University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 1

Mitigating Low Employee Engagement through Improved Performance Management:
An Evaluation Study
by

Michael S. Liebler

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

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Michael Liebler

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 2

Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures............................................................................................................... 8
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 11
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 11
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 11
Organizational Performance Status............................................................................................. 12
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................... 13
Related Literature........................................................................................................................ 14
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 15
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ............................................................................................... 17
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................ 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions ......................................................................................... 18
Methodological Framework ........................................................................................................ 19
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 21
Review of Literature ................................................................................................................... 21
Origins and the Evolution of Employee Engagement................................................................. 21
Early Frameworks of Employee Engagement ........................................................................ 22
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 3

The Complexity of Employee Engagement ............................................................................ 24
Common Ground: Engagement is Advantageous to All Organizations ................................. 29
Assessing Employee Engagement .............................................................................................. 32
Academic Approaches to Assessing Engagement .................................................................. 33
Practitioner Approaches to Assessing Engagement ................................................................ 35
Limitations of Engagement Measurements ............................................................................ 40
Contemporary Performance Management Practices that Foster Engagement ............................ 42
Performance Enablement ........................................................................................................ 42
Rethinking the Annual Performance Appraisal ...................................................................... 47
Human Resource Analytics and Continuous Performance Management ............................... 49
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework ... 52
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ........................................ 53
Knowledge Foundations and Influences ................................................................................. 53
Motivation Foundations and Influences.................................................................................. 62
Organizational Foundations and Influences............................................................................ 66
The Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................ 71
Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation and the Organizational Context .......... 73
Conceptual Framework Details ............................................................................................... 74
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 75
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 76
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 4

Participating Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 76
Interview Sampling Criterion, Strategy, and Rationale .......................................................... 77
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 78
Archival Data: 2013 – 2017 Federal Survey Data .................................................................. 79
Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 83
Documents and Artifacts......................................................................................................... 84
Archival Data: 2013 – 2017 Survey Items Exclusive to the Organization ............................. 85
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 87
Secondary Analysis of 2013 – 2017 Federal Survey Data ..................................................... 87
Analysis of Interview Data ..................................................................................................... 89
Analysis of Documents ........................................................................................................... 90
Additional Secondary Analysis of the Organization’s Survey Data ....................................... 90
Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................................................. 91
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................... 92
Ethics........................................................................................................................................... 94
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND RESULTS ........................................................................ 96
Participating Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 96
Findings and Results ................................................................................................................... 97
Phase One Results: Management Practices and their Impacts on Engagement.......................... 99
Descriptive Statistics and Trend Analysis of Employee Survey Data .................................. 100
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 5

Phase Two Results: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences.......................... 106
Knowledge Results ............................................................................................................... 106
Knowledge Results Summary ............................................................................................... 118
Motivation Results ................................................................................................................ 119
Motivation Results Summary ............................................................................................... 128
Organizational Results .......................................................................................................... 129
Organizational Results Summary ......................................................................................... 147
Synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 148
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 151
Introduction and Overview ....................................................................................................... 151
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................... 152
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................. 152
Organization Recommendations ........................................................................................... 157
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................... 163
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ......................................................................... 163
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations ............................................................... 165
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................... 166
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................................. 167
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................................. 172
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................................. 176
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 6

Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................... 176
Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................ 177
Implementation and Evaluation Plan Summary ................................................................... 178
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................... 178
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 178
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 179
Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 180
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 181
References ................................................................................................................................. 183
Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics for Constructs and Survey Items ........................................ 204
Appendix B: Survey Items Aligned to Organizational Influences ............................................. 205
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 206
Appendix D: List of Internal Documents.................................................................................... 210
Appendix E: Acronym Key for Alignment and Assessment Matrix .......................................... 211
Appendix F: Document Analysis Analytic Coding Results ....................................................... 213
Appendix G: Interview Analytic Coding Results ....................................................................... 214
Appendix H: Post-Training Evaluation for Engagement Instruction ......................................... 217
Appendix I: Instructor Checklist and Observation Form ............................................................ 218
Appendix J: Comprehensive Four Level Survey ........................................................................ 219
Appendix K: Notional Data Report ............................................................................................ 220
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 7

Appendix L: Five Year Engagement Metrics Aligned to Demographics ................................... 221

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 8

List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals ....................................... 17
Table 2: Employee Engagement Index: Key Drivers of the Three Categories ............................. 39
Table 3: Five Distinct Job Roles Employees Engage in at Work from Welbourne (2014) .......... 46
Table 4: Presumed Stakeholder Knowledge Needs ...................................................................... 62
Table 5: Presumed Stakeholder Motivation Needs ....................................................................... 66
Table 6: Presumed Organizational Needs and Influences ............................................................ 71
Table 7: Performance Management Constructs Created using Federal Survey Data ................... 83
Table 8: Mapping of Presumed Influences and Data Collection Methods ................................... 86
Table 9: Participating Stakeholder Interview Summary ............................................................... 97
Table 10: Thresholds used to Evaluate Presumed Needs and Influences ..................................... 99
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Constructs from 2013-2017 Org1 Data Set ...... 101
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Constructs from 2013-2017 FEVS Data set ..... 103
Table 13: Pearson Correlations among Key Study Constructs within FEVS Data .................... 104
Table 14: Summary of Presumed Knowledge Needs and Evaluation Results ........................... 107
Table 15: Summary of Concepts used in Manager Interviews to Describe Engagement ........... 110
Table 16: Managers' Common Approaches to Recognition and Rewards ................................. 113
Table 17: Summary of Presumed Motivation Needs and Assessment Results .......................... 120
Table 18: Motivation Assessment Interview Results: Manager Confidence Self Ratings ......... 128
Table 19: Summary of Presumed Organizational Infleunces and Assessment Results .............. 130
Table 20: Org1 Survey Items Used to Assess Manager Empowerment .................................... 131
Table 21: Interview Themes: Positive Areas of Manager Empowerment .................................. 134
Table 22: Interview Themes: Positive and Negative Change Management Habits at Org1 ...... 138
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 9

Table 23: Org1 Survey Items Used to to Assess Manager Feedback Practices .......................... 140
Table 24: Consolidated Summary of All Needs, Influences, and Corresponding Results ........ 150
Table 25: Summary of Support Knowledge Needs and Corresponding Recommendations ...... 154
Table 26: Summary of Organizational Influences and Corresponding Recommendations ....... 159
Table 27: Four Levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model ................................................... 165
Table 28: Level Four Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal and External Outcomes ... 167
Table 29: Level Three Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluations ...... 169
Table 30: Required Drivers to Support and Monitor Critical Behaviors .................................... 171
Table 31: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 175
Table 32: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program………………………………….177
Figure 1: Org1 engaged, not engaged, and disengaged rates from 2013 to 2017………….. ……13
Figure 2: Saks (2006) model of the antecedents and consequences of engagement. ................... 27
Figure 3: The Macey and Schneider (2008) framework of employee engagement. ..................... 27
Figure 4: The job demands resource model published in Bakker and Demerouti (2007). ........... 35
Figure 5: Conceptual framework to evaluate performance management and engagement. ......... 73
Figure 6: Mixed-method research design adapted from Creswell (2014). ................................... 79
Figure 7: Org1 communication, recognition, and appraisal trends. ............................................ 102
Figure 8: Org1 overall performance management and engagement trends visually depicted. ... 102
Figure 9: Comparable federal data: Org1 PM constructs extrapolated to a large federal data. .. 105
Figure 10: Interview results gauging expectancy value. ............................................................. 125
Figure 11: Tabulation of responses to assess the need for engagement focused training. .......... 147

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 10

ABSTRACT
Employee engagement is frequently used as a diagnostic to address organizational climate and
health. Although commonplace, the multi-faceted nature of employee engagement has proven
difficult to define and challenging to measure. Nevertheless, leaders must comprehend employee
engagement and utilize the drivers that are proven to improve and sustain employee engagement
within their respective organizations. This study employed a modified version of the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) needs and influences affecting managers’ ability to positively impact employee
engagement at a large Federal Government Agency. A thorough review of relevant literature
produced a list of probable KMO needs and influences aligned to effective management
practices and employee engagement. The presumed stakeholder needs and influences were
assessed as valid or invalid through analyses of multiple data sources. Findings and results from
the study indicated that the federal manager stakeholder group possessed relevant knowledge and
high levels of motivation; notwithstanding, misaligned policies and resources at the
organizational level were the primary factors influencing the management practices at the
organization under review. In accordance with the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016), a set of recommendations and a corresponding implementation and
evaluation plan are delivered in the final chapter. The concluding recommendations are intended
to increase federal managers’ knowledge, support motivation, and align organizational policies
and resources to strengthen and sustain employee engagement.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 11

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Low employee engagement is a common problem faced by many organizations (Gallup,
2017). Workforce demographics and technology have transformed considerably, resulting in a
new culture paradigm that has changed how organizations and managers must conduct
performance management to improve and maintain an engaged workforce (Armstrong, 2017;
Causey, 2017; Gallup, 2017; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; James & McKechnie, 2011; Meyers &
Sadaghiani, 2010; Pryor, 2016). Employee engagement is characterized by the presence or
absence of psychological and organizational needs and resources that result in varying levels of
personal presence, effort, persistence, and commitment (to a role or organization), which
consequently impacts the achievement of organizational level strategies and goals (Kahn, 1990;
Management, 2015a; Saks, 2006). The over-arching nature of the engagement construct has
produced varying interpretations and measurements (Welbourne, 2014; Wollard & Schuck,
2010); however, practitioner and academic publications consistently indicate that ineffective
performance management practices are a primary factor in low engagement scores (Buckingham,
2015; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Management, 2015b; Mone &
London, 2010; Gallup, 2015; Gallup, 2017; Gruman & Saks, 2011). When organizations fail to
evaluate and improve existing performance management policies and practices that influence
engagement, the risk of employee disengagement may increase, resulting in marginalized
organizational outcomes (Armstrong, 2017).
Organizational Context and Mission
The pseudonym Org1 is used throughout this study to identify the organization at the
center of this evaluation. Org1 is a large federal agency with a mission to efficiently and
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 12

effectively provide their unique products, services, and analytic expertise to customers
throughout government. Org1 accomplishes its mission by maintaining the proper technology,
staff, and processes to ensure success. The agency has over 14,000 employees with a footprint in
multiple states, and throughout the world. Org1’s assorted mission requirements necessitate a
diverse staff from all professional backgrounds which include: information technology, program
management, research, accounting, software development, human resources, analytics, and
management. There are over 40 distinct professions within the organization aligned under ten
individual directorates. Like many federal agencies, Org1’s age demographics have shifted due
to a steady pace of retirements, as have the mission requirements, and essential employee
competencies (Federal Times, 2017). Unfortunately, Org1’s precise workforce demographics
are not publicly available.
Organizational Performance Status
Engagement scores at Org1 have remained low for five consecutive years. From 2013-
2017 the average number of employees engaged at Org1 (as reported from the yearly Employee
Climate Survey) was 30%, which is below the national average of 33% (Gallup, 2017). From
2013-2017, Org1 climate surveys revealed an average not engaged rate of 52% and an average
disengaged rate of 18%. Org1 internal documents characterize engaged personnel as employees
willing to perform at levels that exceed their stated job requirements, which creates lift to raise
other employees up. Not engaged is described as an employee that neither exceeds their
performance objectives nor shirks their responsibilities. Disengaged describes an employee that
is actively detracting from a job role in the workplace while creating drag for other employees.
Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of Org1’s continually poor engagement scores. For further
context, Appendix L offers a look at employee engagement metrics at Org1 that are aligned to
IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 13

gender, minority status, generational cohort, and disability status.

Figure 1. Org1 engaged, not engaged, and disengaged rates from 2013 to 2017.
Organizational Goal
Org1’s global performance goal is to increase employee engagement to 80% by 2020.
This annual goal was first communicated in 2013 when the agency began capturing engagement
metrics. Org1’s human resource/development directorate publicizes this goal each year during
the release of the previous year’s survey results. According to federal publications, reaching this
goal would align Org1 engagement scores with similarly sized government agencies that tout the
most desirable employee engagement metrics as calculated by the U.S. Office of Personnel
(Management, 2017). The organization measures progress toward and achievement of the
organizational goal through a comprehensive 150 question employee climate survey that is
administered annually. Although the goal is presented with the results of each annual Employee
Climate Survey, no organizational initiatives aligned explicitly to improving engagement exist.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
5 year Avg.
Org1 Employee Engagement Results
Engaged Not Engaged Disengaged

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 14

Related Literature
Employee engagement is a metric commonly examined and measured through
practitioner approaches and academic frameworks (Bailey, Madden, Alfes & Fletcher, 2017;
Roberton-Smith & Markwick, 2009). Although there is not a consensus definition or
measurement of engagement (Bailey et al., 2017; Shuck & Wollard, 2010), studies consistently
indicate high levels of engagement improves employee and organizational performance (Gallup,
2017, HBR, 2013; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Management, 2015a; Welbourne, 2014). There are
a multitude of reasons organizations face low employee engagement; these reasons include: lack
of leadership development (Deloitte, 2016), poor communication practices, performance
management shortcomings, and failure to meet changing workforce cultural expectations
(Appelbaum, 2007; Berger, 2014; Chalofsky & Cavallaro, 2013; Gallup, 2017). Organizations
that do not recognize and adapt to the factors associated with a changing workforce and shifting
cultural expectations will face higher employee derailment (meaning employee failure to adapt
and poor job performance). This failure is damaging to employee engagement and organizational
outcomes (Martin & Gentry, 2011).
Conversely, prioritization of engagement strengthening performance management
practices is shown to bolster engagement, as performance management is a critical component of
engagement (Buckingham, 2015a; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Management, 2015a; Mone &
London, 2010;). According to Mone and London (2010), “performance management, effectively
applied, will help to create and sustain high levels of employee engagement” (p. 227). Useful
feedback, career development, and appropriate recognition are statistically proven drivers of
engagement; organizations and managers drive these facets of performance management, which
significantly influence overall employee engagement scores (Armstrong, 2017; Berger, 2014;

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 15

Gallup, 2015; Gallup, 2017; Management, 2015a; Mone & London, 2010). Organizational policy
and managers play an integral role in performance management processes.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is essential to evaluate the performance management practices that are related to
achieving the organizational goal of improved engagement scores at Org1 for a variety of
reasons. Evidence suggests that quality performance management positively impacts
engagement (Gruman & Saks, 2011; HBR, 2013; Management 2015); engagement levels remain
critical to overall organizational health (Gallup, 2015, 2017; Gruman & Saks, 2011;
Management, 2017; Schneider & Macey, 2008). Conversely, poor performance management
practices can disengage employees and lead to diminished employee productivity, deviant
behavior, and a toxic culture (Everton, Jolton, & Mastrangelo, 2007; Gruman & Saks, 2011;
Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006; Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate, 2012). The
supervisor’s role in increasing, maintaining, or hindering engagement through their management
practices is unmistakable (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Gallup, 2015;
Mann & Darby, 2014). Improving engagement at Org1 requires additional inquiry to determine
the cause of the organizational performance gap (low employee engagement) through an analysis
of relevant stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a collection of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit
from the achievement of an organization’s goal (Freeman, 1984). Org1 is a large organization
(over 14,000 employees), with stakeholder groups in four different agency portfolios. The
portfolios include capabilities, support, enterprise, and operations. Each portfolio has a different
mission focus but works together to facilitate successful mission outcomes.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 16

Org1 has three relevant stakeholder groups pertinent to this evaluation and the
achievement of the organizational goal. The first group is the senior executive service. The
senior executive service represents the most experienced federal workers that have responsibility
and influence over hundreds of individual employees, implement over-arching agency strategy,
and have significant budget oversight. The second stakeholder group is the manager/supervisor,
which represents division chiefs (manages multiple branches), and branch managers (manages
teams of workers within a single branch). The supervisory stakeholder group may manage a
small budget, typically manages a group of branches or single branch, and is tasked with
managing individual careers. The final stakeholder group is the non-supervisory employee. This
group works within branches that have wide-ranging missions and are typically 10 to 20
employees. Table 1 contains the goals associated with each stakeholder group that is related to
improving employee engagement.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 17

Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1 Organizational mission, global goal, and stakeholder goals
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
To provide the products and services to decision makers when they need it most. Org1 is
committed to acquiring, developing, and maintaining the proper technology, people, and
processes that will enable overall mission success.

Organizational Global Goal
The Org1 performance goal is to achieve and maintain an 80% employee engagement score by
2020.

Senior Executives
Continually partner with
other senior leaders to
promote leader accountability
and cultivate an environment
that improves employee
engagement.
Managers/Supervisors
Improve employee
engagement by exercising
best practices in performance
management related to
communication, recognition,
and employee appraisals.
Non-Supervisors
Improve customer
consequence by exercising
core Org1 competencies such
as integrity, trust,
adaptability, and
interpersonal savvy.
Note. The stakeholder goals are derived from the internal federal documents. Vague and
ambiguous stakeholder goals are common in large U.S. federal organizations (Chun & Rainey,
2005).

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the combined efforts of all agency stakeholders influence the achievement of the
Org1 organizational goal of 80% employee engagement, it is essential to evaluate the stakeholder
group with the most influence on employee engagement. The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (2015a) identified five indicators that drive employee engagement; four out of the
five indicators relate to performance management practices. Therefore, the primary stakeholders
for this study will be managers/supervisors throughout the organization. As of 2017, there were

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 18

976 managers/supervisors at Org1
1
. The level of impact managers have on the engagement levels
of employees make this group a prime candidate for further analysis. Moreover, significant
changes to Org1 managers’ primary duties and authorities occurred in 2015. Specifically,
managers’ ability to promote and hire employees through a traditional application and interview
processes was eliminated and replaced by a centralized authority in human resources that
exercises control over all employees’ careers. These circumstances add another layer of intrigue
to this evaluation. The term manager and supervisor are synonymous in this study and are not
differentiated within the data collection and analysis phase of the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine Org1 managers’ performance management
practices and determine the degree to which the results have helped or hindered the achievement
of Org1’s organizational goal to improve employee engagement. The analysis is enhanced
through a comprehensive evaluation of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
needs and resources that are necessary for Org1 managers to improve and sustain employee
engagement. The KMO focused analysis begins by generating a list of presumed needs and
influences, then moves to examine these presumptions systematically to focus on supported
items. While a complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes
the stakeholder of focus for this evaluation are Org1 managers. As such, the research questions
for the study are the following:
1. To what degree have managers’ communication, recognition, and employee evaluation

1
Per an internal Org1 workforce document. Official demographics across the Org1 workforce were not available to
the researcher.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 19

practices from 2013 to 2017 impacted the organization’s goal to achieve an engagement
score of 80%?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and resources necessary
for the Org1 managers as stakeholders to improve and sustain employee engagement
using research-based best practices in performance management?
3. With the results of research question one and two in mind, how could practices in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational policies and resources be changed to
aid performance management among Org1 managers that will subsequently improve
employee engagement?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, a systemic, investigative methodology
that clarifies goals and identifies gaps between stated goals, and actual performance, is adapted
for this evaluation study. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and
influences affecting managers will be analyzed then validated using a mixed methods research
design that employs a quantitative examination of survey data, followed by a qualitative
examination of information collected from existing published Org1 documents and stakeholder
interviews. Research-based solutions are then provided based on the validated factors confirmed
by the evaluation.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One provided the central concepts
and terminology commonly found in discussions regarding the relationship between employee
engagement and performance management. The organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders,
and the framework that guides the project was introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 20

existing employee engagement literature and performance management practices that
strengthen engagement. Additionally, Chapter Two details the assumed knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences impacting managers’ performance management practices.
Chapter Three provides details regarding the research design, choice of participants, data
collection protocols, and data analysis methods. In Chapter Four, the data and results are
assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions to address the supported gaps and
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan to ensure the success of the
proposed follow-on solutions.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 21

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Review of Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to examine employee engagement and present
practices in performance management that strengthen engagement. The review begins with a
chronological account of the origins of employee engagement followed by an exploration of the
evolution and complex nature of employee engagement. Next, several techniques used to
measure engagement are reviewed, followed by a discussion on the limitations of engagement
assessments. Finally, the review of the general literature concludes with a look at contemporary
developments in performance management, and the impacts these developments have on
engagement, organizations, and managers. The review then pivots to the Clark & Estes (2008)
modified gap analysis framework and discusses the specific knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs and factors presumed to be impacting Org1 supervisors’ management
practices as they relate to improving employee engagement.
Origins and the Evolution of Employee Engagement
The foundations of employee engagement are embedded in organizational psychology
(Shuck, 2010). The term has evolved considerably since its original description as “in
engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally
during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 692). Early studies of employee engagement sparked
debate as the notions used to characterize this novel term overlapped with other existing
fundamental employee performance related concepts such as job commitment, job involvement,
and job satisfaction (Little & Little, 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Maslach, Schaufeli &
Leiter, 2001; Saks, 2006; Schuck & Wollard, 2010, 2011). Inquiry on the topic continued
(through fluctuating approaches) by academics and practitioners, which ultimately revealed the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 22

multi-dimensional nature of employee engagement is imprecise but remains a cornerstone metric
within many organizations (Bailey et al., 2017; Management, 2015b; Saks, 2006; Welbourne,
2014; Wollard & Schuck, 2011).
Early Frameworks of Employee Engagement
Kahn (1990) postulated individuals are engaged or disengaged in their occupation based
on their level of personal presence at work. Specifically, the presence or absence of the following
three personal needs determined effort toward professional tasks: (a) meaningfulness and the
(perceived) benefit of tasks to the individual, (b) feelings of psychological safety, meaning no
fear of adverse judgment; and (c) the availability of psychological, emotional, and physical
resources individuals require prior to putting effort into a task (Kahn, 1990). Kahn’s (1990, 92)
explanation of employee engagement as levels of personal presence determined by perceptions
of meaningfulness, safety, and availability offered a conceptualization of engagement that
explained individuals’ personal experiences at work. Employees’ personal experiences
subsequently affected their cognitive, emotional, and physical effort while doing their job (in
effect their “employee engagement”). Over a decade later, Rothbard (2001) presented two
additional components of engagement that expounded on Kahn’s original portrayal (of employee
engagement) as personal presence. The components presented by Rothbard (2001) included the
terms attention (aptitude and time spent thinking about a job), and absorption (the level of focus
in a role). Few empirical works existed that tested Kahn’s original research. However, as
engagement studies became more prevalent in the early 2000s, May, Gilson, and Harter (2004)
provided an empirical analysis of Kahn’s (1990) research that found a positive correlation
between meaningfulness, safety, and employee engagement.
In another seminal work, Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) suggested that employee

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 23

engagement was a “persistent positive affective state” (p. 417). This positive condition was
characterized as displays of absorption, attention, energy, involvement, efficacy, and enthusiasm
– in essence the state was primarily the opposite of job burnout. Occupational burnout was
previously introduced by Maslach and Jackson (1981) as a 22-item inventory that diagnosed the
burnout construct through measures of exhaustion, depersonalization, and inefficacy. Maslach et
al. (2001) concluded that employee engagement (as a construct) was legitimate and represented
an improved means for organizations to understand an employee’s relationship with their job,
and effort toward their job. Previously established organizational measures such as job
satisfaction and job commitment lacked these distinctions (Maslach et al., 2001). Early
conceptualizations of employee engagement from Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001) laid the
groundwork for ensuing research to differentiate between multiple forms of engagement, which
are discussed as this review progresses.
Several founding frameworks of engagement focused on individual psychological needs
and behaviors associated with engagement in the workplace (such as psychological safety,
meaningfulness, attention, absorption). Additional works emerged that began to conflate
employee engagement with job satisfaction, performance, and successful business outcomes by
pursuing and publishing empirical research that touted large sample sizes, and the purported
generalizability of their studies (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Harter et al. (2002) utilized
the Gallup Workplace Audit (Q12), a series of 12 employee-centric questions introduced by
Buckingham and Coffman (1999), to study 7,939 business units to determine the relationship
between individual levels of engagement and business outcomes. The meta-analysis techniques
utilized by Harter et al. (2002) provided the foundation that the Gallup Corporation would build
upon to publish subsequent engagement studies utilizing the Q12 engagement index. Their study

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 24

provided statistical correlations between engagement and successful business outcomes (such as
productivity, customer satisfaction, and profit) and characterized engagement as an individual’s
job satisfaction, effort, and enthusiasm toward their work role.
The Harter et al. (2002) approach to employee engagement focused heavily on job
satisfaction and the business outcomes resulting from an engaged workforce. Additional early
works concentrated on individuals’ state of mind, emotions, and the behaviors associated with
employee engagement. Collectively, these initial frameworks suggested that psychometrics and
business outcomes were both principal aspects of employee engagement. The lack of a consensus
definition and approach to engagement resulted in subsequent research that demonstrated the
complexity of the term.
The Complexity of Employee Engagement
Employee engagement as a construct continued to gain popularity despite a consistent
characterization within literature that the term was challenging to define, and difficult to measure
(Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Welbourne, 2014). The
difficulty of defining and quantifying employee engagement stemmed from the sweeping nature
of the term, which resulted in contrasting interpretations of engagement between academics and
practitioners (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Welbourne, 2014). Additionally, arguments
were presented that suggested employee engagement was merely the rebranding of job
satisfaction, job commitment, and job involvement, which were terms examined individually in
the past (Brooke, Russell & Price-Newman, 1988; Joseph & Hulin, 2010; Macey & Schneider,
2008). Scholarly works attempted to arrive at a more comprehensive and cohesive
understanding of engagement by inspecting the reciprocal components (between organization
and employee) of the engagement (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004; Saks, 2006), the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 25

antecedents and consequences of engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006), and the
behaviors and traits associated with engaged employees (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Despite
inconsistencies in the early frameworks of employee engagement from 1990-2008, congruent
themes and cohesion began to emerge from the research. These themes confirmed the
multifaceted nature of employee engagement and the organizational benefits that are evident as a
result (of an engaged workforce).
Engagement is reciprocal. As meta-analysis reports showing the relationship of
engagement to successful business unit outcomes gained notoriety, scholars remarked on the lack
of reproducible academic studies on the topic, and gaps in existing publications related to the
employee-employer relationship (Robinson et al., 2004; Saks, 2006). Robinson et al. (2004)
attempted to bridge these perceived gaps by characterizing engagement as a mutually beneficial
relationship between organization and employee. Further, the research group recommended that
descriptions (of engagement) should include a measure of the expected job performance and
business acumen of individual employees (in effect suggesting employee engagement is the
responsibility of the employee and organization). This reciprocal relationship paradigm of
engagement prompted further investigation into alternative models of employee engagement.
Job engagement versus organization engagement. In his seminal empirical study of
employee engagement, Saks (2006) agreed with Kahn (1990), suggesting that employee
engagement is a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state, but suggested engagement should be
measured as two separate concepts: job engagement and organization engagement. The model
proposed by Saks (2006) sought to clarify gaps in prior literature (such as Kahn, 1990) that
described the psychological needs of engaged employees but failed to account for the differences
in individual employees’ engagement levels when their (psychological) needs were met. Saks

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 26

(2006) used social exchange theory (SET) and quantitative analysis of engagement antecedents
and their impacts on job and organizational engagement to fill this theoretical gap. Social
exchange theory suggests that as trust and allegiance grow between two parties, a mutually
beneficial relationship is carried out in the form of resource exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005). SET is useful when examining the relationship between the organization, the employees,
and engagement levels (Saks, 2006). As employees feel the organization meets their
professional needs, they are likely to feel compelled to reciprocate with increased performance
(Saks, 2006). This notion is consistent with the reciprocal relationship theory of engagement
presented by Robinson et al. (2004) and explains why engagement levels can vary depending on
the health of the employer-employee relationship.
Quantitative analysis performed by Saks (2006) determined that the division of job and
organizational engagement was statistically viable due to a distinctive positive correlation
between favorable job characteristics and job engagement, and a positive correlation between the
perceived level of organizational fairness among employees (procedural justice) and organization
engagement. Finally, a positive correlation found between employees’ perceived level of
organizational support and (both) job and organization engagement validated the reciprocal
nature of engagement explained earlier with social exchange theory. Figure 2 illustrates Saks
(2006) model of engagement and the variables tested in the study. Although formative, this
study found only a partial mediation between the antecedent variables of engagement and
consequences of engagement, suggesting the need for further research into employee
engagement precursors.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 27

Figure 2. Saks (2006) model of the antecedents and consequences of engagement.
Trait, psychological state, and behavioral engagement. The organizational
psychology field further dissected engagement into increasingly precise concepts to reassess
existing notions surrounding the construct. Macey and Schneider (2008) argued that engagement
should be composed of three distinctions that simultaneously capture the mental components of
engagement and the behaviors that accompany the term. These distinctions included (a) trait
engagement, (b) psychological state engagement, and (c) behavioral engagement. The Macey
and Schneider (2008) framework poses trait engagement as an individual’s predisposition to
having engagement facilitating personality traits, which then influences their (psychological)
state engagement. State engagement is a precursor to behavioral engagement - if positive state
engagement exists, employees should demonstrate positive behavioral engagement. Figure 3
illustrates the relationships within this framework and indicators for each engagement
distinction.

Figure 3. The Macey and Schneider (2008) framework of employee engagement.
Trait engagement. According to Macey and Schneider (2008), certain aspects of the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 28

engagement paradigm are challenging to measure. Trait engagement is an example of an
impalpable aspect of employee engagement that can explicate the varying levels of passion and
effort experienced by employees in the same work environment. Employees may have a
disposition (such as a consistently positive attitude) that facilitates a heightened level of
psychological state engagement. Trait engagement also has a proximal relationship (dotted arrow
in Figure 3) to behavioral engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
State engagement. Research by Macey and Schneider (2008) differed from accounts
(such as Harter et al., 2002) that conflated job satisfaction, commitment, effort, and involvement
into the singular idiom “employee engagement.” Macey and Schneider contended each of these
terms (presented in Harter et al., 2002) represent individual concepts that contribute to overall
(psychological) state engagement. While these state engagement components are relevant to
engagement, they involve a single element of engagement and require distinction from trait
engagement and behavioral engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Behavioral engagement. Finally, Macey and Schneider concluded that behavioral
engagement is a combination of actions employees exhibit through individual initiative,
innovation, and role expansion that correlate to the strategies and goals of the organization. The
study described components of behavioral engagement as “adaptive behavior” (p. 18) due to the
employee’s willingness to conduct behaviors that benefit the organization as their roles and job
responsibilities change. The literatures’ discussion of multiple forms of employee engagement
demonstrates that the construct is complex and multidimensional.
Literary synthesis: engagement is multidimensional. The chronological account of
empirical and theoretical works on engagement from 1990 to 2008 revealed inconsistencies in
the research literature. The collective struggle to create a preeminent definition illustrates

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 29

employee engagement’s complexity. Quantitative analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of
engagement revealed a dichotomy between job engagement, and organizational engagement
(Saks, 2006). Regardless, scholars agreed that engagement is an individual experience and
variable that fluctuates from person to person. The individual experience is based on
psychological factors, job characteristics, the individual relationship with the organization, and
inherent personality traits (Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks,
2006). Shuck and Wollard (2010) studied the similarities in descriptions of employee
engagement from 1990 to 2008 and arrived at the following definition: “an individual
employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational
outcomes” (p. 103). The definition provided by Shuck and Wollard (2010) offered a connection
between the psychological characteristics of engagement to the behaviors and outcomes of
engagement by employing the word “state” (as mentioned by Macey and Schneider, 2008)
followed by “directed toward organizational outcomes.” Employee engagement is a combination
of themes (in effect, multidimensional) that will likely never yield a universal definition. The
precise variations in antecedents of engagement are relative to the group, field, or organization
attempting to evaluate the construct (Collins, 2013; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009).
Nonetheless, a shared understanding of engagement can be achieved by focusing on the
favorable characteristics of employee engagement and its benefits to organizations.
Common Ground: Engagement is Advantageous to All Organizations
Despite the myriad of behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive components that explain
employee engagement, there is a consistent belief that engaged employees have an amplified
sense of attachment to their organization. Moreover, engaged employees’ discretionary effort
goes beyond their standard job role, which subsequently benefits the organization (Attridge,

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 30

2009; Bailey et al., 2017; Dicke, 2010; Gallup, 2017; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Management,
2015b; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Saks, 2006; Shuck, 2011). This description (not
definition) of engagement spans practitioner explanations of engagement that focus on outcomes
benefiting the organization, and academic versions of engagement that explain engagement as a
mixed state of mind driven by individual psychological needs and organizational influences.
Organizations, practitioners, and academics recognize engagement as a desirable and positive
condition that should be enabled and fostered due to the successful organizational outcomes
associated with an engaged workforce (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Robertson-Smith &
Markwick, 2009). This begs the question – is the pursuit of employee engagement in the private
sector dissimilar to the pursuit of engagement in the public sector (for example, the federal
government)?
Employee engagement considerations in federal government. Gallup (2014) reported
that federal government employees are less engaged than workers in the private sector (27%
engaged versus 31%). There are several significant differences between public and private
organizations. Public organizations are more bureaucratic than private organizations (Boyne,
2002; Lavigna, 2014; Management, 2015b). Public organizations have a complex array of
interdependent stakeholder groups - decisions in public organizations are not always exclusive to
a single entity, whereas private organizations are accountable solely for their objectives
(Mecalfe, 1994). The Federal Times (2017) suggests that government workers are motivated by
a greater sense of purpose that is absent in the private sector workforce. Finally, unlike
performance management in the private sector, it is well documented among federal
organizations that the inability to hold poor performers accountable impedes accountability,
rewards, and recognition systems (Management 2015a, Management, 2017). Rewards and

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 31

recognition are a key driver of sustained employee engagement (HBR, 2015; Management
2015a). Despite these circumstances, research notes that differences in best management
practices across sectors are not as profound as advertised (Boyne, 2002). Moreover, the positive
outcomes of employee engagement appear to be consistent across public and private practitioner
reports (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Gallup, 2017, Lavigna; 2014, Management, 2017); this
is evident at organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Outcomes of engagement in government. Multiple U.S. Office of Personnel
Management publications cited throughout this review illustrate the importance of employee
engagement metrics and outcomes at federal agencies. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) consistently stands out as an exemplary organization with regards to
their engagement scores. NASA is the perennial front-runner in “best places to work” annual
publications and often earns the top employee engagement score in government (80.9 in 2017),
as shown in yearly Federal Employee Viewpoint publications (Management, 2017; Government
Executive, 2017). NASA leadership attributes the organization’s strong scores to prioritizing
and investing in improving employee engagement at the organizational level (NextGov, 2017)
while focusing on recognition for innovative thought. Further, NASA has paid close attention to
effective change management practices (Fox, 2013), and promotes a culture of open
communication (Federal New Radio, 2018). Officials from NASA cite increased productivity
and the ability to attract (and retain) top talent as the leading benefit of their thriving engagement
scores (Federal New Radio, 2018). NASA’s success serves as a compelling data point that
showcases the positive effects consistent employee engagement scores have on overall
organizational health.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 32

The congruency of engagement outcomes is apparent; however, the measurement of
employee engagement has taken on many forms across public and private organizations. Like the
previous discussion, although a variety of assessment approaches have surfaced, the purpose of
measuring engagement is uniform. Measuring engagement is focused on finding relationships
between drivers of engagement, and organizational outcomes (both positive and negative).
Quantifying engagement has several mainstream approaches.
Assessing Employee Engagement
The rise and evolution of the term engagement resulted in several models and assessment
techniques that attempt to quantify engagement. Remniscent of engagement’s definition, there is
no consensus measurement, which contributes to the uncertainty surrounding engagement among
organizations seeking to improve the metric (Management, 2015b; Robertson-Smith &
Markwick, 2009; Welbourne, 2014). Furthermore, organizations and consultants often use
proprietary methods to quantify employee engagement, which has compounded the imprecise
nature of the term (Attridge, 2009; Wefald & Downey, 2009). Measures of engagement
typically carry theory-based foundations that guide the assessment, or a practitioner’s approach
to assessment that may cite internal corporate research to validate the results (Attridge, 2009;
Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Welbourne, 2014). Each approach has the intention to
quantify, predict, and explain elements of engagement in terms that produce improved outcomes
relevant to specific organizational strategies and goals (Attridge, 2009; Robertson-Smith &
Markwick, 2009; Shepherd & Mathews, 2000; Wefald & Downey, 2009). This section will
provide an overview of several well-known assessments of employee engagement, then examine
the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Employee Engagement Index due to the FEVS’
relevance to this evaluation.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 33

Academic Approaches to Assessing Engagement
The term academic in the context of modeling and measuring employee engagement
denotes peer-reviewed research that is grounded in conceptual models of employee engagement
with roots based in previous organizational psychology studies (Robertson-Smith & Markwick,
2009; Shepherd & Mathews, 2000). Academic measures do not have proprietary methods (such
as unpublished algorithms) that produce a measure of engagement, which allows these
(academic) measures to be evaluated and used in subsequent empirical studies.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is a
prime example of such a measurement and has been widely cited in employee engagement
focused literature (Bailey et al., 2017; Management, 2015b; Welbourne, 2014). Utilizing the
original anti-burnout theory of engagement from Maslach et al. (2001), the UWES approaches
engagement as an optimistic and enthusiast state of mind, contending this state of mind is the
opposite of job burnout (Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, 2006). The UWES uses psychometrics
to assess engagement on the individual or group level through a 17-item questionnaire that
assesses: (a) vigor, described as energy, determination, and effort; (b) dedication, which is
associated with commitment and enthusiasm; and (c) absorption, characterized by the level of
immersion and involvement in one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Vigor, dedication, and
absorption are constructs of engagement that evoke the previous works of Rothbard (2001), and
Robinson et al., (2004). The three terms represent measures across the cognitive, behavioral, and
emotional spectrum of employee engagement as discussed by Kahn (1990, 1992) and Saks
(2006). The UWES’ utilization of three factors (vigor, dedication, absorption) to measure
engagement was validated through confirmatory factor analysis. The instrument is accepted as a

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 34

scale that can be applied across global data-sets (Schaufeli et al., 2006), which contributes to its
popularity among academic approaches to measuring employee engagement.
Job Demands and Resource Model. The Job Demands and Resource model (JD-R) is a
theoretical framework that can be used adaptively (in conjunction with data collection) to assess
and predict aspects of engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli, 2017). The JD-R
model has parallels to the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale due to the model’s focus on aspects
of occupational burnout (Demerouti et al., 2001). The creators of the JD-R model proposed
employees’ working conditions could be broadly categorized into two independent constructs:
job demands (mental effort and physical effort), and job resources (alleviation of psychological
and physical demands) (Demerouti et al., 2001). Further, each category (demands and resources)
were related to distinctive (positive and negative) employee performance outcomes. Demerouti
et al. (2001) used structural equation modeling to verify their theory in the development of the
JD-R model. The group’s research concluded that job demands were principally correlated to
exhaustion (a component of job burnout from Maslach et al., (2001)); the absence of job
resources was correlated to disengagement, demonstrating the distinct effects individual
experiences and organizational resources have on employee engagement.
Applying the JD-R model requires the organization to identify the job demands and job
resources unique to the organization and measure the participants’ satisfaction related to each
category through survey instruments (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). The process measures aspects
of engagement while simultaneously identifying specific areas for improvement related to
shortcomings at the individual and organizational level (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Figure 4
illustrates the JD-R model and includes descriptive terms that typify job demands and job

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 35

resources. Demands increase strain, resources increase motivation – strain negatively impacts
organizational outcomes, and motivation positively affects organizational outcomes.

Figure 4. The job demands resource model published in Bakker and Demerouti (2007).
Several empirical studies have used the JD-R model to measure and forecast elements of
employee engagement. These diverse examples include research on teacher engagement in
education (Jackson & Rothmann, 2005), and worker engagement in the information technology
sector (Braine & Roodt, 2011). There are also examples of privately-operated organizational
climate assessment tools that were developed using the JD-R model (Schaufeli, 2017). An
example of such a tool is Energy Compass, a software tool that provides human resource insights
to organizations using a combination of the JD-R model, and additional unpublished
measurements (Schaufeli, 2017). Organizations often utilize unpublished measurements and
evaluations of employee engagement that were created by practitioners/consultants (Attridge,
2008; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009).
Practitioner Approaches to Assessing Engagement
The term practitioner in the context of modeling and measuring engagement represents an

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 36

organization implementing an internal (engagement) assessment approach, or a consulting firm
providing a service to another organization (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). Consultants
tout the positive business results associated with their models and assessments of engagement;
however, their techniques are typically proprietary and cannot be reproduced independently
(Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Schneider & Blankenship, 2018; Welbourne, 2014).
Moreover, practitioner models and measurements of engagement are regularly trademarked by
consultant companies to generate profit. Internal practitioner assessments of engagement are
(occasionally) available publicly (for example the Federal Employee Engagement Index).
Practitioner approaches are often constructed from previously published organizational
psychology studies (Management, 2015a; Management, 2015b), then modified to create a unique
model and assessment of engagement (Attridge, 2008; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009;
Schneider & Blankenship, 2018).
Gallup Q12. One of the most well-known practitioner measures of employee
engagement is the Gallup Workplace Audit Q12, which is a series of 12 survey questions
deemed by Gallup to be the most substantial indicators of engagement and organizational health
(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). The Gallup Corporation employs meta-analysis techniques to
generate large sample sizes by using multiple Q12 derived datasets concurrently in their analysis.
The meta-analysis technique allows Gallup’s engagement scores and results to be generalizable
across multiple occupations and industries (Harter, Schmidt, Agrawal, & Plowman, 2013; Hunter
& Schmidt, 2004). For example, a 2016 publication from Gallup corporate researchers utilized
339 research studies across 230 organizations, producing a total sample of 1,882,131 employees
(Harter, Schmidt, Agrawal, Plowman, & Blue, 2016). The Q12 engagement index questions use
a Likert scale and focus on individual employee perspectives that capture information on general

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 37

needs, individual needs, teamwork needs, and personal growth needs; as these needs are met,
engagement (scores) will increase (Harter et al. 2013).
Gallup groups their measures of engagement into one of three categories: engaged, not
engaged, and actively disengaged (Gallup, 2017). Engagement calculations are then used to link
engagement to individual and organizational performance outcomes such as productivity,
turnover, absenteeism, and profitability through additional statistical analysis (Harter et al.,
2016). Finally, the Q12 meta-analysis results are used in other Gallup publications that focus on
drivers of employee engagement, namely, antecedents of engagement that managers and
organizations can positively influence (Gallup, 2015).
Another organization with access to large employee sample sizes
2
across many
occupations is the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Through the data gathered via
the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), the U.S. OPM has established a
definition, conceptual framework, and in-house measure of engagement drivers known as the
Federal Employee Engagement Index.
Federal Employee Engagement Index. The OPM approaches the measurement of
employee engagement uniquely by measuring only the drivers and conditions that lead to
engagement potential (Management, 2015a). Recognizing the limitations of measuring a
construct with no definition, OPM first sought to create a federal definition of engagement
through a comprehensive review of existing literature (Management, 2015b). OPM’s analysis
documented several existing definitions of engagement found in the literature represented in this

2
The sample size for the annual OPM survey was 486,105 in 2017 (Management, 2017).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 38

chapter including Kahn (1990), Schaufeli et al. (2002), Schmidt and Hayes (2002), Macey and
Schneider (2008), and Saks (2006). The OPM arrived at the following definition of employee
engagement after concluding their review: “the employee’s sense of purpose that is evident in
their display of dedication, persistence, and effort in their work or overall attachment to their
organization and its mission” (Management 2015b, p. 6). A consensus definition among OPM
researchers provided an avenue to construct the Federal Employee Engagement Index (EEI). The
EEI is calculated using percent positive scores (from Likert scale scoring) of a subset of
questions taken from the overall eighty-four question Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
(Management, 2015a).
The EEI derived from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is a fifteen-item subset of
survey items that represent ten research-based drivers/indicators that foster an engaged
workforce. The ten indicators were chosen based on statistical analysis (ordinary least squares
regression) of historical FEVS data from 2010-2015, and the previous literature used to create
OPM’s definition of engagement (Management, 2015a, Management, 2015b). OPM further
groups the ten drivers of engagement into three categories that encompass distinct aspects of the
federal work environment. The three categories are leaders lead, supervisor, and intrinsic work
experience. These categories can be evaluated separately to examine specific drivers of
engagement relative to each category, or as a composite score that represents the Federal EEI
(Management, 2015a). Table 2 provides details of the ten drivers of engagement identified by
Management (2015a, b) and each driver’s respective categories.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 39

Table 2 Employee Engagement Index: Key Drivers of the Three Categories
Employee Engagement Index: Key Drivers of the Three Categories
Drivers of Engagement Description
Leaders Lead Category Employees’ perceptions of senior leadership
Collaborative Management

Merit Systems

Rewards and Recognition

A management style that promotes and supports
collaborative communication and teamwork.

Practices that support fairness and protect employees from
arbitrary actions, favoritism, political coercion, and reprisal.

Adequate recognition and reward system in which
supervisors/managers/leaders recognize outstanding
employee contributions and performance.

Supervisor Category Interpersonal relationship between worker and supervisor
Performance Feedback

Work Life

Meaningful, worthwhile and constructive performance
conversations with supervisors.

Supervisor support of employees’ needs to balance work
and life responsibilities.
Intrinsic Work Category Feelings of motivation and competency relating to role
Job Resources

Employee Development

Performance Rating

Merit Systems

Collaborative Management

Adequate materials knowledge, personnel, skills,
information to get the job done.

Opportunities for employees to improve skills and enhance
career.

Ensures employees are held accountable and
performance is evaluated and rated.

Practices that support fairness and protect employees from
arbitrary actions, favoritism, political coercion, and reprisal.

A management style that promotes and supports
collaborative communication and teamwork.

The value of OPM’s survey lies in the number of years the data has been collected, and
the large sample size available to public researchers. Many studies have utilized federal survey

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 40

data to calculate work-related phenomena such as innovation, employee effectiveness, and other
performance related metrics. (Fernandez, Resh, Moldogaziev, & Oberfield, 2015). The FEVS
derived EEI, and other measures of engagement are not without defects. Engagement is an
individual level variable but is typically represented as an organizational level measurement;
with this in mind, it is constructive to discuss the limitations and potential flaws in measurements
of engagement.
Limitations of Engagement Measurements
Quantifying and accurately measuring engagement remains challenging due to statistical
analysis limitations of survey data (Fernandez et al., 2015; Werner, Praxedes, & Kim, 2007),
lack of continuity surrounding the term engagement, and the difficulty associated with measuring
human behaviors (Saks, 2006; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). These challenges are exacerbated by the
sizable number of disparate studies on engagement, and the proprietary measures of engagement
that limit generalizable results (Balain & Sparrow, 2009; Fernandez et al., 2015; Robertson-
Smith & Markwick, 2009; Welbourne, 2014). Drivers of engagement sometimes differ across
generational cohorts, experience levels, and occupations within the same organization (Gallup,
2013; Gruman and Saks, 2011; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). There are several other noteworthy
limitations in current measures of employee engagement.
Generally, engagement data is gathered through a self-reporting survey mechanism,
which can be fraught with the self-serving bias of individuals that may create misrepresentations
in the overall data (Fuller, 2014; Gruman & Saks, 2011). Furthermore, Gruman and Saks (2011)
highlight the use of engagement surveys represents a single moment in time that may only be
capturing an employee’s state of engagement, which is not an accurate measure of their overall
behavioral and cognitive engagement. This observation is reminiscent of the explanation of trait,

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 41

state, and behavioral engagement as distinct concepts that should be measured independently
from Macey and Schneider (2008). Engagement measures use cross-sectional data and do not
measure the same subjects over time (Fernandez et al., 2015; Gruman & Saks, 2011). The use of
cross-sectional data versus longitudinal data in engagement studies contributes to ineffectual
measurements of engagement due to potential differences in responders versus non-responders
from year to year. This limitation provides less than optimal organizational level engagement
(improvement) strategies (Fernandez et al., 2015; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Roberton-Smith &
Markwick, 2009). Cross-sectional data studies also limit the ability of researchers and
consultants to prove causality between drivers of engagement, and purported outcomes (Bailey et
al., 2017; Berg, 2005).
Little and Little (2006) raise the question of publication bias in meta-analysis studies
such as the Gallup Q12, suggesting that Gallup’s meta-analytic research can potentially choose
individual studies that benefit the original hypothesis. Finally, Fernandez et al. (2015) underline
that surveys such as the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employ the use of double-
barreled questions (survey items that measure independent constructs jointly) that do not
accurately measure the fundamental drivers of engagement identified throughout the OPM’s
finished publications. The use of double-barreled questions negatively impacts the internal
consistency reliability of the OPM’s FEV survey instrument (Salkind, 2017). Despite the
varying perceptions and imperfections in measures of employee engagement, the term’s
relevance in industry has prevailed due to the essential concepts engagement attempts to
measure, which include employees’ behaviors, satisfaction, needs, emotions, and their
relationship to performance and organizational outcomes (Gallup, 2016; Kahn, 1990; Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Management, 2015b; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Shuck & Wollard,

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 42

2010; Welbourne, 2014). The pursuit of employee engagement remains pertinent to
organizational health and successful business outcomes; contemporary literature has provided
insights into the most effective current management practices and technological developments
that measure and improve engagement.
Contemporary Performance Management Practices that Foster Engagement
Despite the differing approaches to defining and measuring employee engagement,
clarity was found by focusing on the agreement across literature that engaged employees are a
coveted asset due to the benefits engaged employees offer to organizational health and business
outcomes (Bailey et al., 2017; Gallup, 2017; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Management, 2015b;
Saks, 2006; Shuck, 2011). The organization and managers’ roles in promoting engagement
through policies and leadership behaviors (in effect performance management) is a widely
agreed upon means to improve and sustain employee engagement (Armstrong, 2017; Gibbons,
2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008; MacLeod & Clarke, 2009; Robinson et al., 2004).
Organizational level policies and management practices work in concert to improve employee
performance and shape employee perceptions of their manager and organization (Alfes, Truss,
Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2013). This section highlights contemporary performance management
practices that benefit employee engagement, limitations of traditional employee rating systems,
and modern technology available to organizations that provide more accurate measures of
performance and employee engagement.
Performance Enablement
The formative role of managers in the engagement process is consistent across
engagement literature. A review of twelve significant studies on engagement by Gibbons (2006)
revealed a consistent belief across each study that the relationships between managers and

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 43

employees were integral to engagement. Further, Arakawa and Greenberg (2007) reiterate that
management style affects these relationships, as well as levels of positivity, performance, and
engagement within a team. A manager’s role as a performance manager and facilitator is not a
new idea (Das, 2003). Recent literature has reinvigorated the notion of managers as facilitators
under the phrase performance enablement (Armstrong, 2017; Bersin, Agarwal, Pelster, &
Schwartz, 2015; Buckingham, 2015a; Pryor, 2016). Performance enablement is characterized by
two principal elements that supplement performance management: management behaviors that
create a supportive environment, and management behaviors that enhance employee work roles
to maximize contributions (Royal & Agnew, 2011). Armstrong (2017) describes performance
enablement as a “sustained focus on development rather than managing performance” (p.186).
There are several avenues and behaviors managers can pursue to enable performance including
(a) exercising self-awareness, (b) using a growth mindset, and (c) applying role theory to link
specific employee work roles to engagement and recognition.
Self-awareness. A foundational aspect of a manager's ability to enable employee
performance and promote engagement is the concept of self-awareness. Self-awareness, also
known as self-knowledge, is a manager's ability to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of
their management style (Padilla, 2012). Levels of a manager's self-awareness affect integral
drivers of employee engagement such as communication and interpersonal relationships (Padilla,
2012). A study by Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010) reports that leaders with higher levels of
self-awareness positively impact discretionary effort, which is characteristic of employee
engagement. Conversely, managers that lack self-awareness and consistently fail to adapt their
leadership behaviors can negatively affect employee innovation and job performance within
teams (Decker & Mitchell, 2015). Self-awareness provides a conduit for authentic leadership

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 44

that improves managers’ effectiveness and employee performance (Walumbwa et al., 2010).
Growth mindsets. The function of a growth mindset is a staple of educational
psychology (Dweck, 2006). Additionally, the concept has relevance in management and
employee performance research (Dweck, 2016; Miller, 2016; Pryor, 2016). According to Dweck
(2006), an individual with a growth mindset believes in his or her ability to attain the skills and
knowledge he or she desires provided he or she invests the necessary time and effort.
Conversely, an individual with a fixed mindset believes abilities are inherent and static (in effect
a product of intelligence). Each type of mindset is fundamentally different, specifically
regarding reactions to failure (Dweck, 2006).
Managers with a fixed mindset can suffocate performance enablement through a belief
that employee failure is due to the employee’s lack of natural ability or intelligence (Miller,
2016). A study by McQuaid (2015) found that managers with fixed mindsets were less likely to
engage in useful feedback with subordinates, and typically fail to recognize positive outcomes in
other employees’ performance. Typically, fixed mindset managers do not foster or promote
employee development and harm the achievement of organizational goals (Miller, 2016). In
contrast, managers with a growth mindset promote career development due to their belief that
intelligence is not inert – this belief empowers employees and increases their level of
organizational commitment (Dweck, 2016). Managing with a growth mindset encourages
efficacy among other employees, which benefits employee motivation (Miller, 2016). Finally,
managers exercising a growth mindset are more likely to recognize employees for their efforts
and apply effective reward strategies within their teams (McQuaid, 2015); rewards and
recognition are a driver of employee engagement (Management, 2015b). Linking specific job
roles and engagement to rewards and recognition is another strategy organizations and managers

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 45

can exercise to enable employees’ performance and foster employee engagement.
Linking employee roles to engagement and recognition. Role theory was introduced
into the social sciences in the early 1930s and embodies how individuals carry out behaviors in
various positions (for example mother, manager, and teacher) based on accepted societal
expectations (Mead, 1934; Turner 1978). Each occupant of a role is involved in negotiation,
compromise, and cooperation with other participants within the same social environment (Swan,
1987). Role theory is pertinent to employee behaviors and performance within organizations
(Katz & Kahn, 1978) and can be used to measure and enable employee performance to promote
engagement (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998; Welbourne, 2014). Welbourne (2014) argues
organizations and leaders can improve employee performance, recognition, and demystify
engagement by evaluating effort linked to five specific work roles. The five work roles were
identified by Welbourne et al. (1998) in previous research seeking to improve measures of
employee performance through the creation of the Role Based Performance Scale. Table 3
contains these five work roles and their unique descriptions.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 46

Table 3 Five Distinct Job Roles Employees Engage in at Work from Welbourne (2014)
Five Distinct Job Roles Employees Engage in at Work from Welbourne (2014)

Fundamentally, awareness of the work role an employee is participating in allows
organizations and managers to understand what employees are accomplishing within their core
job role, and what employees are accomplishing beyond their core job role (Welbourne et al.,
1998; Welbourne 2014). Extra-role performance/discretionary effort is indicative of an engaged
employee (Harter et al., 2002). Employees cannot devote equal effort to all five roles

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 47

(Welbourne, 2014). Understanding the specific role(s) employees are performing assists duty
reprioritization, precise communication and feedback as organizational goals shift, and clarity (to
all levels of leadership) regarding the behaviors and accomplishments that should be incentivized
and rewarded (Welbourne, 2014). The Welbourne (2014) model offers comprehensibility to the
ambiguous nature of employee engagement by creating a linkage between specific professional
roles, rewards for identifiable accomplishments within each role, and employee engagement.
Linking work roles, engagement, and performance can also improve the employee appraisal
process.
Rethinking the Annual Performance Appraisal
Employee performance appraisals are a foundational aspect of performance management.
Appraisals are traditionally completed on an annual basis; current research suggests annual
appraisals are ineffective for several reasons (Armstrong, 2017; Buckingham, 2015; Fuller, 2014;
Gruman & Saks, 2011; Leonard & Pakdil, 2016). Annual appraisal systems are commonly
saturated with bias introduced by the rater, which produces unreliable and inconsistent results
(Buckingham, 2015b; Leonard & Pakdil, 2016; Pryor, 2016). Additionally, traditional rating
systems do not account for behaviors indicative of an engaged employee (Gruman & Saks, 2011;
Mone & London, 2010). Finally, yearly appraisals propagate a static feedback system that limits
organizations’ and managers’ ability to capture the full breadth of employees’ performance
throughout the year (Armstrong, 2017; Dobbins, Cardy, Facteau, & Miller, 1993; Fuller, 2014).
Rater bias. Typical performance appraisal methods assume managers will execute
consistent and reliable ratings given the proper tools and scales by the organization to measure
employee performance (Buckingham, 2015a, 2015b). Research contends that managers’ ratings
of employees are often inaccurate due to rater biases; bias produces unreliable outputs that are

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 48

not uniform among the employee population (Buckingham, 2015a, 2015b). According to
Buckingham (2015b), annual performance reviews are often a measure of the evaluator’s
performance, not the employee’s, due to idiosyncratic (personal) rater bias. A study by Scullen,
Moun, and Goff (2000) analyzed the ratings of 4,492 individuals completed by two managers,
two peers, and two subordinates. The study concluded that 54% of the variance across ratings of
the same individual was due to the unique idiosyncrasies of the rater, while only 21% of the
variance could be traced back to each employees’ performance. Hoffman, Lance, Bynum, and
Gentry (2010) used confirmatory factor analysis to perform a similar study and corroborated the
findings of Scullen et al. (2000) by concluding that idiosyncratic rater bias accounted for a high
percentage of variance across performance appraisals. Another weakness of the annual
performance rating system is the lack of focus on evaluating employees’ engagement behaviors.
Inclusive appraisals of engagement behaviors and performance. Human resource
scholars suggest that integrating assessments of engagement with performance appraisals will
help organizations improve the utility of rating systems and subsequently improve and sustain
employee engagement (Gruman & Saks, 2011; White, 2016). For example, Gruman and Saks
(2011) propose that a joint performance-and-engagement-behavior appraisal system that
accounts for engagement behaviors such as discretionary effort, adaptability to new roles, and
perseverance will lead to improved engagement outcomes. Connecting performance and
engagement appraisals should also facilitate the linkage between roles, engagement, and
incentives, which was previously highlighted in Welbourne (2014). Furthermore, an appraisal of
engagement behaviors brings an accountability piece to the engagement process, which is
reminiscent of the Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday (2004) interpretation of engagement as a
give and take relationship between the organization and employee.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 49

Annual appraisals are static. Traditional annual appraisals are limited due to personal
rater bias and lack of engagement-behavior accountability mechanisms. These limitations, in
addition to lack of communication frequency afforded by a single yearly review, combine to
demonstrate that traditional annual performance rating systems can be inaccurate, and do not
facilitate valuable engagement promoting communication between managers and employees
throughout the year (Armstrong, 2017). Furthermore, the fixed nature of annual reviews does
not allow for fluid goal setting and does not produce the requisite amount of data organizations
and managers need to enable performance and monitor progress toward organizational goals
(Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011; Berger, 2014; Buckingham, 2015; Murch, 2016). The use of
human resources analytic techniques and technology platforms offer new possibilities to
organizations seeking to improve employee engagement and performance management
strategies.
Human Resource Analytics and Continuous Performance Management
Human resource analytics
3
is an emerging field that has become an increasingly common
approach used by organizations to supplement performance management practices and improve
the assessment and sustainment of employee engagement (Fitz-Enz & Mattox, 2014; Fuller,
2014; Lombardi, 2014; Sine, 2018). Shuck et al. (2011) forecasted the utility of frequently
captured data-driven metrics, and its ability to enhance, monitor, and measure accountability,
performance, and engagement across all roles within an organization. Subsequently, Deloitte
(2016) reported that 75% of organizational leaders believe human resource analytics will help

3
“Analytics is a mental framework, a logistical progression, and a set of statistical operations. Human resource
analytics brings together data from disparate sources, such as surveys, records, and operations, to a paint a cohesive
and actionable picture of current conditions and likely futures” (Fitz-Enz & Mattox, 2014, p. 7).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 50

their organization reach their business goals. The same report highlighted that 51% of companies
surveyed had used human resource analytic software to capture and analyze data that led to
tangible business results. The use of such software to capture data is relevant to improving
engagement and performance metrics due to the inadequacies associated with subjective cross-
sectional survey data collected in annual employee surveys and yearly performance appraisals
(Armstrong, 2017; Buckingham, 2015a; Fuller, 2014; Gruman & Saks, 2011). Additionally,
captured data enables continuous performance management.
Continuous performance management. Literature uses the term continuous
performance management (Sine, 2018) and “always on” surveys (Lombardi, 2014) to describe a
process that involves real-time data collection and continuous communication between the
manager, employee, and the organization. Buckingham (2015b) echoes the merits of continuous
performance management by endorsing the concepts performance pulse and engagement pulse
as methods to monitor organizational climate dynamically.
Technology in Human Resources. Human resource analytics applications provide a
platform to execute continuous performance management and pulsing by using electronic data
acquisition instruments. These applications employ carefully selected questions that capture
performance and engagement metrics relevant to each organization on a consistent and frequent
basis (Fuller, 2014; Sine, 2018). Examples of such data include attitudinal data, employee
emotions, resource needs, project progress, and employee relationships (Fuller, 2014). Managers
can also be prompted to provide data to supplement the employee derived data as changes related
to individual performance, team performance, and employee engagement occur (Sine, 2018).
Benefits. Inputs provided by managers ensures that employees and leaders are held
accountable for interacting and communicating with subordinates, which aids the continuous

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 51

performance management process (Buckingham & Goodall, 2015; Sine, 2018). Continuously
collected metrics provide more precise insights into manager and employee behaviors and
attitudes. The data illuminates the intricacies of organizational commitment and job role
performance, which can be leveraged as information to strengthen employee engagement (Shuck
et al., 2011; Sine, 2018; Welbourne, 2014). Additionally, the data supports a performance
system that facilitates fluid goal-setting that can be adjusted or modified as organizational
priorities shift (Armstrong, 2017; Buckingham & Goodall, 2015; Fuller, 2014).
In a case study presented by Armstrong (2017), IBM employees identified static goals
established and measured annually as a primary weakness and point of contention in the
company’s performance management process. IBM leadership implemented an application
called CheckPoint in response to employee concerns. CheckPoint alleviated employee discontent
by allowing IBM employees to choose short-term goals that were electronically measured
quarterly (rather than annually) in a collaborative process between managers and employees.
IBM's use of data-driven performance management in this example illustrates a modern
implementation of continuous performance management using human resource analytics.
Human resource analytic processes and software provide an opportunity for organizations
to implement a “new work model” (Fitz-Enz & Mattox, 2014, p. 2) by using data for descriptive
analysis (patterns and relationships), predictive analysis (outcome probabilities), and prescriptive
strategies (options and solutions) (Fitz-Enz & Mattox, 2014). Continuous and consistent
employee and manager supplied metrics offer richer insights (compared to annual evaluations)
into the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional characteristics representative of being an engaged
(Buckingham, 2015; Fuller, 2014; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Lombardi, 2014; Pryor, 2016; Sine,
2018).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 52

In sum, the review of the general literature provided insights into the origins,
development, controversy, debate, evolution, measurement, limitations, and continued relevance
of the employee engagement metric. Researched aligned to performance enablement, annual
appraisals, and human resource analytics offered cursory insights into the roles of managers,
organizations, and performance management in the employee engagement construct. The
ensuing portions of the study utilize a framework that illuminates specific stakeholder needs
related to their knowledge, motivation, and other pertinent organizational atmospherics. The
framework is advantageous to organizations seeking to achieve specific organizational goals that
are achieved through a combination of stakeholder goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework utilizes a systematic approach to identify,
validate, and provide solutions for stakeholder performance gaps that are negatively impacting
the achievement of organizational goals. The framework assesses (human) skill deficits and
needs related to three fundamental research tested constructs (known as KMO) shown to impact
performance and aid solutions, which include: (1) knowledge and skills, (2) motivation, and (3)
organizational influences (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Schein, 2017).
Organizational performance problems are often due to gaps in knowledge and skills, lack of
motivation, and the absence of necessary organizational resources. The gap may be a single
insufficiency or a combination of shortfalls - these critical KMO elements should be analyzed
individually to confirm a gap exists, which will ensure proper solutions are implemented (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
The KMO evaluation in practice. The process of evaluating Org1 managers’
performance management practices using Clark and Estes (2008) framework began by

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 53

identifying a clearly stated and measurable organization level performance goal, which
facilitated an appraisal of the organization’s progress toward the (stated) goal. Managers as
stakeholders and their individual goal(s) that impact the achievement of the overall
organizational goal were reviewed, then aligned within the evaluation. Following these initial
steps, a list of presumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
needs/factors/influences (derived from the literature) was generated to investigate probable
performance shortfalls among the manager stakeholder group that are likely impacting the
organizational goal. Through subsequent data collection and analysis, each probable KMO
element was determined to be valid or invalid. Finally, the process concluded by providing
research-based recommendations and solutions applicable to the validated stakeholder needs
(associated with each KMO element).
The proceeding section expands the information presented in the review of general
literature by addressing specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences presumed
to be affecting the performance management practices of the manager stakeholder group at Org1
– in turn, enabling the use of modified gap analysis framework.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences sections of
the literature review provides introductory/foundational information pertinent to each (KMO)
concept. The subsections then transition to each influences’ effects on individual and
organizational performance outcomes relevant to management practices and employee
engagement at Org1. The factors presented in this section work in concert with the performance
enablement practices previously discussed.
Knowledge Foundations and Influences

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 54

Over time, employee engagement has become an umbrella term that (better) captures
facets of other employee-centric measures such as job satisfaction, commitment, effort, and
productivity into a single construct (Gallup, 2017; Harter et al., 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Maslach et al., 2001; Saks, 2006; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Welbourne, 2014). Achieving
engagement can be a complicated endeavor; however, research consistently indicates
engagement focused performance management practices facilitate positive engagement outcomes
(Armstrong, 2017; Gallup, 2015; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Pryor, 2016). First, to begin the
knowledge portion of the modified Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework, it is necessary to
understand the foundational concepts of knowledge, beginning with cognition.
Cognition is the acquisition and processing of knowledge through thoughts, senses, and
experiences (“Cognition,” n.d.). Processed knowledge is organized into four categories: (a)
factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual
knowledge is specific to a subject or field and is discrete or solitary. Factual knowledge (for
example, the largest land mammal is the African Elephant) is necessary to function or participate
in a discipline. Conceptual knowledge is continuous, and is used to understand theory, structure,
models, contracts, and how these entities work together (for example conceptual knowledge of
role theory and engagement). Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of the how. Procedural
knowledge may be simplistic (for example how to ride a bicycle), or more complex (for
example, the instructions within an algorithm). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is knowledge
of the self (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge allows individuals to
understand their thoughts, and behaviors, which typically enhances their performance and ability
to solve problems (Baker, 2006). Manager self-awareness is an example of metacognitive
knowledge (Ashley & Reiter-Palmon, 2012). Understanding these various types of knowledge

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 55

are a central piece of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis methodology because deficiencies
in knowledge and skill directly affect job performance and problem-solving.
Diagnosing job performance deficiencies, or proposing solutions, requires an
organization to establish that key stakeholders (such as managers) have the knowledge and skill
sets to achieve the stakeholder goals that contribute to organizational level goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). The correlation between employee engagement and performance management
(Armstrong, 2017; Gallup, 2015; Gallup, 2017; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Management, 2015b;
Simon, 2011) requires the knowledge influences and needs impacting management practices to
be examined to ensure the success of Org1’s global goal (to improve engagement). Two
conceptual and one procedural knowledge element are presented as needs in this section of the
study.
Conceptual knowledge: understanding employee engagement. Managers need
comprehensive knowledge of employee engagement as a multi-faceted construct. Employee
engagement is not simple to define or measure. Org1 managers need to know that engagement is
associated with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral elements that affect employees’
engagement levels, in addition to the outcomes and behaviors associated with an engaged
worker. Specifically, managers should understand how the psychological elements of employee
engagement (employee needs, feelings of meaningfulness, demands) interact with organizational
level factors (such as job resources) and their management practices. Ample knowledge of
employee engagement’s multiple facets will illuminate the reciprocal nature of engagement and
enable managers to pursue practices that yield positive engagement behaviors from their
employees (for example, discretionary effort).
Conceptual knowledge: best practices in performance management. Managers need

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 56

knowledge of best practices in performance management, and their collective impact on
engagement outcomes. According to Gallup (2015), managers’ behaviors and practices account
for 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores. This level of influence underlines Org1
managers’ need for conceptual knowledge of the following vital elements of performance
management, and their collective impact on engagement: (1) task versus contextual performance,
(2) effectual goal setting and recognition for employees, (3) career development of employees
through training and training transfer climate, and (4) the importance of strengths-based
management (Armstrong, 2017; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Gallup, 2015; Gallup, 2017;
HBR, 2013; Leonard & Pakdil, 2016; Management, 2015a; TINYpulse, 2017).
Task versus contextual performance. Employee performance is a generalized term used
to describe productivity and behaviors that support organizational goals (Leonard & Pakdil,
2016). Understanding the differences between types of performance, for example, task
performance and contextual performance (also known as organizational citizenship behavior),
will aid performance management processes (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Leonard &
Pakdil, 2016). Task performance is an employee’s expertise and motivation to do their core job.
Contextual performance represents an employee’s actions that benefit their individual work and
organizational goals through altruistic and team strengthening behaviors (Leonard & Pakdil,
2016; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Research by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) provided
evidence that task and contextual performance affect overall performance separately using
supervisors’ (performance) assessments of 421 U.S. Air Force mechanics. The study found
experience levels to be highly correlated to task performance, while personality factors were
correlated with contextual performance. Motowidlo and Van Scotter’s (1994) study
demonstrated the multi-faceted approach necessary to manage and enable performance due to

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 57

individual-level employee variables (such as tenure and personality traits). Understanding the
differences between task performance and contextual performance (and what affects them)
allows managers to promote citizenship behavior and ensures goals and incentives are set that
adequately address job roles and accomplishments (Leonard & Pakdil, 2016; Welbourne, 2014).
Goal setting and recognition are imperative to employee engagement (Gallup, 2017; Hansen,
Smith, & Hansen, 2002; Harter et al., 2013).
Goal setting and recognition. According to Macey, Schneider, Barbera, and Young,
(2009) engagement will not occur without clear objectives that stimulate feelings of purpose.
Useful goals should be well-defined and connect individual performance outcomes to broader
organizational goals and strategy (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008). Gallup (2017) notes
poorly defined goals and misaligned leadership expectations harm engagement; the same Gallup
study highlights that employees are 2.5 times more likely to be engaged when goals align with
job expectations. Goal setting strategies and procedures can vary; however, there are a clear set
of elements that are most desirable when creating and evaluating employee goals. Useful goals
should be S.M.A.R.T.: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (Doran, 1981).
A Price Waterhouse Cooper (2015) study of multiple business units (200 survey and interview
respondents) revealed that although SMART goals were a commonly used term and strategy
within the organization, only 33 % of such goals were SMART in practice. Finally, a useful goal
setting process should be collaborative between the employee and the manager, which will
increase employee commitment to the organization and enable recognition (Gallup, 2015;
Gallup, 2017; Grubb, 2016; Management, 2015a).
Recognition. Managers need to understand the significance of a varied approach to
employee recognition and rewards in performance management process when employees achieve

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 58

goals. Many studies confirm the notable relationship between recognition and engagement
(Gallup, 2017; Harter et al., 2013; HBR, 2013; Maslach et al., 2001; Saks, 2006). The Harvard
Business Review (2015) notes 72% of survey respondents (n=568) view proper recognition of
top performers as a critical aspect of maintaining employee engagement. The U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (2015a) stresses recognition and rewards (including non-monetary) for
high-performers are vital to the improvement and maintenance of employee engagement.
Research highlights that while monetary rewards are a popular form of recognition, the use of a
varied approach is integral to successful management (Aguinis & Gottfredson, 2013).
Understanding the significance of motivating operators and various methods to reward and
recognize employees can improve engagement (McGee & Johnson, 2015). Career development
through manager support for training is another essential engagement bolstering management
practice (Management, 2015a).
Transfer of training climate. Managers’ ability to facilitate career development among
team members by supporting the transfer of training strengthens employee engagement.
According to Aguinis and Kraiger (2015), training opportunities oriented toward employee
development have a positive correlation to job satisfaction. Following completion, training
effectiveness increases when managers facilitate and encourage the transfer of training into
employees’ work roles. Deloitte (2016) proposes that managers can facilitate the transfer of
training by promoting a culture of learning, which is reminiscent of the performance enabling
factors associated with a growth mindset discussed earlier in Dweck (2006). Managers that take
an active role in providing ample opportunities to use newly acquired skills promote the transfer
of training and career development (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Research by Salas (2006)
discovered a positive correlation between supervisor advocacy for training and the subsequent

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 59

use of the training into employee development. In addition to supervisors’ knowledge regarding
the importance of training advocacy, supportive coaching and feedback aligned to employee
strengths drives employee engagement.
Strengths-based management. Accounting for employee strengths above weaker traits is
commonly identified as a useful performance enabling practice (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999;
Gallup, 2015; Murch, 2016). Employees who feel their supervisor focuses on their strengths
rather than their weaknesses are more likely to be engaged. Gallup (2015) notes 67% of
employees surveyed were measured to be engaged when their manager focused on their strengths
rather than weaknesses in feedback and appraisals. A quantitative study by the Corporate
Leadership Council (2002) revealed leaders that focused on strengths were 36% more likely to
improve employee performance; conversely, emphasis placed on weaknesses negatively
impacted performance.
Strengths-based management is correlated with increased employee self-esteem.
Research conducted by Gardner and Pierce (1998) indicated higher levels of measured employee
self-esteem (employees’ belief in their worth and competency within the organization, not to be
confused with self-efficacy) are positively correlated to job performance and satisfaction.
Gardner and Pierce’s (1998) research goes on to conclude that employees’ managers should be
the primary provider of positive reinforcement at work to promote employees’ self-esteem.
Employee engagement is improved when managers instill a strengths-based leadership
culture in conjunction with the three-previous performance management practices discussed in
this section. Knowledge of these practices and their collective impact on engagement used in
combination with active communication and feedback procedures from manager to the employee
will strengthen employee engagement (Berger, 2014; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Leonard &

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 60

Pakdil, 2016; Murch, 2016). Conceptual knowledge of these best practices and their
interdependencies will aid managers’ procedural knowledge of effective communication and
feedback.
Procedural knowledge: effective communication and feedback practices. Managers
need a comprehensive understanding of effective communication and feedback strategies and
methods. There are numerous procedural elements involved in manager to employee feedback.
Managers’ approach to communication and feedback should be frequent, consistent, positive,
constructive, and aligned to goals. The literature unambiguously shows communication and
feedback practices between manager and employee are a cornerstone variable of an engaged
workforce (Adkins, 2015; Armstrong, 2017; Bailey at al., 2017; Baumruk, 2006; Berger, 2014;
Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Gallup, 2015; Gallup, 2017; Grubb, 2016; Harte & Adkins,
2015; HBR, 2013; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Leonard & Pakdil, 2016; Mann & Darby, 2014;
Management, 2015a; Murch, 2016; TINYpulse, 2017).
Consistent and frequent. Communication from supervisor to employee needs to be
frequent and consistent (Harte & Adkins, 2015; Murch, 2016). Mann and Darby (2014)
highlighted in a survey of 8,000 employees (on their relationship with their managers),
employees that characterized their managers as poor communicators were fifteen times more
likely to be disengaged. Further expounding on the importance of effective and consistent
communication, Adkins (2015) found employees who regularly met with their manager are three
times more likely to be engaged. Through regression analysis (OLS) of multiple federal
workforce surveys with several hundred thousand respondents, the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (2015) concluded supervisor feedback played the most statistically significant role
(across all generational cohorts) in employee engagement.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 61

Positive and goal-oriented. In addition to frequency and consistency, studies have shown
engagement is bolstered by feedback that is positive, constructive and goal-oriented (Gallup,
2017; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Losada & Heaphy, 2004; Shute, 2008). Shute (2008)
characterizes helpful feedback in educational settings as a process that should be “non-
evaluative, supportive, timely, and specific” (p.1); Shute’s characterization is relevant when
exploring the correlation between performance management, positive feedback, and engagement
levels. According to Kluger and DeNisi (1998), only 33% of feedback positively affects
performance. The Kluger and DeNisi study revealed employees felt the most beneficial feedback
focused on achieving goals, not on negative information (lending credence to the utility of
strengths-based leadership). Another study by Losada and Heaphy (2004) found that among sixty
leadership teams within one organization, the team measured to be the most successful had a
positive to negative comment ratio (tabulated from the team’s internal communications as part of
the study) of 5.6 to 1 positive comments to negative, while the least successful team had a ratio
of 0.36 to 1 positive comments to negative. Positive feedback should be constructive and
connect individual employee goals to organizational goals (Murch, 2016). A Harvard Business
School Study (2013) found that of 568 respondents, 70 % agreed that a clear connection between
individual goals and overall strategy was a key driver to improve employee engagement.
Managers’ fundamental roles in improving or hindering employee engagement with their
management practices and communication methods are apparent. Table 4 shows the
organizational mission, global organization goal, and presumed knowledge influences presented
in the knowledge and skills section of the review.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 62

Table 4 Assumed Knowledge Influences
Presumed Stakeholder Knowledge Needs
Organizational Mission
To provide the products and services to decision makers when they need it most. Org1 is
committed to acquiring, developing and maintaining the proper technology, people and,
processes that will enable overall mission success.
Organizational Global Goal
The Org1 performance goal is to achieve an 80% employee engagement score.

Stakeholder Goal
Enhance employee engagement by exercising best practices in recognition, communication,
and employee evaluations.
Knowledge Need Knowledge Type
Managers need to have knowledge of the
complexities associated with the cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral elements that affect
employees’ engagement levels, in addition to
the outcomes and behaviors associated with an
engaged worker.

Managers need knowledge of best practices in
performance management and their collective
impact on engagement outcomes.

Conceptual

Conceptual

Managers need comprehensive knowledge of
the procedural elements of effective
communication and feedback methods.

Procedural
Beyond the knowledge influences that may be impacting managers at Org1, it is vital to
understand how motivation can help or hinder the effectiveness of managers at Org1.
Motivation Foundations and Influences
Motivation is an equally important indicator when examining performance problems
(Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008), including low employee engagement (Gallup, 2015;
Gallup, 2017). Motivation is a driving force that contributes to effort in learning and

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 63

participation (Mayer, 2011). According to Spitzer (1995), nearly 50% of employees claim they
exert the minimum amount of effort necessary to complete tasks. Clark and Estes (2008)
emphasize three behaviors that are indicators of such motivational issues, which include: active
choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is one’s choice to pursue a goal (or neglect
to choose). Persistence is the ability to pursue a goal in the face of distractions. Mental effort
signifies one’s commitment to devoting enough (mental and time) resources to achieve the
desired goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Understanding the various types of motivation and their
positive and negative consequences are imperative when analyzing the motivational influences
affecting key stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). There a several constructs of motivation that
influence active choice, persistence and mental effort. The focus of this evaluation will be on
expectancy-value motivation theory and the relationship between self-and-collective-efficacy
theory and supervisors’ motivation.
Expectancy-value motivation theory. Expectancy-value motivation theory stems from
two questions: can I do the task (expectancy), and do I want to do the task (value)? Expectancy is
a reliable indicator of one’s motivation to persist and can forecast positive and negative
performance outcomes (Eccles, 2006). Value signifies one’s active choice and has several sub-
categorizations including: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost belief (Eccles,
2006). Clark and Estes (2008) highlight that active choice rather than just intention to pursue a
goal has a direct effect on individual persistence, mental effort, and subsequent performance.
The specific value beliefs pertinent to Org1 managers are utility value, attainment value, and cost
belief. Utility value is one’s motivation to embrace a task based on the task’s usefulness and
alignment with future goals. Attainment value represents the relationship between the tasks, and
the individual’s schema, in effect, their perception of themselves and what it means to achieve

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 64

success (Eccles, 2006). Cost belief characterizes the individual’s thoughts on the effort needed to
be successful at a task. This includes beliefs on the potential stress that accompanies a task, and
the potential opportunity costs to other endeavors that require individuals’ time (Eccles, 2006).
Research suggests motivational influences affect managers’ ability to effectively manage
performance and manage employee engagement (Gallup, 2015), which highlights the need for a
perceived sense of value supervisors must carry to manage and engage employees.
Value in managing for engagement in addition to performance. Managers need to
see the attainment, utility, and cost value in managing for performance and engagement through
a persistent effort toward performance management, relationship building, and increased
communication. According to Mann and Darby (2014), high-performance (motivated) managers
focus on keeping employees engaged by developing interpersonal relationships. These
relationships are built by taking a personal interest in employee accomplishments, setting and
adapting employees’ goals, and maintaining a sense of accountability by exercising strong and
frequent communication habits (Armstrong, 2017; Mann & Darby, 2014). Literature consistently
notes the important roles interpersonal relationships and emotional connections can play in
employees’ engagement and level of commitment (Armstrong, 2017; Gallup, 2015; Luthanks &
Peterson, 2001). Luthanks and Peterson (2001) describe this connection as emotional
engagement between the employee and the manager. Due to the profound influence managers’
actions have on employees’ emotions and overall engagement, it is crucial for these stakeholders
to see value in executing strategies that simultaneously manage and enable performance to
positively affect engagement.
Self-and-collective-efficacy theory. Self-and-collective-efficacy theory also contributes
to stakeholder motivation. Self-efficacy signifies individuals’ beliefs in their ability to complete

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 65

a task or achieve a goal (Bandura, 1982). Efficacy beliefs can be affected by various social
influences (for example past experiences) and have a strong correlation with motivation levels
(Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy and collective-efficacy are interrelated; individual self-efficacy is
often influenced by the perceived efficacy of the group (collective-efficacy) and can either
increase or hinder motivation levels (Bandura, 2000; Borgogni, Russo & Latham 2011). An
efficacious individual will be more driven towards accomplishments, expend greater effort, and
persist longer while seeking out more challenging endeavors (Bandura, 1997). Research reveals
there is a link between managers’ self-efficacy, collective-efficacy, and engagement (Luthans &
Peterson, 2002; Paglis & Green, 2002).
Leadership self-efficacy. Org1 managers need leadership self-efficacy to foster
engagement and collective-efficacy among their employees. According to Paglis and Green
(2002), leadership self-efficacy (LSE) is the confidence an individual has when guiding
employees, fostering relationships, and facilitating change within teams (all aspects of managing
performance). Using an LSE rating scale derived within the same study, Paglis and Green
(2002) concluded that managers rating themselves high in LSE were more likely to engage in
(effective) leadership “attempts” (p. 231). In another empirical investigation of 170 managers,
Luthans and Peterson (2002) found manager self-efficacy and engagement are related.
Specifically, the study revealed managers’ self-efficacy directly affected employees’ “emotional
and cognitive engagement” (p. 384) and employees’ impressions of their managers’
effectiveness. Borgogni et al., (2011) provided empirical evidence demonstrating employees’
perceptions of their managers’ ability to set goals and communicate played a role in employee
confidence and organizational commitment. The investigation by Borgogni et al., (2011)
correlated the employees’ perceptions of their leaders’ effectiveness, with their belief in the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 66

collective-efficacy and ability of other managers.
When managers are believed to be efficacious, their employees are more engaged
(Luthans & Peterson, 2002). Further, employees that note a positive belief in the collective-
efficacy of leaders’ show increased satisfaction and organizational commitment (Borgogni et al.,
2011). Table 5 includes a reminder of the stakeholder goal and the motivation needs reviewed in
this literature review.
Table 5 Assumed Motivation Influences
Presumed Stakeholder Motivation Needs
Stakeholder Goal
Enhance employee engagement by exercising best practices in recognition, communication,
and employee evaluation.
Motivation driving need Motivation Type
Managers need to see the attainment, utility,
and cost value in managing for performance
and engagement.

Expectancy-Value
Managers need leader self-efficacy to foster
engagement and collective-efficacy among
their employees.
Self-Efficacy
In addition to knowledge and motivation elements, the achievement of Org1’s employee
engagement goals through improved performance management is influenced by organizational
factors.
Organizational Foundations and Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), accounting for organizational culture plays a
critical role in performance assessment due to culture’s effect on the “core values, goals, beliefs,
emotions and processes” (p. 108) within an organization. Organizational culture can be macro,
but also exists in subgroups; culture has varying levels of visibility. Collective problem solving

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 67

and shared experiences shape organizational culture (Schein, 2017). Over time, employee
experiences lead to common assumptions and perceptions of organizational values and behaviors
that acquiesce as normal and are then passed on to incoming organizational members (Schein,
2004). Rueda (2011) suggests these cultural norms can be presented as two dynamic and
interrelated organizational influences relevant to this evaluation: cultural models and cultural
settings. Cultural models are typically intangible manifestations of values, mindsets, and
attitudes expressed unconsciously within an organization. Cultural settings represent the visible
and distinct displays of cultural models that appear within a (work) setting (Rueda, 2011). The
cultural model and cultural setting influences assumed to be impacting Org1’s management
practices are presented in the ensuing sections.
Cultural model influence: manager empowerment. Org1 needs to facilitate goal
achievement and enable organizational change by empowering managers. Employee
empowerment signifies employees’ authority to directly influence and make decisions about
their work (Casemore, 2017). Empowerment is facilitated by an organization’s commitment to
continually communicate and engage with employees to promote mutual interests and drive
organizational success (Erickson, Hamilton, Jones, & Ditomassi, 2003). The empowerment of
the manager stakeholder group is imperative to successful change initiatives and goal
achievement (Tabrizi, 2014). Specifically, the empowerment of managers eases organizational
barriers that negatively impact change initiatives, and improves manager effort and job
commitment (Degner, 2005). In 2015, Org1 enacted human resource policies that may have
negatively impacted managers’ feelings of empowerment and employee engagement by
removing managers’ roles in several decision-making processes (for example promotion
outcomes and hiring) and placing those responsibilities in the hands of the organization.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 68

According to Mone and London (2018), managers are more likely to foster engagement and
performance within their team(s) if they feel empowered in their jobs by the organization due to
an increased sense of psychological safety (a previously discussed driver of engagement in Kahn,
1990).
Lending additional evidence to the importance of manager empowerment, a study of 56
organizations undergoing significant change revealed that managers played the most crucial role
in successful change and innovation programs (Tabrizi, 2014). The successful organizations in
this study empowered managers to make decisions affecting their teams and allowed managers to
be significant contributors to the language within the change initiatives, ensuring support for and
effort toward the change programs (Tabrizi, 2014). Empowering managers by providing them
opportunities to communicate change initiatives, goals, and their effects on individual
employees’ careers at the team level (rather than as-directed) facilitates the achievement of
organizational goals (Armstrong, 2017; Tabrizi, 2014). This point reemphasizes the significance
of communication and feedback at all levels within an organization. Poor organizational level
communication can encourage a culture that is resistant to change.
Cultural model influence: resistance to organizational change among managers.
The organization may need to address resistance to new policies and expectations involving
changes to managers’ performance objectives. Resistance to organizational change occurs for a
multitude of reasons; a primary cause of such resistance is the presence of communication
deficiencies embedded within the organizational culture (Berger, 2014). Structured internal
organizational communication improves employees’ commitment to organizational strategy,
particularly during times of change (Burton, Grates, & Learch, 2013). Org1’s resistance to
change may be a result of insufficient communication practices at the organizational level.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 69

Additionally, among federal organizations such as Org1, change initiatives often fail due to the
lack of experience and necessary knowledge and skills required to manage large change
initiatives (Risher, 2017). Inexperienced change management agents at Org1 may be
exacerbating resistance to change due to ineffective use of change management processes
(Risher, 2017).
Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) affirm that resistance to sustainable organizational
change can occur when managers’ goals and expectations are not compatible with organizational
goals and policies, which can marginalize managers’ ability to facilitate change. An
amalgamation of resistance to change and manager empowerment deficiencies presented as
cultural models may negatively impacting Org1’s management practices and their pursuit to
improve employee engagement. Tangible matters, such as the alignment of policies and rewards,
play a significant role in organizational outcomes.
Cultural setting influence: aligning policies and rewards with strategic goals. Org1
needs policies and incentives in place that prioritize increased communication and feedback
between manager and employee. According to Clark and Estes (2008), all organizational goals
are achieved through a series of interrelated procedures that are collectively known as work
processes. Work processes align employees and teams to resources and policies. Misaligned
work processes, or absence of adequate work processes, can affect stakeholder knowledge and
motivation, consequently affecting the achievement of organizational goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). Managers as stakeholders at Org1 are heavily influenced by the work processes
implemented at the organizational level, specifically, the work processes (or lack thereof)
concerning effective communication and feedback. Org1 may lack accountability measures
(through policies) that promote communication throughout the organization. Prioritizing

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 70

communication at all levels within an organization is a cornerstone of employee engagement
(Berger, 2014; Gallup, 2015; Madlock, 2008). Shortfalls related to communication will likely
affect any change initiatives that improve engagement (Berger, 2014). Misaligned rewards and
recognition systems are another cause of stakeholder performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Spitzer, 1996). Presently, no Org1 policy is in place that incentivizes frequent feedback from
manager to employee, which may be impacting managers’ motivation to pursue more frequent
feedback and communication with subordinates. Inadequate communication practices at Org1
may be the result of shortcomings in organizational training strategies.
Cultural setting influence: engagement focused manager training. Org1 needs to
provide engagement focused training for managers to execute engagement strengthening
strategies. Modern human resource and business development literature suggest organizations
should implement strategies and models with employee engagement as the primary focus
(Armstrong, 2017; Gruman & Saks, 2011). This notion was also presented in the review of the
general literature. Deloitte (2016) highlights that although 85% of organizations identified
engagement as a key to organizational success, most of the organizations within the study lacked
leadership development programs seeking to improve engagement. Further, it is common for
organizations (including Org1) to promote managers without supervisory experience (Shuck,
Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011), highlighting the need for improved performance management
training among managers at Org1. Finally, organizations that allow managers to self-direct their
training curriculum may be degrading overall development and learning outcomes among
managers. Kirschner and Van Merrienboer (2013) suggest a lack of guidance for learners can be
detrimental to their progress as students. Lack of direction that guides managers’ training efforts
may represent an ineffective work process that is negatively impacting the achievement of

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 71

organizational goals at Org1.
Organizational influences are predominantly the result of the culture present within
organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008). Influences related to change management, empowerment,
communication, and manager development are essential to this evaluation. Table 6 summarizes
the organizational influences discussed in this section. The knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs discussed in the preceding sections provide the underpinning for the
conceptual framework discussed in the final portion of this chapter.
Table 6 Assumed Organizational
Presumed Organizational Influences and Needs
Organizational Goal
Achieve and maintain an 80% employee engagement score by 2020.
Organizational Needs Influence Type
Org1 needs to facilitate goal achievement and enable
organizational change by empowering managers.
Cultural Model
Org1 needs to address resistance to new policies and
expectations involving changes to managers’ performance
objectives.
Cultural Model
Org1 needs policies and incentives in place that prioritize
increased communication and feedback between manager and
employee.
Cultural Setting
Org1 needs to provide training for managers to execute
engagement strengthening strategies.
Cultural Setting

The Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework informs the totality of qualitative research elements by
providing speculative theories of the phenomenon under review (Maxwell, 2013). These

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 72

tentative theories are (primarily) formulated through a combination of the researcher’s
experiential knowledge, and interpretations of existing research and theories related to the
research problem (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore, the conceptual framework is a visual depiction
(graphically or textual) that illustrates the (presumed) relationships and interactions of the
fundamental concepts and variables within a study (Robson, 2011). Finally, a conceptual
framework supports the refinement of research questions and design, while lending insights into
potential risks to the validity of the research (Maxwell, 2013). Previously, several knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational influences assumed to be affecting Org1 managers’
management practices were discussed independently; however, it is essential to recognize the
relationships and interactivity between each element, and the presumed effect these linkages
have on improving employee engagement. The conceptual framework in Figure 5 presents a
depiction of the relationships between the organizational influences (cultural models and
settings), current performance management practices, and the knowledge and motivation needs
and influences pertinent to the organizational goal of improving employee engagement.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 73

Figure 5. Conceptual framework to evaluate performance management and engagement.
Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation and the Organizational Context
Accounting for organizational influences are paramount to understanding any
performance gap and implementing suitable solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Despite the
presence of knowledgeable and motivated stakeholders, performance can still suffer due to
negative components in existing organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Employee

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 74

engagement is embedded in organizational culture because the organization can affect several
drivers of employee engagement such as recognition practices, development opportunities,
communication, and performance appraisal methods (Aguinis & Kraiger 2015; Gruman & Saks,
2011; Management, 2015a; Saks, 2006; Welbourne 2015). Consequently, these organizational
influences can help or hinder a managers’ ability to foster engagement through effective
performance management and communication among their subordinates (Berger, 2015; Gallup,
2015; Gallup, 2017; Management, 2015a). Lastly, Org1 managers’ ability and motivation to
conduct engagement supporting performance management is related to their levels of knowledge,
efficacy, and expectancy-value (Clark & Estes, 2008; Luthanks & Peterson, 2001), which is also
influenced by the intangible cultural models and palpable cultural settings present within the
organization. Org1’s goal to improve employee engagement is the central piece of this
evaluation’s conceptual framework. The goal is affected by all elements within the framework,
including existing (organizational) culture, performance management practices, and managers’
knowledge and motivation to execute engagement strengthening performance management.
Conceptual Framework Details
The chief guidance for the scope and structure of this conceptual framework was the
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis methodology referenced throughout Chapter One and
Chapter Two. For this reason, the words knowledge, motivation, and organization are
represented around the perimeter of the conceptual framework to illustrate the foundational
concepts that formulated this study’s research questions and provided direction for the review of
the literature. Additionally, there are gaps before and after each perimeter KMO term to impart
that performance problems are often caused by knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resource gaps/deficits. Organizational influences (shades of beige) assumed to be affecting

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 75

managers’ performance management practices encircle all elements within the conceptual
framework due to their level of influence on performance management, managers, and the
organizational goal. Performance management (tan) is located between organizational influences
and assumed manager knowledge and motivation influences due to the interconnectivity between
organizational effects on performance management, and the subsequent performance
management practices executed by managers. The innermost circle (shades of blue and green)
represents the core factors (categorized by knowledge type, and relevant motivation theory) that
were identified in the review of literature as engagement strengthening management practices.
The organizational goal is at the center of the conceptual framework because it is affected by all
KMO elements. Finally, the color-gradients overlap and blend across each organizational
influence and knowledge and motivational influence to illustrate the interrelated nature of all
concepts within the conceptual framework and KMO gap analysis.
Summary
The purpose of this research study was to examine the degree to which Org1 is achieving
their goal to improve employee engagement through improved performance management
practices that enhance engagement. In Chapter Two, a review of the pertinent literature provided
awareness into the complex nature of engagement, measurements of engagement, and
developments in performance management that facilitate and sustain employee engagement. The
literature review then re-introduced the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework and
transitioned to the specific presumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and
influences impacting management practices at Org1. Chapter Three introduces the research
design, and the methodologies used to collect and analyze relevant data that was utilized to
evaluate the legitimacy of each need and influence identified in the literature.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 76

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which managers at Org1 are
improving employee engagement through effective performance management practices. This
analysis was enhanced by investigating the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) needs and resources that were identified in Chapter Two as necessities for managers as
primary stakeholders to improve employee engagement. The research questions that guided this
study were:
1. To what degree have managers’ communication, recognition, and employee evaluation
practices from 2013 to 2017 impacted the organization’s goal to achieve an engagement
score of 80%?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and resources necessary
for the Org1 managers as stakeholders to improve and sustain employee engagement
using research-based best practices in performance management?
3. How could practices in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational policies
and resources be changed to aid performance management among Org1 managers that
will subsequently improve employee engagement?
Chapter Three provides the sampling methods, data collection methods, and data analysis
techniques used for this study. The chapter presents the credibility-and-trustworthiness and
validity-and-reliability of the qualitative and quantitative portions of the research design. Ethical
considerations conclude the chapter.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this research study were permanent federal civilian employees with
supervisory-status at Org1. The study did not include government contractors and excluded

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 77

members of the senior executive service and military. There is no distinction between terms
such as front-line manager, or middle manager throughout this study; the term manager and
supervisor are synonymous. The components of the proceeding section include the criterion,
sampling strategy, and rationale used to identify and assemble the study’s interview participants.
Interview Sampling Criterion, Strategy, and Rationale
Criterion 1. The employees were federal civilian employees of Org1 and labeled as a
supervisor in their billet. The stakeholder group for this study were managers/supervisors.
Managers/supervisors conduct the performance management activities outlined throughout
Chapter Two that impact employee engagement.
Criterion 2. The employees were current or former members of the leadership advisory
board or supervisory council. The small sample size available to the researcher for interviews
and the study’s time and resource constraints necessitated a stakeholder with awareness of Org1
corporate issues, changes, and processes. Membership in one of these management-centric
groups implied that the representatives have up-to-date information on the current undertakings
of the organization and would provide purposeful data due to the members' voluntary
participation and interest in leadership and supervisory topics.
Sampling strategy and rationale. The sampling strategy for interview data collection
was a non-random convenience sample (n=10) drawn from a population of 116 managers.
Researchers often utilize convenience samples when limited access to the entire population
constrains a study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The researcher had access to all potential survey
participant names (through an e-mail list) based on their affiliation with the internal groups cited
in criterion two. Access to all potential participants afforded a single-stage sample study that did
not require follow-on clustering to narrow the sample (Creswell, 2014).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 78

Rationale. Although the study employed a non-random convenience sample for
interviews, the selected sample was purposeful due to the interview participants’ keen interest in
supervisory roles and leadership development. Purposeful samples are paramount to research
with a limited sample size due to the focused and opulent information that is derived from the
targeted data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The interview sampling approach did not
employ any stratification. Volunteer interview participants were recruited via email solicitation
and during a conference call with the researcher. Coincidently, the researcher received exactly
ten volunteer participants.
Data Collection
An explanatory-sequential mixed methods design was used for data collection (illustrated
in Figure 6). The mixed methods design offered a mechanism to leverage valuable archival data
for quantitative analysis, in-turn providing additional context and clarity to data collection and
analysis completed during the second phase of the study. This multi-phase evaluation began by
gathering historical survey results from Org1 archives. Concurrently, publicly available federal
survey data was downloaded from the United States Office of Personnel Management website.
Manual data entry and data carpentry were used to assemble two separate (yet similar) federal
survey data sets. Subsequently, constructs aligned to performance management were created by
the researcher using this archival survey data, finalizing the first phase of data collection.
The second phase of data collection entailed gathering Org1 workforce documents,
conducting interviews with stakeholders, and collecting additional archived survey items and
results aligned to specific KMO needs. The use of these data sources provided the researcher
quantitative and qualitative information to examine performance management trends at Org1,
and to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and influences impacting

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 79

the organization’s and stakeholders’ goal to improve employee engagement. The proceeding
sections provide additional details regarding the data collected for this evaluation.

Figure 6. Mixed-method research design adapted from Creswell (2014).
Archival Data: 2013 – 2017 Federal Survey Data
This study employed the use of two federal data sources: Org1’s Employee Climate
Survey (ECS), and the publicly available Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
4
(FEVS). The
U.S. Office of Personnel Management conducts the FEVS annually (via electronic means) to
explore federal workers’ views regarding their supervisors, organization, and other relevant
professional experiences using a five-point scale. The FEVS data contains completed surveys
from 80 government agencies (Management, 2017). In concert, Org1’s Employee Climate
Survey is administered electronically solely to Org1 federal employees to gather similar
workforce perception data, using a five-point scale. The publicly available FEVS and Org1 ECS
have many identical survey items within their respective survey instruments; however, the two
federal workforce surveys are not identical.
Overcoming data limitations. Unlike most federal agencies, Org1 does not release the

4
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provides access to the annual FEVS results via downloadable
CSV files on the OPM website.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 80

Org1 climate survey instrument or results to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for public
use. Nonetheless, access to the Org1 Employee Climate Survey instrument and (collective)
yearly results was approved for use in academic studies by Org1’s Office of General Counsel
due to the researcher’s employment with the organization. Despite the researcher’s affiliation
with Org1, individual participant responses from the Org1 Employee Climate Survey were not
authorized for release.
The lack of individual response data available to the researcher among the Org1 survey
data necessitated the collection of a Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data set comprised of
the identical survey items used in the Org1 Employee Climate Survey data. In contrast to the
Org1 survey data available to the researcher, the FEVS data set included individual participant
responses for the entire survey.
Collecting the FEVS data set composed of many federal employees’ responses to
identical Org1 survey questions aligned to this study afforded additional statistical analysis
methods to the researcher, and the latitude to calculate the internal reliability of the survey items
used in the study prior to data analysis. Furthermore, the comparable sets of data allowed the
researcher to (logically) infer parallels between the analysis completed on the FEVS data to the
performance management outcomes at Org1, lending additional weight to the findings and
results.
Collecting relevant archival survey items and results. Relevant Org1 survey items
that had a matching item in the publicly available FEVS were captured from the Org1 ECS and
manually inputted by the researcher to create a tabular data set using Microsoft Excel. The
complete tabular data set consisted of 2013 to 2017 Org1 Employee Climate Survey items and
the aggregate workforce responses associated with each item, grouped by year.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 81

Raw Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data from 2013 to 2017 was downloaded from
the Office of Personnel Management website in a CSV format. The CSV contained 3,483,435
individual participant records and their responses to every survey item (98 total) on the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey. The size of the FEVS data set prevented the use of Microsoft
Excel. The R statistical programming language was used in place of Excel to create data frames
and subset the FEVS data set to the respondents that identified themselves as non-supervisor, and
to respondents employed by agencies similar in mission to Org1. Filtering reduced the FEVS
dataset to 48,083 records for the five-year period. The survey items in the FEVS data that did not
match the survey items extracted from the Org1 Employee Climate Survey were deleted from the
FEVS data set. However, survey items that comprised the 15-item federal employee engagement
index (discussed in Chapter Two, p. 36) were kept in the FEVS data set to conduct
supplementary data analysis. The complete list of survey items and their alignment within this
study are provided in Appendices A and B.
The two distinct federal survey data sets, comprised of identical survey items, were used
to provide insights into research question one: to what degree have managers’ communication,
recognition, and employee evaluation practices from 2013 to 2017 impacted the organization’s
goal to achieve an engagement score of 80%? To address research question one directly, the
applicable survey items were grouped into multi-survey item sets to create over-arching
constructs aligned to the performance management concepts identified in research question one.
Creating performance management constructs from archival data. There are many
examples of research studies that have extracted publicly available federal survey items and their
respective responses to examine various employee performance phenomena and organizational
constructs (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013; Harrington & Lee, 2015; Kellis & Ran, 2013).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 82

Ordinal survey data can be analyzed as continuous (interval) data by taking the average of
several ordinal scale items to construct a single interval variable (Carifio & Perla, 2007).
The constructs created by the researcher for use in data analysis were communication (the
extent to which workers believe communication related to performance management is
adequate), recognition (the extent to which workers are satisfied with recognition practices), and
appraisals (the extent to which workers are satisfied with supervisors’ evaluation processes).
Each construct was comprised of four survey items, assessed on a five-point scale; the mean of
the four items represented the interval value for each construct (whether from aggregated yearly
data from the Org1 data set, or individual records from the FEVS data set). In addition, the
combined averages for the three constructs were used to create a performance management
composite score (PM Score) that was treated as a holistic data point for the quantitative
evaluation completed in phase one data analysis. Lastly, the researcher used the R statistical
programming language to compute Cronbach’s alpha for each construct to ensure each measure
had adequate internal reliability (greater than or equal to .80) before commissioning their use in
the data analysis process (Cronbach, 1970). Table 7 provides a description of each construct and
the alignment of each survey item.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 83

Table 7
Performance Management Constructs Created using Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Data
Construct/Sub-Items
Cronbach
α
Communication: the extent to which workers believe communication related to
performance management is adequate.
.82
I have enough information to do my job well.
Discussions with my supervisor about my performance are worthwhile.
How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your job?
How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on
what’s going on in the agency?

Recognition: the extent to which workers are satisfied with recognition practices. .92
In my work unit differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.
Awards in my unit depend on how well employees do their job.
Employees are recognized for providing high-quality products and services.
How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?
Appraisals: the extent to which workers are satisfied with supervisors’ evaluation
processes.
.80
My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.
In my most recent appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at
different performance levels.

Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.
My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job
performance.

PM Score (Composite score that is the average of the three constructs) .94
Note. To avoid misleading results due to covariance, the constructs do not contain survey items
that are used to calculate the employee engagement index used by the federal government. Only
items present in both the Org1 survey and the FEV survey were used to create the constructs.

Interviews

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 84

Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted over the phone and in-person between
October 15, 2018 and November 30, 2018. The researcher recruited interview participants by
making managers (that met criterion one and two) aware of the evaluation during monthly
membership teleconference meetings leading up to data collection. Email was used to solicit
participants once data collection was approved by the University of Southern California. Due to
security policies that prevented the researcher from using a recording device, the interviews were
completed at a pace that allowed the researcher to transcribe participants’ verbal responses in
real-time to type-written form using a word processor.
Interviews were conducted using an emergent design, which allowed for the interview
protocol to evolve (slightly) as new insights were gained during questioning (Creswell, 2014).
The semi-structured interview protocol was closely aligned to the KMO elements identified in
Chapter Two (see Appendix C for the interview protocol). Information sheets explaining the
study and the voluntary nature of the study were provided to interview participants via email,
read over the phone, or provided via hardcopy for interviews conducted in person.
Documents and Artifacts
Literature asserts that the use of documents in qualitative research is less intrusive when
compared to data collection through focus groups, or observations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Considering this, the analysis of internal Org1 workforce documents was indispensable to this
study. Fourteen documents were gathered concurrently with stakeholder interview data during
phase two of the evaluation (see Appendix D for the complete list of internal documents). The
documents were authored between 2015 and 2017 — documents assembled for the study
centered on leadership development, Org1 personnel policies, published organizational goals and
strategies, and workforce perceptions presented via Org1 Human Resource studies. Access to

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 85

these documents was approved for use in academic studies by Org1’s Office of General Counsel
due to the researcher’s employment with the organization.
Archival Data: 2013 – 2017 Survey Items Exclusive to Org1
The researcher collected a third data set comprised of ancillary survey items aligned to
organizational-level influences and manager communication by manually entering archived 2013
– 2017 Org1 ECS items and yearly results with Microsoft Excel. The survey items collected for
this data set did not have a requirement that necessitated an identical survey in the FEVS
instrument. Furthermore, the survey items were not solely focused on the performance
management practices of Org1 supervisors.
The validity and reliability of the archival data utilized throughout the study are
examined in multiple publications (Management, 2015a; Management, 2016; Fernandez et al.,
2015) and discussed in the ensuing sections. Appendices A and B contain all archived survey
items that were utilized in this study. Table 8 presents the data sources used in this study and
their alignment to each knowledge, motivation, and organizational need and influence introduced
in Chapter Two.
.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 86

Table 8
Mapping of Presumed Influences and the Data Collection Method used in the Evaluation
Category Presumed Need Assessment Tool
Knowledge influences
Conceptual Managers need comprehensive knowledge of
employee engagement.
Interviews
Conceptual Managers need knowledge of best practices in
performance management and their collective
impact on engagement outcomes.
Interviews
Procedural Managers need comprehensive knowledge of
effective communication and feedback
methods and their role in employee
engagement.
Interviews
Motivation influences
Value Managers need to see the attainment, utility, and
cost value in managing for performance and
engagement.
Document analysis,
interviews
Self-Efficacy Managers need leader self-efficacy to foster
engagement and collective-efficacy among their
employees.
Document analysis,
interviews
Organizational influences
Cultural
Model
Org1 needs to empower its managers to
enable change and facilitate goal achievement.
Secondary analysis of
surveys, Document
analysis, Interviews
Cultural
Model
Org1 may need to address resistance to new
policies involving a change to performance
management practices.
Interviews
Cultural
Setting
Org1 needs policies and incentives in place that
prioritize increased communication and feedback
between manager and employee.
Document analysis,
Interviews
Cultural
Setting
Org1 needs to provide training for managers to
execute engagement strengthening strategies.
Document analysis,
Interviews

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 87

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed in two phases. Phase one involved an analysis of the yearly trends
present in Org1’s Employee Climate Survey data. In addition, phase one utilized Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey data to examine, visualize and infer correlations between the Org1
and FEVS data sets.
The second phase of data analysis involved qualitative coding of interview data,
qualitative coding of Org1 workforce documents, and an additional secondary analysis of trends
present in Org1 Employee Climate Survey items that aligned with two organizational influences
presented in Table 8. Each corpus of data was analyzed independently then examined as a whole
to reach a conclusion that was conveyed quantitatively in the findings and results (for example,
qualitative analytic codes were totaled and expressed as percentages). The proceeding sections
include a detailed discussion aligned to the analysis of each data source.
Secondary Analysis of 2013 – 2017 Federal Survey Data
Org1 survey data. Tables and graphs derived from the Org1 tabular data set collected by
the researcher were created using Microsoft Excel. The yearly mean (M) and standard deviation
(SD) were computed for the communication, recognition, and appraisal constructs introduced in
the data collection discussion (see Table 7). The performance management composite score (PM
Score) was calculated by averaging the yearly communication, recognition, and appraisal
calculations into a single value. The subsequent values were presented in a descriptive table as
the five-year M value and SD value for each construct. The values for each construct were also
presented in a bar graph that illustrated year-to-year trends in the data. Org1’s yearly PM Score
and the five-year average were presented in an additional bar-graph that included a trend-line
depicting the corresponding engaged, not engaged, and employee engagement score. The Org1

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 88

engagement metrics overlaid on this bar-graph were introduced in Chapter One.
FEVS data. Statistics and figures derived from the FEVS data collected by the
researcher were created using the R statistical programming language in Jupyter notebooks
5
.
Mean and standard deviation values were calculated for the communication, recognition, and
appraisal constructs and the performance management composite score. The FEVS data set
analyzed in the study contained individual-level survey response data that Org1’s survey data
lacked. Individual response records allowed the researcher to explore correlations between
respondent employee engagement scores and each performance management construct
previously used in the examination of the Org1 data; accordingly, the similarity of the FEVS and
Org1 workforce permitted conjectural comparisons to the Org1 workforce. First, an additional
calculation was added to the FEVS data.
The employee engagement index (EEI) for each respondent was not present in the FEVS
data set collected by the researcher. As previously mentioned, the 15-item subset of survey items
that are used to calculate the federal EEI were included during the collection of the FEVS data.
An “EEI” column (data type numeric) was added to the FEVS data frame. The EEI was then
calculated for each record by averaging the 15-item subset of survey questions that comprise the
EEI (Management, 2015a). An additional “Status” column was created by researcher to add a
categorical/ordinal variable to the data set (data type factor). Records with values greater than or
equal to 3.4 were categorized as “engaged” employees; values less than 3.4 or greater than or
equal to 1.74 were categorized as “neither;” values less than 1.74 were categorized as

5
Jupyter is a web-based, open-source platform that allows users to utilize multiple programming languages to
execute code aligned to various use-cases.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 89

“disengaged.”
The R statistical programming language was then used to create a descriptive table
presenting the total size of the FEVS data set, and the five-year mean and standard deviation of
same performance management constructs used in the evaluation of Org1’s climate survey data.
A (Pearson) correlation matrix was created to show the statistical relationship between
communication, recognition, appraisals, and employee engagement. The GGPLOT2 library
within R was used to create a scatter plot that visually depicted the linear relationship between
the employee engagement (EEI) variable and the performance management composite variable
(PM_Score). The Status and EEI variables were used to colorize the scatter plot’s continuous
engagement scale – a jitter function of .1 was used on the vertical and horizontal axes for
aesthetics. Finally, ordinary least squares regression was conducted to predict employee
engagement based on the composite PM Score.
Analysis of Interview Data
Thoughts and initial conclusions concerning the interview transcripts in relation to the
conceptual framework and research questions were added to the electronic (text) document
following the researcher’s real-time transcription of each interview. After the completion of ten
interviews, the researcher used deductive reasoning to apply priori codes developed from the
literature and conceptual framework to all interview responses using NVivo qualitative analysis
software. The codes were aggregated among each knowledge (K), motivation (M), and
organizational (O) influence into analytic codes that served as data points that supported (+) or
did not support (-) the KMO need under evaluation.
Qualitative coding tables summarizing this analysis numerically were created and
included in Appendices F and G. Interview results served as the principal decision point for each

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 90

knowledge influence and augmented additional data used to analyze the motivation and
organizational needs and influences.
Analysis of Documents
An analysis of 14 workforce documents was conducted electronically using NVivo
qualitative research software (see Appendix D for the complete list of internal documents). The
documents were examined similarly to the interview data. Previously established priori codes
derived from the conceptual framework and literature review were captured and aligned with
relevant motivation (M) and organizational (O) factors. These codes were aggregated into
analytic codes that each served as data points that collectively supported (+) or did not support
(-) the M or O influence in question.
Excerpts from the documents that best represented the themes surmised from this
qualitative analysis were presented in the findings and results. However, the researcher’s
summation of the coding aligned to each M and O need was presented as a quantitative data
point based on the percentage of total evidence that supported or did not support the need.
Qualitative coding tables summarizing this analysis numerically were created and included
Appendices F and G. The analysis of workforce documents served as a critical data point in the
examination of each motivation and organizational influence.
Additional Secondary Analysis of Org1 Survey Data
The survey analysis used in phase two employed mean and standard deviation formulas
included in Microsoft Excel to create descriptive tables and analyze the trends present Org1
Employee Climate Survey that aligned to specific organizational needs. Several survey items
used in the analysis described here were exclusive to Org1 (in effect, not included in the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey instrument).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 91

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research faces two broad challenges with regards to credibility and
trustworthiness: researcher bias, and reflexivity (Maxwell, 2013). Bias in qualitative research
manifests from the researcher’s past experiences, preconceptions, and relationship to the
phenomenon under review – these biases can lead to selective data collection and analysis that
seeks to align with the researcher’s predetermined notions (Maxwell, 2013). Generally, bias
introduced by the researcher in qualitative methods is unavoidable; however, Maxwell (2013)
emphasizes that addressing biases that may introduce subjectivity into the research design and
subsequent data analysis should be reflected upon and communicated by the principal
investigator to reinforce the integrity and qualitative validity of the information presented.
The second general threat to qualitative validity is reactivity. Reactivity is the influence
on study participants posed by the researcher during data collection (Maxwell, 2013). Reactivity
is a significant concern for data collection involving interviews, as the interviewer's influence on
this method of data collection is unavoidable (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013) underlines that
qualitative researchers should seek to understand the influence of bias and reflexivity on data
collection and analysis, not eliminate these influences.
Several strategies outlined in Maxwell (2013) were pursued to increase the credibility and
trustworthiness of this study including self-reflection, triangulation, discrepant evidence review,
and peer debriefing. The researcher mitigated bias through self-reflective practices and full-
disclosure of his experiences with the organization that contributed to preconceptions regarding
the topic under investigation. The researcher employed triangulation by analyzing multiple data
sources (literature derived evidence, surveys, documents, and interviews) to reach consistent and
logical conclusions. Data triangulation strengthened analytic conclusions and improved the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 92

credibility and trustworthiness of this evaluation (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). The
researcher’s study of documents during phase two of the process involved a comprehensive
review of all Org1 workforce documents pertinent to the study. The researcher considered and
noted (via memos, and analytic codes) all evidence gathered during data analysis that was
contrary to the assumptions (in effect discrepant evidence review) identified during the KMO
needs analysis in Chapter Two. Additionally, the researcher sought the opinions of his peers by
conducting three practice runs of his interview protocol to ensure the proper information was
elicited from the interview data. Finally, following the study’s preliminary findings the research
sought the opinions of his peers to ensure the information resonated with individuals outside the
purview of the study. The use of peer debriefing provided an opportunity to substantiate the
researcher’s presentation of the data and strengthened the credibility and trustworthiness to this
study (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are paramount to properly conducted quantitative analysis. There
were three forms of traditional validity relevant to the survey instrument used in this study: (a)
content validity: did the instrument measure the subject-matter it intended to; (b) concurrent
validity: does the instrument measure the present situation (for example current manager
knowledge and skills); (c) construct validity: does the instrument measure the construct (a
conglomeration of phenomenon) it purports to measure (Creswell, 2014; Salkind, 2017).
Construct validity is particularly relevant in studies of theoretical phenomena that groups
different variables together (constructs) to assess an over-arching variable (Salkind, 2017) (for
example, employee engagement). Reliability represents the consistency and performance of
measures against multiple use-cases over time (Creswell, 2014). Reliability does not infer

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 93

validity but is a necessary component of valid quantitative research (Salkind, 2017). Finally,
survey instruments can be susceptible to non-response bias. Non-response bias is the potential
affect non-respondent’s participation could have had on the overall outcomes surmised from a
study, which can lead to misrepresentations of the population under review (Berg, 2005;
Creswell, 2014).
The data originating from archived Org1 surveys that is identical to survey items used in
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) has
received considerable vetting over a period of a decade with regards to validity and reliability.
The survey instrument has been validated and shown to effectively measure organizational
climate (construct validity), which is divested to measure multiple organizational performance
constructs including employee engagement (Fernandez et al., 2015; Management, 2015a;
Management, 2015b; Management, 2016; Patterson et al., 2005). The FEV survey is reliable due
to the survey instrument’s consistent performance over time, large sample size, and the extensive
efforts devoted to cultivating a representative sample of the federal workforce (Management,
2016). Further, issues related to non-respondent bias within FEVS data are addressed and
curtailed using industry standard weighting techniques (post-weighting and multiple imputations
for nonresponse
6
) that ensure the final calculations derived from the stratified probability
samples of each federal agency are accurate representations of the federal workforce
(Management, 2016). Finally, the researcher conducted a statistical test of internal/construct
validity (Cronbach’s alpha) on the performance management constructs created using this survey

6
Weighting techniques to limit underrepresentation in survey data are found in Little and Rubin (2014) and
discussed further in Management (2016).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 94

data, which proved to meet the threshold outlined in statistical literature (Cronbach, 1970).
Ethics
Quality research requires the researcher to anticipate ethical concerns before commencing
a study and throughout the data collection and analysis process (Creswell, 2014). The importance
of ethical research practices cannot be understated; this study followed the policies and
procedures provided by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) and the policies and guidance provided by the Org1 Office of Human Research Protection
(HRP). The qualitative collection protocols for this study involved data collection from human
subjects. Research involving human subjects obligated the researcher to receive informed
consent from the participants to ensure participation was voluntary. Due to the exempted nature
of this study, as defined by federal regulation 45 CFR 46.101, informed consent was obtained by
providing interview participants with an information sheet. The information sheet explained the
purpose of the study, discussed participant identity and data privacy measures and reiterated that
participation in the study was entirely voluntary. Interview participants were informed that they
could end the process at any time, which reinforced the pursuit of ethical research in this
evaluation (Glesne, 2011).
Privacy is a common concern among research study participants (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). Confirming and reiterating data protection and participant anonymity were vital to
building trust among participants, which subsequently provided richer information, and increased
credibility to the study (Creswell, 2014). Unique identifier codes were used in place of
participant names during data collection and analysis to safeguard participant identities. No
personally identifiable information was collected during the interviews. Additionally, clear,
transparent, and unbiased communication throughout the recruitment and interview process

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 95

alleviated privacy and trust concerns among the sample (Creswell, 2014). Due to the security
rules of the organization, no audio recording devices were used; data collected from interviews
were gathered via manual note-taking on the researcher’s password protected laptop.
The researcher is a non-supervisory member of the organization of focus and has a
working relationship with many of the study participants. Members of the participant pool
received no incentives to participate in the study and were reminded that interview participation
was at their discretion. The researcher provided the results of the study to the Org1 Supervisory
Council and Leadership Advisory Board, which benefited the organization’s efforts to gain
insights into their management practices and improve employee engagement. There are no
foreseeable negative impacts on the study participants. As previously mentioned, biases due to
experiences with the subject matter and organization are a common threat to the credibility and
trustworthiness of research (Glesne, 2011; Maxwell, 2013). The researcher may have introduced
bias into the study due to positive and negative experiences garnered over a fourteen-year career
with the federal government; nevertheless, all data collection and analysis in this study adhered
to the ethical research practices outlined in this section.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 96

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND RESULTS
This study assessed the degree to which Org1’s pursuit of improving employee
engagement has been impacted by their performance management practices. Additionally, the
study investigated the set of assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and
resources presented in the first three chapters as necessary components for Org1 managers (as
the primary stakeholders) to improve employee engagement. Proper identification of
organizational performance gaps is a crucial component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis methodology that framed this study. The research questions guiding this study were:
1. To what degree have managers’ communication, recognition, and employee appraisal
practices from 2013 to 2017 impacted the organization’s goal to achieve an engagement
score of 80%?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and resources necessary
for the Org1 managers as stakeholders to improve employee engagement using research-
based best practices in performance management?
3. How could practices in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational policies
and resources be changed to aid performance management among Org1 managers that
will subsequently improve employee engagement?
Participating Stakeholders
Ten of the one-hundred sixteen managers that met the selection criteria for this study
participated in interviews. The ten interview participants were federal managers with varying
levels of experience from the Org1 supervisory council and the leadership advisory board. Table
9 details each participants’ gender, government and management experience level, the length of
the interview, and the location. The identification (ID) field provides a unique identifier for each

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 97

interview participant; participant ID codes are referenced throughout this chapter.
Table 9
Stakeholder Interview Participant Summary
ID Gender Government
Experience
Management
Experience
Interview
Length
M1 Male 22 10 47
M2 Male 34 14 50
F1 Female 21 12 61
M3 Male 15 5 44
M4 Male 30 21 46
F2 Female 8 2 46
M5 Male 36 10 53
F3 Female 20 15 41
M6 Male 18 6 42
M7 Male 30 21 45
Average 23 years 11 years 47 minutes

Findings and Results
The information presented in this chapter corresponds to the conceptual framework
presented in Chapter Two Figure 5 and the two-phase mixed methods research design described
and illustrated in Chapter Three, Figure 6. Each body of data was evaluated independently then
examined holistically to reach a conclusion that was expressed quantitatively in the findings and
results.
Phase one of the evaluation supplies insights into research question one through an
analysis performed by the researcher of Org1’s existing Employee Climate Survey data, and

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 98

supplementary (public) federal survey data obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). Additionally, phase one results
provided valuable context to the study and served as an integral data point that was used to
triangulate the findings presented in phase two of the evaluation.
Phase two of the evaluation delivers an assessment of the presumed knowledge (K),
motivation (M), and organizational (O) needs and influences identified in the previous chapters
(see Table 8). Each K, M, and O results section begins with a summation of the findings and is
followed by a table that reiterates the researcher’s interpretation and the assertion associated with
each need and influence. The assertion states whether the need or influence was validated (a
definitive area for improvement), partially validated, or not validated (lacks supporting
evidence). A detailed discussion of each need and influence follows the summary and includes
the crucial points gleaned from the data sources that substantiated the researcher’s findings. The
thresholds used in the assessment of each need and influence are presented in Table 10. Chapter
Four concludes with a synthesis of the supported K, M, and O improvement areas.
Recommendations for each improvement area are presented in Chapter Five.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 99

Table 10
Thresholds used for the Evaluation of the Presumed Needs and Influences
Assertion Threshold
Validated
(a) A single data source was utilized, and evidence supporting the need was
greater than 70%, or; (b) two data sources were utilized, and the average of the
evidence supporting the need was greater than or equal to 70%, or; (c) three data
sources were utilized, and two of the three sources yielded 70% of evidence or
greater in support of the need.
Partially
Validated
(a) A single data source was utilized, and evidence supporting the need was
greater than or equal to 50% and less than 70%, or; (b) two data sources were
utilized, and the average of the evidence supporting the need was greater than or
equal to 50% and less than 70%, or; (c) three data sources were utilized, and two
of the three sources yielded greater than 50% of evidence and less than 70% in
support of the need.
Not
Validated
(a) A single data source was utilized, and evidence supporting the need was less
than 50%, or; (b) two data sources were utilized, and the average of the evidence
supporting the need was less than 50%, or; (c) three data sources were utilized,
and two of the three sources yielded less than 50% of evidence in support of the
need.
Note. The thresholds presented in this table were derived after a cursory review of other U.S.C.
studies that employed a modified gap analysis framework in conjunction with qualitative data.
The percentages served as a mechanism to assign a numeric value aligned to the findings and
results for each data source and the KMO needs and influences the data sources addressed. There
is no statistical rigor associated with the thresholds – the thresholds are a conservative number
that communicate greater than or less than the majority among interview participants, document
excerpts, or survey data.

Phase One Results: Org1’s Management Practices and their Impacts on Engagement
A secondary analysis performed by the researcher of Org1’s 2013 – 2017 employee
climate survey data indicated that managers’ performance management (PM) practices have

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 100

likely negatively impacted employee engagement metrics. The composite PM score (comprised
of the communication, recognition, and appraisal constructs) used to evaluate Org1’s
management practices was (notionally not mathmatically) extrapolated by the researcher to the
considerably larger (N= 32,655) FEVS data set discussed in Chapter Three. This follow-on
analysis provided additional statistical evidence of each PM construct’s (generalizable)
correlation to employee engagement among federal workers and exemplified the adverse effects
the perception of mediocre to deficient performance management practices have on federal
agencies that are similar in size and mission to Org1. The detailed results of the secondary data
analysis performed on the archived survey data sets are presented in the ensuing sections.
Descriptive Statistics and Trend Analysis of past Org1 Employee Survey Data
Table 11 provides a collective statistical summary of the Org1 performance management
constructs (first introduced in Chapter 3, Table 7) that were evaluated in this study. The
constructs are communication (the extent to which workers believe communication related to
performance management is adequate), recognition (the extent to which workers are satisfied
with recognition practices), and appraisals (the extent to which workers are satisfied with
supervisors’ evaluation processes). The large size of Org1 workforces and the perceptions
associated with the performance management constructs reported over the five years in question
represents a significant data point at an agency of over 14,000 employees. Reviewing the
composite performance management score, just over half of the workforce (M = 58%, SD =
3.021) have a positive perception of the communication, recognition, and appraisal practices at
the agency.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 101

Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Constructs from 2013 – 2017 Org1 Survey Data
Construct n M (%) SD (%) Minimum Maximum
Communication --- 63 8.76 53 70
Recognition --- 53 3.60 48 56
Appraisals --- 58 2.41 56 62
PM Score --- 58 3.02 55 63
Engagement
Score
---
31 2.50 29
35
Note. The constructs in the table are expressed in % positive values derived from combined
averages of the original Org1 survey items. The organization computes % positive values by
assigning numerical values of 1.0 - 5.0 to the ordinal Likert scales used on the surveys (for
example, strongly disagree to strongly agree). In this example, from 2013-2017, an average of
63% of employees provided a value of 4.0 or 5.0 for the items that comprise the communication
construct. Population and sample size are not available for this data. The average response rate
was 47% among a workforce of approximately 14,500 employees over the five-year period.

Figure 7 illustrates the descending perceptions of communication and appraisal practices
at Org1’s and reveals that although recognition has increased, it has remained a consistent area
for improvement. Increased perceptions of recognition practices can likely be attributed to the
flexible mechanisms available for managers to provide non-monetary awards (such as time-off
awards), and consistent salary increases. Figure 8 further demonstrates the downward trend of
performance management overall (with Org1’s PM composite score) and includes an overlay of
each year’s corresponding engagement metrics. Engagement and performance management
scores have decreased consistently from 2013-2017, while the number of disengaged employees
has increased concurrently.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 102

Figure 7. Org1 communication, recognition, and appraisal trends.
Figure 8. Org1 overall performance management and engagement trends visually depicted.
63%
53%
58%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Communication Recognition Appraisals
% Positive Survey Scores
Org 1 Performance Management (PM) Trends 2013 - 2017
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 5 Year Average
62%
60
58
55 55
29%
35
32 32
29
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Engagement Scores
% Positive Survey Scores
Org1 Engagement and Performance Management Trends 2013 -
2017
PM Score Engaged Disengaged

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 103

Evidence of strong correlation using FEVS data. Analysis of the communication,
recognition, and appraisal values calculated using the FEVS data set with individual respondent
records showed a positive correlation between the three performance management constructs and
individual employee engagement. Table 12 provides summary statistics of the large sample (n =
32,655) of FEVS responses from agencies similar to Org1 (in size and mission) used for this
analysis. Table 13 presents the positive correlation between each construct and employee
engagement.
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Constructs within 2013 – 2017 FEVS Data
Construct n M SD *Engagement
Score
Communication 32,655 3.51 0.88
Recognition 32,655 3.08 1.01
Appraisals 32,655 3.51 0.900
PM Score 32,655 3.34 0.86
*Engagement 32,655 3.69 0.513 69%
Note. Calculations are based on five-point scale. The total sample was 48,083 respondents before
filtering out incomplete data. Unlike table 11, values are the M and SD of actual respondent
data, not percentage of positive responses. For comparison to the Org1 data set, *Engagement is
considered the “Engagement Score” for the employees that comprise the FEVS data set.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 104

Table 13
Pearson Correlations among Key Study Constructs within 2013 – 2017 FEVS Data
Construct 1 2 3 4
1. Communication -
2. Recognition 0.76 ⃰ -
3. Appraisals 0.78 ⃰ 0.75 ⃰ -
4. Engagement 0.89 ⃰ 0.78 ⃰ 0.80 ⃰ -
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Several visualizations were explored to examine the correlations presented in Table 13.
The scatter plot in Figure 9 illustrates the positive linear relationship between the performance
management composite score, and employee engagement. Ordinary least squares regression
further validated these relationships. The PM composite score explained a considerable
proportion of the variance in engagement metrics at agencies like Org1, R
2
= 0.80, p < .001.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 105

Figure 9. Comparable public federal data: Org1 PM constructs extrapolated to a large federal
data.

Phase One Summary
Phase one of the study involved a comprehensive review of the organization's past survey
results. The quantitative results construed from phase one analysis using comparable federal data
sets, in conjunction with the review of literature, infers the mediocre perceptions of Org1’s

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 106

performance managements practices have likely negatively impacted the corresponding yearly
engagement metrics. The analysis completed in phase one provided a significant data point for
this evaluation and afforded useful insights into the presumed KMO needs and influences
discussed throughout the previous chapters. The complete results of the KMO modified gap
analysis are presented in the ensuing sections.
Phase Two Results: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Results
This study examined three knowledge influences via interviews with ten managers. The
interviews evaluated managers’ conceptual knowledge of employee engagement as a construct
(KC-EE), and their conceptual knowledge of performance management (PM) approaches that
improve and sustain engagement (KC-PM). Managers’ procedural knowledge of communication
and feedback were also evaluated (KP-CF); procedural knowledge of communication and
feedback was closely aligned to managers’ conceptual knowledge of best practices in employee
engagement due to the interaction of these influences. Research underlines that conceptual
knowledge and procedural knowledge are interrelated (Clark, 2008).
Interview results substantiated the need for a more complete understanding of employee
engagement among Org1 managers. Managers’ partial knowledge of employee engagement
likely contributes to managers’ partial knowledge of best practices in performance management
that strengthen and support engagement. With reference to KC-PM, managers successfully
demonstrated knowledge of their fundamental role in employee engagement, knowledge of
employee development strategies, recognition, and the importance of positive manager feedback.
However, participants struggled to provide specific examples of (SMART) goals and lacked
knowledge of task performance versus contextual performance. Finally, interview results

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 107

revealed Org1 managers were able to consistently articulate their procedural knowledge of
effective communication and feedback approaches used with their employees. Table 14 recaps
each knowledge need and the corresponding determinations. A detailed representation of the
analytic coding results for each knowledge influence are provided in Appendix G.
Table 14
Summary of Presumed Knowledge Needs and Evaluation Results
Presumed Influence Source Detail Assertion
(KC-EE) Org1 managers
need comprehensive
knowledge of employee
engagement.
Interviews Managers understood the
advantages of employee
engagement but lacked knowledge
of engagement’s complexity and
multiple interrelated facets.
Partially
validated

(KC-PM) Org1 managers
need conceptual
knowledge of best
practices in performance
management and their
collective impact on
engagement outcomes.
Interviews Managers understood several
critical aspects of best PM
practices but lacked knowledge of
useful goal setting and the
differences in the types of
employee performance associated
with strengthening engagement.
Partially
validated

(KP-CF) Managers need
procedural knowledge of
effective communication
and feedback methods and
their role in employee
engagement.
Interviews Managers demonstrated
procedural knowledge of the
critical elements involved in
manager-employee
communication and feedback.
Managers articulated their
knowledge of the relationship
between the PM factors and
communication and feedback
procedures.
Not validated

Conceptual knowledge: the multiple facets of employee engagement. Ten of ten
interview participants demonstrated partial knowledge of employee engagement by listing several
elements of an engaged worker and the corresponding outcomes. Managers were asked to explain

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 108

and describe the benefits of employee engagement. The researcher looked for the participants to
make a connection between psychological needs associated with engagement, employee
behaviors, and organizational outcomes. Findings suggest managers can articulate some elements
that explain employee engagement but need a more precise understanding of engagement as a
multi-dimensional construct composed of precursors, behaviors, and outcomes.
Employee engagement is not simplistic or easily characterized as job satisfaction and a
function of employee effort (Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001). Moreover, engagement is a
give-and-take relationship between an employee and their organization (Robinson et al., 2004;
Saks, 2006). M1 expressed his understanding of the reciprocal nature of engagement,
explaining:
We should motivate the employees to participate within the organization. Set up a work
environment where employees are encouraged to participate. We want to be looking at
morale, culture of organization, looking for limiters. An engaged employee contributes to
overall success, while unengaged will just clock in clock out. Engagement has to be bi-
directional.
Other interview participants gave a partial explanation of employee engagement limited to a set
of employee behaviors that benefit the organization. For example, M6 captured employee
behaviors associated with employee engagement suggesting that “[An engaged employee is]
somebody that is vocal and passionate and able to articulate concerns in a productive and
constructive way. This allows the organization to make change. The results are a focused
organization.” F3 described engagement as:
Being an active participant in the organization. Understanding what the goals of the agency
are, and where you fit into the achievement of those agency goals. The benefits are, you

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 109

know, someone that is going in the right direction, helping the achievement of agency
goals.
M7 echoed a similar partial understanding and focused on positive outcomes for the organization,
stating:
Engagement is how well an employee fits into an organization, in terms of its strategy and
mission. It is the impact they have. They will be the most productive when they are
engaged and will have an immediate impact on the success of the organization.
Several interview participants captured bits and pieces of engagement as a construct (such as a
sense of purpose, positivity, and associated effort); however, overall, managers did not articulate
the connection between psychological needs, engagement behaviors, and organizational outcomes.
In retrospect, the researcher could have used an interview protocol that divided the elements of
engagement into smaller pieces to elicit a more comprehensive response that better assessed
managers’ knowledge of engagement. Table 15 summarizes the most common themes used by
managers to partially characterize employee engagement.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 110

Table 15
Summary of Concepts used in Manager Interviews to Partially Explain Employee Engagement
Interview Themes Managers
Benefits/helps the agency meet goals M2, M3, M4, F2, F3, M7
Understands the mission M1, M2, F1, M6, F3
Job satisfaction F1, M4, F2, M5, M7
Productive and active M1, M2, M4, F2, M5, F3
Positive outlook or high morale M2, F1, M6, F3, M7
Feeling of purpose M1, M3, M5
Employee is connected to job M4, M6

Conceptual knowledge of best practices in performance management. Managers
were asked a series of questions to gauge their knowledge of and the interaction between four
engagement bolstering management practices that were identified in the review of literature as
essential to the stakeholders’ goal. These practices included knowledge of task versus contextual
performance, goal setting and the importance of recognition strategies, employee development
through the transfer of training, and the use of strength-based management. The findings imply
managers have partial knowledge of these four elements. Specifically, managers demonstrated
knowledge of employee development strategies and strengths-based management but lacked
knowledge of task and contextual performance. Additionally, most managers were unable to
define or provide an example of a S.M.A.R.T. goal. The detailed results associated with each
performance management sub-category are presented below.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 111

Task versus contextual performance. None of the managers were able to demonstrate
knowledge of task versus contextual performance. When asked to discuss these concepts,
managers did not have knowledge of contextual performance, making the comparison between
task and contextual unviable. Literature characterizes task performance as an employee’s effort
toward their core job responsibilities, while contextual performance is associated with
discretionary effort that furthers individual goals and organizational goals (Leonard & Pakdil,
2016; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Although none of the interview participants articulated
their complete knowledge of task versus contextual performance, F1 did successfully
characterize task performance as “A finite breakdown of the tasks you have to complete for your
job,” while M6 explained task performance as “More contract-based responsibilities you must do
for your job.” Differentiating between task and contextual performance provides a mechanism to
improve goal setting, feedback, and recognition strategies among employees that are deficient (or
exceling) in one of these performance areas (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Welbourne,
2014).
Goal setting and recognition. Nine of the ten interview participants demonstrated partial
knowledge of effective goals by identifying elements of a SMART goal. Conversely, only two of
the ten interviewees were able to provide an example of SMART goal in practice. Literature
highlights that goals should be connected to overall strategy, collaborative, specific, measurable,
attainable, relevant, and time-bound (Clark & Estes, 2008; Doran, 1981; Gallup 2015; Grubb,
2016). F1 did not convey knowledge of effective goal setting and over-emphasized the
importance of monetary rewards, suggesting that “Pay for performance dictates goal setting. The
goal is your bonus.” Other managers captured several essential elements of effective goals but
typically failed to communicate specificity and measurability as an essential ingredient of

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 112

pragmatic goals. For example, M3 described goal setting as:
Showing what requirements that the employees have, and they are supposed to meet, and
how they tie into the overall strategy. They need to know they are not irrelevant to the
overall strategy. And then we reward them for that.
F2 expressed:
I like to look at a goal and try to align it with the mission. Reasonability. It has to be
achievable, you want that goal to test yourself, but it has to be reasonable. Identify
stepping stones in goals and look at more immediate goals plus long-term goals.
M3 and F2’s responses mentioned alignment and achievability but lacked a time component and
element of specificity. Several managers focused on alignment when discussing goal setting
strategies, including M1, who stated “[Employees] should be aware of setting career goals that
align with corporate goals.” M4 highlighted alignment, mentioning “I align employees’ goals to
their portion of organizational goals, so that everything that employees are doing drives the
success of the organizations goals.” M2 alluded to the perils of misaligned goals, asserting that “I
found it difficult when management has different goal set than employees. It leaves employees
frustrated during evals.” Participants F3 and M7 included the elements of “attainability” when
describing goal setting strategy, while managers M5 and M6 used the terms “clear” and
“understandable.”
Recognition. All interview participants recognized the important role recognition plays
in the employee engagement. Additionally, each manager articulated the importance of varied
recognition approaches to motivate employees and sustain engagement by providing examples of
their approach to recognition and awards among subordinates. M2 suggested the most effective
approach (to recognition) was “a combination of reward strategies, micro awards to cash awards,

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 113

not public, you need to try to balance. Micro-awards for people for just doing their job but tweak
them. You need to vary it – for each employee.” Similarly, participants M1, F2, F3, M6 alluded
to using a “combination of reward strategies” explicitly during the interviews, while other
managers provided several examples of their approach to recognizing employees. Finally, M5
underlined that importance of timely rewards, stating: “Employees shouldn’t have to wait to be
recognized. You should not have to wait for quarterly awards. If we are pushing consequences,
there should be immediate rewards, like time off and cash.” Table 16 captures the approaches
managers described to recognize and reward their employees.
Table 16
Managers’ Common Approaches to Recognition and Rewards
Terms and Themes Manager
Recognized importance of engagement to recognition All
Informal recognition M2, F1, M5, M7, M6
Private or one-on-one recognition M1, M7, M4, F3
A combination of reward strategies M1, M2, F2, F3, M6
Monetary awards (Bonuses) All
Formal rewards (time-off awards) All
Team level Awards M2, F3, M4

Again, despite the managers’ partial knowledge of these PM concepts, only two of the
participants (M2 and M7) were able to provide a specific example of a SMART goal. This data
point is reminiscent of a 2015 Price Waterhouse Cooper study that found only 33% of employee
goals constructed by managers were SMART in practice.
Employee development through the transfer of training climate. Seven of the ten

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 114

interview participants recognized that their advocacy for training to assist employee development
was an integral part of their management role. The same seven participants provided concrete
examples of ways that they (as managers) promoted the transfer of completed training to benefit
their employee and the team. M5 discussed their role in employee development and their unique
approach to prioritizing employees’ application of training by replying:
I would say my role is to encourage and embrace opportunities for the employee to
advance their career. We have many organizational training classes to get employees up
to speed. I give them homework assignments with source material for them to do their
job, even though I know how to do it, I will check their work until they are autonomous.
M7 demonstrated their knowledge by stating:
I think a manager should understand the multifaceted process of career development. It’s
not just doing what they need to do today, it’s about facilitating what they need to do
tomorrow. What seemed to work well for me was to facilitate discussions informally in
meetings among teammates where employees could present what they have learned and
teach other employees – that’s how I would help the transfer of training.
M1 highlighted his use of cross-training, replying “I would take each one of the staff, figure out
which staff members excel in what, use them to be the trainers and improve their colleagues.
This will help the organization. Like cross-training.” F3 agreed, suggesting “You have to
immediately get them to apply it to their job, or to mentor the new skill to other people.”
Managers F2, M4, and M6 echoed these comments, describing cross-training of other team
members as a viable approach to promote the transfer of training. Finally, in addition to cross-
training, F3 described a metrics-based approach to aid the transfer of training, proposing “You
could provide some metric and goals associated with the training to demonstrate how the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 115

employee is using it. Or request an after-action report on what was learned and how the
employee will implement it.”
Three of ten managers did not recognize the importance of training transfer or
demonstrate knowledge of the transfer of training. M2 stated “Employees should gather
knowledge themselves – they need to understand what works and should and have the will to
take it to their job.” F1 concurred, affirming that she “puts the onus on them to apply the skills
from the training to their job;” M3 stated “ I reccomend trainings based on employee goals, but
beyond promoting a training, I don’t really follow-up or anything.” Managers that promote a
culture of learning among their teams and facilitate the application of training typically improve
the employee development process (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Salas, 2006).
Strengths-based management. Eight of the ten manager participants successfully
articulated their knowledge of and the importance of a strengths-based management culture.
Gallup (2015) found employees were 67% more likely to be engaged when their manager
focused on their strengths during feedback opportunities. F3 echoed Gallup’s findings stating
that:
I think it's [strengths-based management] essential. You can't not have positive feedback.
I can't describe how important it is, but it is the most important part. I think people
respond better to positive reinforcement and it helps identify things an employee can
build on - you also get the best out of the person. People typically regress as a result of
negative reinforcement.
Participant F2 linked the importance of connecting organizational goals with employee strengths
expressing that “The manager’s job is to work with the team and highlight their strengths and
show them how what they do is aligned with the agency vision.” F1 described strengths-based

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 116

management as “Helping employees do things that align with their strengths. We should be
matching strengths with requirements.” M5 established that “Managers should help facilitate
their strengths and push them [employees] in the right direction.” Most managers conveyed an
ardent stance during interviews toward the importance of focusing on employees’ strengths.
Participants M1, M2, and M6 described the “importance” of a highlighting employees’ strengths
and using “positive reinforcement.” M7 took a less conventional stance when compared to the
group, contending that “you have to be fearless, I mean yes positive feedback is the most
effective, but you have to be able to point out shortcomings too.”
Two of the ten participants did not articulate their knowledge of strengths-based
management. M3 suggested that “[strengths-based management approaches] doesn’t hit home as
much as connecting to the vision, or monetary awards;” contrary to this assertion, the Corporate
Leadership Council (2002) stated leadership focused on strengths is 36% more likely to improve
employee performance. M4 seemed to misunderstand the question, stating that strengths-based
management is “Uh, it is, how to do I say this…imposing your will. I’m not sure, haha. Being
decisive, making decisions.” Following the discussion on the preceding management practices,
the interviews transitioned to a more focused discussion on manager communication and
feedback.
Procedural knowledge of effective communication and feedback. All interviewees
recognized the importance of communication and feedback and the integral role communication
plays in employee engagement (conceptual element). Eight of ten managers demonstrated
knowledge by describing an individual approach to communication and feedback that aligned
with the adjectives and procedural actions obtained from the literature. Literature consistently
recognizes managers’ ability and willingness to provide frequent, consistent, specific, positive,

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 117

constructive, and goal aligned feedback as a vital piece to the engagement puzzle (Berger, 2014;
Gallup, 2015; Management, 2015a). With this research in mind, interview participants were
asked to provide their thoughts on communication and feedback’s role in employee engagement
and describe their (individual) approach to giving employee feedback. M7, provided evidence of
his useful strategies by asserting:
Frequent and consistent communication is best - and having a set or series of formal sit
downs to talk about performance. I would normally do it four times a year for the guys that
needed a kick. I always relate goals to the mission and make it positive. I like to manage by
walking around and follow-up.
F1 provided evidence of her knowledge by describing effective feedback and communication as
“face to face and immediate. The feedback must be clear and typically positive and have a message
to it. I should be giving clear expectations and clarity to a situation.” M6 asserted that “Feedback
should be two-way communication. It needs to be constant and constructive.” F3 touted the
importance of constructive feedback that is written and verbal, suggesting:
Feedback should be written and given verbally. It should be constructive. Give them
[employees] opportunities to reflect. Restate back written feedback to them so they
acknowledge it – I like to make sure the employee knows you are on the same page as
them. Then you can make sure the feedback is constructive.
Manager F2, M3, and M5 alluded to the importance of “consistency” in communication and
feedback, and their preference for “face-to-face communication.” M5 also highlighted that
consistent communication provides a “pulse” of his employees and affirmed that feedback adds
“clarity and clear expectations, especially when I put my ratings out, there are no surprises.”
Research indicates seeking the pulse of a team promotes continuous performance management and

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 118

strengthens employee engagement (Buckingham 2015b; Sine, 2018). Lastly, M2 described the
relationship between communication and engagement, and touted the importance adaptability
plays in the feedback process, indicating:
There is a direct relationship [between engagement and feedback], the more an employee
feels they can express themselves, it increases engagement. It’s fundamental [to
engagement]. If you don’t have that you have no relationship. It should be natural and
should be an on-going positive but constructive process. It should be direct but that
depends on nature of employee. I like to be adaptable. Some feedback in writing, some on
the phone, some employees are nervous face to face. As long as there is communication
you are good. I like to give action-oriented feedback.
M2’s discussion touches on features of employee engagement that are coupled with needs and
psychological safety described by Kahn (1990).
Managers M1 and M4 recognized that communication is important to their management
role; however, the participants did not give a clear indication of their knowledge. M1 expressed “I
like to communicate and be open and jovial, so they will be that way with me. It leads to them not
hiding and not being afraid to bring bad news.” M4 stated:
I like to speak face to face and focus on feedback that will advance their career. I don’t
avoid the elephant in the room, I try to be direct. At the same time, I want the
communication to be casual.
Interview results failed to substantiate the notion that Org1 managers need procedural knowledge
of essential communication and feedback elements.
Knowledge Results Summary
Org1 managers understood that engaged employees create positive outcomes for the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 119

organization. However, managers lacked comprehensive knowledge of employee engagement as a
set of interactive facets that are impacted by psychological elements (human factors) and
professional elements that impact organizational goals. Managers recognized their essential role in
the engagement process and had partial knowledge of performance management approaches that
support engagement. The role of strengths-based management and recognition were well
understood; however, managers struggled to explain categories of employee performance, and
struggled give specific examples of goals that enable employees’ performance. Finally, managers
were able to identify the key procedural elements of effective feedback and communication
practices between manager and employees and successfully conveyed the over-arching relationship
between feedback, performance management, and employee engagement. Org1 managers’
knowledge of these influences is correlated to their motivation, behaviors and performance (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The motivation influences presumed to be affecting Org1 managers comprise the
next segment of the results.
Motivation Results
The evaluation addressed two assumed motivation needs utilizing Org1’s internal
workforce documents, and ten stakeholder interviews. Specifically, this portion of the study
focused on levels of expectancy-value Org1 managers’ place on their performance management
duties (M-EV), and their level of self-efficacy (M-SE) associated with their leadership. These
influences interact and infer the presence or absence of motivation among the management
workforce. Table 17 provides a summary of these findings, while the proceeding sections detail
the conclusions derived from each data source that contributed to the researcher’s overall
assertions. Detailed analytic coding results for this section are provided in Appendices F and G.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 120

Table 17
Summary of Presumed Motivation Influences and Assessment Results
Presumed Influence Source Detail Assertion
(M-EV) Org1 managers need to
see the attainment, utility, and cost
value in managing for performance
and engagement through a
persistent effort toward
performance management,
relationship building, and
increased communication.
Documents
Interviews
Managers see value in
their management duties
and expressed their
motivation by affirming
the attainment, utility,
and cost value that
accompanies their roles
as a manager.
Not validated

(M-SE) Org1 managers need
leadership self-efficacy to foster
engagement and collective-
efficacy among their employees.
Documents
Interviews
Managers confirmed they
possess self-confidence
as a manager. Managers
expressed confidence in
their ability to enable
employee performance.
Not Validated

Value in managing for engagement in addition to performance. Analysis of Org1
workforce documents and stakeholder interviews suggest that managers possess a sense of value
that is aligned to their supervisory role, implying managers are motivated to manage for
performance and engagement. According to the literature, managers can build and sustain an
engaged team by proactively communicating, prioritizing goal achievement and recognition, and
by building interpersonal relationships with their employees (Armstrong, 2017; Gallup, 2017;
Luthanks & Peterson, 2001). Analysis aligned to this claim is discussed in the ensuing section.
Document analysis findings and value implications. Analysis of workforce documents
suggested managers value their role as supervisors. Seventy percent of excerpts from six
workforce documents (38 of 55) provided evidence that Org1 managers value their roles and
performance management duties. A workforce study specific to supervisors offered compelling

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 121

evidence due to the document’s representation of the manager population. The survey conducted
by Org1’s supervisory council in 2017 (n = 438) determined that 85% of managers enjoy their
professional role (possibly indicating presence of intrinsic value which is correlated with
attainment value), and 78% of managers planned a continued progression in the management
career field (possibility indicating the presence of utility value and persistence).
Conversely, 21% of managers explicitly reported “they do not enjoy being a supervisor,”
and “A small segment (12%) of supervisors who are dissatisfied with their job desired a break
from supervision or would like to return to an alternative career track that they found more
enjoyable.” Mentions of cost-value also served as a counter-point. A State of Supervision report
from 2015 underlined “Overwhelmingly, supervisors find mission accomplishment, administrative
duties and taking care of their people difficult and competing priorities.” A 2017 leadership report
cited motivation openly, asserting “senior leaders’ have been unable to generate high levels of
motivation and commitment across the workforce.”
Despite these negative implications, the majority of data indicated the presence of value.
A supervisory council report from 2016 expressed that “A resounding majority of supervisors
cite human factors, such as mentoring and career development, as the most enjoyable aspect of
their job.” An individual manager quoted by the same document expressed “Being a supervisor
provides an opportunity to impact the quality of work completed, to help develop junior
employees, and some ability to foster a good work culture.” Findings from workforce documents
suggest that managers see value (through expressed enjoyment, utility value, and persistence) in
their management role. The value associated with managers’ capacity to provide career direction
was revealed to be a positive source of manager empowerment in subsequent data collection and
analysis.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 122

Interview findings and manager motivation implications. Analysis of ten stakeholder
interviews corroborate the data surmised from the workforce documents. Seventy-five percent of
the analytic codes derived from the interviews suggested that managers do possess a sense of
value in their job role. Participants were asked a series of questions to assess levels of
attainment, utility, and cost value associated with managing for performance and employee
engagement. All interviewees stated they felt a sense of accomplishment from gaining their
employees’ confidence and maintaining an engaged team. For example, when asked if he felt a
sense of accomplishment in gaining the confidence of his team, M7 stated:
Yea, I take it personally. If I went in and saw people with glassy eyes, or not engaged, it
was horrible. I’ve had that, and I hated it. I had people who didn’t want to work and it was
horrible. I wanted to find ways to get them excited.
F3 affirmed “Yes I get a sense of accomplishment. I feel like I’m having an impact on employees
and the customers.” M2 indicated that “For me as a manager, I don’t think there is success
without the manager making engagement a priority. M3 declared “Oh hell yes it does” when
asked if maintaining an engaged team gave him a sense of accomplishment, while M1, F2, M5,
and M6 simply replied with “yes” or “yes it does.” M4 affirmed a sense of value by indicating
that keeping employees engaged was “Critically important. I can’t do my job without them. If
they aren’t engaged, then I have to do their jobs.” F1 specified:
Personally, it is important. I hold weekly branch meetings. That’s why I am in the
supervisory council. I felt personally I needed a better grasp on management. So I sit with
the other supervisors so I could communicate more effectively to my employees and keep
them engaged.
Seven of the ten managers expressed value in creating and maintaining interpersonal

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 123

relationships with employees. When discussing interpersonal relationships at Org1, manager F3
exclaimed “Yes, absolutely. That's the most fun, getting to know people and what motivates
them. Then I can provide them better input and feedback.” M2 highlighted that interpersonal
relationships are “fundamental to my management style and the success of my team.” M7 noted
“I think it’s important, but you have to be careful because you get too familiar. I do like to get to
know people, but I learned there still has to be some separation between the friendships.” F1
shared similar sentiments, stating “I do [value interpersonal relationships], but I also recognize
the need to keep it separate. Sometimes I’m not as close as I would like to be.” M3 expressed
value in these relationships, stating “it helps me relate better with them and helps show them that
I care.” Participant M4 and F2 both expressed that interpersonal relationships build “comradery”
and facilitate communication.
Three managers did not express a sense of value in creating interpersonal relationships
with employees. M6 advised “Certain people don’t want to share information about themselves,
so I typically just avoid that situation.” M1 professed “No, it’s a bad idea. You’ll have to call
them out one day and being too friendly is grounds for problems. You are opening doors to
problems. Sometimes it’s not avoidable though.” M5 echoed these sentiments, suggesting “You
shouldn’t go to work to gain friendships. You should go to work to get your own personal
fulfillment. If you gain some friendships that’s fine, but don’t get too close.”
Seven of the ten participants confirmed the utility value of their role, indicating that their
role as a manager is important to their future career goals. M3 affirmed the utility value of her
position in management stating “Yes, that’s why I switched over from being an analyst. I feel I
can get more impact as a manager.” Participants F2, M1, M4, M6 confirmed they switched from
analyst roles to a branch chief position due to an increase in the perceived “positive impact” they

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 124

could have on the “mission.” Manager M7 alluded to supervision being “Important to career
progression,” while F3 stated being a manager was necessary to “get to the next level.”
Conversely, three managers expressed that they stepped into management reluctantly, and
only out of necessity for career progression, confirming they preferred non-supervisory roles. On
becoming a supervisor, M2 acknowledged that “To me it was more of a hassle. I think you find a
lot of people that just fall into it, or you’re assigned to be a manager. I was mandated.” M5
expressed similar feelings on being a manager stating “I did the job because they needed me. I
fulfilled a request, but it wasn’t my goal. F1, a manager local to Denver, Colorado, affirmed she
“Couldn’t care less. I am here for the location and to avoid DC.”
Finally, six of the ten managers confirmed that they prioritize giving feedback, aiding
career development, and giving employees recognition over other professional duties that require
a time investment. M5 described the evolution of his management style with regards to the cost
value of their performance management duties, conveying:
I’ve managed for a long time. Initially with me it was all about mission and getting core
assignments done and out the door; productivity. Over time it was less about work unit
accomplishments and more about developing officers’ careers, thinking long-term and
trying to build great officers is more important than your immediate task.
F2 acknowledged the cost value associated with her management duties, stating “I am happy to
stop whatever I’m doing, effective managers are there to have a conversation. You never know
what could be going on with that person.” Similarly, M3 stated “Giving my team the attention
they deserve is important. I can’t have any malcontents.” M7 disclosed that “feedback and
recognition are very important. I want to make sure people know how they are contributing.”
Other managers offered less thorough statements regarding the priority they give their

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 125

management duties. F1 stated “Yes, I make my team a priority,” while M6 replied “Yea, I guess
it does. I never really gave it much thought though.”
Conversely, four of ten managers characterized their performance management duties as
equal to other duties involved in their job role. M2 stated that “Typical management duties are
equal to other work I need to get done,” while M4 addressed cost value by stating “mission first,
people always.” M1 affirmed that “In management you work on all those things, they are equal.
It’s not more important than any other parts of my job.” F3 closed this line of questions by
stating “Different requirements garner my attention, it just depends. Typically, I couldn’t do one
without the other.” The results presented in Figure 10 summarize the findings associated with
value by tabulating the interview responses aligned to this subsection.

Figure 10. Interview results gauging expectancy value.
Leadership self-efficacy. The data suggest that managers possess leadership self-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sense of
Accomplishment
Interpersonal
Relationships
Part of Career
Goals
Prioritize PM
Duties
Number of Managers
Interview Results: Perceptions of Value
Expressed Value

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 126

efficacy and confidence in their ability to give effectual feedback to their employees. Value,
self-efficacy, and motivation work in concert and are a significant predictor of individual effort
and persistence toward a task(s) (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 2000). Furthermore, the perceived
self-efficacy of an individual manager can influence the collective-efficacy of a team and affect
employee engagement (Borgogni et al., 2011; Luthans & Peterson, 2002). With these
relationships in mind, managers’ self-efficacy and inferred motivation was examined through an
analysis of workforce documents and ten stakeholder interviews.
Document analysis and manager self-efficacy implications. The link between value,
efficacy, and motivation held the data points gleaned from internal workforce documents
relevant across each need related to managers’ motivation. As previously mentioned, 70% of the
excerpts gathered from workforce documents supported the presence of value, which also
alluded to the presence of confidence, or self-efficacy among the supervisory workforce.
Notwithstanding, some data harvested from the workforce documents countered this assertion.
For example, a 2017 Voice of the Employee report determined that “frequently changing and
inconsistently applied development processes resulted in supervisor confusion and diminished
supervisors’ confidence.” In contrast, an Org1 Employee Council yearly report from 2017 (no
sample size given) noted that “90% of managers feel well able to influence employee
performance, morale, and motivation.” This statistic, in conjunction with the complementary value
(M-EV) assessment results, suggested managers are efficacious in their management duties.
Interview results and manager self-efficacy implications. Interview findings suggested
that managers have self-efficacy in their overall management and in their ability to provide
effective feedback to their employees. The researcher pursued a quantitative tactic to assess
managers’ confidence and related efficacy by asking the ten interviewees to rate their confidence

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 127

in their overall management abilities on a scale of 1.0 (least confident) to 5.0 (most confident).
The use of scales is a common way to evaluate self-efficacy (Scherbaum & Cohen-Charash,
2006). Eight of the ten participants rated their confidence as high (4.0 and above). Several
managers offered additional thoughts in conjunction with their rating. M3 expanded upon his 5.0
rating and affirmed his intrinsic value, expressing “This is what I love to do.” M4 gave a rating
of 4.0 and added “There is always room for improvement.” M6 shared a rating of 4.0 and offered
“I’m always learning and learning from others.” Two participants rated their confidence below
4.0. M2 provided a rating of 3.5 and disclosed that “I think I’m good, but not great.” F1 provided
a rating of 3.0 and specified that “I imagine I can always do better at everything.”
Similarly, participants were then asked to rate their ability to give feedback that enables
employees’ performance. Nine of the ten participants rated themselves above at 4.0 or above.
Several of the interviewees followed up their (high) self-rating with additional commentary,
namely the need for their continued improvement. M2 offered a rating of 4.0, adding “I want to
get stronger and better, but I do have confidence in my communication.” F1 expressed more
confidence in comparison to her previous rating, stating “Four, I’m pretty confident giving
feedback.” M3 provided a rating of 4.0 and stated, “I never know how the employee will react,
but I have no problem delivering the necessary feedback.” The results of the self-efficacy data
obtained from the interviews are summarized in Table 18.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 128

Table 18
Motivation Assessment Interview Results: Individual Manager Confidence Self-Ratings
Interview Question Rating Total
(managers)
Rate your confidence in your overall management abilities. 5.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
1
7
1
1
Rate your confidence in your ability to provide feedback that
enables employees’ performance.
5.0
4.0
3.0
2
7
1

Motivation Results Summary
Org1 managers appear to be motivated to manage their employees’ performance and
pursue management practices that promote employee engagement. Marginal Employee Climate
Survey results from 2013-2017 exposed areas of improvement related to managers’ feedback and
recognition practices with employees, which carried adverse implications regarding levels of value,
and self-efficacy - in effect, if the managers are not executing the behaviors, they may not see
value or possess self-efficacy doing the task(s). Insights gained from workforce documents and
stakeholder interviews opposed the climate survey results. Findings from this triangulated analysis
revealed the great sense of value Org1 managers place in their responsibilities, and the elevated
levels of self-efficacy they possess in their ability as a manager.
In addition to motivation, the organizational culture at Org1 has profound effects on
managers’ ability to positively affect organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2018; Schein, 2017).
The organizational influences presumed to be impacting management practices at Org1 are

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 129

evaluated in the proceeding section.
Organizational Results
The study used a combination of data sources to examine four organizational influences
and needs believed to impacting Org1’s management practices. Specifically, the review
evaluated the need for manager empowerment (OCM-ME), the need to address (managerial)
resistance to change (OCM-RC), a need for policies and incentives involving manager
communication (OCS-PI), and training chasms related to employee engagement (OCS-ET).
Analysis of multiple data sources substantiated the need for manager empowerment to
positively impact organizational goals and change initiatives. This need is due to existing human
resource policies and poor organizational communication practices. Despite these organizational
barriers, interview results indicated Org1 managers would not resist changes to their
performance objectives that would increase their accountability. Further, the findings supported
the organizational need for concrete policies and incentives that promote increased
communication and feedback between manager and employee. Finally, the study confirmed the
absence of leadership and performance management training that is focused on improving and
sustaining employee engagement. A summary of the assertions aligned to each of these needs
and influences are provided in Table 19. Detailed analytical coding results for this section are
provided in Appendices F and G.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 130

Table 19
Summary of Presumed Organizational Needs, Influences, and Assessment Results
Presumed Influence Source Detail Assertion
(OCM-ME) Org1 needs to
facilitate change and goal
achievement by empowering
managers.
Prior
Surveys
Documents
Interviews
Managers do not feel empowered
to manage employees’ careers
and are negatively impacted by
poor organizational
communication.
Validated
(OCM-RC) Org1 needs to
address resistance to new
policies and expectations
involving changes to managers’
performance management
objectives.
Interviews Org1 managers expressed no
resistance to changes involving
their performance objectives
despite indicators that typically
create change resistance cultures.
Not
Validated

(OCS -PI) Org1 needs policies
and incentives in place that
prioritize increased
communication and feedback
between manager and
employee.
Prior
Surveys
Documents
Interviews
Org1 lacks incentives and
accountability measures that
promote increased
communication and feedback
from manager to employee.
Validated
(OCS-ET) Org1 needs to
provide employee engagement
focused training for managers to
execute strategies that improve
and sustain engagement.
Documents
Interviews
Org1 lacks leadership and
performance management
training that focuses on employee
engagement.
Validated

Cultural model influence: empowering managers. Findings from Org1 Employee
Climate Survey Data, workforce documents, and manager interviews indicated an absence of
manager empowerment at Org1. Literature advocates that feelings of empowerment in
professional roles increases commitment, effort, and aids the achievement of organizational
goals (Degner, 2005; Tabrizi, 2014). Further, the achievement of organizational goals is
bolstered when managers can communicate policy effectively and garner buy-in from their team

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 131

members (Armstrong, 2017; Tabrizi, 2014). To this end, managers’ level of empowerment was
evaluated by workforce perceptions of manager communication related to agency information
(archived survey data and documents), managers’ perceived ability to develop employee careers
(documents and interviews), and managers’ perceived ability to communicate organizational
changes (documents and interviews). Findings aligned to each data source are presented in the
ensuing sub-sections.
Manager empowerment: secondary analysis of survey data. Org1 Employee Climate
Survey results from 2015-2017 substantiated the organizational need for manager empowerment.
Survey items and results pertinent to this influence (managers’ communication practices and
perceptions of change at Org1) are presented in Table 20.
Table 20
2015 – 2017 Org1 Survey Items Used to Assess Manager Empowerment
Qn Survey Item M
(%)
SD
(%)
Minimum Maximum
2 Managers communicate the goals and priorities of
the agency.
42 2.83 39 45
5 How satisfied are you are you with the information
you receive from management about what is going
on in the agency?
33 0.00 33 33
14 Change is communicated well at the agency. 30 2.94 26 33
15 The organization adapts to change quickly. 20 2.00 18 23
Note. Calculations are in percentage of positive responses. The organization uses ordinal
responses via Likert scale (for example, very dissatisfied to very satisfied), then assigns interval
values of 1.0 - 5.0 to each response. The total number of responses that were 4.0 or above were
considered positive. For example, from 2015 to 2017 33% of participants were satisfied with the
information they received from managers regarding what is going on at the agency.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 132

Analysis of the survey item and results revealed negative workforce perceptions of managers’
communication of agency strategy and goals. Qn 2 and Qn 5 emphasize that Org1 goals and
priorities are consistently inadequately communicated (or not communicated) by managers
(M=42% and M=33%). These averages likely coincide with the negative perceptions of change
related communication (M=30%), and adaptation to change (M=20%). Poor communication at
all levels can contribute to lowered senses of empowerment (Tabirzi, 2014), low employee
engagement (Berger, 2014; Gallup, 2017), and a change-resistant workforce culture (Burton et
al., 2013).
Manager empowerment: document analysis findings. Analytical coding results obtained
from six internal workforce documents produced 70 excerpts (of 88) that support the assertion
that Org1 managers need empowerment. Several documents alluded to organizational
communication shortfalls and supervisor perceptions of changes that have affected their roles.
For example, a 2016 human resource report highlighted that workforce consternation “Stems
from a lack of clear communication on the changes being implemented from all levels of
leadership.” The report goes on to say: “There doesn’t appear to be a strategy on how to best
convey the message and intent to the workforce. This leaves employees feeling as though they
were just a number in the process and there was no personal consideration.” A Supervisory
Council publication from 2017 reported that only “53% of supervisors feel a level of clarity
(Very, Somewhat) regarding their role in developing employees,” lending additional evidence to
paltry levels of manager empowerment. The sample size aligned to this statistic was not
provided. A 2017 Employee Council report echoed similar sentiments, stressing that “employees
generally agreed that the trickle-down method of communication from agency-, to directorate-,
to branch-level leadership was inconsistent and ineffective, especially when the guidance was

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 133

not directly discussed with the workforce as well.”
Another document from 2017 captured and expanded upon this theme with a specific
example:
Employees did not understand the decision process behind the divestment of specific
missions and did not feel like they were given an opportunity to provide input to or
understand the context of the decision. When information is passed between employees
before a supervisor can relay the message, it increases the likelihood of inaccurate
information being shared and reduces employees' trust in their supervisor being a reliable
source of information.
Action items and notes from a 2016 Supervisory Seminar document included recommendations
(that substantiated a need) to “keep supervisors informed of changes first to keep them ahead of
the implementation curve,” and the need to “provide clarity and improved communication of
supervisors’ roles in career services.” Finally, an excerpt from another 2016 supervisory
assessment acknowledged Org1 managers’ motivation but highlighted organizational shortfalls
that are negatively impacting the empowerment of managers. The text underlined that:
Supervisors are dedicated to Org1 and our people but are extremely frustrated by the
centralization of personnel management (to OFM, Career Services) which they believe
takes away the latitude to select and place individuals, organize teams to best serve the
mission and identify and guide the next generation of leaders.
The same 2016 document noted 70% of supervisors felt “least able to influence career
development, implement agency strategy and promote agency buy-in.” The sample-size
associated with the statistic was not given.
Workforce documents captured a plethora of opinions and perceptions from managers

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 134

and non-supervisory employees that confirmed the existence of several impediments to manager
empowerment that originate at the organizational level, all centered on communication deficits
and the inability to contribute to demonstrable career development processes (such as
promotions).
Manager empowerment: interview findings. Six of ten managers conveyed a dearth of
empowerment. Interview participants were first asked to describe what areas of their job they
felt most empowered. Common areas of satisfaction included feelings of autonomy, the ability
to give career advice and constructive feedback, and the capacity to provide positive results to
their local mission partner. These results are summarized in Table 21.
Table 21
Interview Themes: Positive Areas of Manager Empowerment
Theme Excerpt
Feelings of autonomy M4: “To make decisions related to the cost
schedule of my programs.”
M6: “Freedom to engage with other
directorates.”
F3: “Resource discretion. I can make those
independent decisions.”
M7: “I garnered credibility and they gave me
a long leash.”
Giving career direction
M1: “To lead people to what they want to
do.”
F1: “When I give feedback I can point people
in the right direction.”
M3: “Give direction to their career.”
Positive mission impacts
M2: “I understand the mission and feel I can
impact it.”
F2: “My ability to make decisions to effect
the customer I support.”
M5: “Help the local customer.”

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 135

Participants were then asked pointed questions regarding what organizational influences affect
their ability to communicate organizational changes and develop their employees’ careers, and if
they felt empowered in their management role. This portion of the interview provoked a
discussion with several participants on policy changes sanctioned in 2015 that relieved
supervisors of employee hiring and promotion decisions. For example, M2 declared:
No, I don’t feel empowered. Because of the centralization of hiring, rewarding,
promoting, the selection for competitive education opportunities. I am basically a time
keeper. I can communicate ideas for changes, but it’s not heard or accepted by the
employees. It relates back to the communication and the poor change practices. So do I
feel empowered? The answer is no.
F1 described her tumultuous feelings toward communicating changes and policies and their level
of empowerment, conveying:
They [policies] are often weak in the purpose as well the reason for change of direction.
There are lots of different interpretations, which leads to false information because they
are so large. I don’t think we are empowered. It’s hard to be empowered. I wish I
understood how much power I had. Promotions are too political and I’m not able to get
people ahead based on metrics. I think the employees are more empowered but not
necessarily the managers.
M5 offered a blunt assessment stating “I don’t have any real power. I have power to maybe
change schedules a little bit, but that’s about it. It’s an issue.” The notion of poor change
practices emerged during this line of questions among interview participants; this theme was
described by M6 as he discussed his ability to communicate agency level strategies:
We have change fatigue at the agency. They’ve disrupted morale to the point where

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 136

people feel like they are getting traditional work roles [alluding to innovation being
stymied]. I sat through a meeting with my bosses and I left not understanding what my
new goals would be. In two days, I heard two different stories from management on what
I should be doing and telling people.
Regarding his empowerment, M7 highlighted that:
[Org1] lacks effective communication and is not effectively translating organizational
goals down to the lowest level. The control of management from the top, it has made the
managers lose the tools they had to improve engagement. Like with rewards, travel,
promotions.
Lastly, F3 articulated that “I feel least empowered in the implementation of what I'm supposed to
be doing. I don't have much enforcement ability to garner participation.” The six managers
quoted above each replied “no” when asked if they felt empowered in their job overall.
Four managers communicated that they are empowered at Org1. F2 underlined her
empowerment was assisted through active participation, stating “Yes I feel empowered. But
that’s because of me getting involved with stuff I didn’t know enough about.” M1 specified that
“the agency doesn’t block me, so yea I feel empowered enough.” M3 confirmed “Yes I feel
empowered,” but caveated his response by stating “but that’s dependent on my boss. I know in
the past I would have answered no to that question depending on my assignment within the
agency.” Finally, when asked if he felt empowered in his job, M4 professed “I always have. I’m
good at taking the pros and cons of changes. I understand the mission reasons so that helps me
see where I fit.”
Barriers triggered by organizational communication habits and poor organizational
change management practices emerged as a widespread theme across three data sources;

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 137

typically, organizational change management deficiencies serve as a conduit to a change resistant
workforce culture (Berger, 2014; Burton et al., 2013). This predication is examined in the
ensuing cultural model influence section.
Cultural model influence: resistance to change among managers. Interview data
suggested that managers would not be resistant to changes involving their performance
objectives. First, participants were asked a series of questions to open a discussion on their
perceptions of Org1’s strengths and weakness regarding change management. Four of the ten
participants proposed that Org1 had a strong desire to improve, which was evident in their
willingness to pursue changes. For example, M3 suggested Org1’s desire to improve was
evidenced by the organization’s commitment to professional development, asserting “Look at the
number of training programs we have brought on for analysts. I think our efforts to modernize
the workforce is an example of where we are implementing change effectively.” Several
managers indicated that Org1’s publication of strategies was a change management strength,
including F3, who stated “I mean we have this strategy 2025, that’s pretty clear on what we want
to accomplish.” M2, M5, and M6 did not identify a strength.
The discussion concerning change management weaknesses produced similar opinions
presented in the previous section regarding poor organizational communication practices. M3
captured these limitations well, arguing “The communication of the change is the biggest
weakness. There is no process for the change.” Additional limitations communicated by the
interview participants included a lack of stakeholder involvement in change efforts, and poor
implementation strategies. M7 captured these shared perceptions, stating “When we roll out
changes, we don’t make sure everyone has a stake in the game, or identify change agents. We
also don’t give enough resources to change initiatives to make them successful.” Table 22

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 138

summarizes the common strengths and weaknesses associated with Org1 change management
practices captured during stakeholders during interviews.
Table 22
Interview Themes: Perceived Positive and Negative Change Management Habits of Org1
Theme Manager Attribution
Strengths
Strong desire to improve M1, F2, M3, M4
Published Strategies F1, M3, M4, F3, M7
Did not identify a strength M2, M5, M6
Weaknesses

Communication deficiencies
F1, M2, M3, M5, F2, M6, M7, F3
Stakeholders not involved
F1, F2, F3, M7
Poor implementation
M1, M4, M5, M7

Following the discussion on Org1s strengths and weaknesses linked to change
management, the participants were asked if they would welcome changes to their performance
objectives that held them accountable for giving frequent and consistent feedback to
subordinates. Eight of ten interviews confirmed that they would have no problem with such
changes. Moreover, each participant expressed a sense of enthusiasm and importance for this
hypothetical scenario. M1 conveyed:
If you want to stay a manager, it would be important to have that kind of change whether
we like it or not. If a manager doesn’t welcome that accountability, then they probably
shouldn’t be a manager. I would certainly welcome it and I hope others would too.
F1 agreed with M1’s opinion, affirming “I see no problem with that. I think a good manager
would welcome that. The more feedback you get the better engagement is.” M7 confirmed he

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 139

would be open to the change and added “That would help articulate the expectations for
managers. M2 had no issues with this type of change and stressed the importance of first seeking
stakeholder buy-in, stating “Yes I would welcome it, but from my past experience, people being
forced to do it doesn’t click the box. They need to see the value in these types of changes.” M6
agreed with his colleagues and cautioned “I think they [the other managers] say they would be
open to it, but not sure they would to be honest. I would welcome it though.” Managers M3, F2,
and M5 each replied simply “Yes, I would.”
Two of the ten managers did not endorse potential changes to their performance
objectives. F3 suggested such a change was “a good idea on paper, but I don’t think it would be
that simple to implement.” Manager M4’s viewpoint coincided with F3, suggesting “that’s a
change that’s going to miss. It won’t be perceived or rolled out correctly.” Despite the barriers
to manager empowerment confirmed through data triangulation, Org1 managers appeared to be
open to changes that increase their accountability through additions to the criteria they are
evaluated against in performance appraisals.
Cultural setting influence: aligning policies and incentives with strategic goals.
Evidence derived from Org1 Employee Climate Survey Data, workforce documents, and
manager interviews indicated that Org1 needs policies and incentives that prioritize increased
feedback and communication between managers and employees. The misalignment of
managers’ performance incentives and absence of accountability measures governing feedback
responsibilities is likely negatively impacting Org1’s goal to improve employee engagement. A
detailed analysis aligned with each data source is presented in the proceeding sub-sections.
Policy and incentive alignment: secondary analysis of survey data. Org1 Employee
Climate Survey results from 2013-2017 partially-validated the organizational need for policies

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 140

and incentives that support increased manager communication and feedback. Table 23 provides
descriptive statistics of Org1 survey items and results aligned to performance management and
supervisor communication.
Table 23
2013 – 2017 Org1 Survey Items used to Assess Manager Feedback
Qn Survey Item M SD Minimum Maximum
19 In my most recent appraisal, I understood what I had
to do to be rated at different performance levels.
60 1.30 59 62
46 My supervisor provides me with constructive
suggestions to improve my job performance.
65 7.73 60 79
Note. Qn is the question number. Values are in percentage of positive responses. Ordinal
responses on a five-point Likert scale (for example, strongly disagree to strongly agree) are
assigned interval values of 1.0 - 5.0. The total number of responses at 4.0 or above are
considered positive. For example, from 2013 to 2017, 60% of respondents were over the
established threshold (answered agree or strongly agree), meaning 60% of participants strongly
agreed that they understood how to improve on subsequent performance ratings.

On the surface, most employees appear satisfied with performance related discussions with their
supervisors (Qn 46 M = 65% positive). However, a closer look at question number 46 reveals a
high standard deviation (SD = 7.73%). Employee satisfaction with managers’ job performance
feedback has trended downward for five consecutive years, ranging from a high of 79% in 2013
to a low of 60% in 2017. Further, an average of 40% of employees during this period did not
understand how to improve their performance score in subsequent appraisal periods (Qn 19). The
sinking values evident in this data indicated workforce perceptions of these manager actions are
an area for improvement.
The results and findings presented in the previous sections suggested managers have
procedural knowledge of best feedback practices. Likewise, the presence of value and self-

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 141

efficacy inferred high-levels of motivation among Org1 managers. With these findings in mind,
it is plausible that the downward trending survey results are a product of insufficient
accountability measures and incentives that encourage adequate communication and feedback
between managers and subordinates. This assertion was explored further through an analysis of
workforce documents and stakeholder interviews.
Policy and incentive alignment: document analysis findings. An analysis of eight
workforce documents substantiated the need for organizational policies and incentives that
prioritize manager feedback. Seventy-four percent (38 of 51) of analytic code excerpts extracted
from Org1 documents referred to necessary improvements related to manager communication.
Recommendations from a 2016 Supervisory Seminar document encouraged managers to
“promote and provide consistent and timely communication of information through meetings,
small group discussions, and one-on-ones to reduce tension and apprehension.” The same report
suggested Org1’s human resource department should consider “developing and implementing a
standard structure for supervisor performance objectives.” Non-supervisory employees’ concerns
with leadership accountability were captured in a 2017 leadership assessment report that stated
“Employee's don't believe that corporate accountability mechanisms adequately address poor
leaders. Employees feel accountability at all levels of supervision needs to be improved.” The
document went on to conclude, “Feedback remains an area ripe for improvement.”
Org1 career services (a constituent of human resources) provides the Org1 workforce a
collection of pre-written performance objectives aligned to each Org1 profession. The objectives
are selected by employees and their managers based on best-fit and each billet’s unique
circumstances – performance objectives serve as accountability mechanisms used to evaluate
employees during annual appraisals (in effect, the objectives form a performance plan). Typically,

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 142

three to five performance objectives comprise a performance plan. A review of the pre-written
performance objectives available to employees classified as a supervisor revealed that Org1 does
not have performance objectives that explicitly link engagement to critical engagement
strengthening performance management duties presented throughout this study (see KC-PM p.55-
61).
Lastly, an excerpt from a 2017 Voice of the Employee publication citing respondents’
write-in comments on the 2017 ECS offered a formidable data point, proclaiming “A quarter of the
comments reflected poor communication. Their [referring to survey respondents] direct supervisor
rarely spoke with them and when they did, it was a mixed or unclear message.” Passages from
Org1 workforce documents provided clear and descriptive insights that illuminate the negative
perceptions associated with manager communication and feedback, and the need for the policies
and incentives that mitigate these perceptions.
Policy and incentive alignment: interview findings. Interview results supported an
organizational need for policies and incentives that prioritize communication and feedback.
Interviewees were asked if they believe the agency incentivizes managers to provide effective
communication to direct reports, and if they believed the agency has any accountability measures
in place to ensure that managers are providing feedback, other than during the required annual
appraisal. Eight of ten managers stated that incentives and accountability measures that support
or promote communication and feedback do not exist. Managers’ responses regarding incentives
and accountability are presented jointly - sentiments were (fairly) uniform among the
participants; M1 stated:
I don’t think anyone is really getting recognition or incentives for communication and I
don’t see management getting or being provided avenues for better communication.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 143

There’s no rewards for communication. Everyone has their own thing, and they protect
those things. There’s not a lot of focus on effective communication.
F2 did not affirm the presence of accountability or incentives, but demonstrated her confidence
on the matter, suggesting that “I personally would want and expect these things to be in my
metrics, especially regarding things that improve engagement.” Several mangers offered minimal
insights; M5, F3, and M4 stated “no,” “nope, they don’t,” and “Other than the yearly, nope,”
respectively. F1 believed assumptions played a negative role in the communication and feedback
paradigm, stating “There is just an assumption that people are communicating but they aren’t.
We talk about it in a class but, but it doesn’t happen.” F1 elaborated on the accountability
discussion conveying that:
There is a little button to toggle saying you met with employees, that’s the only
accountability I have seen to make sure we are talking to people. We don’t have stuff on
our [performance] ratings about how much we talk to people.
M6 reverberated F1’s thoughts, stating “No, I think there’s only the little check box - outside of
that there isn't anything. There is no one looking to see if there are interactions throughout the
year.” Finally, manager M3’s discernments offered insights into the priorities managers perceive
as important to Org1, stating:
Incentives, no. I don’t get any reward. They are more concerned about mission
performance than soft skills. That’s easier to measure, not how often I’m talking to
employees. They can monitor my training and publications, but not the other stuff.
Two managers offered viewpoints that were dissimilar to the rest of the stakeholders.
Two of ten managers offered alternate viewpoints. Manager M2 maintained that “I am held
accountable, because I have to communicate in meetings and during information flow.”

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 144

Regarding incentives, M2 opined “They do incentivize us by providing survey results from
employees.” Manager M7 suggested that Org1 is moving in the right direction, asserting:
I think they do [incentivize]. I think managers have more of a process now to do checks
and balances. I think the agency does understand the importance of communication and
are moving towards more mechanisms to help communication.
Additionally, M7 expressed that the lack of accountability associated with this issue is not
neccesarily and organizational problem, stating:
I don’t think managers of managers hold their supervisors accountable enough. I don’t
think we are hard enough on all managers to ensure they are doing a good job with
regards to promotion package feedback and following procedures that are laid out for
them.
Stakeholder interviews provided a powerful summation regarding (the lack of) requirements
levied on Org1 managers to conduct essential performance management duties that improve
employee engagement, namely consistently communicating and providing feedback to
subordinates. An examination of Org1’s manager and leadership trainings provided additional
insights into the organizational climate.
Cultural setting influence: engagement focused manager training. Interviews with
ten stakeholders supported the organizational need to provide engagement focused training for
managers to execute strategies that improve and sustain engagement. This assertion was
strengthened through a review of the organization’s training class descriptions, which revealed a
catalog of administrative and leadership training that lacked any substantial curriculum
associated with employee engagement. Furthermore, documents discussing leadership
development strategies lacked engagement focused talking points. Literature recommends

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 145

organizations should implement strategies and models with an overt focus on employee
engagement, to improve employee engagement (Gruman & Saks, 2011). The absence of
engagement focused training at Org1 is likely negatively impacting managers’ ability to improve
employee engagement. A detailed analysis aligned with each data source is provided below.
Engagement focused manager training: document findings. A review of Org1’s
supervisory leadership development program suggests the organization needs training that is
focused on employee engagement. The organization has a robust set of management related
training courses (27) that range from single day administrative process courses, to multi-day
transformational leadership courses. Many of the components discussed throughout the review
of literature associated with organizational and management practices that help or hinder
engagement are found in the current training offerings, for example Building Interpersonal
Relationships, Guiding Culture Change, and Giving Effective Feedback. Nonetheless, the course
offerings lack curriculum that explicitly demonstrates the interaction between performance
management duties, leadership, the organization, and their effects on organizational goals and
engagement metrics.
Engagement focused manager training: interview findings. Interviews with ten
stakeholders supported the need for management training that is focused on improving and
sustaining employee engagement. Nine of ten managers agreed that they saw merit in training
curriculum focused on employee engagement. This portion of the interviews began by asking if
managers felt overwhelmed by the number of leadership trainings offered and if they could
identify the best training classes to help managers improve engagement.
Seven of ten managers stated they were not overwhelmed by the number of leadership
classes offered at Org1. Three managers did express concern regarding the number of leadership

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 146

trainings. M7 said “I think there is almost too much at times. It is a process, and you have to
learn by doing. It takes a couple years.” M5 commented on the organizational culture related to
leadership training, expressing:
I’ll say yes [on being overwhelmed]. They are trying to create a leadership class of
employees instead of letting employees rise naturally. There needs to more organic
leadership opportunities, not grow leaders from a bunch of training classes.
M6 expanded on the training culture, stipulating “There might be too many trainings. The
training is now segregated by pay band. I think it would help the process if we had more
integrated training.”
Two managers of the ten managers felt comfortable making suggestions on which
trainings would improve employee engagement. Manager F3 recommended trainings that
included “effective and active listening.” M2 recommended classes that taught “emotional
intelligence and change management training.” The remaining eight managers did not offer
specific recommendations and were not aware of any current offerings aligned to engagement.
M3 advised “the training classes are non-existent that would improve engagement.” F2’s
response aligned with her level of experience as a government manager, stating “I can’t really
answer that, and I haven’t attended all the trainings. So, I don’t really know. I am currently still
learning that.” On recommended training, M4 stated “I haven’t looked at them [the trainings] in
a long time,” while F1 was also unsure, mentioning “I don’t think we have a training like that, do
we?” M5 agreed, stating “I can’t think of any that pops. Not sure if there are any where they talk
about how managers could help employee engagement.” On engagement focused trainings, M7
specified “I’ve never seen anything like that,” while M6 agreed, stating “I’m not aware of anything
like that.” Finally, M1 acknowledged “They don’t hand me pamphlet, so I’m not sure. I don’t

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 147

know of any engagement trainings though.”
Nine of the ten participants agreed that a leadership class focused on employee
engagement may benefit the organization. M5 was the lone manager that did not see merit in
training specific to employee engagement, and offered his opinion on leadership in general
asserting:
They [Org1] have plenty of classes. They keep thinking they can train people to be a
leader. But you can’t train people to be a leader, you are born that way. You either have it
in your personality or you don’t.
Figure 11 summarizes the responses gathered during interviews regarding engagement focused
training.

Figure 11. Tabulation of responses to assess the need for engagement focused training.
Organizational Results Summary
Managers’ lack of concrete professional responsibilities in the promotion and hiring
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Managers overwhelmed
by traning offerings
Suggested trainings to
improve engagement
Saw merit in an
enggagement focused
training
Number of Managers
Interview Results: Engagement Focused Training

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 148

process has obstructed managers’ professional empowerment. These feelings have been
exacerbated by Org1’s communication practices, which have negatively impacted managers’
ability and or willingness to communicate information that affects their employees. Org1
managers made it clear that there are no incentives or accountability measures in place to ensure
they provide consistent communication and feedback to subordinates. This assertion was
confirmed across several internal workforce documents that contained an abundance of
recommendations to improve feedback and communication practices at the agency, and among
interview participants. Further, the communication and feedback practices gleaned from archival
survey data indicated that perceptions of manager communication remain an area for
improvement. Despite the communication deficiencies that typically propagate resistance to
change, managers did not express acrimony in interviews and remain open to significant changes
involving their individual performance evaluation requirements. Lastly, the organization
prioritizes manager training and leadership training, which is evident by the robust list of course
offerings. However, the current catalog lacks a training that explicitly links the integral
components of employee engagement, to performance management and organizational
outcomes.
Synthesis
This research study evaluated nine influences aligned with management practices thought
to be impacting the organization’s pursuit to improve employee engagement. The study
identified two opportunities for improvement related to stakeholders’ conceptual knowledge and
three areas for improvement linked to organizational barriers and resources. The interaction
between these areas of improvement is a principal component in this evaluation.
Org1 struggles with communication at all levels – this limitation is evident across each

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 149

data source used in this study, including the organization’s climate surveys, which revealed
nearly half of the workforce does not have positive perceptions of the communication,
recognition, and appraisal practices occurring at Org1. Interview results indicated that managers
do have partial knowledge of employee engagement, however, the stakeholder group could
benefit from a more precise understanding of the construct. Likewise, managers demonstrated
partial knowledge of best practices in performance management that improve engagement -
another opportunity for improvement. The absence of engagement focused training available to
managers likely contributes to these partial knowledge gaps. Despite these knowledge needs, the
data suggested that managers possess a heightened sense of value and self-efficacy, implying
motivation is not the primary cause of the pedestrian performance management scores exhibited
within prior surveys.
The confluence of evidence suggests that the organizational areas for improvement
identified in this evaluation appear to be the primary factor (negatively) impacting managers’
performance management practices. Managers’ weakened sense of empowerment has
constrained their ability to develop employees’ careers and likely impeded manager
communication. Each of these responsibilities is integral to the achievement of organizational
goals.
In sum, the stakeholder goal to improve engagement through improved performance
management practices has been negatively impacted by the absence of accountability measures
(organizational processes/policies), training (organizational resources), and incentives (employee
appraisal outcomes) that support, enable and prioritize key performance management duties.
Clark and Estes (2008) affirm that the deficiencies in an organization’s work processes and
alignment of resources are a primary cause of stakeholder performance gaps. Table 24 provides

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 150

a summary of the evaluation’s results.
Table 24
Summary of all Needs, Influences, and Evaluation Results
Category Need Evidence Assertion
Knowledge
Conceptual (KC-EE) Managers need comprehensive
knowledge of employee engagement. -
Partially
Validated
Conceptual (KC-PM) Managers need knowledge of best
practices in performance management and their
collective impact on engagement outcomes.
64%
Partially
Validated
Procedural (KP-CF) Managers need comprehensive
knowledge of effective communication and
feedback methods and their role in employee
engagement.
20%
Not
Validated
Motivation
Expectancy-
Value
(M-EV) Managers need to see the attainment,
utility, and cost value in managing for
performance and engagement.
26% Not Validated
Self-Efficacy (M-SE) Managers need leader self-efficacy to
foster engagement and collective-efficacy among
their employees.
28% Not Validated
Organizational
Cultural
Model
(OCM-ME) Org1 needs to empower its
managers to facilitate change and goal
achievement.
70% Validated
Cultural
Model
(OCM-RC) Org1 needs to address resistance to
new policies involving a change to performance
management practices.
20% Not Validated
Cultural
Setting
(OCS-PI) Org1 needs policies and incentives in
place that prioritize increased communication and
feedback between manager and employee.
69% Validated
Cultural
Setting
(OCS-ET) Org1 needs to provide training for
managers to execute engagement strengthening
strategies.
80% Validated
Note: Managers’ conceptual knowledge of engagement resulted in 100% partial knowledge.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 151

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Four provided answers to the study’s research questions that: (a) sought to
understand how Org1’s management practices were affecting their organizational goal to reach
an employee engagement rate of 80%, and (b) which knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs and resources were necessary for managers as stakeholders to improve employee
engagement. The results and findings derived from Org1’s Employee Climate Survey data,
stakeholder interviews, and workforce documents identified five areas of improvement that were
supported by the evidence gleaned from each data source. Two of the supported areas of
improvement were associated with gaps in managers’ conceptual knowledge, and three areas of
improvement were linked to organizational barriers that are influencing managers’ ability to
positively impact employee engagement.
Introduction and Overview
Chapter Five answers research question three by delivering improvement
recommendations for each supported influence identified in the previous chapter. Each
recommendation is accompanied by an implementation and evaluation strategy that is rooted in
the New World Kirkpatrick Evaluation Framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
convergence of a recommendation, implementation, and evaluation plan delivers an inclusive
approach that mitigates performance gaps by stating the desired outcomes up front, prioritizing
metrics, and consistently monitoring behaviors and indicators that signify success. The
interdependencies between the supported knowledge and organizational performance needs and
influences allows for the pursuit of solutions that address multiple hindrances to the stakeholder
and organizational goal simultaneously. Chapter Five concludes with suggestions for future
research.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 152

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Two conceptual knowledge gaps were substantiated during data collection and analysis:
managers’ need for detailed knowledge of employee engagement, and managers’ need for
knowledge of engagement strengthening performance management practices. In addition, three
organizational needs were supported: the need for manager empowerment, the need for policies
and incentives that align with organizational goals, and the need for manager training that is
focused on employee engagement.
Multiple data sources affirmed that managers carry self-efficacy and a sense value into
their work role. This implied the stakeholder group is motivated to enable employees’
performance and pursue engagement bolstering management habits. For this reason,
recommendations aligned to motivation are not included. Nevertheless, commendations that
mitigate the validated knowledge and organizational needs will inherently sustain positive levels
of motivation among managers through increased efficacy, rewards, and accountability.
Invalidating the stakeholder needs related to motivation suggested that the supported
knowledge needs are primarily a derivative of the organizational barriers evidenced throughout
Chapter Four. The following sections present recommendations for each validated need.
Knowledge Recommendations
Inadequate stakeholder knowledge can negatively impact the achievement of stakeholder
and organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Distinguishing between knowledge types
facilitates the implementation of proper solutions that enhance performance outcomes (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Two categories of knowledge proved significant to this evaluation: conceptual
knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is an understanding of theories,
models, relationships, and other multi-faceted concepts. Procedural knowledge is an

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 153

understanding of task-oriented processes and how those tasks lead to results (Krathwohl, 2002).
Clark and Estes (2008) recommend four progressively rigorous support tactics to enhance
stakeholder knowledge, which include information, job aids, training, and education.
Providing information reduces uncertainty and typically enables stakeholders to succeed
by drawing on their past experiences. Job aids serve as a guide to complete new procedures
using training materials (for example visuals, diagrams, and checklists), and are more substantive
than the delivery of information. Training involves curriculum, guided learning objectives, and
the opportunity to receive feedback that improves the knowledge of the participants. Education
is an assembly of information that addresses concepts and theories. Education improves
employees’ ability to address unanticipated events by increasing stakeholders’ understanding of
how and why situations occur (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 25 provides recommendations to address the knowledge needs introduced in the
review of literature and subsequently authenticated through data collection and analysis. Each
conceptual knowledge influence (KC-XX) and context-specific recommendation is aligned to a
knowledge enhancement referenced in Clark and Estes (2008) framework and a supporting
research-based principle.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 154

Table 25
Summary of Supported Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Result Principle and Citation Recommendation
(KC-EE) Managers had
a partial understanding
of employee
engagement as multi-
faceted concept.
Help individuals meaningfully
organize and connect new
knowledge to prior knowledge to
construct meaning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Information reduces uncertainty
about how to achieve a
performance goal (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Information
Develop a one-hour
“Introduction to Employee
Engagement” block of
instruction.
Informational job aid
Develop an informational job
aid that gives foundational
information on the composition,
drivers, and outcomes of
engagement, and details best
practices in performance
management and their
alignment to employee
engagement.
(KC-PM) Managers had
partial knowledge of
best practices that
strengthen and sustain
employee engagement.
Help individuals develop mastery
by helping them acquire
component skills, practice
integrating these skills into their
work, and help them understand
when to apply what they have
learned (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Training
Develop a comprehensive
“Performance Management for
Employee Engagement” block
of instruction.
Develop a short computer-
based training that reiterates the
crucial role of engagement and
performance management to
those in a supervisory work
role.
Informational job aid
Develop an informational job
aid that gives foundational
information on the composition,
drivers, and outcomes of
engagement, and details best
practices in performance
management and their
alignment to employee
engagement.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 155

Conceptual knowledge solution (KC-EE). Interview findings revealed managers lack
comprehensive knowledge of employee engagement. While managers articulated the importance
of employee engagement and its benefits to the organization, managers did not convey an
awareness of engagement as a multi-faceted concept. Information processing theory affords a
sensible philosophy to fill this partial knowledge gap. To construct a complete understanding of
the necessary information, it is vital to assist managers organize and associate new knowledge to
their existing knowledge (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Furthermore, it is important to
recognize the role providing targeted information plays in enhancing comprehension and
reducing uncertainty (Clark & Estes, 2008). Considering these principles, it is recommended
that Org1 develop a one-hour Introduction to Employee Engagement block of instruction. The
one-hour block will be supplemented by an informational job aid that gives foundational
information on the composition, drivers, and outcomes of engagement.
Misconceptions and insufficient levels of knowledge negatively impacts stakeholders’
performance (Clark and Estes, 2008) – therefore, introductory content should be developed to
dispel employee engagement myths and provide clarity regarding the drivers of engagement at
the managerial and organizational level. The introductory content will involve a brief
presentation followed by a facilitated group discussion among class attendees. This use of
information will ensure managers understand that engagement involves the presence of
psychological needs and resources that result in feelings of amplified attachment to a job and or
an organization, which impact employee behaviors and organizational outcomes (Kahn, 1990;
Gallup, 2017; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Management, 2015b; Saks, 2006). Principles of
sociocultural theory affirm that group discussions improve knowledge absorption through social
interaction and cooperative learning (Scott & Palinscar, 2013). The use of a job aid will

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 156

supplement this learning and improve managers’ performance by providing visual diagrams and
summaries of the foundational concepts presented in the introductory content (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Conceptual knowledge solution (KC-PM). Interview results indicated managers have
partial knowledge of performance management practices that strengthen and sustain engagement.
Managers understood several crucial performance management practices; however, managers
lacked an understanding of task and contextual performance, and struggled to construct examples
of effective goals. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) highlight that mastery is facilitated by
acquiring new skills, practicing the implementation of news skills into a job, and by helping the
learner understand when to apply new knowledge. This process can be accomplished through
employee training (Clark & Estes, 2008). Accordingly, it is recommended Org1 develop a
comprehensive “Performance Management for Employee Engagement” training block of
instruction. The comprehensive block of instruction will include an informational job aid that
details best practices in performance management and their alignment to employee engagement.
Additionally, a computer-based training should be developed to supplement this training and
reach a wider audience.
A considerable amount of literature confirms the critical role that properly constructed
goals play in effective performance management and employee engagement (Gallup, 2017;
Hansen et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2013; Management, 2015a; Mone & London, 2018). Further, a
managers’ ability to distinguish between core job performance (task) and organizational
citizenship behaviors (contextual performance) will help managers construct increasingly
effective goals and deliver performance enabling feedback (Leonard & Pakdil, 2016; Motowidlo
& Van Scotter, 1994). Managers’ inability to distinguish between types of employee

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 157

performance likely contributed to their incomplete understanding of goal-setting that enables
engagement behaviors. This claim was further evidenced by managers’ struggle to provide
examples of specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound (SMART) goals during
interviews. The use of training will alleviate knowledge shortfalls by providing managers a
dedicated resource to acquire and practice these skills while they receive scaffolding and
constructive feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011; Scott & Palincsar, 2006). The
combination of training and a supplementary job aid will enhance managers’ knowledge by
employing a holistic approach that connects managers’ conceptual knowledge of engagement to
individual level management practices and procedures that improve and sustain employee
engagement (Clark, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, a concerted effort to impart knowledge
of these best practices will help managers alleviate gaps related to the centralized hiring and
promotion policies discussed in Chapter One and again during interviews by edifying managers
on alternative methods to conduct engagement strengthening recognition practices.
Organization Recommendations
Culture serves as a critical diagnostic in organizational performance assessments due to
its profound influence on stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). An organization’s culture can
manifest as intangible beliefs, attitudes, or norms (known as cultural models), or as observable
behaviors, policies, and trends (known as cultural settings). Cultural models and settings interact
to form a normative state that can have positive and negative organizational outcomes (Rueda,
2011; Schein, 2017).
This evaluation investigated two cultural models and two cultural settings presumed to
impacting Org1’s management practices and engagement metrics. The findings and results
substantiated one cultural model: Org1 does not empower managers to facilitate organizational

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 158

change and goal achievement. Additionally, evidence confirmed two cultural settings: Org1
does not have policies or incentives in place that prioritize communication and feedback among
the management workforce, nor does the organization have training that focuses on employee
engagement. Table 26 provides the organizational influences and needs that were confirmed to
be impacting managers’ performance management practices during data collection and analysis.
Each influence and need are accompanied by a supporting research-based principle that
strengthens the validity of the context-specific recommendation in the final column.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 159

Table 26
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organizational
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
(OCM-ME) Org1 does
not empower managers
to facilitate
organizational change
and goal achievement.
An organization’s commitment
to empower managers through
continual communication and
engagement drives
organizational success
(Erickson et al., 2003).
Clear communication creates
trust and supports performance
when dealing with unexpected
events (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Improve manager empowerment
by prioritizing and addressing
organizational communication
deficiencies at the senior
executive level - require all new
senior executives to complete
organizational change
management certification training.
(OCS- PI) Org1 lacks
policies and incentives
that prioritize increased
communication and
feedback between
manager and employee.
Effective organizations ensure
that organizational messages,
rewards, policies and
procedures that govern the
work of the organizational are
aligned with or supportive of
organizational goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Create an environment that
fosters desirable behaviors.
(Tuckman, 2009).
Increase accountability and
sustain motivation by developing
core manager-centric performance
objectives that managers are
evaluated against in their
employee appraisal.
Increase accountability and
stimulate communication by
replacing the annual appraisal
score with a composite score
comprised of quarterly reviews.
(OCS-ET) Org1 does
not provide employee
engagement focused
training for managers.
Provide adequate knowledge
and skills for stakeholders
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Help individuals develop
mastery by helping them
acquire component skills,
practice integrating these skills
into their work, and help them
understand when to apply what
they have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Develop a comprehensive
“Performance Management for
Employee Engagement” training
block of instruction.
Develop a short computer-based
training that reiterates the crucial
role of engagement and
performance management to those
in a supervisory work role.

Cultural model recommendation (OCM-ME). Results and findings indicated
managers are not being empowered by the organization, which has negatively impacted

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 160

managers’ communication and ability to facilitate organizational change and goal achievement.
Specifically, the data exhibited a sense of dissatisfaction and confusion from managers and non-
supervisory employees due to the consistent absence of change strategies. Organizational level
and manager communication were persistently cited as an area for improvement among three
years of documents and surveys. Research affirms that an organization’s commitment to
empower managers through continual communication and engagement drives organizational
success (Erickson et al., 2003). Clark and Estes (2008) remind us that Org1should prioritize
communication to foster trust and maintain performance. Consequently, it is recommended that
the organization increase manager empowerment by prioritizing the improvement of
organizational change management and communication deficiencies at the senior executive
level. New Org1 senior executives should complete an organizational change management
certification program within one year of appointment.
Reshaping a cultural model is a daunting task; Schein (2004) recommends focusing on
specific business problems, rather than changes to organizational culture. Org1’s specific
business problem in the scope of this evaluation is a demonstrated record of poor organizational
communication and change leadership. Research by Change First (2009) states ineffectual
leadership is the most cited obstacle to organizational change goals. Another study reports that
92% of respondents (n=1500) named executive level leadership as the focal point in successful
change initiatives (Kittle, 2009). Change management struggles are common in the federal
government due to gaps in knowledge and skills that are required to manage substantial change
initiatives (Risher, 2017). The foundations of successful organizational change management are
rooted in effective communication strategies, stakeholder engagement, garnering support, and
sustaining the outcomes (Berger, 2014; Gilley, Gilley, & McMillan, 2009; Kotter, 1995). The

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 161

requirement to earn a change management certification among the cadre of Org1’s senior
executives will generate an influx of knowledge and skills that support the empowerment of
lower level managers and align the agency’s policies and resources with the organizational goal
to improve employee engagement.
Cultural setting recommendation (OCS-PI). Data collection and analysis confirmed
that Org1 does not incentivize communication and feedback between managers and employees.
Furthermore, the organization has no accountability measures in place to ensure managers
conduct feedback with subordinates beyond the required annual appraisal. Seminal research on
group dynamics and organizational performance stresses the importance of creating an
environment that supports desired behaviors (Tuckman, 2009). Likewise, the guidance provided
by the Clark and Estes (2008) framework coincides with this research, reiterating that an
organization’s structures must align with their intended goals. To foster desired behaviors, Org1
should increase accountability and sustain motivation among managers by developing core
manager-centric performance objectives that supervisors are evaluated against in their employee
appraisal. Additionally, Org1 should replace the annual appraisal score with a composite score
comprised of quarterly reviews.
The importance of manager communication and feedback is a central theme throughout
this study. Org1 lacks accountability measures that promote a healthy communication culture;
the use of a traditional annual appraisal system exacerbates this problem (Armstrong, 2017;
Buckingham, 2015; Fuller, 2014). Human resource scholars advise that accountability
mechanisms imparted on managers improves their performance in core job duties, and aids in the
adoption and execution of new policies (Sikora & Ferris, 2014). Watson, Maxwell, and
Farquharson (2007) argue that accountability is further strengthened when explicit guidelines are

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 162

given to the managers involved in new human resource implementations (for example, a
performance objective). The recommendation to use quarterly reviews in place of annual
appraisals supports manager accountability and promotes increased communication and feedback
between manager and employee. Moreover, the change creates an environment that fosters
desired behaviors and supports the implementation of newly developed supervisory performance
objectives that influence managers rating and salary. Incentivizing and recognizing managers
that are rated well in these areas rewards and reinforces the essential performance management
behaviors necessary to improve employee engagement (McGee & Johnson, 2015).
Cultural setting recommendation (OCS-T). The absence of employee engagement
focused training at Org1 was confirmed explicitly in the examination of this organizational
influence during data collection and analysis. The need was corroborated by managers’ partial
understanding of employee engagement. The recommendation to remedy this established need
coincides with the solution presented to resolve gaps in managers’ knowledge of engagement
and engagement strengthening management practices. Clark and Estes (2008) contend that
organizations should provide adequate resources and knowledge to appropriate stakeholders.
This notion reaffirms that the organization must help managers acquire skills, provide the
opportunity to practice the skills, and impart knowledge on when to use the skills (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). Org1 can aid the acquisition of knowledge and skills by developing a
comprehensive “Performance Management for Employee Engagement” training block of
instruction. This recommendation should be supplemented by the development of computer-
based training that reiterates the important role employee engagement and performance
management play in organizational health.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 163

A fundamental component of the Clark and Estes (2008) framework is ensuring that
organization’s resources and policies are aligned to the goals they wish to accomplish. This
principle governs all recommendations presented in Chapter Five. Employee engagement is
strengthened when organizations devote explicit resources to improve engagement and
implement policies with the sustainment of engagement in mind (Gruman & Saks, 2011;
Marrelli, 2011). A training block dedicated to employee engagement and performance
management aligns Org1’s resources to their goal and mitigates stakeholder knowledge gaps.
The computer-based training supplies an accountability measure that will keep managers
apprised of the integral role they play in the employee engagement process (Sikora & Ferris,
2014).
While training is fundamental to the acquisition of knowledge, effective training must
provide a measurable link to performance, show value, and contribute to the achievement
organization goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The next section provides the
implementation and evaluation plan for the recommended improvements.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The improvements recommended in this study require a holistic framework that
combines the implementation of the solutions with an evaluation of the solutions’ effectiveness.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model satisfies this requirement by providing a proven four-level
approach to evaluation that ensures: (a) the improvements remain effective, (b) the
improvements demonstrate value to the organization, and (c) the improvements produce
measurable results and behaviors that facilitate positive organizational outcomes (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Kirkpatrick model consists of a four-tiered approach to program

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 164

evaluation comprised of: (4) Results, (3) Behaviors, (2) Learning, (1) Reaction. Each tier (or
level) has a unique purpose.
Level four identifies the desired outcomes of a program and their respective degrees of
success. Level three is the most resource intensive tier and involves identifying critical behaviors
that must be consistently performed by stakeholders to achieve success. Level three also seeks to
monitor, reinforce, and encourage these critical behaviors while maintaining the systems and
processes (in effect the drivers) that reward and reinforce these behaviors. Level two assesses
stakeholders’ learning by measuring their knowledge and skills, attitudes, confidence, and
commitment to continually perform the desired behaviors in their job. Level one of the
framework accumulates summative and formative information that evaluates individual reactions
to training instructors, program relevance, and overall satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model affords Org1 the opportunity to continually measure
and refine the implementation of the recommended areas of improvement, which will increase
the likelihood that the improvements will produce positive organizational results. Table 27
summarizes the elements of the New World Kirkpatrick Model and its primary components.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 165

Table 27
Four Levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
Level Measure Description Components
4 Results The degree to which targeted organizational-level
outcomes occur as a result of the improvement
program.
leading indicators,
desired outcomes
3 Behavior The degree to which Org1 managers apply learning
from the performance improvement program.
monitor, adjust
reinforce, and reward
2 Learning The degree to which Org1managers acquire the
intended knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and
commitment as a result of their participation in the
performance improvement program.
knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence,
commitment
1 Reaction The degree to which Org1 managers find the
performance improvement program favorable,
engaging, and relevant to their jobs.
engagement,
relevance, customer
satisfaction
Note. Adapted from Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation (p. 11) by J.D. Kirkpatrick

Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations
Org1 is a large federal agency with a diverse and extensive worldwide mission. The
organization’s goal to reach an engagement metric of 80% has proven difficult to reach. This
study lent insights into the organizations’ pursuit of this goal by examining the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impacting the primary stakeholders’ ability to improve
employee engagement with effective performance management practices. Data collection and
analysis supported five areas for improvement, two categorized as knowledge gaps, three
categorized as organizational influences. A close relationship between the supported knowledge
and organizational gaps was illuminated by the absence of supported gaps associated with
managers’ motivation. The recommendations presented in Chapter Five work in concert to
mitigate the credible gaps by: (a) aligning Org1 resources and policies to improve employee
engagement, (b) promoting and incentivizing manager behaviors that benefit Org1’s goal, and (c)

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 166

improving managers’ knowledge and skills through properly implemented and evaluated training
that adds measurable gains towards positive engagement outcomes.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Desired organizational outcomes are the key component of level four. Table 28 presents
the desired internal and external outcomes, metrics used to measure success, and the methods for
collecting data to assess the desired level four results of this plan. The recommended
improvements will result in three internal outcomes, and one external outcome. The three
internal outcomes include: (a) an enhanced workforce culture related to satisfaction with
organizational level strategy and communication, (b) increased satisfaction with managers’
communication and feedback with direct reports, (c) increased satisfaction with the employee
appraisal system; and (d) an increased grasp of employee engagement that subsequently
improves managers’ performance management practices. The convergence of these successful
outcomes will help Org1 reach its goal of 80% employee engagement. Increasing employee
engagement at Org1 will have an external outcome of increased trust and an improved reputation
among partner federal agencies.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 167

Table 28
Level 4 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal and External Outcomes.
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
Enhanced workforce
culture related to
satisfaction with
organizational level
strategy and
communication.
Annual percent positive values
of employee perceptions
regarding organizational level
strategy, execution, and
communication.

Existing annual Employee
Climate Survey.
Increased satisfaction with
manager communication
and feedback.
Annual percent positive values
of employee perceptions
regarding manager feedback and
communication.
Existing annual Employee
Climate Survey.
Increased satisfaction with
the employee appraisal
system.
Annual percent positive values
of employee perceptions
regarding the agency the
appraisal system.
Existing annual Employee
Climate Survey.
Increased grasp of
employee engagement and
improved proficiency in
executing performance
management strategies
that improve and sustain
engagement.
Results from delayed 4-Level
follow-up assessment.
Delayed survey assessment of
managers’ perceptions of the
engagement initiative program
one year after training
completion.
External Outcome
Increased trust and
improved reputation
among partner federal
agencies.
Annual report comparing agency
climate reports among
community partners.
Existing annual Employee
Climate Survey.
Note. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that it is common for organizations to have
methods in place to capture pertinent organizational health metrics that can measure new
programs’ outcomes; this is the case at Org1.

Level 3: Behavior

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 168

Critical behaviors. “As it is with any human endeavor, in business there will always be
a cause-and-effect chain” (Wan, 2010, p. 26). With this excerpt in mind, achieving results
requires organizations to identify accountability mechanisms and measurements that examine
and monitor employee activities in this cause-and-effect chain (Wan, 2010). Identifying essential
actions among managers and methods to assess those actions serves as an accountability
mechanism that moderates Org1’s accountability shortcomings – these actions are described in
the Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) as critical behaviors.
Critical behaviors are actions that managers must consistently pursue to enable the
outcomes framed in level four (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Each critical behavior in this
evaluation plan is aligned to the manager stakeholder and their commitment to conduct
performance management and consistent communication. The first critical behavior is that
managers must conduct bi-weekly meetings with their entire team to discuss organizational and
team level activities. The second critical behavior is that managers must conduct documented
monthly meetings with direct reports to discuss performance management related topics and
provide performance feedback. The third critical behavior is that managers must meet with
direct reports quarterly to document performance and capture a data point that will be used in the
direct reports’ final appraisals. The final critical behavior is that managers must meet with their
direct supervisor quarterly to discuss their performance and progress toward the successful
completion of the previous three critical behaviors. Each critical behavior, measure of success,
data collection methods, and their frequency are provided in Table 29.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 169

Table 29
Level 3 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Managers must
conduct bi-weekly
meetings with their
entire team to discuss
organizational and
team level activities.
Satisfaction with
manager’s
understanding of
agency level
initiatives and team
communication.
Human resources will
conduct a brief electronic
survey aligned to
individual managers that
gathers direct reports’
perceptions of their
supervisors’
communication of agency
level initiatives and
relevant team information.
Semi-annually
for the first two
years.
Thereafter –
reevaluate.
2. Managers must
conduct documented
monthly meetings with
all direct reports to
discuss goals, task and
contextual
performance, employee
development, and
employee concerns.
Number of
completed
individual meetings
per year with direct
reports.
Capture discussion notes
with each direct report in
the existing personnel
management system.
Monthly for
first year, then
reevaluate the
frequency.
3. Managers must
conduct formal
quarterly meetings and
evaluations of direct
reports that serve as a
data point for direct
reports’ annual
performance rating.
Number of direct
reports that signed
quarterly
evaluations of
record.
Perform formal evaluation
using existing personnel
system.
Quarterly to
contribute to
cumulative
annual
composite
score.
4. Managers must meet
with their supervisor to
address their new
performance objectives
that are aligned to the
performance
management of their
direct reports.
Collection of data
points derived from
other critical
behavior metrics
presented here.
PM focused performance
objective is assessed using
existing personnel
management system.
Quarterly to
contribute to
cumulative
annual
composite
score.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 170

Required drivers. Required drivers serve as crucial mechanisms that reinforce,
encourage, monitor, and reward critical behaviors that subsequently produce level four desired
outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Managers’ have insufficient knowledge of
employee engagement and the management practices that enhance and sustain engagement.
Further, Org1 does not have accountability measures or incentives in place that support
managers’ execution of such practices. The required drivers identified in Table 30 will enable
managers to execute the necessary critical behaviors through informational job aids, explicit
organizational communication on engagement topics in leadership development (for example
newsletters), and culpability instruments that increase accountability through monitoring and
manager rewards.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 171

Table 30
Required Drivers to Support and Monitor Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Desk-side job aids that reinforces the integral role managers
play in engagement with descriptions of the best management
practices that improve engagement.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Town hall for managers only. Semi-Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Include a section titled “Managing for Employee Engagement”
in the Supervisory Council Newsletter.”
Semi-Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Monthly manager brown-bag hosted by the Leadership
Development Advisory Board to discuss best practices,
concerns, success stories.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Managers’ annual compensation and bonuses are affected by
their score related to their performance objective aligned to
performance management duties, in addition to their existing
performance objectives.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Highlight a high performing manager in the Supervisory
Council Newsletter.
Semi-Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Managers must document meetings with direct reports in
existing personnel management system.
Monthly 2, 3, 4
Managers must complete mandatory annual 30-minute
computer-based employee engagement focused refresher
training that includes a required ten question multiple choice
assessment to receive credit. Access to the building requires
successful completion of all CBT’s aligned to a job role.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 172

Organizational support. The recommendations identified in this evaluation require
considerable support from the organization to provide the requisite resources and accountability
measures that are the crux of implementation and evaluation plan. The organization must
conduct a robust communication campaign that reaffirms the importance of engagement and
establishes the expectation that all managers accurately understand employee engagement.
Second, the organization must establish the integral role of performance management in the
engagement paradigm by including a performance management focused performance/evaluation
objective in supervisors’ performance appraisals. Third, the organization must institute policy
changes to the existing employee rating system that requires quarterly evaluations that contribute
to an annual score for all employees (including managers), rather than a single annual review.
Finally, the organization must provide the necessary training resources and curriculum to
managers in the form of informational jobs aids, a new computer based training, and
informational instruction blocks.
The changes to policy are facilitated by the existing personnel management system that
can already support additional appraisal data points derived from quarterly evaluations. The
resources to implement engagement focused training are supported by an existing computer-
based training (CBT) delivery system that tracks required CBT’s and assessment results. The
burden of implementing instructor lead training is lessened by infusion of the curriculum into
existing in-person training offerings that are taught by the Org1 College. Finally, the metrics
associated with level four internal outcomes can be captured by the existing Employee Climate
Survey.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Managers need specific knowledge and skills to support their execution

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 173

of the critical behaviors identified in Table 30 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Following the
implementation of the recommended training solutions, managers will be able to:
1. Articulate complete knowledge of employee engagement as a reciprocal relationship
between employees and the organization, which is comprised of drivers and employee
needs that result in behaviors that affect organizational outcomes. (Conceptual)
2. Identify the primary drivers of and impediments to employee engagement at the
organizational and managerial level. (Conceptual-Declarative).
3. Demonstrate knowledge of the manager’s role in employee engagement and the proven
managerial practices that improve and sustain engagement. (Conceptual)
4. Demonstrate knowledge of types of employee performance and their relationship to goal
setting and recognition. (Conceptual)
5. Demonstrate knowledge of SMART goals. (Conceptual leading to Procedural)
Program. The learning goals will be accomplished through an ongoing four-pronged
approach that involves: informational job aids, computer-based training delivered
asynchronously, an introductory employee engagement instruction block, and a comprehensive
employee engagement instruction block. The supervisory workforce will receive informational
jobs that describe fundamental concepts and relevant data points related to employee engagement
through email and after training events. A 30-minute computer-based training (CBT) that serves
as an accountability measure and learning instrument will be required annually. The CBT will
reiterate key concepts and developments pertinent to managers’ duties and employee
engagement. Additionally, the engagement CBT will revisit concepts that managers learn about
in the instructor led courses discussed below.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 174

A one-hour block of instruction titled “Introduction to Employee Engagement” will be
inserted into two existing mandatory supervisory courses (managers take this course a single
time). These courses include Supervisory Skills Applied, and Fundamentals of Performance
Management. The introductory block of instruction’s placement in mandatory classes will ensure
fundamental information related to engagement is connected to performance management and
disseminated to all new managers. This training will involve a short presentation and a facilitated
group discussion among the instructor and the attendees. A half day comprehensive block of
instruction titled “Performance Management for Employee Engagement” will be inserted into
two voluntary leadership development courses titled Transformational Leadership and Leading
from the Middle. The half day block of instruction will include facilitated group discussions,
practical exercises, and feedback from leadership development instructors.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Mechanisms to evaluate degrees of learning
are integral to the implementation of effective training solutions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). There are five components of learning that should be accounted for in the evaluation of
training programs, including the trainees’ knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The components utilized in the Kirkpatrick
Model align with the predominant research presented throughout this study that underlines the
interaction and importance of accounting for stakeholder knowledge, value, efficacy, and
motivation in effectual performance evaluations (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles,
2006; Meyers, 2011). Table 31 identifies the proposed evaluation method for each component of
learning.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 175

Table 31
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Conceptual Knowledge “I know it.”
Discuss key concepts among small groups and report back to
entire class.
During in-person
training
Documented observation notes and checklist captured by the
instructor.
During and after in-
person training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Use of multiple-choice questions following asynchronous CBT
that require a passing grade of 80% for credit.
After completion of
CBT material
Use of real management scenarios in class on which trainees
receive peer and instructor feedback.
During in-person
training
Documented observation notes and checklist captured by the
instructor.
During and after in-
person training
Written practice to demonstrate skills (for example SMART
goals).
During in-person
training
Discuss key concepts among small groups and report back to
entire class.
During in-person
training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Documented notes captured by Instructor. During and after in-
person training
Post training assessments. After in-person
training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Documented notes captured by Instructor. During and after in-
person training
Post training assessments. After in-person
training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Use of a personalized action plan.
During in-person
training

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 176

Level 1: Reaction
Assessing the engagement level of trainees, the perceived relevance of the training, and
the participants’ satisfaction with the training are valuable to evaluation process. Gathering this
reaction data among managers can be accomplished through formative measures such as
instructor observations, or through summative measures such as survey instruments (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 32 identifies the method used to collect level one reaction data from
managers.
Table 32
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Analytics captured through CBT web
application.
Ongoing
In-person Instructor pulsing. During training event (first year)
In-person training evaluation. After training event
Relevance
Analytics captured through CBT web
application.
Not applicable
In- person training evaluation. After training event
Customer Satisfaction
Computer-based training. Not applicable
In-person training evaluation. After training event

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. The required annual computer-
based training will capture (trainee) engagement levels based on timely completion percentage;

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 177

Org1 does not conduct level one post-training evaluations on required training aligned to specific
job roles. Following the completion of the in-person training events, managers will complete a
survey that will address levels of satisfaction, commitment, attitude, training value, and the
participants’ level of confidence applying what they learned (see Appendix H). The employee
engagement focused instructional blocks are being inserted into existing supervisory and
leadership courses offerings. For this reason, the post-training surveys refer to the engagement
block of instruction to facilitate data capture aligned to the relevant course content. Additionally,
instructors capture levels of engagement by documenting their observations during these blocks
of new instruction (see Appendix I).
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The organization will send a
follow-up survey to managers that participated in the introductory and comprehensive blocks of
instruction one year after completion of the courses (see Appendix J). The survey instrument
will capture information aligned to the four levels presented in this evaluation and
implementation plan, including: (Level 1) managers satisfaction and the relevance of the
trainings; (Level 2) levels of managers’ knowledge, skills, associated value, confidence, and
commitment; (Level 3) managers perceptions regarding their execution of the critical behaviors
associated with their direct reports; and (Level 4) the degree to which managers’ grasp of
employee engagement and their proficiency in executing engagement strengthening performance
management practices has increased. The delayed survey serves as a data point for additional
data analysis and reporting.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Quarterly reports will be generated that present a quantitative view of data collected from
instructor observations, and managers’ post-training survey responses. A holistic yearly report

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 178

will incorporate aggregated results of the level three behavior data collected via surveys
completed by managers’ direct reports, and metrics extracted from Org1’s personnel
management system (known as training score). The yearly report will incorporate survey results
extracted from the annual employee climate survey, and employee engagement metrics. The
fusion of these data sources will provide insights regarding the progress made toward the
outcomes presented in level four. A notional example of this reporting is provided in Appendix
K.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan Summary
Organizations must prioritize employee engagement to improve engagement (Gruman &
Saks, 2011; Lavigna, 2014). The recommended improvements presented in Chapter Five serve
as function to account for and prioritize managers’ attainment of knowledge regarding employee
engagement and encourage management practices that enhance and maintain engagement. The
New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) provides a comprehensive framework that aligns desired
organizational outcomes to explicit critical behaviors and accountability measures that are
facilitated by effective training. The preemptive identification of appropriately aligned metrics to
desired outcomes, essential stakeholder behaviors, training effectiveness, and training
satisfaction provides a pragmatic data-driven blueprint to implement the suggested
improvements that will improve employee engagement at Org1.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
There are several limitations to this research study. The researcher did not have access to
individual response data within archived Org1 survey data, which limited the researcher’s ability
to conduct inferential or predictive statistical analysis specific to Org1 workforce. The small non-

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 179

random convenience sample size comprising the researcher’s data collection also limited the
researcher’s ability to conduct inferential and predictive statistical analysis that could have
potentially informed the research questions more thoroughly. The researcher’s use of survey
responses as evidence relied on self-reported data, which could limit the accuracy of analytic
conclusions due to assumptions made regarding the truthfulness of participant responses
(Fernandez et al., 2015; Welbourne, 2014). The sample of manager participants was not
stratified and cannot be generalized to the entire Org1 workforce. Furthermore, the criteria used
to select interview participants likely impacted the results and findings – namely, the high levels
of value and efficacy present among the interview participants could be directly correlated to the
participants’ voluntary membership in groups focused on leadership development and
organizational improvement. Managers within this select group of personnel may have
heightened levels of motivation that are not representative of the general supervisor population.
Archived survey data utilized in the study was cross-sectional, and not longitudinal,
which decreased the interrater reliability of the survey items extracted from the FEVS data and
Org1 survey data (Fernandez et al., 2015; Gruman & Saks, 2011; Salkind, 2017). The
researcher’s association with federal government limited the type of documents available for
analysis; many useful internal documents were categorized as “for official use only” and could
not be used for academic purposes. The researcher’s government affiliation also prevented the
use of recording devices during interviews due to security restrictions. The absence of a
recording device may have led to less accurate qualitative data coding when compared to data
coding derived from verbatim transcripts.
Delimitations
A complete performance gap analysis at the organizational level would have involved all

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 180

Org1 stakeholders mentioned in Chapter One. Resource constraints required the study to be
limited to a single, yet highly influential (Gallup, 2015), manager stakeholder group. The nature
of Org1’s (worldwide) employee footprint and large workforce population made the agency an
ideal candidate to use existing organizational atmospheric/survey data and internal documents as
part of the mixed methods research design. The study of managers’ knowledge and skills,
motivation influences, and organizational resources and barriers related to performance
management lent itself to a conceptual framework suited for evaluation of interrelated constructs,
and their effects on the stakeholder and organizational goal.
This study did not utilize observations or focus groups due to time and travel resource
constraints. Addressing employee engagement through the KMO framework was a novel
approach to the organization that yielded rich insights into the areas of improvement confirmed
to be affecting the achievement of the stakeholder and organizational goal.
Future Research
This study used three data sources to examine managers’ motivation (M) and the
organizational (O) influences impacting their performance management practices. A single data
source (interviews) comprised of a small sample (n = 10) was used to evaluate managers’
knowledge of the pertinent components of this evaluation (employee engagement, performance
management, feedback and communication). The use of 10 interviews represented a small
fraction of Org1’s manager workforce. Additional manager interviews should be conducted to
examine the validity of the knowledge gaps supported in this study.
A more effectual study would result from obtaining the individual level survey response
data from Org1 climate surveys, rather than using an extrapolation approach to similar federal
agencies. The study would be enhanced by adding a rigorous quantitative element. Provided the

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 181

study could accumulate the necessary sample size, the data aligned to knowledge and motivation
could be used in an ordinal (log) regression model that predicts stakeholder performance. This
approach has been used by scholars to investigate cause, predict effects, and forecast trends
(Brewer, 2008; Elamir & Sadeq; 2010). Ordinal data captured from surveys suits this
quantitative approach.
The study revealed negative perceptions of the agency’s approach to implementing and
communicating organizational strategies and changes, yet motivation remained high among
manager stakeholders. Additional research examining the moderating role that intrinsic value
plays among government workers that face considerable organizational barriers would
supplement this study. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework would be useful in
the evaluation of the KMO influences impacting Org1’s senior executives as primary
stakeholders, and their organizational change management practices. Finally, the Clark and
Estes (2008) framework could be used to examine other government agencies (such as NASA)
that have successfully improved employee engagement outcomes through concerted
organizational efforts that explicitly align policies and resources to improving engagement
metrics (in effect, a promising practice assessment).
Conclusion
Org1’s stakeholder goal to improve employee engagement through effective performance
management was documented in 2013. This study revealed that perceptions of performance
management practices had regressed since the establishment of this goal, which has negatively
impacted the organization’s desire to reach an 80% employee engagement score. A modified
implementation of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework provided deeper insights
into the knowledge and motivation influences that have impacted managers’ ability to execute

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 182

performance management that improves engagement. Similarly, the framework substantiated
organizational factors that have impacted this stakeholder goal.
Principally, Org1 has failed to recognize employee engagement and performance
management as an integral component of their organizational health. A quote by interview
participant F1 encapsulated the negative themes gleaned across interviews and documents within
this study well; F1 proclaimed “The agency’s actions have trumped even the best managers’
abilities.” Surprisingly, despite managers marginalized work roles and expressed lack of
empowerment, the stakeholder group conveyed elevated levels of value and confidence in their
role as a manager across numerous workforce publications and during interviews, inferring the
stakeholder group remains highly motivated.
This study demonstrates that a motivated cadre of leaders can still be hamstrung by
organizational barriers that hinder stakeholders’ ability to make progress toward the achievement
of organizational goals. Additionally, the evaluation offers evidence that innate motivation may
be linked to a higher sense of purpose among employees of government organizations. Findings
produced by this study have implications for other large bureaucratic agencies that desire to gain
insights into knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, circumstances, and systems
that affect management practices and employee engagement results. Transitioning toward
solutions that improve employee engagement requires organizations to prioritize engagement not
just on paper, but with adequately resourced change efforts and policies that attack cultures
suffering from inadequate communication.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 183

References
Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and
cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56(2), 241-
249.
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
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The relationship
between line manager behavior, perceived HRM practices, and individual
performance: Examining the mediating role of engagement. Human resource
management, 52(6), 839-859.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Roy-Girard, D. (2007). Toxins in the workplace: Effects on organizations
and employees. Corporate Governance, 7(1), 17-28.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/14720700710727087
Arakawa, D., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Optimistic managers and their influence on productivity
and employee engagement in a technology organization: Implications for coaching
psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 78-89.
Armstrong, M. (2017). Reinventing Performance Management. London: Kogan Page.
Ashley, G. C., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2012). Self-awareness and the evolution of leaders: The
need for a better measure of self-awareness. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 14(1), 2.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 184

Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the
research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), 383-
398.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 19(1), 31-53.
Balain, S., & Sparrow, P. (2009). Engaged to Perform: A New Perspective on Employee
Engagement: Academic Report. Centre for Performance-led HR, Lancaster University
Management School.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/metacognition.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Baumruk, R. (2006). Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement: Identifying steps
managers can take to engage their workforce. Strategic HR Review, 5(2), 24-27.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Berg, N. (2005). Non-Response Bias. Encyclopedia of Social Measure (Vol. 2, pp. 865-873).
London: Academic Press. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/abstract=1691967

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 185

Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-
content/uploads/BergerFinalWES.pdf.
Bersin, J., Agarwal, D., Pelster, B., & Schwartz, J. (2015). “Performance management: The
secret ingredient,” Global Human Capital Trends 2015: Leading in the new world of
work. Deloitte Press.
Borgogni, L., Russo S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: what’s the difference?. Journal of
management studies, 39(1), 97-122.
Braine, R. D., & Roodt, G. (2011). The Job Demands-Resources model as a predictor of work
identity and work engagement: A comparative analysis. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 37(2), 52-62.
Brewer, G. A. (2008). Employee and organizational performance. Motivation in public
management: The call of public service, 136-156.
Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job
satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of applied
psychology, 73(2), 139.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 186

Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard
Business Review, 93(4), 40-50.
Buckingham, M. (2015a). Most HR data is bad data. Harvard Business Review.
Buckingham, M. (2015b). Standout: Next Generation Performance Management. In T. Bickham,
ATD Talent Management Handbook (pp. 152-153). Association for Talent Development.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York: Simon and
Schuster. pp. 25–49, 53–67.
Burton, K., Grates, G., & Learch, C. (2013). Best-in-class practices in employee communication:
Through the lens of 10 global leaders. Institute for Public Relations.
Byrne, Z. S., Hayes, T. L., & Holcombe, K. J. (2017). Employee Engagement Using the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey. Public Personnel Management, 46(4), 368-390.
Carifio, J. & Perla, R. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent
Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their
Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 106-116.
Casemore, S. (2017). The Unstoppable Organization: Empower Your People, Engage Your
Customers, and Grow Your Revenue. Red Wheel/Weiser.
Causey, M. (2017, September 13). Retirement changes 2017/18: What are the odds? Retrieved
from Federal News Radio: https://federalnewsradio.com/mike-causey-federal-
report/2017/09/retirement-changes-in-201718-what-are-the-odds/
Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US
federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 529-557.
Clark, R. C. (2008). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance
improvement. John Wiley & Sons.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 187

Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cognition. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cognition
Collins, C. J. (2013, April). When it comes to employee engagement, one size does not fit all
(CAHRS ResearchLink No. 2). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ILR School, Center for
Advanced Human Resource Studies.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Chalofsky, N., & Cavallaro, L. (2013). A good living versus a good life: Meaning, purpose, and
HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4), 331-340.
Change First. (2009). Leaders of a Revolution: A Guide to Building Effective Change
Leadership in Your Organization. London: Change First Limited.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing. Harper & Row. p. 161.
Cognition. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cognition
Council, C. L. (2002). Building the high-performance workforce. A Quantitative Analysis of the
Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies. Washington, DC.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Cronbach LJ (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing. Harper & Row. p. 161.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Das, H. (2003). Performance management. Toronto, Ontario: Prentice Hall.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 188

Decker, P. J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2015). Self-Handicapping Leadership: The Nine Behaviors
Holding Back Employees, Managers, and Companies, and How to Overcome Them. FT
Press.
Degner, L. (2005). Knowledge translation in palliative care: Can theory help? Canadian Journal
of Nursing Research, 37(2), 105-113.
Deloitte University Press. (2016). Global Human Capital Trends 2016. London: Deloitte
University Press.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.
Dicke, C. (2010). Employee engagement: I want it, what is it. What Is It.
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., Facteau, J. D., & Miller, J. S. (1993). Implications of situational
constraints on performance evaluation and performance management. Human Resource
Management Review, 3(2), 105-128.
Doran, G. (1981), There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives”.
Management Review. AMA Forum. 70(11): 35 -36.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Incorporated.
Dweck, C. (13 January 2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/01/what-having-a-growth-mindset-
actually-means.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy-value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Elamir, E., & Sadeq, H. (2010). Ordinal regression to analyze employee attitudes toward the
application of total quality management. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 5(4).

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 189

Erickson, J.I., Hamilton, G.A., Jones, D.E., & Ditomassi, M. (2003). Measuring the impact of
collaborative governance: Beyond empowerment. Journal of Nursing Administration,
33(2), 96-104.
Everton, W. J., Jolton, J. A., & Mastrangelo, P. M. (2007). Be nice and fair or else:
understanding reasons for employees' deviant behaviors. Journal of Management
Development, 26(2), 117-131.
Federal News Radio Network. (2018, April 19). NASA’s Gibbs: Employee engagement needs
honest conversations. Retrieved from Federal News Radio Website:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/courageous-hr/2018/04/nasas-gibbs-employee-
engagement-needs-honest-conversations/
Federal Times. (2017, December 26). Motivated by mission: Is the honor of public service
enough for a new generation of feds? Retrived from Federal Times Website:
https://www.federaltimes.com/management/hr/2017/12/26/motivated-by-mission/
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and
performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 490-506.
Fernandez, S., Resh, W., Moldogaziev, T., & Oberfield, Z. (2015). Assessing the past and
promise of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for public management research: A
research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 382–394.
Finckh, A., & Tramèr, M. R. (2008). Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis. Nature
Reviews Rheumatology, 4(3), 146.
Fink, A. (2013). Chapter 2: The Survey Form. In How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide
(5th ed.) (pp. 29-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 190

Fitz-Enz, J., & Mattox, I. I. (2014). Predictive analytics for human resources. John Wiley &
Sons.
Fox, T. (2013, July 26). The NASA approach to keeping employees engaged. Retrieved from The
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-
leadership/wp/2013/07/26/the-nasa-approach-to-keeping-employees-
engaged/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b9c365f62ab5
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder theory. Journal of Management
Studies, 39(1), 1-21.
Frye, R. (2015, May). Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the largest generation in U.S. labor
force. Retrieved from Pew Research: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/05/11/millennials-surpass-gen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-labor-
force/
Fuller, R. (2014, November 17). A Primer on Employee Engagement. Retrieved from hbr.org:
https://hbr.org/2014/11/a-primer-on-measuring-employee-engagement
Gallup Inc. (2013). State of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for U.S.
business leaders.
Gallup Inc. (2015). State of the American Manager. Washington D.C.: Gallup.
Gallup Inc. (2017). The State of the American Workplace. Gallup Journal.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the
organizational context: An empirical examination. Group & Organization
Management, 23(1), 48-70. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/203376861?accountid=14749

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 191

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75–94.
Gibbons, J. M. (2006). Employee engagement: A review of current research and its
implications. Conference Board.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Government Executive. (2017, December 6). NASA Ranked best place to work in government
six years running. Retrieved from Government Executive Website:
https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/12/nasa-ranked-best-place-work-
government-six-years-running/144317/
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters.
International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Grubb, V. (2016). Setting the Stage for Great Performance. In V. Grubb, Clash of Generations
(pp. 39-60). John Wiley & Sons.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement.
Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. B. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), 64-72.
Harrington, J. R., & Lee, J. H. (2015). What drives perceived fairness of performance appraisal?
Exploring the effects of psychological contract fulfillment on employees’ perceived
fairness of performance appraisal in US federal agencies. Public Personnel Management,
44(2), 214-238.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 192

Harte, J., & Adkins, A. (2015, April 15). What Great Managers Do to Engage Employees.
Retrieved from hbr.org: https://hbr.org/2015/04/what-great-managers-do-to-engage-
employees.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-
analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S. K. (2013). The relationship between
engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Gallup Poll Consulting University
Press, Washington.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S. K., Blue, A. (2016). The relationship
between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Gallup Poll Consulting
University Press, Washington.
Harvard Business Review. (2013). The Impact of Employee Engagement on Performance.
Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the World of Work: An Organization and
Management Perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 211-223.
Heslin, P. A. (1999). Boosting empowerment by developing self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources, 37(1), 52-64.
Hoffman, B., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater source effects are alive
and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 119-151.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 193

Jackson, L. T. B., & Rothmann, S. (2005). An adapted model of burnout for educators in South
Africa. South African Journal of Education, 25(2), 100-108.
James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age‐
diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173-196.
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data (Vol. 333). John Wiley
& Sons.
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal
of management development, 21(5), 376-387.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). Organizations and the system concept. Classics of organization
theory, 161-172.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work. Academy of Management Journal, 692.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human relations, 45(4),
321-349.
Kellis, D. S., & Ran, B. (2013). Modern leadership principles for public administration: time to
move forward. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(1), 130-141.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016) Evaluation blunders and missteps to avoid. Training
and Development, November, 36-40.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends
in education. Educational psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
Kittle, Graham IBM. (2009). Making Change Work. IBM Insights.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a
double-edged sword. Current directions in psychological science, 7(3), 67-72.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 194

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Lavigna, R. (2014). Now is the time to improve Federal employee engagement. The Public
Manager, 43, 7-10.
Leonard, K. M., & Pakdil, F. (2016). Performance Leadership. Business Expert Press.
Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of
business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740-
765.
Lombardi, G. (2014). Revolution in engagement surveys. marginalia.com. Retrieved from
http://www.marginalia.online/revolution-in-engagement-surveys/
Luthanks, F., & Peterson, S. (2001). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal
of Management Development.
Mackay, M. M., Allen, J. A., & Landis, R. S. (2017). Investigating the incremental validity of
employee engagement in the prediction of employee effectiveness: A meta-analytic path
analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 108-120.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee Engagement:
Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-
Blackwell.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 195

MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through
employee engagement: a report to government. London: Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 45(1), 61-78.
Management, U. S. (2015a). Engaging the Federal Workforce: How To Do It and Prove It.
Washington D.C.: United States Office of Personnel Management.
Management, U. S. (2015b). The Keys to Unlocking Engagement: An Analysis of Conditions
that Drive Engagement. Washington D.C.: United States Office of Personnel
Management.
Management, U.S. (2016). Federal Viewpoint Survey: Technical Report. Washington D.C.:
United States Office of Personnel Management.
Management, U.S. (2017). Federal Viewpoint Survey: Governmentwide Management Report.
Washington D.C.: United States Office of Personnel Management.
Mann, A., & Darby, R. (2014, August 5). Should Managers Focus on Performance or
Engagement? Retrieved from Gallup News:
http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/174197/managers-focus-performance-
engagement.aspx
Marrelli, A. F. (2011). A universal performance model for human performance technology: The
time has come. Performance Improvement, 50(9), 6-12.
Martin, J., & Gentry, W. A. (2011). Derailment signs across generations: More in common than
expected. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14(3), 177-195.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 196

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
organizational behavior, 2(2), 99-113.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21.
McQuaid, M. (20 November 2015). Does your workplace have a growth mindset? Huffington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-mcquaid/does-your-
workplace-have-agrowth-mindset_b_8606124.html
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.: Chicago.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Metcalfe L. (1993). ‘Public management: from imitation to innovation’. In Kooiman, J.
(Ed.), Modern Governance. London: Sage.
Miller, C. (2016). Expectations Create Outcomes: Growth Mindsets in Organizations. Chapel
Hill: UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 197

Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee engagement through effective performance
management: A practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge.
Mone, E., London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance
Management. New York: Routledge.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 79(4), 475.
Murch, G. (2016). Fixing Feedback. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication
perspective on millennials' organizational relationships and performance. Journal of
Business Psychology, 25, 255–238.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement:
Considering the attitude “A-factor.”. The handbook of employee engagement:
Perspectives, issues, research, and practice, 43-61.
Nextgov. (2017, December 6). What NASA Can Teach Agencies About Making Employees
Happy. Retrieved from Nextgov Website:
https://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2017/12/what-nasa-can-teach-agencies-about-
making-employees-happy/144338/
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self‐efficacy and managers' motivation for
leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(2), 215-235.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 198

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Robinson, D. L, & Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure:
links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of organizational
behavior, 26 (4), 379-408.
Price Waterhouse Cooper. (2015). The Changing Performance Management Paradigm:
Evolution or Revolution? Amsterdam: PWC.
Pryor, G. (2016). Performance enablement is replacing performance management [video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEvzuhObtJY
Risher, H. (2017, March 31). The Many Practical Hurdles to Transforming Government.
Retrieved from Governmentexecutive.com:
https://www.govexec.com/excellence/management-matters/2017/03/many-practical-
hurdles-transforming-government/136631/
Robertson-Smith, G., & Markwick, C. (2009). Employee Engagement a Review of Current
Thinking. Sussex: Institute for Employment Studies.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Report-
Institute for Employment Studies.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative science quarterly, 46(4), 655-684.
Royal, M., & Agnew, T. (2011). The enemy of engagement: Put an end to workplace frustration-
-and get the most from your employees. Amacom.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 199

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Priest, H. A., & Guthrie, J. W. (2006). Design, delivery, and evaluation
of training systems. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Third Edition, 472-
512.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
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. B. (2017). Applying the Job Demands-Resources model. Organizational
Dynamics, 2(46), 120-132.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass Business &
Management Series). Jossey Bass Incorporated.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., & Blankenship, M. (2018). Employee Engagement: What We Know and How to
Profit from Doing It. Employment Relations Today, 7-13.
Scherbaum, C. A., Cohen-Charash, Y., & Kern, M. J. (2006). Measuring general self-efficacy: A
comparison of three measures using item response theory. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 1047-1063.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 200

Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 956.
Shepherd, J. L., & Mathews, B. P. (2000). Employee commitment: academic vs practitioner
perspectives. Employee relations, 22(6), 555-575.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-
theory/
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
www.education.com/reference/article/socioculturaltheory/
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative literature review: four emerging perspectives of employee
engagement: an integrative literature review. Human Resource Development
Review, 10(3), 304-328.
Shuck, M., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from the
employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 35(4), 300-325.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 201

Sikora, D. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2014). Strategic human resource practice implementation: The
critical role of line management. Human Resource Management Review, 24(3), 271-281.
Simon, S. S. (2011). The essentials of employee engagement in organizations. Journal of
Contemporary Research in Management, 6(1), 63.
Sine, R. (2018, May 30). Putting the Person at the Center of Performance Management.
Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adp/2018/05/30/putting-the-person-
at-the-center-of-performance-management/#7eaab4c252a7
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4), 653.
Spitzer, D. (1995) Super Motivation. New York: Amacom.
Spitzer, D. (1996). Power rewards: rewards that really motivate. Management Review, 85(5), 45.
Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: where two roads meet. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 53(6), 1038.
Tabrizi, B. (2014, October 27). The Key to Change Is Middle Management. Retrieved from
Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2014/10/the-key-to-change-is-middle-
management.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim
precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123. DOI:
10.1111/j.1750-6570.2006.00725.x

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 202

Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A
taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 23(5), 897. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
033488214?accountid=14749
TINYpulse. (2017). The Broken Bridges of the Workplace. Seattle.
Tuckman, B. (2009). Operant conditioning. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/operant-conditioning/
Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. American journal of Sociology, 84(1), 1-23.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice
climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a
cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517.
Wan, Ong. (2010). Results management: Effective people management to achieve excellent
results. John Wiley & Sons.
Watson, S., Maxwell, G. A., & Farquharson, L. (2006). Line managers’ views on adopting
human resource roles: the case of Hilton (UK) hotels. Employee Relations, 29(1), 30-49.
Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2009). Job engagement in organizations: fad, fashion,
or folderol?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 141-145.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale:
Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of management journal, 41(5),
540-555.
Welbourne, T. (2014). Engaged in What? Creating Connections to Performance. McLean:
Incentive Research Foundation.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 203

Werner, S., Praxedes, M., & Kim, H. G. (2007). The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey
research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 287-295.
White, A. (2016, September 15). The Role of Engagement in Performance Management.
Retrieved from Aberdeen Essentials: http://www.aberdeenessentials.com/hcm-
essentials/role-engagement-performance-management/
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee engagement: A structured review
of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 429-506.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 204

Appendix A
Descriptive Statistics for Constructs/Individual PM Survey Items from 2013 – 2017 Org1 Data
Survey Item Construct M
(%)
SD
(%)
Min
(%)
Max
(%)
In my work unit differences in performance
are recognized in a meaningful way.
Recognition 44 1.79 42 46
Awards in my unit depend on how well
employees do their job.
Recognition 54 1.30 52 55
Employees are recognized for providing
high-quality products and services.
Recognition 62 0.71 61 62
How satisfied are you with the recognition
you receive for doing a good job?
Recognition 55 5.15 51 64
I have enough information to do my job well. Communication 69 4.60 65 77
Discussions with my supervisor about my
performance are worthwhile.
Communication 67 1.67 67 70
How satisfied are you with your involvement
in decisions that affect your job?
Communication 48 2.12 47 50
How satisfied are you with the information
you receive from management on what's
going on in the agency?
Communication 33 0.00 33 33
My performance appraisal is a fair reflection
of my performance.
Appraisals 65 0.71 66 64
In my most recent appraisal, I understood
what I had to do to be rated at different
performance levels.
Appraisals 60 1.30 59 62
Promotions in my work unit are based on
merit.
Appraisals 42 2.83 39 45
My supervisor provides me with constructive
suggestions to improve my job performance.
Appraisals 65 7.73 60 79
Note. These survey items are found on the Org1 Employee Climate Survey and Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 205

Appendix B
Org1 Survey Items Aligned to Organizational Influences
(OCM – ME) Organizational cultural model – the need for manager empowerment to facilitate
organizational change and goal achievement.
 Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the agency.
 How satisfied are you are you with the information you receive from management
about what is going on in the agency?
 Change is communicated well at the agency.
 The organization adapts to change quickly.
(OCS-PI) Organizational cultural setting – the need for policies and incentives that support
increased feedback between managers and employees.
 My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job
performance.
 In my most recent appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different
performance levels.
Note. Not all of these survey items have identical questions in the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey; However, the items were relevant to the analysis of two organizational influences.

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 206

Appendix C
Interview Protocol (Alignment headings are for ease of use during proposal review)
Respondent (Code): ______

Interview conducted via: Phone ___ In Person ___

Time in / Time Out: _____/______

Introduction

This interview is part of the data collection for my dissertation that I am completing as a student
at the University of Southern California. I am exploring the relationship between management
practices, and employee engagement scores at our organization. This study is not sponsored by
the federal government. The protocol has been approved by the Org1 Human Research
Protection Office and the University of Southern California.

As a reminder, your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question at any time. You may
stop the interview at any time. Identifiable information obtained during this study will remain
confidential. Your name will not be recorded in the documentation of the interview, which will
preserve your anonymity.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

Knowledge and Skills Influences

Knowledge of Engagement
1. Can you explain what “employee engagement” is and tell me the outcomes associated with
an engaged worker?
a. How about the negative outcomes?
Knowledge of best practices in performance management and their collective impact on
engagement

2. How does your role as a manager influence employee engagement?
3. Tell me what you think of when you hear the term “performance management.”
a. From your description, can you tell me which parts of performance management do
you think influence employee engagement the most?
b. Are you familiar with task performance and contextual performance?
i. Can you tell me how each affect overall performance of employees
differently?

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 207

c. What goal setting strategies do you utilize with employees?
i. Can you tell me the key ingredients to setting goals as a manager?
ii. Can you give me an example of a SMART goal?
d. What recognition and award strategies do you utilize with employees?
e. Do you use the same strategy with all employees?
f. What is a managers’ role in employee development?
i. Specifically, how would you create an environment that promotes the transfer
of training to employees’ job roles?
g. Can you tell me what strengths-based management is?
i. How much influence do you believe positive reinforcement and feedback have
on employee engagement (and why)?
Knowledge of communication and feedback
4. What are your thoughts regarding communication and feedback in the manager-employee
relationship?
a. What do you believe are the most important aspects of feedback and communication
with regards to employee engagement?
Motivation Influences
Attainment, Utility, and Cost Value in managing for performance and engagement
5. How important is it to you as a manager to engage your employees?
6. Does gaining the confidence of your employees through your management practices make
your feel a sense of accomplishment?
7. Do you value creating interpersonal relationships with subordinates?
a. Why or why not?
8. Is managing employees important to the attainment of your career goals and career
progression?
9. As a manager, does ensuring employees receive feedback, recognition, and career
development take precedence over other professional duties that require your time?
Leadership Self-efficacy that promotes collective efficacy and fosters engagement
10. On a scale of 1 - 5, how confident are you in your ability as a manager?
a. Explain your rating

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 208

11. On a scale of 1 – 5, how confident in your ability to provide feedback to employees that will
enable and improve their performance?
Organizational Influences
12. At the organizational level, what do you think influences your ability to support employee
engagement? (conversation facilitator)

13. When you hear of a new policy or agency level change, what feelings come to mind?
a. What do you think are the agencies strengths are with regards to change?
b. What do you think the agencies weaknesses are with regards to change?

Resistance to change affecting (potentially new policies/changes to) performance
management practices

14. Do you think managers would welcome changes to their performance objectives that held
them accountable for their supervisory duties?
a. For giving more frequent and consistent feedback?
Empowerment to communicate changes to employees and develop their careers
15. Do you feel empowered in your job overall?
a. In what areas of your job do you feel most empowered? What areas do you feel least
empowered?
i. Do you feel empowered to manage employees’ careers?
1. why or why not?
ii. Are you able to communicate agency-level changes well to your employees?
1. why or why not?
Organizational policies needed to prioritize and incentivize frequent and consistent
feedback between manager and employee
16. Does the agency provide clear goals and direction regarding your role as a manager?
a. What are part of your duties are clear?
b. If the direction is not clear, what is the source of the confusion?
17. Do you believe the agency incentivizes effective communication between manager and
direct-reports?
a. why or why not?

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 209

18. Do you believe the agency has any accountability measures in place to ensure managers are
providing feedback, other than on yearly appraisals?
a. why or why not?
Trainings for managers that are specific to the strengthening of employee engagement
19. Do you ever feel overwhelmed with the number of leadership trainings available? Explain.
20. Does your organization have any leadership/manager trainings advertised that specifically
reference managers’ and employee engagement?
a. Do you know which trainings would be most effective to improve the engagement
climate here?
b. Do you see any benefits to having a class focused on employee engagement?

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 210

Appendix D
List of Internal Documents
Document Code Document Name
D1 State of Supervision 2016
D2 State of Supervision 2017
D3 Voice of the Employee 2016
D4 Voice of the Employee 2017
D6 Leader Development Strategy October 2015
D7 Voice of the Supervisor 2016
D8 Voice of the Supervisor 2017
D9 Sample supervisory performance objectives
D10 Org1 Career Guide
D11 FY17 Performance Pay Guide
D12 Leader Development Brochure
D13 Professional Development Guide
D14 Leadership Assessment Report Vol. 1 & 2

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 211

Appendix E
Acronym Key for Alignment and Assessment Matrix
Source & Acronym Description
Past Survey Data
O1Qn Org1 survey items
Interview Data
IQn Interview questions asked during data collection
Org1 Documents
D Internal workforce documents and reports
Knowledge

KC-EE Knowledge – conceptual knowledge of employee engagement
KC-PM Knowledge – conceptual knowledge of performance management
KP-CF Knowledge – procedural knowledge of communication and feedback
Motivation

M-EV Motivation –value in management practices
M-SE Motivation – self-and-collective-efficacy to foster engagement
Organizational

OCM-ME Organizational cultural model – manager empowerment
OCM-RC Organizational cultural model – resistance to change
OCS-PI Organizational cultural setting – alignment of goals and policies
OCS-ET Organizational cultural setting – engagement training for managers

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 212

Detailed KMO Alignment and Assessment Matrix
Category Researcher’s Interview
Data
Org1 Survey Data Org. Documents
Knowledge influences
KC-EE IQn1 -
KC-PM IQn2, IQn3 -

KP-CF IQn4 -
Motivation influences
M-EV IQn5 - IQn9 All Documents
M-SE IQn5, IQn10 - 11 All Documents-
Organizational influences
OCM-RC IQn12 - 14
- -
OCM-ME IQn12, IQn15 O1Qn2, 5, 14, 15 All Documents
OCS-PI IQn12, IQn16 - 18 O1Qn19, O1Qn46 All Documents
OCS-ET IQn12, IQ1n9 - 21
All Documents

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 213

Appendix F
Document Analysis Analytic Coding Results for Assumed KMO Influences

Analytic Codes Documents Used Data Points
Motivation Total 55
M-EV
M-SE

M supported 6 17
M not supported 6 38
Organization Total 8 190
OCM-ME 88
OCM-ME supported 8 70
OCM-ME not supported 7 18
OCS-PI 51
OCS-PI supported 8 38
OCS-PI not supported 6 13
OCS-ET 51
OCS-ET supported 8 47
OCS-ET not supported 4 4
Total Observations 245

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 214

Appendix G
Interview Analytic Coding Results for Assumed KMO Influences
Influence Codes
Data
Points
Knowledge Total 110
KC-EE 10
KC-EE supported 0
KC-EE partial 10
KC-EE not supported 0
KC-PM 90
KC-PM supported 34
Communication and feedback's relationship to engagement. 0
Contextual versus task performance. 10
Goal setting strategies and importance to engagement. 3
Example of a SMART Goal. 8
Recognition strategies and connection to engagement. 2
Managers fundamental role in engagement. 2
Managers role in employee development. 3
Promoting the transfer of training. 3
Strengths based management and engagement. 3
KC-PM not supported 56
Communication and feedback's relationship to engagement. 10
Contextual versus task performance. 0
Goal setting strategies and importance to engagement. 7
Example of a SMART goal. 2
Recognition strategies and connection to engagement. 8
Managers fundamental role in engagement. 8
Managers role in employee development. 7
Promoting the transfer of training. 7

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 215

Strengths-based management and engagement. 7
KP-CF 10
KP-CF supported 2
KP-CF not supported 8
Motivation Total 70
M-EV 50
M-EV supported 13
Value in being a manager.
Attainment of career Goals. 2
Precedence over other duties. 4
Sense of accomplishment. 0
Value interpersonal relationships. 3
Your employees are engaged. 3
M-EV not supported 37
Value in being a manager
Attainment of career goals. 8
Precedence over other duties. 6
Sense of accomplishment. 10
Value interpersonal relationships. 7
Your employees are engaged. 7
M-SE 20
M-SE supported 5
Overall confidence in management ability. 4
Self-efficacy when giving feedback. 1
M-SE not supported 15
Overall confidence in management Ability. 6
Self-efficacy when giving feedback. 9
Organization Total 70
OCM-ME 10

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 216

OCM-ME supported 6
OCM-ME not supported 4
OCM-RC Resistance to change 10
OCM-RC supported 2
OCM-RC not supported 8
OCS-PI 20
OCS-PI supported 16
Agency incentivizes and rewards communication and feedback by
managers.
6
Accountability measures in place to ensure feedback and
communication.
10
OCS-PI not supported 4
Agency incentivizes and rewards communication and feedback by
managers.
4
Accountability measures in place to ensure feedback and
communication.
0
OCS-ET 30
OCS-ET supported 20
Overwhelmed by leadership training offerings. 3
Training specific to engagement. 9
Recommended trainings to improve engagement. 8
OCS-ET not supported 10
Overwhelmed by leadership training offerings. 7
Training specific to engagement. 1
Recommended Trainings to improve engagement. 2

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 217

Appendix H
Post-Training Evaluation for Engagement Instruction

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 218

Appendix I
Instructor Checklist and Observation Form to Supplement Training Evaluation Survey

Instructor Checklist Instructor Observations
Students demonstrated
knowledge of the subject matter.
☐Yes
☐No

Students were engaged during
group discussions.
☐Yes
☐No

Students received instructor
feedback during skills practice.
☐Yes
☐No

Students expressed confidence in
their knowledge after training.
☐Yes
☐No

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 219

Appendix J
Comprehensive Four Level Survey

Employee Engagement Initiative Follow-up
The data derived from this survey is important to the employee engagement initiative at Org1.
1a. The quality of the instruction I received during employee engagement focused training was
strong.
 1  2  3  4  5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1b. The engagement information and training helped me apply what I learned.
 1  2  3  4  5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1c. I would recommend the training to other managers.
 1  2  3  4  5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
2a. The information and training I received helped me understand employee engagement.
 1  2  3  4  5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
2b. The information and training I received helps me enable my empl oy ee s’ performance.
 1  2  3  4  5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
3a. I meet with my team bi-weekly to give agency information, updates, and address concerns.
 1  2  3  4  5
Never Always
3b. I meet with direct reports monthly to discuss goals, performance, and address concerns.
 1  2  3  4  5
Never

Always
3c. I meet with my supervisor quarterly to my discuss goals, performance, and address
concerns.
 1  2  3  4  5
Never Always
4. The employee engagement initiative has increased my grasp of employee engagement and
my proficiency in executing performance management strategies that improve and sustain
engagement on my team.
 1  2  3  4  5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 220

Appendix K
Notional Data Report Derived from Level 1 – 3 Kirkpatrick Model Metrics

11%
73%
79%
55%
89%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Manager
Training
Completed
Satisfaction Instructor
Observed
Engagement
Instructor
Observed
Knowledge
Relevance Value
Quarterly Training Metrics and First Year Results
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year Results
Start Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Manager meets Bi-Weekly 12% 81% 85% 85% 83%
Manager meets Monthly 5% 60% 71% 74% 79%
Satisfaction with communication 30% 75% 81% 82% 86%
Satisfaction with appraisals 51% 69% 76% 80% 81%
Training Score 0% 60% 54% 68% 82%
Employee Engagement 30% 37% 48% 55% 62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% POSITIVE
Employee Engagement Initiative Progress Summary

IMPROVING ENGAGEMENT 221

Appendix L
Org1 Five Year Engagement Metrics Aligned to Demographics 2013 - 2017

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

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

PDF

Officer performance appraisal program management: an evaluative case study

PDF

Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Parent engagement in higher education and its effect on first generation degree attainment: an innovation study

PDF

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

Asset Metadata

Creator Liebler, Michael S. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/28/2019

Defense Date 03/12/2019

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

Tag Clark and Estes,employee engagement,engagement,evaluation,federal government workforce,federal managers,gap analysis,human capital,Kirkpatrick,KMO,knowledge influences,managers,motivation influences,OAI-PMH Harvest,OPM,organizational barriers,organizational change,organizational communication,organizational goals,performance enablement,performance management,supervisors,viewpoint survey

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kim (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Wilcox, Alexandra (committee member)

Creator Email mikeliebler1@gmail.com,mliebler@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-152547

Unique identifier UC11660638

Identifier etd-LieblerMic-7322.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-152547 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LieblerMic-7322.pdf

Dmrecord 152547

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Liebler, Michael S.

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