture of participative decision-making. Studies have found a positive link
between incorporating multiple voices into the decision-making processes of an organization
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 76

and the success of organizational goals (Lam et al., 2002; Miller & Lee, 2001; Pereira &
Osburn, 2007). Further, research has shown that participative decision-making has a positive
correlation to employee job satisfaction and performance (Lam et al., 2002). As shown in Figure
6, more than half of respondents (54.84%) agreed (strongly or somewhat) that their supervisor
seems to care about their feedback. However, as shown in Figure 7, the majority of respondents
(67.74%) disagreed (either strongly or somewhat) that the perceived that their opinions counted
to their supervisor. This difference in perception of how employee input is perceived points to a
gap in organizational acknowledgement of input being put to use. It may mean that while
supervisors are willing and eager to listen to employee feedback those opinions are not publicly
or otherwise operationalized.

Figure 6. My supervisor seems to care about my feedback.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 77

Figure 7. At work, my opinions seem to count to my supervisor.

As found in the survey data, the interviewed facilities employees perceived that this disregard
for their opinions and application of their feedback to be linked to a perception of not being
valued in the decision-making processes within the organization and positive reception to
employee opinions. One interviewee said:
I don't really ever feel that I'm taken seriously and the way that it's been shown to me,
people might leave thank you notes in my mailbox or thank me for doing a good job and
working hard but, there’s just as many people that treat you poorly. Look away when
they see us coming or act like we’re in the way. Or, when we bring up suggestions they
say “good idea” but then dismiss it since it’s from a maintenance worker. Like our ideas
aren’t as good as others.
The second interviewee commented that:
I don't really go to my supervisor much anymore with ideas. I think he backs me up, you
know, and, I think he respects what I do. But, when I have a suggestion that is critical or
16.13%
32.26%
22.58%
16.13%
12.90%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Q.7 At work, my opinions seem to count to my
supervisor
Total
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 78

beyond my piece of the job, it’s ignored. So I just do my piece of the job now.
Another interviewee added, “Well, I'll go back to the big boss and tell him, hey, this is what's
wrong. This is what we need to do and this is what we should do. And he'll give me a nod and
smile, but not much comes of it. Like I haven’t been doing this job for 15 years.” These
examples illustrate the importance facilities employees place on feeling that they have control of
their success and contribution to their role in the organization and its relation to a high level of
performance.
Need for an improved culture of communicating value for and support of facilities
employees. Organizational culture plays an essential role in how employees perceive their
contributions to their role and the organization (Carmeli et al., 2015). The data showed that the
facilities employees perceive that the organizational culture does not fully support their
acquisition and application of knowledge and skills as an integral component to employee
engagement. As shown in Figure 8, nearly two-thirds of the respondents (61.28%) said that they
either disagreed (strongly or somewhat) or felt neutral regarding whether they believed the
mission and purpose of CCCD made them perceive their role as important.
In the interviews, when discussing connection to the organization, the facilities
employees shared examples about the importance of understanding how they fit into the
organizational culture. One interviewee said, “Often we aren’t seen for the value we add for
students. It’s not always clear what we’re part of the mission.” As shown in Figure 9, 61.29% of
respondents disagreed (strongly or somewhat) that they see a link between their role and the
goals and objectives of the College. Only 19.35% of respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat).
This shows a gap in communicating the role of facilities employees as valued and connected to
the overall success of organization.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 79

Figure 8. The mission/purpose of CCCD makes me feel my job is important.

Figure 9. I see a clear link between my work the College’s goals and objectives.
Motivation Results
The motivation portion focuses on facilities employees’ motivation related to performing
at a high level. The study explored two areas of focus related to facilities employee motivation.
The first area of focus was attribution that is, the belief that achievement is due to internal
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Agree Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Q.8 The mission/purpose of SCCCD makes me feel
my job is important
Total
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 80

control. The second was self-efficacy, or the confidence that one can achieve a goal. These two
motivation types are discussed below.
Facilities employees do not feel in control of their success. The study sought to
explore the extent to which employees feel that a high level of performance is due to their own
efforts rather than due to factors outside of their control. For facilities employees to reach for
high performance, they must attribute performance outcomes to positive perceptions of success
in their position and a sense of control or choice over their duties. Control and success are
related as employee perception of respect for their position and opinions in the organization
effects performance. As shown in Figure 10, nearly all the respondents (70.97%) said that they
disagreed (strongly or somewhat) or felt neutral regarding whether they have the opportunity to
do what they do best every day. Of the 70.97%, 25.81% were neutral meaning unclear whether
they are valued, recognized or successful in their positions; the remaining 29.03% either agreed
or strongly agreed.

Figure 10. In my position, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 81

Lack of a feeling of control over their success. The comments from the interviewed
facilities employees support the survey data that it is important to them that they feel in control
of their success and are able to do what they feel they do best every day. One interview shared
thoughts on being in control of their success:
And so, you know, I'm a, I'm a spiritual person And I take what God gives me. With this
job and the benefits and everything. So I do the best I can and I am known to work really
hard and get the job done, but it sometimes doesn’t feel enough to become a real success
here.
This interviewee further shared:
The finish line here is...we are the most important ones in the whole school, but we are
looked at, like we are exchangeable. There are other areas, that other custodians do feel
pride in their work. You know, I just take it as, you know, I come here to do the work
and to me is the most important thing is the students, students are the ones who have to
deal with a dirty bathroom or a dirty classroom and stuff like that, I take pride in what I
do and I want students and parents to know, it’s their money. I don’t know if I make a
difference though.
Facilities employees are confident that they can perform as expected by the
organization. Commitment and perception of job satisfaction is based on the expectation that
employee efforts will result in professional achievement. As it relates to the facilities employees,
confidence that they can perform the duties of their position as expected by the organization
positively influences the value they place on performing their job duties at a high level. As
shown in Figure 11, facilities employees have high levels of self-efficacy related to their ability
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 82

to do their job as expected by the organization, although there is room for improvement.
Facilities employees who strongly agreed that they are confident in their ability to perform their
duties within the organizational structure represented 25.81% of the total respondents; an
additional 45.16% agreed, equaling 70.97% agreeing overall (strongly or somewhat). Although
16.13% felt they were not confident in their abilities to do their job within the organizational
structure, none strongly disagreed.
Likewise, as shown in Figure 12, nearly all respondents (83.87%) agreed (strongly or
somewhat) that they are dedicated to improvements in their work to increase performance. In
addition, as shown in Figure 13, the majority of respondents (64.51%) agreed (either strongly or
somewhat) that were confident their co-workers were committed to performing quality work.

Figure 11. The organization’s rules make it easy for me to do my job.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 83

Figure 12. I have made a change in my work during the last year to improve performance.

Figure 13. My co-workers are committed to doing quality work.

When asked about their level of self-efficacy, the interviewed facilities employees
further supported that they have relatively high-levels of self-efficacy, however there is room for
improvement. One interviewee said, “I have like a pretty stressful job here but I know what I’m
doing and do a dang good job of it.” A second interviewee shared the need to continue to learn
by saying:
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Q.15 My co-workers are committed to doing quality
work
Total
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 84

I think we have some opportunities here to take part in professional development, but
many of us don’t. You can know all there is to know about fixing something or cleaning
something, but there are always ways to learn more to be more well-rounded as a part of
the college.
A third interviewee said that their self-efficacy comes from “years of experience as a
custodian and knowing that good teamwork comes from solid foundation of employee that are
experts in their field.” This interviewee added that, “we are a great asset to the college because
we all know when to work hard, when to learn more, and when to do what we’re told.”
Knowledge Results
Facilities workers understand how to perform their duties, but there is a need for
more clarity. To be able to sustain engagement and a high level of performance, facilities
employees need to know how to identify skills and knowledge they may lack and understand
that those skills and knowledge can be learned. One indicator is whether employees feel they
have the tools to do their job correctly. As shown in Figure 14, 51.61% of the survey
respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) that they have the materials and equipment to do
their job right. However, 29.03% responded as neutral showing a gap in either skills or
knowledge of what materials and equipment may be needed. Further, 19.35% disagreed that
they had the materials or equipment needed to do their job correctly. This may indicate an
additional gap in facilities employees understanding that the skills or knowledge of their job
duties can be learned. In addition, as shown in Figure 15, 32.2% of respondents were neutral to
whether they have access to ongoing professional development opportunities. This further the
point that many may not know where to find the skills or knowledge needed to excel in their
jobs.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 85

Figure 14. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my job right.

Figure 15. I have access to ongoing professional development opportunities.

In the interviews, when discussing organizational resources, the facilities employees
shared examples about the importance of having correct procedural knowledge of the use of
equipment and materials to prevent injury. One interviewee shared that although they know to
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Agree Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Q.14 I have access to ongoing professional
development opportunities
Total
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 86

navigate a ladder, drive a utility cart, or use a vacuum, there still needs to be training on the
equipment to ensure correct use and safety. The interviewee said,
We aren’t often trained on how to use our equipment. Many of us have a background in
facilities. We may have used one of those backpack vacuums many times but most of us
have never learned how to use it so we don’t hurt ourselves.
A second interviewee shared a need to provide procedural knowledge on proper use of materials
by saying:
I try to help junior guys see the bigger picture in how we use equipment to do a good job.
So maybe they'll have a little better understanding of what is it that we actually do, how
busy we really are, and how to use what we’re given to show how nice our college can
look.
Facilities employees need awareness of how to excel in their position. Metacognitive
knowledge refers to the ability of employees to be self-aware and able to assess and correct their
approach to a task, using appropriate skills and strategies (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Metacognition is the self-regulation and control of knowledge, and a main contributor to the
successful transfer and application of knowledge to various situations. Facilities employees need
to understand the importance of dedicating time for self-regulation and self-reflection to expand
their level of organizational competence to gain awareness in how to excel in their positions.
Summary

The survey and interview data provided key insights into the organizational, motivation,
and knowledge barriers influencing the ability of facilities employees to earn an Exceeds
Standards on their annual performance evaluation. The data validated gaps in all three areas.
Although the interviews demonstrated the pride and hard work of facilities employees, both the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 87

survey and interview data identified key areas of improvement to improve the ability of facilities
employees to consistently perform at a high level.
Key gap areas were demonstrated in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Specifically, there is an identified need to increase awareness in how
to excel in their position (metacognitive knowledge). Although facilities employees are
motivated to perform at a high level, it is difficult to correlate their success to a sense of
ownership of their duties (attribution theory/motivation). Further, although confident in their
abilities to perform their duties, there is room to expand this level of confidence (self-
efficacy/motivation). In addition to these identified gaps in knowledge and motivation, there are
also organizational barriers that contribute to engagement and performance. Improving the
organizational cultural in relation to communication and trust was identified as a key priority
(organizational). Further, although education and resources are provided, more resources are
needed, especially in the areas on navigating the college culture (organizational).
This chapter identified the key knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
impact facilities employees excelling in their position. Chapter 5 will provide recommendations
to close the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence gaps and an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan to assess program outcomes.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 88

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations

In the previous chapter, the assumed influences in the study were validated through
qualitative and quantitative data analysis and organized into knowledge, motivation, and
organizational challenges. Chapter five will discuss the significance of these findings with
regard to theoretical principles and provide recommendations to address areas in need of
improvement. Like chapter four, the recommendations are organized into categories of
validated knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Recommendations are context-
specific and research-based to increase the likelihood of successful implementation. The
remainder of the chapter describes how the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be used to implement the recommendations and evaluate the impact.
The model has four levels and will be utilized in reverse order: results, behavior, learning,
reaction. Effective use of the Kirkpatrick model will provide important information about
whether the recommendations are providing the desired results in facilities employee
performance at CCCD.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences

This section details the recommendations for organizational practice to address the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that emerged from the data collection and
analysis. Theoretical principles and context-specific recommendations for each influence are
discussed in the following sections. Addressing organizational gaps is critical to creating an
environment and context for facilities employees to succeed in their performance goal.
Therefore, the discussion begins with organizational recommendations, followed by motivation
and knowledge recommendations.
Organization Recommendations
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 89

According to Clark and Estes (2008), a lack of efficient and effective work processes and
material resources has a negative impact on employee and organizational performance goals.
However, efficient processes or materials are only one component of closing performance gaps.
Organizational culture permeates all facets of work, including being the process and resource
that all performance is filtered through to provide an understanding of organizational identity,
values, and function (Clark & Estes, 2008). As organizational culture impacts all efforts to
improve performance, all aspects of an organization’s culture must be considered if any
organizational change is to be effective. An organization’s culture can be analyzed based on the
cultural settings and cultural models that exist in it (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural
settings are concrete and include the employees, their tasks, how and why tasks are completed,
and the social context in which their work is performed. Cultural models refer to cultural
practices and shared mental schema within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To
support the organizational goal of retention through engagement of this population, analyzing
optimum cultural settings and models will provide sound recommendation for future
interventions to improve facilities employee performance at CCCD.
Table 5 provides information specific to organizational influences, probability of
validation, priority, principle and recommendation. As Table 5 indicates, five influences were
used to analyze the motivation facilities employees of CCCD possess.
Table 5. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
There is not a culture of
trust between
employees and
organizational
Organizations with high levels of
cultural trust tend to produce
high quality products and services at
less cost because they can recruit and
Assume others will do
what they say they are
going to do. Do not
micromanage
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 90

leadership. (Cultural
Model)
retain highly motivated employees.
These employees are more likely to
enjoy their work, take the time to do
their jobs correctly; make their own
decisions; take risks; innovate; embrace
the organization’s vision, mission, and
values; and display organizational
citizenship behavior (e.g., helping a co-
worker in need)” (Colquitt, Scott &
LePine, 2007 as cited in Starnes,
Truhon & McCarthy, 2010, p. 6).
unless someone has
demonstrated that she or
is
not dependable.
The organization is not
transparent and clear in
communicating to build
a connection with
employees (Cultural
Setting)
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
continuously build
relationships.

Related research:
• Organizational culture is created
through shared
experience, shared learning and
stability of membership. It is something
that has been learned. It cannot be
imposed
(Schein, 2004).

• Employee attitudes, particularly
feeling as though they matter and their
work makes a difference, are
correlated with numerous
organizational outputs (Buckingham
and Coffman, 1999; Harter, Schmidt,
Killham & Asplund, 2006; Schlossberg,
1989).

• Creating positive
relationships with one’s staff is
correlated with gains in student learning
outcomes in schools (Waters, Marzano
& McNulty, 2003).
1. From day one, start
building relationships and
demonstrating
trustworthiness.
2. Communicate the why,
not just the what, of any
decision.
3. Solicit input, where
appropriate, from people
who could be negatively
impacted by the decision.
4. Solicit input, where
appropriate, from people
who usually do not
agree with you.
5. Listen.
6. Do your best to inform
and explain the
circumstances (where
possible) to key
stakeholders before
implementing decisions.
7. Treat people well.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 91

Develop a strong culture of trust. This influence was chosen because employees will be
unable to achieve high performance levels if the organization cannot create a culture of trust.
Research shows that trust is imperative for organizational success and the achievement of
organizational and performance goals (Gould-Williams, 2003; Koohang et al., 2017; Ning &
Yan, 2009; Setiawan et al., 2016). Organizations with high levels of cultural trust tend to
produce high quality products and services at less cost because they can recruit and retain highly
motivated employees. These employees are more likely to enjoy their work, take the time to do
their jobs correctly; make their own decisions; take risks; innovate; embrace the organization’s
vision, mission, and values; and display organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., helping a
coworker in need)” (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007 as cited in Starnes, Truhon & McCarthy,
2010, p. 6).
Building a culture of trust between facilities employees and organizational leadership is
imperative for the organization to aid in increasing employee performance. This would suggest
that employees that perceive a high level of trust in the organization would improve employee
performance. Therefore, it is recommended that leadership in the organization not micromanage
employees, but rather assume others will do what they say they are going to do unless a
employee has demonstrated that she or is not dependable. This will help to foster an
environment of trust.
Trust is a significant link between organizational and employee goals. High levels of
trust leads to higher organizational and employee performance, while a lack of trust increases
levels of employee cynicism, low motivation, low commitment, dysfunction and a lack of
confidence in the organization (Gould-Williams, 2003; Koohang et al., 2017; Ning & Yan,
2009; Setiawan et al., 2016). Further, effective leadership is positively correlated to an elevated
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 92

organizational culture of trust, successful knowledge management processes and increased
organizational performance (Koohang et al., 2017). Effective leaders provide for an
organizational culture that bolsters employee engagement and enthusiasm, increasing employee
confidence in achieving individual and organizational performance goals (Koohang et al., 2017;
Ning & Yan, 2009, Setiawan et al., 2016). From a theoretical perspective it would appear that by
encouraging individual achievements and performance goals would increase their feelings of
trust for each other, their leaders, and the organization as such is it recommended that leaders
focus on providing autonomy in employee roles.
Enhance transparent and clear communications. The cultural setting influence
needed is transparent and clear communication as it relates to building an organizational culture
that fosters connection between leadership and employees. Creating positive relationships
correlates with gains in learning outcomes (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). Further,
organizational culture is created through shared experience, shared learning and stability of
membership. According to Schein (2004), this is something that has been learned and cannot be
imposed. To aid in facilities employees’ goal setting and achievement, it is important that the
organization communicate performance expectations, professional development opportunities,
and general relevant information transparently and clearly. Employee attitudes, particularly
feeling as though they matter and their work makes a difference, are correlated with numerous
organizational outputs (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999; Harter, Schmidt, Killham & Asplund,
2006; Schlossberg, 1989). Studies indicate that accurate and open communication within an
organizational culture between the organization, supervisors and employees boosts employee
productivity and job satisfaction (Berger, 2014; Men, 2014; Men & Jiang, 2016; Mikkelson et
al., 2015). In additional, according to Men (2014), organizations that adopt a culture of
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 93

transformational leadership increase the effectiveness of internal communications, particularly
those that are considered symmetrical.
Transformational leadership is a leadership style that motivates employees through
empathy, compassion, and relationship building. Transformational leaders are innovative in their
approach to the well-being of employees, taking great interest in fostering a climate of trust
(Men, 2014). This would suggest that communication is need to provide support the facilities
employees in building a reciprocal and engaged relationship with the organization and its
leadership. Therefore, it is recommended that a leadership strive to build relationships to
employees to demonstrate trustworthiness. Doing so will require communicating the why, not
just the what, of any decision as well as soliciting input, where appropriate, from people who
could be negatively impacted by that decision. Before implementing decisions it is imperative to
inform and explain the circumstances to affected employees. Transformational leaders often
engage in frequent communication with their employees to understand and address their needs.
Symmetrical internal communication is defined as two-way communication which facilitates
open, employee-centered, horizontal dialogue between the organization and its employees (Men,
2014; Men & Jiang, 2016). Transformational leadership is characterized by interaction and
empowering communication behaviors by supervisors and overall organizational leadership
(Men, 2014). Open communication between the organization and its employees increases the
perception of employee value and a balance of power within the organization (Men, 2014).
Symmetrical internal communications further leads to an increase in employee’s organizational
satisfaction boosting engagement, collaboration, and dialogue (Men, 2014; Men & Jiang, 2016;
Mikkelson et al., 2015). From a theoretical perspective it would appear that by increasing
effective communication by leadership increases employee satisfaction and perceptions of
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 94

transparency in the organization and as such is it recommended that leaders focus on improving
information communication.
Motivation Recommendations
Motivation-related influences increase employee engagement and impact employees’ pursuit
of performance goals. Motivation, or the drive to engage and complete a task, plays an important
role in employee engagement through employees’ active choice, persistence, and mental effort
to achieve individual and organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011).
Understanding motivation of employees is essential to understanding the influences in achieving
high levels of employee engagement in an organization. This paper will focus on attribution
theory and self-efficacy theory. These theories will be applied to examine how employees
perceive organizational behavior and how they perceive value in effectively performing their
duties, both impacting job satisfaction and performance.
Table 6 provides information specific to motivational influences, probability of
validation, priority, principle and recommendation. As Table 6 indicates, two influences were
used to analyze the motivation facilities employees at CCCD possess.
Table 6. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Employees should feel that a
high level of performance is
due to their own efforts rather
than due to factors outside of
their control. - Attribution
Theory
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals
attribute success or
failures to effort rather
than ability.
Provide employees choice and
control over position
responsibilities.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 95

(Anderman &
Anderman, 2009).
Employees should feel
confident that they can perform
as expected by the
organization. - Self-Efficacy
Theory

1.High self-efficacy
can positively
influence motivation
(Pajares,
2006).
2.Feedback and
modeling increases
self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
3.Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for
success
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide goal-directed practice
coupled with frequent, accurate,
credible, targeted and private
feedback on progress in learning
and performance.

Provide opportunities to observe a
credible, similar model engaging
in
behavior that has functional value.

Enhance adaptive attributions for the performance goal. Research has shown that
when individuals attribute performance to controllable causes such as effort, they are more
likely to persist and invest effort (Korn, Rosenblau, Rodriguez Buritica, & Heekeren, 2016;
Weiner, 1985). Based on this principle, employees should feel that a high level of performance
is due to their own efforts rather than due to factors outside of their control. Attribution theory
begins with the assumption that individuals want to understand their environment and attempt to
understand why events happen (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Attribution theory is considered
a three-stage process where first, the behavior of an individual is observed, and then, the
observer determines that the behavior is intentional, and then the behavior is attributed to either
internal or external factors (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). The subjective interpretation of
events and behaviors in the workplace, per attribution theory, affects employee engagement and
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 96

employee job performance (Sanders & Yang, 2016; Vlachos et al., 2013). Anderman and
Anderman (2009) state that success or failures may be attributed to effort. This would suggest
that providing opportunities to exercise some choice and control over position responsibilities
would increase attribution of performance level to factors within their control. The
recommendation is for the organization to provide opportunities for job crafting, or customizing
tasks, and feedback in identifying resources to provide a road map for maintaining high levels of
performance.
Weiner (1985; 2006) argued that an individual’s attributions for performance outcomes
determines whether one will continue to strive for high performance. Further, positive employee
perceptions of success in their position relates to increased work commitment (Sanders & Yang,
2016). For the facilities employees, value and success are related to perception of respect for
their position in the organization effects performance. Sanders and Yang (2016) found that when
an employee attributes work commitment to management, organizational leaders are able to
convey clear messages about what is appropriate behavior and performance for employees, as
well as convey recognition of its value. Employees are then able to control and adjust their
performance to align with leadership expectations. However, when an employee attributes work
commitment to himself/herself or the work environment, their understanding of what
organizational leaders intend and what is expected of them becomes less clear and controllable
(Sanders & Yang, 2016). Therefore, it follows that CCCD should provide employees choice and
control over position responsibilities to increase employee motivation and perception of control
over their own success.
Increase facilities employees’ self-efficacy. Employees should feel confident that they
can perform as expected by the organization. Pajares (2006) posited that high self-efficacy can
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 97

positively influence motivation. Further, self-efficacy is enhanced when learners experience
modeling, receive feedback, and have positive expectancies for success. This would suggest that
providing strategies to increase employees’ confidence in meeting the expectations of the
organization in their job duties will positively influence their motivation to attain and maintain
high performance. The recommendation is for the organization to provide goal-directed practice
coupled with frequent, accurate, credible, targeted and private feedback on progress in learning
and performance. In addition, CCCD should provide opportunities to observe a credible, similar
model engaging in behavior that has functional value.
Self-efficacy motivates engagement and has been shown to be affected by the attribution of
value to an employee’s skills and contributions in their role by leadership and the organization
(Tims et al., 2014). Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2014) suggest that self-efficacy relates to
performance because it influences both the activities that people pursue and how much effort
they allocate to these activities. Self-efficacy has been linked to increased performance due to
individuals perceiving themselves as highly efficacious and performing with ample task-related
effort, persisting longer on a task despite setbacks (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014). This self-
regulatory behavior increases successful performance outcomes. In contrast, individuals who
perceive low self-efficacy may be more likely to withdraw their efforts and fail the task.
Research shows that employees confident in their abilities and motivated by satisfaction report
higher levels of organizational commitment (Bhuvanaiah & Raya, 2015). Commitment and
perception of job satisfaction is based on the expectation that their efforts will result in
professional achievement (Eccles, 2006). Further, value has a correlation to employee self-
efficacy, or an employee’s belief that they have the ability to execute certain desirable behaviors
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 98

such as deliver excellent performance to impact their work environment positively (Tims,
Bakker, & Derks, 2014).
Knowledge Recommendations
Employee engagement requires employees to possess knowledge and skills to perform the
functions of their position (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008) and achieve
individual and organizational goals impacting productivity (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011;
Simon, 2011). However, employee engagement is only sustained when employees acquire
knowledge and skills beyond the technical abilities to perform their role, such as social and
personal resources (Bouckenooghe, Raja & Abbas, 2014). Employee ability to successfully
apply knowledge and skills to job responsibilities and contributions to the organization increases
and sustains employee engagement and positively impacts how employees perceive their job
satisfaction, achievement, and their commitment to the organization (Ferinia, Yuniarsi, &
Disman, 2016).
The knowledge influences in Table 7 include all assumed knowledge influences and their
probability of being validated. The knowledge influences used to achieve the facilities
employees’ goal will be validated based on the most frequently mentioned metacognitive and
procedural knowledge influences to achieving the employee goal through surveys, interviews,
and the literature review. The conceptual framework for this study is Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis. As indicated in Table 7, it is anticipated that these influences have a high probability of
being validated and a high priority for achieving the advisors’ goal. Table 7 also shows the
recommendations for these highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 99

Table 7 provides information specific to knowledge influence, probability of validation,
priority, principle and recommendation. As Table 7 indicates, two influences were used to
analyze the knowledge facilities employees of CCCD possess.
Table 7. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Employees need
awareness in
how to excel in
their position.
(M)
Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(such as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate
construction of new
knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
(Have individuals
occasionally perform
difficult tasks in
partnership with others
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006))
Provide training to employees to self-monitor
their understanding and perceptions of the
organizational culture by pairing probationary
employees with employees with a longer
tenure to facilitate understanding of how to
succeed in their role. Training would include a
mentor/mentee component to build support
for the new employee as a resource to better
understand the organizational culture
Employees need
to know how to
perform their
duties (P)
Continued practice
promotes
automaticity and takes less
capacity in working
memory
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006)

Effective observational
learning is achieved by
first organizing and
rehearsing modeled
behaviors, then enacting
Provide accurate feedback that identifies the
skills of knowledge the individual lacks, along
with communication that skills and
knowledge can be learned. Provide
professional development opportunities for
employees to have their job duties modeled
and allow for practice in a teaching
environment.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 100

them overtly (Mayer,
2011).

Increase facilities employees’ metacognitive awareness. The data demonstrated that
facilities employees did not know where to find the skills or knowledge needed to excel in their
jobs. Employees need awareness in how to excel in their position. Scott and Palincsar (2006)
found that social interaction, cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships facilitates the
construction of new knowledge. Further, having individuals perform difficult tasks in
partnership with others on occasion can facilitate that learning. This would suggest that
providing training to employees to self-monitor their understanding and perceptions of the
organizational culture would benefit in facilitating their understanding of how to succeed in their
role within CCCD. The recommendation then for facilities employees is to be provided training
that includes a mentor/mentee component among probationary and seasoned employees to build
a support network for the new employee as a resource to better understand and navigate the
organizational culture of the college. Training should start before the start of the school year to
build trust between the mentor and mentee, and should be ongoing throughout the probationary
period.
The ability to self-assess and self-regulate the factors contributing to job performance are
an important component in how facilities employees see themselves as positive contributors to
their role and to the organization, increasing employee engagement and adding to their ability to
achieve the stakeholder goal (Shuck et al., 2013). As it relates to the facilities employees at
CCCD, self-regulation and self-assessment of their role as important will impact striving to
attain a higher level at which they perform the duties. Further, the ability to self-assess how one
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 101

can obtain or maximize excellent performance in their position is an essential component of
employee engagement (Shuck et al., 2013). This self-assessment and regulation of the
knowledge and skills required to attain high job performance is an example of metacognitive
knowledge (Rueda, 2011; Shuck et al., 2013). Metacognitive knowledge refers to the ability of
employees to be self-aware and able to assess and correct their approach to a task, using
appropriate skills and strategies (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognition is the self-
regulation and control of knowledge, and a main contributor to the successful transfer and
application of knowledge to various situations. According to Shuck et al.’ (2013), an employee
with the knowledge and skills to determine how to find the point of excellence and maintain it
positively relates to an increase in employee engagement and job commitment. This
metacognitive approach to job skills can also lead to more consistent and positive performance
in the facilities employee’s role and extra-role contributions to the organization (Eldor &
Harpaz, 2016; Ferinia et al., 2016). Excellence stems from the perception of and recognition of
achievement that drives performance and employee advocacy. Additionally, excellence could
stem from the interpersonal impact of an employee that aids in promoting goodwill and
cooperation among others in the organization (Ferinia et al., 2016). According to Ferinia et al.
(2016), job satisfaction is the highest contributor to a positive workplace environment and
driven by recognition of high performance and the ease in which an organization allows
employees to attain higher levels of education both academically and professionally. Achieving
job satisfaction requires training employees to self-monitor their understanding and perceptions
of the organizational culture facilitating their understanding of how to succeed in their role
within CCCD.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 102

Enhance facilities employees’ procedural knowledge. The data suggested that
facilities employees lack clarity in how to perform the duties of their position. Employees need
to know how to perform their duties. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that continued
practice promotes automaticity and takes less capacity in working memory in completing tasks.
Further, it was suggested by Mayer (2011) that effective observational learning is achieved by
first organizing and rehearsing modeled behaviors, then enacting them overtly. This would
suggest that providing employees accurate feedback that identifies the skills and knowledge the
individual lacks, along with communication that skills and knowledge can be learned would
support employees’ knowledge of how to execute their duties. The recommendation to the
leadership of CCCD would be to provide accurate feedback that identifies the skills of
knowledge an individual facilities employee may lack, along with communication that skills and
knowledge can be learned. The organization needs to be sensitive to the outside factors (i.e.,
multiple jobs) that may preclude employees from attending professional development outside of
their regular working hours. Providing job-embedded professional development opportunities to
facilities employees to have their job duties modeled and allow for practice in a teaching
environment would benefit the employee in gaining the knowledge in how to perform their jobs.
Employee ability to successfully apply knowledge and skills to job responsibilities and
contributions to the organization increases and sustains employee engagement and positively
impacts how employees perceive their job satisfaction, achievement, and their commitment to
the organization (Ferinia et al., 2016). To create the opportunity for employees to acquire the
knowledge and skills to remain in engaged, professional development is integral to improved
performance (Gumus, Borkowski, Deckard & Martel, 2011; Napitupulu et al., 2017). Employee
training and development, per Mpofu and Hlatywayo’s study (2018), has become a key aspect in
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 103

improving employee performance in organizations. Research reveals that employee performance
can be improved if quality professional development programs are implemented. Kuvaas and
Dysvik (2009) suggest that when organizations offers professional development opportunities,
employees become motivated to expend their efforts in order to benefit the organization.
Therefore, professional development is considered imperative to meeting organizational goals
(Gumus et al., 2011). As such, CCCD needs to improve its model as a learning organization,
encouraging and supporting the facilities employees in taking advantage of opportunities for
professional development (Gumus et al. 2011; Napitupulu et al., 2017; Senge, 1990). Research
suggests that successful training includes demonstrations and practice, creating procedural
knowledge, which pertains to the deeper knowledge an employee has regarding how to perform
the functions of their role (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).Thus, it follows that training sessions
should be provided as guided practice to allow employees to practice their job duties in a
detailed and relevant manner while in the work area. Opportunities for professional development
where job duties are modeled and practiced empowers employees in their role and as part of the
organization (O’Brien et al, 2004; Peters, Haslam, Ryan, & Fonseca, 2012).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan

Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model informs the implementation and evaluation plan of
this study (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model is based off of Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training and evaluation. This New World Kirkpatrick Model
recommends that that the four levels of training and evaluation be implemented in the following
order: Level 4 (Results), Level 3 (Behavior), Level 2 (Learning), and Level 1 (Reaction). Level
4 measures the results of the targeted outcomes by using leading indicators to ensure that critical
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 104

behaviors target the achievement of desired results. Level 3 prompts the organization to evaluate
the degree to which individuals transfer knowledge gained in training in their department. Level
3 consists of critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The critical behaviors are the key behaviors that the individuals must be able
to perform consistently and required drivers are ways to monitor, encourage, reinforce and
reward the continued use of the critical behaviors. In Level 2 participants are evaluated on the
degree of knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment learned from training.
Finally, in Level 1 the organization evaluates the participants’ reaction to the training, such as
satisfaction, engagement and relevance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Creating the
implementation and evaluation framework using this model requires the organizational goal to
be integrated with the recommendations for solutions and to increase the support needed to
successfully implement change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The overall organizational mission and goals of CCCD are academic excellence,
innovation and accessibility. Achieving these goals relies on the performance of college
employees that work to provide these opportunities to students. Facilities employees, albeit the
group with the most indirect connection to student success, is a test of the mission to be an
institution of excellence. The goal for the facilities employees is that by 2019, each employee
will earn a rating of Exceeds Standards on their annual performance evaluation. This goal is an
aspiration goal for the individual employee to achieve. Earning an Exceeds Standards on an
annual performance evaluation is an indicator of a high level of engagement. High evaluations
of performance suggest that employees are energetically and effectively connected to their work
(Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). For new employees, the annual evaluation is also an indicator of
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 105

completing the probationary year. Achieving this goal will demonstrate the level of employee
engagement with the organization in hopes to support the efforts of organizational leadership in
creating a work culture that encourages, nurtures and values employee loyalty and engagement
(Gruman & Saks, 2011). This study examined the knowledge and skills, motivational, and
organizational barriers that affect the facilities employees’ abilities to achieve high performance
and engagement in the organization. The proposed solution is to provide training, job aids, and
one-on-one support. The proposed solutions for internal outcomes will allow facilities
employees to: 1) increase their awareness of how to excel in their position, 2) increase
understanding in how to perform their duties, 3) increase awareness of performance is associated
to their own efforts, 4) increase confidence they can perform as the organization expects, 5)
increase organizational trust between employees and leadership, 6) increase clear and
transparent communication connecting employees and leadership, and 7) increase retention rates
of facilities employees.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The leading indicators are used to measure accomplishments and/or undesirable
outcomes by tracking the critical behaviors impact on the desired outcomes (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The proposed leading indicators internal outcomes, metrics, and methods are
shown in Table 8 that indicates that facilities employees are achieving their desired results. It is
expected that with training, job aids, and organizational support the internal outcomes will be
met.
Table 8. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 106

1) Employees’ increased
retention rates
Collect data annually on the
retention rate of facilities
employees.
Compare data on a annual
basis.
2) Employees’ increased
awareness in how to excel in
their position
One to two Positive/Negative
feedback comments from
supervisor.
Set aside regular weekly
time for 1:1 conversations
between employees and
supervisor.
3) Employees’ increased
understanding in how
to perform their duties
One to two Positive/Negative
feedback comments from
supervisor.
Set aside regular monthly
time to practice job duties
and feedback between the
employee and the
supervisor.
4) Employees’ increased
performance is associated to
own performance
The frequency of self-reflection
by employees on effectiveness.
Solicit monthly data on
employees’ effectiveness.
5) Employees’ increased
confidence that they can
perform as the organization
expects
The frequency of self-reflection
by employees on effectiveness.
Solicit monthly data on
employees’ effectiveness.
6) Organizations increased
culture of trust between
facilities employees and
leadership
The frequency of self-reflection
by employees on trust between
them and their
supervisor/organization.
Set aside regular weekly
time for 1:1 conversations
between employees and
supervisor.
7) Organizations increased
clear and transparent
communication connecting
facilities employees and
leadership
The frequency of self-reflection
by employees on perception of
clear and transparent
communication.
Set aside regular weekly
time for 1:1 conversations
between employees and
supervisor.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the facilities employees. The first
critical behavior is that employees will document their completion of weekly assignments. The
second critical behavior is that observations must be conducted during regular tasks that include
employee and supervisor feedback on the employee’s ability to perform tasks and comprehend
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 107

expectations for performance. Third critical behavior is that employees will self-reflect by self-
evaluating their knowledge and accuracy in 1:1 weekly meetings with their supervisor, how they
perceive that their need for trust and communication are being met, and how well they are
empowered to maintain excellence in their performance. The specific metrics, methods, and
timing for each outcome behaviors appear in Table 9.
Table 9. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1) Facilities employees
document their completion of
weekly assignments.
The number of
tasks completed
efficiently and
accurately.
The supervisor will
compare their
observations of
assigned tasks with
the employees self-
report and provide
feedback to the
employee.
Weekly for the first
three months,
thereafter, at the
end of each
quarter; so long as
each employee is
able to demonstrate
efficiency and
accuracy.
2) Observations conducted
during regular tasks that
include employee and
supervisor feedback on the
employee’s ability to perform
tasks and comprehend
expectations for performance.
The number of
issues observed by
supervisors.
The supervisor will
provide feedback
during observation
sessions.
Weekly for the first
three months,
thereafter, at the
end of each
quarter.
3) Employees will self-reflect
by self-evaluating their
knowledge and accuracy in
1:1 meetings with their
supervisor, how they perceive
that their need for trust and
communication are being
met, and how well they are
empowered to maintain
excellence in their
performance.
The number of
reflections about
effectiveness, trust
and
communication.
Weekly the
supervisor will
discuss with the
employee these
topics and provide
feedback in 1:1
meetings.
Weekly.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 108

Required drivers. Facilities employees require the support of their direct supervisor,
peers, and the organization to reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor their activities learned
from trainings. Reinforcement is used to remind participants of what they learned and provide
refresher training. Encouragement is a formal way to provide coaching and mentoring.
Rewarding, is providing incentives for critical behaviors. Finally, monitoring ensures
accountability by monitoring performance of the participants. Table 10 shows the recommended
drivers to support critical behaviors of the facilities employees.
Table 10. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Create checklist of weekly tasks for employees
with examples of how to perform tasks
accurately
At beginning of
employment; Ongoing
1,2,3
Provide on-the-job training to communicate
expectations of role and responsibilities of
facilities employees
Ongoing at monthly staff
meetings and separately
scheduled times
1,2,3
Encouraging

Peer modeling during 1:1 sessions with senior
facilities employee appointed as a mentor as
guided practice to allow employees to practice
tasks and provide feedback.
At start of employment;
Prior to beginning of
school year; Monthly
thereafter
1,2,3
Feedback from self-reports to be discussed in
one-on-one meetings with a supervisor.
Weekly 1,2,3
Rewarding

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 109

Supervisor will nominate employees whose
performance has been excellent. Supervisor will
share successes with other employees.
Quarterly 1,2,3
Monitoring

Supervisor will review employees’ self-
reflections for accuracy and knowledge of tasks,
perceptions of trust and open communication.
Weekly 1,2,3

Organizational support. To ensure that the required drivers are implemented the
organization will provide the following support. First, review the current workload and
resources and collaboratively develop a plan to demonstrate and enforce the work process,
which will take into account the organization's goals and additional time employees will need to
develop efficiencies while continuing to perform their tasks. Furthermore, time will be set-aside
in regularly scheduled staff meetings to allow employees and their supervisor the opportunity to
openly communicate their plans, progress, and support for one another to foster an environment
of trust and transparency. Moreover, the organization will provide monthly updates and
assessment on the interventions outcomes to track and identify rates of growth and change that
connect the goals of the organization and the employees. Finally, annually the organization will
review the retention rates of facilities employees.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, the facilities employees
will be able to:
1. Recognize and successfully integrate into organizational culture. (C)
2. Excel in their position through self-monitoring coupled with mentorship from more
senior employees. (P)
3. Know how to execute their duties through modeling, practice and feedback. (M)
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 110

4. Attribute high levels of performance to their own efforts through opportunities from
leadership to have more choice and control over position responsibilities. (Attribution)
5. Demonstrate confidence that they can perform as expected by the organization through
modeling and supervisor feedback. (Self-Efficacy)
6. Build trust with supervisors and the organization. (Trust)
7. Develop open communication between facilities employees and their supervisors
(Communication).
Program. The learning goals provided in the previous section will be achieved through
training and exercises that will increase the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influencers on the facilities employees to provide data on perceived barriers to developing and
recommending strategies to support increased performance and retention rates. To develop
facilities employees’ knowledge and skills they will be provided with training and job aids, as
well as opportunities for self-reporting and participate in peer observations. The goal is to extend
facilities employees’ career with CCCD and as such the program will be ongoing. First, during
the onboarding of new facilities employees, supervisors will work to pair the employee with
senior facilities employees, allowing the creation of a supportive mentoring environment among
peers. Next, facilities employees will go through an in-depth one-month series of trainings on
performing the functions of the position. After the first training series refresher training will take
place every year on a variety of topics. After the training, facilities employees will meet with
their mentors monthly to discuss their progress in the position and receive feedback.
Furthermore, facilities employees will be asked to reflect on their performance and integration
into the organizational culture, and be requested to self-report their reflections weekly in
meetings with their supervisor. Finally, these reflections will be used by the supervisor to assess
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 111

how well the facilities employee is excelling in their position and integrating into the
organizational culture.
The facilities employees will also learn strategies and topics on a regular basis that will
increase their motivation to provide data on perceived barriers to developing and recommending
strategies to support excellent performance and retention rates. To increase facilities employees’
motivation they will participate in focus groups with organizational leadership to provide data
on the perception of their value to the organization and capacity for performing their duties.
First, facilities employees will participate in focus groups once a month for two hours over their
probationary year period. After that, focus groups will take place annually during an afternoon
meeting to reinforce the necessary motivation and skills. During each focus group the supervisor
or mentor will complete a checklist to evaluate the facilities employee’s motivation and skills.
Following each focus group the supervisor/mentor will provide corrective feedback and positive
encouragement about the employee’s ability to provide excellent performance. In addition,
supervisors will be asked to nominate facilities employees quarterly who have made a positive
impact on their success of the department.
Evaluation of the components of learning. To apply what is learned to solve problems
and meet performance goals the facilities employees must have the knowledge and skills and
motivation to achieve their goals. Therefore, it is important to assess learning for both the
metacognitive and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that the facilities
employees value training, are committed, and confident so that they can apply what they have
learned on a daily basis. As such, Table 11 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these
learning components.
Table 11. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 112

Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussion during focus
group.
Periodically in monthly meetings and
documented via job aid chart.
Report out on focus group discussion. Throughout the training tracking to
ensure that all facilities employees are
participating and reporting out.

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Feedback from peers during training sessions. After the learning event.
Use real scenarios in training, as well as
demonstration, modeling and practice.
During the learning event.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre- and Post-test assessment survey to determine
if the attribution has increased to develop trust and
maintain excellent performance.
At the end of training.
Brainstorm the positive and negative outcomes of
open communication.
During the learning event.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Feedback from mentor and supervisor during
observations.
After the learning event.
Dedicated time to discuss the facilities employees
concerns about their performance and integration
into organizational culture.
During the learning event.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
1:1 discussions following observations After the learning event.
Ask the facilities employees to write down and
share how they will implement what they have
learned on the job.
After the learning event.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 113

Level 1: Reaction
It is important to determine how the participants react to the learning event. Thus, it is
essential to confirm that the quality of the learning event was acceptable by the participants. As
such, Table 12 lists the reactions of the participants to the learning event being favorable,
engaging, and relevant.
Table 12. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Checklist rating observation completed by mentors and
supervisor
Ongoing after training
event.
Training Evaluation Two weeks after the
training.
Relevance
Pulse Check with facilities employees via 1:1 discussion After every observation.
Training Evaluation Two weeks after the
training.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse check with facilities employees via satisfaction survey After each training event.
Training Evaluation Two weeks after the
training.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Following the learning event
the participants will complete a survey (see Appendix C for the survey questions). During the
observations the supervisor or mentor will fill out a checklist (see Appendix D for the checklist).
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 114

The survey will indicate relevance of the material to the job, participant satisfaction,
commitment, attitude, and confidence in applying what has been learned.
For Level 1 and Level 2, during the observations, the supervisor will fill out a checklist
that rates the performance of the facilities employees in several areas and then will provide
feedback. During in person learning events the instructor will conduct pulse checks by asking
the participants if the content is relevant to their work and addressing realistic issues. The
instructor will ask about the environment and if it is creating any barriers to the participants’
learning. Level 2 will include checks for understanding what is being presented. Level 2 will
also use focus groups and reporting out on the topics being discussed to gauge participant
understanding.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 90 days
after the learning event the organization will administer a survey (see Appendix E for survey
questions) containing open and scaled items using the blended evaluation approach to measure,
from the facilities employees’ perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training to their
ability to provide data on perceived barriers to developing and recommending strategies to
support high performance and retention rates (Level 1), knowledge, skills, confidence, attitude,
commitment and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of the learning event to
the employee’s ability to assess organizational needs and their ability to increase performance
and integration into organizational culture (Level 3), and the extent to which they are able to
provide excellent performance on a regular basis (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal for facilities employees is measured by how connected employees are
to the organization and their performance. The facilities employees must have the knowledge
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 115

and skills and motivation to provide data on perceived barriers to developing and recommending
strategies to support high performance and retention rates. Quarterly, the reviewer will compile
the data from supervisor nominations and track the number of nominations facilities employees
receive for excellent performance. Annually, the reviewer will track the retention rates to see if
there has been an increase in facilities employee retention. To monitor the progress and hold the
participants accountable the dashboard below in Table 13 will report the data on these measures.
Similar dashboards will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2, and 3.
Table 13. Dashboard to Monitor Progress.
Dashboard Goal Fall 2019
Totals
Fall
2020
Totals
2019-2020
Annual
Totals
Facilities Employees are knowledgeable about
how to excel in their roles
100% XX XX XX
Facilities Employees trustworthiness in the
organization
100% XX XX XX
Retention Rate of Facilities Employees 98% XX XX XX

Summary

The New World Kirkpatrick Model informs the implementation and evaluation plan of
this study (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The four levels of training and evaluation are used
to ensure that facilities employees have the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support
to provide data on perceived barriers to developing and recommending strategies to support high
performance and retention rates. As with this model, this training program starts with the
identification of the outcomes, metrics and method to measure the results of the targeted
outcomes that are integrated with the organization’s goals. Next, the program establishes the
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 116

critical behaviors to assess if the participants are using what they have learned once they are
back on the job. Furthermore, learning outcomes are identified and the participants are evaluated
on their learning and knowledge, attitude, commitment, and confidence during the training.
Finally, methods to assess how the participants are reacting to training were developed to
determine the participants’ satisfaction, engagement, and the relevance of the training. To
implement change and maximize the program results it is important to evaluate and analyze data
collection during program implementation.
During training when the level of reaction and learning does not meet expectations then
the trainer needs to identify the issue and changes need to be made to the program. If the
facilities employees are not learning or reacting as expected it is recommended that the trainer
do a pulse check to and ask the participants what thoughts they have and address the issues that
are raised (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). When the level of reaction and learning meets
expectations the trainer may want to stop and do a pulse check to discuss what increased
engagement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
After training when the level of behavior and results does not meet expectations then it is
important to communicate with the participants to find out what are the issues with the required
drivers and critical behaviors, for level 3, that are not being applied. As well as, asking why the
leading indicators and desired results, for level 4, are not moving forward (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The trainer can solicit feedback through surveys or interviews and ask the
participants what behaviors would allow them to move forward to achieve their performance
goals. When the levels of behavior and results meet expectations it is recommended that
participants that are high achieving employees be recruited to identify what they are doing to
increase their performance and share with the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 117

Finally, it is important to utilize a blended evaluation methodology to collect data and evaluate
the program. Per Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) collecting data using multiple methods
maximizes program evaluation resources through evaluation tools that connect the levels to
assess learners at more than one level at the same time. A final report on the training outcomes
to the participants and managers will outline the blended evaluation plan that evaluated
participants at Level 1 and 2 items simultaneously to inform anticipated application and
outcomes. Organizational support is a component that also determines the success of any
training program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To drive performance and results
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend providing reports and creating touch points
throughout the implementation process. To engage managers in topics that are important to them
for evaluation, the reports should address the relevance, credibility, compelling, and efficiency
of the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 118

References

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional
intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 18-22.
doi:10.1080/08832320309599082.
Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Sanz Vergel, A. I. (2016). Modelling job crafting
behaviours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69(1), 169-189.
doi:10.1177/0018726715581690.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G., & Zsolnai, L. (2000). Corporate transgressions through moral
disengagement. Journal of Human Values, 6(1), 57-64. doi:10.1177/097168580000600106
Baumruk R., and Gorman B. (2006). Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement.
Melcrum Publishing.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational
deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(2), 410-424. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.2.410.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 119

Bhuvanaiah, T., & Raya, R. P. (2015). Mechanism of improved performance: Intrinsic
motivation and employee engagement. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(4), 92.
Bolin, A., & Heatherly, L. (2001). Predictors of employee deviance: The relationship between
bad attitudes and bad behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 405-418.
doi:10.1023/A:1007818616389
Bonner, J. M., Greenbaum, R. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2016). My boss is morally disengaged: The
role of ethical leadership in explaining the interactive effect of supervisor and employee
moral disengagement on employee behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(4), 731-742.
doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2366-6.
Bonny, P., Goode, S., & Lacey, D. (2015). Revisiting employee fraud: Gender, investigation
outcomes and offender motivation. Journal of Financial Crime, 22(4), 447-467.
doi:10.1108/JFC-04-2014-0018
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of
supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357-1367.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357.
Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Abbas, M. (2014). How does self-regulation of emotions impact
employee work engagement: The mediating role of social resources. Journal of
Management and Organization, 20(4), 508-525. doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.43.
Bowen, J. L. (2014; 2013). Emotion in organizations: Resources for business educators. Journal
of Management Education, 38(1), 114-142. doi:10.1177/1052562913488110.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 120

Byrne, O., & MacDonagh, J. (2017). What's love got to do with it? employee engagement
amongst higher education workers. Irish Journal of Management, 36(3), 189-205.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1515/ijm-2017-0019
Campbell, J. L., & Bigger, A. S. (2008). Cleanliness & learning in higher education.
Facilities Manager, 24(4), 28-36.
Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking
respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees
and teams. Human Relations, 68(6), 1021-1047. doi:10.1177/0018726714550256.
Castellano, J. F., Roehm, H. A., & Shaw, C. M. (2016). Maintenance required. Quality
Progress, 49(4), 14-19.
Cherryholmes, C. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher,
21(6) 13-17.
Chiang, C., Jang, S., Canter, D. & Prince, B. (2008) An Expectancy Theory Model for Hotel
Employee Motivation: Examining the Moderating Role of Communication Satisfaction,
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9:4, 327-351, DOI:
10.1080/15256480802427263.
Christian, J. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2014; 2013). The crucial role of turnover intentions in
transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. Journal of Business
Ethics, 119(2), 193-208. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1631-4
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 121

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011).‘Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance’. Personnel
Psychology, 64: 1, 89-136.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clifton, James K. (2008). Engaging your employees: Six keys to understanding the new
workplace. 2002 SHRM Foundation Thought Leaders Remarks. Society for Human
Resource Management.
Cole, M., Walter, F., Bedeian, A., & O’Boyle, E. (2012). Job Burnout and Employee
Engagement. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1550-1581.
Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Di Tecco, C. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). ‘What makes employees
engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s perceptions of social
context over time’. Career Development International, 21: 2,125-143.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study.
Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough
investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 209-222.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 122

Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Yang, J. (2008). Linking emotion regulation strategies to
affective events and negative emotions at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3),
498-508. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.006.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate
and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors: A process model of employee
engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 213-235. doi:10.1002/job.2037.
Ferinia, R., Yuniarsi, T., & Disman, H. (2016). Relationship between selected factors of
motivation, employee engagement and employee performance among nurses at adventist
hospital. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(3), 177-181.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.14419/ijbas.v5i3.5948.
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L.
(2015; 2014). An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior:
The roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business
Ethics, 130(1), 131-144. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2209-5.
Fineman, S. (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Florczak, K. (2014). Purists Need Not Apply: The Case for Pragmatism in Mixed Methods
Research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 27(4), 278-282.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 123

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response
to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy
and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Franks, T. (2017). Psychological condition of engagement among community college
maintenance employees: a cross-sectional study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2483&context=dissertations
Galagan, P. (2015). Employee engagement: An epic failure? Engagement is now under scrutiny
by researchers and others who find its promises hollow and some of its assumptions just
plain wrong. TD Magazine, 69(3), 24-25,27.
Gallup. (2016). The worldwide employee engagement crisis. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/188033/worldwide-employee-engagement-
crisis.aspx
Gumus, G., Borkowski, N., Deckard, G. J., & Martel, K. J. (2011). Healthcare managers'
perceptions of professional development and organizational support. Journal of Health and
Human Services Administration, 34(1), 42+. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/apps/doc/A304050539/AONE?u=usocal_main
&sid=AONE&xid=2b196a12
Guaspari, J. (2015). Why employee engagement isn't working. Strategic HR Review, 14(6), 243-
244. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/SHR-09-2015-0070
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. doi:10.1016/0030-
5073(76)90016-7
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 124

Haslam, S., Eggins, R., & Reynolds, K. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing Social and
Personal Identity Resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 83-113.
Ho, V. T., Wong, S., & Lee, C. H. (2011). A tale of passion: Linking job passion and cognitive
engagement to employee work performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 26-47.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00878.x.
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Javed, R., Amjad, M., Faqeer-Ul-Ummi, U. Y., & Bukhari, R. (2014). Investigating factors
affecting employee workplace deviant behavior. International Journal of Innovation and
Applied Studies, 9(3), 1073-1078.
Johnson, D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of the drivers of employee disengagement across four
generations of U.S. employees
Johnson, J. F., & Ronald Buckley, M. (2015). Multi-level organizational moral disengagement:
Directions for future investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 291-300.
doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2220-x.
June, A. (2006). Facilities play a key role in students’ enrollment decisions, study finds.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(40), A27.
Kaliannan, M. & Adjovu, S. (2015). Effective Employee Engagement and Organizational
Success: A Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172(C), 161-168.
Kaliannan, M. and Adjovu, S. (2015). Effective employee engagement and organizational
success: a case study. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences (172).
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 125

Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work
behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18-25.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.014.
Kidwell, R. E., & Kochanowski, S. M. (2005). The morality of employee theft: Teaching about
ethics and deviant behavior in the workplace. Journal of Management Education, 29(1),
135-152. doi:10.1177/1052562903261180.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick W., K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria,VA:
ATD Press.
Korn, C. W., Rosenblau, G., Rodriguez Buritica, J.,M., & Heekeren, H. R. (2016). Performance
feedback processing is positively biased as predicted by attribution theory. PLoS One,
11(2) doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0148581
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic
motivation and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 217–
236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x
Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance. International Journal of Business and Management. 5(12).
Martin, S. R., Kish-Gephart, J. J., & Detert, J. R. (2014). Blind forces: Ethical infrastructures
and moral disengagement in organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(4), 295-
325. doi:10.1177/2041386613518576.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 126

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01258
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McGrath, M. L., Millward, L. J., & Banks, A. (2015). Workplace emotion through a
psychological contract lens. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 10(3), 206-226. doi:10.1108/QROM-06-2014-1227.
Men, L. & Jiang, H. (2016). Cultivating Quality Employee-Organization Relationships: The
Interplay among Organizational Leadership, Culture, and Communication, International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(5), 462-479.
Men, L. (2014). Strategic Internal Communication. Management Communication Quarterly,
28(2), 264-284.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and methods (3
rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee Engagement and CSR: Transactional, Relational, and
Developmental Approaches. California Management Review, 54, 93-117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.93
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 127

Mishra, P. S. (2012). Towards understanding the role of emotions in workplace performance: A
review and future directions. Management and Labour Studies, 37(2), 93-106.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Trevino, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees
do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 65(1), 1-48. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
Mpofu, M., & Hlatywayo, C. (2015). Training and development as a tool for improving basic
service delivery; the case of a selected municipality. Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Science, 20(39), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jefas.2015.10.004
Napitupulu, S., Haryono, T., Laksmi Riani, A., Sawitri, H., & Harsono, M. (2017). The impact
of career development on employee performance: an empirical study of the public sector in
Indonesia. International Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 276–299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2017.1368003
Noel-Levitz. (2011). National student satisfaction and priorities 15-year trend report:
community colleges. Retrieved from
https://www.ruffalonl.com/documents/shared/Papers_and_Research/2011/SSI_15-
year_CommunityCollege.pdf
O’Neill, T., & Hastings, S. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance behavior with more than just
the “Big Five”. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 268-273.
O'Brien, A. T., Alexander Haslam, S., Jetten, J., Humphrey, L., O'Sullivan, L., Postmes, T.,
Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Cynicism and disengagement among devalued employee groups:
The need to ASPIRe. Career Development International, 9(1), 28-44.
doi:10.1108/13620430410518129
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 128

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pastor, I. (2014). Leadership and emotional intelligence: The effect on performance and attitude.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 985-992. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00658-3.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3)(REL 2016-160). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast &
Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Pelzer, P. (2005). The hostility triad: The contribution of negative emotions to organizational
(un-)wellness. Culture and Organization, 11(2), 111-123.
doi:10.1080/14759550500090988.
Porath, Christine L., and Christine M. Pearson. “Emotional and Behavioral Responses to
Workplace Incivility and the Impact of Hierarchical Status.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, vol. 42, 2012, pp. E326–E357.
Rangnekar, S. (2012). Employee engagement in knowledge economy. Review of Knowledge
Management, 2(1), 24-29.
Rispens, S., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Conflict at work, negative emotions, and performance: A
diary study. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 103-119.
doi:10.1111/ncmr.12069.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 129

Robinson, S. (2008) Dysfunctional workplace behavior. (pp. 141-159). London: SAGE
Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781849200 448.n9.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Saks, A.M. (2006). ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21: 7, 600-619.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft
Excel 2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2016). The HRM process approach: The influence of employees’
attribution to explain the HRM‐Performance relationship. Human Resource Management,
55(2), 201-217. doi:10.1002/hrm.21661.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationships with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
293-315.
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept
and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki
(Eds.), Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135−177). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 130

Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and practice.
Career Development International, 14, 204-220.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http:// www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/.
Sears, K., & Humiston, G. S. (2015). The role of emotion in workplace incivility. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30(4), 390-405. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2012-0373.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday Business.
Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jingle jangle of employee
engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace
learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), 11-35.
doi:10.1177/1534484312463921.
Simha, B.S., and Vardhan, B.V. (2015). Enhancing “Performance and Retention” through
Employee Engagement. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications.
5(8), 110-132.
Simon, M.K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.).
Seattle, WA.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 131

Simon, S. S. (2011). The essentials of employee engagement in organizations. Journal of
Contemporary Research in Management, 6(1), 63.
Smerek, R. E., & Peterson, M. (2007). Examining herzberg's theory: Improving job satisfaction
among non-academic employees at a university. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 229-
250. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s11162-006-9042-3
Smith, R. (2005). Factors influencing a student's decision to enroll at a rural community or
technical college. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses. (Order No. 3190173, Touro University International)
Spratt, J. (2013). Mitigating occupational fraud. Arkansas Business, 30(37), 17.
Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy –
performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-507.
Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy –
performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-507.
Travis, D., Lizano, E., & Mor Barak, M. (2016). ‘I'm So Stressed!’: A Longitudinal Model of
Stress, Burnout and Engagement among Social Workers in Child Welfare Settings. The
British Journal of Social Work, 46(4), 1076-1095.
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2013). Feeling good by doing good:
Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership.
Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 577-588. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1590-1.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548–73.
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 132

Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: an attributional
approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, J., Bandura, A., & Bero, L. A. (2009). Moral disengagement in the corporate world.
Accountability in Research, 16(1), 41-74. doi:10.1080/08989620802689847
Wiley, J., 2010, Employment engagement. Human Resources, February 2010. pp 29-32
Wollard, K. (2011). Quiet Desperation: Another Perspective on Employee Engagement.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 526-537.
Wollard, K., Shuck, B., & Reio, T. (2011). Quiet Desperation: Another Perspective on
Employee Engagement. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 526-537.
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274. doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(02)00099-1.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118.
Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2011). A cognitive approach to work intention: The stuff that
employee work passion is made of? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 447-
461. doi:10.1177/1523422311431152.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 133

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Survey Items

Introduction: This survey will be used to improve our organizational culture and
workforce practices. Completing this survey is completely voluntary. You may stop at any
time or choose not to answer specific items. If you choose to participate, please answer
each question as accurately as possible. If you do not understand a question, answer it as
well as you can and note your question(s) in the margin. Your answers will be kept
confidential and will not reflect your status as an employee at our organization. When you
have completed this survey please return it in the envelope provided. If you have questions,
you can contact Rian Medlin at rian.medlin@canyons.edu or at extension 3426.

A. Please rate the following 19 statements using a 5-point scale related to your level of
agreement or disagreement:

5 = extremely agree
4 = agree
3 = neutral
2 = disagree
1 = extremely disagree

1. I know what is expected of me in my position. ____
2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my job right. ____
3. In my position, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. ____
4. The organization’s rules make it easy for me to do a good job. ____
5. My supervisor seems to care about my feedback. ____
6. There is open and honest communication between managers and employees. ____
7. At work, my opinions seem to count to my supervisor. ____
8. The mission/purpose of CCCD makes me feel my job is important. ____
9. I feel valued at work. ____
10. If given the chance, I would reapply to my current job. ____
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 134

11. I always want to give my best whenever I’m at work. ____
12. I see a clear link between my work and CCCD’s goals and objectives. ____
13. I experience stress at work 2-3 times per week. ____
14. I have access to ongoing professional development opportunities. ____
15. My co-workers are committed to doing quality work. ____
16. I am appropriately recognized when I perform well at my regular job duties. ____
17. My supervisor works to align the goals of our department with the goals of the College.
____
18. I feel I can easily communicate with members from all levels of the organization. ____
19. I have made change in my work during the last year to improve performance. ____

B. On a five-point scale, where “5” is extremely satisfied, “3” is Neutral, and “1” is extremely
dissatisfied, answer the following question:
20. How satisfied are you with CCCD as a place to work? ____

Protocolo de encuesta
Introducción:
Esta encuesta se utilizará para mejorar la cultura organizacional y las prácticas laborales
de nuestra institución. Completar esta encuesta es completamente voluntario. Puede detenerse en
cualquier momento o elegir no responder algún elemento específico. Si decide participar, lea las
preguntas de cada elemento con la mayor precisión posible. Si no entiende alguna pregunta,
contéstela lo mejor que pueda y anote sus preguntas en el margen de la pagina. Sus respuestas se
mantendrán en total confidencia y no reflejará su estado como empleado en nuestra institución.
Cuando haya completado esta encuesta, devuélvala en el sobre provisto. Si tiene preguntas,
puede contactar a Rian Medlin en rian.medlin@canyons.edu o en la extensión 3426.

A. Califique las siguientes 19 declaraciones utilizando una escala de 1 a 5 puntos relacionada
con su nivel si esta de acuerdo o en desacuerdo:
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 135

Nivel 5 = extremadamente de acuerdo
Nivel 4 = de acuerdo
Nivel 3 = neutral
Nivel 2 = en desacuerdo
Nivel 1 = extremadamente en desacuerdo

1. Sé lo que se espera de mí en mi posición. ____
2. Tengo los materiales y equipos que necesito para hacer mi trabajo correctamente. ____
3. En mi posición, tengo la oportunidad de hacer lo que mejor hago todos los días. ____
4. Las reglas de la institución me facilitan hacer un buen trabajo. ____
5. Mi supervisor parece preocuparse por mis comentarios. ____
6. Hay una comunicación abierta y honesta entre los gerentes y los empleados. ____
7. En el trabajo, mis opiniones le interesan a mi supervisor. ____
8. La misión / propósito de CCCD me hace sentir que mi trabajo es importante. ____
9. Me siento valorado en el trabajo. ____
10. Si tuviera la oportunidad, volvería a solicitar mi trabajo actual. ____
11. Siempre quiero aportar lo mejor de mí cuando estoy en el trabajo. ____
12. Veo un vínculo claro entre mi trabajo, las metas y objetivos de CCCD. ____
13. Experimento estrés en el trabajo 2-3 veces por semana. ____
14. Tengo acceso a oportunidades de desarrollo profesional continuo. ____
15. Mis compañeros de trabajo están comprometidos a hacer un trabajo de calidad. ____
16. Me reconocen apropiadamente cuando me desempeño bien en mis tareas laborales. ____
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 136

17. Mi supervisor trabaja para alinear los objetivos de nuestro departamento con los objetivos de
la institución. ____
18. Siento que puedo comunicarme fácilmente con miembros de todos los niveles de la
institución. ____
19. He realizado cambios en mi trabajo durante el último año para mejorar el rendimiento. ____

B. En una escala de cinco puntos, donde "5" está extremadamente satisfecho, "3" es neutral y
"1" está extremadamente insatisfecho, responda la siguiente pregunta:
20. ¿Qué tan satisfecho está usted con CCCD como un lugar para trabajar? ___

-------------------------------------------------Despegar Aquí-------------------------------------------------

¡Estoy muy interesado en saber más sobre tu experiencia! Si está dispuesto a participar en una
entrevista sobre la cultura organizacional y las prácticas laborales de nuestra institución
proporcione su nombre e información de contacto a continuación:

_______________________ _____________________________
Nombre y Apellido Número de teléfono / Dirección de Correo
Electrónico (email)
Separe esta parte y envíela en el segundo sobre con el sello y la dirección que se adjunta.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 137

APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol

I want to thank you for taking time out of your schedule to meet with me and agreeing to
participate in my study by answering some questions. This interview will take about an hour,
although we have allocated an hour and half in case we need extra time.
I would like to first begin with expressing my gratitude for agreeing to participate in Rian
Medlin’s study. She would like to thank you for taking time out of your extremely busy schedule
to meet with me as her research representative and answer some questions. This interview will
take about an hour, although we have allocated an extra thirty minutes for some cushion on time.
Rian Medlin is currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and is conducting a study on
employee disengagement and its effect on the Facilities department. Throughout this process she
will not be serving as an employee of this organization to make a professional assessment or
judgment of your performance as a teacher. She would like to emphasize that I as her research
representative am only acting in the role of collecting data for her study. The information you
share with me will be placed into her study as part of the data collection. Before Rian Medlin
views the transcript, I will remove any potential identifiers to ensure that she will not identify
you individually. In addition, this interview is completely confidential and your name or
responses will not be disclosed to anyone or anywhere outside the scope of this study and will be
known only to her specifically for this data collection. While she may choose to utilize a direct
quote from you in his study, she will not know your name specifically and will make the best
effort possible to remove any potential identifying data information. She will gladly provide
you with a copy of his final product upon request.
During the interview, I will be utilizing a recording device to assist me in capturing all of
your responses accurately and completely. This recording will not be shared with Rian Medlin
and anyone outside the scope of this project. The recording will be transcribed for Rian Medlin,
thus she will not be able to identify the respondents through their voices. Next, the transcription
will transferred to her password-protected files on a cloud file storage account and deleted from
the recording device immediately upon transfer. The recording will then be destroyed after two
years from the date her dissertation defense is approved.

Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may skip any questions you don’t want to
answer and you may stop this interview at any time. During the interview, I will be using a
recording device to help me capture all of your responses accurately and completely. This
recording will not be shared with anyone outside the scope of this project. If you would like me
to stop recording at any point, I will do so. The recording will be transferred to my password-
protected files on a cloud file storage account and will be deleted from the recording device
immediately upon transfer. I will be using a third party to transcribe the recording and all files
will be returned to me upon finalization of the transcription. The recording and all other data
will then be destroyed after three years from the date my dissertation defense is approved.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 138

With that, do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If not, please
review and keep the information sheet.
I would like your permission to begin the interview. May I also have your permission to
record this conversation? Thank you.

Interview Questions:
1. How long have you been working here?
2. How would you describe your working relationship with other Facilities employees?
Please give me an example.
3. Describe how you feel about your contributions to the College from students, faculty and
staff.
4. Do you have professional relationships with others outside of the Facilities department?
Who, and how did it happen? Please give me an example.
5. How do you think other staff, faculty, and students feel about your contributions to the
College?
6. How would you describe your relationship with your supervisor?
7. To what degree do you feel your supervisor trusts you to do your job? What makes you
feel that way?
8. Are you comfortable talking to your supervisor about your job aspirations? How about
situations in your personal life?
9. Are you consulted in the decision-making process within Facilities? How? When was the
last time you were consulted? Can you walk me through what that looked like?
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 139

10. What kinds of decisions would you liked to be involved in?
11. What would most Facilities employees say regarding how they are valued for their work?
Would you agree?
12. To what degree do you feel that your contributions are valued by the College?
13. If not, what would make you feel valued by the College?
14. When did you last feel valued in your role, if at all, and why? Give me an example.
Protocolo de entrevista

Quiero darle las gracias por tomarse el tiempo de su horario para reunirse conmigo y aceptar
participar en mi estudio para responder algunas preguntas. Esta entrevista durará
aproximadamente una hora, aunque hemos asignado una hora y media en caso de que
necesitemos tiempo adicional.
Primero quisiera comenzar expresando mi gratitud por aceptar participar en el estudio
de Rian Medlin. Me gustaría agradecerle por tomarse el tiempo de su agenda extremadamente
ocupada para reunirse conmigo como su representante de investigación y responder algunas
preguntas.
Rian Medlin está actualmente inscrita en un programa de doctorado en la Universidad de
USC y está llevando a cabo un estudio sobre la separación de los empleados y su efecto en el
departamento de Instalaciones. A lo largo de este proceso, ella no se desempeñará como
empleada de esta organización para realizar una evaluación profesional o un juicio de su
desempeño como empleado/a. A ella le gustaría hacer hincapié en que yo, como representante
de la investigación solamente estoy actuando como investigado/a para obtener los datos
necesario para su estudio. La información que compartas conmigo se incluirá en su estudio
como parte de la recopilación de datos. Antes de que Rian Medlin ve la transcripción, voy a
eliminar los identificadores potenciales para asegurar que no se le pueda identificar
individualmente. Además, esta entrevista es completamente confidencial y su nombre o
respuestas no será compartida con nadie o en cualquier lugar fuera del alcance de este estudio y
sólo se usará específicamente para esta colección de datos. Mientras que ciertos datos se puedan
optar por utilizar como cita directa en el estudio, su identidad se mantendrá totalmente anónima
y se hará el mejor esfuerzo posible para eliminar cualquier información potencial de
identificación. Con mucho gusto se le proporcionará una copia del producto final, si así lo desea.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 140

Durante la entrevista, utilizaré un dispositivo de grabación para ayudarme a capturar todas
sus respuestas de manera precisa y completa. Esta grabación no se compartirá con Rian
Medlin y cualquier persona que se encuentre fuera del alcance de este proyecto. La grabación se
transcribirá para Rian Medlin, por tanto, será capaz de identificar los encuestados a través de sus
voces. A continuación, la transcripción se transferirá a sus archivos protegidos por contraseña en
una cuenta de almacenamiento de archivos en la nube y se eliminará del dispositivo de
grabación inmediatamente después de la transferencia. La grabación se destruirá luego de dos
años a partir de la fecha de aprobación de la defensa de su tesis.

Su participación es totalmente voluntaria. Puede omitir cualquier pregunta que no quiera
responder y puede detener esta entrevista en cualquier momento. Durante la entrevista, usaré un
dispositivo de grabación para ayudarme a capturar todas sus respuestas de manera precisa y
completa. Esta grabación no será compartida con nadie fuera del alcance de este proyecto. Si
desea que deje de grabar en cualquier momento, lo haré. La grabación se transferirá a mis
archivos protegidos con contraseña en una cuenta de almacenamiento de archivos en la nube y
se eliminará del dispositivo de grabación inmediatamente después de la transferencia. Estaré
utilizando un tercero para transcribir la grabación y todos los archivos me serán devueltos una
vez que finalice la transcripción. La grabación y todos los demás datos serán destruidos después
de tres años a partir de la fecha en que se aprobó mi defensa de tesis.

Con eso, ¿tienes alguna pregunta sobre el estudio antes de comenzar? Si no, por favor revise
y conserve la hoja de información.
Me gustaría obtener tu permiso para comenzar la entrevista. ¿También puedo tener su
permiso para grabar esta conversación? Muchas Gracias.

Preguntas de entrevista:
1. ¿Cuanto tiempo llevas trabajando aquí?
2. ¿Cómo describiría su relación laboral con otros empleados de las
Instalaciones? Por favor, dame un ejemplo.
3. Describe cómo te sientes acerca de tus contribuciones a la institución.
4. ¿Tiene relaciones profesionales con otros fuera del departamento de
Instalaciones? ¿Quién y cómo sucedió? Por favor, dame un ejemplo.
5. ¿Cómo crees que piensan otros miembros del personal, profesores y estudiantes
acerca de tus contribuciones a la institución?
6. ¿Cómo describirías tu relación con tu supervisor?
7. ¿Hasta qué punto sientes que su supervisor confía en usted para hacer su
trabajo? ¿Qué te hace sentir así?
EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 141

8. ¿Se siente cómodo hablando con su supervisor sobre sus aspiraciones de
trabajo? ¿Qué tal las situaciones en tu vida personal?
9. ¿Se le consulta en el proceso de toma de decisiones dentro de las
Instalaciones? ¿Cómo? ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que te consultaron? ¿Puedes pasarme
por lo que parecía?
10. ¿En qué tipo de decisiones te gustaría participar?
11. ¿Qué dirían la mayoría de los empleados de Instalaciones sobre cómo son
valorados por su trabajo? ¿Estás de acuerdo?
12. ¿En qué medida considera que la institución valora sus contribuciones?
13. Si no, ¿qué te haría sentir valorado por la institución?
14. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que se sintió valorado en su rol, si es que lo hizo, y por
qué? Dame un ejemplo.

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 142

APPENDIX C: Training Survey

For each of the questions below, circle the response that best characterized how you feel about
the statement.

Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1. The training held my interest 1

7
2. During training we discussed how
to apply what was learned.
1
3

7
3. I will recommend this program to
other facilities employees.
1
3

7
4. I believe it will be worthwhile for
me to build relationships with peer and
my supervisor when I return to my job.
1
3

7
5. The feedback has given me the
confidence to apply what I learned
when I return to my job.
1
3

7
6. I am committed to applying what I
learned during my discussions.
1
3

7
7. I found the feedback during the
training valuable for increasing my
performance.

1
3

7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 143

8. I was satisfied with the training on
building open communication.
Please provide feedback for the following questions:
1. What part of the training did you find irrelevant for your position?
2. What were the major concepts you learned today?

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 144

APPENDIX D: Observation Checklist

Context: This is a checklist that supervisors and/or mentors will use when observing facilities
employees during focus groups to rate the facilities employees skills and ability to perform their
position.

Rating Scale
1 = Effective Use of targeted behavior
2 = Moderately effective use of targeted behavior
3 = Ineffective use of targeted behavior
Feedback comments may include specific observations that will support the rating, as
well as
feedback to help the facilities employee be more effective in performing their position,
integrating into organizational culture, and building open communication.

Target Behavior Rating Feedback Comments
Facilities Employee self-reported
developing trust in the organization.

Facilities Employee demonstrated open
communication to peers / mentor /
supervisor

Facilities Employee discussed relevant
performance topics with confidence

EMPLOYEE DISENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 145

APPENDIX E: Evaluation of Training

For each of the questions below, circle the response that best characterized how you feel about
the statement.

Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1. I have had the opportunity to use what I learned
on the job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Reflecting back on the training I believe that the
training was a good use of my time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. After the training I have successfully applied
what I learned on the job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I have received support from my supervisor to
apply what I have learned on the job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I am seeing positive results from the training. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. This program has positively impacted facilities
employee performance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. This program has positively impacted facilities
employee trust in the organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please provide feedback for the following questions:

1. Describe any challenges you are facing implementing what you learned and possible
solutions to overcome the challenges.

2. Reflecting on this program how could it have been improved?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the relationships between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education. Facilities employees are often invisible from the critical deliverables of an educational institution. However, evaluating their experience can illuminate the impact, even if indirect, of these employees on the success of an institution of higher education. This evaluation study explored the organization, motivation, and knowledge influences that affect facilities employee being able to perform at a high level and exceed expectations in their performance evaluations. Using a gap analysis as the conceptual framework, this mixed method study included a review of the literature, as well as a survey and interviews with the primary stakeholder group of the study, facilities employees. Key findings included that the organization needs to develop a stronger culture of trust, communication and participative decision-making. Facilities employees would benefit from more formalized and frequent training to increase their organizational cultural competence, as well as knowledge and skills with increased opportunities to reflect on their own abilities and path to success. The study provided recommended solutions to close the organizational, motivation, and knowledge influences and an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to assess program outcomes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Mandatory reporting of sexual violence by faculty and staff at Hometown University: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing global competence in a Sino-US joint university: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Institutional advancement in higher education: managing gift officer performance and turnover

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluative study of accountability and transparency in local government: an executive dissertation

PDF

Officer performance appraisal program management: an evaluative case study

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Judiciary employees engagement and motivation: the impact on employee and organizational success: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Reconstructing the literary canon: an innovation study

PDF

Retention rates and burnout among medical assistants: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership competencies in healthcare administration graduate degree programs: an evaluative study

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Medlin, Rian Renee (author)

Core Title Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 09/18/2019

Defense Date 06/24/2019

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

Tag employee performance,facilities employee,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational cultural competence

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email rianmedlin@gmail.com,rmedlin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-219568

Unique identifier UC11674868

Identifier etd-MedlinRian-7822.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-219568 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MedlinRian-7822.pdf

Dmrecord 219568

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Medlin, Rian Renee

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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