Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Transportation security officer engagement in the Transportation Security Administration: a study of a promising practice
(USC Thesis Other)
Transportation security officer engagement in the Transportation Security Administration: a study of a promising practice
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: TSO ENGAGEMENT 1
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICER ENGAGEMENT IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION:
A STUDY OF A PROMISING PRACTICE
by
Tanya M. Gregory
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
August 2018
Copyright 2018 Tanya M. Gregory
ENGAGEMENT
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 8
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 8
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 9
Organizational Performance Status ........................................................................................... 10
Related Literature ...................................................................................................................... 12
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance ................................................... 15
Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................................................. 19
Purpose of Project and Questions ............................................................................................. 19
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 20
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................... 24
Employee Engagement ............................................................................................................. 24
Factors that Influence Employee Engagement ......................................................................... 26
Antecedents that Influence Employee Engagement ................................................................. 32
Measuring Employee Engagement ........................................................................................... 34
Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance ........................................................ 35
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ............................................................ 36
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO) Influences ................................................ 39
ENGAGEMENT
3
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY. ……………………………………………………51
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder’ Knowledge and Motivation in the
Organization Context ................................................................................................................ 51
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................................... 56
Data Collection and Instrumentations ....................................................................................... 58
Documents ................................................................................................................................ 62
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 65
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 70
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 76
Synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 76
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 78
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 103
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 105
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................. 106
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 120
Evaluation and Implementation .............................................................................................. 132
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................... 133
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 135
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 138
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 138
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 140
ENGAGEMENT
4
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 158
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................. 158
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form/Information Sheet ...................................................... 163
Appendix C: Recruitment e'-mail ........................................................................................... 169
Appendix D: In Vivo Coding ................................................................................................. 170
Appendix E: A Priori Coding ................................................................................................ 173
Appendix F: Axial/Analytic Coding ...................................................................................... 175
Appendix G: Pattern and Theme Coding ............................................................................... 179
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stakeholder Goals ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 2: Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................... 41
Table 3: Motivation
Influences .............................................................................................. 46
Table 4: Organization Influences ............................................................................................ 49
Table 5: Participant Table ....................................................................................................... 58
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge
Influences
and
Recommendations ............................... 107
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .................................. 111
Table 8: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ............................... 118
Table 9: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ................. 123
Table 10: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers .............. 124
Table 11: Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors ....................... 125
Table 12: Components of Learning for the Program ............................................................ 129
Table 13: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .............................................. 130
ENGAGEMENT
5
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wonderful husband Sherman, without whom my
journey through this program would have been considerably more difficult and much less
rewarding. Thank you Sherm for your boundless love, encouragement, adoration, admiration,
belief, laughter, editing skills, and never-ending, unwavering support. You make every aspect of
my life more meaningful and beautiful. You are the love of my life and I thank God each day for
our wonderful life together. We are one, so congratulations Dr. Gregory.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my beautiful, wonderful, fabulous daughter Brittney
who gives me joy by her mere existence. Thank you for your unwavering belief that your mom
can do anything. Thank you for being my cheerleader, PR person, and personal stylist. God
answered so many prayers when He blessed Sherm and I with you. I love you with all my being.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my loved ones who have gone home,
and whom I deeply wish were here to share this important milestone with me. Momma and
Daddy, I miss you, and hope that you are proud of me. Rita, my lovely sister, I miss you and
wish you were here to achieve your own milestones so I could be the loudest voice cheering.
ENGAGEMENT
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is the result of the special love and support I received from the people
who are near and dear to my heart. I would like to acknowledge three of my families, and the
person who was the catalyst for this USC journey for all their love and support during this
doctoral quest.
First, my baby sister Kim, who is my biggest fan, and makes me feel like I am the best
big sister in the world. Thank you for your love and exuberance for whatever I do, especially
during this doctoral journey. I am looking forward to attending your baccalaureate graduation as
your number one fan. Secondly, I would like to thank my big brother Milton for sparking a love
of learning in his baby sister more than 50 years ago, and for starting me on this journey. I am
deeply indebted to you for teaching me so much. Lastly, I’d like to thank my eldest big brother
Richard (Poochie) and my big sister Vanessa. Thank you for being steady constants in my life
that I always count on no matter where I am in the world. Now, I’d like to thank my second
family, my in-laws.
I thank my mother-in-law, aka Momma, Bobbie Dozier for her love and support in all
things. Thanks to my bothers-in-law Ray and Dwight and my sister-in-law Terrace for always
making me feel so important to you. Next, I would like to thank my framily (yes I made up a
word) – my friends who have become family over our 30-year friendships.
Immense love and appreciation go to Marvin, Darnella, Keith, Pauline, Juene and my
entire friend circle for all the love, acceptance, encouragement, support, understanding, and pride
you have shown me throughout this voyage. All of you have blessed and enriched my life in so
many ways since we met in Turkey all those years ago. I thank and love you all.
ENGAGEMENT
7
Next, I would like to thank Felita Boldin, who holds a special place in my heart, for
always inspiring me to reach higher heights and for being the catalyst for this journey. If you had
not encouraged me to abandon the thought of a second masters and to continue the search for the
right doctorate program, I would have settled. Thank you for blessing and inspiring me with your
big, audacious thinking, your intellect, wisdom, experiences, care and concern, and classiness.
You are a phenomenal woman of God, and I thank Him for bringing you into my life.
I would also like to thank Ms. Judy Mundy for always showing me warmth, kindness and
for making me feel special. When I did not think I could read another article or write another
paper, you always gave me an encouraging word that re-energized me. Thank you for being a
true blessing to me.
Lastly, I would like to thank the entire Rossier faculty for all the support, care, and talent
you put into supporting my cohort members and me. You have been great partners during this
fantastic OCL voyage. I would especially like to thank Dr. Kim Hirabayashi for your laser-
focused guidance that kept me on track through all the panicked phone calls, e-mails, and 2SC
messages. Many thanks to Lucia, Jasmine, and the entire program office for your support and
kindness through each e-mail, phone call, and immersion face-to-face exchange. To my
dissertation committee members, Dr. Janet Tucker and Dr. Alan Green, and all my OCL
professors, thank you for everything you imparted to me. Lastly, thanks to all my cohort
members. It is you, above all, who made this journey so special. Thank you for sharing of
yourselves so generously during classes, immersions, and overall during our doctoral journey
together. God bless you all, and best wishes for life after completion of the OCL program.
ENGAGEMENT
8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Employee engagement has received increasingly more focus in recent years, and it is
important to the Federal workforce because higher engagement levels correlate to better Federal
agency outcomes. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM, 2016) defines employee
engagement as an employee’s sense of purpose that is evident in his or her display of dedication,
persistence, and effort in his or her work, or overall attachment to his or her organization and its
mission. According to Gallup, Inc. (2015) employee engagement varies among U.S. employees,
with 33% of the employee’s surveyed reporting active engagement at work. Research conducted
by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (2008) reported variation in the
engagement levels among different groups of Federal employees. The Merit Systems Protection
Board is an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the Executive Branch that serves as the
guardian of the Federal merit system. It was reported that one-third of Federal employees are
engaged (35.3%), just under half (47.2%) are somewhat engaged, and 17.5% are not engaged.
The problem of variation in employee engagement levels is important to study because a
significant relationship exists between the level of employee engagement in an agency and
various agency outcomes. For example, engaged employees in the Federal government have less
intention to leave their current agency, use less sick leave, and work in agencies that produce
better programmatic results (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2008). The OPM (2016)
states that employee engagement is a leading indicator of effective organizational performance,
and improving and promoting employee engagement should be the goal for all levels of a federal
agency, from the front line employee to the agency head. The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is one such federal agency, and is the focus of the research described in
ENGAGEMENT
9
this dissertation.
The remainder of this chapter includes a description of TSA as an organization, its
mission, performance status, and performance goal. Also included is a literature review, which
provides basic information on the general concepts, elements, and factors about employee
engagement. The importance of a promising practice project, stakeholder descriptions and goals,
research questions, methodological framework, and definitions will all be explained, and a
description of the study’s organization will complete this chapter. Lastly, further information in
subsequent chapters will provide information specific to the problem of practice in this study of
Transportation Security Officer (TSO) engagement.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a federal agency within the
Department of Homeland Security that has authority to secure the American traveling public in
the United States and abroad (Department of Homeland Security, 2016). The TSA’s mission is to
protect the nation’s transportation systems and ensure freedom of movement for people and
commerce. The agency’s vision is to provide the most effective transportation security in the
most efficient way as a high performing counterterrorism organization (Transportation Security
Administration, 2016). The agency was established after the September 11
th
terrorist attacks, as a
result the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was enacted by the 107
th
Congress and
signed into law on November 19, 2001. The organizational structure of TSA includes 440
federalized airports located across the United States, with TSA headquarters located in
Arlington, Virginia. And the core values that guide its approximately 55,000 members are
Integrity, Innovation, and Team Spirit.
ENGAGEMENT
10
The majority of TSA’s employees are comprised of 47,000 Transportation Security
Officers (TSO), who accomplish the bulk of the agency’s mission (Transportation Security
Administration, 2016). Transportation Security Officers provide security and protection of air
travelers, airports, and aircraft by performing security searches and screening of passengers,
controlling entry and exit points, interacting with the public, and operating various screening
equipment and technology. Following established procedures, TSOs screen for security threats
and prohibited items and write incident reports. Transportation Security Officer duties often
require weekend, evening and holiday work (Transportation Security Administration, 2016).
According to TSA’s Office of Human Capital (OHC), the structure of the TSO group
includes more than 26,700 men and 20,800 women. The TSO population is comprised of 43%
Caucasian, 24% is African American, 23 % Hispanic, 5% Asian, approximately 1% American
Indian or Alaskan, and 2% mixed race. Nearly 80% of TSOs are full-time employees and 20%
are part-time. The average time of service for a TSO is six years, with an average salary of
$39,258. The attrition rate for TSOs in 2016 was 28%, and was more than 15% for 2017.
In 2016 TSOs across the agency screened more than two million passengers daily at
airports across the country. According to a TSA Office of Human Capital 2017 report the
enterprise has experienced challenges with frustration among TSOs, related to understaffing and
lack of time to complete tasks, this negatively impacted TSO engagement.
Organizational Performance Status
In early 2015 TSOs at several airports across TSA failed to detect 97% of the concealed
prohibited items carried by assessors during Department of Homeland Security Office of the
Inspector General’s (OIG) testing of TSA’s checkpoint operations and technology
(Transportation Security Administration, 2016). In November 2015 the OIG testified before
ENGAGEMENT
11
Congress about several security gaps that compromised the organization’s effectiveness and
ability to execute its mission (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, 2015). Covert testing of TSA operations revealed security gaps that
included passenger screening process failures. The OIG report explained that the problems that
caused the failures were not new and had been occurring for several years. The OIG further
testified that the screening performance issues had been reported, but the findings were swept
under the rug and ignored (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, 2015). The OIG testimony highlighted that TSA’s leadership refused to
address operational failures that have led to diminished organizational performance. Although
TSA identified several factors that contributed to poor organizational performance in screening
operations at some airports, other airports performed well. The TSA considered employee
engagement as a key influence on organizational performance.
According to the MSPB (2008) there is a significant relationship between employee
engagement and organizational performance. In response to the OIG report, TSA conducted
more than 30 focus groups to understand the status of employee engagement in the agency, the
factors that influence engagement, and engagement’s impact on employee performance.
Additionally, in 2017 the OHC administered the OHC Employee Engagement Survey to
employees across the agency, to include the 47,000 TSOs who are the front-line operators for
TSA. The results indicated that there were opportunities to improve TSO engagement across the
enterprise. The results also identified several airports with highly engaged TSOs. This study
sought to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that created high TSO
engagement, and how those elements can be replicated to improve low TSO engagement levels
by 10% at airports across the country.
ENGAGEMENT
12
Related Literature
Employee engagement has been a topic of interest for organizations since William Kahn
first introduced it in the Academy of Management Journal in 1990. Macey and Schneider (2008)
defined employee engagement as a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral components associated with individual role performance. Saks (2008)
describes engagement as an employee’s mental and emotional investment in his or her work and
in contributing to his or her employer’s success. And Shuck and Wollard (2010) distinctly
defined employee engagement as an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
state directed toward desired organizational outcomes. The number of definitions for engagement
is as numerous as the theories for engagement. Saks and Gruman (2014) suggest that there
continues to be confusion and lack of agreement among scholars and practitioners regarding the
meaning and distinctiveness of the word engagement. Although this paragraph provides different
definitions of employee engagement, the study uses the OPM (2016) definition: Engagement is
an employee’s sense of purpose that is evident in his or her display of dedication, persistence,
and effort in his or her work or overall attachment to his or her organization and its mission.
According to Saks and Gruman (2014) there are several theories of employee
engagement that guide research on the subject. One of the first theories originated from Kahn
(1990), and indicates that a person’s degree of engagement is a function of the experiences with
three psychological conditions: psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and
psychological availability. Psychological meaningfulness involves the extent to which people
derive meaning from their work, and feel that they are receiving a return on investment of
themselves in the performance of their role. Psychological safety refers to being able to express
one’s true self without fear of negative consequences to one’s self-image, status, or career.
ENGAGEMENT
13
Organizational social systems that are predictable, consistent, and nonthreatening provide a
greater sense of psychological safety. Psychological availability refers to the belief that one has
the physical, emotional, and psychological resources required to invest one’s self in performing
effectively in a role. Łaba and Geldenhuys (2016) state that psychological availability influences
an employee’s ability to cope with work demands. And when an individual believes that he or
she does not have the necessary resources (knowledge and motivation) they are likely to reduce
activities in order to reduce stress. Employees will be more engaged in workplaces that provide
the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary to perform in a role. In the 2016
focus groups sessions conducted by OHC, TSOs expressed frustration with a lack of human
resources and time to complete tasks. The frustrations that TSOs’ described contributed to them
feeling overwhelmed, stressed, and disengaged.
Other theories on engagement explain the concept from different angles. Maslach,
Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) theorized that engagement is the opposite of job burnout. Burnout is
described as the result of high job demands, which leads to exhaustion and lack of job resources,
which leads to withdrawal from behaviors. Lastly, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) discuss
engagement related to stress in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. The JD-R model is an
occupational stress theory that suggests that strain is a response to imbalance between demands
on the individuals and stress that he or she experiences. The theories detailed in this section
provide more specification of what engagement is, and explains some of the contribution to the
study of engagement. Furthermore, problems with employee engagement are not unique to TSA.
Engagement is a phenomenon that impacts organizations across industries. According to
Gallup, Inc.’s (2015) description of the American workplace 33% of U.S. employees are
engaged at work. More than 50% of employees are not engaged and 17% actively disengaged.
ENGAGEMENT
14
Furthermore, employee engagement has been in a static state and has consistently averaged less
than 33%. Although employee engagement has been at a static state for several years, it varied
from organization to organization (Gallop, 2015). The report also described female employees
as being more engaged than male employees. The factors influence high employee engagement
levels, include the following (Gallop, 2015):
1. Someone, such as a supervisor, cares about the employee;
2. The employee was given recent recognition or praise for good work;
3. Expectations of the employee are clear and understood by him or her;
4. The employee has all the resources needed to accomplish the work; and
5. The employee receives encouragement in his or her development.
This study examined the promising practices that promoted high engagement, and by doing so
TSA can apply strategies that have been proven to produce highly engaged TSOs.
Importance of a Promising Practice Project
It was important to examine the TSA’s performance in relations to the agency’s goal of
improving TSO engagement levels 10% at airports with low engagement by 2020 as a promising
practice for two reasons. First, studying promising practices identified the key influences that
promote high engagement in TSOs and can be replicated in airport environments across the
agency. Second, studying promising practices identified where organizational resources should
be focused to produce higher levels of TSO engagement in support of organizational
performance and mission accomplishment.
According to Leseure, Bauer, Birdi, Neely, and Denyer (2004) promising practices are
useful and form a coherent, integrated whole, which can be described as a commonly repeatable
configuration of distinct elements. Davies and Kochhar (2000) suggest that the consequences of
ENGAGEMENT
15
failing to study and select promising practices can lead to trial and error actions, fire-fighting,
and sub-optimization of performance due to the following:
• No real understanding of the root cause of the problem;
• No understanding of the cause and effect relationships between different areas of
performance;
• No real understanding of the practices being recommended as solutions;
• No measurement or review of the effects of implementing practices.
Applying promising practices generates higher levels of performance in any context. Examples
of promising practices, that ultimately became best practices, include Total Quality Management
(TQM), the adoption of quality certification systems (ISO 9000), and lean manufacturing
(Leseure, Bauer, Birdi, Neely, & Denyer, 2004).
Davies and Kochhar (2000) also indicate that there is a relationship between promising
practices and organizational performance, based on their review of relevant literature. Relating
promising practices and measures make it possible to identify the practices, which can be
considered the best by highlighting the strengths of the effects they have on performance.
Additionally, indication of where adverse effects may occur as a result of implementing a
practice can reduce any negative effects on operational performance.
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance
Since 2012 TSA’s goal has been to improve the satisfaction and engagement level of its
employees. Transportation Security Officers have consistently voiced their lack of engagement
through the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). According to the Office of Personnel
Management (2016) the FEVS is a tool that measures employees' perceptions of whether, and to
ENGAGEMENT
16
what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agencies.
Several questions regarding senior leaders, supervisors, and the work environment comprise the
FEVS employee engagement index (EEI), which are antecedents to engagement. When TSA-
DHS team subject matter experts searched for root causes of poor TSO performance in screening
operations during covert tests in 2015, the problem of variation in TSO engagement was
illuminated (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
2015). Using focus group interviews with TSOs across the agency, the TSA Office of Human
Capital (OHC) internal data collection efforts showed that there were challenges related to TSO
engagement.
Based on TSO’s performance during 2015 covert testing, FEVS scores, and focus groups
findings, the following organizational goal was set by the researcher in collaboration with OHC:
By the end of 2020, TSO engagement will improve 10% at airports with low engagement using
recommendations based on engagement promising practices, to improve security screening and
organizational effectiveness. The suggested implementations of the recommendations identified
in this study used existing organizational metrics designed to determine goal attainment. In 2017
OHC surveyed 18,000 employees to measure the engagement levels of employees across the
agency. The results revealed 10 airports that were considered to have highly engaged employees,
including TSOs. The top two airports were studied to identify the promising practices that could
be replicated at other airports to increase TSO engagement.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are three stakeholder groups within the TSA that directly contribute to or benefit
from improving the engagement levels of TSOs. These stakeholders are the TSOs themselves;
the Leadership Development Branch within TSA’s Office of Training and Development (OTD),
ENGAGEMENT
17
and the mid-level leaders across the agency. First, TSOs are the frontline operators who screen
passengers and luggage to ensure prohibited items do not enter the sterile airport area
(Transportation Security Administration, 2016). Engagement is essential for this stakeholder
group because TSOs are at the principle focal point of TSA’s mission; they are the best defense
against security threats. The TSO stakeholder group comprises of 78% of TSA’s workforce and
is functionally organized within the TSA Office of Security Operations (OSO). According to
Simon (2011) when engagement scores are high, employees are more productive and focused.
Focused and committed transportation officers are critical to effective security screening and the
safety and freedom of American aviation.
Second, the TSA leader group includes employees who are mid-level leaders at the J and
K band levels in offices throughout the organization. Mid-level leaders lead, plan, and direct
programs, and head organizations (offices, branches, divisions, etc.) within TSA (Transportation
Security Administration, 2016). According to OPM (2015) strong leaders are important to the
creation of a positive organizational climate. Strong leaders also tend to possess the ability to
communicate goals and priorities (cognitive portion of engagement), motivate employees
(leading to behaviors), establish trust, enforce contingencies for exceptional and unacceptable
behavior, and generate commitment. Leadership can also influence intrinsic work experiences by
gathering ideas and communicating expectations and feedback. The degree to which TSOs, feel a
connection to the job being performed can be enhanced or diminished by the leader’s ability to
effectively communicate job expectations, give performance feedback, and provide the
opportunity for employees to be involved in decisions that impact their work.
Lastly, the TSA Leadership Development Branch (LDB) within the OTD is charged
with developing leaders to ensure they have the knowledge and skills needed to lead the TSA
ENGAGEMENT
18
workforce toward mission accomplishment (Transportation Security Administration, 2016). The
LDB is comprised of program specialists and managers who administer leadership programs
designed to develop existing and future leaders, and ensure TSA has a strong, effective
leadership corp. The LDB is a key stakeholder because it is responsible for several education,
training, and development programs that enable effective leadership performance. In 2018 the
LDB trained mid-level leaders to develop their skills directly related to engagement such as
communications skills, team development, mentoring, and trust building. A well-trained
leadership cadre is essential to supporting the increase of TSO engagement across the agency.
Table 1
Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect the
Nation’s transportation system to ensure the freedom of movement for people and
commerce.
Organizational Performance Goal
Transportation
Security Officers
By the end of 2020,
Transportation Security
Officers (TSO) will have
knowledge of and will be
able to regulate their
levels of engagement.
Leadership Development
Branch
By the end of 2017, the
LDB will develop training
to improve leadership and
communication skills for
all mid-level leaders at the
J and K grades.
TSA Leadership
By mid-2018, 50% of TSA
mid-level leaders promoted
in 2017 will complete leadership
development training.
By the end of 2020, TSO engagement will improve 10% at airports with low engagement
using recommendations based on engagement promising practices, to improve security
screening and organizational effectiveness.
ENGAGEMENT
19
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes,
this study focused on the TSO stakeholder group only. The TSO group was chosen as the focus
of this research study because the group executes the largest part of TSA’s mission and the
engagement of each TSO is critical to mission success. With more than 47,000 out of
approximately 55,000 employees, TSOs comprise the largest stakeholder group in TSA.
Transportation Security Officers conduct all passenger and property screenings, and their duties
include the following activities:
1. Operating various screening equipment and technology to identify dangerous objects in
baggage, cargo and on passengers, and preventing those objects from being transported
onto aircraft;
2. Performing searches and screening, which may include physical interaction with
passengers (e.g., pat-downs, search of property, etc.), conducting bag searches and
lifting/carrying bags, bins, and property; and
3. Controlling terminal entry and exit points.
The TSO stakeholder group is essential to the accomplishment of TSA’s mission to protect the
nation’s transportation systems, including aviation. Engaged TSOs are critical to preventing
terrorist attacks by screening for prohibited items that could cause aircraft damage and loss of
life.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this research project was to study TSA’s performance related to a larger
problem of practice: TSO engagement’s impact on organizational performance. The analysis
focused on the assets in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
ENGAGEMENT
20
resources. While a typical study would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the TSO
stakeholder group was studied in this project. As such, the questions that guided this promising
practice study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that create
high levels of engagement in Transportation Security Officers (TSO) and can be
replicated at airports across the agency to improve TSO engagement levels by the
end of the 2020 calendar year?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for replication to improve TSO
engagement levels at airports experiencing low TSO engagement levels?
The goal of the study was to understand the factors that influence TSOs to be more engaged,
from the TSO and organizational perspectives. The new knowledge gained from the study led to
recommendations that may provide solutions that result in increased TSO engagement, improved
individual performance, and guidance for future studies.
Methodological Framework
This study used a modified version of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic
Conceptual Framework and a qualitative data gathering and analysis approach to study the TSO
group in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources. Creswell (2014)
describes the qualitative approach to inquiry as one that involves exploring and understanding
the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The methodology
involved addressing emerging questions and procedures, collecting data in the participants’
setting, analyzing the data inductively and deductively, building from particulars to general
ENGAGEMENT
21
themes, and making interpretations of the meaning of the data. The TSO stakeholder group was
studied using interviews, document reviews, and analyses.
The qualitative approach in this research followed the basic interpretive study, as
described by Creswell (2014). With the basic interpretive study, I sought to understand the
perspectives and meanings of engagement for TSOs at selected airports. The airports were
chosen based on the results of the Employee Engagement Survey (EES) conducted by OHC in
2017. The EES was used to identify the airports, and TSOs assigned to those airports, identified
as having high employee engagement. Interviews and document reviews comprised the
qualitative portion of this study. Participants in the study were selected for interview using
convenience sampling.
The design of this study resulted in rich descriptive data that revealed deeper insights into
the problem of practice. The study revealed information on promising practices that promote
high engagement in TSOs, and recommendations that support replication at airports across TSA
to increase TSO engagement levels where they are currently low.
Definitions
The purpose of the definition section is to provide operational definitions of the key terms
and acronyms specific to TSA.
Category X airport (CAT X): Airports with annual passenger boardings of 5 million or
more and the number of international boardings are1 million or more (Transportation Security
Administration, 2016).
Category I airport (CAT I): Airports with annual passenger boardings is either 1.25
million or more, but less than 5 million, but the number of annual international passenger
boardings is less than 1 million (Transportation Security Administration, 2016).
ENGAGEMENT
22
Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (OIG): An office in
the Department of Homeland Security that conducts and supervises independent audits,
investigations, and inspections of the programs and operations. The OIG recommends ways for
DHS components to carry out their responsibilities in the most effective, efficient, and as
economically as possible (Transportation Security Administration, 2016).
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS): a survey tool that measures employees'
perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations
are present in their agencies (Transportation Security Administration, 2016).
Federal Security Director: The ranking TSA authority responsible for the leadership and
coordination of TSA security activities at the nation’s commercial airports. Federal Security
Directors provide day-to-day operational direction for federal security at the airport or airports to
which the FSD is assigned.
J and K grades: Employees who lead, plan and direct programs, and head organizations
(offices, branches, divisions, etc.) within an agency (Transportation Security Administration,
2016).
Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Serves as the chief human resources agency
and personnel policy manager for the Federal Government. The agency provides human
resources leadership and support to Federal agencies. The OPM directs human resources and
employee management services, administers retirement benefits, manages healthcare and
insurance programs, and manages the employment process.
Organization of the Project
The report for this study is organized into five chapters. This chapter, Chapter 1, provides
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about TSA, TSOs, and
ENGAGEMENT
23
employee engagement. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders as well as the initial
concepts of the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework were also introduced. Chapter 2
provides a review of current literature related to the scope of the study and is organized into
seven sections. Section one is an overview of the construct of employee engagement; section two
examines the factors that influence employee engagement; section three discusses the
antecedents of employee engagement; section four addresses some of the measurements of
employee engagement; section five discusses organizational performance as an outcome of
employee engagement; and section six explains the Clark and Estes Framework which provides
the architecture for this study. Lastly, section seven of Chapter 2 explores the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational elements of the framework that are relevant to this study of
variation in TSO engagement. Chapter 3 of the study discusses the research design and methods
for data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 is a discussion of the findings that emerged from
analyses of qualitative data collected from TSOs at selected airports. Chapter 5 provides
recommendations, based on the findings and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as
a plan for evaluating and implementing the recommendations.
ENGAGEMENT
24
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chapter Two examines key factors that influence high engagement levels demonstrated
by Transportation Security Officers (TSO) at some of the airports within the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), and the promising practices that promote high employee
engagement. The review begins with general research on employee engagement, followed by an
overview of the factors that influence engagement, such as leadership support and self-efficacy.
Next, the study discusses the connection between employee engagement and performance. A
discussion of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework, and the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact TSO engagement, to close this chapter.
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement has become a top organizational priority for senior leaders who
understand that a highly engaged workforce can increase productivity, innovation, and bottom-
line performance (Harvard Business Review, 2013; Office of Personnel Management/OPM,
2015, 2016). While producing positive gains for an organization, highly engaged employees can
also reduce the cost associated with hiring and retention. According to the Office of Personnel
Management (2015a), the importance of promoting employee engagement in the Federal
government is widely recognized as a strategic imperative. The President’s Management Agenda
(Office of Personnel Management, 2014) emphasizes the importance of developing and
sustaining an engaged, innovative, and productive federal workforce.
Background
The OPM (2016) defines employee engagement as an employee’s sense of purpose that is
evident in his or her display of dedication, persistence, and effort in work or overall attachment
to the organization and its mission. According to Government Executive (2013) employee
ENGAGEMENT
25
satisfaction and employee engagement are similar concepts on the surface. However, employee
satisfaction occurs when employees get their basic needs met. Satisfied employees are happy to
do what is asked of them, but little more. According to the Merit Systems Protection Board
(2008) engaged employees are motivated to do more than the bare minimum needed in order to
keep their jobs. Engaged employees are more productive and offer innovative ideas that will help
the organization grow and prosper. Engaged employees immerse themselves into their job
because they feel that they have a vested interest in it. In recent years, interest, research, and
discussions on employee engagement have grown dynamically.
Eldor and Vigoda-Gadot (2017) found that growing interest in employee engagement was
triggered after the term “burnout” was used to describe engagement in the 1990s. The first
mention of employee engagement appeared in the article Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work written by William Kahn (1990). Kahn believed that
employees demonstrate momentary attachments and detachments while performing in a role at
work. Other early notions of engagement were at the opposite end of the continuum between
engagement and burnout. Engagement came to be characterized by high levels of vigor,
involvement, and efficacy, the direct opposite of the dimensions of burnout, exhaustion,
cynicism, and ineffectiveness. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leither (2001) produced the first major
work on employee engagement after Kahn (1990), which was another developmental theory on
employee engagement. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) pioneered the approach of reaching
across academic boundaries for definitions of employee engagement, conceptualizing the
concept as the positive antithesis to burnout. Harter, Schmidt, and Keyes, (2003) published the
first study examining at the business unit level between the employee engagement-satisfaction
and business unit outcomes. The first empirical research testing Kahn’s 1990 conceptualization
ENGAGEMENT
26
of employee engagement was published by May, Gilson, and Harter (2004). Saks (2008) made a
connection between engagement and social exchange theory where an employee repays his or
her organization through his or her level of engagement. Czarnowsky (2008) wrote about
Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study, which was the American
Society for Training and Development’s (ASTD, now ATD: Association for Talent
Development) first major publication on employee engagement. Lastly, Shuck and Wollard
(2010) state that, the popularity of the book First Break All the Rules (Buckingham & Coffman,
1999) helped the term employee engagement become an overnight sensation in the business-
consulting world.
In recent years, organizations have become increasingly interested in employee
engagement and its impact on organizational performance. The myriad of research studies has
provided valuable information that can help organizations promote positive employee
engagement, including those factors that influence engagement.
Factors that Influence Employee Engagement
The individual factors of employee engagement are also known as the drivers of
employee engagement, based on the writings of Andrew and Sofian (2012). To inspire
employees into achieving high involvement and commitment to their jobs and organizational
roles, it is imperative to identify the main individual factors that can motivate employees to
execute their functions effectively and efficiently. Mortimer (2010) remarks that an
organization’s culture needs to support behaviors that enable employee engagement. An
organization with a positive and enabling culture can help employees feel that they have some
level of ownership in how the organization operates. A positive and enabling culture can be
positively linked to satisfaction with the organization; this includes job satisfaction, work
ENGAGEMENT
27
behavior, performance, a sense of belonging, and a display of discretionary behaviors (also
known as ‘organizational citizenship behaviors’). Mortimer (2010) goes on to describe several
factors that may contribute to employee engagement. The discussion of these factors begins with
leadership.
Leadership
Mortimer (2010) suggests that leaders need to actively demonstrate the organization’s
values from a place of integrity and accountability, if there is to be meaningful engagement from
employees. When employers deliver on their commitments by acting in ways that meet
employees’ expectations, employees’ sense of fair play and trust in the organization is
reinforced. This generates a positive unwritten mutual obligation between employer and
employee (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2009). It is the role of
organizational leaders to create a balance to ensure that the enterprise does not value tasks and
processes over people.
Leaders also need to ensure that they marry the need for being ethical with being
effective and authentically valuing staff with meeting targets. Leaders also need to have a true
appreciation for the impact that their decisions and behaviors have on the workforce. Wallace
and Trinka’s (2009) research indicates that engagement occurs organically when leaders inspire
and communicate the importance of employees’ efforts in organizational success. When leaders
provide support and demonstrate that they consider employees’ work important and meaningful,
employee’s interest, communications, and engagement may increase.
Communication
Mortimer (2010) explains that communication links employees to corporate values, and
when good communication is valued by an organization, it becomes more of a priority for
ENGAGEMENT
28
employees. Communication covers a range of both tangible and intangible methods to share
information. In larger organizations, employees may access information on a need to know basis
and ignore enterprise messages as not relevant to them. Employees must take responsibility for
accessing information. Mortimer (2010) also recommends conducting a communication audit to
gain a greater understanding of the communication dynamics in the organization. This can be a
departmental or organizational audit. Additionally, leaders should prioritize regular team
meetings as a critical part of departmental communication, which may enable employees to offer
their views on how to improve communications both within their departments and throughout the
whole organization, which can promote organizational citizenship and strong co-worker
relationships.
Organizational Citizenship and Co-worker Relationship
Mortimer (2010) defines organizational citizenship as the tendency for people at work to
help each other and put in extra effort beyond what is required. These are discretionary behaviors
that are not required for the job and are often not recognized by any formal reward system. A
strong sense of citizenship can often correlate to a strong psychological attachment to the
organization. A strong attachment could result in employees who are more motivated towards
making a meaningful contribution to the organization, which embodies employee engagement.
Additionally, employees who report having friends at work have a higher sense of commitment
to the organization and support for their colleagues, and that can reinforce their psychological
contract.
Anitha (2014) indicates that supportive and trusting interpersonal relationships, as well as
a supportive team, also promotes employee engagement. Factors include talent, team climate,
collective pride, commitment, leadership, purpose, communication, continuous improvement,
ENGAGEMENT
29
team ethics, and team bonding. Having a friend or friends at work is a strong predictor for being
a happy and productive employee (Anitha, 2014). Mortimer (2010) recommends that leaders
recognize that employees who have friends at work are seven times more likely to be engaged in
their jobs. If employers can make the workplace conducive to friendships, employees are more
likely to be happier, more engaged, productive and more likely to embrace and demonstrate the
organization’s values.
Organizational Values
Schroeder (2002) explains that organizational values have an enormous influence on the
choices, beliefs, and behaviors of employees because they give an organization purpose. An
organizational values statement describes how an organization behaves, what is important to it,
what it stands for, and how its employees behave. Genuine values should be evident in the
behaviors of an organization’s leaders, and all staff, to consistently ensure the espoused values
are more than a paper exercise. When employees hold values that match the values of their
employer, they tend to identify more closely with the organization. To positively influence
engagement, leaders need to establish corporate values and consistently demonstrate them in
their behaviors. It is also important for leaders to address the work environment and the well-
being of employees when seeking to influence engagement.
Work Environment and Well Being
Anitha (2014) describes the work environment as one of the most significant factors that
influence an employee’s engagement level. Research studies by Harter, Schmidt, and Keyes
(2003); Holbeche and Springett (2003); May, Gilson, and Harter (2004); and Rich, LePine, and
Crawford (2010) found that employee engagement generates from various aspects of the work
environment. Leaders who foster a supportive work environment display concern for employees’
ENGAGEMENT
30
needs and feelings, and provide positive feedback to employees. Employees are also encouraged
to voice their concerns, to develop new skills, and to solve work-related problems. Towers
Perrin’s 2003 Talent Report indicates that the most important driver of engagement is senior
management’s interest in employee well being. A meaningful work environment that helps
employees have a focus for their work and promotes interpersonal harmony is reported to be a
key factor of employee engagement (Anitha, 2014). Another key factor in promoting employee
engagement is an organization’s investing in training and career development for employees.
Training and Career Development
Anitha (2014) describes training and career development as building the confidence of
employees in a way that motivates service accuracy, and ultimately service performance. When
organizations provide employees an opportunity to grow through targeted training, it is
equivalent to a reward. Satisfaction of growth needs affords individuals the opportunity to fully
be what he or she is and to self-actualize. When leaders give importance to career pathing that is
undergirded by training and development, engagement improves automatically (Anitha, 2014).
Compensation is another element that can be a catalyst for developing or improving engagement.
Compensation
Compensation involves financial and non-financial rewards and is a central element to
employee engagement that motivates employees to achieve more, thus focusing on work and
personal development. A study by Saks and Rotman (2006) revealed that rewards and
recognition are significant precursors of employee engagement. They indicated that when
employees received rewards and recognition they feel obligated to respond with higher levels of
employee engagement. It also becomes essential that managers implement acceptable policies
ENGAGEMENT
31
and systems of rewards and recognition for employees if higher levels of employee engagement
are desired (Anitha, 2014).
Organizational Policies, Structures, and Systems
Anitha (2014) posited that organizational policies, procedures, and structures also
influence the extent to which employees are engaged in an organization. Studies have
emphasized the importance of organizational policies that support fair promotion and
recruitment, work-life balance, and flexible work arrangements (Schneider, Macey, and Barbera
2009; Woodruffe, 2006; Rama Devi, 2009). Anitha (2014) goes on to explain how important
amiable organizational policies and procedures are for employee engagement, and the
achievement of business goals. Policies and structures that support positive engagement may
include fair recruitment and selection, flexi-timing, aid in balancing work and life, and fair
promotion policies. Studies such as Schneider, Macey, and Barbera (2009) show that the
recruitment policy of an organization has a direct impact on the engagement and commitment of
future employees. Richman, Civian, Shannon, Hill, and Brennan (2008) argue that an
organization’s flexible work-life policies have a notable positive impact on employee
engagement. Other studies (Woodruffe, 2006; Rama, 2009) have emphasized the importance of
organizational policies and procedures that support flexible work arrangements to provide work-
life balance. Organizations that have such arrangements are more likely to have highly engaged
employees.
The factors that influence employee engagement are varied and diverse. While there are
some that depend on the prevailing culture within the organization, there are also common
threads for individuals, as well as individual factors that can significantly influence an
ENGAGEMENT
32
employee’s relationship with colleagues and their organization. In addition to understanding the
factors that influence engagement, understanding the antecedents is also important.
Antecedents that Influence Employee Engagement
Wollard and Shuck (2011) suggest that identifying the antecedents of employee
engagement is fundamental to determining what leads to high or low employee engagement, and
ultimately, the actions organizations may take to increase engagement. Shuck, Reio, and Rocco
(2011) describe the antecedents to employee engagement as job fit, affective commitment, and
psychological climate. Job fit is examined first.
Job fit
Shuck, Reio, and Rocco (2011) define job fit as the degree to which a person feels that
their personality and values fit with their current job. Resick, Baltes, and Shantz’s (2007)
research reported that the employee-organizational fit has become increasingly important to the
nature of employment. Researchers who study job fit suggest that good fit provides opportunities
for employees to be involved individually in meaningful work that affects the development of
work-related attitudes. Moreover, a good job fit promotes strong professional congruence with
organizational experiences. Based on such experiences, employees develop job-related attitudes,
which can affect overall performance. Additionally, good fit provides the cognitive stimulus for
employees to engage in behavior that is directed toward positive organizational outcomes. For
example, an employee with high levels of job fit might agree that the demands of his or her job
allows work within a level of emotional and physical comfort, and that personal values match
those of the job role, conceptually resulting in higher performance (e.g. discretionary effort).
Employees who experience a good fit derive at a degree of meaningfulness from their work. And
ENGAGEMENT
33
employees who experience job fit within their work roles are more likely to perform their jobs
with enthusiasm, energy, and affective commitment.
Affective Commitment
Affective commitment, as defined by Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli (2001), is the
sense of belonging and emotional connection with one’s job, organization, or both. Macey and
Schneider (2008, 2011) state that affective commitment emphasizes the emotional connection
employees have with their work, and closely parallels the emotional qualities of engagement,
which includes meaningfulness and safety. Such emotional attributes may stimulate employees’
willingness to engage in behavior directed toward desired organizational outcomes, creating
further emotional fulfillment (Shuck & Wollard 2010). Emotional fulfillment, encouraged by a
positive psychological environment, is indicative of an engaged employee.
Psychological Climate
Psychological climate was originally developed using Kahn’s (1990) framework of
engagement and defined as the interpretation of an organizational environment in relation to an
employee’s perception of well-being (Brown and Leigh 1996). An employee’s perception of
wellbeing and interpretation of what has the potential to bring harm is directly connected to
Kahn’s (1990) statement of pulling toward or withdrawing from experiences at work that impact
employees’ ability to bring their full selves into an experience. Kahn (1992) and Wagner and
Harter (2006) indicate that psychological climate promotes an awareness of safety and the
availability of work that encourages meaningfulness in individual work roles (Kahn 1990).
Psychological climate is operationalized as including flexible, supportive management, role
clarity, freedom of self-expression, contribution toward organizational goals, recognition, and
challenging work. These sub-variables assess silent, yet critical components of how an employee
ENGAGEMENT
34
understands his or her work environment.
Measuring Employee Engagement
Attridge (2009) describes the myriad of efforts to measure engagement as primarily
occurring at the individual employee level. The aggregated individual-level scores now measure
engagement at the organizational or work group level as well. Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova,
(2006) describe the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) as a well-known instrument that
measures three dimensions of work engagement: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. These
dimensions correspond to employee engagement themes such as vigor, dedication, and
absorption in one’s work. The emotional vigor component of employee well-being has proven to
be especially important in explaining why employees put in effort to work (Robinson, Perryman,
& Hayday, 2004; Towers Perrin, 2003) and can be measured by its own 12-item scale (Shirom,
2003; Smith, Wefald, Downey, & Gopalan, 2008). Alternatively, the Federal government
measures engagement through an annual survey.
According to the OPM (2015), the current measure of Federal employee engagement is
the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Employee Engagement Index. The FEVS is
administered annually and measures employee satisfaction and engagement through a subset of
15 items, captured by three factors: Leaders, Supervisors, and Work Experiences. Perceptions of
these factors are considered antecedents of engagement; therefore, they do not directly measure
engagement. The federal government has measured employee engagement by using the FEVS
and agency-specific measures like TSA’s Employee Engagement Survey.
Finally, the desire to measure employee engagement has increased. Hansen (2007) states
that a recent Deloitte Touche-Tohmatsu survey found that senior executives feel pressured to
measure nonfinancial information, such as engagement, within their company on a more regular
ENGAGEMENT
35
basis because engagement is viewed as a driver of innovation, performance, productivity, and
organizational performance.
Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance
According to Kompaso (2010) employee engagement is a strong predictor of positive
organizational performance emphasizing the two-way relationship between employer and
employee. Studies from Hewitt Associates (2004), and Melcrum Publishing (2005) have found
that there is a positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational
performance outcomes, such as employee retention, productivity, profitability, customer loyalty,
and safety. Research also indicates that the more engaged employees are, the more likely their
employer is to exceed the industry average in its revenue growth. Baumruk and Gorman (2006)
state that engaged employees consistently demonstrate three general behaviors, which improve
organizational performance:
1. Engaged employees advocate for the organization and its co-workers to refer potential
employees and customers.
2. Engaged employees have an intense desire to be a member of the organization
despite opportunities to work elsewhere.
3. Engaged employees exert extra time, effort and initiative to contribute to the success
of the business.
Komposo (2010) advises organizations, including the Federal government, to invest in employee
engagement because it is significantly interwoven with important business outcomes.
Within the federal workplace, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (2008)
indicates that there has been an ever-increasing focus on improving results in Federal agencies.
This focus has come from management directives such as the National Performance Review and
ENGAGEMENT
36
the President’s Management Agenda from increasingly tight budgets, and from reduced staffing
levels. The MSPB (2008) indicates that federal agencies’ results are consistently assessed
through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), are administered by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and seek to improve organizational performance
measurements. Using the PART, the MSPB (2008) found statistically significant positive
correlation between the average levels of employee engagement in agencies and the agencies’
results, as measured by the PART. The MSPB (2008) found that the higher the agency’s average
employee engagement score, the better the agency scored on the results and accountability
portion of the PART. By establishing a link between employee engagement and agency
outcomes, the MSPB sought to refocus efforts on recommended management practices that can
increase the level of employee engagement in federal agencies. Nonetheless, both private and
federal organizations recognize the resolute power of employee engagement to positively impact
an enterprise’s performance.
Because of the correlation between employee engagement and organizational
performance, organizations that do not experience high levels of employee engagement, will also
experience performance gaps that impact the enterprise’s performance and effectiveness.
However, using a model such as the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework, organizations can
identify the influences that often lead to poor performance.
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
When organizations seek to improve performance using a framework that identifies the
steps needed to move from their current state to a better future state can be the key to successful
goal attainment. Clark and Estes (2008) offer a step-by-step analytical framework that includes
tools and methods to help firms identify performance gaps and to measure performance towards
ENGAGEMENT
37
the achievement of established goals. Performance gaps could impact the achievement of
organizational goals that could move the firm to the desired future state (Rebecca & Palchesko,
2004). Effective performance improvement must begin with well-defined, well-articulated, and
well-understood goals and an analysis of the causes of the gaps between current and future
performance (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008). The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis
Framework can be used to identify the “big three” causes of performance gaps that negatively
impact goal achievement: individual knowledge and skills; individual motivation; and
organizational barriers, such as processes or resources. Krathwhol (2002) identifies four
categories of knowledge and skill: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Motivation is defined as an internal state that drives initiation and maintenance of goal-directed
behavior, and is comprised of three facets: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Mayer,
2011; Clark and Estes, 2008). And, organizational barriers to performance may include work
processes, policies, and resources. The Transportation Security Administration experienced
performance problems in 2015 that may have been influenced by some of these barriers.
In 2015 TSA experienced diminished screening performance outcomes that indicated that
some or all of the causes of performance gaps could be present. According to the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform (2015), TSOs performed poorly on
identifying concealed weapons during covert tests conducted by DHS OIG assessors. As a result
of the failures and feedback from TSOs during focus groups driven by FEVS scores, a joint
TSA-DHS tiger team was formed to determine the root causes of poor performance. A tiger team
is a diverse group of experts brought together for a single project, need, or event (English
Dictionary, 2016). They are usually assigned to investigate, solve, build, or recommend possible
solutions to unique situations or problems. The feedback that the TSA-DHS tiger team collected
ENGAGEMENT
38
while conducting focus groups indicated that TSOs experienced low employee engagement at
many airports across the enterprise. According to the MSPB (2008) there is a correlation
between effective performance and high employee engagement. When federal organizations
experience low levels of employee engagement, they typically also experience performance
gaps. To address the TSO screening performance gaps the following goals were established:
• Organizational Goal - By the end of 2020, TSO engagement will improve 10% at
airports with low engagement using recommendations based on engagement promising
practices, to improve security screening and organizational effectiveness.
• Stakeholder Goal - By the end of 2020, Transportation Security Officers (TSO) will
have knowledge of and will be able to regulate their levels of engagement.
In adhering to the Clark and Estes Framework (2008), once enterprise and stakeholder
goals were established the analysis of performance gaps began. The following section discusses
each step of the Clark and Estes (2008) Framework in relation to the three critical factors that
were examined during the analysis process: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) influences that could impact and improve TSO engagement levels at airports with low
employee engagement. The KMO section begins with a discussion of the general research on
knowledge theory and will expound on the metacognitive knowledge a TSO would need
regarding their own understanding of the construct of personal engagement, and their ability to
regulate their engagement level. The next section will discuss the motivational influences of TSO
efficacy, intrinsic and extrinsic values, and emotion. Lastly, organizational influences such as
TSA processes and supervisor support for TSOs will be addressed. Each of the “big three”
influences were fully explored in the methodology chapter of this study of TSO engagement.
Using the Clark and Estes Framework (2008) provided the structure for exploring the
ENGAGEMENT
39
study’s research questions and delving into the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences on the problem of variation in TSO engagement in the TSA. The problem was
revealed when a TSA-DHS tiger team uncovered engagement as the cause of low FEVS scores
and screening failures. The next section drills down further by examining the theories that
underpin each KMO influence, beginning with knowledge.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (KMO) Influences of TSO Engagement
In alignment with the Clark and Estes Framework (2008), it was critical to address the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. These influences could have significant
impact on the achievement of TSA’s performance goal of having knowledge of and being able to
regulate their engagement level, as a result of specific organizational actions designed to improve
TSO engagement. The examination of KMO influences began with the examination of
knowledge theory and then the metacognitive knowledge influence on TSO engagement.
Knowledge and Skills
According to the TSA OHC, TSOs are critical frontline operators in TSA’s mission to
secure the nation’s transportation infrastructure, which requires specific knowledge. A TSO’s job
requires critical thinking, relationship management, and the ability to adapt to new knowledge
and identify unexpected obstacles. To apply these knowledge and skills effectively, it is
important that TSOs are engaged in their work in order to detect any and all threats to airport
security. To do so, it is also imperative that TSOs demonstrate application of effort and
persistence in their work. Of equal importance, TSOs need to have knowledge of their own
engagement levels, particularly the impact of the effort and persistence aspects on individual
performance. Before addressing the knowledge influences particular to TSOs in the context of
this study, it is important to first define the knowledge types.
ENGAGEMENT
40
Knowledge types. According to Krathwhol (2002) there are four types of knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is information that is
basic to specific disciplines (Krathwhol, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is the
understanding of interrelationships between basic elements in a domain; and procedural
knowledge is the understanding of how to do something in a particular way. Lastly,
metacognitive knowledge is an awareness and understanding of one’s own thinking process for
acquiring knowledge. According to Finn (2012) metacognition is thinking about one’s own
thoughts. Metacognition includes the ability for an individual to control personal variables
(knowledge about one's self and others' thinking), task variables (knowledge that different types
of tasks exert different types of cognitive demands), and strategy variables (knowledge about
cognitive and metacognitive strategies for enhancing learning and performance). For TSOs to
achieve the stakeholder goal, metacognitive knowledge is important. Next, the review turns to a
discussion of the metacognitive knowledge needed by TSOs.
TSO knowledge influence. For an organization to fulfill its mission, its employees must
have the requisite knowledge and skill to accomplish organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
If the organization has knowledge gaps that inhibit its ability to achieve its goals, then it is
important to determine what specific knowledge is missing in order to identify solutions to close
any knowledge gaps. For TSOs to improve their performance in screening for prohibited items,
they must know how to keep themselves engaged or highly engaged on a consistent basis.
Transportation Security Officers need to know how they think about their level of
engagement. Being aware of, and in control of one’s own thoughts is an important aspect of a
TSO’s engagement and performance. Efklides (2008) explains that metacognitive knowledge
involves task-knowledge that relates to the ways tasks are processed. Therefore, a TSO’s
ENGAGEMENT
41
metacognitive knowledge gets continuously enriched when he or she integrates new information
from observing his or her own behavior or actions and their outcomes when giving effort and
persisting with specific tasks. When TSOs are fully present cognitively, honest with themselves
about their in the moment thinking about the task they are completing, and observe their own
level of effort and persistence while completing the task, they increase their metacognitive
knowledge and engagement.
Transportation Security Officers also need knowledge of their level of engagement. In
examining Efklides’ (2008) description of language use, TSOs should articulate their individual
engagement levels to others in order to reflect, to draw inferences, to make attributions about
their inner states, observable behaviors, and performance to ultimately regulate their
engagement. To determine if the actions that TSA will undertake to improve TSO engagement
levels, it is important that TSOs have metacognitive knowledge and are able to regulate their
engagement levels. According to Efklides (2008) communication and reflection will allow TSOs
to analyze and compare the metacognitive knowledge of their engagement level with those of
other TSOs. Table 2 outlines the knowledge influences and assessment strategies to accomplish
the TSO goal related to this study.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Organizational Global Goal
By the end of 2020, TSO engagement will improve 10% at airports with low
engagement using recommendations based on engagement promising practices, to
improve security screening and organizational effectiveness.
Stakeholder Goal
By the end of 2020, Transportation Security Officers (TSO) will have knowledge of
and will be able to regulate their levels of engagement.
ENGAGEMENT
42
Motivation
The success of the TSO stakeholder group in achieving its goal is also dependent upon its
interests, emotions, and self-efficacy motivations. Mayer (2011) defines motivation as an internal
state that drives the initiation and maintenance of goal directed behavior. Motivation gets people
going, keeps them going, and tells them how much effort to spend on work tasks (Clark & Estes,
2008). The literature review that follows focuses on motivation-related influences that are
germane to the achievement of the TSO goal. The review includes discussion of the literature on
interest, self-efficacy, and emotion theories related to their impact on performance; interest is
discussed first.
Interest theory. Harackiewicz and Hulleman (2010) state that interest in a task indicates
that an individual cares about it, that it is important to the individual, and that he or she has
primarily positive feelings towards it. Schraw and Lehman (2009) explain that there are two
types of interest: situational and personal. Situational interest is spontaneous, transitory, and
environmentally activated. Personal interest, also referred to as individual interest, is less
spontaneous and is activated internally. Personal interest is marked by increased engagement,
acquisition of expert knowledge, and making mundane tasks more challenging. According to
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
• Transportation Security
Officers (TSO) need
knowledge of how they think
about their level of
engagement.
• TSOs need to know how to
regulate their level of
engagement.
• Metacognitive
• Metacognitive
• Use interview questions
to determine if TSOs
reflect on their level
engagement.
•
• Use interview questions
to determine if TSOs
know how to manage
their engagement level.
ENGAGEMENT
43
Hidi and Renninger (2006), three factors contribute to the development of interest: knowledge,
positive emotion, and personal value. As individuals learn more about a topic, they become more
skilled and knowledgeable. An increase in knowledge can bring about more interest and positive
feelings, as individuals feel more competent and skilled through their continued engagement.
TSOs’ interest. Engagement behaviors of TSOs are dependent on the interest motivation
that fuels their performance. Based on Reeve’s (2008) writings, if TSOs are inherently interested
in a task, they will be more likely to be engaged in the task. Additionally, when TSOs’ interests
arise out of attraction to and a need to master a particular task, such as x-ray screening, they
become more engaged (Bricteux, Navarro, Ceja, & Fuerst, 2017). As the need to understand a
screening task increases, the more interest grows, and subsequently the more a TSO’s
engagement will increase. Furthermore, when TSOs are interested in a task, they become more
likely to repeat, and be fully engaged in that task in the future. Reeve (2008) also indicates that
interest can be sparked by something challenging. In their daily work, TSOs experience
challenges with passengers, task challenges such as x-ray, and challenges balancing screening
effectiveness and screening efficiency. Having interested and engaged TSOs is very important to
screening effectiveness; however, without self-efficacy TSOs do not have the confidence needed
to be successful.
Self-efficacy theory. Loeb (2016) describes employee self-efficacy at work as the
confidence that employees feel concerning their ability to successfully complete tasks. Studies
(Rigotti, Schyns & Mohr, 2008; Schyns & Collani, 2002) have shown that self-efficacy at work
is potentially related to organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and commitment that
can also be negatively related to psychological strain at work (Mohr, M€uller, Rigotti, Aycan &
Tschan, 2006). Loeb (2016) also states that self-efficacy may determine the way employees
ENGAGEMENT
44
perceive existing job demands and available job resources which, in turn, may have an effect on
engagement levels. According to Pajares (2006) one of the most influential sources of self-
efficacy is mastery experience. Providing opportunities for people to gain mastery is the reason
workshops, training programs, internships, and clinical experiences are ways people can become
proficient at new skills and increase their self-efficacy. Success on the job raises self-efficacy
and failure lowers it. Organizational and supervisory support is critical to initiate and enhance
employee engagement, according to Pati and Kumar’s (2010) discussions. Self-efficacy,
according to Bandura (1997), can be a key resource to understand the antecedents of employee
behavior. Next, this examination turns to TSO self-efficacy.
TSO self-efficacy. The Transportation Security Officers’ role entails several factors that
impact their self-efficacy at work. Self-efficacy is individuals’ beliefs in their own capabilities to
organize and carry out the actions needed to achieve successful results (Consiglio, Borgogni, Di
Tecco, and Schaufeli, 2016). Mastery experience as described by Pajares (2006), perceived
organizational and supervisory support as explained by Pati and Kumar (2010), and interpersonal
relationships as explored by Consiglio, Borgogni, Di Tecco, and Schaufeli (2016) impact self-
efficacy, and ultimately engagement. Transportation Security Officers gain mastery through
training, re-certification, and metacognitive activities like reflection. According to the TSA
OHC, to become a Master TSO or Expert TSO, an employee must demonstrate subject matter
expertise in established screening procedures or instructions, prudent use of assigned resources,
performance excellence, and the ability to work independently. Master and Expert TSOs are
considered exceptional performers who often serve as informal leaders. When TSOs consistently
demonstrate mastery they become more confident, which results in performance that elevates
them to the roles of Master and Expert TSO. However, when TSOs experience failure, such as
ENGAGEMENT
45
failure to find prohibited items during a covert test, belief in their ability to accomplish tasks is
often diminished. According to Pati and Kuman (2010) supervisors personify the organization,
and their response to TSO failure can elevate or diminish an employee’s self-efficacy. Low self-
efficacy also impacts a TSO’s willingness to expend discretionary effort to become highly
engaged. Lastly, Consiglio, Borgogni, Di Tecco, and Schaufeli (2016) contend that self-efficacy
is indirectly, yet positively, impacted when employees’ perceptions of their social context,
particularly perceptions of supervisors, colleagues, and senior leaders, are positively influenced.
These perceptions can also be influenced by emotions.
Emotion theory. Tamir, John, Srivastava, and Gross, (2007) discuss a theory of emotion
as the link between individual emotions and emotional regulation and efficacy. In its everyday
usage, emotion refers to emotional experience rather than emotional expression. Emotional
experiences are linked to well-being. Tamir et al.’s (2007) theory goes on to explain that
individuals who are able to regulate their emotions experience more self-efficacy and better
relationships. Ouweneel, Blanc, and Schaufeli (2012) state that there is a relationship between
positive emotions and high work engagement. Research has also shown that positive emotions
can be enhanced by means of meditation at work (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel,
2008), expressing gratitude (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006), and sharing good news (Gable,
Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). Employees who experience positive emotions at work are prone to
feel more hopeful, optimistic, and self-efficacious about their work-related abilities (Ouweneel,
Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2012).
Influence of emotions on TSO engagement. According to the TSA OHC, the TSO role
is filled with challenges. The challenges that TSOs face can produce negative emotions such as
frustration, anger, and exhaustion. In 2017, OHC conducted focus groups, driven by the TSA
ENGAGEMENT
46
Employee Engagement Survey (EES) and FEVS, with selected TSOs where they reported
feelings of frustration with understaffing and a lack of time to complete varied tasks.
Understaffing required that TSOs accomplish more tasks with fewer resources, which often
generated feelings of being overwhelmed. Additionally, focus group TSOs described emotions of
mistrust and frustration with TSA leadership’s inability to drive the change and improvement
needed to increase TSO engagement. Table 3 outlines the motivational influences related to TSO
engagement.
Table 3
Motivation Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Transportation Security Administration is to protect the Nation’s
transportation system to ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce.
Organizational Global Goal
By the end of 2020, TSO engagement will improve 10% at airports with low engagement
using recommendations based on engagement promising practices, to improve security
screening and organizational effectiveness.
Stakeholder Goal
By the end of 2020, Transportation Security Officers (TSO) will have knowledge of and
will be able to regulate their levels of engagement.
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Theory Motivation Influence
Assessment
ENGAGEMENT
47
Organization Influence
According to Clark and Estes (2008) organizational influences include ineffective work
processes, material resources, and organizational culture that can cause performance gaps.
Organizations with knowledgeable, skilled, and motivated employees can experience gaps in
performance that create barriers to goal achievement when organizational inadequacies exist.
Although TSA has existed for almost 17 years, the agency experiences consistent variation in
employee engagement, impacted by organizational influences such as supervisory support and
work processes.
Supervisor support and employee engagement. Jose (2015) describes supervisor
support as an important element in building positive employee perceptions of an organization.
Direct supervisors are the closest organizational link to the employee and have the ability to
communicate the organizations intentions directly to their subordinates. A study conducted by
Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Scharski, and Rhodes (2002) reported that perceived
Highly engaged TSOs have
personal interest in thoroughly
performing effective screening
procedures.
• Transportation Security
Officers (TSO) need to feel
efficacious in their ability to
screen passengers and property.
• TSOs need to regulate their
emotions to positively manage
their engagement levels.
• Interest theory
• Self-efficacy
theory
• Emotion theory
• Use interview questions
to determine if TSOs
have personal interest
that is extrinsically
and/or intrinsically
motivated.
• Use interview questions
to determine if a TSO’s
level of confidence
impacts his or her level
of engagement.
• Use interview questions
to determine how TSOs
regulate the different
emotions that can impact
their engagement levels.
ENGAGEMENT
48
supervisory support is a predictor of perceived organizational support. When employees
perceive support from their supervisors and organizations they are likely to be more engaged at
work. Results of a study conducted by Muhammad and Hamdy (2005) indicate that supervisory
support would also help reduce employees’ intent to leave the organization. Recently, Cheng,
Lu, Chang, and Johnstone (2013) observed that when employees perceive high supervisor
support, a high-quality relationship exists and influences employees’ levels of engagement. Next,
the study discusses the influence of supervisor support in the TSA on TSO engagement.
Influence of supervisory support on TSO engagement. According to OPM (2016) the
results of FEVS from 2012-2016, TSA employees have been dissatisfied with their supervisors,
particularly as it relates to integrity and accountability. The TSA OHC conducted more than 30
focus groups in 2016 to determine the root cause of TSO dissatisfaction. The outcome of the
focus groups revealed that TSOs feel unsupported by their supervisors. Transportation Security
Officers further expressed lack of trust in supervisors and hesitation to raise concerns with
supervisors because of fear of retaliation. The OHC surmised that to improve TSO trust and
engagement, supervisors must take responsibility for listening and responding to their
employees’ concerns. Along with supervisor support, the work processes that employees apply
are important to employee engagement, including TSOs.
Work processes and employee engagement. Work processes in an organization are
important because they specify how people, equipment, and materials should interact for the
organization to perform effectively over time (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational work
processes have impact an employee’s job performance. Organizational goals are achieved
through a system of interacting processes that require
specific knowledge, skills, and motivation to operate well (Clark & Estes, 2008).
ENGAGEMENT
49
Langford (2009) posits that well-established work processes support an organizational
climate that produces more engaged employees.
Influence
of
work
processes
on
TSO
employee
engagement.
According
to
TSA
OHC
TSOs
use
TSA
standard
operating
procedures
(SOP)
that
direct
screening
operations,
screening
equipment
and
technology,
passengers,
baggage,
and
property.
To
address
evolving
threats,
SOPs
and
screening
processes
change
frequently.
Frequent
changes
require
TSOs
to
constantly
adapt
to
new
information
and
unexpected
obstacles.
According
to
OHC,
TSOs
must
continuously
maintain
focus
and
awareness
in
a
stressful
environment,
which
could
include
managing
hostile,
angry
passengers.
Challenges
such
as
a
stressful
airport
environment,
hostile
passengers,
and
changing
work
process
can
negatively
impact
TSO
engagement.
Table
4
details
the
organizational
influences
that
could
impact
TSOs’
ability
to
provide
important
information
to
OHC
about
how
well
organizational
actions
impacted
TSOs’
engagement
levels.
Table
4
outlines
the
organizational
influences
related
to
TSO
engagement.
Table 4
Organization
Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Transportation Security Administration is to protect the Nation’s
transportation system to ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce.
Organizational Global Goal
By the end of 2020, TSO engagement will improve 10% at airports with low
engagement using recommendations based on engagement promising practices, to
improve security screening and organizational effectiveness.
ENGAGEMENT
50
Conclusion
When analyzing the causes of performance gaps, three barriers emerge: knowledge,
motivation, and organization. According to Clark and Estes (2008) organizational influences
include work processes and supervisory support. This study focused on the elements that most
influence Transportation Security Officers’ ability to achieve the stakeholder goal. Examination
of the problem suggests that TSOs are most impacted by organizational influences including
work processes related to screening SOPs, the security environment, and passenger. Once the
specific knowledge, motivation, and organization influences of TSO engagement are pinpointed,
the practices that positively impact high engagement can be isolated and potentially replicated.
Stakeholder Goal
By the end of 2020, Transportation Security Officers (TSO) will have knowledge of
and will be able to regulate their levels of engagement.
Assumed Organizational
Influence
Organizational Influence
Assessment
• TSOs need support from
supervisors that promotes their
level of engagement.
• TSOs need processes that allow
them balance conducting
thorough security screening and
efficient passenger processing.
• Use Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey results
and interview questions
to determine if TSO feel
supported by
Supervisory
Transportation Security
Officers and
Transportation Security
Managers.
• Interview questions
asking TSOs to describe
what they need to
conduct screening
operations effectively
and process passengers
efficiently.
ENGAGEMENT
51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation in
the Organization Context
According to Maxwell (2012) a conceptual framework is the schema of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs a research study. The
purpose of a conceptual framework is to explain the key factors, constructs, or variables and the
presumed relationships between each of them. The conceptual framework helps make sense of
the dissertation research data and the study’s findings that reflect the constructs, concepts,
language, models, and theories in the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once the research data
was placed into a conceptual framework, then a framework for applying the research to improve
organizational performance was employed. Although each of the knowledge, motivation,
organization (KMO) influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) that caused performance gaps were
presented independent of each other, they did not remain in isolation of each other. The
following is a description of the way that I believe the KMO factors in this study will interact
with each other to accomplish the organizational goal of increasing TSO engagement levels at
airports with low engagement when applying practices from airports with high TSO engagement.
Figure 1 is the conceptual framework for this study and describes the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that interact together to achieve the organizational goal.
ENGAGEMENT
52
The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences within the TSO engagement
conceptual framework were critical to address when seeking to improve the problem of variation
in TSO engagement. If TSA’s goal of improving TSO engagement is to be realized, then
understanding the interaction between each influence must be accomplished. First, one must
recognize that organizational influences are the foundational elements that create the
environment for the knowledge and motivation influences to exist. Within the organization
influences are the work processes that provide the setting for engagement with screening tasks,
and supervisory support, which provides the models that promote high engagement. According
to Rueda (2011) a cultural setting is an organizational and social context where structure,
By
the
end
of
2020,
TSO
engagement
will
improve
10%
at
airports
with
low
engagement
using
recommendations
based
on
engagement
promising
practices,
to
improve
security
screening
and
organizational
effectiveness.
Transportation
Security
Officers
(TSO)
have
knowledge
of
how
they
think
about
their
own
level
of
engagement.
(metacognitive)
TSOs
have
knowledge
of
how
to
regulate
their
levels
of
engagement.
(metacognitive)
Transportation
Security
Officers
(TSO)
feels
efficacious
in
their
ability
to
screen
passengers
and
property.
(self-‐efficacy)
Transportation
Security
Officers
(TSO)
have
personal
interest
in
thoroughly
performing
effective
screening
procedures.
(interest)
TSOs
regulate
their
emotions
to
positively
manage
their
engagement
levels.
(emotion)
Transportation
Security
Administration
(TSA)
TSO
supervisory
support
Work
processes
that
balance
security
effectiveness
and
efficiency
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Influences on TSO Engagement
ENGAGEMENT
53
policies, practices, and behaviors are enacted. Cultural settings are the who, what, when, where,
why, and how of the routines of daily work life. Cultural models are the shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works (Rueda, 2011). They are expressed through
cultural practices, such as behaviors, artifacts, and rules, within specific contexts. According to
Pentland (2003) work processes represent the sequence of actions by which organizations turn
inputs into outputs. Boxall and Macky (2014) suggest that balanced, high involvement work
processes hold the promise of releasing untapped employee potential through greater use of
workers’ existing skills. Tutlys and Spöttl (2017) indicate that work processes determine the
knowledge needed to accomplish the tasks associated with the work. Within the conceptual
framework, work processes interrelate with supervisory support to create an environment of trust
that cultivates high engagement.
According to the Society of Human Resources (SHRM) (2017) employee engagement is
impacted by the trust and confidence an employee has in his or her leaders. Spreitzer, Lam and
Fritz (2010) suggest that leaders play a major role in providing employees with job resources and
buffering them from those things that hinder them from engaging in meaningful work. When
TSOs feel they have the resources and training they need, and feel supported, they become more
engaged in the work and committed to the organization. Additionally, Gupta (2015) indicates
that employees express themselves emotionally during role performance and that leaders create
the environment that promotes or detracts from flow. Csikzentmihalyi (1975) defines flow as the
holistic sensation that employees feel intrinsically when they act with total involvement. Leaders
who create an environment of trust, where employees have flow and are encouraged, are likely to
be more engaged and provide more input and innovation to move the organization forward
(Gupta, 2015). Employees who have flow, who are in an encouraging and trusting environment,
ENGAGEMENT
54
and who have the requisite knowledge needed for task focus, tend to have confidence in their
work, feel more positive, and are likely to be highly engaged. The conceptual framework
coupled with the research questions guided this research project.
The purpose this research project was to study TSA’s performance in relation to a larger
problem of practice: Variation in TSO engagement levels at operational airports within the
Transportation Security Administration. This chapter discusses the research design and methods
used for data collection and analysis to answer the questions guiding this promising practice
study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that create high levels
of engagement in Transportation Security Officers (TSO) that can be replicated at
airports across the agency and improve TSO engagement levels by the end of the 2020
calendar year?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for replication to improve TSO engagement
levels at airports experiencing low TSO engagement levels?
The chapter also discusses the stakeholder group, the data collection process and instruments
used to obtain the data, strategies for creating credibility and trustworthiness of the study, ethics
considerations, and limitations and delimitations. The appendices in this study include the
interview protocol used for data collection, consent form, information sheet describing the study,
and recruitment support e-mail. The discussion begins with Transportation Security Officers,
who are the stakeholder group of focus in this study.
ENGAGEMENT
55
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder group in this study was Transportation Security Officers within
the TSA. The TSO group was chosen because it executes the largest part of TSA’s mission: To
protect the Nation’s transportation system to ensure the freedom of movement for people and
commerce. Transportation Security Officers provide security and protection of air travelers,
airports, and aircraft by performing searches and screening of passengers, controlling entry and
exit points, interacting with the public, and operating screening equipment and technology
(Transportation Security Administration, 2017). Totaling more than 47,000, the TSO group
comprises the largest stakeholder group in TSA. Transportation Security Officers are critical to
thwarting terrorist attacks that could cause loss of life and damage to aircraft. For this study,
purposive sampling was used to select TSOs from two airports identified by the TSA Office of
Human Capital (OHC) Employee Engagement Survey as having highly engaged TSOs. For the
purpose of this study, the two airports will be identified as Sky and Secure International Airports.
I recruited volunteers through e-mail, shift briefs, and airport newsletters at the Secure and Sky
airports. Once I had five volunteers from each airport, I began scheduling interviews to collect
data.
The primary data collection method was semi-structured interviews. According to Weiss
(1994) interviews allow access to TSOs’ observations and experiences. Qualitative interviews
were the collection vehicle of choice because they allowed exploration into TSOs’ thoughts
about engagement in general and their individual engagement levels specifically (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). One-on-one interviews allowed me to gain the rich descriptive data needed to
determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on TSO engagement.
ENGAGEMENT
56
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
In this qualitative study, I used a purposive sampling strategy. According to Patton
(2002), in purposive sampling individuals are selected to provide the information needed to
address the purpose of the research. In keeping with Johnson and Christensen’s (2015)
description of purposive sampling, I specifically selected TSOs with high engagement to study. I
sought to gain insight into their experiences, and to learn as much as possible about the
influences on their high engagement. The sample for the qualitative interviews consisted of 10
TSOs selected from two airports identified as having TSO engagement ratings above 50% on the
OHC Employee Engagement Survey (EES) report. With a sound sampling strategy, I was well
prepared to use my interview protocol to conduct five interviews each from Sky Airport and
Secure Airport to collect qualitative data that would allow me to answer my research questions.
To gain access to the airport facility and to invite TSOs from each Category I airport to
participate in the study, I requested support from the Deputy Assistant Administrator (DAA) for
the TSA Office of Security Operations (OSO). The OSO/DAA gave me permission to conduct
qualitative interviews with TSOs at Sky and Secure airports. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicate
that interviews are conversations that allow the researcher to discover what is in someone’s
mind. To support the recruitment effort, I provided the DAA with an abbreviated information
sheet, which she forwarded to each airport’s Federal Security Director (FSD) who used it to
introduce the study. The FSDs coordinated briefings of the information, and provided an
invitation to volunteer, at all shift briefs. During the shift briefs TSOs who wanted to volunteer to
participate in interviews were asked to contact me directly on my personal cell or USC g-mail. I
followed up on the first e-mails, texts, and calls I received from the TSOs from each airport, and
ENGAGEMENT
57
received six volunteer responses prior to the beginning of November 2017. Three TSOs
volunteered after I arrived at the airport and introduced myself to the teams.
I chose to interview 10 TSOs to allow for deep exploration into the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational elements that influence participants to be highly engaged. By
conducting qualitative interviews with a small number of participants, I was able to collect rich,
descriptive data that provided insight into the feelings, thoughts, and perspectives of TSOs,
through in-depth one-on-one conversations. Additionally, the aim of the study was not to
generalize the data, but to reveal meaning from it. Therefore, a small sample size was more
conducive to the qualitative data collection that was more targeted to answering the research
questions. Next, I contacted the volunteers to get consent and set up interviews.
Once I had the names and contact information of the volunteers, I e-mailed (Appendix C)
them with additional information. I also attached a consent form and full information sheet
(Appendix B) to each volunteer’s e-mail. The information sheet included my personal biography,
a description of the research study, privacy and confidentiality statements, a statement regarding
data usage and storage, a statement about benefits or reimbursements, and my contact
information. Since nine out of ten participants chose to complete the interview within their
airport, I also provided information on the location within each TSO’s duty airport where the
interviews took place. One participant from Secure Airport chose to interview with me at the
local library. The three TSOs who volunteer after my arrival at the airports completed the
consent form before the one-hour interview session began.
The FSD for each airport granted participants an hour off their assigned checkpoint to
participate in the study. The FSDs also arranged a private conference room to conduct interviews
and to complete the post-interview activities. One week before the interview, I sent a reminder e-
ENGAGEMENT
58
mail confirming the date, time, and location of the interviews. After arriving in the city where
each airport was located, I visited each airport to confirm that each conference room was suitable
to conduct interviews. I made a final confirmation call to all participants to confirm their arrival
time, the conference room location, duration of the interview, and interview details. I conducted
data collection at Sky International Airport November 13-15, 2017 and Secure International
Airport December 11-13, 2017. Table 5 contains information about each TSO who participated
in the interviews. Each participant was given a pseudonym to mask his or her identity.
Table 5
Participant Table
Data Collection and Instrumentation
A key question to ask when determining the best data and collection method(s) to use is
“What method of data collection will yield the information I need to answer my research
questions?” Johnson and Christensen (2015) suggest that researchers also need to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of the various data collection methods and how to use each method
before engaging in collection activities. For my data collection efforts, I used existing survey
data (included in the document review section), semi-structured interviews, and document
TSO (Pseudonym) Airport Gender Tenure as a
TSO
Worked at other
airport previously
Jack Bennett Secure Male 5-10 years No
Cindy Allen Secure Female 10-15 years Yes
Frank Crawford Secure Male 1-5 years No
Edward Snyder Secure Male 1-5 years No
Robin Jones Secure Female 1-5 years No
Courtney Johnson Sky Female 1-5 years No
Sam Donaldson Sky Male 1-5 years No
Bobbie Arlington Sky Female 5-10 years No
Wilson Frazier Sky Male 1-5 years No
Reagan Monroe Sky Male 1-5 years No
ENGAGEMENT
59
reviews to determine the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that create high
levels of engagement of TSOs. I chose to use existing data from the TSA OHC’s EES because
the data provided a description of trends and attitudes of TSOs regarding their engagement
(Creswell, 2014). Additionally, the report of the survey’s results identified the top 10 airports
with highly engaged TSOs, and provided information helpful in the development of the
qualitative interview questions.
I chose to conduct qualitative interviews because, as Weiss (1994) described, interviews
allowed access to the observations and experiences of TSOs, specifically where the insights were
related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of their engagement levels. As
indicted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) interviews were effective for my study because I sought
to discover what was on TSOs’ minds regarding their sense of their own engagement. One-on-
one interviews allowed me to delve deeply into the metacognitive knowledge; efficacy, interest,
and emotional motivations, and organizational influences (such as leadership support) that
influence TSO engagement, plus it added direction to the research. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
described the strengths of the interview method, which persuaded me to accept it as my choice of
data collection methods:
1. Allows for development of detailed descriptions and promotes the validity and reliability
of the research by providing enough description to contextualize the study to allow
readers to determine whether the findings can be transferred (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Weiss, 1994).
2. Integrates multiple perspectives and promotes the validity and reliability of the research
by using multiple sources of data to confirm emerging findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Weiss, 1994).
ENGAGEMENT
60
3. Describes the process, which promotes the validity and reliability of the research by
providing detailed accounts of methods, procedures, and decision points while
conducting the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994).
4. Bridges intersubjectivity and promotes the validity and reliability of the research by using
peer reviews/examinations to check congruency and researcher bias (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Weiss, 1994).
I also collected two organizational documents: EES survey and an airport year in review
brochure. The documents added more diversity and insight into the interview data that I
collected. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define the word document as a wide range of written,
visual, digital, and physical material relevant to a study. The documents were useful because
they were produced independently of the research study yet were grounded in the context of the
study. The “TSA Sky Year in Review” document helped me gain deeper insight into the
organizational setting and influences on the TSOs’ engagement levels. Organizational influences
can be difficult to decipher by simply conducting interviews, however by coupling interviews
and analyses of documents I gained greater understanding, meaning, and insight that helped me
identify solutions and make recommendations regarding the problem of practice (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews
DeMarrais (2004) defines a research interview as a process in which a researcher and
interviewee engage in a dialog focused on questions related to the research study. For this
research study 10 TSOs were interviewed from two Category I airports that were selected from
those identified by the OHC EES results as having highly engaged TSOs. Semi-structured
interviews were applied using open-ended, flexibly worded questions that were determined
ENGAGEMENT
61
ahead of time. Also, the semi-structured format allowed me to respond to the situation in the
moment, to any new ideas that emerged, while allowing the flexibility to ask unplanned, probing
questions. According to Patton (2002) open-ended questions produce the most detail from
interviews. The interview questions were derived from the study’s conceptual framework and
research questions, and were designed to elicit rich, detailed responses. Guided by Merriam and
Tisdell’s (2016) advice, the interview questions were developed to capture participants’
experiences, opinions, feelings, knowledge, senses, and background information in relation to the
KMO influences related to engagement. The interview questions were the core of the interview
protocol used for each one-hour interview.
On the day of each interview I met each participant at the mutually agreed upon airport or
library location, ensured that each interviewee was comfortable, and used the interview protocol
(Appendix A) to guide each session. I opened each session by establishing a rapport and
partnership with each TSO through small talk and making personal connections. Next, I provided
an overview of each session using the interview protocol: purpose of the study, privacy
considerations, data usage and storage information, request permission to a recording device,
notice of potential follow-up interview, and confirmation of signed consent form. I then
explained that I would use the information from the interview to complete the data analysis and
identify findings that would be submitted to my dissertation committee for review. Before asking
any interview questions, I reminded each TSO of the importance of his or her input, and asked
for consent to call for a follow-up interview if needed for additional information. Lastly, I
explained to interviewees that I would give each of them the opportunity to review my emerging
findings and that in the final dissertation their identities and responses would remain anonymous.
Once the overview was completed, each individual interview commenced.
ENGAGEMENT
62
During each interview the emphasis was to collect as much rich, meaningful, descriptive
data as possible that captured each TSO experiences, insights, values, and beliefs about
engagement. I used the interview protocol comprised of question to elicit information related to
the KMOs, research questions, and conceptual framework. Impromptu probing questions,
listening techniques, jottings, and analytic memos helped me capture multiple dimensions of
each TSO’s engagement experience. I also documented themes I saw among participants’
responses. After each TSO answered the last question in the protocol, I asked if he or she wanted
to ask me any questions, or add additional comments. I closed the session using the protocol
script, sincerely thanking each interviewee for his or her time, and reminding him or her of the
importance of his or her input. The total lengths of all the interviews ranged from 38 to 75
minutes. Before leaving the room after each interview I ensured that all my materials and
equipment were stored, and that the room was neat and in order. I scheduled interviews at least
30-40 minutes apart to allow myself enough time to complete these actions.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described careful consideration to the interview structure and
types of questions being asked, and plan for the complexities and dynamics of the interview
exchange as essential for collecting meaningful data that results in more meaningful analysis.
The interview protocol and questions developed for this study were mindfully designed to yield
insights about the factors influencing high TSO engagement levels in relation to the research
questions and conceptual framework. During the analysis process, the interview data was even
more useful when combined with information from organizational documents.
Documents
During the course of the study, I used existing survey data and organizational documents
that guided the study and provided deeper understanding, particularly of the organizational
ENGAGEMENT
63
influences on TSO engagement. The OHC Employee Engagement Survey (EES) was the first
documentation to guide the study.
Existing Survey Data
To help guide the study, I used existing survey data from the EES conducted in January
2017. The results of the EES were used to inform the interview questions and select the airport
locations for participation in the study. The survey was administered to 58,000 employees,
including TSOs, who were on boarded to the agency on or before July 31, 2016. The agency
chose to collect data from employees with a wide range of tenure in the organization. According
to OHC the survey was developed based on results of the 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS). To ensure reliability and validity OHC had a group of industrial and
organizational psychologist review survey items for content validity then make adjustments to
the survey where needed. Additionally, OHC assessed validity thorough explanatory factor
analysis and assessment of Chronbach’s Alpha for the resulting scales. I used the existing EES
data because the survey results identified the airports with the highest engagement levels, the
data was relevant to the study, the survey was the most current data source, and was convenient
to access. Lastly, the report identified the two airports with more that 50% high engagement
within the TSO group.
Validity and reliability. The survey data was used to choose the airports for
participation in this study went through a rigorous process to ensure validity and reliability. To
ensure reliability and validity, industrial and organizational psychologist from the OHC reviewed
survey items for content validity. Subsequently, they made adjustments to the survey where
needed. Additionally, OHC assessed validity thorough explanatory factor analysis and
assessment of Chronbach’s Alpha for the resulting scales. To build confidence, the OHC
ENGAGEMENT
64
determined that a response rate of 30% or more is a good target, established before the survey
was administered. According to the University of Texas (2016) a good response rate for an
online survey is 30 percent. In addition to addressing response rates, OHC addressed non-
response bias. Non-response bias occurs when there is a significant difference between
participants who respond to a survey and those who do not (StatisticsHowTo, 2016). The OHC
used some of the suggestions, described by GreenBook (2009) to address non-response bias.
1. A personable and professional introduction was used in the survey;
2. Clear and concise wording was used throughout;
3. OHC sent multiple follow-up e-mail reminders; and
4. OHC was mindful that the survey did not take more than 15 minutes to complete.
In a research study, the quantitative data collection and instrumentation are central to
answering the research question. Surveys are data collection methods used in quantitative data
collection efforts to describe, compare, or explain individual knowledge, feelings, preferences,
and behavior, according to Fink (2013). Whether using surveys or experiments, in quantitative
data collection it is important for researchers to address how the validity and reliability of the
research will be established at the beginning of the study, and how it will be maintained
throughout the study. The validated survey data was ultimately used to drive the selection of
airports that participated in the study. After the participating airports were selected,
organizational documents were later used to provide additional insight.
Airport documentation
Airport specific documentation was also collected, and provided contextual information
that added depth to the data that had already been collected, and my thinking about the data.
After completing all interviews, I met with leaders from both airports to request additional
ENGAGEMENT
65
information, and they provided brochures and information that offered more insight into the
organizational influences on TSO engagement. Lastly, I reviewed standard operational
procedures (SOPs), which are owned and updated by OSO, on checkpoint and checked baggage
work processes. The OSO is the component in TSA that is responsible for executing the primary
portion of the organizational mission: passenger, property, and cargo screening.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data collected for this study was crucial for determining the answers to
the research questions. Flick (2014) describes data analysis as the classification and
interpretation of language material to make statements about implicit and explicit meaning
making in the material and what is represented. In this study, data analysis began during my data
collection at both the Sky and Security airports. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest conducting
simple analysis while in the process of collecting data, and between collection activities.
The post-interview actions included verifying recording integrity, reviewing my
handwritten interview notes, drafting an analytical memo, and reconstituting the room. All the
interview subjects gave permission to record their interview. Combined with my handwritten
notes I edited after each interview, the recordings provided trustworthy interview recall that was
instrumental to the analysis process. Other post-interview actions included drafting analytic
memos to capture my thinking and reflections about the data from the interviews. Miles,
Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) describe an analytic memo as a brief or comprehensive narrative
that documents a researcher’s reflections and thinking about the research data. Writing memos
was a quick way to capture my thoughts that occurred throughout data collection, analysis, and
reporting.
ENGAGEMENT
66
Bogdan and Biklen (2011) also offer several helpful suggestions for analyzing data
during collection. I found myself using three of them during, and between, my data collection
activities. First, I wrote jottings, notes, and analytic memos to myself about what I was learning
during each interview. Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) describe analytic memos as
narratives that document an investigator's reflections and thinking processes about the data. I
wrote memos to document my thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in
relation to my conceptual framework and research questions. The memos I wrote were helpful to
the analysis process that occurred after data collection, which entailed five phases: review using
analytical tools, open coding, axial/analytical coding, identifying patterns and themes, and
developing assertions and findings.
After completing data collection activities I sent recordings of each interview to Rev.com
for transcription services. I received each recoding file back with the corresponding transcription
within 24 to 48 hours. I then verified that each transcript matched the corresponding recordings. I
found all of the transcripts to be 98% to 100% accurate and in need of very few corrections.
After the verification process was complete I began phase one.
Phase 1: Analytical Tools
In their 2008 book, “Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory” Corbin and Strauss (2008) describe several inductive,
exploratory thinking strategies used to interact with and interrogate qualitative data. Of the many
analytical strategies in the book, asking questions and making comparisons were identified as the
mainstay strategies of analysis used by many qualitative researchers. I used comparison and
questioning to become acquainted with the data I collected at both Secure and Sky airports in
order to gain a deeper understanding of interviewee’s perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and values.
ENGAGEMENT
67
As Corbin and Strauss (2008) described, the questioning tool allowed me to probe the data, think
outside the box, and become more conversant with the data. The comparison analytical tool
helped me become more sensitive to the properties and dimensions of the data, and aided me in
seeing varied and general patterns. Additionally, I made constant comparisons between the
interviewees within each airport and across airports. I compared TSOs from the same airport and
TSOs between Secure and Sky airports. Beginning the analysis process with questioning and
comparison analytical strategies helped prepare for subsequent analysis phases, including open
coding.
Phase 2: Open Coding
The open coding phase of the analysis process was important as I began to explore the
transcripts, chunk, and categorize the data to search for commonalities. Saldaña (2013) defines
coding as a data condensation task that enables a researcher to retrieve the most meaningful
material, to assemble chunks of data that go together, and to further condense the information
into more analyzable elements. Rapley (2011) submits that coding enables the grouping of data
that addresses similar themes. Open coding can include up to 25 different approaches, including
in vivo coding, according to Saldaña (2013).
In vivo codes. In vivo coding is an empirical process where codes are derived inductively
from the transcript. When using in vivo coding I identified words and short phrases from each
TSO’s own comments in the interview transcripts that were relevant to my conceptual
framework and research questions. Appendix D provides examples of in vivo codes taken
directly from my codebook, which was built for the study. The codes were transferred into the
codebook from the transcript. I placed the codes in quotation marks, in blue ink, written directly
on the transcript to differentiate them from the codes I generated using a priori coding.
ENGAGEMENT
68
A priori codes. A priori coding is the deductive theoretical application of codes that
originated from my conceptual framework and research questions (Saldaña, 2013). I used the
mental models from my conceptual framework relevant to my study such as engagement,
commitment, and purpose that helped me identify words and phrases that was relevant to my
prior knowledge around engagement. In this phase, I also began to develop a codebook, an MS
Excel spreadsheet that allowed me to capture the codes that were annotated directly onto the
interview transcript. The codebook grew and developed with each phase of the analysis process.
Appendix E provides examples of a priori codes taken directly from the codebook built for the
study. The codes were transferred into the codebook from each transcript. I identified the codes,
placed them in quotation marks, in green ink written directly on the transcript to differentiate
them from the in vivo codes I generated. The next phase of the analysis process entailed
grouping open codes, which is known as axial or analytical coding.
Phase 3: Axial or Analytic Coding
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest that analytical coding involves interpretation and
meaning making by the researcher. Axial coding entails grouping in vivo and a priori codes into
categories based on recurring patterns from the research data. For my study, the a priori and in
vivo codes found in the Secure and Sky transcripts were aggregated and placed into appropriate
categories. The new categories, based on the typicality or frequency of the codes from the
transcripts, were then inserted into my codebook. The most frequent codes were considered
patterns and were analyzed in Phase five. Each category resulted in a list of relevant codes,
identified from the transcript. The axial coding assimilated the open coding into larger
categories. Appendix F details the axial categories that emerged from the open coding phase.
ENGAGEMENT
69
Phase 4: Identify Patterns and Themes
While conducting my data analysis process, I identified patterns and themes that
emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions. According to Miles,
Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) a pattern identifies an emergent explanation that happens enough
times to prominently appear out of the codes. Miles et al. (2014) go on to explain that counting
also occurs when identifying patterns. Counting involves isolating something that happens a
number of times and consistently happens in a specific way. I also wrote an analytic memo,
about the most promising codes that emerged as patterns, to clarify what I thought I was seeing.
According to Harding (2013) memos are tools for stepping back from the data, moving beyond
codes, and thinking more reflectively and conceptually about the data. In my memos I included
quotes and paraphrases from my data to provide examples that supported my decisions. After I
completed open and axial coding for the ten interviews with TSOs (five at Secure Airport, five at
Sky Airport), I continued to identify emerging patterns that would become more concrete
patterns that led me to themes. I also used conceptual tools like examining commonalities,
differences, and examining relationships that helped me identify themes out of the data patterns.
I eliminated codes that stood outside any category and did not constitute a theme. Appendix G
displays the patterns and themes I found in the data after completing Phase four of the analysis
process for this study. The themes that remain were linked together to help comprise the findings
section of my dissertation report.
Phase 5: Assertions and Findings
Harding (2013) advises that identifying findings should be guided by the research
questions and conceptual framework. I developed findings by sandwiching themes together,
based on their relationship to each research question or element within the conceptual
ENGAGEMENT
70
framework. Each data sandwich includes an assertion followed by the relevant data from the
interview transcripts, and then it is completed with an analytic statement that completes the
frame of the data sandwich. An assertion is a declarative statement of summative synthesis that is
supported by confirming evidence from the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). The
theme-based data sandwiches built the findings section of my dissertation report.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase or maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of my study, I employed
several strategies in my data collection and analysis phases. First, I used the triangulation
strategy as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2012). I achieved
triangulation by interviewing multiple TSOs with different perspectives. I also conducted
member checks with my interviewees by forwarding my preliminary, emerging findings from the
TSOs I interviewed to determine if I captured their thoughts and experiences correctly, as
suggested by Maxwell (2012). Additionally, as part of the triangulation process, I collected and
reviewed the EES report and airport specific documentation as other sources of data. To
strengthen the credibility of my research even more I engaged in reflexivity, described by Probst
and Berenson (2014) as the way a researcher affects and is affected by the research process. I am
an accreditation manager working in the Office of Training and Development within TSA.
Within TSA, headquarters personnel are viewed as professional and authority figures by field
personnel. Because I received a great deal of support from the OSO DAA and leadership from
each airport, TSOs could have perceived that I was conducting official TSA business. This
perception could have impacted each TSOs trust in the confidentiality and privacy of the
information shared during the interviews. Because I understood my positionality, I was very
diligent about communicating that the study was not a TSA project, but part of the USC degree
ENGAGEMENT
71
program that I was completing as part of a personal development goal. Lastly, critical self-
reflection, as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), helped with addressing my
assumptions, worldview, biases, and relationship to the study that could affect my objectivity
during the data collection period. In particular, while interviewing TSOs I asked myself several
questions, such as “What do I think about what he or she said? What are my assumptions, biases,
and reactions? How is my role affecting what I am observing (nonverbal behavior)?” During
each interview I jotted reflective notes when I found my biases creeping into my thoughts during
each interview. This helped me manage the thoughts and become objectively focused again.
After each session, I reflected on the interview and whether my biases were an influencing
factor, and if my relationship to the study impacted the interview in any way. After each
interview, I also asked myself what I could do to improve for the next interview.
The strategies presented in this section to help me build and strengthen the credibility of
the research, to reconcile the relationship of my conclusions to reality, and to convince readers
that the study is dependable, believable, and ultimately useful.
Ethics
During this study, I had specific responsibilities regarding the involvement of human
subjects in the research. The first responsibility was to ensure interview questions were reviewed
and approved by the USC institutional review board supporting the Organizational Change and
Leadership program (Krueger & Casey, 2009). An institutional review board is an established or
designated entity that protects the rights and welfare of human subjects recruited to participate in
a research study (Mayo Clinic, 2017). The participants in this study were TSOs within the TSA
Office of Security Operations (OSO) who were interviewed about their perceptions and
experiences related to the factors that promote their high engagement while conducting screening
ENGAGEMENT
72
operations. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicated that researchers must be aware of their role and
obligation to treat study participants as whole people rather than as subjects being used to extract
information for the research. Rubin and Rubin (2012) explain that researchers must assure
participants come to no harm as a result of their research. I used Patton’s (2015) Ethical Issues
Checklist as a guide to ensure that participants came to no harm during the study. In applying
Patton’s Checklist, I used plain language to explain the purpose of my research. I also explained
the research by using information sheets provided to each TSO invited to participate in the study.
Glesne’s (2011) guidance regarding informed consent also provided guidance. To solicit
volunteers I provided a recruitment script used at shift briefs to announce the study and invite
TSOs to participate. Once TSOs contacted me with interest in volunteering to participate in the
study, I provided the entire full information sheet with all the necessary information for them to
make a knowledgeable final decision about voluntary participation in the study. After speaking
with each TSO and verifying his or her volunteer status and information, I sent a follow-up e-
mail with a short explanation of the request. I also included an information sheet with a detailed
description of the study, a personal biography that described my relationship to TSA and the
doctoral work, and a consent form to be returned to me, indicating acceptance or declination of
the invitation to participate in the study. The contents of information sheet included a
confidentiality statement addressing the boundaries of data collection and participation in the
study, a statement explaining that all interviews would be recorded and a request for permission
to record, and a description of the security measures was also provided.
During the interview, I continued to be guided by the interview protocol and the Patton
(2015) checklist. I spoke in plain language, and was able to gauge understanding by asking
participants questions, then by assessing their verbal and nonverbal responses. During the
ENGAGEMENT
73
interview when interviewees were hesitant to share thoughts and feelings that they wanted to
keep confidential, I assured each person that their comments would be kept private and
confidential. I also reminded each person of the consent form he or she signed. Additionally,
during each interview I showed respect to each person for his or her perspective by listening
intently, was respectful of each person’s time by ending each session on time, and answered
every question posed by interviewees. At the end of each interview I clearly explained what I
would do with the information, to meet the requirements of the OCL program and to help TSA
improve.
As a leader in TSA, I will use the results of the study to improve employee engagement
on my team and in the OTD. I will also share the results of the study with senior leaders in OSO
to help them improve the engagement level of TSOs across the country. As indicated by Glesne
(2011), this will serve as a type of reciprocity to TSA’s leadership for supporting the study.
Based on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) guidance, to preserve participants’ anonymity, I plan to
share the findings and my recommendations in an executive summary. Lastly, the
recommendations in the study could help improve organizational performance by increasing
employee engagement.
In my organization, I am a training professional with a specialty in program management
and special projects. Very few people were aware that I was a doctoral candidate conducting a
research study on employee engagement. To reduce confusion about my dual role, I worked with
senior leaders in OSO to gain access to TSOs to introduce myself as a doctoral student and to
explain my research. Leaders at the participating airports explained to potential participants that
they could volunteer to participate in the study. According to Rubin and Rubin (2012) providing
a context of my role, explaining the purpose of the research study, and being explicit about the
ENGAGEMENT
74
voluntary nature of participation should abate any feelings of pressure to participate that TSOs
could have experienced. Lastly, I proactively addressed assumptions and personal biases that
could have impacted the credibility of the study.
Before going into the field to interview study participants I gave careful thought to the
assumptions and biases I held about TSOs and OSO in general. Because my biases were not
always apparent to me, I sought ethical advice from my professional and doctoral mentors
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I sought advice about the assumptions I have about negative
leadership behaviors in TSA and their impact on TSO engagement. I also discussed the bias I
have against leaders who use a primarily directive leadership style, which I believe is the primary
style used in OSO.
When conducting research, giving attention to ethical considerations is critical to the
credibility of the inquiry. When a study involves working with human subjects, the researcher
has an ethical obligation to do no harm. According to Rubin and Rubin (2012) the researcher
should ensure that interviewees are better off for having participated in the study. Based on the
responses from the interview subjects who participated in my study, I believe I left them more
informed about the concept of engagement and their own individual engagement levels.
Additionally, ethical obligations include ensuring potential participants are given all the
information, obligations also include ensuring participation is voluntary and not coerced,
safeguarding the confidentiality of participant’s data, and ensuring proper security and storage of
all research data. In educational institutions such as USC, researchers must submit interview
questions to an institutional review board to ensure the study follows ethical guidelines (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). Since my study on employee engagement at airports across TSA included
ENGAGEMENT
75
interviews with human subjects, I submitted an Institutional Review Board (IRB) application and
received approval in October 2017 to conduct my study.
ENGAGEMENT
76
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine performance in the Transportation Security
Administration as it relates to a larger problem of practice: variation in Transportation Security
Officers’ (TSO) engagement levels at operational airports across the country. Discussed in this
chapter are the research findings that were based on data collection, document review, and data
analysis of TSO interviews that were conducted to answer the research questions that guided this
promising practice study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that create high levels
of engagement in TSOs that can be replicated at airports across the agency and improve their
engagement levels by the end of the 2020 calendar year?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for replication to improve TSO engagement levels
at airports experiencing low TSO engagement levels?
Synthesis
The findings in this study were the culmination of analysis of the qualitative interview
data, which were guided by research questions, the conceptual framework, review of
organizational documents, and the Office of Human Capital (OHC) Employee Engagement
Survey (EES). A document review of the results of the EES revealed that two mid-sized airports
had highly engaged TSOs and could be appropriate for this study. Both airports’ EES results
appeared in the top quartile of the airports surveyed, with engagement scores above 50%. Further
document review of the EES revealed that the two airports have best practices relating to rewards
and recognition and senior leadership. Sky airport’s scores also suggested it has best practices in
safety and support of its employees. Secure airport’s scores suggested that it has best practices in
ENGAGEMENT
77
empowering its employees. Based on these characteristics, I selected Secure and Sky to
participate in this study. I visited each airport separately to conduct qualitative interviews with
TSO volunteers.
Additionally, the findings from the analysis of the qualitative interview data, document
review of standard operating procedures (SOP) and airport brochures revealed two findings for
knowledge influences, three findings for motivation influences, and two findings for
organization influences. After further analysis of the findings, several recommendations are
offered to promote high engagement:
1. Foster a sense that all of TSA is one team with positive connections to the entire airport
leadership cadre, to mitigate the “us versus them” perception.
2. Educate leaders on the importance of and the strategies to build trust with TSOs.
3. Educate TSOs on strategies for self-reflection and self-regulation, and provide this across
the board to experienced TSOs as well as newly hired TSOs attending TSO-Basic
training.
4. Develop professional education and training designed to re-energize TSOs’ commitment
to the organization.
It is important to note that interview responses from TSOs at Secure Airport, and the
subsequent findings did not fully bear out the results of the EES. The EES indicated that
TSOs at the Secure Airport were highly engaged. However, some findings revealed that
negative responses in regards to trust in senior leaders and an “us versus them”
atmosphere, promoted by senior leader, are both related to each other.
ENGAGEMENT
78
Findings
The qualitative findings discussed in this chapter surfaced from analyses of interview
transcripts of 10 TSOs from two different TSA mid-sized federalized airports: Secure
International Airport and Sky International Airport. The analyses examined the experiences,
beliefs, and values that TSOs discussed in their interview responses regarding the KMO
influences on their engagement levels. The two research questions guided the development of the
interview questions, and the subsequent analysis of the qualitative data that resulted from TSO
interviews. The analysis process consisted of five phases, described in Chapter 3 of this report,
which culminated into seven findings, which are detailed in the subsequent sections of this
chapter.
Each of the seven findings is structured into three parts: assertion of what I think I saw in
the data; evidence from TSO transcripts that supports each finding; and an explanation of how
the evidence supports the assertion. According to MacFarlane (2011), assertions are strong,
confident statements regarding a belief or fact. Nolen and Talbert (2011) suggest that assertions
reflect the situational nature of the research findings and are credible with sufficient and varied
evidence. The assertion is followed by evidence taken directly from TSO interview transcripts.
The evidence provides the proof and credibility of the assertion, while eliminating validity
threats (Maxwell, 2012). The explanation portion of the findings provides retrospective analysis
after the evidence has been presented. All the findings presented in this report relate to TSOs’
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that promote high engagement in TSOs
across the TSA enterprise. The two findings discussed in the chapter are related to knowledge
influences.
ENGAGEMENT
79
Knowledge Findings
Analysis of qualitative data from 10 TSO interviews revealed two findings that address
the knowledge aspect of the first research question: What are the knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences that create high levels of engagement in TSOs that can be replicated at
airports across the agency and improve their engagement levels by the end of the 2020 calendar
year? The findings that follow are presented with an assertion of what I think came out of the
data, evidence of the assertion from the qualitative data, and an explanation of how the evidence
supports the assertion.
Knowledge influence: self-awareness. The first influence addresses how TSOs think
about their own engagement: Transportation Security Officers (TSO) have knowledge of how
they think about their own level of engagement.
Finding: Highly engaged TSOs consider their engagement level as their own sense of
purpose, their focus on work tasks, and their overall participation in the job. Eight of 10 TSOs
gave a clear indication of an awareness of their own engagement level and considered
themselves engaged when they were highly focused on a specific task at a particular time. One
TSO considered himself to be engaged when going above and beyond just earning a paycheck.
And one TSO’s focus was on keeping unruly passengers from interfering with her engagement.
The first TSO’s comments that validated this influence were Robin’s. She explained engagement
as putting all her effort and knowledge into doing the tasks required for each position.
Robin Jones (Secure): “I put all my effort and all my knowledge into every position
because no matter the reactions that we get from our passengers I still have to do my job
and no matter if you don’t like us or not we still have to do our best to keep you safe at all
times. So, I try to do the best I can no matter what in every position that they put me in.”
ENGAGEMENT
80
Jack and Sam indicated that they consider engagement as being committed to the agency’s
mission, being interested, and participating in the job. These attitudes reveal a deeper sense of
purpose that goes beyond simply focusing on a job task.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “I would say employee engagement would be how much that
individual participates and cares about their job. How much they want to interact with it.
Or have a vested interest in their job, if they come into work on time, have a clean
uniform and actively participate in briefings. And actually read the briefings and care
about what happens to TSA in general. Versus ‘This is a job, I’m going to show up, I
don’t care about anything else.’ I’m going to do my job and go home. I know when I’m
engaged when I do outside research on TSA. I would say I’m really engaged at work.”
Sam Oswald (Sky): “Just being engaged in the process of being the employee. Buying
into the group mission. Being observant about new things, just feeling a sense of purpose
from being engaged with it, and feeling like you’re part of the process. My engagement
level is “fairly high.”
Reagan’s perception of engagement was more ingrained in her personal work ethic and in doing
her best to support a smooth running operation. She also indicated that TSOs’ purpose is to deter
security threats.
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “I’m engaged when I’m doing something. When what I’m doing
is moving towards making things run smoothly. It starts with wanting to do your best,
wanting your co-workers to do their best. I believe that it starts with that, because as soon
as you do that, then all of a sudden everything is running more smoothly.
ENGAGEMENT
81
We are deterrents. I think that's the majority of what we do. We deter. Just our existence
and I don't take that for granted. It means something to a lot of us - what we do and the
reason we do it.”
Cindy described engagement as a sense of pride in the work she does.
Cindy Allen (Secure): “…almost like a sense of pride we have for the job, just how
serious we take it.”
Wilson and Frank described engagement as participation and involvement with the job and his
team.
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “For me, engagement is just ...Participation, basically. How far
are you \willing to participate in your job and with your coworkers and be a team player?"
Frank Crawford (Secure): “I would define engagement as being involved, being
proactive.
Bobbie’s stated perception of engagement revealed that she considers situational awareness as
important as focusing on the task.
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “Well the job overall, I would say that being engaged is
definitely being aware, situational awareness. Knowing what’s happening around you.
There’s no room out here to be in your own little world.”
Two of the interviewees’ definitions of engagement were not directly related to any of the key
elements in the OPM definition such as purpose, commitment, dedication, persistence, and
effort. Contrarily, the TSOs were more focused on passenger interaction and responses and to
getting compliance from passengers. First, Edward indicated that he defined engagement as
having the ability to gain compliance from passengers.
ENGAGEMENT
82
Edward Snyder (Secure): “I’m just going by, I’m given the instructions. I see that they
are complying. I’m not worried about inside, because that’s more emotional, dealing with
feelings, and that’s not part of the job.”
Lastly, Courtney focused preventing passengers from impacting her focus on the job.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “If I'm upset and they're upset and we're just negative attitude
back and forth, that's not gonna help anything. Regardless of the fact, they're only here
for so long. We're here to do a job. We're here to keep everyone safe and to screen
passengers and their property.”
Analysis indicated that interviewees had knowledge of the meaning of engagement,
which helped them articulate their awareness of their own engagement levels. OPM (2016)
defines engagement as a strong sense of purpose that is evident in a display of dedication,
persistence, and effort in his or her work or overall attachment to the organization and its
mission. Interviewees were knowledgeable of their own thinking about their engagement levels,
and could describe their individual engagement levels.
Knowledge influence: self-regulation. The next influence identified in the research
question addresses how TSOs regulate their engagement levels: Transportation Security Officers
know how to regulate their level of engagement.
Finding: Highly engaged TSOs have discipline to regulate their engagement levels. Six
of 10 TSOs indicated that their personal work ethic and discipline helps them regulate their own
engagement level. The other four indicated that they used other, external means to regulate their
engagement. Reflective analysis showed that some TSOs used varying methods for regulating
their own engagement. Some of the differences were slight, some were significant, but the results
were the same. Highly engaged TSOs were able to regulate their own engagement to maintain
ENGAGEMENT
83
focus on each task they were assigned, on a consistent basis. In contrast, some TSOs perceived
that their engagement was managed for them by elements outside of them. This perception is
contrary to the OPM (2016) definition of engagement used in this study. First, Reagan’s response
is examined. She indicated that her awareness of the importance of the work helped her have the
discipline to maintain her engagement level.
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “You just make yourself do it because it’s important…but it
doesn’t matter because what we do is so important. Aviation Security, that’s what we do.
We’re the front line. The first line of defense in Aviation Security.”
Jack indicated that the discipline he has, as an aspect of his work ethic, allows him to regulate his
engagement level.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “It’s my work ethic, it’s how I was raised, it’s how I was trained.
But I don’t just come to work and say ‘Today I’m going to feel very engaged, and I’m
going to read this briefing in depth and do some research today.’ No, it’s just a constant
overarching theme in someone’s life. I’m going to be engaged, I’m going to do my very
best all the time, and I’m going to give 100%.”
Edward considers engagement as having the discipline to disconnect, no matter what else is
happening, which is part of doing the job of a TSO.
Edward Snyder (Secure): “You just disconnect. You just learn how to do it. It
comes down to doing your job.”
Cindy’s strategy is to complete screening tasks by not rushing security screening tasks and
focusing on one passenger and one bag at a time.
ENGAGEMENT
84
Cindy Allen (Secure): “You just do one passenger, one bag at a time. You can't rush.
You have to do your job efficiently so you just have to take your time and just work at
your pace.”
Wilson blocks everything out when regulating his engagement while completing a task,
particularly tasks associated with x-ray.
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “I'm gonna make sure I don't see anything in anybody's bag
because if you did see something in somebody’s bags and let it go through, you know
what I mean? Nobody would know except you and that person until something bad
happens. So, there’s a lot of responsibility that comes with the X-ray and it’s not
something where you should be getting distracted.”
Robin said that when regulating her engagement, she focuses on her role and why she is doing
the job.
Robin Jones (Secure): “But I just do everything I can to the best of my ability and I
always keep in mind that we’re here for a reason.”
Responses from four of the 10 interviewees indicated that they allowed external elements
regulate their engagement for them, rather than regulating their own engagement.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “My team helps a lot. There’s always someone that’s going to
have feedback, input, and an answer.”
Sam indicated that communications about what was happening around the airport made him feel
engaged. This perception aligns with a portion of his definition engagement, “…just being
engaged in the process of being an employee.”
Sam Frazier (Sky): “I try to read all the things that come down, all the bulletins, all the
technical points that are posted…even the bulletin board. I try to know why we’re doing
ENGAGEMENT
85
things and how we do it. I like being a small cog…I feel quite comfortable with that, and
I feel engaged doing so.”
Bobbie stated that she manages her engagement by ensuring she is prepared to handle the
unknown.
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “I guess I just come prepared. To me, I would say that’s when
something usually happens that helps kick you into gear, something good. Something will
usually happen that makes it, ‘Okay, you know what, I can do this. Maybe I didn’t want
to earlier, but I want to now.”
Lastly, Frank Crawford stated that he does not actively manage his engagement, rather he just
handles situations as they happen and allows others to direct him.
Frank Crawford (Secure): “How do I manage it? I wouldn’t say I manage it too much,
so much as I jut go with the flow. I let the leads put me where they need me, and then
help out where I can.”
After further probing about how he managed engagement internally, Frank indicated that his
management of his engagement was a mixture of external and internal actions.
Frank Crawford (Secure): “Really just by staying focused. I switch to a new position,
and then I’m like, ‘Okay. This is where I am now. This is what I’ve got to do.’”
Motivation Findings
A multi-layered analysis of 10 TSO interview transcripts revealed three findings that
answer the portion of the research question regarding motivation influences. The three findings
that follow include an assertion of what I think I saw in the data, evidence from TSO transcripts,
and explanation of how the evidence supports the assertion.
ENGAGEMENT
86
Motivation influence: self-efficacy. The discussion of motivation influences begins with
the influence of TSOs’ self-efficacy: Transportation Security Officers who are highly engaged
feel efficacious in their ability to screen passengers and property.
Finding: Highly engaged TSOs were generally very confident in their ability to
complete all the tasks for their jobs. Confidence, or self-efficacy, is a motivator for high TSO
engagement. When highly engaged TSOs feel efficacious in their ability to perform tasks, such
as x-ray and passenger screening, they are more likely to be highly engaged. The interview data
suggests that highly engaged TSOs are generally confident in themselves and their ability to
complete tasks associated with their jobs. The sources of TSOs’ confidence are also important to
consider when examining the influence of self-efficacy on high engagement. Reagan’s
confidence stemmed from her team, and what she perceived as an inherent requirement for the
TSO role.
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “I’m very confident. I’m very confident and the thing is, this is
such an independent job. You’re independent judgment is crucial, and you wouldn’t
make it if you didn’t feel confident. The thing is, the people here, the TSOs, they give
you confidence. There’s no reason why anybody here should not feel confident. That’s
what we do for each other.”
In contrast, Cindy’s confidence came from the length of time she had been doing the job. She
was confident to the point of perceived automaticity.
Cindy Allen (Secure): “I’m very confident. I’ve been working here a long time
so I could do the job in my sleep. Just the knowledge of the job, the experience
that I’ve obtained from the years of just working here (makes me confident).”
Wilson’s confidence originated from a high success rate on x-ray tasks.
ENGAGEMENT
87
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “I’m extremely confident. There are days, I will tell you, when on
my less engaged days where I can get stressed by the x-ray. I haven’t ever missed
anything, but you know. My confidence level is high, it’s just ... it really actually doesn’t
depend on the day, I was gonna say it depends on the day, but it doesn’t. It’s hard
regardless. Even on my worst days, I’m still good.”
Another source of confidence that surfaced among TSOs during the study was achieving success
on convert tests. Jack and Frank’s successes on covert tests made them confident.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “I feel very confident. Like the inspectors when they run their
unannounced super tests or whatever and they try to catch people, I’ve never failed one of
those. And every week we hear people that fail those tests here at our airport, so I’ve
never failed one of those. I always have a high tip score, I have a high success rate, I
always pass all my tests for tops. And so, I think that’s, like I said especially on x-ray…
so I’m pretty confident.”
Frank Crawford (Secure): “Pretty confident. The things that influence my confidence?
Like passing the test, that influences my confidence a bit.”
The next source of confidence that surfaced was the TSOs themselves. Edward felt his
confidence was an inherent part of his personality, while Bobbie was confident because she
generally trusts and has no doubts about herself or the decisions she makes.
Edward Snyder (Secure): “The type of person that I am (makes me confident). I want to
be the best at everything. I don’t like making mistakes.”
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “Extremely confident. I think that if you ask anybody about my
confidence level, it’s through the roof. I don’t doubt myself for a second. Anything that I
do, any choice that I make, I never doubt myself.”
ENGAGEMENT
88
Robin’s confidence came from trust in her training and the experience of team on her members.
Robin Jones (Secure): “I’ve had a good trainer and I think they do train us very well.
And then every day you may get something you never had and you deal with it the best
way you can, especially when you have vet TSOs and LTSOs that are there to help you
no matter what. We try to work as a team as best as we can.”
Sam’s confidence came from the simplicity of tasks and the low-stress expectation to simply
follow the criteria in the SOP.
Sam Frazier (Sky): “ It’s a relatively simple task. There’s no pressure on you to go fast
for instance, or anything. You’re simply supposed to apply the criteria to everything, and
that’s it. You’re not expected to do anything except the task, and do it well.”
Lastly, Courtney described how her confidence was boosted when her leadership gave her
positive feedback for demonstrating effective interaction with a difficult passenger. According to
Escarti and Guzman (1999), if feedback is positive it boosts self-confidences and can lead
individuals to perform more complex tasks.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “The leads are like, ‘Hey, good job on doing this. Good job on
your advisements or helping that passenger.’ Even though there can be so much
negativity from passengers, it’s good when you have the higher ups saying, ‘Good job on
handling that situation.’ When you have your leads, your sups, managers, even other
TSO’s say, ‘Hey, even though that lady was a little kooky, you did a good job.’ That’s
just give me the ump. I have my team behind me. We give each other pats on the back. I
feel like that boosts everyone’s confidence.”
Analysis of the interview data revealed that highly engaged TSOs have confidence,
stemming from a variety of sources, that influenced TSOs to fully focus on, and effectively
ENGAGEMENT
89
complete security screening tasks. The more TSOs proficiently complete tasks, the more they
master the task, which leads to higher levels of confidence. According to Bandura and Wessels
(1994) the most effective way to create a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences.
Conversely, some sources of confidence, such as passenger appreciation, are unpredictable and
difficult to replicate. Although the sources of TSOs’ confidence varied, all of them contributed to
each TSO’s high engagement. All 10 interviewees described themselves as confident in their
ability to complete their job tasks.
Motivation Influence: personal interest. Transportation Security Officers who are
confident are also influenced by personal interest: Highly engaged TSOs have personal interest
in thoroughly performing effective screening procedures.
Finding: Highly engaged Transportation Security Officers are interested in conducting
effective security screening. When TSOs are interested in conducting thorough passenger and
property screening, they tend to be more engaged in each task they perform. According to
Reeves (2008) when people involve themselves in a task without the support of interest,
motivational and cognitive exhaustion makes it harder to persist and to continue to be engaged.
Nine out of ten TSOs interviewed indicated that they had interest in tasks associated in
conducting screening procedures, particularly passenger interaction, as part of their role. They all
had particular aspects, related to screening, that they liked. However, one TSO as Secure Airport
showed interest in duties outside screening passengers and property. For example, Courtney
indicated that she finds enjoyment in clearing bags while conducting security screening.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “As an x-ray operator it's nice when you have clear bags or
something that you can see through.”
ENGAGEMENT
90
Cindy indicated that she has interest in ensuring that each and every passenger is screened
effectively. She said she takes their time, each and every time.
Cindy Allen (Secure): “Manage it. You just do one passenger, one bag at a time. You
can’t rush. You have to do your job efficiently, so you just have to take your time and just
work at your pace.”
Reagan expressed interest in ensuring that nothing gets into their airport’s sterile area.
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “Just knowing that we didn't have anything that got past us
through security. Knowing that we had a good day that went by and everybody was safe
and got to their destination. Knowing there wasn't any incidents, no one was hurt.”
In contrast, Bobbie had personal interest in simply getting a positive reaction from someone for
her work, while Wilson had personal interest in interacting with coworkers and passengers in
relation to passenger screening. These elements influenced his engagement level.
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “I like the interaction with passengers (during passenger
screening).”
Edward discussed that he liked the compliments aspect of passenger screening.
Edward Snyder (Secure): “I mean it's nice to be complemented.”
Sam described what he liked most about passenger screening.
Sam Frazier (Sky): “…if I can help someone (passenger) with something, I enjoy
that.”
Robin indicated that giving passengers extra attention interests here.
Robin Jones (Secure): “But when you give them that little extra to each
passenger, or almost every passenger, it kind of makes your day better and also
maybe makes their day a little bit better.”
ENGAGEMENT
91
Wilson indicated that what interests him most is working with passengers and coworkers.
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “I like dealing with my coworkers. I like dealing with the
passengers. All those items together collectively just make me want to be engaged at
work.”
Frank described his interest in terms of the people he works with only, not necessarily in relation
to a task such as passenger screening.
Frank Crawford (Secure): “Things that make me feel more engaged. Generally the
people I work with. Not everyone is that unpleasant to work with. They've got good
people here.”
Lastly, Jack had interest in tasks that were not directly related to security screening.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “…whenever we get the opportunity to do something different,
like for example out of the blue they asked me to conduct interviews for new hires. That
was amazing, I loved that, that was great.”
The analysis revealed that eight TSOs were motivated by an interest in conducting
thorough security screening, particularly passenger screening. The ninth TSO expressed interest
in interaction with coworkers, while the tenth TSO discussed his interest in tasks associated with
recruiting, which is outside the tasks traditionally associated with the TSO role. According to
Harackiewicz and Hulleman (2010) interest in a task indicates that an individual cares about it,
that it is important to the individual, and that he or she has positive feelings towards it. Whatever
the source of interest, each TSO in this study was engaged and committed to doing his or her job
effectively. Furthermore, for TSOs to be effective, they also need to be motivated and able to
regulate their emotions.
ENGAGEMENT
92
Motivation influence: emotion control. The third motivation influence states the
following: Highly engaged TSOs regulate their emotions to positively manage their engagement
levels.
Finding: Highly engaged TSOs manage their emotions at work to maintain positive
control and manage their engagement levels. According to Tamir, John, Srivastava, and
Gross’s (2007) theory of emotion there is a link between individual emotions, emotion
regulation, and self-efficacy. The data showed that highly engaged TSOs are able to manage
their emotions, which helps them to maintain their engagement with specific job tasks. All the
TSOs who were interviewed indicated that they have strategies that they use in order to
effectively complete task associated with security screening. During her interview, Reagan
discussed how she manages her emotions.
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “The emotions are in the moment, and you’re trying to take each
task as it comes... I think about the SOP a lot. I think about the SOP a lot especially when
it’s hectic because I don’t want to get lax or complacent.”
While Reagan used the strategy of focusing on the SOP to help her manage her emotions and
stay engaged, Robin, Sam, and Jack capitalized on their happy dispositions to help with their
individual engagement levels, and to promote a working environment that supports high
engagement.
Robin Jones (Secure): “For the most part I’m happy. And I try to brighten my
coworkers’ day. I really enjoy the people I work with and it does help. And I don’t know,
I just always try to have a smile on my face no matter what.”
Sam Frazier (Sky): “. Generally I'm pretty happy. I'm relentlessly upbeat.”
Jack Bennett (Secure): “I'm very happy, I'm very energetic.”
ENGAGEMENT
93
Wilson indicated that he controls his emotions by remaining level headed.
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “Just being level headed…you have to be able to control you
emotions though and I'm pretty good at that.”
Bobbie also relied on her naturally happy disposition, and an understanding of the
importance of maintaining high engagement, even when the situation may have
influenced her to focus on compassion for the passenger over effective security
screening.
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “Typically, I’m happy, cheery. It’s not just being engaged
mentally. You have to be engaged emotionally as well.”
Frank stated that he manages his thinking to help him manage his emotions.
Frank Crawford (Secure): “I get in the right mindset and do the job.”
Cindy indicated that she manages her emotions by focusing on the job she has to do.
Cindy Allen (Secure): “…you have to tune it (the emotion) out and just focus on the
job.”
Courtney’s understanding of the variable nature of passengers, and the situations that occur with
passengers while performing screening tasks, helps her manage the mix of emotions she
experiences in the job.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “It can be a mix of emotions. Not every day is the same. Not
every tool is the same. Majority of the time I just say, ‘Have a blessed day’ and I go on. I
try not to let them upset me considering they’re only here for as long as they want to be.”
Lastly, Edward (Secure Airport) stated that he doesn’t deal with his emotions at all.
ENGAGEMENT
94
Edward Snyder (Secure): “I guess I would say, I really don't. I'm not worried about
inside, because that's more emotional, dealing with feelings, and that's not part of the
job.”
Retrospective analysis revealed that whatever the emotion, whether it was happiness or a
mix of other emotions, all TSOs were able to maintain emotional control to positively impact
their own engagement levels. According to Ouweneel, Blanc, and Schaufeli (2012) there is a
relationship between positive emotions and high work engagement.
Interestingly, one TSO
suggested that not dealing with his emotions at all was the strategy that he used to manage them.
Overall, having a generally happy disposition, maintaining focus on the importance of each task,
and adjusting to different situations helped TSOs manage their emotions, and in turn their
engagement. All findings in this section speak to the importance of self-efficacy, interest, and
emotion motivations, and illustrate how each motivation influences engagement.
Motivation is important to performance because it generates the desire to begin an
endeavor, persist in the endeavor, and put effort into it Clark and Estes (2008). Schunk, Pintrich,
and Meece (2009) define motivation as the process where goal-directed activities are initiated
and sustained. Motivation influences TSOs’ continued commitment to the TSA mission, impacts
the effort and focus they put into effective security screening over time, and determines how
much effort they will apply to being and staying engaged.
Organization Findings
The analyses of data from 10 TSO interviews revealed two findings that answer the
portion of the research question regarding organizational influences. The findings that follow,
examine organization influences on engagement. The examination begins with supervisory
support and its impact on TSO engagement.
ENGAGEMENT
95
Organization influence: supervisory support: Highly engaged TSOs have support
from supervisors, which promotes high levels of engagement.
Finding: Supervisors are seen as different from managers and are trusted to provide
support to TSOs. The analysis of the qualitative data revealed two perceptions that TSOs have
about supervisors at their airports: Supervisors are trustworthy and senior leaders promote an “us
versus them” atmosphere. Courtney and Wilson indicated that they perceive supervisors as being
trustworthy to help TSOs, to support them, and to have their backs.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “I’m like, at least you can turn around and you will see, we
have three supervisors at the back. We have leads that are out on the floor helping out…
they are always there to help out, especially when you need them. They don’t just leave
you stranded. They’ll say, ‘Have a good day. You guys did great.’ One of the supervisors
normally says we worked like a well-oiled machine. That’s always his thing. We do have
some supervisors that are like, you know what? I got your back.
Sometimes we’ll get little treats and stuff, like on Halloween one of the supervisors
brought in a bag of candy and walked around and said "Trick or treat" to everyone and
told us to pick. It’s the little stuff like that, that happens.”
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “…we have like I said, a good leader system with our supervisors
are always around. I would say that my supervisors are all easy to get along with for the
most part.”
Reagan indicated that she trusted the supervisors at her airport because they were consistent with
helping TSOs, had positive attitudes, and never complained.
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “One thing I love about these supervisors is that, they can be
having a rough day, and if they’re having a rough day, we’re all having a rough day
ENGAGEMENT
96
because we all have the same passengers and we all work on the same check point. These
supervisors though, they don’t huff. They don’t drag their feet. They don’t complain
under their breath. They have great attitudes, and you know what, they jump to it. You
call them, and they are on top of it. They don’t come with an attitude. They don’t come
like you’re bothering them. They just do it.”
In contrast, Jack indicated that senior leaders foster an “us versus them” atmosphere and did not
respond to their concerns, which engendered mistrust and inconsistent commitment in some
instances.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “And then there’s this us versus them as far as being a TSO
here... It’s the uniformed officers versus the … people that don’t work in the airport per
se. The program analysts, the project managers, the FSD, and anyone who doesn’t work
in the airport and they work off site, the admin people, HR and all that. Because we
barely see them, we almost never see them in the airport. They may come in the AM shift
in the morning, but there’s always this us versus them. You stay here long enough and
it’s in the atmosphere, it’s a little resentment there.
I remember there was a time where management … came to the new TSO’s had
mentioned ‘Hey, we don’t see you guys enough here at the airport. We want to see more
senior management presence come by and saying hey how are you doing?’ Well what
they did is they came, management came, but it wasn’t the way that we liked. They came
in and they started nitpicking everything and doing uniform checks and making sure you
weren’t having drinks in check baggage, and you weren’t having your cell phone out.
They had the opposite effect that people wanted. They wanted that concerned feeling
from management and a morale booster, instead they came in and they just kind of
ENGAGEMENT
97
squished, and suppressed, and took away any little freedom we had. And it just totally
backfired on everything, and it just further divided the divide between uniformed officers
and XX.”
Jack discussed the “us versus them” perception he had early in the interview, but later talked
about the opportunities he was afforded by senior leaders Those opportunities allowed him to get
to know the administrative staff and senior leaders, which changed his opinion.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “So whenever we get the opportunity to do something different,
like for example out of the blue they asked me to conduct interviews for new hires. That
was amazing, I loved that; that was great. I got to go to XX, wear business formal clothes
and interview new hires for one day. Where they let some TSO's… get out of the normal
grind and see something that's not in the airport was just really refreshing. And it
expanded and opened our mind, that maybe the people at XX aren't that bad. Maybe
management really isn't out to get us and fire us, and isn't just there to just squeeze us into
the dirt. Things like that help me to want to stay at TSA. Like hey maybe there is hope
for me, maybe there is light at the end of this dark tunnel.”
Unlike Jack’s perspective, Bobbie’s “us versus them” perspective did not change. Bobbies’
attitude stemmed from the lack of action from the leadership team when she was physically
slapped by an elderly passenger and the negative response she received from the acting
manager, which added to the “us versus them” perception. Although Bobbie felt the assault
was egregious, she thought that the leadership team took the passenger’s side, and the
situation was not resolved. Bobbie was the only TSO at Sky airport who expressed this
perspective toward the senior leadership team.
ENGAGEMENT
98
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “I didn’t mean to upset her (the old lady), but she smacked me.
Shouldn’t I be the one that’s upset? The acting manager had left the building…Action
manager stomps back into the building, she’s not happy. I found out that the supervisor
and acting manager walked down to the gate where this woman was to ask her about her
experience with me. I felt as though they were not concerned about how I felt about the
situation…My arm was red. She smacked me…The following day she (acting manager)
tried to get me to rewrite my statement…”
“I had a two-and-a-half-hour meeting with our FSD about these complaints. Nothing
came of it. Two and a half hours you sat and listened to me talk and nothing came of it?
Okay.”
Cindy eluded to the “us versus them” atmosphere when she described her perceptions of
unfair treatment levied by management toward “certain people.”
Cindy Allen (Secure): “I'm just not happy with the things that's coming down
from management anymore. I find that they constantly pick with certain people. I
don't like the way they do it because it's almost like a harassment situation but it's
a underhand harassment. The morale here at this airport is really low.”
Frank suggested that he trusts supervisors because he receives positive feedback from them,
which he perceives as support.
Frank Crawford (Secure): “I've had a STSO come up and tell me I was one of the
better TSOs that he's seen on AIT. He said I was following SOP better than anybody he's
seen on AIT that week or month or whatever. Little things like that pretty much confirms
that I know I'm doing what I'm supposed to.”
Edward remarked that he trusts supervisors because they give him all feedback.
ENGAGEMENT
99
Edward Snyder (Secure): “Certain supervisors will let me know I got compliments.
Certain ones just let me know when I get complaint. …a lot of times, the supervisors will
say,’ look, this person said they don't like your tone, but they'll tell me, you're doing your
job.’”
Robin (Secure Airport) did not describe anything directly related to supervisor support, but
instead she discussed the training that supervisors provide as positive.
Robin Jones (Secure): “So pretty much just the training aspect of things should be a
little bit better.”
Sam indicated that supervisors provide stability, which fosters his engagement.
Sam Frazier (Sky): “(The supervisor) come in, everything's tied in together well with
the meeting. (I) Go out with a sense of purpose. Have at least a rough idea of what the
day is going to be like.”
In their 2013 study, Cheng, Lu, Chang, and Johnstone observed that when employees
perceive high supervisor support, a high-quality relationship exists and this influences
employees’ levels of engagement.
Reflective analysis revealed that the trust that most TSOs in
the study have in the Supervisory TSO (STSO) and Lead TSOs (LTSO) is primarily due to the
quality of the working relationships the three groups. These relationships foster TSOs’
perceptions that STSO and LTSOs are one of them, and therefore better understand how to
support them. This support influences the commitment TSOs feel, which is an essential element
of engagement. Additionally, the day-to-day interactions and two-way communications between
TSOs, STSOs, and LTSOs foster the relationships that are lacking with airport managers.
However, Federal Security Directors (FSD) were sometimes seen as distant, detached,
untrustworthy leaders who issue edicts with no sense of, or relationship with TSOs as individual
ENGAGEMENT
100
team members. According to Jose (2015) supervisory support is an important element in building
positive employee perceptions of an organization. The need for supervisory support is a cultural
model within the conceptual framework of this study. Cultural models are the mental schemas of
how an individual thinks about the way the world works and are expressed through cultural
practices.
Rueda (2011) indicates that although organizational members often know what, when,
why, and how to achieve organizational goals, and are motivated to do so, there can be aspects
about the organization itself that hamper effective performance. Leadership support and adequate
work process that support screening effectiveness are such aspects that can promote highly
engaged TSOs.
Organization influence: work processes. The organization’s processes balance
screening effectiveness and efficiency.
Finding: Work procedures in standard operating procedures (SOP) drive TSOs’ focus
on effective security screening. Airports with highly engaged TSOs required close adherence to
work processes outlined in the SOPs, to achieve effective security screening that addresses
current threats. Additionally, document review of screening SOPs revealed that work processes
are updated as often as needed to address current terrorist threats. Frank and Reagan attribute
their effectiveness, at screening procedures and positive passenger interaction, to adhering to the
SOPs.
Frank Crawford (Secure): “Because I know I'm following SOP, so I feel pretty good
about when I clear somebody.”
Reagan Monroe (Sky): “I think about the SOP a lot. When I think about the
SOP…when I am so tired from doing the same thing for two hours, I think you don’t
ENGAGEMENT
101
know who you could be protecting. You don’t know who you’re deterring by being
focused (on following the SOP). That's the most engaging because you have to do all that
while still following the SOP, those rigid guidelines. Integrating these two things
together, security and customer service, is not as easy as it sounds, and I think that's what
other airports struggle with.”
Courtney and Frank attributed their adherence to operational work procedures to team members
who pushed them to follow the SOP accurately and consistently.
Courtney Johnson (Sky): “I had the best OJT coach, hands down. She's an SOP Nazi,
so if anything was wrong, she was like, ‘Hey. This is what it says. This is how you do it,
regardless of what anyone else says.’ That helped…having someone that was like, ‘This
is what it says. Don't pay attention to what they do. Pay attention to what you were taught
at FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) and what I'm telling you now,
what you're reading.’ That helped.”
Frank Crawford (Secure): “…some of the trainers, if you’re not doing something per
SOP, they’ll come up and talk to you. Tell you what you’re doing wrong.”
Robin indicated that although SOPs are frequently updated, the updates could be better
communicated.
Robin Jones (Secure): “Cause honestly sometimes when procedures change it's mostly
word of mouth, and it's really not efficient.”
Sam described what the organization does when new procedures are rolled out, which he
suggested helps promote high engagement.
ENGAGEMENT
102
Sam Frazier (Sky): “…they try to get everyone trained on the process quickly (in the
SOP), which is sometimes out of their hands obviously. But there's a continual push to
educate people.”
Bobbie indirectly described how she follows the procedures to ensure she does her job correctly.
Bobbie Arlington (Sky): “What if I didn't see it? What if I would have turned my head?
What if I didn't look at that bag? You can't afford not to look at every bag. You can't
afford not to rerun something or have something checked if you don't know what it is.”
Wilson described why it is important to conduct x-ray screening procedures solely, just as the
screening SOP requires, and not trying to engage passengers while completing x-ray tasks.
Wilson Frazier (Sky): “…our main screening process is to send their bags through the
X-ray because we can see through them. We take a look at them. If we don't like
something or if we're uncomfortable with something we pull it and take a look at it. I just
believe that's the most important part. … and it's not something where you should be
getting distracted by trying to engage with passengers.”
Jack described how the myriad of changes to the SOPs can be annoying, but he understands why
they are needed. This understanding helps him engage in tasks using the frequently updated
SOPs.
Jack Bennett (Secure): “And then a little bit on TSA's part, it's all the obnoxious
changes that happen several times a year with SOPs. One day it's okay to do something a
certain way, the next day it's not. And then three months later they go back on. I mean I
get the reason why, I read the GAO reports, and I go online and I read the testimonies and
stuff. I know they have to address things based on threats, so I understand.”
ENGAGEMENT
103
Cindy did not provide a direct response regarding procedures. She eluded to using the
procedures to conduct security screening.
Cindy Allen (Secure): “Just knowing that we didn't have anything that got past us
through security. … and everybody was safe and got to their destination. Knowing there
wasn't any incidents, no one was hurt.”
Lastly, Edward considered following the SOP to be inherent in giving 100% to each task and
necessary to passing covert tests conducted by TSA inspection teams.
Edward Snyder (Secure): “I do give a 100%. I'm following the SOP. Because you never
know when the Red Team's going to come through and test you. And if I'm not sure, I'm
not afraid to ask for assistance.”
According to Clark and Estes (2008) work processes specify how employees, equipment, and
materials must connect and interact to produce a desired result. Analysis of the qualitative data
and the document review revealed that nine of 10 TSOs have work processes, clearly articulated
in the agency’s SOPs, that enable highly engaged TSOs to conduct effective security screening,
while balancing their focus on passenger efficiency. Additionally, TSOs have support from other
team members, such as trainers and OJT coaches who encourage them to be consistent in their
adherence to SOPs.
Summary
The research findings in this chapter answered the research questions and revealed the
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on high engagement in TSOs. The findings
detailed in this chapter were used to develop recommendations to solve the problem of variation
in TSO engagement at airports across the agency:
ENGAGEMENT
104
• Highly engaged TSOs consider their engagement level as their own sense of purpose,
their focus on work tasks, and their overall participation in the job.
• Highly engaged TSOs have discipline to regulate their engagement levels.
• Highly engaged TSOs were generally very confident in their ability to complete all
the tasks for their jobs.
• Highly engaged TSOs are interested in conducting effective security screening.
• Highly engaged TSOs manage their emotions
to positively manage their engagement
levels.
• Supervisors are seen as different from managers and are trusted to provide support to
TSOs.
• Work procedures in standard operating procedures (SOP) drive TSOs’ focus on
effective security screening.
To improve TSO engagement at other airports, Chapter 5 provides details several
recommendations to replicate elements that promote highly engaged TSOs. It also provides a
plan to implement the recommendations. Lastly, Chapter 5 includes an evaluation plan to
measure whether the recommended solutions supported the organizational goal, and improved
the problem of variation in TSO engagement.
ENGAGEMENT
105
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
The goal of this study on Transportation Security Officer’s (TSO) engagement was to
understand the factors that influenced their high level of employee engagement. This chapter is
to discuss the recommendations that address the findings corresponding to the assumed
influences described in the research questions:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that create high
levels of engagement in Transportation Security Officers (TSO) and can be replicated
at airports across the agency to improve TSO engagement levels by the end of the
2020 calendar year?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for replication to improve TSO
engagement levels at airports experiencing low TSO engagement levels?
Chapters 1 through 4 of this dissertation report outlined the problem under study (Chapter 1),
examined existing literature on the problem of engagement (Chapter 2), described the
methodology used to conduct the study (Chapter 3), and described the findings revealed from the
five phases of data analysis (Chapter 4).
In Chapter 4 the assumed influences were validated using data from interviews with
TSOs from Secure and Sky Airports. The validated influences are also categorized under
knowledge, motivation, and organization challenges. Similarly, the recommendations in this
chapter are organized by validated knowledge, motivation, and organization influences with
corresponding recommendations to improve the problem of practice. Next, the chapter describes
the New World Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model and how it is applied to the problem of
practice in this study through an integrated implementation and evaluation plan. This plan is
ENGAGEMENT
106
designed to outline the strategy for measuring the impact of the recommendations, discussed in
this chapter.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
This study included five layers of data analysis that resulted in two findings related to the
knowledge influence.
• Highly engaged TSOs consider their engagement level as their own sense of purpose,
their focus on work tasks, and their overall participation in the job.
• Highly engaged TSOs have discipline to regulate their engagement levels.
The qualitative data analyzed in this study consisted of comments from interviews with TSOs
from the Sky and Secure airports that were identified by the TSA Office of Human Capital
(OHC) as having highly engaged TSOs. The knowledge influences that promote high
engagement were also examined in this study. Table 6 contains a summary of the knowledge
influences of highly engaged TSOs that were validated with the qualitative interview data and
literature reviews. Both assumed influences in the table are metacognitive. Each influence has a
high probability of impacting TSA’s goal to improve TSO engagement 10% at airports with low
TSO engagement by using recommendations detailed in this report. The recommendations are
based on engagement promising practices from airports with highly engaged that were examined
for this study. Implementing the recommendations related to these promising practices could
improve security screening and ultimately organizational effectiveness. Although both
metacognitive influences are important to high TSO engagement, TSOs must first have
knowledge of how they think about their own engagement levels before they can regulate them.
Therefore, the influence of “TSOs being aware of their own thinking” will be discussed. The
ENGAGEMENT
107
summary of knowledge influences detailed in Table 6 correspond to recommendations for
replicating the promising practices that have a high probability of positively impacting TSA’s
goal to improve TSO engagement across the organization.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. According to
Finn (2012) metacognition is thinking about one’s own thoughts. Metacognition includes an
individual’s ability to control personal variables (knowledge about one's self and one’s thinking),
task variables (knowledge that different types of tasks exert different types of cognitive
demands), and strategy variables (knowledge about cognitive and metacognitive strategies for
enhancing learning and performance). The recommendation for replicating metacognitive
behaviors of highly engaged TSOs, that could increase engagement across TSA, is to educate
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Asset
(Promising Practice)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Highly engaged
Transportation
Security Officers
(TSO) have
knowledge of how
they think about their
own level of
engagement. (M)
Highly engaged TSOs
manage their
engagement. (M)
The use of
metacognitive
strategies assists in
becoming self-
regulated (Baker,
2002)
Educate TSOs on the
importance of
metacognitive strategies
such as self-reflection
and self-regulation that
will allow them to
analyze their in-the-
moment thinking about
their own engagement,
increase their
engagement, and
improve their ability to
think critically and
problem solve.
ENGAGEMENT
108
TSOs on the importance of applying metacognitive strategies to become more self-regulated.
Research (Nietfeld & Schraw, 2002; Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault, 2003) has shown that
metacognitive education and training considerably improves performance (Coutinho, 2008).
Baker (2002) suggests using learned metacognitive strategies to assists learners in becoming self-
regulated, thereby controlling their attentions. The education would include metacognitive
strategies that will enable TSOs to accomplish the following: analyze their in-the-moment
thinking about their own engagement; increase their engagement level; and improve their ability
to think critically, solve problems, and overcome challenges. Finally, the data suggests that
highly engaged TSOs manage, or self-regulate their own engagement. Furthermore, Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that strategy of educating people on metacognition will increase their
awareness and capacity to solve novel problems and challenges. According to William James’
original psychological theory from 1892, control of one’s attention is similarly crucial for an
individual to participate in introspective observation (Fox & Riconscente, 2008). This type of
behavior strengthens the connection between metacognition and self-regulation, leading to
learners’ acquisition of new habits that will help them regulate their own thinking. Learners can
then enact strategies, expend effort, and persist in a given task to manage their thoughts, despite
competing attractions. This behavior is described as control of one’s attention (Fox &
Riconscente, 2008; James, 1892). To leverage these approaches the recommendation is to
educate TSOs on the importance of regulating their own thinking and of using strategies to
develop habits that will increase or maintain their engagement levels, to ultimately help them
handle unexpected threats or challenges to aviation security.
Gerald Hanley (1995) conducted a study of the importance of metacognition for enhancing
a learner’s problem solving abilities. The study occurred at California State University, Long
ENGAGEMENT
109
Beach, and focused on development of learner metacognitive skills in order to bridge learned
problem solving and critical thinking knowledge. Sixty-five undergraduates enrolled in a critical
thinking class as part of a university requirement and participated in the study. Participants
completed two self-assessment surveys about their problem solving approaches. One survey was
completed after an initial lecture on problem solving, followed by a second survey at the end of
the semester. The results of the surveys revealed students’ beliefs that the class produced
improvements in their metacognitive skills were independent of their overall class performance
(Hanley, 1995). The results of the study indicated that as part of the learning process to gain
critical thinking skills, students developed greater metacognitive processes that influenced their
approaches to problem solving. The study suggests a relationship between improved
metacognitive skills and better problem solving ability, which also contributed to the
development of critical thinking skills. Once learners have stronger metacognitive abilities, they
are better able to regulate their own thinking.
According to Rueda (2011) there are significant research findings that support the
association between metacognition, self-regulatory behaviors, and learning and performance
outcomes. Self-regulation is the generation of one’s own thoughts, feelings and actions that are
adapted toward goal attainment (Rueda, 2011). Lee, Lim, and Grabowski (2010) suggest that
learners’ metacognitive control is critical for this kind of knowledge generation and is needed to
improve engagement and performance. Strategies such as time management, effort regulation,
critical thinking, and peer learning were strategies identified by Broadbent and Poon (2015).
Additionally, when individuals cognitively monitor their own learning and engagement with
tasks, they generate internal feedback that helps improve performance outcomes. Baker (2002)
suggested that metacognitive strategies, like those described by Broadbent and Poon (2015), can
ENGAGEMENT
110
assist TSOs with low engagement to self-regulate their metacognitive processes, and ultimately
increase their engagement levels.
Leadership support. The knowledge recommendation to replicate highly engaged
TSOs’ self-reflection and self-regulation behaviors at airports across the nation, must be fully
supported by the TSA Assistant Administrator (AA) for OSO and FSDs’ at each airport. The AA
of OSO oversees security at airports which includes airport checkpoint and baggage screening
operations, regulatory compliance, cargo inspection, and other specialized programs that secure
transportation (Transportation Security Administration, 2017). Federal Security Directors control
organizational resources, including fiscal budgets, for the airports under their purview. To adopt
the knowledge recommendation in this report, FSDs would need to provide the resources that
support the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of educational courses that
enable growth of TSOs’ ability to apply self-reflection and self-regulation strategies on the job.
According to Serrano and Reichard (2011) leaders must provide employees with training that
enables them to develop, which improves commitment and engagement.
Motivation Recommendations
The analysis of the qualitative comments from interviews with highly engaged TSOs
have revealed the following findings:
• Highly engaged TSOs are generally very confident.
• Highly engaged TSOs are interested in conducting effective security screening.
• Highly engaged TSOs manage their emotions at work.
The motivation influences are being validated as having a high probability of impacting TSA’s
goal of improving TSO engagement by 10% at airports with low TSO engagement. Table 7
contains a complete list of the influences on the motivation of highly TSOs’ engagement, and
ENGAGEMENT
111
identifies the probability of each influence being validated by qualitative interview data and
literature reviews.
According to Clark and Estes (2008) motivation is a distinct psychological system that
provides human beings with the direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish work tasks and
support organizational outcomes. According to Rueda (2011) motivational beliefs are also
developed from others with whom we interact in a variety of context including work. The Clark
and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework guides an examination of the motivations that
influences high engagement in TSOs: self-efficacy, interest, and emotions. Table 7 details the
influences and provides recommendations for replicating the promising practices that have a high
probability of improving engagement at airports experiencing low TSO engagement across the
enterprise.
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Summary of Motivation
Influences and
Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Asset*
(Promising Practice)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Transportation Security
Officers (TSO) who are
highly engaged feel
efficacious in their ability
to screen passengers and
property. (SE)
Modeling and feedback
increases self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Individuals with higher
self-efficacy will be
more motivated to
engage in, persist at, and
work hard at a task or
activity (Rueda, 2011)
Partner TSOs with low SE
with certified TSO coaches
who will model SE
behaviors, provide coaching
that aids the development of
high SE behaviors, and
provide appropriate feedback
that promotes higher SE and
engagement.
ENGAGEMENT
112
Self-Efficacy. Highly engaged TSOs are very confident in their ability to complete all
the tasks for their jobs. Self-efficacy (SE) is defined as the judgments people have about their
capabilities to execute actions to complete tasks and achieve designated levels of performance
(Bandura, 1986). According to Pajares (2006) modeling and feedback increases self-efficacy
(SE), and indicates that employees experience examples of high SE behaviors, and have an
opportunity to demonstrate and receive appropriate feedback on the SE behaviors they exhibit,
will experience improved self-efficacy when engaging in their work. Subsequently, employees
will be more motivated to engage in, persist at, and give maximum effort to work tasks (Rueda,
2011). Some TSOs in the study indicated that they gain confidence from the feedback they
received from trainers, supervisors, and other TSOs. Therefore, the recommendation is to partner
TSOs with certified TSO coaches, who have completed the TSA coaching program, who will
model positive SE behaviors, provide coaching that aids in the development of high SE
Highly engaged TSOs
regulate their emotions to
positively manage their
engagement levels. (E)
Positive emotional
environments
support motivation
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Educate TSOs on emotion
intelligence to help them
become more attuned to their
emotions, and how to
manage them effectively.
Provide leaders with
strategies to create a positive,
supportive, and appropriately
enthusiastic work
environment.
Highly engaged TSOs have
personal interest in
thoroughly performing
effective screening
procedures. (I)
Activating and building
upon
personal interest can
increase
learning and motivation
(Schraw
& Lehman, 2009).
Promote and reinforce TSOs’
personal interest through
leadership education on
creating a positive work
environment that promotes
positive emotions, and
aligning individual interests
with performing effective
screening procedures.
ENGAGEMENT
113
behaviors, and provide appropriate feedback and encouragement that promotes higher SE and
engagement.
Rueda (2011) suggests that self-efficacy reflects a person’s beliefs about his or her own
ability to accomplish a task or activity. Self-efficacy beliefs are at the root of efficacious
behavior and adaptation at work. According to Fida, Paciello, Tramontano, Barbaranelli, and
Farnese (2015) the core elements of SE beliefs include perceived capabilities to execute a course
of action and to master tasks, emotions, and challenging circumstances. Those who perceive
themselves as having high self-efficacy tend to engage and face obstacles within task
accomplishment more constructively, and tend to persevere longer to achieve success (Fida et al.,
2015). According to Achterkamp, Hermens, and Vollenbroek-Hutten (2016) individuals can
increase self-efficacy through vicarious experiences. An individual can model their beliefs, based
on comparisons to those with similarly perceived capabilities, especially peers. Achterkamp et al.
(2016) suggest that when individuals see perceived parallel peers succeed at a task, self-efficacy
tends to increase. Vicarious experiences are particularly useful when the only way to gauge
adequacy is to relate personal results with the performance of others. Theoretically, increasing
self-efficacy in TSOs using vicarious experiences such as modeling, coaching, and feedback will
improve TSOs’ task engagement, persistence, and performance.
Emotion. Highly engaged TSOs regulate their emotions to positively manage their
engagement levels. Tamir, John, Srivastava, and Gross, (2007) discuss emotion as the link
between individual emotions, emotional regulation, and self-efficacy. Clark and Estes (2008)
state that organizations that create environments that foster positive emotional experiences lead
to positive emotional responses and greater organizational commitment. Employees who have
positive emotional experiences at work are prone to feel more hopeful, optimistic, and self-
ENGAGEMENT
114
efficacious about their work-related abilities (Ouweneel, Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2012). Hence, two
recommendations are offered to promote positive emotional environments and TSOs’ ability to
regulate their emotions at airports across the enterprise. First, provide education to TSOs on
emotional intelligence to help them become more attuned to their emotions, and how to manage
them effectively. Second, enable leaders to develop strategies to create positive, supportive, and
appropriately enthusiastic work environments at airports across the enterprise. Lastly, integrate
mindfulness training into the existing TSO Basic training that all newly hired TSOs attend.
Mindfulness skills will help enhance TSOs’ self-reflection and support increased engagement.
In its everyday usage, emotion refers to emotional experience rather than emotional
expression. Hülsheger, Lang, Schewe, and Zijlstra (2015) suggest that many employees need to
manage their emotions as part of their job. Additionally, Boyatzis (2009) indicate that emotion
has been found to predict performance across a variety of professions. Emotion intelligence is
formally defined as the monitoring of an individual's, and other's feelings and emotions to guide
one's thinking and actions. (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). According to Houghton, Wu, Godwin,
Neck, and Manz (2012) individuals with higher emotion intelligence may have a greater sense of
power and perceive their work environment as more positive and supportive. Anitha (2014)
suggests that leaders who develop strategies to create a positive, supportive, and appropriately
enthusiastic work environment are considered to have concern for their employees’ needs and
feelings, and a focus to exchange feedback with their employees. A positive work environment
creates a mood that helps employees have a focus for their work and promotes interpersonal
harmony, which is reported to be a key factor of employee engagement (Anitha, 2014).
Additionally, there is a positive relationship between positive emotions, emotion self-regulation,
and high employee engagement (Tamir et al., 2007; Ouweneel et al., 2012). From a theoretical
ENGAGEMENT
115
perspective, increasing the number of emotion intelligent TSOs who work in a positive
emotional environment will significantly improve the TSO engagement across TSA.
Interest. Within TSA, highly engaged TSOs take personal interest in thoroughly
performing effective screening procedures. According to Harackiewicz and Hulleman (2010)
interest in a task indicates that an individual cares about it, that it is important to the individual,
and that he or she has primarily positive feelings toward it. Schraw and Lehman (2009) state that
activating and building upon personal interest can increase learning and motivation. They argue
that there are two types of interest: situational and personal. Situational interest is spontaneous,
transitory, and environmentally activated. Personal interest, also referred to as individual interest,
is less spontaneous and is activated internally. According to Hidi and Renninger (2006), three
factors contribute to the development of interest: knowledge, positive emotion, and personal
value. Therefore, the recommendation is to promote and reinforce TSOs’ personal interest
through education, by creating a positive work environment that promotes positive emotions, and
aligning individual interests with performing effective screening procedures.
According to O'Keefe and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2014) knowing that one enjoys a
particular type of task or activity, or that a particular domain or task holds personal interest may
lead one to initiate and sustain one’s task behavior. Rotgans and Schmidt (2017) suggest that
acquisition of new knowledge creates an increased interest in a task. As an individual’s interest
increases, their desire to learn more about a topic increases, they become more skilled and
knowledgeable, and substantially more interested. An increase in knowledge can bring about
positive feelings, where individuals feel more competent and skilled will subsequently increase
engagement. Schiefele (2001) states that interest is also associated with enhanced employee
engagement and achievement. From a theoretical standpoint, increasing individual interest,
ENGAGEMENT
116
through knowledge acquisition, can have a positive impact on TSOs with low engagement. To
better equip leaders in generating more interest among TSOs, training on increasing employee
interest of the job, the TSO career path, and techniques for creating a positive work environment,
will be added to the existing J-band and K-band leadership training. Additionally, to help
increase TSO interest, the Office of Training and Development could provide workshops to
educate TSOs on other functions in TSA. The Office of Human Capital could work with leaders
across the organization and offer career counseling to educate TSOs on how to grow and develop
in their career.
Leadership support. The motivation recommendations to replicate the interest, emotion
regulation, and efficaciousness of highly engaged TSOs also require leadership support. First, the
OSO AA and FSD of each airport must approve the expansion of the existing TSO On-the-Job-
Training Coach Program. The OJT Coach Program supports knowledge and skills development
of TSOs through one-on-one training, coaching, and feedback to promote targeted performance.
Assigning additional human resources (coaches) to the program from the existing TSO
population would require FSD approval.
Secondly, to implement the recommendation on emotion intelligence, FSDs would have
to approve funding to develop in-house emotion intelligence training, or to contract with a
vendor to deliver training to approximately 47,000 TSOs. Jordon and Troth (2011) suggest that
managers who support higher levels of emotional intelligence promote better stress management
and higher organizational commitment.
Lastly, to implement the recommendation to provide leaders with strategies to create
positive, supportive, and enthusiastic work environments, the existing leadership training for J-
and K-bands would need to be updated. Anitha (2014) indicated that perceived supervisor
ENGAGEMENT
117
support and a positive work environment are key determinants of engagement. The current
curriculum for J- and K-band training includes education on how to build teams, but not how to
create positive work environments for the teams. The OSO AA and the Training and
Development AA should partner to update exiting leadership training and to fund any additional
costs.
Organization Recommendations
The data analysis of qualitative interview data revealed the following findings:
• Supervisors are seen as different from managers and are trusted to provide support
to TSOs.
• Work procedures in standard operating procedures (SOP) drive TSOs’ focus on
effective security screening.
A comprehensive list of the organization influences is represented in Table 8. The data indicates
that there is a high probability that each influence will have an impact on the goal to improve
TSO engagement.
According to Rueda (2011), when considering organization influences it is important to
think about three areas: policies and practices, structure, and culture. Culture is the primary
influence on this study. Schein (2006) indicates that organizational culture is observed
behavioral regularities that occur when individuals and groups interact and is impacted by group
norms, espoused values, formal philosophy, mental models, settings, shared meanings, rules of
the game, etc. Table 8 identifies the cultural settings and models that influence highly engaged
TSOs. Cultural settings, according to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), are the more visible
aspects of an organizational culture. Cultural settings are where organizational policies and
practices are enacted. Cultural models are the shared mental images or understandings of how
ENGAGEMENT
118
the world works, or should work (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are
expressed through cultural practices and are so customary that they often go unobserved by those
who hold them. The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework will also guide the
discussion of the settings and model in TSA that influence highly engaged TSOs.
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence: Asset*
(Promising Practice)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Highly engaged TSOs
have support from
supervisors that
promote their level of
engagement.
(CM)
Organizations with high
levels of cultural trust
retain highly motivated
employees who are more
likely to enjoy their work,
take the time to do their
jobs correctly, make their
own decisions, innovate,
display organizational
citizenship behavior, and
embrace the
organization’s vision,
mission, and values
(Colquitt, Scott &
LePine, 2007 as cited in
Starnes, Truhon &
McCarthy, 2010, p. 6).
Educate leaders on the
importance of building
mutual trust with TSOs
and on strategies that
help build trust.
Operations leadership
and OHC will partner to
conduct focus groups to
determine the root cause
of “us versus team”
perceptions held by some
TSOs. Use the findings
from analysis of the
focus group data to
develop solutions for
improvement.
Highly engaged TSOs
have work processes
that allow balance
conducting thorough
security screening and
efficient passenger
processing. (CS)
Well-established work
processes support an
organizational climate that
produces positive
outcomes, and more
engaged employees
Langford (2009).
Ensure purpose
statements in operational
policies emphasize
effective security
screening over speedy
passenger screening.
ENGAGEMENT
119
Cultural model: Highly engaged TSOs have support from supervisors that promote their levels
of engagement. Trust is defined as a willingness to show vulnerability to an untested relationship
that is based on reciprocal cooperation (Mayer, Davis, & Shoorman, 1995; Rousseau, Sirkin,
Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, and Jia (2008) state that employees see
leadership support as an important exchange relationship that impacts their engagement.
According to Whitener, Brodt, Korsguard, and Werner (1998) leaders play a critical role in the
development of employee perceptions of trust. According to Colquitt, Scott & LePine (2007)
organizations with high levels of cultural trust retain highly motivated employees who are more
likely to enjoy their work, take the time to do their jobs correctly, make their own decisions,
innovate, display organizational citizenship behaviors, and embrace the organization’s vision,
mission, and values. Strategies to building trust include leaders doing what they say they will do
and keeping commitments. Leaders should also assume others will do what they say they will do.
And when setting goals, leaders should demonstrate confidence in their teams by allowing the
team to determine how to reach them. To build organizational trust, the recommendation is to
educate leaders on the importance of building mutual trust with TSOs and how to execute
strategies that build trust. Additionally, to determine the cause of the “us versus them” perception
that some TSOs have regarding airport management, the recommendation is that operations
leadership and OHC partner to conduct focus groups to determine the root cause. Using the
findings from analysis of the focus group data, OSO and OHC will develop solutions that include
action plans for improvement. Cultural models are only half of the organization influence on
TSO engagement, cultural settings is the other half.
Cultural setting: Highly engaged TSOs have work processes that allow them to balance the
need to conduct thorough security screening with efficient passenger processing. According to
ENGAGEMENT
120
Clark and Estes (2008) organization goals can be achieved within a system of interacting
processes that require specialized knowledge, skill, and motivation to operate successfully.
Processes direct individuals or teams on how to combine their separate work procedures in to an
operational unit. Langford (2009) states that well-established work processes support an
organizational climate that produces positive outcomes, and more engaged employees. The
recommendation is to ensure purpose statements in policies emphasize effective security
screening over speedy passenger screening and ensure TSOs are trained on the priority of the
two work processes.
Leadership support. To implement the organizational recommendation in this report,
the AA of OSO and OHC will have to fund and conduct focus groups with TSOs at selected
airports to determine the root cause of the “us versus them” perception. Senior leadership should
commit human resources to develop and implement solutions for the root causes identified from
the focus groups. Finally, leaders will have to commit human resources to update the purpose
statements in relevant policies.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, based on the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model suggests that evaluations start with the goals of
the organization and work backwards, and that by doing so, the “leading indicators” that bridge
recommended solutions to the organization’s goals are easier to identify and more closely
aligned to those goals. Further, this “reverse order” of the Kirkpatrick Model allows for a
sequence of three other actions:
ENGAGEMENT
121
1. Development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors
2. Identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation
3. Emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with
implementation strategies.
Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections between the
immediate solutions and the larger goal, and solicits “buy in” to ensure success (Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The purpose of the Transportation Security Administration is to secure the American
traveling public in the United States and abroad. The agency’s mission is to protect the nation’s
transportation systems and ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. For years
TSA has sought to improve employee satisfaction and engagement. The agency has experienced
a problem with variation in the engagement levels of its Transportation Security Officers, who
accomplish the major portion of the agency’s mission. Because TSOs are the stakeholder group
of focus in this study, a goal has been established that is expected to improve the larger problem
of practice: By the end of 2020, Transportation Security Officers (TSO) will have knowledge of
and will be able to regulate their levels of engagement. This goal was established to improve
TSO engagement because when TSOs have knowledge of their own engagement level they are
better able to regulate it. When TSOs can regulate their own engagement, their engagement
levels will increase, and ultimately screening effectiveness will improve. When security
screening is effective, TSA is better able to detect and thwart threats to the country’s aviation
transportation system. Next, the discussion turns to the expected outcomes for the
recommendations related to the knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences on
ENGAGEMENT
122
TSO engagement.
The recommendations contained in this chapter are expected to address the problem of
variation in TSO engagement and improve the KMO influences on TSO engagement.
Transportation Security Officers’ knowledge should improve in three ways: metacognitive
knowledge about their own engagement, their understanding of how to use metacognitive
strategies to improve their engagement, and knowledge of how to regulate their own engagement
should create consistent levels of engagement that lead to improved screening effectiveness. The
recommendations are also expected to improve the motivational elements that influence TSO
engagement: TSOs’ confidence (self-efficacy), TSOs’ ability to manage their emotions, and
personal interest in their work will increase. Lastly, the recommendations are expected to
positively impact organizational influences in terms of the trust TSOs have in their leaders and
application of improved work processes that create balance between screening effectiveness and
efficiency. Next this discussion turns to the elements of the implementation and evaluation plans
for the recommendations, beginning with Level 4 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describes Level 4 as targeted outcomes and the
degree to which they occur as a result of training and the support and accountability package that
accompanies the training. Level 4 answers the question of whether the training made any
difference to the organization, and identifies stakeholder expectations that define the value of a
training initiative to the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Clark & Estes, 2008). To
bridge the gap between the contributions of individual initiatives to targeted organizational
outcomes, leading indicators are employed. Leading indicators are short-term observations and
measurements that signal whether critical behaviors are tracking to positively influence desired
ENGAGEMENT
123
outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 9 presents the proposed Level 4 results and
describes the outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes for TSA. When
anticipated internal outcomes are met as a result of education and development, work process
updates, and accountability measures, realization of external outcomes should come to fruition.
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Reduced threats to
aircraft and passenger
security
Numbers of threats and
prohibited items detected and
removed during security
screening
Use existing reports
of collected threat
and prohibited
items
2. Better balance between
security effectiveness and
efficiency
Organizational performance
indicator reports
Use existing
operational metrics
for effectiveness
and efficiency
Internal Outcomes
3. Decreased number of
TSO failures on covert
testing at airports across
the country
Number of reported TSO
failures and passes of covert
tests
Use existing Red
Team reports
4. Improved Employee
Engagement Survey
(EES) scores for TSOs
at airports across the
country
Percentages from TSO survey
results
Annual EES report
5. Improved Federal
Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS) scores
for all TSO respondents
on questions related to
trust, integrity, and
accountability
Percentages from TSO survey
results
Annual FEVS
report
6. Reduced attrition rates Percentage of quarterly TSO
attrition rates
OHC employee
TSO exit interview
or survey reports
ENGAGEMENT
124
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus in this study are highly engaged TSOs
working at airports across the country. The first critical behavior that would indicate that TSOs
behavior changed, as a result of their new knowledge, would be that TSOs demonstrate more
focused on each assigned screening task. The second behavior that highly engaged TSOs would
demonstrate is accurate detection of security threats within an established time frame. The third
critical behavior is that TSOs communicate with passengers and their teammates clearly and
confidently. The fourth critical behavior that a highly engaged TSO would demonstrate is that
they can manage their emotions, particularly during stressful situations. Table 10 details each
behavior and the specifics for measuring behavior change in the work environment.
Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Focus on task Supervisor evaluations Supervisors will
observe TSOs and note
each individual TSO’s
focus and interest
Daily
2. Accurately
detect security
threats
The number of missed
threat items
Supervisors will
analyze Red Team
(covert) reports, x-ray
reports, and
observation notes
Monthly
3. Clear, confident
communications
with passengers
and teammates
Evaluation of each TSO’s
ability to communicate
with passengers and
teammates during various
situational contexts
Supervisor
observations and
passenger comments
Daily
4. Manages
emotions
Evaluation of each TSO’s
ability to manage his or
her emotions during
various situational
contexts
Supervisor
observations
Daily
ENGAGEMENT
125
Required drivers. Transportation Security Officers require education be provided by the
agency, and encouragement from their supervisors to show interest in using the self-reflection
and self-regulation strategies they learned. To bolster their confidence, TSOs with low
engagement should be partnered with TSOs with highly engagement to provide coaching and
encouragement on the use of self-regulation, self-reflection, and emotion regulation. As TSOs’
increase their engagement, this will help improve their performance, supervisors should reward
TSOs individual performance. Table 11 describes the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors that influence TSO engagement.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Discussions/check-ins with TSOs
about using self-reflection and self-
regulation strategies to gain and
sustain high engagement.
Ongoing 1, 2, 4
Participants will receive a job aid to
reinforce learned self-reflection and
self-regulation strategies.
Ongoing 1, 2, 4
Have TSOs brief what they learned
in the metacognition courses during
shift brief.
Situational 3
Encouraging
Supervisor and teammates provide
feedback and coaching on effective
engagement behaviors.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
ENGAGEMENT
126
TSO partners coach and encourage
each other to apply learned self-
reflection and self-regulation
strategies.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Supervisors can provide
performance incentives when TSOs
demonstrate consistently high rates
of threat detection during operation,
annual, and/or Red Team testing.
Quarterly,
Annually,
Situational
1, 2, 3
Supervisors can provide
performance incentives for
consistent positive interactions and
communications with teammates and
passengers.
Ongoing 3, 4
Monitoring
Supervisor will ask TSOs to evaluate
each other on their confidence and
self-efficacy in tasks and
interactions with passengers.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Supervisor will create opportunities
at shift briefs to have TSOs, who
self-report as being highly engaged,
share tips on self-regulating,
managing emotions, and passenger
communications.
Monthly 1, 2, 4
Supervisors can assess learner
performance using quick checks,
which will be documented to help
the organization monitor
improvement and/or maintenance of
TSOs’ engagement behaviors.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Organizational support. To strengthen the drivers that support high TSO engagement,
all TSOs will be asked to engage in peer feedback on self-regulation and emotion intelligence/
TSOs will also be asked to develop action plans for applying what they learned. The Office of
ENGAGEMENT
127
Training and Development will administer Level 3 surveys within 90-180 days after course
completion to assess behavioral changes. The surveys will go to supervisors and peers of training
participants. Additionally, supervisors will attend leadership training to learn skills to provide
support to TSOs. The training will include sessions on trust building, and during the course they
will develop action plans on how they will apply what they learned. A Level 3 survey will be
administered to leaders within 90-180 days after course completion to assess behavioral changes.
Leaders will also receive a check-in call from the instructors who delivered the training, to
provide support for behavioral change. To measure engagement more broadly, the annual TSA
Office of Human Capital OHC) will use data from their Employee Engagement Survey to
measure TSO engagement. The data will be provided to leaders in the Office of Security
Operations, who will develop action plans to continuously improve TSO engagement.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, the stakeholders
will be able to do the following:
1. Identify metacognitive strategies for analyzing and regulating one’s own thinking
about personal engagement. (metacognitive)
2. Describe the importance of using metacognitive strategies to regulate one’s own
engagement. (cognitive)
3. Define emotional intelligence (EI). (cognitive)
4. Describe how EI helps TSOs with engagement on the job. (cognitive)
5. Explain the importance of building trust with TSOs. (cognitive)
6. Describe the strategies for building trust with TSOs. (cognitive)
7. Describe strategies for increasing TSO interest in their job. (cognitive)
ENGAGEMENT
128
8. Apply self-reflection to assess one’s own engagement level and emotions.
(metacognitive, cognitive)
9. Apply self-regulation to maintain or improve one’s own emotions and
engagement. (metacognitive, cognitive)
10. Apply emotional intelligence to increase engagement. (cognitive, metacognitive)
11. Demonstrate ability to write policy purpose statements in TSA SOPs. (cognitive)
12. Demonstrate clear, confident communications with passengers and teammates.
(cognitive, metacognitive)
Program. The learning goals identified in the previous section will be achieved by
integrating the learning content into existing training programs and courses. New recruits
attending TSO Basic Training (TSO-BT) will learn about engagement, its importance, and the
strategies to gain and sustain high engagement while working, will be critical to promote
engagement behaviors in the beginning of a TSOs’ career. Training TSOs early in their career
can indoctrinate work habits that positively impact screening effectiveness. Each TSO-BT
graduate should receive job aids to help reinforce the learning from TSO-BT. In addition,
supervisory training for LTSOs and STSOs should include courses on reinforcing, encouraging,
and rewarding, and monitoring TSOs who consistently demonstrate high engagement and
effective performance. Reinforcement training should also be integrated into the training plans of
all TSOs, LTSOs, and STSOs.
To strengthen the knowledge gained in basic training, TSOs should be asked to complete
an annual engagement survey. The OTD should develop interactive e-learning modules designed
to refresh and reinforce TSO’s knowledge and use of metacognitive strategies to sustain or
improve their engagement levels.
ENGAGEMENT
129
Components of learning. Determining metacognitive knowledge can be difficult and
imperfect, but essential for sustained high engagement. Therefore, it is important to identify the
evaluation methods that will yield the appropriate information about TSOs use of metacognitive
strategies, including self-reflection and self-regulation. Table 12 lists the evaluation methods and
timing for these components of learning.
Table 12
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Metacognitive Knowledge “I am aware of my
own thinking.”
Discussions during training During basic training
Supervisors ask TSOs questions about their
assessment of their own engagement.
Periodically through daily,
weekly, monthly conversations
Surveys of TSOs about their engagement, self-
reflection, and self-regulation practice
Quarterly or semiannually via
OHC Employee Engagement
Survey and Federal Employee
Engagement Survey
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
TSO responses to questions regarding
engagement, self-reflection, and self-
regulation
During the basic training
Discussions with peers and supervisory of the
value of what they are being asked to do on
the job
Periodically
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback During training
Pre- and post- survey item. One week before training
begins
One week after training ends
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback
During the training
TSOs will create an individual action plan on
how they will use the strategies to regulate
their own engagement.
During the training
ENGAGEMENT
130
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 measures the degree to which participants find a training event favorable,
engaging, and relevant to their jobs. Level 1 data will be useful in determining if TSOs respond
positively enough to transfer what they learned about metacognitive strategies to the job. Table
13 identifies the methods and timing to measure the three components of Level 1 Reaction.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Instructor observation during class Throughout training
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance
Pulse-checks with TSOs using online survey
administered through the Online Learning
Center (TSA’s LMS).
Quarterly
Ongoing discussions with supervisors and
teammates
Ongoing
Course evaluation One month after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. To evaluate Level 1 after
program implementation, instructors will observe student behavior during class discussions, case
studies, and activities to determine if students are attentive to the instructor and responding
appropriately to the content being delivered. Once instructors have determined students’
engagement, he or she can adjust the delivery to increase student engagement. Level 2
evaluations will include in-class checks for understanding using questions that demonstrate the
ENGAGEMENT
131
metacognitive and cognitive knowledge identified in the learning goals, and measures attitude,
confidence, and commitment of TSOs. Appendix A contains the instrument that will be used to
conduct the blended evaluation of Levels 1 and 2.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Two to four weeks after
each iteration of the course is completed, a Level 1 survey will be administered to students to
measure engagement and customer satisfaction. Relevance of concepts will be measured on a
quarterly basis. Additionally, one week after training is complete, measurement of TSOs’
confidence in applying self-reflection and self-regulation strategies on the job will begin.
Metacognitive knowledge and use of self-reflection and self-regulation practices will be
measured on a quarterly or semiannually basis using OHC’s Employee Engagement Survey
(EES) and Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). Approximately one month after
completion of training Level 3 measures will begin to determine to what degree TSOs have
applied what they learned to improve their ability to assess and regulate their own engagement
levels while completing screening tasks on the job. Level 4 measurements will begin
approximately one year after implementation of the training program to determine the extent that
TSOs’ behavior change, as a result of the training, had an impact on the organizational leading
indicators and desired results. Appendix A contains the blended evaluation instrument to
measure Levels 1-4 of training related to engagement.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal will be measured by the numbers of threat items identified and
eliminated on passengers’ person, and in their property, during screening operations. The Level 4
goal will also include a decreased percentage of TSO failures during covert testing, improved
EES and FEVS scores for TSOs, and reduced TSO attrition rates. Beginning 2019, these metrics
ENGAGEMENT
132
will be measured and reported on a monthly basis, using comparative bar charts and narrative
reports. Once the results of the FEVS and EES reports have been released they will be reported
in comparison to each other, and communicated via narrative report. The reports will be provided
to regional FSDs and Assistant Administrators for OSO, OHC, and OTD. In the first quarter of
2020, a comprehensive report, on TSOs who completed the training, will be produced and will
include the following in a PowerPoint (PPT) presentation: results of Level 4, Level 3, Level 2
and Level 1 evaluations, FEVS and EES results, total threats found for 2019 compared to 2018,
covert test results for 2019 compared to 2018, passenger throughput for 2019 compared to 2018,
and attrition rates for 2019 compared to 2018.The PPT will be used to present the evaluation
data, which will be a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data. The presentation will include a
brief background of the study and the purpose of the program. The majority of the presentation
will walk the audience through the high points and low points of the data. The presentation wrap
up will include a question and answer segment to address any questions that arise, and a brief
discussion of next steps. Appendix B provides an example of the elements that will comprise the
first PPT for the evaluation report presentation on TSO engagement.
Evaluation and Implementation
As training professional with more than 20 years of experience, I have used the
Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model to evaluate the effectiveness of a myriad of training
courses and programs. I chose to use the New World Kirkpatrick Model for this research project
because it allowed me to design the evaluations in a way that will provide practical, useful,
relevant data about the education recommendations I proposed to improve TSO engagement
across TSA. I used the model to help me think through and plan the recommendations to increase
the likelihood of achieving the stakeholder goal of all TSOs to have knowledge of their own
ENGAGEMENT
133
engagement levels, and to be able to self-regulate their engagement by 2020. Achieving the
stakeholder goal will support the organizational goal of improving TSO engagement by 10% at
airports with low engagement using the recommendations in this chapter. I expect three
outcomes to come from the use of the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The three outcomes I
expect from using the model are the following:
1. Comprehensive evaluation of the recommendations, which will include measures
of Levels 1-4.
2. A chain of evidence that clearly shows the relationships between student reaction
and learning increase, and change in TSO behavior and organizational results.
3. Data that will inform short- and long-term decisions and persuade decision
makers to continue to support high TSO engagement.
I expect the ultimate value of the recommendations to improve TSO engagement in 2020 at
several airports across the enterprise as evidenced by increased scores on the OHC EES. I also
expect the organization and its leaders to provide the recommended support to TSOs that
promotes increased and continuous improvement of TSO engagement levels across the agency,
in order to improve long-term organizational effectiveness.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
When discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis
Approach, this examination focuses on the resources used for problem solving in this study
versus the benefits. First a discussion of the strengths considers the completeness, stakeholder
participation, and credibility resulting from the research.
Strengths
During the study I found using the Clark and Estes approach to be comprehensive in
ENGAGEMENT
134
guiding me to examine the three key elements of performance: knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences. This gap analysis approach allowed for a more thorough, complete study
of the problem of practice. The approach also necessitated collaboration with and participation
of relevant stakeholders: TSOs, OSO leadership, OHC leadership, and OTD leadership. Working
with stakeholders gave the study the support and credibility needed to fully conduct the research.
One of the major strengths of the Clark and Estes approach is that it is evidenced based and
research driven. The approach requires consistent exploration of prior knowledge and literature
to examine what was already known about the problem of study. By consistently building new
knowledge specific to the problem of practice that is rooted in existing knowledge, the study also
built and expanded the study’s credibility. In my opinion, the approach has several strengths,
with a couple of weaknesses that are important to discuss.
Weaknesses
In my opinion, there are two primary weaknesses of the approach. The first weakness is
that the approach is very time consuming. Taking time to conduct through research in an
academic setting is appropriate, but in my organization the support for a lengthy research study is
moderate to low.
When considering the weaknesses of the approach a consideration of time and appropriateness of
the approach are important.
To apply the Clark and Estes approach effectively a significant investment of time is
necessary. For example, this study of TSO variation took approximately 24 months to complete.
Organizations like TSA who require projects to come to fruition more rapidly tend to have low
tolerance for research projects that go beyond one year. Also, the approach slants more toward
academic environments.
ENGAGEMENT
135
Although Clark and Estes describe the approach as appropriate for any industry,
including government, it seemed more geared toward K-12 academic environments. This often
made it awkward to use for organizations. I often found myself laboriously translating the
information from the book and from class into relevant language for my organization. It might be
good to provide examples that are more representative of the audiences who will consume and
use the approach.
Limitations and Delimitations
This research study was conducted purposefully, thoroughly, ethically, and imperfectly.
With a focus toward transparency, I will discuss the flaws, problems, limitations, and
delimitations of this study. First, this section examines the problems and flaws related to the
study. Next, I discuss the limitations from the perspective of my selection of qualitative
interviews, social desirability, credibility, trustworthiness, and implementation of the interview
guide. I conclude with an examination of the limitations with a discussion of the aspects of the
study that could be improved for better results. Then I will discuss the delimitations or
boundaries of the study.
Flaws and Problems
For this qualitative study on the problem of variation in TSO engagement I used
qualitative interviews in order to learn about the thinking and experiences of highly engaged
TSOs. Although the interview process went well, during the Secure Airport interviews I
discovered a problem that I had not anticipated. The interviews with TSOs revealed that they
were not as highly engaged as the employee engagement survey reported. This was a problem
because the study focused on the promising practices relevant to highly engaged TSOs.
Responses from TSOs at Sky Airport indicated that they were highly engaged, however the
ENGAGEMENT
136
responses from TSOs at Secure airport indicated inconsistent levels of engagement. The most
surprising revelation from the interviews was TSO’s perception of an “us versus them”
atmosphere. One TSO at Secure Airport and one at Sky airport indicated that the senior leaders
promoted an “us versus them” atmosphere, and are perceived as less trustworthy as the
supervisors working in the secure screening area. Although not all the TSOs at Secure airport
were as highly engaged as those at Sky airport, several of the interview responses revealed
similarities between the TSOs at the two airports. Next, I provide a brief examination of the
limitation of this study.
Limitations
Research limitations are important to understand because they place research findings in
context. Limitations are influences that a researcher cannot control, and that hinders a study and
its findings (Moura, 2017). The limitation related to the qualitative interviews conducted to
collect data was making contact with TSOs to conduct follow-up interviews. Although I received
permission from all TSOs to contact them after the interview, seven of the 10 TSOs were not
responsive to my calls or e-mails. Three of the 10 interviewees responded to my request for
member checking of my preliminary finding. During the interviews TSOs were very committed
to the process, but social desirability was a problem in three instances. However, I was able to
recognize what was occurring and was able adjust the interview to get each TSO refocused on
discussing his or her specific perspective. Social desirability is the tendency of interviewees to
respond in a way they deem to be more socially acceptable than their true answer would be
(Grimm, 2010). Lastly, the only limitation I had with implementing the interview guide was
when interviewees did not answer the questions asked from the guide. Some TSOs often went off
the focus of questions regarding identifying the emotions they feel while engaged in a task,
ENGAGEMENT
137
personal interest in the job, knowledge of self-regulation and self-reflection related to their
personal engagement in the job. The limitations in this study offered me food for thought about
what to improve in my next research study.
The aspect of this research study that I think could be improve for the next study include
the following:
1. Place a follow-up call or e-mail within two to four weeks of conducting the
interview. This will help maintain the connections I made with TSOs and increase
the likelihood that interviewees will respond to subsequent contact efforts.
2. Validate that the survey data is still good before setting up interviews. Had I
checked with the OHC regarding the survey data before scheduling interviews, I
would have learned that the results for Secure Airport were no what they were
originally reported.
Delimitations
This study was limited to TSOs who served at airports reported as having highly engaged
TSOs. I think the study could have been deepened by conducting interviews with supervisory
TSOs and senior leadership from the two airports in the study, which would have provided a
broader perspective regarding the organization influences that promote high engagement.
Additionally, I think the recommendations in this study could be implemented at other airports,
regardless of the size. Because the mission at all airports is the same, the recommendations
would work for any airport. I also think that the recommendations in this study can be
implemented at other organizations, in other industries because they can easily be tailored to the
specific organization.
The recommendations in this study have not been implemented. There is an opportunity
ENGAGEMENT
138
for an evaluation study of the implemented recommendations’ effectiveness. Effectiveness
would entail TSA achieving the performance goal of improving TSO engagement by 10% at
airports across the enterprise experiencing low engagement. The Office of Security Operations
could study airports where the recommendations were piloted, to determine if engagement levels
improved. Finally, if an evaluation study reveals achievement of the performance goal, a control
system should be developed to help OSO maintain any gains made from implementing the
recommendations in this dissertation.
Future Research
Because the recommendations in this study have not been implemented, there is an
opportunity for an evaluation study of the implemented recommendations’ effectiveness.
Effectiveness would entail TSA achieving the performance goal of improving TSO engagement
by 10% at airports across TSA that are experiencing low engagement. The Office of Security
Operations could study airports where the recommendations were piloted, to determine if
engagement levels improved. Finally, if an evaluation study reveals achievement of the
performance goal, a control system should be developed to help OSO maintain the gains.
Conclusion
Employee engagement is a key ingredient to effective individual and organizational
performance. Understanding the influences that promote high employee engagement can help
organizations, like the Transportation Security Administration, increase engagement to higher
levels in all its employees. Variation in TSO engagement is a problem of practice that has
impacted performance at the individual and organizational levels (Transportation Security
Administration, 2106; U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, 2015). This study addressed this prevalent problem in TSA to reveal several promising
ENGAGEMENT
139
practices that promote high engagement in TSOs at Secure and Sky airports. The study also
revealed that some of the TSOs at Secure airport were not as engaged as TSA’s Employee
Engagement Survey indicated. Nonetheless, the usefulness of discovering the “us versus them”
perception, that some TSOs expressed, provided additional perspective that informed more
comprehensive recommendations. These recommendations, when used as part of existing Human
Capital, Security Operations, and Training and Development engagement improvement plans,
will increase the likelihood of achieving the organizational goal: TSO engagement will improve
by 10% at airports with low engagement by the end of 2020. Increased TSO engagement is
expected to improve overall screening effectiveness, and lead to improved organizational
effectiveness.
ENGAGEMENT
140
References
Achterkamp, R., Hermens, H. J., & Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. (2016). The influence of vicarious
experience provided through mobile technology on self-efficacy when learning new
tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 327-332.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.006
Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee
engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498-508.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International journal of productivity and performance management, 63(3),
308-323. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
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. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/15555240903188398
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research- based best practices (pp. 77-95). New
York: Guilford Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan. Chicago
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1994). Self-efficacy.
ENGAGEMENT
141
Baumruk R., and Gorman B. (2006). Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement.
Melcrum Publishing.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 5: Qualitative Data. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5
th
ed.) Boston: Ally and Bacon.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2014). High-involvement work processes, work intensification and
employee well-being. Work, Employment and Society, 28(6), 963-984.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/0950017013512714 Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1692289473?accountid=14749
Boyatzis, R.E. (2009), A behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of
Management Development, 28, 749-770.
Bricteux, C., Navarro, J., Ceja, L., & Fuerst, G. (2017). Interest as a moderator in the relationship
between challenge/skills balance and flow at work: An analysis at within-individual level.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(3), 861-880.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s10902-016-9755-8 Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1791347092?accountid=14749
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement
in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and
Higher Education, 27, 1-13.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Brown, S.P., and T.W. Leigh. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to
job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 359–68.
ENGAGEMENT
142
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, (2009) Employee Engagement, retrieved
from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/empengmt.htm
Cheng, J., Lu, K., Chang, Y., & Johnstone, S. (2013). Voice behaviour and work engagement:
The moderating role of supervisor–attributed motives. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 51 (1), 81–102.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Di Tecco, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). What makes employees
engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s perceptions of social
context over time. The Career Development International, 21(2), 125-143. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/CDI-03-2015-0045
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Coutinho, S. (2008). Self-efficacy, metacognition, and performance. North American Journal of
Psychology, 10(1), 165-172. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1829006376?accountid=14749
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.
ENGAGEMENT
143
DeMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. Foundations
for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences, 1(1), 51-68.
Davies, A. J., & Kochhar, A. K. (2000). A framework for the selection of best practices.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(10), 1203-1217.
Department of Homeland Security. (2016). Transportation Security Administration. Retrieved
from https://www.dhs.gov/keywords/tsa
Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to
self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277-287. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 565–573.
Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2017). The nature of employee engagement: Rethinking the
employee–organization relationship. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(3), 526-552.
Escarti, A., & Guzman, J. F. (1999). Effects of feedback on self-efficacy, performance, and
choice in an athletic task. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11(1), 83-96.
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. (2015). “Yes, I can”:
The protective role of personal self-efficacy in hindering counterproductive work
behavior under stressful conditions. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal,
28(5), 479-499. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/10615806.2014.969718
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Finn, B. (2012). What is metacognition? PsycCRITIQUES, 57(5)
ENGAGEMENT
144
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0026515
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and
Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373-389.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s10648-008-9079-2
Fredrickson, B.L., Cohn, M.A., Coffey, K.A., Pek, J. and Finkel, S.M. (2008), “Open hearts
build lives: positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build
consequential personal resources”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 95
No. 5, pp. 1045-62.
Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., Impett, E.A. and Asher, E.R. (2004), “What do you do when things go
right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 228-45.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gallup, Inc. (2015). Gallup Daily: U. S. Employee Engagement. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180404/gallup-daily-employee-engagement.aspx
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Government Executive. (2013). What’s the difference between employee engagement and
employee satisfaction? Retrieved from http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-
practices/2013/03/whats-difference-between-employee-engagement-and-employee-
satisfaction/62080/
ENGAGEMENT
145
GreenBook. (2009). Non-response bias in survey sampling. Retrieved from
https://www.greenbook.org/marketing-research/non-response-bias
Grimm,
P.
(2010).
Social
desirability
bias.
Wiley
international
encyclopedia
of
marketing.
Gupta, M. (2015). A study on employees’ perception towards employee engagement. Globsyn
Management Journal, 9(1/2), 45.
Hanley, G. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and problem
solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68-72.
Hansen, F. (2007). Companies are still in the dark about their overall health. Currents
in Compensation and Benefits, 39 (6), 10–12.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Hulleman, C. S. (2010). The importance of interest: The role of
achievement goals and task values in promoting the development of interest. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 4(1), 42-52.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish (pp. 81-106). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2003). Wellbeing in the workplace and its
relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J.
Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205-224).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harvard Business Review. (2013). The impact of employee engagement on performance.
Retrieved from
https://https://hbr.org/resources/pdfs/comm/achievers/hbr_achievers_report_sep13.pdf
Hewitt Associates. (2004). Employee engagement higher at double digit growth companies.
Research Brief. Hewitt associates LLC.
ENGAGEMENT
146
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Holbeche, L. and Springett, N. (2003), In Search of Meaning in the Workplace, Horsham, Roffey
Park Institute, ISBN: 0 907416527.
Houghton, J. D., Wu, J., Godwin, J. L., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2012). Effective stress
management: A model of emotional intelligence, self-leadership, and student stress
coping. Journal of Management Education, 36, 220–238.
Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Schewe, A. F., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2015). When regulating
emotions at work pays off: A diary and an intervention study on emotion regulation and
customer tips in service jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 263-277.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0038229
James, W. (1890/91). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative,and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Jose, Geetha. (2015). Relationships Among Perceived Supervisor Support, Psychological
Empowerment and Employee Engagement in Indian Workplaces. Journal of Workplace
Behavioral Health30(3), 231.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human
Relations, 45, 321–349.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
ENGAGEMENT
147
Kompaso, S. M., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving
performance. International journal of business and management, 5(12), 89.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/218799120?accountid=14749
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Łaba, K., & Geldenhuys, M. (2016). Psychological availability and work engagement: The
moderating role of sex and race. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(2), 107-112.
Langford, P. H. (2009). Measuring organisational climate and employee engagement: Evidence
for a 7 Ps model of work practices and outcomes. Australian Journal of Psychology,
61(4), 185-198.
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy
use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 58(6), 629-648.
Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of promising
practices: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5/6(3/4), 169-190. doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00102.x
Loeb, C. (2016). Social and emotional self‐efficacy at work. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 57(2), 152.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2011). Employee engagement:
ENGAGEMENT
148
Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage (Vol. 31). John Wiley & Sons.
MacFarlane, J. (2011). What is assertion? (pp. 79-96). na.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.007
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An investigative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Mayo Clinic. (2017) Institutional Review Board. Retrieved from
http://www.mayo.edu/research/institutional-review-board/definition-terms
Melcrum Publishing. (2005). Employee engagement: How to build a high-performance
workforce. An independent Melcrum Research Report Executive Summary.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). CA, US: Sage Publications.
Mohr, G., M€uller, A., Rigotti, T., Aycan, Z. & Tschan, F. (2006). The assessment of
psychological strain in work contexts: Concerning the structural equivalency of nine
language adaptions of the Irritation scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
22, 198–206.
ENGAGEMENT
149
Mortimer, D. (2010). Employee engagement: 5 Factors that matter to employees. Retrieved from
http://www.hrreview.co.uk/analysis/analysis-wellbeing/employee-engagement-5-factors-
that-matter-to-employees/8221
Moura, F. T. (2017). Don’t worry! And write the limitations in your research. Retrieved from
http://musicstats.org/why-addressing-the-limitations-of-your-research-is-so-important/
Muhammad, A. H., & Hamdy, H. I. (2005). Burnout, supervisory support, and work outcomes: A
study from an Arabic cultural perspective. International Journal of Commerce and
Management, 15 (3), 230–243.
Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy
explanation on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95,
131-142.
Nolen, A., & Talbert, T. (2011). Qualitative assertions as prescriptive statements. Educational
Psychology Review, 23(2), 263-271. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/881463013?accountid=14749
Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Employee engagement: Inspiring change through
employee engagement. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/blogs/Director/employee-
engagement/
Office of Personnel Management. (2015). Engaging the Federal workforce: How to do it &
prove it. Retrieved from
https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/engaging_the_federal_workforce_
white_paper.pdf
ENGAGEMENT
150
Office of Personnel Management. (2015a). The keys to unlocking engagement: An analysis of the
conditions that drive employee engagement Retrieved from
https://www.fedview.opm.gov/2016FILES/Keys_Unlocking_Engagement.pdf
Office of Personnel Management (2014). Strengthening employee engagement and
organizational performance. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2015/m-15-
04.pdf
O'Keefe, P. A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). The role of interest in optimizing performance
and self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 70-78.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.02.004
Ouweneel, E., Blanc, P. M. L., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Don't leave your heart at home: Gain
cycles of positive emotions, resources, and engagement at work. The Career
Development International, 17(6), 537-556.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/13620431211280123
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pati, S. P., & Kumar, P. (2010). Employee Engagement: Role of Self-efficacy, Organizational
Support & Supervisor Support. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 126-137.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
ENGAGEMENT
151
Pentland, B. T. (2003). Sequential variety in work processes. Organization Science, 14(5), 528-
540. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/38536655?accountid=14749
Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014). The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers
use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 813-827.
Rama Devi, V. (2009), “Employee engagement is a two-way street”, Human Resource
Management International Digest, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 3-4.
Rapley, T. (2011). Some pragmatics of data analysis. Qualitative research, 3, 273-290.
Rebecca, H. M., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Performance Improvement, 43(1), 44-46. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2
37235810?accountid=14749
Reeve, J. (2008). Understanding human motivation and emotion (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Resick, C.J., B.B. Baltes, and C.W. Shantz. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related
attitudes and decisions: Examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness.
Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1446–55.
Rhoades, L., R. Eisenberger, and S. Armeli. 2001. Affective commitment to the organization:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86:
825–36.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
of job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Richman, A.L., Civian, J.T., Shannon, L.L., Hill, E.J. and Brennan, R.T. (2008), “The
relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work-life policies and use of formal
ENGAGEMENT
152
flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected
retention”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 183-197.
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B. & Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the occupational self-efficacy
scale. Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career
Assessment, 16, 238–255.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement—Report
408 [White Paper]. London: Institute for Employment Studies.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). The relation between individual interest and knowledge
acquisition. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 350-371.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/berj.3268
Rousseau, D., Sirkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). A cross discipline view of trust.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 485––507.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Saks, A. M. (2008). The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the
water? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 40–43.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/hrdq.21187
Saks, A. M. and Rotman, J. L. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.
ENGAGEMENT
153
Saldaña, J. (2013): The coding manual of qualitative researchers (2
nd
ed.). Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
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.
Schneider, B., Macey, W.H., and Barbera, K.M. (2009), “Driving customer satisfaction and
financial success through employee engagement”, People and Strategy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp.
23-27.
Schroeder, D. (2002) Ethics from the top: Management and Ethical Business, Business Ethics:
European Review 11(3) 260-267
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
Schyns, B. & Collani, G. V. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to
personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11, 219–241.
Serrano,
S.
A.,
&
Reichard,
R.
J.
(2011).
Leadership
strategies
for
an
engaged
workforce.
Consulting
Psychology
Journal:
Practice
and
Research,
63(3),
176-‐189.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/a0025621
Sheldon, K.M. and Lyubomirsky, S. (2006), “How to increase and sustain positive emotions: the
effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves”, The Journal of
Positive Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 73-82.
ENGAGEMENT
154
Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of
positive affect in organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Research
Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement 397
in organizational stress and well-being (Vol. 3, pp. 135–165). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Shuck, B., Reio Jr, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human resource development international, 14(4),
427-445.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2009). Motivation in Education: Theory,
research, and application. Upper Sanddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Simon, S. S. (2011). The essentials of employee engagement in organizations. Journal of
Contemporary Research in Management, 6(1), 63-72. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/920826469?accountid=14749
Smith, M. R., Wefald, A. J., Downey, R. G., & Gopalan, N. (2008). Factor analysis and construct
validity for a vigorous well-being measure. In conference of the International
Commission on Occupational Health, Quebec City, Canada.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2017). Developing and sustaining employee
engagement. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/sustainingemployeeengagement.aspx
ENGAGEMENT
155
Spreitzer, G. M., Lam, C. F., & Fritz, C. (2010). Engagement and human thriving:
Complementary perspectives on energy and connections to work. In A. B. Bakker and
M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp.
102–117). Hove, East Sussex, and England: Psychology Press.
StatisticHowTo. (2016). What is non-response bias? Retrieved from
http://www.statisticshowto.com/non-response-bias/
Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion:
Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92(4), 731-744. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/0022-
3514.92.4.731
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of
metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 66-73.
Towers Perrin. (2003). 2003 Towers Perrin global engagement workforce study [White Paper].
Stamford, CT: Author.
Transportation Security Administration. (2016/2017). About TSA. Retrieved from
https://www.tsa.gov/about/tsa-mission
Transportation Security Administration. (2008). Frustrated travelers: Rethinking TSA
Operations to improve passenger screening and address threats to aviation. Retrieved
from https://www.tsa.gov/news/testimony/2016/06/07/frustrated-travelers-rethinking-tsa-
operations-improve-passenger-screening#
Tutlys, V., & Spöttl, G. (2017). From the analysis of work-processes to designing competence-
based occupational standards and vocational curricula. European Journal of Training and
ENGAGEMENT
156
Development, 41(1), 50-66. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1850296581?accountid=14749
University of Texas. (2016). Response rates. Retrieved from
https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/response_rates.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (2015). TSA:
Security Gaps. Retrieved from https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/11-3-2015-Committee-Hearing-on-TSA-Roth-DHS-OIG-
Testimony.pdf
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2008). The power of Federal employee engagement.
Retrieved from
https://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=379024&version=379721
Wagner, R., and J.K. Harter. 2006. 12: The great elements of managing. Washington, DC: The
Gallup Organization.
Wallace, L., & Trinka, J. (2009). Leadership and employee engagement. Public Management,
91(5), 10-13.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Weiss, S. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of surveys. Retrieved from
https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-surveys/
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsguard, M., & Werner, J. (1998). Managers as initiator of trust: An
exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour.
Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.
ENGAGEMENT
157
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee engagement: A structured review
of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 429-446.
Woodruffe, C. (2006). The crucial importance of employee engagement. Human Resource
Management International Digest, 14(1), 3-5.
Zhang, A., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The
employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the
organization. Human Resource Management, 47, 111–132.
ENGAGEMENT
158
Appendices
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
Airport: Sky International Airport
Interviewee (Title and Name):
Interviewer (Title and Name): Tanya M. Gregory
Interview Protocol Sections:
A: Introduction Script
B. Interviewee Background
C. KMO Questions
D. Follow-up request
E. Close Script
Other Topics Discussed: _____________________________________________
Documents Obtained: _______________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Post Interview Comments or Leads: ____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
A. Introduction (script)
Hello, I am Tanya Gregory, a doctoral student with the University of Southern
California. I am working toward a doctorate in Organizational Change and Leadership as one
of my personal growth goals. I work here at TSA in the Office of Training and Development as
ENGAGEMENT
159
an Accreditation Manager. Your interview today is part of my dissertation research study on
TSO engagement levels across TSA with a focus on TSOs with high engagement.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview to discuss your experiences,
thoughts, opinions, and values about your engagement level while conducting screening
operations as a TSO. You have been randomly selected for this interview because your airport
was identified as having TSOs who are highly engaged. Basically, engagement is a person’s
sense of purpose that is evident in his or her display of dedication, persistence, and effort in his
or her work or overall attachment to his or her organization and its mission. I hope to learn
what you think about engagement and those things that influence you to be highly engaged.
Your perspective is extremely important to this research and I am looking forward to hearing
about your experiences. At the end of the study I hope to identify promising practices that can
be shared with other airports to promote high engagement in TSOs across the agency. Do you
have any questions thus far?
I received your acceptance e-mail with your consent form, which essentially states that all
information will be confidential; your participation is voluntary; and you may stop at any time
if you feel uncomfortable. Please review the form and confirm your consent by initialing both
copies with today’s date (When completed, I provide an initialed copy of the form to the
participant). To ensure I accurately capture what you share, I’d like to record our session. Is
this acceptable to you? If you are uncomfortable with the recording or any of the questions,
need clarification on anything, or have concerns about any part of the interview please feel
free to stop me at any time.
For your privacy and confidentiality your identity will be kept anonymous; therefore,
you have been assigned a number, which will be used to reference your responses. Your
ENGAGEMENT
160
participation in the study will not be shared with anyone in TSA, my university, or anyone else.
I will keep all my notes and recordings secured in a locked file cabinet for five years after my
graduation in 2018. After the five years expire, I will destroy the files by shredding them.
I have planned one hour for our interview today. During this time, I will ask you
several questions. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary for me to interrupt you in
order to complete the full interview. Should I find that I need additional information, may I call
you for a follow up interview? Thank you.
Interviewee Background
The purpose of these questions are to establish rapport and get the interviewee talking
about himself or herself in preparation for the subsequent questions that require description of
personal behavior.
1. How long have you been a TSO?
2. Have you worked at any other airports as a TSO?
3. What made you become a TSO?
4. How would you generally describe what it is like working as a TSO here at this airport?
5. How would you describe this airport to other TSOs? (O)
KMO Questions
The purpose of these questions is to collect data that will answer the research questions.
1. How would you define employee engagement? (Promotes mutual understanding of the
concept of engagement)
Note: If the interviewee struggles with these questions, explain that engagement is an
employee’s sense of purpose that is evident in his or her display of dedication, persistence,
ENGAGEMENT
161
and effort in his or her work or the overall attachment to the organization and its mission
(OPM, 2016).
2. Describe how you know you are engaged? (K)
3. How would you describe your current engagement level here at this airport? (K)
4. Walk me through a typical day from the time you arrive at work to the time you end your
day. (M-I)
5. How engaged are you during each of the daily tasked you just described? (K)
Note: Listen for opportunities that sound like they were highly engaged, to probe the
interviewee about how confident they feel.
6. Describe how you know you are engaged at work. (K)
7. How confident do you feel in your ability to complete all the tasks in your job? (M-SE)
8. What influences your confidence? (M-SE)
9. Describe the importance of the work you do. (M-Value)
Follow up: Do you feel that passengers convey the value of what you do?
Why or why not? (O-M)
Follow up: How does this influence your engagement in your work?
10. What kind of emotions do you feel as go through a typical data on the job? (M-E)
11. How do you manage your engagement on a daily basis? (K)
12. What positively or negatively influences your engagement as a TSO here at this airport?
(O)
Follow up: How do your supervisors influence your engagement? (O)
ENGAGEMENT
162
Follow up: Tell me about a time when a supervisor positively or negatively influenced
your engagement at work. (O)
Follow up: How does the need to balance job tasks, including passenger process versus
screening effectiveness, affect your engagement at work? (O)
13. What kinds of things might make you feel more engaged as a TSO at this airport? (M-I)
D. Follow-up Request
As I stated in the beginning of our interview, I may need to call you for a follow up
interview. Will this be acceptable for you? Is the information you provided on your consent form
the best way to reach you?
E. Close
Thank you very much for taking the time to interview with me today. I will analyze what
we discussed today to help me answer my research questions. Later I will also provide you with
an opportunity to review the tentative findings from our discussion. I will be using the
information to produce my dissertation report that will be submitted to my dissertation
committee in May 2018. I am very excited about this research and am thankful that you agreed
to participate in the study. Should I have additional questions I will call or e-mail you for a
follow-up discussion.
I hope you have a great day.
ENGAGEMENT
163
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent Form/Information Sheet
Informed Consent Form
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your participation and the information you share while participating in this research study will be
kept private and will be used only for the purpose of this research study. The insights you share
during the research interview will be used as a larger summarized theme.
Please read, sign, and return to this form to Tanya Gregory before the interview session begins.
Participant
I have read the information document on the research study, or it has been read to me. I have had the
opportunity to ask questions, and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I
consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study.
o I agree to participate in the research study on variation in TSO engagement.
o I decline to participate in the research study on variation in TSO engagement.
Printed Name of Participant__________________
Signature of Participant ___________________
Date ___________________________
Day/month/year
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please read and sign at the beginning of the interview session
Participant
The researcher has explained the study and the purpose of this interview session to me. I have
had the opportunity to ask questions, and have had my questions answered to my satisfaction. I
consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study.
ENGAGEMENT
164
Printed Name of Participant__________________
Signature of Participant ___________________
Date ___________________________
Day/month/year
Researcher
I have discussed the information document to the participant, and to the best of my ability made sure
that the participant understands that the following will be done:
1. Interview on participant’s engagement
2. Analysis of the interview comments
3. Use of interview analysis findings in dissertation results and recommendations
I confirm that the participant was given an opportunity to ask questions about the study, and all
the questions asked by the participant have been answered correctly to the best of my ability. I
confirm that the individual has not been coerced into giving consent, and the consent has been given
freely and voluntarily.
A copy of this individual consent form has been provided to the participant.
Print Name of Researcher/person taking the consent Tanya Gregory
Signature of Researcher /person taking the consent__________________________
Date ___________________________
Day/month/year
ENGAGEMENT
165
INFORMATION SHEET
SUBJECT: Invitation to participate in dissertation research on TSO Engagement
PURPOSE: Provide information for participation in Tanya Gregory’s dissertation research
project that is part of a doctoral degree program with the University of Southern California.
POC: Tanya Gregory
Cell: (609) 760-2659
E-mail: tmgregor@usc.edu
Kimberly Hirabayashi
(213) 740-3470
E-mail: hirabaya@usc.edu
Biography: Tanya Gregory is an Accreditation Program Manager in the OTD Standards and
Integration Office, and a doctoral student at the University of Southern California (USC). Tanya
has been with TSA since 2010 where she began her federal service as a Training Specialist for
the Federal Air Marshal Service. Tanya joined the TSA HQ training staff in 2013 as the
Evaluations Program Lead. She became the TSA Accreditation Program Manager in 2016. Since
January 2016, Tanya has been pursuing an Ed. D in Organizational Change and Leadership
(OCL) with the Rossier School of Education. The OCL program’s studies focus on preparing
leaders to drive systematic change, improvement, and innovation in their organizations. The
program ends with a dissertation and demonstration of effective application of the program’s
theories and concepts.
Dissertation: Tanya has chosen TSA as the organization of focus for her doctoral dissertation.
Using the Clark and Estes Performance Gap Analysis Model, Tanya is conducting research on
ENGAGEMENT
166
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact employee engagement and
performance of Transportation Security Officers across TSA.
Invitation: You have been invited to be part of Tanya’s research study because you are a TSO at
an airport that has been identified has having high employee engagement based on the results of
the TSA Employee Engagement Survey that was conducted in January 2017. The purpose of the
research project is to study TSA’s performance in relation to a larger problem of practice,
variation in TSO engagement at operational airports within the agency. This research study will
involve your participation in a one-on-one interview that will take about one hour.
Participation: Your participation in this research study is entirely voluntary. It is your choice
whether to participate or not. If you choose not to participate, you have the right to privacy and
protection of your identity. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job or on any
work-related evaluations or reports. You may change your mind at any time and stop
participating, even if you agreed earlier.
Consent form: Please read this information sheet to understand the study and considerations for
our participation in this study. If you have questions or concerns regarding the study or your
participation, please contact Tanya Gregory directly.
Duration: The research at your airport takes place over 5 days in total. During that time, I will
interview you once; the interview should last one hour or less.
Follow-up: Although it is my goal to complete all information gathering in the first interview,
the research may require that I request additional information or conduct a follow-up interview.
Sensitive Information: There is a risk that you may share some personal or confidential
information by chance during the interview, or that you may feel uncomfortable talking about
ENGAGEMENT
167
some of the topics. You do not have to answer any question or take part in the interview if you
feel the question(s) are too personal or if answering them makes you uncomfortable.
Privacy: You have the right to privacy while participating in this study. To protect your privacy,
the information you share will be held as confidential. You will be interviewed at a time and in a
location that allows you to speak freely and openly.
Confidentiality: No information about you will be shared with anyone outside of the research
team (Tanya, one research assistant, and the USC research support team). The information that is
collected from this research project will also be kept private. Any information about you will
have a number assigned to it, instead of your name. Only my research assistant and I will know
what your number is and its correspondence to you.
Procedures: During the interview, I will sit down with you in a comfortable place. If it is better
for you, the interview can take place in your home or a friend's home. If you do not wish to
answer any of the questions during the interview, you may say so and I will move on to the next
question. No one else but you and I will be present, unless you want someone else to be there.
I will be using a recorder to ensure accurate capture of interview. The information that will be
recorded will be confidential, and no one else except me, my dissertation advisor, and research
assistant will have access to the information documented during your interview. Although the
entire interview will be tape recorded, no one will be identified by name on the tape. The
recording will be kept on a thumb drive and stored with my interview notes in a locked file
cabinet that I alone will have access to. The tapes will be destroyed after August 2023.
Data usage: The data collected from your interview will be analyzed and used to develop
conclusions regarding the things that promote high engagement with TSOs. The outcome of the
analysis will be used to make recommendations as part of the final dissertation report.
ENGAGEMENT
168
Data security and storage: I will store and secure your information in a private file cabinet
under lock and key. It will not be shared with or given to anyone except my research assistant.
Benefits/Reimbursements: There will be no direct benefit provided to you, but your
participation is likely to help us discover how to improve the conditions that support high TSO
engagement at airports across TSA. You will not be provided reimbursement for your
participation in this study.
For more information: Tanya Gregory, 609-760-2659 (personal cell)
Kimberly Hirabayashi, (213) 740-3470 (USC office)
ENGAGEMENT
169
APPENDIX C
Recruitment e-mail
Hello [TSO’s name]
Thank you for volunteering to interview with me on ________, _________, at ______ a.m./p.m.
Your interview will last approximately one hour. As promised, I have attached the documents we
discussed: an information sheet about the research and a consent form. Please review both and
sign the consent form. Please bring the signed consent form with you when you come to our
appointment. I look forward to talking with you and learning about your perspectives regarding
your engagement at work. Should you have questions in the meantime, please feel free to call or
text me at 609-760-2659.
Regards,
Tanya Gregory
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Thank you for your consideration.
ENGAGEMENT
170
APPENDIX D
In Vivo Coding
Robin In Vivo (N) A Priori (P)
KNOWLEDGE influences
Metacognitive
Employee's definition of engagement
Just pretty much everyone trying to work to accomplish a
goal to work as one. Not having any, I guess ulterior
motives, or just really focus about what we’re here to do.
N
MOTIVATION influences
Self-Efficacy
Current engagement level
Sometimes I don't even want to take breaks. I'm a hard
worker, I like to keep working. I’m very much a productive
type person.
N
…I know there’s a reason I'm don this. It's not just a job. N
I put all my effort and all my knowledge in to every
position because no matter the reaction that we get from
passengers I still have to do my job, and no matter if you
don't like us or not we still have to do our best to keep you
safe at all times.
So I try to do the best I can no matter what in every
position that they put me in.
N
This job has become such a habit, just second nature. N
And I'm ready for anything that comes my way, any kind
of scenario.
N
I know what I have to look for on the boarding pass,. I
know what I have to look for on the driver's license.
N
But everything is pretty much second nature. N
But when you give them that little extra to each passenger
or almost every passenger, it kind of makes your day better
and also maybe makes their day a little bit better.
N
I'm pretty confident N
…just knowing that I'm here for a purpose. N
I'm her to make a difference I guess you could say. N
I just think I'm here for a reason. N
I'm here for the safety and security of everyone around me. N
If I can't do my job, and my co-workers can't do their job,
then I can't get home because you never know.
N
ENGAGEMENT
171
I have a very important job to make sure everyone makes it
home safely and get where they need to go.
N
…we do this to keep you safe. N
…that this is our job and we're here to keep you safe. We're
here for you, we're no here for our entertainment or
inconvenience.
N
…you just have to be the best you can at your job,.
But just to everything I can to the best of my ability and I
always keep in mind that we're here for a reason.
N
Knowing that if I'm not doing my job the best way I can to
protect and keep everyone safe then who will?
N
Self-image
But I'm also that people person, so I kind of embed them
together, combine them together, just to make the
passenger feel comfortable...
N
I'm just a positive person. I see the glass half full. N
For the most part I'm happy. N
I just always try to have a smile on my face no matter what. N
Emotion
Team member relationships
There are relationships you have, I guess you could say
with your coworkers and how you work with them, and
how to engage as a team with different people.
N
I see (working at this airport) as a family that has a goal to
accomplish.
N
You got to work together to keep everybody safe. N
I want to protect everyone
We can only rely on each other for the most part. N
A lot of teamwork going on, which I enjoy.
For the most part, our passengers appreciate us and it
makes us feel good, like this is not just a paycheck
N
…when you have someone you know you rely on and
enjoys being there too and not just complaining all day.
N
So I helped her out rotating people (LTSO) N
…especially when you have vet TSOs and LTSOs that are
there to help you no matter what.
N
We try to work as a team as best we can. N
And I try to brighten my coworker’s day. N
I really enjoy the people I work with and it does help N
I have a lot of coworkers who know that they can rely on
me because they may have a negative outlook about the
job, but I'm like "look, we're here for a reason.
N
ENGAGEMENT
172
…we have a reason for being here. We're not jot overpaid
employees of the government, as some people call us.
N
I try to work with my coworkers in a mature manner. N
Interest
Engagement influences
I look at it as I’m doing my job and I have no control about
whatever the machine alarmed for.
N
Positions I really, really enjoy like TDC and AIT, I wish I
could stay there longer just because I'm engaging with
people and I just love to do that.
N
I want to achieve a goal that we're here to do. N
So it may be inconvenient but its for a purpose N
Cultural Settings
The job
We have to be more efficient about what we do. N
Airport leadership
I try to give her (TSO Lead) a hand because they work hard
every day.
N
ENGAGEMENT
173
APPENDIX E
A Priori Coding
Cindy In Vivo
(N)
A Priori
(P)
KNOWLEDGE influences
Metacognitive
Employee's definition of engagement
I think engaging is when you talk to a person…just engaging,
starting a conversation.
P
MOTIVATION influences
Self-Efficacy
Current engagement level
I'll talk to just about anybody so I know that I'm always
engaging with the job all the time.
P
…doing good but I could do more. P
I'm very confident. I 've been working here for a long time so I
could do the job in my sleep.
P
Just focus on the job. P
Emotion
Team member relationships
…because of the disappointment and let down from the job
itself, I feel like sometimes I do give it 100%
P
Interest
Engagement influences
Just when you get a smile from the passengers when they come
through.
P
It's important because we keep the traveling public safe, making
sure they get to and from their destinations, making sure we
didn't let any knives, guns, bombs, think that can harm people,
get on the plan.
P
So it's important to take it serious, to paly attention, not to talk
and play around, especially when we're on the x-ray machine
and patting passengers down.
P
It's because we have people's lives in our hands. P
Positively…passengers that take the time to actually come back
and say, Hey, I think you're doing a good job. Thanks for
keeping us safe." Just taking the extra time to come back and
just say thank you.
P
Negative…having an encounter with a rude passenger. P
But I try not to let that bother me because they have people
flying out that just lost a parent or a loved one and its already
emotional for them so you have to take all those things into
P
ENGAGEMENT
174
consideration.
Just knowing that we didn't have anything that got past us
through security. Knowing that we had a good day that went by
and everybody was safe and go to their destination.
P
Knowing there weren’t any incidents, no one was hurt. P
ORGANIZATION influences
Cultural Models
The morale here at this point is real low. P
Just the different rules that are set in place are sometimes it’s
enforced when it’s their choosing and sometimes they could
look the other way, depending on the person or the situation.
P
I find that they constantly pick with certain people. I don’t like
the way they do it because it's almost like a harassment
situation, but it's underhanded harassment. Like they do it in a
way where it wouldn't come back where they would get in
trouble for the things they do.
P
Cultural Settings
The job
Actually every part of the job is serious. P
Airport leadership
Now all of a sudden we came to work and it was like now you
have to do 15 minute (breaks) and 30 lunches. So you're really
getting 10 minutes to eat.
P
So when you don't have to experience yourself, it doesn't matter
what you say or the order that you give to your employees.
P
Because they're on the floor with us (supervisors) and going
through the same thing too.
P
ENGAGEMENT
175
APPENDIX F
Axial/Analytical Coding
Courtney S
a
m
B
o
b
b
i
e
Wilson Reagan Jack Cindy Frank Edward Robin
TOTAL
occurrences
for all
interviews
Employee's
definition of
engagement
Focus 3 1 1
5
Feeling a sense of
purpose from
being engaged
with it, and feeling
like you're part of
the process.
3 2 2
7
Being engaged
emotionally
2
2
The only thing that
matters is what
you're doing in the
moment
2
2
How far you're
willing to
participate in your
job with your
coworkers and be a
team player
2 2
4
I'm engaged when
I’m doing
something
2
2
How much an
individual
participates and
cares about their
job.
2 10
12
When you talk to a
person, starting a
conversation
1
1
I'm giving the
instructions and I
see they're
3
3
ENGAGEMENT
176
complying
KNOWLEDGE
INFLUENCE
Metacognitive
Nothing else
matters
3
3
You just
disconnect
1 1
2
I'm focused on
what I'm doing
1 2 1 4 1
9
I mange my
engagement by
reminding myself
of where I work
4
4
MOTIVATION
INFLUENCE
Self-efficacy
4
4
I am very
confident
7 2 2 3 1 1 4
20
The TSOs here
give me
confidence
6
6
Comfortable with
the job and people
2
2
Knows he/she is
here for a purpose
5 10
15
Job is second
nature or
instinctive
1 7 1 2
11
I do my best no
matter the position
3 3 1 1 6
14
I'm prepared for
anything
1 1
2
I know what I am
doing
2 1
3
I'm here for the
safety and security
of everyone
3 5 1 1 1 21
32
I take my job
seriously
2 5 1 6
14
ENGAGEMENT
177
I give 100% 3 2
5
I follow the SOP
because the Red
Team may come at
any time
1
1
I'm not afraid to
ask questions or
for assistance
1
1
I don't like making
mistakes
1
1
I do more than the
minimum
3
3
We're the front
line; the first line
of defense in
aviation security
7
7
Doing a good job,
but could do more
1 2
3
I talk with just
about anyone so I
know I'm always
engaging with the
job all the time.
4 1
5
I'm not going to
miss anything
5 3
8
Do what I gotta do 4 4 5
13
That's the job 2 1
3
Passing the test
influences my
confidence
4
4
Told by others that
I'm good at my job
2
2
My job is
important. It
matters
6 3 4 18 2 3 1
37
I believe that I
matter
2
2
I do research to
learn other aspects
of my job
4 5
9
I catch a lot of
things
2
2
ENGAGEMENT
178
I have never failed
a test in my job
7
7
Being engaged is
part of who I am
3 1 3
7
My engagement is
pretty high
2
2
I am fully engaged 3
3
I'm engaged with
little kids
2
2
Reputation brings
more confidence
3
3
What others think
are irrelevant to
my effectiveness
3 1
4
Be realistic about
engagement. When
something bad
happens you can't
be engaged
3
3
The job becomes
easy to me when
I'm engaged
3 1
4
People say we are
the best TSOs in
the business
3
3
I trust myself a lot 5
5
I'm not as
experienced as
high ranked TSOs
3
3
ENGAGEMENT
179
APPENDIX G
Pattern and Theme Coding
Patterns Themes KMO
Knowledge- Metacognitive
Positive familial
relationship with team M
I'm focused on what I'm doing
Confident sense of purpose
and self M
I manage my engagement by reminding
myself of where I work
Trust in supervisors and
leads O
Motivation - Self-Efficacy
Passenger appreciation
positively impacts
engagement M
I'm very confident
Passenger mistreatment
negatively impacts
engagement M
Knows he/she is here for a purpose
Management perceived as
not listening and having an
“us vs. them” mentality O
I do my best no matter the position
Supervisors seen as part of
the team, managers seen as
outside the team O
I'm here for the safety and security of
everyone
Focused participation in
the job
K
I do what I need to do
My job is important and it matters
Being engaged is a part of who I am
Motivation - Emotion
When you give that little extra to the
passenger it improves the interaction
I like my team; we take care of each other
I try not to let passengers upset me
It's really frustrating to see supervisors
that don't always have your back when
you want them to, and throw you under
the bus.
The best feeling is when passengers thank
you
ENGAGEMENT
180
Motivation-Interest
Interaction, engagement with my team,
we communicate with each other and it
makes it easier to work together, like a
family
Passenger have the biggest influence on
engagement
The most positive influence is that I'm
proud of DHS and this uniform
Organization - Cultural Models
Supervisors are positive, not hostile
It's really frustrating to see supervisors
that don't always have your back when
you want them to, and throw you under
the bus.
Organization - Cultural Settings
The worst thing about engaging
passengers is ignorance when race comes
into it.
There's an “us versus them” mentality that
has been counterproductive
(management).
I have struggled being heard by my
management
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study
PDF
A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study
PDF
Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study
PDF
Effective engagement of minority alumni: an innovation study
PDF
Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis
PDF
Deckplate leadership: a promising practice study of chief petty officer development
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Recruiting and hiring female police officers: an evaluative study
PDF
The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice
PDF
Education after incarceration: identifying practices in prison education programs that positively affect the persistence of formerly incarcerated men to continue education
PDF
Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices
PDF
Implementing organizational change in a medical school
PDF
Social media and the decline of U.S. newspapers: the role of learning in digital media transformation
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study
PDF
Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity
PDF
Utilizing data analytics in the field of physical security: an exploratory study
PDF
Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study
PDF
Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study
PDF
Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gregory, Tanya M.
(author)
Core Title
Transportation security officer engagement in the Transportation Security Administration: a study of a promising practice
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
08/07/2018
Defense Date
06/04/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
employee engagement,engagement,OAI-PMH Harvest,transportation security officer engagement,TSO,TSO engagement
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Green, Alan (
committee member
), Tucker, Janet (
committee member
)
Creator Email
stbgregory@aol.com,tmgregor@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-57658
Unique identifier
UC11671617
Identifier
etd-GregoryTan-6682.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-57658 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GregoryTan-6682.pdf
Dmrecord
57658
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Gregory, Tanya M.
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
Tags
employee engagement
transportation security officer engagement
TSO
TSO engagement