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
/
Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study
(USC Thesis Other)
Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE RATES OF SEDENTARY
BEHAVIOR AMONG UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES:
A PROMISING PRACTICE STUDY
by
Ginny DeFrank
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 2020
Copyright 2020 Ginny DeFrank
ii
Acknowledgments
It is important to acknowledge the countless ways that I have benefitted from the support
and care of people across all aspects of my life throughout the course of my matriculation,
particularly those who lovingly encouraged my continued progress, even as doing so necessitated
my temporary diminished participation in their lives and joys. To the many friends and family
members who listened patiently and cheered me on, from day one to now, know that your care
and love found me exactly when I needed it, and that every hug and every kind word you shared
energized my efforts and persistence in more ways than you know. Thank you for helping me
stay the course.
None of this would have been possible without the enthusiasm and candor of the program
participants in the study who kindly volunteered to share their insights and experiences with me,
and the program facilitators who graciously allowed me to visit their community and learn amid
its soaring energy. Thank you for your openness and excitement.
I am keenly aware of the abundant generosity shown to me by the members of my
committee, Dr. Courtney Malloy, Dr. Eric Canny, and Dr. Kathy Stowe. Your guidance and
thoughtful feedback enhanced my focus and allowed me to improve my work immeasurably.
Thank you for your time, patience, and the depth of your analysis. To Dr. Malloy, thank you
again for helping to guide and refine my work so thoroughly, and for your ongoing patience and
willingness to do the impossible in terms of timing. I could not have done it without you and
appreciate the full and enthusiastic application of your expertise to help my work be the best it
could be. Thank you for your dedication to developing novice researchers and the care you show
doing so. Thanks as well to all faculty from whom I had the pleasure of learning at the USC
Rossier School of Education and the staff who supported the program.
iii
I also must extend my sincerest thanks to the members of the Organizational Change and
Leadership program’s tenth cohort for being unflagging supports for one another on the doctoral
journey. My peers availed themselves of all means and manner of communication, in our course
work and beyond, to ensure that we made progress together toward our dissertation goals. I did
not anticipate the staggering level of competence, intellectual curiosity, and kindness our cohort
would possess, but am humbled to be part of a collective so committed to the possibility of
changing the world for the better. I am inspired by your work and was upheld by your care. I am
grateful to call so many of you friends, and look forward to the change you will create far and
wide.
To Matthew Gard, thank you for years of patience and love. You have provided all the
support I have asked for and far more that I have not. Know that I appreciate each and every cup
of coffee and miraculous solution to tech snafus that you provided. Thank you for keeping me
going and for enduring this process with patience and optimism.
To my family and, most especially, my parents, thank you for your unwavering support
and faith in my abilities. The constancy of your love is overwhelming, and I am forever grateful.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Performance Status ......................................................................................3
Related Literature .................................................................................................................3
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................5
Stakeholder Group of Focus for the Study ..........................................................................6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................6
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................7
Definitions ............................................................................................................................8
Organization of the Project ..................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ....................................................................................................10
Influences on the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................10
High Rates of Sedentary Behavior .....................................................................................11
Recognition of Increased Sedentary Behavior as a Public Health Concern ......... 11
Differences in Sedentary Behavior by Employment Type and Workplace .......... 14
Prevalence of Sedentary Behavior in Higher Education ....................................... 16
Physical Activity Interventions ..........................................................................................17
Health Impacts of Physical Activity ..................................................................... 17
Recommendations to Reduce Sedentary Behavior and Improve Physical
Activity ................................................................................................................. 18
Workplace and Worksite Interventions for Decreasing Sedentary Behavior
and Promoting Physical Activity .......................................................................... 20
Effects of Physical Activity on Employees and Employee Perceptions of Work .............23
Improved Mood and Regard for the Workplace ................................................... 23
Employee Perceptions of Productivity and Performance ..................................... 24
Physical Activity Intervention Implications for Organizational Productivity and
Costs ...................................................................................................................................25
Employee Perceptions of Impediments to Worksite Physical Activity
Participation .......................................................................................................... 26
Areas of Future Research Need .........................................................................................28
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework ..............................................30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................31
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................... 31
Motivation ............................................................................................................. 35
v
Organization .......................................................................................................... 41
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context .......................................................................53
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................57
Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................................59
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................61
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................................... 61
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale ............................................................. 62
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ........................................................... 62
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale ......................................................... 63
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................64
Survey ................................................................................................................... 64
Interviews .............................................................................................................. 66
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................67
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................68
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................69
Ethics ..................................................................................................................................71
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................72
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ....................................................................................................74
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................74
Survey Respondents .............................................................................................. 74
Interview Participants ........................................................................................... 76
Results and Findings ..........................................................................................................77
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 77
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................... 101
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................126
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations .............................................................................128
Discussion ........................................................................................................................128
Recommendations for Institutions of Higher Education Seeking to Improve
Employee Rates of Workplace Physical Activity ............................................................132
Knowledge Recommendations ........................................................................... 133
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................ 137
Organization Recommendations ......................................................................... 141
Implications for Future Research .....................................................................................148
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................152
References ....................................................................................................................................154
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................163
Appendix B ......................................................................................................................164
Appendix C ......................................................................................................................177
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessments ........35
Table 2. Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments ....................40
Table 3. Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments ...........52
Table 4. Get Fit Interview Participant Sample Demographics ......................................................76
Table 5. Survey Respondents’ Methods of Learning About the Get Fit Program .........................78
Table 6. Survey Respondents’ Primary Reasons for Participating in Get Fit ................................94
Table 7. Respondent Ratings of Factors Influencing Their Participation and Corresponding Value
Type ..................................................................................................................................95
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Knowledge and Motivational Influences on Employee Physical Activity Behaviors
in the Context of a University .........................................................................................55
Figure 2. Extent to Which Physical Activity Affects Survey Respondents’ Work Factors ..........84
Figure 3. Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Coworker and Supervisor Awareness of
Participation ....................................................................................................................98
Figure 4. Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Department and University Support for
Employee Physical Activity .........................................................................................103
Figure 5. Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Ease of Time-Intensive Activities Related to
Get Fit ...........................................................................................................................115
viii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand factors influencing employee participation in
a university-offered physical activity program to inform recommendations for other institutions
of higher education seeking to address high rates of university employee sedentary behavior with
physical activity programming. The instructor-led program was held four times per week
beginning at noon each day and lasted one hour in duration on a university campus in the
western United States. The program, which was offered at no cost to employees, typically served
20-30 participants each week. The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) was
employed to assess relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting
university employee engagement with the physical activity program. The study utilized a
convergent parallel mixed methods design, engaging 24 university employees by means of a
fifty-four-item quantitative survey. Six survey respondents also participated in interviews.
Research findings revealed the importance of the interplay of employee factual and
metacognitive knowledge, as well as motivation influences including self-efficacy and
expectancy value within the organization’s cultural models and settings. Recommendations for
other institutions seeking to engage employees in physical activity were informed by the findings
and supported by a review of literature. Recommendations include the use of training,
communication strategies, information guides, modeling, and opportunities for reflection to meet
employee knowledge and motivational needs. Evaluating and changing organizational policies,
cultural values, and existing physical activity programming was recommended to ensure
employees understand an organization’s support for participation in physical activity.
Additionally, implications for practice involved a focus on the role of instructors and the
development of communities of continuity to support and improve rates of university employee
ix
engagement in physical activity during the workday.
Keywords: sedentary behavior, physical activity, workplace physical activity, physical activity
intervention, university physical activity, exercise
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Sedentary behavior is significantly related to mortality (Physical Activity Guidelines
Advisory Committee, 2018) and also affects employee self-reported stress, well-being, and
productivity (León-Latre et al., 2014). Sedentary behavior is defined as any waking activity
performed that requires 1.5 or fewer metabolic equivalents (METs) while sitting, reclining, or
lying (Tremblay et al., 2017). Research has demonstrated that Americans spend approximately
7.7 hours being sedentary (Matthews et al., 2008). Individuals in managerial, professional, or
teaching occupations, including all education, training, and library workers, are found to be
significantly more sedentary than individuals in other occupations (Blackwell & Clarke, 2016).
Furthermore, university faculty and administrative staff experience higher rates of sedentary
behavior than are recommended for optimal health outcomes (Alkhatib, 2015). This population
includes university employees who perform administrative and clerical tasks related to student
services, academic departmental function, senior administrative support, teaching, research, and
budgetary and financial services, among other university operations. Research suggests that
university employees do not meet recommended healthy thresholds for sedentary risk factors that
are associated with adverse chronic and acute health impacts (Alkhatib, 2015). This dissertation
examines the promising practices of a university-based employee exercise program that has
effectively increased employee physical activity during the workday with the intention of
providing recommendations to other higher education institutions.
2
Organizational Context and Mission
This study explores the components and characteristics of a university-offered lunchtime
physical activity intervention that successfully reduces rates of sedentary behavior among
university employees. The study focuses on the employees of one college of a large private
research university in the western United States who participate in one hour of free, instructor-
led exercises between noon and one p.m. during the workweek. The institution and all associated
programs will be referred to by pseudonyms to maintain the anonymity of the university and that
of research participants associated with the university. The university will be referred to by the
pseudonym Pacific Crest University (PCU). This study will describe the experiences of PCU
employees of the College of Liberal Studies (CLS) who participate in Get Fit, the lunchtime
exercise program of note.
Pacific Crest is home to more than 40,000 students who are served by approximately
15,000 employees. The human-centered mission of PCU compels the university to value
employee health and well-being (university website, 2020
1
). The value placed on being an
institution that serves and builds community while it likewise innovates and changes the
community reasonably extends to include university employees who perform administrative
functions (university website, 2020). Furthermore, a statement on the university’s employment
benefits website emphasizes work-life balance and enrichment opportunities at the university and
ongoing employee job satisfaction (university website, 2020).
The College of Liberal Studies is one of PCU’s more than 20 colleges and institutes of
study. According to PCU’s website, more than 1,700 faculty and staff serve more than 8,500
students in CLS at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The Get Fit program is available
1
Organization web site not used throughout to protect the anonymity of the university
3
to the nearly 800 CLS staff members and is offered Monday through Thursday for twelve weeks
of the typically sixteen-week semesters.
Organizational Performance Status
The Get Fit program is a model for other universities with high rates of employee
sedentary behavior (Alkhatib, 2015) because of its high rates of employee engagement with, and
continued participation in, the program. Get Fit is offered Monday through Thursday and
consistently serves between 20 and 35 participants per day. The program has been successfully
operating since its launch in the fall of 2013. Get Fit offers yoga on Mondays and Wednesdays
and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The program assists the
college in its support of the university’s broader commitment to the long-term health and
wellness of employees, as reflected in the university’s mission statement and employee benefits
web site.
Related Literature
Sedentary behavior is critical for human well-being both in the workplace and overall.
High rates of sedentary behavior have been associated with negative health impacts and lower
levels of employee productivity and job satisfaction (León-Latre et al., 2014). Rates of sedentary
behavior are on the rise in the United States and around the world, which is problematic because
people who are insufficiently active increase their risk of death by 20-30% compared to active
individuals (World Health Organization Fact Sheet, 2018). Furthermore, physical inactivity is
estimated to cost $54 billion in direct health care costs (World Health Organization Discussion
Paper, 2018). Leaders of the World Health Organization (WHO) have identified strategic
objectives to help prevent health crises worldwide related to increasing sedentary behavior.
These objectives emphasize the need for partnerships with governments and private industry to
4
create systems and environments, including workplaces, that promote active living (WHO
Discussion Paper, 2018).
In addition to the health impacts that physical activity interventions provide, benefits to
employee performance, personal affect, and job satisfaction have been identified in relation to
participation in physical activity (Coulson et al., 2008; Puig-Ribera et al., 2015). In one study,
both highly active and highly sedentary employees experienced improved perceptions in mental
well-being and work performance with the introduction of more physical activity and less time
spent sitting (Puig-Ribera et al., 2015). Another study captured reports of better employee mood,
affect, and resilience on days that featured physical activity as compared with days without it
(Coulson et al., 2008). Such improvements to employee performance and outlook in the
workplace carry significance for overall organizational performance, in addition to improved
employee health.
Despite the widespread understanding of the risks associated with sedentary behavior,
transformations of personal and societal behaviors and environments to increase physical activity
have not occurred at very high rates (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). Currently, research
involving effective workplace physical activity interventions is lacking, making the need to
better understand what succeeds in changing employee behavior a priority (Conn et al., 2009).
Importance of the Study
The problem of high rates of sedentary behavior is important to solve for a variety of
reasons. Leaders and researchers from the public health, preventive medicine, and health
promotion disciplines are calling for further research into workplace health promotion and
physical activity intervention programming (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). The
continued increase of sedentary behavior heralds a commensurate increase in the national and
5
global burdens of non-communicable disease. The World Health Organization states that a
failure to respond to physical inactivity will contribute to “further negative impact on health
systems, the environment, economic development, community well-being, and quality of life for
all” (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018, #15). Because workplace physical activity intervention
programs have been associated with increased employee productivity, improved mood, reduced
stress, and increased job satisfaction (Coulson et al., 2008; Puig-Ribera et al., 2015), changing
employee rates of physical activity in the workplace may transform performance and lower
employer healthcare costs (Loeppke et al., 2007). Further investigation into the best ways to
create institutional cultural support to change sedentary behavior in higher education is necessary
for the health of employees and more optimal university function (Abraham et al., 2011).
Exploring the promising practice of the PCU Get Fit program will provide insight into a program
that currently enjoys success utilizing institutional resources to offer a physical activity
intervention that employees voluntarily and consistently use.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At PCU, there are many stakeholders for whom rates of employee physical activity and
sedentary behavior are particularly relevant, including the following: university senior
administration; administrators of related university academic departments and facilities,
including physical education; administrators of related university services departments, such as
fitness and recreational activities; university employees; and students. Ultimate responsibility for
allocating resources, promoting programming, and setting workplace standards to increase
employee physical activity lies with university senior administration. If institutional
determination exists more broadly to reduce sedentary behavior, in line with World Health
Organization goals to reduce sedentary behavior by 20% by 2025 (WHO Fact Sheet, 2018), then
6
the directors of the university’s human resources and talent acquisition, health insurance, and
center for employee health and wellness services offices would be key stakeholders in supporting
programming and resources for PCU employees like those that are offered by the promising
practice of focus in this study. Additionally, the vice provost for university wellness would be
essential to communicate support for such an initiative. He or she would be a key figure in
coordinating the development and launch of such programming by relevant departments to serve
all of PCU. Administration, students, and the employees themselves would benefit from support
for physical activity and a reduction in sedentary behavior. Commensurate improved employee
job performance and overall health would be expected outcomes of such behaviors.
Stakeholder Group of Focus for the Study
For the purposes of this promising practice study, the employees from the College of
Liberal Studies (CLS) who participate in the program will be the stakeholders of focus. The CLS
employee participants were selected as the stakeholders of focus because their behaviors
influence their own short-term and long-term health. These behaviors will also influence their
perceptions of job-related stress and wellness. Considering these factors together, this subset of
employees represents the broader employee group that is most impacted by the behaviors that are
the basis of this study. Focusing on how CLS employees successfully participate in physical
activity in the workplace on an ongoing basis informed suggestions for strategies that would
allow for similar employee engagement in other departments of PCU, as well as in other
organizations seeking to increase employee engagement with physical activity.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to study promising practices from the Pacific Crest
University College of Liberal Studies’ Get Fit physical activity program to understand one
7
university’s response to the problem of high rates of university employee sedentary behavior.
This analysis focuses on assets in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational influences related to reducing sedentary behavior among participating employees.
While a complete study would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders
of focus in this analysis will be Get Fit program participants.
As such, the questions that guide this promising practice study are the following:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to reducing university
employee sedentary behavior?
2. What is the interaction between the culture and context of PCU and Get Fit, and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
Methodological Framework
This study utilized mixed methods data gathering and analysis to study CLS Get Fit
employees’ assets in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources, based
upon the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis process (2008). The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic
Framework (2008) uses evidence to systematically examine how knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors influence the difference between an organization’s performance goals and
the organization’s actual performance. The Get Fit program and participant assets were studied
by using a survey and interviews. The data gathered from the aforementioned research methods
was analyzed using the Clark & Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008). This analysis endeavors
to understand the root causes of performance shortfalls. In this promising practice study, the
analysis was useful in identifying influences of importance to the success of Get Fit.
8
Definitions
Exercise: “physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive, and designed to
improve or maintain physical fitness, physical performance, or health” (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018, C-3).
Physical activity: “bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy
expenditure” (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018, C-3).
Sedentary behavior: “any waking activity performed that requires 1.5 or fewer metabolic
equivalents (METs) while sitting, reclining, or lying” (Tremblay et al., 2017).
High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): “repeated bouts of high intensity effort
performed at 80-95% of a person’s estimated maximal heart rate followed by varied recovery
times for a period of 20 minutes to an hour” (ACSM Information Guide, 2020)
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in discussion about sedentary behavior and the
need for increased physical activity among university employees. The university’s mission, the
Get Fit program’s goals and stakeholders, and a review of the promising practice framework
were also provided. Chapter 2 offers a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics relating to sedentary behavior, its prevalence among higher education employees,
and its risks to public health will be introduced. The review of literature will continue with
information about physical activity interventions, the impact of such interventions on health and
work performance, and the need for further research in both domains. Chapter 3 details the
choice of participants, data collection methods, and analysis. Chapter 4 offers a description and
analysis of the data and results. Chapter 5 provides recommendations to increase university
9
employee physical activity based on data and literature, as well as recommendations for
developing practice models of promise to reduce sedentary behavior among employees of other
institutions or other schools of PCU.
10
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
The purpose of this project is to examine the promising practices found within Get Fit, a
physical activity program offered to employees by Pacific Crest University’s College of Liberal
Studies. Accordingly, this literature review will examine participation in midday physical
activity as a means to improve employee perceptions of stress, job performance, and job
satisfaction. This will include exploring possible root causes of participation in such
interventions. The review begins with research describing increasingly high rates of sedentary
behavior with specific focus on the prevalence of such behavior among university employees.
Next, an overview of known negative health impacts associated with sedentary behavior will be
provided. The third section will review research describing the effects of physical activity
interventions on health, which will be followed by a section exploring employees’ perceptions of
the impacts of physical activity on their own productivity, stress, and job satisfaction. This will
be followed by an overview examining employee perceptions of impediments to their
participation in workplace physical activity interventions. After surveying this general research
literature, literature related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences will be
explored. This will inform consideration of factors influencing the success of the promising
practice of focus in this study according to methods posited by the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analytic Framework.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
This study examined a promising practice for decreasing sedentary behavior among
university employees. As such, it was necessary to examine the factors that may influence
sedentary behavior and physical activity in broader terms, and which may contribute to this
specific program’s success. Increasingly high rates of human sedentary behavior have become a
11
cause for global concern (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; WHO Discussion Paper,
2018). While the negative health impacts of these behaviors are widely known and understood,
societal responses have not kept pace with the need for significant behavioral change (WHO Fact
Sheet, 2018). University employees are no exception to the high rates of sedentary behavior
(Alkhatib, 2015), despite working for institutions that typically devote both human and physical
resources to the provision of opportunities for physical activity and exercise for the students they
serve (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). To give fullest consideration to aspects of Get Fit that would
inform recommendations for all of Pacific Crest University and other institutions seeking to
improve their own rates of employee physical activity, a survey of current literature related to
factors influencing employee behaviors and the divergent outcomes of sedentary versus active
behaviors follows.
High Rates of Sedentary Behavior
The literature describes the increase of high rates of sedentary behavior among people as
a worldwide phenomenon (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). The known negative health impacts
associated with sedentary behavior have led public health officials to call for action to prevent
suboptimal health outcomes (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; WHO Discussion
Paper, 2018).
Recognition of Increased Sedentary Behavior as a Public Health Concern
Sedentary behavior among humans is increasing in populations throughout the world
(WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). The health impacts of sedentary behavior are definitively
problematic, leading international and national public health experts to recommend change to
avoid preventable health crises (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; WHO Discussion
Paper, 2018).
12
Health Impacts of Sedentary Behavior
Sedentary behavior is a risk behavior associated with negative health outcomes that
impact quality of life for individuals, as well as having associated implications for health care
costs and workforce productivity (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). Americans spend
approximately 7.7 hours being sedentary each day (Matthews et al., 2008). Time spent engaged
in sedentary behavior has been linked to an increased risk of weight gain, an adverse metabolic
profile, and type-2 diabetes (Matthews et al., 2008). Associations exist between sedentary
behavior and cancer incidence and cancer mortality (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018).
Sedentary behavior also increases the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease (PA
Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). Furthermore, people who are not sufficiently active
increase their risk of death by 20% to 30% compared to active individuals, which represents an
increase to the global burden of disease (WHO Fact Sheet, 2018). The prevalence of sedentary
behavior poses significant health risks to humans. The health risks associated with these
increasingly common behaviors warrant responses by those charged with promoting the health of
the public on a global scale.
Global Public Health Concern
Global health leaders recognize the need to address sedentary behavior as a public health
concern and have called for action and policy changes in international leadership forums (WHO
Discussion Paper, 2018). Globally, one in four adults is not sufficiently active, making
insufficient physical activity a leading risk factor for death worldwide (WHO Fact Sheet, 2018).
Walking and cycling as means of transportation that also serve as sources of regular daily
physical activity are declining, with the greatest changes occurring in lower- and middle-income
countries (LMICs). Global comparative estimates show that 23% of adults and 81% of
13
adolescents do not meet the WHO Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health,
with wide variation among countries (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). In some adult populations,
the prevalence of inactivity is as high as 80% (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). A failure to
respond to the increasing rates of physical inactivity and associated health outcomes is projected
to stress health care systems, the environment, economic development, community well-being,
and quality of life for individuals (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). In efforts to avoid a looming
global health crisis, WHO Member States have agreed to reduce insufficient physical activity by
10% by 2025 (WHO Fact Sheet, 2018). Global health leaders understand that increasing
sedentary behavior is a growing health problem that requires attention and action in various and
specific ways throughout the world. Similarly, health leaders in the United States acknowledge
the problem of insufficient physical activity and increasing sedentary behavior among U.S.
populations.
National Public Health Concern
In the U.S., public health experts and government researchers have determined that
sedentary behavior is a national health concern and that physical activity interventions and
promotion must become public health priorities. More than a decade ago, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services set forth physical activity guidelines for Americans that suggested
individuals should perform muscle-strengthening activities two times per week and moderate
aerobic activity for a minimum of 150 minutes per week, or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic
activity per week (PA Activity Guidelines, 2008). The 2008 guidelines emphasized that regular
physical activity can produce long-term health benefits, while chronic inactivity poses
unnecessary health risks to individuals in the same league as lifestyle choices such as smoking,
diet, and alcohol use (PA Activity Guidelines, 2008).
14
A decade later, the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee produced a
scientific report detailing the continued need to address sedentary behavior, as less than half of
U.S. adults and high school-aged youth perform enough moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
to fall within the range recommended by public health officials (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018). The report also indicated that the increased mechanization of tasks and tools
at U.S. worksites has also eliminated physical activity previously performed as part of people’s
daily work activities. Understanding that Americans do not meet physical activity targets and
that regular physical activity reduces the incidence and mortality of cardiovascular disease, the
leading cause of death in the U.S., the advisory committee renewed calls for the development of
approaches and programs to increase physical activity among the general public (PA Guidelines
Advisory Committee, 2018). The committee’s recommendations were informed by evidence
demonstrating that the effects of physical activity vary by an individual’s amount of sedentary
behavior. Those who are the most sedentary experience the greatest relative reductions in
mortality risk associated with increases in their physical activity. Highly sedentary people need
even higher amounts of physical activity to achieve the same absolute mortality risk as those
who are less sedentary (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018).
Significant increases in physical activity must occur to lower the American population’s
risk for diseases and chronic conditions. To adequately plan and effectively implement daily
activity promotion and intervention programming, it will be necessary to consider the
implications that job types and on-the-job physical tasks have for rates of physical activity and
sedentary behavior throughout a typical workday.
Differences in Sedentary Behavior by Employment Type and Workplace
Different rates of sedentary behavior among various employment types and job
categories necessitate the consideration of health promotion and intervention strategies that
15
recognize and respond to these differences. The World Health Organization (WHO) includes the
workplace as a key setting for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior in
their draft action plan to improve rates of physical activity worldwide (WHO Discussion Paper,
2018). The action plan also identifies people’s means of transportation to and from work,
workplace activity breaks, workplace programming, and incidental activity in the workplace as
areas that are rich with opportunity to increase physical activity (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018).
Large-scale investments in industry, innovation, and infrastructure to support physical activity
will need to be made for behavior change to occur (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018).
In the U.S. specifically, a person’s occupation may serve as a barrier to meeting federal
guidelines for both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities. Occupational physical activity
contributes less to overall physical activity than it once did in the U.S. This transition is due to
historical and technological changes that occurred during the 1960s that have moved the U.S.
economy away from goods production (Blackwell & Clarke, 2016). Prior to this transition,
manufacturing jobs in the U.S. required minimal physical activity from the majority of workers.
It is important to note, however, that an abundance of occupational activity may influence an
individual’s choice of behaviors outside of the workplace. Those whose jobs are physically
demanding may not engage in physical activity in their leisure time, which may impact overall
health outcomes (Blackwell & Clarke, 2016).
Transformations in the physical demands of occupational categories and transportation to
and from one’s occupation have significant impact on rates of incidental daily physical activity
and how physically active individuals are during their leisure time. Research demonstrates that
higher education is a sector of the workforce that experiences high rates of sedentary behavior
among job types within the field (Blackwell & Clarke, 2016).
16
Prevalence of Sedentary Behavior in Higher Education
Higher education is a field in which teaching, service, administration, library work, and
management are prevalent, all of which are categorized as typically highly sedentary segments of
the workforce (Blackwell & Clarke, 2016). While those in job roles that are categorized as
teaching and social service jobs are more likely to be sedentary than those in production-related
occupations, those in the former category of jobs are more likely to fall within federal guidelines
for aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities during leisure hours (Blackwell & Clarke, 2016).
Reducing overall risk, however, requires modification to occupational behaviors.
According to a study by Alkhatib (2015), university employees do not meet
recommended healthy thresholds for sedentary risk factors associated with adverse chronic and
acute health impacts. The study also demonstrated an increased prevalence of risk factors among
members of a university campus employee population who were overweight and had high blood
pressure and blood glucose, which suggest an increased risk of obesity, type-2 diabetes, and
hypertension (Alkhatib, 2015). Although workplace sedentary risk factors can be targeted with
interventions (Conn et al., 2009), little is known about what constitutes effective interventions on
university campuses (Alkhatib, 2015). While certain methods of delivery have demonstrated
promise, literature about multi-level approaches that include social ecological models for
interventions within universities and colleges is lacking (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). Both physical
inactivity and sedentary behavior are cited as “modifiable health behaviors that deserve specific
attention, particularly within this population,” (Plotnikoff et al., 2015, p. 185) in which the
population in question refers to university and college employees.
The predominantly sedentary behavior of higher education employees suggests they are
likely to experience a high burden of risk for negative health outcomes related to sedentary
behavior. The known risks of sedentary behavior make understanding impediments to physical
17
activity and the best means for interventions, health promotion, and health education for specific
job settings and employment types important for designing efforts to minimize such risk.
Physical Activity Interventions
Although the deleterious health impacts of sedentary behavior are well established, the
health benefits of physical activity are similarly known and understood in research literature,
granting insight into the need for, and potential impact of, physical activity interventions.
Health Impacts of Physical Activity
The myriad benefits of physical activity make improving rates of physical activity for all
people a priority that is consistent with the World Health Organization’s goal that health be
valued as a universal human right and an essential resource for everyday life (WHO Discussion
Paper, 2018). Social and governmental policy directed at increasing rates of physical activity
through means including walking, cycling, active recreation, sport, and play also support the
WHO’S Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for global health (WHO Discussion Paper,
2018). At all ages, the benefits of physical activity outweigh potential risks (WHO Discussion
Paper, 2018).
Physical activity reduces the risk of the following health problems: hypertension, heart
disease, stroke, diabetes, various types of cancer, incidences of falling, and depression.
Additionally, regular physical activity has commensurate benefits including the following:
improved muscular and cardiorespiratory fitness; improved bone and functional health; energy
balance and weight control (WHO Fact Sheet, 2018). Physical activity has also been shown to
reduce anxiety and improve sleep and cognitive function in adults (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018). Aging populations can engage in physical activity to maintain physical,
social, and mental health, including the prevention or delay of the onset of dementia (WHO
Discussion Paper, 2018).
18
With such robust benefits to maintaining overall health, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services’ Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (2018) recommends
“moderate-to-vigorous physical activity should be part of every adult’s lifestyle, especially for
those who sit for large portions of the day” (F2-33). Physical activity of even moderate levels
has health benefits for people of all ages and is an important part of a healthy lifestyle. As such,
understanding how to improve rates of physical activity and enacting recommendations for
improving physical activity should be public health priorities.
Recommendations to Reduce Sedentary Behavior and Improve Physical Activity
Recognition of the need for concerted societal efforts to be made to improve rates of
physical activity have led global and national public health agencies to formulate recommended
courses of action to prevent a looming health crisis. The World Health Organization supports an
integrated approach to increasing physical activities from all relevant sectors of society,
including partners such as WHO member states; development agencies; intergovernmental
agencies; professional associations; academic and research institutions; philanthropic
foundations; industry leaders and the private sector; media; local government agencies and city
planners; and local communities (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). This means that schools,
workplaces, and communities should support and facilitate physical activity for people across
their lifespans to optimize health (WHO Fact Sheet, 2018).
The WHO identified four strategic objectives to guide its efforts to establish an
integrated societal response for the need to increase physical activity around the world (WHO
Discussion Paper, 2018). The first, create an active society, focuses on shifting societal norms to
ensure that people understand the benefits of physical activity and its importance to their
individual health and quality of life. The second strategic objective, create active environments,
19
emphasizes the need for safe, accessible, and equitable physical spaces in which people can
perform physical activity in both urban and rural settings. The third strategic objective, create
active people, seeks to establish and support programming and access for people to participate in
physical activity as individuals, within their families, and as members of a broader community.
The fourth strategic objective, create active systems, aims to encourage the establishment and
function of partnerships among government, workforce, and private agencies with a coordination
of national and international efforts. These four strategic objectives are supported by twenty
policy actions that the WHO recommends to member states to improve physical activity (WHO
Discussion Paper, 2018).
On a national level, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Physical Activity
Guidelines Advisory Committee found that the growing knowledge of the dangers sedentary
behavior poses to health, even for those who are physically active daily, makes reducing
sedentary behavior a priority for U.S. citizens, including in worksite settings (PA Guidelines
Advisory Committee, 2018). Despite the overall increase in knowledge of the benefits of
physical activity and the risks associated with sedentary behavior, the committee found that
knowledge of the health benefits has not proven to be an effective motivator for behavior change
in individuals. As such, the development and implementation of interventions that supplement
people’s understanding of why physical activity is important with strategies and approaches that
specifically promote and sustain physical activity are necessary to change the behaviors of
Americans (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018).
Much as the WHO calls for an integrated approach across sectors of society to transform
behaviors, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Physical Activity Guidelines
Advisory Committee recommends the development and use of a social ecological framework
20
that would account for the complex effects of environmental, social, cultural, and community
contexts on whether individuals adopt and maintain an active lifestyle, and how health promotion
efforts are implemented (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). To shape their
recommendations for improving the physical activity of Americans, the committee explored
research regarding interventions at both the individual and community levels, as well as research
into worksite interventions, and those using technology as the primary source of intervention for
participants. Their research found strong evidence that behavior change theories are effective for
increasing physical activity levels among adults. Moderate evidence showed community-wide
interventions with intensive contact with the majority of a community’s population are effective.
Only limited evidence was found to suggest that interventions targeting a decrease in overall
sedentary behavior among a general adult population are effective (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018).
Workplace and Worksite Interventions for Decreasing Sedentary Behavior and Promoting
Physical Activity
Workplace interventions promoting physical activity are a promising area for health
promotion. However, to date, such interventions have been met with mixed results, and more
research is needed to establish best practices.
The Importance of Workplace Interventions
Because people spend substantial time working, consideration must be given to how to
best reduce the amount of time people spend in sedentary behaviors while working to reduce the
negative health impacts of such behaviors. Technology and mechanized personal and mass
transportation have eliminated much of the incidental physical activity that people used to
perform as part of their daily routines both in the workplace and in commuting to and from the
21
workplace (WHO Discussion Paper, 2018). Workers who remain seated for the majority of their
workdays may benefit from workplace interventions as a complement to physical activity that
they perform or engage in outside of their workplaces. The use of desks that can be adjusted to
allow for sitting and standing throughout the day may be important tools for people to reduce the
overall amount of sedentary behavior in which they engage (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018). While material supports like adjustable workplace furniture may assist in
interrupting prolonged periods of sedentary behavior, research demonstrates that combining
environmental, educational, behavioral, and policy changes in the workplace has the strongest
effect in changing overall sedentary behaviors among workers (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018). Examples of the aforementioned relevant workplace changes include things
like point-of-decision prompts to use the stairs or guide an individual’s choice toward active
movement; educational classes and workshops; messaging and communication related to health;
and formally organized walking or aerobic instruction groups. Given the breadth and type of
interventions that are possible, ongoing study and research is needed to determine the most
appropriate combination of interventions for a specific workplace.
Higher education is a worksite setting where workplace interventions can effectively be
monitored to determine outcomes and behavior changes over time. Additionally, universities are
settings where high-risk groups can be targeted for interventions that would complement broader
public health goals. Such interventions would also allow for the tracking of the short- and long-
term benefits of exercise experienced by university employees (Alkhatib, 2015). Universities
may also have existing resources and infrastructure to allow for the ease of program
implementation and behavior interventions among populations in need of behavior change
(Plotnikoff et al., 2015). Additionally, university employees’ typical competencies with
22
technology may allow for the use of online program interventions and subsequent tracking of
their potential efficacy within university populations (Plotnikoff et al., 2015).
Lack of Current Research on Worksite Intervention Efficacy
Robust and longitudinal research into workplace interventions to reduce sedentary
behavior and increase rates of physical activity is lacking. Researchers from the field of
preventive medicine have called for rigorous studies to evaluate physical activity promotion
programs in workplaces including those that specifically target at-risk populations. Such research
would investigate whether it is necessary to design programs for specific subsets of broader
employee populations for the interventions to be effective (Conn et al., 2009). Longitudinal
research would also inform researchers’ understanding of the best ways to sustain effective
workplace interventions (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). An assessment of
workplace health promotion survey data determined that very little is known about the quality
and reach of existing workplace health promotion programs. Similarly, little is known about the
characteristics of the employees who take advantage of workplace health promotion programs
and how representative they are of the overall worker populations within their workplaces
(DeJoy et al., 2014).
Given the lack of existing research into effective methods for sustaining behavior
changes, it is unsurprising that those tasked with determining physical activity guidelines for the
United States called for the development and launch of multi-component behavior interventions
across multiple levels of influence to potentially increase the impact and sustainability of
resultant behavior changes (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). Specifically, the
committee highlighted the need to produce quantitative data that display the differences in
physical activity levels between control and intervention groups to demonstrate intervention
23
efficacy. The committee also promotes the need for investigations into methods that produce
changes in rates of sedentary behavior and sustain engagement in physical activity with the
understanding that both must be achieved to constitute healthy behavior and reduce risks for
adverse health outcomes (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018).
Though the significant health benefits are the primary aim that informs the demand for
research to change sedentary behavior patterns within workplaces and overall, the effects of
physical activity on workers’ behaviors, performance, and affect also contribute to the need for
such research and investigation.
Effects of Physical Activity on Employees and Employee Perceptions of Work
Physical activity contributes to the overall physical health of individuals, but the impacts
of physical activity on individuals’ sense of overall wellness and perceptions of stress are also
significant and merit consideration in relation to job performance. The interplay between
physical activity and employee mood warrants investigation, as does the relationship between
physical activity and employee perceptions of their performance and workplaces.
Improved Mood and Regard for the Workplace
Research analyzing the self-reported impacts of exercising at work found that employees
who were able to direct their own exercise reported experiencing mood benefits after exercising
(Coulson et al., 2008). Similarly, a separate study examining physical activity interventions in
workplaces found that participants selected to perform physical activity gave higher ratings to
assessments of their moods and quality of life than those in a control group (Conn et al., 2009).
In the latter of the aforementioned studies, those who participated in workplace physical activity
interventions also reported significantly greater job satisfaction than those in a control group in
pre- and post-tests. In the former study, exercise was also associated with improved workplace
attitudes, including employees’ perspectives of themselves, the tasks for which they are
24
responsible, and their colleagues, which influence improved team function (Coulson et al.,
2008). Further research is needed to understand the comprehensive effects of workplace physical
activity, including associated improvements to broader workplace functionality and the potential
for reduced employee absences (Conn et al., 2009; Coulson et al., 2008).
Employee Perceptions of Productivity and Performance
On-site physical activity interventions at workplaces are associated with improved
employee perceptions of job performance. In one study, employees who participated in self-
directed exercise in the middle of the workday estimated their own work performance as better
after exercising (Coulson et al., 2008). Participants who exercised during a midday break
reported experiencing more energy when they returned to work, in addition to improving their
time and task management. The authors’ analyses found that midday exercise led to participants
having better mood and performance, work concentration, and resilience in work settings
compared to days on which they did not exercise (Coulson et al., 2008).
Another study found that, for highly active employees, less total sitting time was
associated with better work performance and overall mental well-being. For inactive employees
in the same study, higher levels of physical activity were related to improved estimates of their
own job performance and better mental health (Puig-Ribera et al., 2015). With implications for
improved employee performance and well-being outcomes for both those who are already active
and those who most need to increase their rates of physical activity, the addition of physical
activity to the workday can have far-reaching effects. It is also important to consider the practical
implications for business and industry that performance impacts associated with physical activity
have for organizational function.
25
Physical Activity Intervention Implications for Organizational Productivity and Costs
Increasing employee physical activity and reducing overall sedentary behavior can reduce
employees’ risks for adverse health impacts. As a consequence, if employees develop fewer
chronic diseases, employers will reduce overall health care costs because they will not have to
fund ongoing care for employees who are able to avoid preventable chronic diseases (Pronk &
Kottke, 2009; Thygeson, 2010). Beyond supporting the health of employees and lowering the
burden of funding health care for such employees, healthy employees are able to remain
productive within the workforce longer, which supports successful organizational performance
(Huber et al., 2015; Thygeson, 2010). Employees not only stay in the general workforce longer
with physical activity, but, taking a more immediate view, employees miss fewer days of work
due to illness or physical incapacity while employed (Sjøgaard et al., 2016).
Examinations of cost effectiveness for employers to support and offer physical activity
interventions or worksite physical activity suggest that the overall savings to health expenses and
potential lost worker productivity makes such programming worth the investment, with the
caveat that the interventions are efficacious (Sjøgaard et. al, 2016). Productivity costs are
estimated to be two to three times the cost of the provision of health care (Thygeson, 2010).
Although worksite health promotion programming and initiatives are growing in the U.S.,
the need to secure employee participation in such initiatives and sustain employee behavior
change still remains as a key challenge, and a central consideration for cost-benefit analyses
about the implementation of such programming (Abraham et al., 2011). The necessity of
determining what types of workplace interventions work in specific settings led Pronk and
Kottke (2009) to declare that “…promising practices should be given ample attention and
consideration” (p. 320). In order to determine effective intervention design and implementation,
26
it is first necessary to understand what employees experience as impediments to their
participation in workplace physical activity programming.
Employee Perceptions of Impediments to Worksite Physical Activity Participation
Knowledge of the risks of sedentary behavior does not motivate behavior change among
U.S. adults (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018), nor does a workplace intervention’s
existence secure employee participation (Sjøgaard et al., 2016). Those charged with creating and
implementing interventions that will elicit employee participation and promote sustained
involvement must understand employee perspectives about what currently impedes or prevents
their performing physical activity in the workplace.
In a report of recommendations for increasing physical activity within the U.S.
population, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee called
attention to realities that must be considered in intervention program design. The committee
emphasized that behavior change is a process rather than a single event, and that the factors that
influence individual behavior can also change over time (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee,
2018). Behavioral influences must be accounted for in estimations of engagement with physical
activity programming both before and after participation. One’s behavioral intention and actual
actions may not be the same, as someone may plan to be physically active, but not actually
perform physical activity as intended. Understanding the motivational factors that influence an
individual’s decision about whether or not to perform physical activity is essential for those
trying to influence people’s motivations toward engaging in physical activity (PA Guidelines
Advisory Committee, 2018).
Beyond the point of decision about whether to be active or not, the choice about whether
to maintain a pattern of physical activity and engagement in physical activity is also important to
consider in intervention program development, as changing behavior and maintaining behavior
27
are two distinct challenges that individuals face to increase their physical activity (PA Guidelines
Advisory Committee, 2018).
Research examining employees’ perceptions of barriers to their participation in physical
activity within the workday and in worksite health promotion programming demonstrates that
many factors concern employees about participating, including the time involved, and others’
perceptions of their work (Coulson et al., 2008; Kruger et al., 2007). In one study, participants
cited a lack of time to participate in workplace physical activity programming because of the
existing demands of work as the most influential factor preventing their participation (Kruger et
al., 2007). A lack of time before, during, and after work was the most commonly reported
employee barrier to using services provided at the worksite itself, while paid time off at work to
use such services was reported as the greatest incentive to use the workplace services (Kruger et
al., 2007). Researchers point to the need for employers to allay employee concerns about
sanctions for physical activity to eliminate employee fears that, by participating, their time
management will become a cause of concern or be viewed as a failure by managers and
supervisors (Coulson et al., 2008). By visibly supporting employee engagement in physical
activity breaks and programming in the workplace, managers and supervisors can also establish
physical activity participation as accepted and supported behavior, which can help quell concerns
employees may have that their coworkers will view them and their work negatively because of
their choice to participate in physical activity (Coulson et al., 2008).
To understand perceived barriers in universities, it is helpful to examine research in such
settings. One such study that examined university employees’ usage of on-campus facilities as
part of an incentivized workout program found that university employees who had easy access to
on-campus exercise facilities were more regular exercisers than those who reported greater
28
distance to, and therefore greater time investment to, use the on-campus gym (Abraham et al.,
2011). The same study demonstrated that many of those who joined the university’s incentivized
program already exercised regularly, which led authors to call for more research into employees’
knowledge and motivation to better understand how to increase employee participation in regular
exercise in a university setting (Abraham et al., 2011).
Across the extant literature, authors call for further research to better understand barriers
to employee participation in workplace physical activity interventions. Areas listed as
specifically important include whether those with flexible work schedules do participate in
workplace physical activity interventions, and whether those who are granted paid time off to
perform physical activity while at work participate in physical activity (Kruger et al., 2007).
Furthermore, the limited understanding of employee perspectives inhibits the development of
potentially transformative interventions.
Areas of Future Research Need
Research focused on employees’ perceived barriers to participation in workplace physical
activity has not been conducted over a sustained period of time or with thoroughness necessary
to inform best practices (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). A study that examined
responses to National Workplace Health Promotion Surveys (DeJoy et al., 2014) noted that the
surveys do not include feedback from the employees’ perspective. The authors also note that
human resources representatives or department managers frequently complete the surveys on
behalf of an entire organization’s worker population, which does not allow for the inclusion and
subsequent understanding of employee perceptions of workplace health promotion program
effectiveness.
29
Literature that focuses on university settings mentions additional limitations beyond the
lack of employee perspectives regarding why they choose to participate or not in workplace
physical activity interventions. Such limitations include the use of small sample populations
relative to the number of people who are university employees (Plotnikoff et al., 2015) and the
selection or allowance for self-selection of study populations that only target those who would
benefit from significant intervention and behavior change, rather than employees who represent a
range of physical activity engagement (Puig-Ribera et al., 2015). To develop effective programs
for wide swaths of university employee populations, further insight is needed from representative
samples of employees.
Research regarding the outcomes of workplace intervention programs is also lacking.
Many programs and associated research studies are primarily concerned with financial and health
issues and are conducted as short-term analyses. To gain a more robust understanding of what
will increase worker physical activity and associated benefits and outcomes, research should
include impacts to organizations on the whole rather than just individual employees (Conn et al.,
2009). For example, tracking the impacts of physical activity interventions on areas like
employees’ productivity, absenteeism, stress levels, and job satisfaction would provide insight
into the effects of physical activity beyond employee health (Cahalin et al., 2015; Conn et al.,
2009). Studies over longer time periods and with more diverse employee participants may yield
significant insights into the financial benefits of improved organizational productivity and
whether those whom the studies are designed to attract and engage in physical activity actually
join programs and persist in participating (Abraham et al., 2011; Conn et al., 2009).
The promotion of employee physical activity as a necessary component of business
planning is still in its infancy in terms of implementation, making the accompanying need to
30
establish best practices exceptionally relevant, as best practices will allow more successful
workplace-specific programs to be developed and launch more quickly (Cahalin et al., 2015;
Pronk & Kottke, 2009). Given the potential that universities possess to pilot and launch
successful workplace health interventions (Plotnikoff et al., 2015), establishing a need for
programs and developing models for evaluation is essential to extending health and
organizational benefits more broadly.
Although current research into employee needs and workplace physical activity
intervention outcomes is lacking, promising practices like the Get Fit program at Pacific Crest
University present opportunities to improve interdisciplinary knowledge relating to improving
employee physical activity participation and decreasing employee sedentary behavior (Pronk &
Kottke, 2009). The application of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytical Framework (2008),
described below, to the Get Fit program allowed for consideration of the factors and influences
that inform the program’s success, as well as highlighting areas for growth or improvement.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) developed a systematic analytic framework that allows for the
identification of gaps between the performance goals of an organization and the actual
performance of the organization. By applying this analytic framework, organizations use
evidence-based evaluations to gain insight into the root causes of performance shortfalls, which
can then inform how to best direct resources to mitigate such shortfalls. The Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis focuses on determining the knowledge and motivational influences on
stakeholder performance within an organization, as well as the organizational factors that
influence overall performance. This study used a modified version of the Clark & Estes
framework (2008) to identify the needs and assets of PCU, and the knowledge, motivation, and
31
organizational influences that have aided the Get Fit program in improving rates of employee
physical activity. To consider knowledge influences on performance, it is useful to apply
Krathwohl’s (2002) framework, which incorporates both a learner’s knowledge and cognition in
the following four dimensions of knowledge: factual, contextual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Rueda, 2011). Next, the application of the motivational theories of self-efficacy and expectancy
value to an organization’s stakeholders allows for a more robust understanding of whether gaps
in motivation play a significant role in stakeholder choices (Rueda, 2011). Organizational factors
to analyze include work processes, material resources, and organizational culture, which can
inform structural or setting-based hindrances to optimal performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The aforementioned components of the Clark and Estes gap analysis—knowledge,
motivation, and organization—are each addressed below to explore the influences of employee
knowledge and motivation, and organizational factors on progress toward increasing college
employee physical activity through a midday exercise intervention program at Pacific Crest
University.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Stakeholder knowledge and motivation are two main areas for assessment that yield
meaningful data about organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). To address knowledge
in the context of this study, it is important to understand employee knowledge related to physical
activity and workplace sedentary behavior. This understanding will inform other institutions
about the employee knowledge necessary to achieve the organizational goal of increasing
employee activity (Rueda, 2011).
In a framework that incorporates both a learner’s knowledge and cognition, Krathwohl
(2002) categorizes knowledge in the following four dimensions: factual, contextual, procedural,
32
and metacognitive. Understanding the type of knowledge necessary for optimal performance will
allow those charged with teaching or training the organization’s stakeholders in the knowledge
that is lacking in the best approaches to employ to facilitate learning, along with other
organization-wide considerations (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002). Factual
knowledge refers to discrete facts and content elements including terminology and definitions, a
learner’s mastery of which can be evidenced by basic recall (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
The next type of knowledge is conceptual knowledge, which is more complex and describes
organized forms of knowledge like frameworks, theories, and schema that apply to a given
concept or context (Rueda, 2011). The third type of knowledge is procedural knowledge, which
transitions the complexity of knowledge from answering “what” to answering “how” a process
or method operates, and the steps required for performance of that process or method (Rueda,
2011). The fourth and most complex type of knowledge is metacognitive knowledge, which
involves a learner’s awareness of his or her thinking about learning and cognition. The
implications of having a learner understand his or her own cognition include the learner’s
capacity to use strategies to effectively respond to and affect his or her own thinking and learning
with intentionality and direction (Krathwohl, 2002).
Next, knowledge influences that are important considerations in increasing college
employee physical activity will be addressed within the context of current literature and
categorized by their respective knowledge type. This categorization will allow other institutions
to ensure that their own education and training efforts align with actual knowledge gaps that
exist, that the methods for remediation of such gaps are appropriately designed for the learning
that needs to occur, and that college employees themselves be involved in ownership of their
own knowledge acquisition where applicable (Rueda, 2011).
33
Knowledge of Available University Physical Activity Programming
For college employees to take action toward increasing their level of physical activity
throughout the workday, they must first have basic factual knowledge of the university or college
resources available to them. Employee knowledge of available university- or college-sponsored
physical activity programming and recreational options is a measure of knowledge so basic that
it could be assumed to exist among employees where it does not. This could lead to an error in
attributing causation, or omitting a source of causation entirely, of low rates of employee
physical activity on the job site (Clark & Estes, 2008). Current literature supports the need for
more consistent knowledge about the employees who participate in workplace health promotion
programming and their perceptions of program effectiveness or interest (DeJoy et al., 2014).
Furthermore, limited research exists about workplace health interventions that are not either
specifically tied to a study or conspicuously tracking participant information, making participant
knowledge of the intervention a necessity (Coulson et al., 2008). Research also describes the
need to understand whether workplace activity interventions primarily engage those who already
use physical activity resources, which would imply they are aware of such resources (Abraham
et al., 2011). This lack of knowledge about whether employees know what types of programming
are available prevents determining whether participants are unaware, uninterested, or unable to
utilize physical activity programming that is already in place.
Knowledge of Physical Activity and Perceived Impacts of Physical Activity on Work
Metacognitive knowledge is also needed to understand how to increase employee
physical activity. Employees’ understanding of their own behaviors and their thinking about
adopting physical activity in the workplace or elsewhere influence behavioral outcomes. For
example, conveying the knowledge to college employees that even minor additions of physical
34
activity can make significant differences in energy expenditure (Matthews et al., 2008) and
asking them to assess and track their own rates of sedentary behavior may affect their thinking
about their own behavior. The acquisition of new or re-confirmed factual knowledge of their
own activity in relation to risk behaviors may influence potential behavior changes. Such an
assessment would utilize self-reporting of rates of physical activity to encourage metacognition
wherein college and university employees think about their behaviors while working (Baker,
2006). Similar assessments after physical activity may also encourage employees to give more
consideration to, and take more control of, their thoughts related to physical activity (Baker,
2006).
Designing assessments that also capture employees’ perceptions of their own productivity
and well-being as associated with sedentary behavior and physical activity would apply
metacognitive principles to their own perceptions of performance and health (Baker, 2006).
Survey results from existing research demonstrate that physical activity interventions positively
affect employee perceptions of personal health, well-being, stress, and workplace productivity
(DeJoy et al., 2014; Puig-Ribera et. al, 2015). Understanding employees’ metacognition about
physical activity will better inform possible design and implementation of intervention programs,
should gap analysis suggest metacognitive knowledge is an important area of focus at PCU that
other universities could consider in their efforts toward employee physical activity improvement.
Table 1 summarizes the two knowledge influences on college employees relating to
sedentary behavior and physical activity, the knowledge types associated with each influence,
and methods used to assess employees’ level of knowledge in each area of knowledge influence.
35
Table 1
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
To support the development of people through education, research, and service to the
community, as the health and well-being of its employees directly relate to this mission and
fulfillment of services to students and the community.
Organizational Global Goal
To increase college employee physical activity by offering a lunchtime physical activity
intervention opportunity that supports the health well-being of employees and their capacity to
serve the university.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
College employees need to know
physical activity resources
available to them at their
institution
Factual Survey
Interview questions
College employees need to know
their own levels of physical
activity and perceived impacts of
physical activity on work
performance
Metacognitive Survey
Interview questions
Motivation
Motivational influences are another important element to understand in analyzing
organizational performance, as motivation determines the level to which one will engage in and
continue a task, and how much effort will be put forward toward its achievement. Clark and
Estes (2008) describe these three components as indicators of motivation: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Active choice describes whether a person—in this case, a college
employee—will choose to begin, or not to begin, to engage in physical activity programming
within the university. Persistence describes whether such employees, once engaged in the
activity, will continue and complete the physical activity. Finally, mental effort involves whether
people will invest energy and concentration in performing the task at hand, which, in the context
of this study, may then translate to dedicated physical effort within a physical activity program.
36
The following sections examine literature relevant to understanding motivational
influences on rates of employee physical activity and sedentary behavior. The motivational
theories of self-efficacy and expectancy value will be applied to the problem of college employee
sedentary behavior and physical activity programming, as understanding motivation and its
norms within a given culture will allow for a more robust understanding of whether gaps in
motivation play a significant role in employees’ physical activity choices (Rueda, 2011).
Self-Efficacy
Developed by Bandura (1997), self-efficacy theory describes judgments people have
about their own ability to successfully learn or perform a task at a certain level. Unless an
individual believes their actions can produce the outcomes they want, they will have little
incentive to begin the task or to persevere in the face of difficulties performing the task. Self-
efficacy beliefs relate to self-regulation and whether an individual can correct actions and
cognition that would prevent success in a task. Self-efficacy beliefs also help individuals foster
outcomes they expect, meaning confident people anticipate success whereas those with low self-
efficacy beliefs may imagine rejection or failure in a task prior to beginning a task (Pajares,
2006). Helping individuals establish self-efficacy beliefs about participating in physical activity
may help them engage and persist in participation.
Self-efficacy beliefs can be formed from four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasions, and physiological or emotional states (Pajares, 2006). Mastery
experiences describe one’s own performance of a task, the outcome of which influences beliefs
about the same task in the future. Successful attempts at a task promote self-efficacy beliefs,
while failure hurts self-efficacy. Aside from one’s own experiences, observing others engage in a
task and witnessing their success or failure contributes to the beliefs one forms about their own
37
capacity to perform a task. Social persuasions describe verbal persuasions of others that either
cultivate or weaken a person’s self-efficacy beliefs, whether they are offered intentionally or not.
Finally, a person’s physiological and emotional states affect an individual’s assessment of their
self-efficacy, with optimism enhancing self-efficacy, and anxiety and depression tending to
lessen or weaken self-efficacy beliefs.
Self-efficacy is socially driven and can be personal or collective. Bandura’s conception of
collective efficacy (2000) describes the role of people’s beliefs in the power of a collective
whole to achieve certain outcomes or goals. There are two elements contributing to collective
efficacy: the capacity of individuals within the group to achieve a goal or outcome that promotes
a collective goal, and the capacity of the collective group to achieve a collective goal.
Understanding the interplay of personal and collective efficacy has applicability to efforts to
understand whether a group of physical activity participants experiences collective efficacy in
their engagement with an activity, and whether physical activity interventions can be developed
to more optimally foster self-efficacy.
In their meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions, Dishman, Oldenburg,
and colleagues (1998) described the need for interventions to employ cognitive and behavioral
theory in their design and implementation. A part of Bandura’s broader Social Cognitive Theory
(2000), self-efficacy theory’s influence predicting whether an individual will choose to engage in
a task suggests it is an influence of importance to performance of physical activity in the
workplace. Additionally, research describing successful workplace interventions often describes
participant self-efficacy in discussion of program-related outcomes (Röttger et al., 2017;
Sjøgaard et al., 2016). Collective efficacy and the role of coworkers as motivating supporters
have also been factors in studies of workplace physical activity offerings (Dishman, DeJoy, et
38
al., 2009; Pedersen et al., 2018). The importance of peer support to the efforts and achievement
of coworkers is known and, as such, also called for as an area of future research relating to
workplace health promotion program design (Pedersen et al., 2018). Given their importance in
influencing the actions individuals pursue, the effort they apply, and their expectations for the
activity, whether individual or collective, the possible influence of self-efficacy beliefs on
physical activity program participation will be explored in the context of PCU.
Expectancy Value
Expectancy value theory considers individuals’ beliefs about whether they can perform a
task, and whether they want to perform the task, as motivational factors affecting whether they
do perform a given task. An individual’s beliefs about the value a task has inform whether he or
she wants to perform the task. These task value beliefs are organized by the following value
characteristics, which are described below: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility, and cost
beliefs (Eccles, 2006).
Attainment value describes whether or not an activity supports a specific part of a
person’s self-concept. If an activity aligns with how an individual views himself or herself, then
it has a high attainment value, and is likely to influence performance of the task. If the activity
does not align with that idea of oneself, the activity has low attainment value, and is therefore
less likely to motivate an individual to begin to perform the activity. Intrinsic value describes
whether an individual expects to enjoy an activity and therefore influences his or her interest in
performing the activity accordingly. Utility value describes whether the activity is useful in
supporting an individual’s future goals. Finally, cost beliefs describe the perceived emotional and
social costs of performing a given activity, including factors like anxiety, fear of failure, and
concern about the social consequences of performing an activity (Eccles, 2006).
39
Expectancy value theory is relevant to considerations of employee motivation to perform
physical activity because of the fundamental question of whether employees want to engage in
physical activity in the workplace, and, if so, if they believe they can successfully do so.
Assessing whether employees understand the health impacts of sedentary behavior would
support the dissemination of such knowledge among university employees, should assessments
reveal a perceived lack of intrinsic and utility value to overall personal health and continued
health. Similarly, assessments of employee confidence in their ability to successfully perform
physical activity could inform institutions’ efforts to provide ongoing physical activity training,
instruction, and personal feedback, should assessment results indicate low expectancies for
success (Eccles, 2006).
Assessing employees’ perceptions of the attainment value of, and cost beliefs associated
with, workplace physical activity could potentially reveal motivational conflicts within
employees, depending on their own self-perceptions. It is possible that an employee would have
a self-schema as both a healthy person who takes care of themselves, making engaging in
physical activity something of high attainment value, while also characterizing themselves as a
diligent worker. This latter self-conception could make engaging in physical activity during the
workday something perceived as impeding their performance of the role of a dedicated employee
in the environment where that identity has primacy. Investigating employee cost beliefs might
also potentially demonstrate an interplay of values. For example, an employee may experience
anxiety about their level of physical activity performance specifically influenced by whether
colleagues, coworkers, or students might also witness the performance in a university setting.
However, even if an employee has high confidence in their ability to perform and does not have
concerns about failure as a high cost for activity engagement, they might experience anxiety
40
relating to social consequences from colleagues within an office cohort if they feel that the
employee should not engage in physical activity during the workday and is in some way shirking
duties and responsibilities (Coulson et al., 2008). Implementing a priority ranking that combines
various job duties and physical activity opportunities among employees and conducting
employee interviews would allow organizations to better understand how their employees
perceive the value of physical activity in the workplace and what role the workplace itself plays
in shaping those perceptions (Eccles, 2006).
Table 2 below summarizes the two motivational influences on college employees relating
to sedentary behavior and physical activity and methods used to assess the influence of these
motivational factors on employees’ physical activity choices.
Table 2
Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
To support the development of people through education, research, and service to the community, as
the health and well-being of its employees directly relate to this mission and fulfillment of services to
students and the community.
Organizational Global Goal
To increase college employee physical activity by offering a lunchtime physical activity intervention
opportunity that supports the health well-being of employees and their capacity to serve the
university.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy—College employees need to believe
they know how to successfully perform physical
activity at work
Survey
Interview questions
Expectancy Value—College employees must find
value in engaging in physical activity that exceeds
the perceived costs of doing so, including negative
social consequences or being perceived as
underperforming at work
Survey
Interview questions
41
Organization
Organizations have their own unique cultures that evolve throughout their lifespans.
Organizational cultures include formal and informal norms of behavior, expectations of
members, shared values, and shared meaning-making, among other commonalities (Schein,
2017). As Clark and Estes attest (2008), the interplay of an organization’s cultural and structural
factors with the knowledge and motivational influences that affect its stakeholders impacts
overall organizational performance. Therefore, it is necessary to understand organizational
influences on performance to fully evaluate gaps between an organization’s performance goal
and actual performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizations are characterized by both cultural models and cultural settings, the latter of
which can also be referred to as cultural climate (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schneider et
al., 1996). Cultural models are internal values, beliefs, and attitudes that are invisible and
automated, and shape shared cultural practices. Cultural settings are visible, concrete models
within an organization and include employees themselves, their tasks, the social context in which
they are performed, and how and why they are performed (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To
effect lasting organizational change, efforts must be made to align an organization’s culture and
climate, and to understand how an organization functions for its employees (Schneider et al.,
1996).
The cultural settings and cultural models that relate to employee physical activity,
sedentary behavior, and work behaviors influence overall employee behavior. The following
sections examine the influence of applicable cultural models and settings in more detail in the
context of PCU. Two cultural models will be examined: (a) a culture of clear and consistent
support for health promotion and physical activity at PCU; and (b) employee willingness to
change behavior and increase physical activity. Two cultural settings that will be examined are:
42
(a) time for employees to participate in physical activity programming, and (b) workplace
physical activity intervention offerings.
Although cultural models and settings are presented individually, it is important to
acknowledge that current physical activity research posits a conceptualization of physical
activity behavior that is influenced by the simultaneous interaction of influences at multiple
levels. The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report utilizes the
“social ecological framework,” as adapted in Appendix A, to examine physical activity
behaviors, which includes the following four spheres of influence: individual, community,
communication environment/information technology, and physical environment and policy (p.
F11-3). Applying the social ecological framework to the context of workplace physical activity
programming and interventions, cultural models and cultural settings are both necessary and
interrelated components of the framework that support the success of such interventions. The
social ecological framework aligns with the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) in
its consideration of the roles that both an individual and an individual’s social and physical
environments play in determining behavioral outcomes. As such, the following cultural models
and settings are presented as distinct, but are connected in their influence of the physical activity
behavior of PCU employees, and consideration for other institutions seeking to replicate the
success of Get Fit at PCU.
Clear and Consistent Support for Health Promotion and Physical Activity
Effective organizational change incorporates the alignment of cultural settings and
cultural models within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In the organizational
context of this study, Pacific Crest University needs not only to develop and implement physical
activity interventions for employees, but also must foster an accompanying culture that
43
demonstrates the value of health behaviors and physical activity. Although the Get Fit program
of the College of Liberal Studies has somewhat achieved this integration of cultural models and
settings, creating such a culture in the broader context of PCU requires clear support of
organizational leadership. This leadership would be evidenced by the commitment of resources
to health promotion programming, as well as an accepted, shared, and understood culture that
values the health and well-being of employees (Cahalin et al., 2015). Researchers found that
workplace health promotion programs that were more successful in changing employee
behaviors shared common characteristics including strong support from organizational
leadership, and clear acceptance of the importance of health and wellness, which was reflected in
the organizational culture and environment (Cahalin et al., 2015). These authors describe the
need for an organization’s entire leadership structure to be involved in supporting workplace
health promotion programming as “imperative” to its success, beginning with senior leaders and
then filtering throughout an organization’s leadership structure from there (Cahalin et al., 2015,
p. 98).
Similarly, the results of a randomized research trial to encourage workplace physical
activity among employees also support the need for cultural models (Dishman, DeJoy, et al.,
2009). The aforementioned study’s intervention group model included management endorsement
of the activity, a management and employee steering committee for the intervention, group and
organizational goal setting, and workplace prompts. The results of this study demonstrated that
employees who were members of the intervention groups experienced increased perceptions of
employee support by management compared to members of the control groups. Additionally, the
intervention groups had better performance outcomes than the control groups (Dishman, DeJoy,
et al., 2009). Support by leaders at all management levels for health and wellness programs and
44
the establishment of a clear connection to an organization’s goals that is understood by members
of the organization is important to adoption of worksite health behaviors by employees (Pronk &
Kottke, 2009). By communicating the value of the health behaviors to employees in both words
and actions, managers at all levels of an organization can influence the rates of employee
participation and employee expectation around performing such health behaviors in the
workplace (Pronk & Kottke, 2009). As Senge asserts (1990), leaders need to challenge existing
norms and mental models to build new shared visions in an organization. At PCU, this vision
would need to include active, energized employees who recognize that managers, supervisors,
and senior leaders alike value and support their participation in physical activity.
The role of leadership in establishing cultural values in an organization is highlighted by
Beer and Nohria (2000) in their description of the goals of “Theory O,” for organizational
change, which focuses on “developing corporate culture and human capability through individual
and organizational learning” (p. 89). It is necessary not just to announce a change initiative or
program as something that will be embraced, but also to build accompanying organizational
culture that supports the goal of the initiative. Coordination, commitment, and the development
of new competencies across an organization are necessary for change to happen and must be
facilitated and guided by managers at more localized levels than senior administration so that the
adoption of the new cultural value is accepted organization wide (Beer et al., 1990). For
employees to embrace physical activity as not only acceptable, but also appreciated and laudable,
cultural model transformation will have to occur across leadership levels of PCU.
The Organization Needs a Culture of Willingness to Change Existing Behavior Patterns
Cultural models include attitudes and shared cultural practices (Schein, 2017). To
increase employee physical activity rates at PCU, employee attitudes toward adopting new
45
behaviors must be accepting of such change, which would allow for employee cultural practices
surrounding physical activity within the workday to likewise change. One’s role within an
organization and the responsibilities and relationships that accompany that role can directly
shape individual attitudes and behaviors (Beer et al., 1990). Involving employees in the
organizational meaning-making and planning surrounding physical activity program planning
and implementation at PCU will encourage a sense of employee engagement and will assign
employees a status as actively involved, relevant community members working toward an
intended organizational change (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011). Research supports the importance
of workplace participation in designing physical activity interventions for organizational
implementation, as participants experienced improved fitness levels compared to those in
interventions that were designed by someone from outside the organization (Conn et al., 2009).
Employee participation in the development, implementation, and evaluation of physical activity
programming is highlighted as a recommended action and best practice to promote physical
activity in the workplace (Pronk & Kottke, 2009).
Additionally, because PCU is a university setting, highly qualified experts in physical
education are already members of the organization. Universities are cited as a source for
knowledgeable collaborators with whom organizations should seek to partner if their own
employees do not have adequate expertise to propose and develop a viable health and wellness
program at a worksite (Cahalin et al., 2015). Pacific Crest University employs a variety of
faculty and staff members devoted to physical activity and overall wellness (university website,
n.d.). These experts can be recruited to participate in communities of practice that enrich the
engagement of other employees with whom they are collaborating toward this specific
organizational physical activity goal (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011). One such subset of experts
46
facilitates the Get Fit program currently, bringing their expertise to bear on improving the
physical activity practice of CLS employee participants.
For PCU to see significant employee participation in workplace health intervention
programs, the attitudes and perspectives of employees will have to be known and understood
(DeJoy et al., 2014). Employees will have to supported in their individual change processes by
PCU’s leadership and formal and informal partnerships with colleagues and experts involved in
programming (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Fostering employee engagement with new
expectations for physical activity in the workplace will require consistency in organizational
messaging, support for employees through resources of both people and processes, and trust that
employees will solidify the cultural values for the organization en masse through their own
adoption of attitudes and behaviors that support the employee physical activity goals of PCU
(Berbary & Malinchak, 2011).
Time and Flexibility to Participate in Physical Interventions
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) offer a definition of cultural settings in which they are
described as occasions where people come together to accomplish an activity of shared value.
The authors also observe that the absence of such occasions also constitute cultural settings
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In this study, it will be necessary to examine whether the
cultural setting of time for PCU employees to participate in physical activity is absent or present,
and how those who participate in Get Fit manage it. Employees need the capacity to allot time
within the workday toward being physically active without fear of sanctions—whether formal or
informal—for doing so. Such schedule flexibility, or lack thereof, may influence employee
decisions about whether or not to participate in physical activity interventions offered by the
university.
47
A study of employee attitudes toward barriers and incentives to their participation in
workplace health promotion interventions found that the most influential barrier cited by
participants was a lack of time before, during, and after work to use workplace facilities or
programming (Kruger et al., 2007). Conversely, the greatest reported incentive to perform
physical activity was paid time off at work to do so. The authors suggested further research is
needed to determine whether schedule flexibility will result in greater employee physical activity
within the workplace (Kruger et al., 2007).
The overall time required to participate in a physical activity intervention in the
workplace must also account for the time required to travel to and from the location of a physical
activity offering from one’s worksite and associated factors that would require additional time,
such as showering and changing clothing before and after a workout. A research study of an
exercise intervention initiative at a public university system in the Midwestern United States
found that total time of exercise, proximity to one’s home or workplace, and convenience of
facility use were significant factors that influenced employee participation in the initiative
(Abraham et al., 2011).
While it is necessary to assess the permissibility of engaging in physical activity with
one’s broader organization, manager, or supervisor to understand employee behaviors, informal
prohibitions or cultural mores may also be involved in employee decisions. For example,
employees may experience concern that performing physical activity during work hours will
place them at a disadvantage in the perceptions of their work ethic by both supervisors and peers
(Coulson et al., 2008; Röttger et al., 2017). This intersection of cultural settings and cultural
models would require leaders to transform cultural models to disassociate workplace physical
activity from perceptions of lackluster effort or employee performance (Coulson et al., 2008).
48
Interestingly, in the Röttger et al. (2017) study referenced above, employees who
perceived low control of their own behavior in a work setting were less likely to feel they could
participate in a workplace intervention without negative repercussions. They also felt that there
was not sufficient time to complete necessary work demands and participate in physical activity.
The need for time to be an accepted and available cultural resource for employees to be
able to participate in workplace physical activity interventions aligns with the Job-Demands
Resources (JD-R) model posited by Bakker and Demerouti (2007). The JD-R model examines
the resources that serve to support practical and motivational aspects of an individual’s job in
comparison with the mental, emotional, and physical demands of an individual’s job. The
relationship of available job demands to available job resources has an impact on the overall
performance of an organization.
The aforementioned resources are all relevant considerations for the importance of time
as a cultural setting that influences organizational physical activity goals. Fear of failing to meet
job demands, failing to meet coworkers’ expectations, and taking autonomous actions that would
elicit negative feedback from supervisors all may impede decisions to engage in physical activity
during the workday. Bakker & Demerouti (2007) attest “job autonomy may be crucial for
employee health and well-being because greater autonomy is associated with more opportunities
to cope with stressful situations” (p. 315). In the context of this study, autonomy in performing
one’s job extends to the use of one’s time to achieve job demands. The documented effects of
physical activity for stress reduction and improved work performance, in addition to improved
physical health (Coulson et al., 2008; PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; Sjøgaard et al.,
2016), suggest that empowering employees to feel they have autonomy in decisions about using
49
time for physical activity would enrich employees’ job resources and impact overall motivation
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Viewing time as a cultural setting necessary for the successful increase of employee
physical activity, it is important to remove barriers to employees having the capacity to control
their work time to incorporate physical activity, and thereby embrace organizational goals
(Kotter, 2007). Allowing employees the freedom to participate in physical activity will build
essential employee trust (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), foster employee engagement, and offer
“latitude to learn” (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011, p. 59) the new cultural model that values
employee physical activity.
Workplace Health Promotion and Intervention Offerings
In the context of this study, PCU must consider physical activity as a job resource that
employees need to perform their jobs well and must be understood by employees to have
importance as such (Schneider et al., 1996). Beyond previously stated impacts on employee
health, stress, mood, and job performance, physical activity in the workplace has also been
associated with employee retention (Huber et al., 2015). This wide array of potential impacts
makes the utilization of workplace physical activity interventions a resource. Therefore, drawing
upon the Bakker and Demerouti (2007) Job-Demands Resources (JD-R) Model, access to
workplace physical activity interventions is a job resource that the university organization can
supply to its employees. By developing and implementing workplace physical activity
interventions that demonstrate the value of employee health, as well as the value of potential job
performance enhancements employees would gain from physical activity, PCU would engender
trust among employees if they perceive that they are valued and cared for by the university.
50
Building such trust would aid in securing employee buy-in and participation in such intervention
programming (Schneider et al., 1996).
While research varies greatly about workplace health promotion programming settings
(DeJoy et al., 2014; Dishman, Oldenburg, et al., 1998), the need for interventions to be specific
and tailored to the worksite of use and need is well understood (Pronk & Kottke, 2009;
Thygeson, 2010). To increase the feasibility that employees will use the interventions, it is
important that they have the opportunity to provide input into what interventions will be and how
they will function (DeJoy et al., 2014). Soliciting employee participation in program
development will communicate support of employees as stakeholders in this organizational goal.
Such ongoing organizational support will encourage employees’ sense of collective efficacy to
participate in the physical activity programming after its implementation (Bandura, 2000).
Additionally, including diverse employee perspectives and feedback in program evaluation and
making subsequent adjustments after its initial implementation will avoid employee silence
(Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Rongen et al., 2013) and grow trust that the physical activity
interventions reflect the organization’s broader priorities and pro-employee mindset (Hansen et
al., 2002). Granting employees agency in providing information that will inform decision
making, as well as agency to decide whether they will participate, will also assist in building a
culture of trust regarding physical activity interventions (Schneider et al., 1996). It is important
to note that the promising practice that is the focus of this study resulted from repeated employee
requests for such programming.
The potential for incentivization to increase employee participation and program
retention is well documented (Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009; Thygeson, 2010). Efforts to
understand which incentives would be most effective should involve the inclusion of employee
51
perspectives in organizational analysis, as employees must value the recognition they would
receive for maintaining participation in a physical activity program in order for such recognition
to matter, particularly those employees who would not choose to participate based on their own
existing intrinsic motivations (Hansen et al., 2002). While benefits to one’s personal health and
wellness may be viewed as the rewards of the physical activity by employees, offering
organizational recognition for physical activity participation that is of significance to employees
could influence employee motivation and engagement (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011).
Finally, Belsky’s (2012) emphasis on the importance of employee happiness and the
value of play for successful work by and organizational affinity among employees can be applied
to the addition of employee physical activity to the workplace. Improvements in mood and
reductions in stress from physical activity (Coulson et al., 2008; Puig-Ribera et al., 2015) would
support employee happiness in the workplace. Additionally, the possible gamification of
physical activity interventions, whether in program design, intra-organizational competition
(Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009), or technology offerings that support employee participation
(Plotnikoff et al., 2015; Pronk & Kottke, 2009), can add elements of play to the physical activity
interventions.
Colleges and universities represent an area for growth of workplace physical activity
interventions because they typically employ large numbers of employees, offer access to
physical resources and equipment, have high-quality technology and accompanying support, and
employ professionals with expertise for the academic and recreational sports needs of the
university (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). However, for such interventions to be effective, their
development will have to be driven by employee needs within each organization and undergirded
by leadership support indicating that the interventions are of value both for the health of
52
participants, and for the overall performance of the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Thygeson, 2010).
Table 3 below summarizes the assumed organizational cultural models and settings that
influence the effectiveness of physical activity interventions in increasing university employee
physical activity and offers methods used to assess their influence among participants in the
promising practice, Get Fit.
Table 3
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
To support the development of people through education, research, and service to the
community, as the health and well-being of its employees directly relate to this mission and
fulfillment of services to students and the community.
Organizational Global Goal
To increase college employee physical activity by offering a lunchtime physical activity
intervention opportunity that supports the health well-being of employees and their capacity
to serve the university.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organization Influence Assessment
The organization needs a culture of clear and
consistent support for health promotion
Survey
Interview questions
The organization needs a culture of
willingness to change existing behavior
patterns
Survey
Interview questions
The organization needs to provide employees
with time to participate in physical activity
interventions
Survey
Interview questions
The organization needs employee physical
activity programming
Survey
Interview questions
53
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
To understand whether and how the aforementioned knowledge and motivational
influences impact university employees’ levels of physical activity, it is necessary to consider
these influences within the context of the university itself and the cultural models and settings
that exist therein (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). A conceptual framework allows for the
iterative, subjective synthesis of ideas and concepts to posit an understanding of the interactions
of discrete influences or related phenomena (Maxwell, 2013). Establishing such a framework
allows a researcher to present his or her understanding of what is happening among the
influences involved in a given area of thought, study, or research based on the interaction and
connectivity, or lack thereof, of such influences. For the purposes of this study and its utilization
of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic framework (2008), the conceptual framework will describe
interactions of employee knowledge and motivation within the context of the university. This
conceptual framework will inform analysis of influences that affect rates of physical activity
among CLS employees who are the stakeholders of this study.
A conceptual framework “relates concepts, empirical research, and relevant theories to
advance and systematize knowledge about related concepts or issues” (Rocco and Plakhotnik,
2009, p. 128). In developing a conceptual framework, a researcher draws upon sources including
empirical literature, theoretical literature, personal experience, and thought experiments—or how
one thinks a system or process might work— to theorize what is occurring in an area of study
(Maxwell, 2013). The breadth of sources that inform a conceptual framework help to avoid
possible weaknesses that may occur from relying on any one source too heavily. This
“ideological hegemony” (Becker, 2007) prevents empirical research from being considered as
54
having already answered all questions in an area of research and allows for consideration of both
the limitations and the insights found in theoretical research (Maxwell, 2013).
Though knowledge, motivation, and organizational context are distinct influences, it is
the interplay of stakeholders’ knowledge and motivational influences with an organization’s
cultural and structural components that impacts overall organizational performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Figure 1 depicts the interaction of the knowledge and motivational influences of
university employees within the organizational context of Pacific Crest University and the
College of Liberal Studies promising practice. The cultural framework represented in this figure
depicts how the interaction of these influences in the organizational context of PCU affects rates
of employee physical activity, which supports the health and well-being of employees and their
capacity to serve the university.
55
Figure 1
Knowledge and Motivational Influences on Employee Physical Activity Behaviors in the Context
of a University
The preceding figure illustrates the interactions of influences that affect employee
workplace physical activity and effects on Pacific Crest University’s organizational goal of
supporting the health and well-being of employees and their capacity to serve PCU. In the figure,
the large red box represents the organization and the cultural models and settings it contains that
influence employee physical activity behaviors and which may represent barriers to employee
participation in physical activity programming (Schein, 2017). The cultural models to consider in
the context of PCU include employee willingness to perform physical activity, and whether PCU
fosters a culture where physical activity is viewed as acceptable behavior in which employees
can engage (Cahalin et al., 2015; Coulson et al., 2008; PA Guidelines Advisory Committee,
56
2018). Cultural settings found in the figure include whether time is available in the workday for
employees to perform physical activity without negative outcomes (Coulson et al., 2008; Röttger
et al., 2017) and whether appealing physical activity programming exists (Kruger et al., 2007).
The next level of consideration in the depiction of the conceptual framework is the
organization’s global goal of increasing employee physical activity during the workday, which is
represented by a large yellow box. PCU’s broad goal supports efforts toward meeting the
organizational mission to secure employee health and wellness (Alkhatib, 2015) and to support
employee performance (Cahalin et al., 2015; Coulson et al., 2008), which is shown as a green
box in Figure 1. The simultaneous interaction of the employee knowledge and motivation
influences within the context of PCU’s cultural context and as components necessary for PCU’s
global goal is depicted by the purple and orange boxes, which include diverse types of
knowledge (Mayer, 2011) and motivation, respectively (Baker, 2006; Pajares, 2006;). An
employee factual knowledge influence was whether they are aware of available university
programs. A metacognitive knowledge influence to consider is whether employees know their
own levels of physical activity and the results of that activity. The motivation influences
affecting employee behaviors include beliefs about their ability to successfully perform physical
activity and perceptions of the responses of their coworkers should they choose to exercise in the
workday (Eccles, 2006).
It is important to note that the interaction of these stakeholder knowledge and motivation
influences informs movement toward employee participation in the CLS physical activity
intervention program, depicted in the figure by a blue box, which would then support PCU’s
organizational mission, depicted by a green box. All elements of the conceptual framework must
function together to allow progress toward the global organizational goal of increased employee
57
physical activity, which will allow the university to uphold its responsibilities to both employee
health and to the students such employees serve (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conclusion
The preceding review of literature examined research that is relevant to understanding the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that affect rates of participation in the
worksite lunchtime physical activity intervention Get Fit by employees of Pacific Crest
University’s College of Liberal Studies. Exploring the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on university employee rates of physical activity informs the modified
use of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytical Framework (2008) with the goal of understanding how
PCU has successfully improved rates of employee participation. The knowledge influences
studied included employees’ factual knowledge of the physical activity resources available at the
university and employees’ metacognitive knowledge of their own levels of physical activity and
interest in changing these levels, as well as perceived impacts of physical activity on work
performance and stress. Motivational influences included employees’ self-efficacy beliefs about
whether they could successfully perform physical activity during the workday, including
considerations of activity in a group setting. Another motivational influence was expectancy
value theory, which discussed the value university employees’ assign to successfully performing
physical activity during the workday and whether they would face negative social consequences
within their workplace for doing so. The organizational context elements considered included
university culture supporting health promotion and a willingness to change existing behavior
patterns in the organization. Organizational settings included available physical activity
programming and time for employees to engage in such programming.
58
The next chapter will describe the mixed methods research methodology employed in this
study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) to examine the application of the aforementioned influences
to the organizational setting. The methodology described in Chapter 3 was designed with the
intention of utilizing the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) to determine the
impact of these influences within CLS and PCU.
59
Chapter 3: Methods
This study employed a mixed methods model to examine the promising practices used in
the Get Fit program, a midday physical activity program offered to employees of the College of
Liberal Studies of Pacific Crest University. This chapter will describe the research design and
methods used to collect and subsequently analyze data to better understand the knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational influences related to Get Fit’s success in reducing sedentary
behavior among CLS employees. The research questions guiding the study are:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to reducing university
employee sedentary behavior?
2. What is the interaction between the culture and context of PCU and Get Fit, and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
This mixed method study employed a survey instrument that was distributed to employee
participants in the Get Fit midday physical activity interventions. The survey instrument
measured employee perceptions regarding their participation in physical activity interventions.
Factors examined included ease of participation and perceived barriers to participation, including
organizational factors and structures. The survey instrument also assessed employees’
perceptions of their own health, stress, and job satisfaction. Analysis of the quantitative data
culled from the survey instrument allowed key knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors impacting employee performance to emerge.
Although the researcher intended to conduct observations of those engaging in midday
physical activity programming multiple times to ensure that the common actions, reactions,
attitudes, and demeanors of the participants were recorded accurately for some duration over
multiple instances as they occurred in a naturalistic setting (McEwan & McEwan, 2003), the
60
researcher was only able to attend one Get Fit session prior to PCU’s response to the 2020
COVID-19 outbreak. Given the limited impression one observation would provide of the
research setting, observation data were excluded from the study.
The interview component of the qualitative portion of this mixed methods case study
enhanced the richness of the data overall, as the researcher sought to answer questions about how
the exercise intervention works and, in some cases, does not work optimally, from the shared
personal experiences of participants in the interventions. Interviews granted a more robust
understanding of participants’ internal knowledge and motivation, and their perceptions of
organizational barriers or supports for physical activity, as well as the subsequent impacts on
employees’ perceptions of health, stress, and job performance.
Because the researcher is the key instrument in qualitative data collection, establishing
empathic neutrality that demonstrated no judgment of any kind in a research setting was critical
to the study’s validity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Understanding and acknowledging the
researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and constructivist viewpoint was important to maintaining
the validity of the interviewing. Establishing triangulation through multiple methods and peer
checking was key for the analysis and utility of the results of the qualitative components of this
study (Maxwell, 2013).
This chapter will first describe the stakeholders in this study, after which the
methodologies used in both the quantitative and qualitative sections will be explained in detail.
Next, a brief description of data analysis will be provided, as well as an acknowledgement of the
limitations and delimitations of the study.
61
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders of focus in this study are university employees who participate in the
Get Fit lunchtime exercise program offered by Pacific Crest University’s College of Liberal
Studies. In the context of this study, participants were selected from among those who participate
in Get Fit. Participants were full-time and part-time employees who participated in this CLS
physical activity programming for more than one month at PCU. These criteria served the study
by having participants provide information about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors impacting PCU’s stakeholder performance and overall mission as suggested by the
research questions. Additionally, these criteria aligned with the research settings that were
available for study and were intended to bring forth the data being sought, which informed the
selection of appropriate methods and participants (Maxwell, 2013). The utilization of a
convergent parallel mixed methods study design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) demanded rigor in
both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study, and the sampling criteria were selected
to support this need.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participants in College of Liberal Studies Intervention Programming
The first criterion in the purposeful sampling in this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was
that survey participants be participants in lunchtime physical activity interventions at PCU
offered by the College of Liberal Studies. This criterion ensured participants had experience
participating in university-provided exercise interventions during the workday.
Criterion 2. Participant in CLS Programming for More Than One Month
This study aimed to understand the influence of organizational culture on employee
workday physical activity participation as a regular component of the employee experience.
Likewise, the evaluation intended to capture the responses and opinions of employees who view
62
their participation in physical activity in the workday as a typical and frequent activity. This
necessitated elimination of any program participants who were not considered regular users by
the Get Fit facilitators and focused instead on those who have adopted midday exercise
participation with the CLS intervention program as a part of their work habits.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The survey sampling strategy was informed by survey feasibility (Creswell & Creswell,
2018) and by the need for the sample to adhere to criteria that “directly reflect the purpose of the
study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Survey feasibility was the most critical component that
informed sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Electronic dissemination of the survey
instrument by a person known to participants encouraged survey participation and helped the
researcher to establish a productive relationship with participants (Maxwell, 2013).
A Get Fit program facilitator served as a communication liaison for the study and
distributed the survey to 148 employees with demonstrated continued interest in the Get Fit
program. Twenty-five Get Fit participants responded to the survey. One respondent did not
complete the survey, only providing information for two items related to demographic
information, and was excluded from final results. A core of 20 to 35 participants among those
contacted attend Get Fit sessions regularly, which makes the sample size and 16% survey
response rate (24 of 148) appropriate for this study.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Respondents Selected from Among the Quantitative Survey Participants Who
Were Willing to Participate in Individual Interviews with the Researcher
Given the small number of survey respondents (24), any respondents who indicated
willingness to share their insights with the researcher were contacted to arrange an interview.
63
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The interviews represented the qualitative component of the mixed methods study. This
study utilized a nested sequential mixed sampling design to gather data from Get Fit participants
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Interview participation was solicited from among survey
respondents in a final survey item that asked respondents whether they were interested in being
interviewed. To ensure the de-identification of survey responses from respondents, those who
indicated they were willing to be interviewed were automatically redirected to an external link
that allowed them to enter email contact information to arrange an interview. Eight of the 24
survey respondents completed information indicating they would be willing to be interviewed
about their experiences with Get Fit and physical activity in the workplace. Follow-up emails
were sent inviting volunteers to participate in interviews and select a time and date in which to
do so. Six of the eight survey respondents who had indicated they would be willing to be
interviewed agreed to participate in a one-on-one interview.
This cohort of interview participants was a purposeful sample selected to attempt to make
deeper meaning from their self-reported experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To gain
insight into participants’ meaning making, the researcher used guided interviewing in a one-on-
one setting (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
One to two additional interviews were planned with Get Fit facilitators to acquire their
perceptions of employee motivations for participation and insights from their experiences
offering a successful program including why they think the program is successful. However, Get
Fit facilitators did not respond to email requests for interviews in the timeframe governing data
collection and were not interviewed, which is noted in the limitations section.
64
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This promising practice study employed a mixed methods approach to apply quantitative
and qualitative data to research questions designed to provide an improved understanding of the
characteristics that support the Get Fit program’s effectiveness in reducing rates of university
employee sedentary behavior (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using both quantitative and
qualitative methods allowed for a more detailed exploration of participants’ perceptions and
ideas about their own physical activity and revealed new areas of importance for research
consideration as they relate to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The specific
steps guiding the data collection and instrumentation of this promising practice study are
outlined in the sections that follow.
Survey
The survey instrument was a fifty-four-item survey comprised of questions and
statements that were a mixture of open- and closed-ended responses (Robinson & Firth Leonard,
2019). A survey was selected as the appropriate quantitative method to capture standardized
measures of stakeholder behaviors, such as frequency of participation in Get Fit. The survey was
also selected for its utility in capturing stakeholder thoughts and perceptions, including their
specific internal states in relation to participation in Get Fit, beliefs about the university culture
and context in which Get Fit takes place, beliefs about sedentary behavior, and sources of
motivation to participate (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
The majority of closed-ended items offered a series of response options on a Likert scale,
which promoted ease of data analysis of thoughts and perceptions that are not easily quantifiable
(Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Nominal data included participants’ perceptions of their
productivity, emotional well-being, physical health, knowledge of how to perform exercises,
perceptions of coworker and supervisor attitudes, and likelihood of participation in physical
65
activity programming, among others (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Additional free text
responses enabled text analysis that pointed to areas of influence.
Survey data informed answers to the research questions about the organizational
influences on stakeholder perceptions and behaviors. Survey data also offered insight into the
knowledge and motivation influences on the behavior of stakeholders, which influenced the
recommendations made to transform employee behaviors on a larger scale. The survey questions
are detailed in Appendix B.
Survey Procedures
All survey questions and answers, items and response options, instructions regarding how
to take the survey, and communications related to the survey were written in English. The survey
was produced through the web-based survey program Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com) and
was distributed to participants through a URL link specific to this study. The survey link was
sent in the text of an email message explaining the survey was part of the researcher’s
dissertation research. The researcher explained her role as a student at PCU and specified that the
survey and responses would only be used in conjunction with the study in her role as a doctoral
student. The email included a brief description of the research project, appropriate disclosures
indicating that participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time, and a statement
indicating no personal information or identifying characteristics of participants would be
associated with the results or formal data produced from the survey, or any portion of the
research study. An additional disclaimer specifying the protections afforded to participant data
were included in a statement at the beginning of the survey in Qualtrics.
The survey was distributed by email for ease of distribution by the CLS liaison, and to
allow respondents to determine the best time and environment in which to complete the survey.
66
The Qualtrics web application also formatted surveys for readability and ease of use on mobile
phones and tablets, which allowed respondents to complete the survey at their convenience.
(Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Survey respondents spent an average of 8.5 minutes
completing the survey.
Interviews
Interview Protocol
The interview portion of the qualitative methods section used semi-structured, one-on-
one interviews. An interview guide was developed to keep questions consistent across
participants (Patton, 2002), but the semi-structured aspect allowed participants and the researcher
to delve into topics or areas of interest that were not found on the interview guide. This enabled
discussion of topics the researcher did not consider based on the literature review that proved
relevant to informing her understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of Get Fit participants. The interview guide included questions regarding behavior,
knowledge, feelings, and sensory data to elicit participant responses about their lived experiences
participating in an employee physical activity program (Patton, 2002). In the sequence of
questions, initial factual data served as a warmup for the interview, but the main focus of the
interview section was the motivational and organizational influences that impact Get Fit
participation. The interview guide can be found in Appendix C.
Interview Procedures
The researcher solicited all survey respondents who indicated a willingness to be
interviewed to participate via follow-up email. The follow-up email included a link to a web-
based calendar application that allowed participants to schedule a time of their choosing in which
to be interviewed from within a two-week time frame. Additionally, the researcher’s email
message included the option for respondents to contact her if none of the available times were
67
convenient for prospective interview participants. Of the eight volunteers who were contacted,
six scheduled interview times through the calendar application. The two participants who did not
select times were invited again to participate by the researcher, but neither responded via email,
nor did they ever select a time to be interviewed. The six participants who agreed to be
interviewed received an email confirmation and message of thanks from the researcher,
including information regarding how to contact her with any questions or concerns.
While the researcher intended to hold interviews in a campus area for the convenience of
interview participants, data collection occurred at the beginning of PCU’s response to the 2020
COVID-19 crisis. All interviews were conducted via Zoom (https://zoom.us), an online meeting
platform that allows for meeting recording and one-on-one or group meetings. All interviews
were one-on-one, and the same disclaimers regarding participants’ ability to withdraw consent to
participate at any time were repeated, along with assurances regarding confidential data storage
and the anonymization of all identifying characteristics of participants in data reporting.
Interviews lasted between 45-75 minutes for the six participants with whom the
researcher spoke. The interviews were informal, and all were conducted in English. The
researcher took notes with a pen and paper to remember salient points and key phrases
participants used during discussion (Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study involved the separate analysis of quantitative and qualitative
data by the researcher, after which components of each data type were considered together and
combined to better inform interpretation of key themes that emerged. Qualtrics web-based
software was used to create the survey and was the primary tool used to analyze the data gleaned
from the survey. Excel was also used to perform basic statistical analyses for applicable items,
68
including mean, median, mode, frequency, and percentages, as well as to create visualizations of
data.
Several processes were used to ensure the integrity of the qualitative data gleaned from
participant interviews. The researcher checked all interview transcripts against the original
participant recordings and corrected any discrepancies in transcription. Additionally, notes taken
during interviews were added to each interview participant’s working document file for
consideration in interpretation of the data. The researcher then manually coded each transcript
via open coding, making notations in the margins, after which a color-coded system was applied
to each transcript denoting themes of importance. The results of transcript coding were
aggregated and reassessed with the assistance of an Excel spreadsheet and a table made in Word
to organize the themes. Axial codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), were then organized in
consideration of their applicability to the research questions driving this study. The organization
of emergent themes, as supported with quantitative data from the surveys, informed the eventual
organization of results and discussion which follow in Chapters 4 and 5.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure that the results and findings drawn were consistent with the data gathered
during the qualitative components of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the researcher took
several steps to increase credibility and trustworthiness. The researcher engaged in an analysis of
reflexivity to understand her researcher’s position as it relates to the participants and the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher’s positionality as an employee of PCU was
inseparable from participant interviews by virtue of her pre-conceived ideas of PCU.
Furthermore, preconceived notions about causation of sedentary behavior among PCU
employees were acknowledged and contextualized in relation to this research undertaking to
69
avoid presenting findings claiming a viewpoint of neutrality that was not accurate, based on her
position and experiences. Acknowledging the positionality and ideas the researcher brought to
the study allowed research to move forward with awareness of her predispositions.
The researcher sought negative cases, or those that are a discrepancy from the trends or
findings about which the research is hypothesizing, in an attempt to guard against tunnel vision
for an idea, conclusion, or point of view. Doing so aimed to protect against drawing one
conclusion and working toward erroneously “proving” that conclusion in all data accumulation
and interpretation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Finally, the researcher endeavored to collect rich, thick descriptions (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) during interviews to provide notes as to what is truly characteristic of
the promising practice. While the promising practice model does not support maximum
variation, based on its small size, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) attest, there is good reason to
study one particular case for the information or lessons it can provide to others in similar
contexts or circumstances (p. 258).
Validity and Reliability
The researcher utilized recommended strategies to maximize the validity and reliability
of the survey that comprised the quantitative portion of this study, beginning with developing
quality questions that considered respondents’ needs and empathized with their experiences.
Making a “respondent-centered survey” (Robinson & Firth-Leonard, 2019, p. 3) involved
developing questions that were interesting to respondents and crafting a survey implementation
plan that respected their time and positionality within PCU. The choices to distribute the survey
by email and use an online survey platform were made with ease of respondent use in mind.
Furthermore, though the researcher sought to understand the cultural models and settings that
70
influence stakeholder participation in Get Fit, survey items did not ask employees to agree or
disagree with statements that were value-laden or directly critical of PCU or the College of
Liberal Studies. This was done both to avoid using leading questions or items, and to respect
employee positionality within PCU and CLS as individuals who depend on the institution for
their livelihoods. Survey items that were critical of PCU or CLS could have damaged trust in the
neutrality of the researcher and jeopardized respondent participation if respondents felt that their
values and interests were not respected or reflected in the survey instrument (Robinson & Firth-
Leonard, 2019).
Several steps were taken to attempt to increase the validity and reliability of survey items.
Utilizing Robinson and Firth-Leonard’s (2019) Checklist for Quality Question Design (p. 166)
allowed the researcher to avoid common mistakes made in question and instrument development.
Additionally, the researcher sought feedback from experts regarding the construct validity of the
survey instrument (Robinson & Firth-Leonard, 2019; Salkind, 2017). Feedback and advice from
the faculty of the researcher’s doctoral program, including the chair of the researcher’s
dissertation committee, was sought to bring their expertise to bear on survey and question design
(Irwin & Stafford, 2016). This was particularly helpful to test parallel forms within the survey
that attempted to elicit a reliable response to questions relating to the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on stakeholder behaviors that the study aims to understand (Salkind,
2017).
The survey was also pilot tested prior to launch. Respondents for pilot testing included
those who participate in physical activity programming at PCU other than the Get Fit program
and non-PCU employees with no specific relationship to physical activity, including peer novice
researchers in the researcher’s dissertation cohort. This was designed to test the internal
71
consistency of the questions, as well as to expose weaknesses in the wording or structure of
questions that needed to be revised for clarity (Robinson & Firth-Leonard, 2019).
Ethics
As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) attest, the validity and reliability of a qualitative research
study largely depend on the ethics of the researcher (p. 260). Ethical considerations for
qualitative research involving the use of human subjects include both abiding by the ethical
standards and guidelines set forth by institutional review boards, as well as the researcher’s
awareness of the researcher-respondent dynamic and attentiveness to ethical issues that may arise
in the field (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The actions and procedures described in the following
sections were taken to best support the safety and well-being of participants, and to ensure that
individual privacy was respected and upheld.
The proposed research study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of
the University of Southern California to protect the safety of the human subjects of the study. To
comply with the requirements for IRB approval, informed consent was obtained from all
participants prior to their participation in the study. Key provisions for participants in the
research included the detail that participation was voluntary and that participants could withdraw
from participation at any time in the study.
Research participants should have a reasonable expectation of privacy (Glesne, 2011). As
such, those who were willing to serve as interview subjects received a written explanation stating
the following: that study participation is voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time, that all
responses will remain confidential, and that individuals’ identities will be protected in relation to
any information they provide throughout the study (Glesne, 2011). The researcher repeated the
same information prior to the beginning of each interview, and permission to record the
72
interviews was sought from each participant and confirmed again verbally. To maintain the
confidentiality of participants, interview recordings and subsequently produced interview
transcripts were stored in a password-protected computer in the researcher’s home and
pseudonyms were assigned to all participants (Glesne, 2011).
It was important for the researcher to account for relational ethics based on her own roles
in relation to the organization and those of the participants in the study to ensure privacy and
respect for participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher is an employee of Pacific
Crest University and may be known to some members of the research participant cohort from
past professional interactions within the university. However, none of the employees the
researcher directly supervises were eligible participants in this study cohort, and none of the
research participants worked in the same school of PCU in which the researcher works, or in
direct day-to-day contact with one another. The researcher emphasized her role as a researcher to
participants to ensure that there was no confusion regarding the purpose and goals of the study,
and to clarify that a university department was not undertaking the research work.
The researcher worked to understand and acknowledge her assumptions in relation to the
cohort participants, including reflecting on her own positionality and possible biases and pre-
existing beliefs as a staff member of PCU (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interview participants
received an email of thanks to reinforce the reciprocity of the qualitative interviews, as their
shared experiences informed the researcher’s understanding of the impact of physical activity
interventions at PCU in ways that literature alone did not accomplish (Glesne, 2011).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of the study of which the researcher was aware at the time of its
development include the following: the study depended on the truthfulness of the respondents;
73
the study was conducted in a relatively brief period of time, making the data from respondents’
less representative of experiences across both the academic and calendar years, which may have
resulted in less robust reporting of participants’ experiences in a long-term physical activity
intervention; and the researcher had no information regarding the selection of the activities that
were offered to participants during the time that the study was being conducted. As such,
participants’ impressions of Get Fit activities and their participation in the activities depended in
part on the types of activities that were offered at the time of survey and/or interview.
Additionally, the researcher had no capacity to ensure wide representation of job types or
campus office locations among those within the participant population, which must be
considered in discussions of the generalizability of the results. The lack of inclusion of the
perspectives of Get Fit instructors also prevented consideration of the data with the valuable
insights and ideas of individuals who regularly witnessed program participation.
Delimitations refer to decisions made by the researcher that may impact the eventual data
collected in a study. In this study, the researcher anticipated and acknowledges several such
limitations. By virtue of being a promising practice model, the study used a specific and,
accordingly, narrow lens to view physical activity among employees at Pacific Crest University.
An evaluation study conducted over a longer period of time would allow for more variation in
data accumulation and analysis. Furthermore, the researcher’s limited scope of focus,
necessitated by time and resources available to conduct the study, impacted the ideal robustness
of the data sample, scope of the study, and associated conclusions from data the study produced.
The researcher acknowledges these limitations and delimitations and considered their influence
in forthcoming discussion of conclusions drawn from the data.
74
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
This study sought to understand one university’s promising practices relating to the
problem of high rates of university employee sedentary behavior. Employee physical activity
programming offered during the workday demonstrated promise engaging employees in
consistent physical activity. The mixed methods design of this study included a survey of
employee participants in the physical activity program and interviews with a subset of survey
participants. The quantitative and qualitative data gathered revealed participating employees’
experiences with knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and influences relating to
workday physical activity and will inform subsequent recommendations found in Chapter 5. This
chapter begins with a description of participating stakeholders in the study and is followed by a
discussion of the findings and results of the study. Two research questions guided this study:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to reducing university
employee sedentary behavior?
2. What is the interaction between the culture and context of PCU and Get Fit, and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders of this study were employees of the College of Liberal Studies at
Pacific Crest University who participate in the Get Fit lunchtime physical activity program.
Information about the characteristics of the participating stakeholders is offered below.
Survey Respondents
Employees participating in the survey include those of multiple genders, ages, and years
of service to the university. Of the 24 survey respondents, 19 (79%) identified as female, three
(12%) as male, one as non-binary (4%), and one declined to state their gender (4%). Participants
were represented by five age categorizations with the following distribution: six (25%) were 20–
75
30 years-of-age, nine (38%) were 31–40 years-of-age, three (12%) were 41–50 years-of-age,
four (17%) were 51–60 years-of-age, and two (8%) were 61–70 years-of-age. Survey
respondents indicated that they had worked for Pacific Crest University for durations ranging
from one year to more than twenty years. The majority (65%) indicated they were within the first
ten years of their careers at PCU, 17% were between their eleventh and twentieth years, and 17%
had worked for the university for more than 20 years.
The survey also included items to capture respondents’ average rates of participation in
physical activity, both in the Get Fit program and otherwise, and their overall time engaged in
physical activity in a typical work week. With regard to Get Fit offerings, which are offered four
out of five days of a typical work week, ten respondents (42%) indicated they did not participate
regularly, nine (37%) indicated they participated two times per week, four (17%) indicated they
participated about once per week, and one participant (4%) indicated they attend three times per
week on average. Responses to a survey item asking respondents, on average, how frequently
they participated in on-campus physical activity other than the Get Fit program yielded the
following results: 12 (50%) indicated they do not participate regularly, four (17%) indicated they
participate three times per week, four (17%) indicated they participate two times per week, three
(12%) indicated they participate four times per week, and one (4%) indicated they participate
every day. When asked to indicate the average amount of time per week they engage in moderate
to strenuous physical activity, ten respondents (42%) indicated a duration of 1.5–3 hours, five
respondents (21%) indicated a duration of 2.5–5 hours, three respondents (12%) indicated a
duration of 46 minutes to an hour, three respondents (12%) indicated a duration of 5.5–7 hours,
two respondents (8%) indicated a duration of fewer than 30 minutes, and 1 participant (4%)
indicated a duration of more than seven hours per week.
76
Given the recent explosion of fitness technology, the survey included items aimed at
investigating whether participants’ use of such technology affected their participation in Get Fit.
Thirteen of the 24 survey respondents (54%) indicated they use fitness technology. Twelve of
these thirteen respondents (92%) indicated they use a wearable device, and five respondents
(38%) indicated they use a fitness tracking app. In response to a survey item asking how often
the use of a fitness tracking application contributes to their likelihood of performing physical
activity, seven respondents (54%) selected “occasionally,” five respondents (38%) selected
“frequently,” one respondent (8%) selected “always.” No respondents selected “never.”
Interview Participants
The last item of the survey asked participants if they were willing to be interviewed about
their experiences. Six survey respondents became interview participants, representing 25% of the
24 total survey respondents. All six interview participants identified as female. Interview
participants were assigned pseudonyms and information that might compromise their anonymity
was not collected. Table 4 below includes descriptions of interview participant demographic
information.
Table 4
Get Fit Interview Participant Sample Demographics
Participant Name Duration of Employment at
PCU
Job Purview
Allison > than 20 years Program/School Support
Bess 30 years Student Services
Carla 10-11 years Program/School Support
Diana 3 years Student Services
Ellen 6 years Student Services
Francesca 11.5 years Program/School Support
77
Results and Findings
The following serves as a report of results and findings gleaned from the survey and
interviews regarding participation in Get Fit. The results and findings are framed in relation to
the research questions and conceptual framework guiding this study, and the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that are central to both. Additional themes of note,
including participant-generated ideas about barriers to participation in Get Fit programming, are
included where applicable and will inform recommendations that will be made in Chapter 5.
Research Question 1
What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to reducing university
employee sedentary behavior?
Knowledge
Declarative Knowledge of Available Physical Activity Resources. A survey item
asked respondents to recall the sources of their declarative factual knowledge about the Get Fit
program. Respondents were allowed to select multiple sources of information. As shown in
Table 5 below, the majority of survey respondents (83%) learned about Get Fit from a friend or
coworker. Next was an email from the College of Liberal Studies about the program (38%).
Fewer respondents learned about it from an ad from CLS (8%), from their supervisor (8%) or
work department (8%), or inquired about the program after seeing a session (8%). No
respondents discovered Get Fit through an internet search, nor did any cite a different source of
information than those provided.
78
Table 5
Survey Respondents’ Methods of Learning About the Get Fit Program
How Did You Hear About Get Fit? Number of
Responses
Percentage of Respondents
Friend/Coworker 20 83%
CLS Email About the Program 9 38%
CLS Advertisement for the Program 2 8%
Saw a Session Underway and Inquired 2 8%
Boss/Manager/Supervisor 2 8%
Department/Office Announcement 2 8%
Internet Search 0 0%
Other (Please Describe) 0 0%
Participants were asked to share their factual knowledge about available workplace
physical activity options at PCU, as well as to discuss how they learned about and began
participating in Get Fit. Four of the six participants (66%) learned about Get Fit through
coworkers or colleagues, while two (33%) learned through an email announcement. All six
interview participants were able to name a variety of available PCU exercise options. However,
participants expressed uncertainty about details including the cost of PCU activities and whether
staff discounts were provided. Other knowledge barriers to participation in PCU programs
included a lack of easily accessible and reliable information about programs and when they are
offered. By contrast, knowledge of the consistency and reliability of the Get Fit schedule and
programming emerged as an influence of importance to employee participation. Additionally,
knowledge of what the Get Fit program would be like and who participated emerged as a
knowledge influence that impacted motivation.
79
In summary, survey and interview participants demonstrated clear declarative knowledge
regarding the Get Fit program. Participants demonstrated partial factual knowledge of physical
activity programming at PCU, but indicated that lacking detailed knowledge and confusion about
how to easily acquire such information posed a barrier to pursuing participation in programming.
Knowledge of Get Fit Program. Participants described learning about the program
directly through friends and coworkers. Additionally, coworkers provided insights about what
the experience would be like, which helped remove barriers related to anxiety and judgement
about participation. Furthermore, knowledge of the consistency of Get Fit influenced ease of
participation.
Describing learning about the program, Diana said, “A coworker mentioned it to me and
ever since then it was a great experience for me, so I have continued to go pretty consistently.”
Two interview participants indicated they acquired initial factual knowledge about the Get Fit
program from email communications, but that additional involvement of colleagues made a
difference in their participation. Francesca described the interplay of knowledge and motivation
in her engagement with Get Fit:
I remember when Get Fit started because it’s been around for a while and I marked my
calendar right away. I think it was in an all-staff email that went out from CLS, like,
“Hey, this is a new initiative.” I thought it was a great opportunity and never went once.
Like, I had it on my calendar literally for years and never once went. And this last year,
in 2019… a group of us…started to go together.
As Francesca describes, knowledge of the program was necessary, but not sufficient to spur her
participation. However, together, knowledge and peer motivation were effective.
80
Interview participants also shared that understanding what the experience would be like
before attending a Get Fit session influenced their choice to participate. Half of interview
participants also discussed the presence of students as a barrier to their participation in PCU-
offered physical activity programming that Get Fit removed.
Carla described the importance of having a trusted firsthand source of information tell her
what to expect from a Get Fit session. Carla shared:
It was very useful that my colleague…kind of told me what it was about. She did warn
me, “You know, this is a very tough class. You could take it as hard or as slow as you
want. But in general, it’s a pretty tough class.”
Carla’s knowledge of what to expect informed her decision to begin to exercise to get into shape
before joining the Get Fit classes. Knowledge of what to expect allowed Carla to take action to
feel adequately prepared to participate.
Another interview participant described the importance of having a trusted source share
knowledge about the program with those without experience. Ellen stated:
It would be helpful to have one representative in each department go and report back
what it was like so people can feel less uncertainty about it or like this unknown
mysterious, like, “What goes on there?” and “I’m afraid.” Like, if I go, I don’t know what
to expect.…Recruit one representative to go and… report back what it was like and then
encourage the other people in the department.
Ellen directly addressed the lack of knowledge about what the program is like as a barrier to
participation that could potentially be overcome by a trusted representative describing it. Anxiety
about performance was understood as a concern for new participants by interview participants,
whether they had experienced it personally or not.
81
Additionally, knowledge of the consistency of offerings was related to participant
motivation. Half of interview participants revealed they were seeking consistency in a physical
activity offering and described knowledge of Get Fit being one such offering as a reason they
elected to try the program or a reason it works. Allison said, “That’s what works. There’s always
something there that doesn’t get canceled. So, consistency.” Diana cited “consistency” first when
asked about the primary reasons she originally tried Get Fit. Get Fit’s schedule and continuity of
programming provides participants with consistent opportunities to engage in physical activity.
Knowledge of PCU Programming. Participants had mixed levels of factual knowledge
regarding physical activity offerings generally available to PCU staff members. Participants
knew a variety of programs existed, but lacked certainty on details including cost, location, and
how to engage in such programs. Participants also indicated that the variety of options and the
effort required to access them could be overwhelming.
Asked if she knew what kinds of exercise options were available at PCU, Allison
responded with the following, based on her own search for options prior to beginning Get Fit,
“No, I didn’t. I found [another non-PCU-sponsored exercise] option by accident. I didn’t know
that anything like that was offered at PCU, even though it wasn’t through PCU…. It was all
overwhelming and a little bit intimidating.” At the end of the interview, when asked if she had
anything to add, Allison went on to describe information dissemination about physical activity
programs as a common challenge:
Getting accurate information in one place out to everyone is just a problem for everyone.
People want something right in front of them so they can just show up and not have to
make a call or try to figure out if it works for them.
82
Allison’s experiences with multiple university fitness offerings informed her view that
employees were challenged when trying to easily acquire knowledge about an offering.
Bess, who has worked for PCU for 30 years, tried many exercise options during her
tenure and indicated the many available options can be overwhelming or hard to parse from one
another, supporting Allison’s comments. Bess said, “There’s tons of stuff going on. It’s a big
university, so it’s hard to find sometimes. It will certainly take a while, but there are definitely
people who are into fitness on campus.” Bess’s knowledge of the many options available is
underscored by accompanying knowledge that one typically must be proactive and diligent in
seeking out, finding, and beginning such options.
Knowledge of costs associated with participation, and any defrayment or reduction of
that cost by the university, emerged as a need. Half of interview participants described possible
employee discounts in response to questions about fitness resources available at PCU, but did so
without certainty about the information they were sharing. For example, Ellen remarked, “There
should be a better discount for staff. I don’t even think there was one.” Diana also indicated she
believed discounts were available to some employees, depending on their school affiliation,
saying, “I’m almost sure that the business school offers their faculty or staff some type of
discount, which is not offered to everybody for the gym facilities.” Bess also discussed not being
aware of a discounted PCU membership price for which she qualified, remarking, “There’s
somebody who negotiated a reduced rate for a group rate to pay for the PCU Fitness Center and I
didn’t know. It existed a year or so before I became aware of it.” Because cost influences
employee engagement with programming, employees need accurate and available knowledge of
reductions to cost to inform their actions.
83
Metacognitive Knowledge of One’s Own Physical Activity and Perceived Personal
Impacts. College employees’ metacognitive knowledge comprised the second knowledge
influence explored by this study. Survey items and interview questions engaged participants in
self-reflection about their own physical activity and personal experiences surrounding
participation. Survey items prompted Get Fit participants to respond to Likert scale items about
the relationship between their participation in physical activity and categories including their
health, work performance, stress levels, mood, personal affect, and feelings about their job,
among others. Interviews revealed that Get Fit participants were occasionally surprised by the
impacts of their participation, experiencing outcomes that were the opposite of their
expectations, like having more energy and feeling more productive after working out.
Furthermore, several participants commented on the holistic effects of their participation, as they
experienced improvements to their self-concept and self-confidence. Overall, participants’
metacognition about their Get Fit participation led to stated understanding of its positive effects.
Insights regarding participants’ metacognitive knowledge will be divided into those that apply to
work, and those that apply to their self-concept.
Work. Several items in the survey were designed to prompt respondent self-reflection
about the impact of participating in Get Fit on their work experiences. The survey asked
respondents to indicate the extent to which work performance, mood, interactions with
colleagues, and feelings about their jobs were affected by physical activity. An accompanying
Likert scale included the following response options: “not at all,” “a little,” “to some extent,” and
“to a great extent.” Figure 2 illustrates respondents’ impressions of the impact of physical
activity on workplace factors.
84
Figure 2
Extent to Which Physical Activity Affects Survey Respondents’ Work Factors
As Figure 2 shows, an overwhelming majority of respondents (96%) felt that physical
activity affected their mood. Similarly, 83% reported physical activity affecting their work
performance to some or a great extent. Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicated their
interactions with colleagues and feelings about their jobs were affected to some or a great extent.
For each factor above, only one respondent in each instance, representing 4% of total
respondents, indicated that physical activity had no effect.
A response to the survey’s open-ended question asking for additional comments supports
participant metacognition as an important knowledge influence on employee participation. The
respondent wrote, “It has made a huge difference in my physical and emotional health. I feel
more productive, less stress and more focus at work.”
4%
4%
4%
4%
13%
17%
17%
33%
25%
46%
46%
50%
71%
33%
33%
My work
performance
My mood
My interactions
with my colleagues
How I feel about
my job
Not at All A Little To Some Extent To a Great Extent
85
All six interview participants revealed similar awareness of the significant impact of
physical activity on their work and workplace experiences. For example, Allison offered that Get
Fit helps her to mitigate her anxiety, saying:
I suffer from some anxiety…and the workouts really break up my day. They stopped the
pattern of worry and anxiety. Coworkers have commented on it…. I go and work out and
I come back in a completely different state of mind…. It made my afternoons more
productive and I found that I got to work earlier to schedule working out into my day.
Allison reported that her modified affect after working out impacted her productivity and how
her coworkers viewed her energy in the office.
Bess also experienced stress reduction and renewed productivity after physical activity.
Bess explained:
Having a mental break, especially if it's a class. If it's taught by somebody, I forget
everything except for what I'm doing, and having a good sweat is a stress reduction.
Sometimes in my job, there are obstacles and I feel a little stuck…. When I'm done
[exercising], sometimes the answer pops into my head.
For Bess, the opportunity to reset her day with physical activity provides renewed energy and
clearer thinking.
Finally, interview participants demonstrated metacognitive knowledge of their improved
capacity for focus and workplace harmony after participating in Get Fit. Carla described feeling
better about communicating with students, saying:
My mind feels a lot clearer which was really, really strange. I think I noticed that a few
weeks after working out…. We have several students in our lab that we need to talk to…
and sometimes just like back-to-back talking to them, you know, things go wrong. So,
86
you kind of have to talk to people…. Like, I feel that anxiety inside of me. And when I
work out, it doesn't feel that way. So I’m very calm.
Though Carla had not anticipated relief from anxiety and clarity of thought as outcomes of
physical activity, she took note of the enduring difference in her work experiences after joining
the Get Fit program. This experience of a clearer mind was shared by Francesca, who described
being better able to manage the concentration challenges spurred by the open floorplan of her
workspace after participating in Get Fit. Francesca was also surprised to have more energy after
difficult physical exertion. She stated:
“I was kind of surprised that I felt like I was more productive afterwards, which I sort of
…was expecting the opposite, that pretty much I'd be rubbish for the rest of the day and
just be tired… I find it challenging to be productive, particularly when I need to do
something that requires like a lot of concentration. But generally, I felt like I was pretty
successful in those afternoons after I went to Get Fit, which is also something that I
would remind myself….Especially once you start going and you're like, “Oh man, I know
this is going to be really brutal and I'm going to die the whole time I'm doing it.” But then
thinking, “But I feel better afterwards. And I'm more productive.”
Francesca described her own thinking about the past after-effects she enjoyed from Get Fit as
influencing her decisions to participate in an ongoing way. While such motivational calculus will
be addressed in the sections describing motivational influences of importance, Francesca clearly
demonstrated the importance of metacognition to informing employees’ understanding of the
personal value they glean from participating in Get Fit in a variety of areas beyond physical
health.
87
Improved Self-Concept. One unanticipated theme that emerged in the findings was a
more enduring sense of well-being or personal improvement. Data revealed that, for some
participants, consistent participation in Get Fit supported improved self-concept and overall well-
being. Participants engaged in metacognition about the impact of their participation in the
aggregate, including increased self-esteem and confidence, as well as reduced stress and
improved self-regulation.
Survey responses for items that allowed for free text yielded insight into the personal
benefits employees were aware they experienced as a result of participating in physical activity.
In response to a prompt for additional comments, one participant wrote:
Before Get Fit, I did not work out at all since high school. This program has helped many
people begin working out who otherwise might not have. It has definitely improved my
health/looks and makes me feel proud of myself that I do this.
This survey respondent garnered pride from their continued participation in the Get Fit program,
in addition to benefits like improved health and self-image. The self-affirmation the respondent
experienced aligns with a comment made in response to a survey item asking about respondents’
primary reasons for participating in Get Fit. The response “To be the best version of myself and
feel stronger” indicated a more holistic lens was being applied to the impacts of Get Fit than
physical activity alone. For this respondent, participation was tied to their self-concept.
Interview data supports the notion that participation in Get Fit changes how certain
participants view themselves, not just how they think about their physical activity or health. As
with several preceding examples, interview participants indicated surprise at the personal
impacts they recognized and understood to be occurring based on their metacognition. For
example, Carla shared:
88
I feel better…I feel like it definitely makes me feel more confident as well in the work I
do… I don't know how to explain it, like, it was just more confident, you know? Because
we're working out. I don't know. You feel more like a tiger than a lamb or something.
(Laughs)
Carla’s reported boost to her own confidence in her work indicates metacognition that the
benefits she garnered from physical activity participation are personal and empowering.
Francesca also reported increased confidence in her abilities after exercising. Francesca
recounted, “The weeks where I play tennis, even if it's only once, and go to Zumba and Get Fit, I
feel like I am invincible. Like, ‘Oh my god, I really committed to exercise this week! I'm doing
great!’” Participants described the collateral effects of their confidence and achievement in Get
Fit to other areas of their lives.
Carla, who had initially had some hesitation while trying to describe her improved
confidence, expanded on her feelings when asked if there was anything she wanted to add to the
interview. Carla offered the following:
I wanted to say that when…maybe it has to do with working out as well as, like, self-
esteem as well. I think it's very, like, for me, I felt a lot more confident, like I mentioned,
and I think I don't know if people [overlook] that…because it's like… the physical part,
everyone can see. But other things, like mental health and stuff like that. We don't really
see a lot. So, I think that's—for me it's a big plus. You know, like feeling energetic and
feeling confident, not only about my body, but also about the stuff I'm doing.
In her reflections on her own appreciation of the confidence she gains from Get Fit, Carla raises
the concern that such benefits are not given the full weight of their value by others because they
89
are seemingly invisible outcomes. Carla’s own metacognition about Get Fit’s benefits led her to
wonder about the knowledge deficits of others relating to the program’s impact.
Participants’ endorsements of the many personal benefits they experienced by
participating in Get Fit demonstrated their metacognitive knowledge about why the program
matters. Both the improvements to mood and productivity, and the deeper effects some
participants experienced relating to their own self-concept as a result of joining Get Fit, have
implications for the forthcoming motivational influences in this chapter and the
recommendations that will be offered in Chapter 5.
Summary. This section examined knowledge influences assumed to be important to
successfully engaging university employees in workplace physical activity. Knowledge of
available physical activity programming emerged as an asset for the Get Fit program, but a
partial need for PCU. Participants’ metacognitive knowledge of their own physical activity and
how their work experiences and, in some cases, self-concept, are affected by physical activity
was identified as an asset to motivating Get Fit participation.
Motivation
Self-Efficacy. The Get Fit program consistently helped participants develop confidence
in their ability to perform physical activity. Participants indicated in their survey responses and
interview data that instructor coaching and an environment accepting of individuals with varied
levels of fitness and ability encouraged their self-efficacy beliefs. Participants also described a
lack of self-efficacy as a barrier to general participation in workplace physical activity.
Survey items addressing whether participants felt they knew how to perform a variety of
muscle strengthening and endurance exercises returned unambiguous results. One hundred
percent of survey respondents strongly agreed (67%) or agreed (33%) that they knew how to
90
perform exercises. Similarly, 96% of survey respondents strongly agreed (58%) or agreed (38%)
that Get Fit had improved their knowledge of how to perform a variety of exercises, with one
respondent disagreeing (4%). An additional statement gauged respondents’ opinions of whether
Get Fit helped them to improve their performance of muscle strengthening and endurance
exercises. Seventeen respondents (71%) strongly agreed, six respondents agreed (25%), and one
respondent (4%) disagreed. Mastery experiences are one source of self-efficacy beliefs (Pajares,
2006). As such, participants’ sense that they know how to perform exercises and their belief that
the Get Fit program improved their mastery of exercises can be interpreted as contributing to
participants’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Interviews elaborated on participants’ self-efficacy beliefs and the role of such beliefs in
their participation. Participants found new confidence in Get Fit, believing they could achieve
more as they progressed in the program. Ellen described limiting her attendance to once a week
when she began the program to ensure she did not surpass her ability, fearing it would be
demotivating. Asked about her first experiences, Ellen said:
Just trying to…learn how to do the moves correctly. I feel like my first semester I was
focusing on that versus trying to get the maximum calories burned or anything like
that…. And just trying to be consistent with it, I guess, is it part of the effort when you're
forming a new habit. [After starting] I felt much better about myself. I mean, I felt proud
of myself for exercising. I felt healthier. And then the results too, you know, and my
colleagues were doing it. So there was the camaraderie of like, we're doing it together.
Ellen described developing mastery of the knowledge needed to perform physical activity, which
affected her self-efficacy beliefs. She also described two other aspects important to one’s
efficacy beliefs: social persuasions and collective efficacy.
91
Several other participants indicated that the support of the collective group and accepting
environment in which everyone was supported while mastering their own level of performance
contributed to the program’s effectiveness. Positive comments from the instructor and other
participants constituted positive social persuasion. Diana described a typical session, saying:
It's just great to see people of all ages, who were able to come in, do exercises and we're
all able to complete them successfully. So, I think that's really empowering that it doesn't
matter your age or your fitness level…. At the end…we say positive feedback for one
another, like, “Good job. See you next week.” And that is that community aspect also.
For Diana, Get Fit is an environment in which positive social persuasion is common, and
collective efficacy is empowering. Allison shared similar impressions of social persuasion,
individual mastery, and support for collective efficacy in describing Get Fit:
We were all different fitness levels and so [the instructor] would kind of explain and start
the warmups.…It wasn't too much. It wasn't too little…. You could work as hard as you
wanted or back off a little bit. She kept things at everyone's level…so you kept wanting
to come back.
Allison’s description highlights the vicarious experience of observing others inherent to the
program design. Both the instructor’s modeling and peer-to-peer group work provide
opportunities for participants to witness others succeed in performing exercises. Such vicarious
experiences also influence self-efficacy beliefs.
Though the Get Fit program encourages participants of diverse physical fitness levels,
five of six participants acknowledged doubt of one’s abilities and fear of being judged for
substandard performance as barriers to participation in physical activity in general. Francesca
described her doubts, saying:
92
Even five years ago, I would have been way too intimidated to attend because I would
have been like, “I'm not good. Everyone's going to be looking at me and it's too hard.” I
wouldn't have been emotionally mature enough to manage it.
Her assumption of judgment by others rather than support would have prevented Francesca from
engaging in physical activity. Carla shared similar feelings discussing the important role the
instructor plays in building participants’ self-efficacy and the collective efficacy of the group.
Describing a past experience, she shared:
Sometimes instructors can be harsh, like, indirectly harsh…to like, your body shape, or
just because you can't do that [exercise], and I do not feel that way about [Get Fit.] …It
feels like [the instructor] motivates you…. which I think is very important…. I think just
having a very accepting environment is important as well…She does definitely make it
feel like we're a team.
For Carla, acceptance and group motivation led to a positive experience with physical activity, in
contrast to programs that had made her feel badly about her body and her physical abilities. Ellen
also described importance of a program’s environment, saying:
“Many different types of people being able to adapt the program to themselves, like… be
able to do it and be able to feel like they can do it, you know, like their own like self-
efficacy. And also, no judgment. So, like, no judgment if they…miss it…or if they need
to take a break during it, while other people are still going, or to do the cheat moves—
like, there really needs to be no judgment.
Acceptance of a variety of levels of physical ability and instructor support for participants
at a level appropriate to their abilities, as is found in Get Fit, counteracts fear of judgment or lack
of ability as barriers to participation. Based on interview data, the instructor plays a critical role
93
in encouraging an accepting environment and supporting participants’ self-efficacy beliefs
through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and social persuasions. Instructors also
support an environment in which collective efficacy can be achieved.
Expectancy Value. Expectancy value theory considered whether employees found value
in engaging in physical activity that exceeded the perceived costs of doing so, including negative
social consequences or being perceived as underperforming at work. Get Fit participants
experienced a variety of benefits from participating in workday physical activity that embody
value. Table 6 offers categorization of participants’ self-identified reasons for participating in
Get Fit as found in open-ended text survey responses. Responses relating to physical activity and
fitness were mentioned 15 times, with three specific mentions of a desire for weight management
and two specific mentions of building strength. Health in general appeared 11 times in responses,
while responses related to mental health and stress relief appeared seven times. Seven responses
mentioned the social aspects and fun of Get Fit. Both the instruction offered by Get Fit and the
opportunity for a midday break outside of the office received six responses. Finally, convenience
was cited by respondents four times, and the cost of the program was mentioned twice.
94
Table 6
Survey Respondents’ Primary Reasons for Participating in Get Fit
Reason Number of
Responses
Sample Response Words
To Be Physically Active/Fit 15 workout, fitness, exercise, physical activity,
movement, strength, weight management
Health 11 health, healthier, healthy
Mental Health/Stress Relief 7 stress release, relieve stress, refresh mind
Social Opportunity/Fun 7 fun, camaraderie, social opportunity outside
the office, enjoyment
Midday Break 6 get out of office, away from work, step away
from my desk, break, refresh
Instruction 6 instructor-led activity, more personal than a
typical class, expertise of instructor, variety
Convenience 4 easy, convenient, prefer to complete workout
during lunch break
Cost 2 free, cost-free
Participants were aware of experiencing wide-ranging impacts from engaging with Get
Fit, from physical, mental, and emotional effects, to professional and social effects. Participants
also understood practical factors including the program being free and convenient, and program
instruction, to be important to their participation.
From the themes that emerged among those responses, health, mental health, stress relief,
and a midday break represent utility value participants gain from Get Fit. Fitness can represent
both utility and attainment value, if being fit is both a goal one wants to achieve, and part of a
participant’s idea of themselves as a person. Camaraderie and fun with colleagues represent
intrinsic value derived from participating. Instruction, convenience, and cost can all be viewed as
specific to cost value.
The survey also included a series of 15 items that asked respondents to rank the level of
influence of fourteen factors on a scale from one to ten, with one indicating “not influential at
95
all” and ten representing a factor was “very influential.” A fifteenth item labeled “other” allowed
for free text responses to capture participation influences that were not assumed by the
researcher. These 15 items were designed to reveal perceptions of value that would influence
participant motivation. Table 7 displays the average and median ratings survey respondents gave
to each influence and the corresponding value type assigned to each. Consistent with the findings
in Table 6, survey respondents indicated all fourteen factors influenced their participation.
Table 7
Respondent Ratings of Factors Influencing Participation and Corresponding Value Type
Factor Affecting Participation
(N= number of respondents)
Average
Response
Median
Response
Value
Type
Preventing health problems (24) 8.96 9.5 Utility
Enthusiasm of instructors (24) 8.75 10.0 Intrinsic
Coaching (24) 8.71 9.0 Cost
Maintaining mental well-being (24) 8.71 9.5 Utility
Convenience of location (23) 8.70 9.0 Cost
Maintaining emotional well-being (24) 8.63 9.0 Utility
Desire to be fit (24) 8.46 9.5 Attainment
Cost of participation (24) 8.25 10.0 Cost
Benefiting from university resources (21) 7.29 8.0 Attainment
Schedule flexibility (23) 7.09 7.0 Cost
Participating in an activity with
colleagues/co-workers (23) 6.61 7.0 Attainment
Desire to lose weight (22) 6.59 6.5 Utility
Camaraderie with other participants (24) 6.54 7.0 Intrinsic
Support of my supervisor(s)/manager(s)
(20)
5.80 6.5 Cost
Note. Survey responses rated on a scale from one to ten, where one was “not influential at all”
and ten was “very influential.”
96
As shown in Table 7, respondent ratings of factors ranged between an average of 5.80
and 8.96. Overall, there was very little difference between top ratings, with the top eight
influences ranging from 8.96 to 8.25. The next six influences ranged between 7.29 and 5.80. The
overall count of influences by each expectancy type is as follows: cost (5), utility (4), attribution
(3), and intrinsic (2), which, along with the extremely close rankings, demonstrates that all four
value types influence participants. It is important to note that many influences could be
categorized as more than one expectancy value type, depending on individual’s interpretation of
an item and personal motivation.
Utility Value. Participants found a wide variety of utility value participating in Get Fit,
from serving their immediate goals for personal affect, to serving long-term goals of improved
health. Diana described the utility of Get Fit to employees, saying, “I feel like it's best for me to
participate to maintain my own wellness and stress levels.”
For Diana, participation in Get Fit was useful to her goals of managing stress and
wellness and made the program worthwhile. Similarly, Francesca mentioned the personal health
benefits of participating in Get Fit and getting away from the workplace while talking about the
stressful and often emotionally taxing nature of her work. Francesca shared:
I feel like encouraging exercise is really helpful for us in particular because of the nature
of our work. We hear traumatic content a lot of the time.... It can be very difficult.
Having physical activity is a really helpful way¾even just getting outside…but getting
outside and doing something to help your own health and well-being is really great.
While Francesca described health and stress relief from the emotional challenges of her work in
her description of the value she derives from Get Fit, Carla described her own physical fitness as
a key motivator. Carla said, of her progress in the program, “I feel like I could do a 45-minute
97
workout and actually feel like I'm losing weight and getting stronger.” Such physical, emotional,
and mental benefits that Get Fit participants expect to occur following participation were
mentioned widely in survey responses and across participant interviews. As discussed in the
metacognitive knowledge section, participants also indicated they are more productive and
focused after participating, which influences motivation to participate.
Intrinsic Value. Interview participants described the intrinsic value they garnered from
participating in Get Fit with enthusiasm. Most of the comments relating to the intrinsic value of
participating were made in conjunction with discussion of an instructor or colleagues who also
participated in Get Fit, with the welcoming attitudes of both accounting for participant
enjoyment. For example, two participants used the word “awesome” to describe their
experiences of Get Fit. Similarly, Diana said, “The instructor is very welcoming and supportive.
She challenges us in the most positive way. And everyone there is genuinely nice and
welcoming.” Allison also described the sense of community the instructor offers, saying:
The first thing I did notice was the instructor…. It was friendly, familiar.… and it was
more of a friendship…. I immediately felt comfortable walking in before anything had
even started. She immediately came up and introduced herself and introduced the people
around her and welcomed me.
For Allison, being ushered into the Get Fit community allowed her to enjoy the experience
immediately. She later described the Get Fit community’s support of its members. Even as one
participant said, “I don’t enjoy working out,” when talking about a harder day of exercise, she
went on to detail at length the camaraderie and achievement she experienced with her peers and
the mutual encouragement among participants.
98
Cost and Attainment Value. Cost and attainment value are considered together because
of their interrelatedness in the context of this study. For some factors of influence, it was
hypothesized that the cost value of participating would be influenced by participants’ sense of
attainment value across their roles at PCU, for example, whether a participant worried about their
colleagues’ and supervisors’ perceptions of them as an employee if they attended Get Fit. The
social costs and anxiety surrounding participation relate to attainment value that participants
attach to being considered a conscientious colleague and employee. Several survey items aimed
to explore participants’ perceptions of value for influences such as these. Four Likert scale items
asked survey respondents to indicate their level of agreement with statements relating to the
awareness, permission, and perceptions of coworkers and supervisors regarding their own
participation in Get Fit. Figure 3 below depicts the distribution of survey responses.
Figure 3
Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Coworker and Supervisor Awareness of Participation
8%
4%
4%
54%
8%
8%
4%
13%
21%
33%
29%
21%
50%
38%
58%
4%
13%
17%
4%
8%
My direct supervisor is aware I participate in Get Fit
My direct supervisor allows me to take flexible or
extended breaks to participate in Get Fit
My coworkers are aware that I participate in Get Fit
I worry my coworkers have a negative perception of
my physical activity breaks
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I Don't Know
99
As Figure 3 depicts, survey respondents overwhelmingly reported coworkers were aware
of their participation, with 87% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement
“my coworkers are aware that I participate in Get Fit,” and one respondent each indicating strong
disagreement (4%), disagreement (4%), or lack of knowledge (4%) regarding the statement.
However, data revealed that, in the perception of survey respondents, coworkers knowing about
one’s Get Fit participation did not equate with them approving of that participation. Although
67% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement indicating they personally
worry about coworkers’ perceptions of their physical activity breaks, one third of participants
(33%) felt otherwise. Twenty-five percent of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they
worry about their coworkers’ perceptions, while the remaining 8% indicated they did not know if
they worried about coworkers’ perceptions of their physical activity.
With regard to supervisors, although 71% of respondents indicated their supervisors
knew they participated in Get Fit, 17% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement indicating their supervisor knew about their participation, with another 13% indicating
they did not know whether their supervisor was aware of their participation. An item that asked
survey respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement “my direct supervisor
allows me to take flexible or extended breaks to participate in Get Fit” also had 71%
representation among responses as in the previous item, but with fewer respondents indicating
strong agreement (38%) than the 50% who strongly agreed that their supervisors knew they
participated. Three respondents (12%) indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed that their
supervisors provided flexible or extended time to participate in Get Fit, while four participants
(17%) indicated they did not know. This lack of certainty about supervisors’ support aligns with
the “support of supervisors” item mentioned at the beginning of this section having the lowest
100
reported ranking as an influence among survey respondents, as well as being the item that was
most frequently skipped by participants among the influences given.
Interview data elaborated the experiences of Get Fit participants. Of the six interview
participants, three specifically mentioned guilt as a feeling that they had experienced personally
or heard coworkers mention in relation to their participation in Get Fit. Similarly, Carla
explained, “I know my supervisor’s very open to [Get Fit], but I just feel like…I don’t want to
take more [time] than I need.” Concerns about using excessive time or not being a dutiful or
high-performing employee support cost and attainment value as important to motivation and
possible barriers to participation. Ellen crystallized employee concerns, saying:
If [managers] won't give [employees] that buffer time before and after to change and
make it over there and back, no one's going to want…their perception of them at work or
as an employee to suffer, or like, any negative consequences from their employer,
basically. So employees absolutely need to feel that their employer supports it, and…
does not penalize them or think badly of them like they're slacking off or anything.
Data revealed that prospective social consequences of being perceived as a less diligent
employee account for cost value, while desire to be seen as a good employee accounts for
attainment value.
Summary. The motivation influences affecting physical activity participation were both
personal and collective, and highly interrelated with the knowledge influences and the
organizational structures in which they existed. Trusted people played a key role in supporting
the motivation of participants, whether they be peers, instructors, or workplace supervisors.
Additionally, a permissive and supportive organization, and an accepting, instructive, and
accessible program were demonstrated to promote participant motivation. The results and
101
findings demonstrated self-efficacy was an asset for participants in the Get Fit program and a
need for employee participation in workplace physical activity programming overall. Expectancy
value played a role in motivating Get Fit participation across all four of its aspects and should be
estimated as a high priority for those seeking to develop or improve workplace physical activity
programming.
Research Question 2
What is the interaction between the culture and context of PCU and Get Fit, and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
Organization
Cultural Model 1: Clear and Consistent Support for Physical Activity. Survey items
and interview questions were designed to determine whether PCU upheld employee engagement
with physical activity as a shared cultural value and norm within the organization. Participant
responses indicated some ambiguity existed surrounding their sense of support from supervisors
and coworkers for electing to participate, which indicates an attitude of consistent cultural
support for physical activity was lacking. Additionally, in a ranking of influences on Get Fit
participation, support of one’s supervisor was the lowest-ranked item of all influences listed.
Furthermore, only two of 24 respondents (8%) indicated they learned about Get Fit from their
boss or supervisor, demonstrating that the program is not widely promoted or endorsed by
supervisors at the local workplace level.
Several survey items were directed to a subset of survey participants who had previously
worked at PCU for a department other than CLS to gauge whether cultural models surrounding
employee physical activity were different between the promising practice environment of CLS
and the broader environment of PCU. Fourteen of the 24 survey respondents (58%) previously
worked for PCU in a role outside of CLS. A Likert scale survey item asked participants to
102
indicate agreement with the statement “my direct supervisor allowed me to take flexible or
extended breaks to engage in physical activity.” A comparison of responses between this item
and the item “my direct supervisor allows me to take flexible or extended breaks to engage in
Get Fit” demonstrates a difference in perceptions of supervisor support for participation.
Seventy-one percent of 24 respondents strongly agreed or agreed that that their supervisor
allowed flexible time compared with only 35% of the 14 respondents describing their
supervisors’ support outside of CLS. Twelve percent of respondents strongly disagreed or
disagreed with the statement about their current CLS supervisor’s support, while 43% strongly
disagreed or disagreed with the statement about their former supervisor’s support. Seventeen
percent of respondents indicated they did not know if their supervisor allowed them flexible or
extended time currently, while 21% of respondents did not know if their former supervisor had
allowed them flexible or extended time for physical activity.
Another stark contrast in participant perceptions of supervisor or department support
emerged in comparing responses to two survey items that asked about employees’ impressions of
local cultural support for their participation in physical activity. In comparing the survey item “I
am permitted to take time to engage in physical activity during the workday,” which was
included for all survey respondents, with responses to the item “my department encouraged
employees to be physically active during the workday,” which was included for the subset of
respondents who had worked for PCU in a previous context, a sharp divide emerged. Eighty-
eight percent of respondents describing CLS strongly agreed or agreed that they were permitted
to participate in physical activity. By contrast, only 14% of respondents who had previously
worked at PCU strongly agreed or agreed that their department encouraged their physical activity
during the workday, while 65% strongly disagreed or disagreed, and 21% did not know if they
103
were encouraged to be physically active during the workday or not. Finally, two items asked all
survey respondents to indicate their agreement with statements about their estimation of the
overall support for physical activity by both CLS and PCU. In response to the statement
“Overall, CLS supports employee participation in physical activity,” 71% of respondents
strongly agreed or agreed, while the remaining 29% indicated they did not know. The same
statement about PCU received a more diverse range of responses. Sixty-two percent of
respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while 21% strongly disagreed or
disagreed, and 17% indicated they did not know. As seen in Figure 4 below, the comparative
results give credence to the selection of Get Fit as a promising practice, given the difference in
support employees experience between PCU’s organizational culture and the subculture of CLS.
Figure 4
Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Department and University Support for Employee Physical
Activity
Role of Attitudes and Practices of Supervisors. Participants indicated the need for
consistent managerial support at PCU, including CLS, for employees to attend physical activity
8.3%
28.6%
12.5%
35.7%
4.2%
45.8%
54.2%
7.1%
41.7%
25.0%
8.3%
7.1%
45.8%
29.2%
16.7%
21.4%
8.3%
Overall, CLS supports employee
participation in physical activity.
Overall, PCU supports employee
participation in physical activity.
My department encouraged employees
to be physically active during the
workday.
I am permitted to take time to engage
in physical activity during the workday
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I Don't Know
104
programming and feel encouraged to do so. Interviews revealed that participants viewed
employees’ ability to participate as supervisor-specific, as not all supervisors understood the
benefits of Get Fit, nor was encouragement or approval uniform across the university.
Participants indicated that the university’s newly offered fitness discounts and incentives were a
good effort to transform cultural support for physical activity, but that supervisors would need to
convey that support in their daily managerial practices for culture to change. One survey
respondent commented, “It is just hard to step away, change clothes, walk to [the] location, and
without true support from [a] supervisor I am unable to attend in order to put my work first.”
Allison suggested that support may be offered on a case-by-case basis, but most likely would not
be initiated by a supervisor. Allison offered:
I don’t think it’s encouraged by supervisors if they’re not doing it themselves because
they don’t think about it. I was the one who approached my supervisor. I don’t think it’s
the other way around, where a supervisor says, “Hey, we have these opportunities. It’s
something you guys should do.” So I’m not really sure where it comes from, that more
people who belong to the gym don’t actually do it during the middle of the day. I don't
know if that's self-imposed or imposed through their supervisors.
Allison’s experiences highlighted the proactive role employees take to participate in Get Fit with
supervisor approval. Bess also indicated differences in employees’ opportunities based on their
specific supervisors and job roles. Bess shared:
[The advisors] feel like they're under the thumb of somebody. And so, they don't really
feel like there's time to go and do a class and come back and clean up and the time that it
takes to get dressed…. So, they're not really allowed to. They don't control their schedule.
105
Bess’s indication that the same opportunities were not available across all levels of the
organization was seconded by Francesca, who described her own employment categorization as
an exempt employee, meaning unable to earn overtime for extra hours worked beyond a certain
threshold, as important to her ability to participate versus some of her colleagues. Asked whether
she was supported by her supervisor, Francesca shared:
[My supervisor] wasn’t deeply concerned, I think for me anyway.…And this is only for
me. I can’t speak for the other people in my organization, but I think she trusts that as
long as the work is getting done…if I want to take an hour to exercise, it’s fine. But…I'm
sure there are people in my office whose supervisors would not be okay with it. And I am
also a manager and have worked there for a long time and am exempt, so I'm not hourly.
Francesca highlighted her role proactively seeking to participate and her supervisor’s assent,
rather than encouragement. Her ability to control her own time without impacting timekeeping or
work performance supported Bess’s earlier comments. Aside from Allison, whose supervisor
supported her attendance because she noticed the impact it had on Allison’s anxiety, no other
participant indicated their supervisor offered overt encouragement beyond permission to
participate. Furthermore, participants expressed a ubiquitous understanding that not everyone
had the same opportunities for physical activity, suggesting devoted efforts at culture change
would need to occur for PCU to encourage all employees to participate.
Messaging and Communication. Survey responses and interviews indicated that both
CLS and PCU offered inconsistent messaging relating to employee physical activity.
Participants’ perspectives again described the need for comprehensive involvement of all levels
of the university to effect organizational change. Means of message delivery also emerged as an
area that could be improved.
106
When interview participants were asked about messages they received from PCU related
to employees participating in physical activity, responses included “none,” “not much,” and “I
don’t recall.” Additionally, even though participants’ responses indicated they receive more
support for physical activity from CLS than PCU overall, messaging from CLS about Get Fit
was equally lacking. While several participants mentioned they received an email about Get Fit,
all six interview participants indicated they learned about the program from a colleague or friend,
with half describing “word of mouth” as the most effective communication related to the
program. Asked for any additional comments about Get Fit, a survey participant also
commented, “It’s a great resource and I’m glad it’s offered. Should be better advertised though.”
Advertising improvement was also mentioned by one interview participant. Email
communications about the program were also lackluster. Ellen described this phenomenon,
saying:
I did get emails from CLS… but I think they could do a much better job about that…. I
don't even think it was sent every semester. I think that's been inconsistent. And then it's
also been unclear on who is this email coming from.
While participants served as their own information network and communicated with instructors,
the lack of clear and consistent messaging from CLS about Get Fit did not build support for
employee physical activity as something all should access. Allison described the improvement
that would occur if supervisors became involved, saying:
Talking about it with supervisors…requiring they pass it on to their employees in a
smaller setting and not just in general, sweeping university-wide newsletters. Making
those opportunities known and encouraging that from the supervisor level…. You have to
make sure employees know that it’s available and it’s actually encouraged.
107
For Allison, changes in expectations of middle-level management would mitigate some of the
inconsistency of messaging and permissiveness of supervisors.
Offering more in-depth assessment of PCU’s messaging about physical activity, Get Fit
interview participants described a culture of “mixed messages” and “double messages.”
Participants were aware of and appreciated the university’s new incentives: a tobacco-free
incentive and a reimbursement for physical activity costs. However, overall support for
employee physical activity was not perceived to be at the same level. Asked if physical activity
was promoted, Francesca offered:
To a degree, like, I think it’s aspirational…I think there is genuine intent that like we
want our people to… embrace exercise for their own well-being. But I feel a little bit like
there's mixed messages…. The leadership may very well intend for this to be the culture,
but ... everything maybe breaks down at… more of the micro level. There are
opportunities, but whether you're encouraged to take advantage of them, I think really
depends on your manager.
Francesca indicated that intentions to change the culture and the actual culture were not identical
thus far. Carla had similar perceptions of the messages employees received and the actual
support for their participation as being different. Carla explained:
In order to get people moving I think it has to be a culture. Like, I feel like…just in
general, from CLS and PCU, I feel like I get like a double message like, “Yeah, we want
you to work out, but we’re sorry, you really have to work now.”
Carla offered these comments after discussing how the new employee incentives immediately
grabbed her attention. Employee excitement about the incentivization of healthy options was
evident in interview participants’ demeanor while talking about them, highlighting an eagerness
108
to participate in a culture that supports health. However, inconsistent messaging that prioritizes
high performance in one’s job over participation in physical activity left respondents feeling
unsure of the organization’s actual support.
Recognition of Value. One theme that emerged with unanticipated frequency was the
idea that physical activity programming was a university benefit that acknowledged employee
value and hard work. For several participants, a free physical activity program showed that the
university affirmed their worth and appreciated their contributions. Diana offered:
It makes me feel empowered that that's something that was thought about for us to be
able to participate in because I've worked in several different departments and that has
not been offered to me. So I was very grateful that they had taken into consideration the
work that we do. We do need things like that…. And, really like, letting people know,
like, “Thank you for your work. We're offering this program for you, free of cost to
attend. And it's not just for students.” So I think that's something that they need to
strongly consider being that Student Affairs is a stressful work environment. So if we felt
supported from the university, then maybe things will be a little different and the turnover
wouldn't be so high.
For Diana, feeling valued and appreciated, and having the difficulty of her job acknowledged
with a program that helps her mitigate the stressful effects of her job, is a benefit the university
should make more overt in discussions of the program.
Francesca offered similar comments at the end of her interview, when asked if there was
anything she wanted to add. Francesca said, “I’m very glad—I think programs like this are a big
benefit of being at PCU and a big place that kind of, you know, can offer these sorts of things. If
I worked at a small nonprofit or whatever, it just wouldn't be possible.” For Francesca, the Get
109
Fit program was something that made her appreciate working for PCU. Similarly, a survey
respondent wrote the following:
I am grateful to have Get Fit available to me as an employee. The instructors are great,
they are well-trained and personable. These programs help to make exercising accessible
and possible during our hectic work/personal lives. I am happy to know CLS supports
healthy lifestyles and offers work-life balance programs.
For the aforementioned survey respondent, Get Fit supports their continued success as an
employee and person.
Cultural Model 2: Employee Willingness to Change Behavior and Incorporate
Physical Activity. This study’s participants demonstrated willingness to engage in physical
activity counter to prevailing patterns in the broader context of the organization. As such, their
feedback regarding what would successfully engage those who do not participate offers
participant-centered, personally informed suggestions about what might advance cultural change
in this area. Data revealed aspects of the Get Fit program that employees consider effective for
encouraging their participation. Participants also shared ideas for idealized programs that might
engage more employees. New strategies for employee engagement are discussed below.
Two survey items investigated Get Fit participants’ interest in remaining engaged with
physical activity programming in the future, and how likely they would be to recommend a
program like Get Fit to a coworker. In response to the item asking how likely they would be to
participate in a program similar to Get Fit in the future, 21 of the 24 participants (98%) indicated
they would be “very likely” to do so. The remaining one participant (2%) indicated they would
be “likely” to participate. Responses to the item about recommending participating in Get Fit
were similarly high, with 21 participants (88%) indicating they would be “very likely” to do so,
110
and the other three participants (12%) indicating they would be “likely” to do so. Responses to
these two items indicate survey respondents’ affinity for the Get Fit program and likelihood to
recommend the program to colleagues, which could spur employee participation. While such
survey responses suggest that study participants could accurately inform change efforts and
support the adoption of physical activity by colleagues, interviews provided further insight into
their specific recommendations for growing employee participation.
Strategies for Engagement. When asked what they would do or recommend the
university do to engage more PCU employees with Get Fit or programs like it, all six interview
participants offered immediate suggestions. Although a very limited sample, the quantity of
participants’ ideas and their willingness to share these ideas, even in hypothetical terms, bodes
well for potentially engaging employees in the development, implementation, and evaluation of
physical activity programming, as this cultural model suggests. Interest in providing input was
evident in the closing interview comments of Carla, who offered, “… Let me know if I can assist
with anything else. I honestly think…this was something good, and I wish we could do more of
it.”
Interview participants recommended directly asking employees what exercises they
would like to do to. For example, in describing a university-wide workout session that was
framed as a special event and which took place at a prominent outdoor location on campus,
Francesca indicated that event turnout was not high, and wondered aloud:
I thought that was a cool idea, but I don't think they got very much participation. And so,
I wonder to what degree they actually consulted with people.…what would staff be
interested in doing? .... The only way to really know that is to try to talk to, like, a level
111
down. Like department chairs and maybe have them form committees or something like
that, try to get some kind of input from the people who would be participating.
Similarly to Francesca, Diana tied interest in the activity being offered directly to rates of
participation, saying, “I think maybe asking like, ‘What type of things would you like to see that
are not being offered that would get you to participate?’” Diana’s comments support the need for
employee input shaping the culture.
Interview participants also emphasized the need for activity to be accessible to all levels
of fitness and physical ability. As discussed previously, all six interview participants mentioned
the wide-ranging levels of participant experience and fitness as an asset of the Get Fit program
that reduced intimidation or feelings of inadequacy. Ellen crystallized this factor in establishing a
comfortable workout setting at Get Fit, sharing:
There's got to be diversity for people to feel comfortable and not judged, and then
different weights and body types, and all of that…. That's key for people starting, to feel
like this is anyone's game and it's come as you are…. “Come with zero experience, zero
knowledge about working out, and you can come to this.” That message is really
important for people to be more open to it.
As Ellen described, a program accepting of all levels of participant fitness added to the Get Fit
program’s appeal to new participants. However, two Get Fit participants also described a need
for options for those for whom Get Fit would be too challenging. Francesca commented, saying:
You have…a big range of people if we realistically wanted to get everybody in CLS
involved. That's a big chunk of people, and some of them are like, 70-year-old professors
and some of them are like, you know, 21-year-old recent graduates and not everybody's
going to be comfortable doing the same things.
112
Francesca called attention to the need to offer physical activity programming that would engage
people at their own comfort levels. Carla offered insights about her own workplace that
supported Francesca’s thoughts, mentioning her supervisor’s age and physical ability as
considerations. Carla described opportunities for the university to transform cultural models and
settings by reconceptualizing physical activity, saying:
Even like, baby steps, you know? Know that some folks would be happy just doing a
walk and maybe even having a leader in that particular building saying like, “Hey...have
you tried this class….?” Even going office to office… and saying like, “Hey, by the way,
we're gonna have a walk today,” you know…. Maybe just having a person¾assign a
person to do that¾would be beneficial.
Carla’s suggestions signaled support for a cultural model where employees not only provide
insight into what activities the university should offer, but also define and lead those activities in
smaller groups. Carla also mentioned options like “have the supervisors motivate workers” and
organizing competitions between offices. Participants recommended personal encouragement
among a department’s employees could increase participation rates, and that a designated
representative for each department might facilitate a cultural model where physical activity is
more embraced by employees.
The Instructor and Coaching. Participants reported that Get Fit instructors shared their
knowledge and expertise and facilitated classes in such a way that they provided motivation for
continued engagement and reduced intimidation factors that could act as barriers to participation.
Additionally, instructors continually facilitated declarative and procedural knowledge
acquisition. As Table 7 indicated in the motivation section, the enthusiasm of instructors and
coaching ranked as the second- and third-most influential factors in employees’ assessment of
113
factors affecting their participation in Get Fit. The overwhelming praise instructors received in
both survey responses and interviews further supports their importance to the success of the Get
Fit program and suggests they can provide important insights in the development and launch of
activities to engage more employees in physical activity. Two of six (33%) interview participants
used the word “love” to describe the class and instructor. Get Fit participants described
instructors as “extremely knowledgeable,” “welcoming,” “encouraging,” “enthusiastic,”
“supportive,” “energetic,” “friendly,” “motivating,” and “inspiring.” Respondents expressed that
instructors’ workouts were “challenging” as part of what made them effective. A survey
respondent also indicated the motivational power of the instructors, writing, “They are the reason
I come back every week when I’m sore and tired.” Similarly, Bess discussed the positive
experience offered by one Get Fit instructor, saying:
She is very challenging. She helps people with modifications. She's very supportive, very
positive. She's thoughtful about how she plans out the workout and keeps an eye out to
make sure to correct people when they're doing things dangerously or incorrectly, and she
has good music selection.
Bess described an instructor who created an environment that meaningfully engaged employees
in performing physical activity. Allison described the role such expertise could play in expanding
offerings at PCU to engage more employees in physical activity as, for her, the instructor’s
expertise was the first thing that those developing a program should seek to inform their
planning. Allison said, “An instructor is really important to the whole program…. [Participants]
are not going to try it again later if they have a really bad experience with an instructor.” As
Allison’s recommendation attests, and Bess’s comments support, the central role that instructors
play in the success of physical activity programs surpasses mere facilitation. The application of
114
instructors’ expertise to planning new programming and engaging new participants can benefit
efforts to support culture change at PCU.
In summary, Get Fit participants’ experiences as employees who have engaged in
physical activity informed their recommendations for creating new programs and engaging more
employees in physical activity. Firsthand accounts of the significant support that instructors
provide for the knowledge, motivation, and facilitation of a cultural setting align with literature
recommendations to employ available experts to contribute to organizational change efforts.
Cultural Setting 1: Time and Flexibility to Participate in Physical Activity. Survey
responses and participant interviews revealed the critical importance of the availability of time to
employee participation in Get Fit. In addition to the need to either be able to use flexible time
with a supervisor’s tacit or implied approval, or to have agency over one’s schedule, an
individual’s professional engagements on a given day also had to favorably align with the time
challenges and related outcomes of Get Fit participation for study participants to attend. The
added time necessary to travel to and from program locations, shower, and change clothes were
also factors that influenced employee participation and perceptions of the ease of participation.
Flexibility, convenience, and the opportunity to efficiently use time emerged as themes in
participants’ discussion of the positive aspects of Get Fit.
Two survey items addressed factors related to physical activity that require additional
time—changing one’s clothing and showering. Participants’ perceptions of the ease and
convenience of changing clothes divided at 50%, with half of participants disagreeing to some
extent that it was easy and convenient to change clothes, and the other half agreeing to some
extent that it was easy and convenient to change clothing before and after participating in Get
Fit. In an item that asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with a statement about
115
the ease of showering after Get Fit, 65% of participants disagreed to some extent that it was easy
of convenient to shower, while 26% agreed to some extent that it was easy and convenient, and
the remaining 9% of participants indicated they did not know. And though 88% of survey
respondents indicated they were permitted to take time to engage in physical activity, in a
previous survey item (found in Figure 3), only 71% agreed to some extent that their supervisors
provided flexible time for them to do so, reiterating challenges in support. Figure 5 represents
responses to items relating to time needed for workday physical activity.
Figure 5
Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Ease of Time-Intensive Activities Related to Get Fit
Practical Considerations of Time. The time it takes to participate emerged as a multi-
faceted theme with both positive and negative aspects in participant interviews. Participants
appreciated the convenience of the location of Get Fit in proximity to their workplaces, as
indicated by the factor “convenience of location” ranking fifth among factors influencing
employees’ participation, as shown in Table 7. However, participants described a variety of
8.3%
30.4%
4.2%
41.7%
34.8%
41.7%
33.3%
21.7%
45.8%
16.7%
4.3%
8.3%
8.7%
I am permitted to take time to
engage in physical activity
during the workday
It is easy and convenient to
change clothes before and after
Get Fit
It is easy and convenient to
shower after Get Fit
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I Don't Know
116
efforts required to negotiate their departure from and return to the workplace that factor into
consideration of whether or not to participate. Participants indicated the additional time required
to shower after Get Fit deterred their participation on days when they had to be “presentable” for
work obligations. Four of six participants (66%) indicated they did not regularly shower after
Get Fit. Several participants also specifically cited showering (or not showering) as a known
impediment to some of their colleagues participating in the Get Fit program. Francesca shared
her experiences managing the time needed to participate in Get Fit, describing herself as “falling
off the wagon” of regularly attending when her professional interactions with external audiences
increased. She detailed the actual investment of time required, saying:
I think one of the barriers is like, “Oh, it's only an hour,” but it's actually more like an
hour and a half, at least, more like an hour and 45 minutes with the, you have to walk
there and walk back…If I really wanted to commit and be like, “Okay, I'm going to do it
even if I have a visit afterwards,” I would want a shower. But then that's even more of a
time commitment. So, I think the time and the logistics of getting there are a bit of a
barrier. If it was like, a 30-minute workout, I think it would be more manageable.
Francesca’s work commitments require a standard of physical appearance above that she
described herself as possessing after a Get Fit session— “a sweaty mess.” When asked if it was
easy to shower, Ellen offered similar feedback about the barrier that not showering, or the
difficulty of showering, presents for some employees. Ellen stated:
That's a huge concern for a lot of people and I think they're afraid to smell? …One,
they’re afraid to smell, but two, they feel gross. So that's a huge concern…. There are
showers, though... Of course, you have to cut out that time, like maybe leave…ten
minutes early... If you're committed, you can do that, but of course, that's inconvenient.
117
Ellen described participants who wanted to shower having to sacrifice part of their workouts to
do so and return to work in a timely manner, while for others, the extra time and hassle required
to shower, or simply not showering, would prevent their trying a session in the first place.
Though access to showers could be considered as its own cultural setting for analysis,
excerpts describing employee behaviors and beliefs are included in the discussion of time
because employee comments describe showering in terms of the additional time away from work
it requires rather than the lack of access or availability of showers. Based on the insights gleaned
from interview participants, a tolerance for feeling somewhat clean may be necessary for
participants who do not have flexible time to extend their lunch break to shower. Interview
responses indicated a variety of stopgap measures to achieve an acceptable level of personal
hygiene, including, “I would go back to the men's bathroom and kind of do the best I could to get
back into work” and “I wash my face in the sink and maybe a little armpit wash and then I go
into my office and kind of, this is kind of personal, but sometimes I kind of disrobe while I'm
checking email and kind of working while I freshen up.” Rather than using excessive break time,
employees make the best of work environment resources to enable their timely return to work
and professional appearance.
Formal Considerations of Time. Insights from participants indicated that supervisors
who allow them to come in early or stay late to make up time they might spend working out
support their continued participation in Get Fit. Inflexible timekeeping policies and attitudes
were referred to generally by participants and cited as a barrier to employee participation in
physical activity. For some participants, inconsistency between university policies and
supervisors’ de facto policies resulted in confusion or frustration, particularly when the personal
118
benefits they experienced from physical activity were so pronounced. For example, Carla
discussed her experiences, saying:
I've talked to my supervisor in the past…about taking a longer a longer lunch...being
flexible in that sense…so I could take a walk for lunch. And I think that's very important,
but I can't imagine, if you take like a 30-minute lunch. Like, how is that going to happen?
I feel like a lot of the policies are very rigid in terms of that…. It's like contradicting—it's
almost like the policy says “As an employee, you have to do X, Y, and Z.” But
then…maybe at your [workplace] you're more flexible and you don't necessarily have to.
To Carla, both a 30-minute lunch break and an inflexible work schedule policy are incompatible
with employees participating in physical activity at PCU, and she pointed to the informal policies
supervisors possibly could, or do, put in place to support employee exercise. For Bess,
mandating policy change is the key to improving rates of employee participation. Bess offered
the following:
I would have some kind of a sit down with all managers saying “You are required to
allow people to do this. If the they're spending more than an hour [at lunch] and you have
concerns, you can ask them to, you know, stay 15 minutes late or come in half hour
early.…. But we want you to do this and we want you to know that these people are not
ripping off the university…. There are… documented academic studies that these
activities increase productivity and well-being at the university…fewer sick days,
etcetera.”
Bess suggested making managers comply with the demand for flexible time to participate and
educating them about benefits of doing so, as the most effective way to encourage participation,
indicating that to her, meaningful organizational change should start at the managerial level.
119
Participants suggested that efforts to create a cultural model of flexible time as an accepted and
expected practice should be driven from the top down.
Efficiency and Opportunity. Employees mentioned the convenience of Get Fit as
supporting their participation by minimizing negative impacts to their time. However,
participants suggested offering Get Fit classes at different times on different days as a possible
way to engage those whose schedules never permit their participation at noon. All six interview
participants indicated there are times when their typical schedules are disrupted by events or
work obligations. In her suggestions for increasing participation, Diana said, “Maybe add one or
two more sessions. Maybe a morning added session. Maybe at the end of the day, and maybe
more people could participate if it was from like four or five o'clock without using our lunch
hour.” In their comments, Allison and Ellen agreed more offerings at different times might
encourage others who do not participate in Get Fit to do so. Both also discussed the benefit they
experience from getting a workout done in the middle of the day. Allison offered, “I really liked
the noon hour because it's totally encapsulated in my day. It's too easy to not show up in the
morning and it's too easy to leave early in the evening to just get home.” For Allison, Get Fit
removed the need for her to motivate herself to attend prior to the start of work or after work,
when she could be enjoying free time.
Ellen shared Allison’s appreciation of the noon timeframe, indicating she felt like she
was making great use of time that belonged to her employer in practicality to do something for
herself. Ellen said:
That's what I love about working out in the workday is it gets done in time that I can't
really do much else anyway. And when I go home, it's not taking time out of my personal
life…. I wish people would see that as such an advantage, like I do.
120
In Ellen’s experience, working out during the day was a great use of her time to achieve
something she would want to do, but would need to allot time to do otherwise. Carla also shared
that reserving the time in her mental and actual calendar allowed her to avoid motivational
shortfalls, as Allison described, in engaging with physical activity after work. The midday aspect
of Get Fit removes the additional motivational barrier of having to compel oneself to engage in
physical activity when one could do any other activity.
In summary, time is essential to employee participation, including time to get to and from
the program and any accompanying activities that need to happen before and afterward to ensure
participation in both the activity and the professional sphere once a class is over. Perceived lack
of time for any aspect needed to both participate and perform one’s job can pose a barrier.
Flexible time and diverse program timing may encourage new participant engagement.
Cultural Setting 2: Workplace Physical Activity Programming. Understanding the
aspects of the Get Fit program that participants indicated facilitated their participation will offer
insights effective program elements that can inform recommendations for other schools and
universities who may want to develop their own programming. One survey item aimed to gather
insight into factors affecting employee participation. As discussed previously, Table 6 depicted
themes across survey responses about the primary reasons people participated in Get Fit.
Convenience and cost related to concrete aspects of the program that encouraged employee
participation. Participant interviews enhanced insights about aspects of the program that
employees most value.
Convenience. Differences emerged between Get Fit and broader PCU fitness offerings
that influenced employee rates of participation. For example, when asked what factors she
121
considered to be most important to Get Fit’s success, Bess described the differences between her
experiences with Get Fit and PCU’s Fitness Center. Speaking about Get Fit, she stated:
That sense of community and having a break from whatever pressures we have at work.
It’s a casual environment. I mean, there’s a couple people who show off, but for the most
part people…they don’t dress in some fancy stuff. It’s humble.
By contrast, Bess described experiences with the PCU Fitness Center that impeded her
participation in group classes, saying:
I stopped doing the group exercise because I didn’t want to pay the money and Get Fit
was free and because I couldn’t always get there at exactly the time, and then some of
[the classes] …you had to sign in. And I just got too busy to deal with all of that.
Bess’s description of the two settings demonstrated how collective inconveniences found in the
PCU Fitness Center became a barrier to participation, particularly in contrast to the ease and
comfort of Get Fit. Diana also described the Get Fit environment and the convenience of the
program for the variability of participants’ schedules, describing it as a class where all were
welcome, regardless of frequency or duration of their participation:
The interactions are very welcoming, very supportive. It’s good to see... Some people
come very consistently. Some people may come every once in a while, or come once and
don’t come again. It’s a variety, but everyone is very nice and welcoming.
Diana’s notion that Get Fit can occur at the convenience of participants and without judgment
was something Francesca also noted in discussing why the program worked, saying, “One thing
that is kind of nice is you can…leave early…It’s scheduled for an hour, but let’s say you only
have 45 minutes, you can leave early and still have done a very intense workout.” The
convenience of enabling participants to join as frequently and for as long as they are able is a
122
factor that encourages participation, which is a contrast to the barriers of strict start times and
class registration processes that some PCU Fitness Center classes require.
One additional convenience factor considered in participant interviews was the absence
or presence of PCU students in a workout class. For four of the six participants (66%), the
presence of students was an inconvenience and presented a barrier to motivation, particularly
noted by those who worked directly in student service roles. In talking about the offerings at the
PCU Fitness Center, Carla expressed her preference to avoid students, saying, “There’s a lot of
students. It’s just awkward as a staff…I don’t want to see my students at the gym. (laughs) I love
them, but once I get out of work, it’s a different story.” Ellen shared Carla’s assessment that
seeing your students at the gym would not be ideal, describing it as “super awkward,” but she
also went on to describe the disruption to the peer group that students would cause, which
connects to collective efficacy. Of the benefit of a student-free environment, Ellen said:
It's a completely different life and age…. Part of …it being all staff and one of the things
I've mentioned…just like, having that diversity and age is what can help people feel more
comfortable because it's like, if this 60-year-old man can do it, then I can do it. And yes,
we do have 60-year-old men show up sometimes.
Ellen’s reflections on students’ disruption to motivation and the equalizing effect of an all-staff
class offering were echoed by Francesca and Bess. For Francesca, students presented a barrier to
joining the PCU Fitness Center. She described this in contrast to Get Fit, saying:
I have considered joining…in the past, but I’m always like, I don’t want to be around a
bunch of like, skinny 20-year-olds when I’m like an old mom. [At Get Fit] there’s also
like, you just have built-in things in common, like you have a similar workday structure
often and it’s just helpful.
123
Bess belonged to the PCU Fitness Center in addition to participating in Get Fit and described the
inconvenience the presence of students caused as occurring in both her motivation and in her
inability to truly step away from her job role. In a manner similar to Francesca’s body image
concerns, Bess said, “There were times that I felt a little intimidated because I felt like I was
always the least fit person in the room.” Bess also described a lack of student boundaries as
affecting her participation, saying:
There was a time I was butt-naked in the shower and a student asked me a “quick
question.” And there was another time I went into the bathroom and somebody asked me
a question. I’m like, “I have to go to the bathroom.” She’s like, “I’ll just ask you out
here,” you know, like she’s my sister or something.
In addition to her own discomfort having to navigate students’ needs in a shared physical activity
space, Bess also described a coworker who did not join the PCU Fitness Center out of concern
for being seen by her students in gym clothing that was more revealing than that in which she
preferred to be seen as a professional. Participants’ insights indicate students present an
inconvenience or barrier to participation, which will inform forthcoming recommendations.
Cost. As previously highlighted survey responses indicated, cost was definitely a factor
influencing employees’ participation in Get Fit. Interviews with participants revealed that the
lack of cost associated with Get Fit made it a risk-free, or less risky, proposition to try a class for
the first time. In response to being asked if the lack of cost influenced participation, Francesca
said, “Yeah, because it’s like you have nothing to lose.” In response to the same question, Diana
offered an emphatic, “Mmhmm. Of course.” Similarly, Carla said, “Absolutely. Because Get Fit
is free that definitely jumped at the top of my list.” Ellen’s comments about the role cost plays in
her participation included gratitude to CLS for supporting a healthy option for employees:
124
Basically, one hundred percent the cost factors into it and I’ve heard comments from
other people that costs were also a factor for them as well. And so that’s why I appreciate
so much that CLS kind of offers this to us because that’s really, I mean, cost is just
another barrier to preventing people from…exercising and making this a habit.
Later in the interview, Ellen connected her estimation of PCU’s support for employee physical
activity to their provision of free programming. Ellen said:
I think PCU is showing that they want to encourage this and that they support it and it’s a
value… that it can help your health, even to the point of saving you future medical costs.
Even just the existence of CLS Get Fit— CLS pays for the instructors to hold that for us.
Ellen’s comments highlight the interplay of cost as a cultural setting with the cultural model of
clear support for physical activity. For Ellen, free classes signaled a commitment to employee
health. Diana’s comments indicated she also viewed free course offerings as an indication of
institutional support for employee health, but pointed to the opportunity that CLS employees had
that other PCU employees did not. She said:
I feel like they would always say funding is an issue, but if one department is having it, I
don’t see why not for others, to give everyone access. We have different departments, but
it’s a matter of people coming together.
Diana’s comments addressed the difference she experiences in cultural models between CLS and
PCU. Whether most useful for initially engaging employees or in motivating their continued
participation, data suggests the cost of programming is a factor in employees’ participation.
Physical Resources. Interesting data emerged in participant interviews around the
availability of physical resources. The need for programming at a location near one’s workplace
was an expected theme and was discussed by participants in relation to their experiences of
125
convenience of the program. One survey respondent indicated “CLS employees that are in the
downtown office do not have the option to do Get Fit, there are not many affordable fitness
options available to downtown employees in general.” This response called attention to
differences in program availability that exist within CLS in addition to between those who work
for CLS and those who work for PCU. While the downtown location was without resources, Get
Fit shares physical activity physical resources with other university populations, which
sometimes impacts availability. Commenting on the rotating location of Get Fit, Allison
commented, “space is an issue.” One positive aspect of the rotation, however, was that it allowed
for a variety of exercise options, including stair climbs, running on a track, etc. While participant
interviews indicated a variety of personal preferences, depending on the activity that would be
done at a given location, interest in rotating locations was present. Francesca said:
It’s accessible…[we] move around to different locations on campus. So, if it was always,
you know, on the south side of campus, I would be like…I can never go because it’s just
too far away and then it adds too much time and whatever. And it’s also actually nice to
see those different locations, even though I’ve worked here for eleven and a half years…
I think it is kind of a neat way to get to know the campus a little better.
Although she found the variety of physical spaces to be an asset to the program, Francesca
recommended improving the timeframe in which participants received notice of where a day’s
activities would be held, saying that information was frequently distributed the morning of a
session. Francesca also described challenges with the condition of physical materials available
for use by Get Fit participants. Both Francesca and Bess specifically mentioned sessions held on
a building rooftop as being particularly dirty. For Francesca the experience could be improved.
126
She said, “Not having dirty equipment would be awesome.” Surprisingly, Bess found the state of
the rooftop to be characteristic of the accessibility of the class. She explained, saying:
It’s humble. The rooftop is really dirty and gross…. There’s like, cigarette butts and spit
wads. There might be a small number of people who don’t come back because it’s that
gross.… For me personally…the grunge factor is actually comforting.
The divergent views of the impact of substandard physical resources and the rotating locations of
activities will be important in informing recommendations for other organizations in Chapter 5.
Interview participants in this promising practice demonstrated willingness to participate in a
variety of locations and with a variety of environmental challenges, including weather,
cleanliness, and equipment availability.
Summary. Participants cited a wide variety of organizational influences on their
continued participation in Get Fit. Additionally, participants identified high priority needs for
any institution seeking to improve employee engagement with workplace physical activity,
including a cultural model of consistent support for employee physical activity and a cultural
setting of time for employees to participate. Physical activity programming emerged as an asset
of CLS, as did a cultural model of employee willingness to change behavior. Both influences
were identified as high priorities for fostering change.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the results of the quantitative survey of 24 employee participants
in Get Fit programming and the findings of six interviews from among the original 24 survey
respondents in relation to the two research questions guiding this promising practice study.
Discussion included the assumed influences of this study as informed by the literature and
conceptual framework, all of which were presented in Chapter 2. Additional themes that
127
emerged among data were also discussed in relation to their influence on employee participation.
The results and findings provide insight into the experiences of employees of the College of
Liberal Studies regarding physical activity at the university, with specific emphasis on the Get
Fit program offered by CLS. The robust array of viewpoints offered by the employees presented
many needs and potential methods for improving rates of employee physical activity at PCU and
other universities. Survey responses and rich interview data combined to answer the research
questions posed by this study. Chapter 5 will discuss recommendations informed by participants’
survey responses and interviews, grounded in literature, and in the context of the conceptual
framework set forth for this promising practice.
128
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to analyze the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs of a university-offered physical activity program to better understand how to achieve the
goal of reduced rates of university employee sedentary behavior and increased physical activity.
University employee experiences with Get Fit, the promising practice of focus in this study,
allowed for the identification and prioritization of resource needs that support employee
participation in physical activity during the workday. This chapter discusses recommended
solutions as informed by the aforementioned identified knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs. The chapter also introduces implications for practice and future research.
Discussion
The employees surveyed and interviewed in this study served the College of Liberal
Studies in a variety of job roles for a variety of tenures and all had interest in employer-offered
physical activity programming like that which they enjoyed through Get Fit. Employee physical
activity participants reported experiencing benefits to their physical and mental health, as well as
improvements to their stress levels, mood, interactions with colleagues and feelings about their
jobs. They also reported that the opportunity to take a break in the middle of the day and
disengage from their work improved their focus and productivity when they returned to work, all
of which aligned with literature introduced in Chapter 2 (Coulson et al., 2008; Puig-Ribera et al.,
2015). New feelings of self-confidence emerged for participants, both in their performance of
exercises and in their overall self-concept, particularly for those who did not consider themselves
fit or athletic prior to participating.
One noteworthy finding was that the Get Fit program engaged both employees who
already utilized physical activity resources at the university or who were physically active on
129
their own and those who did not perform physical activity beyond their participation in the
program. Understanding factors that influenced the successful engagement of those who would
not otherwise exercise informs the recommendations that follow.
Although employees demonstrated general knowledge that PCU offered a variety of
physical activity options, the details surrounding such options, including time, location,
instructor, and exercise type, were less clear and had to be proactively sought out by employees.
By contrast, Get Fit’s consistent schedule, content, and instructors were reliably known by
participants. Participants learned about Get Fit through word of mouth from friends and
coworkers and often received firsthand accounts of what Get Fit classes were like from trusted
sources, lessening intimidation about participation.
Certain characteristics of Get Fit classes emerged as important to participants’ positive
experiences with the program, some of which were practical issues of accessibility, while others
were germane to the cultural norms of the program itself. Accessibility factors of influence to
participants included: the free cost of the program, convenience of getting to and from class
locations, and flexibility to attend classes as often and for as long as they were able without
judgement or penalty. Assurance that PCU students were not in the Get Fit program removed
barriers for participants relating to fear of being unable to step away from one’s professional role
while exercising; being seen by students in an unprofessional light; and anxiety relating to one’s
athletic ability, appearance, or level of fitness in comparison with students. These motivational
factors occurred for participants regarding workouts offered by the PCU Fitness Center, with one
participant forgoing membership explicitly because of the student presence. By contrast, the
cultural model of the Get Fit program involved a sense of team and community among
participants that fostered self-efficacy and collective efficacy, which motivated continued
130
participation. A perceived lack of judgment by other participants regarding physical appearance
and performance ability emerged as an important theme relating to participants’ ongoing
engagement with Get Fit. Being comfortable learning and performing exercises at one’s own
level among those of varied levels was cited as a support for ongoing participation.
Finally, accountability emerged as an unexpected theme among interview participants in
discussions of program characteristics, demonstrating the importance of peer influence on
participant motivation. Accountability or the need or preference for a small group environment to
motivate their participation was mentioned by four of the six interview participants (66%). Two
interview participants mentioned group accountability as a factor absent in self-directed physical
activity opportunities at PCU in which they had less success beginning and persisting in
participating, despite intentions to do so. Interview participants described knowing that
coworkers would be waiting for them to walk to class together as effective in motivating them to
participate on days that they would not have done so on their own, which demonstrates the value
of such communities of continuity for university employees.
Themes relating to the cultural models and cultural settings of the Get Fit program
supported the organizational influences suggested by the literature presented in Chapter 2.
Instructors’ influence on overall success emerged as one of the key aspects of the Get Fit
program. Get Fit instructors imparted knowledge and guided subsequent participant mastery
while creating a welcoming and accepting environment that reduced motivational barriers
associated with anxiety about performance or judgment. Similarly, time to participate was a high
priority need for Get Fit employees, as the literature in Chapter 2 suggested (Abraham et al.,
2011; Kruger et al., 2007). In relating the need for time to the need for a cultural model offering
clear and consistent support for physical activity, surprising themes emerged. For example, the
131
researcher did not anticipate that seven participants (29%) would indicate they either did not
know if their supervisors knew they participated in Get Fit or definitely did not know they
participated in Get Fit. Participants indicated support of one’s supervisor was determined on a
case-by-case basis, even within the same department. While it is unknown if participants
intentionally prevented their supervisors from learning about their participation or if supervisors
were simply unaware, a supervisor’s lack of such knowledge precludes the possibility of
supporting employee participation. However, it also eliminates the possibility of slights if there
is a bias, or perceived bias, against employees working out during the day. Interestingly,
participants’ metacognitive reflections indicated that supervisors generally do not encourage
physical activity, the exception being those who perform physical activity themselves and
personally experience its benefits.
Employment type, job role, and control of one’s schedule were all listed as factors that
affected supervisors’ willingness to support or allow physical activity. Also, employees received
inconsistent email communications from unclear sources, experienced a lack of widespread
agency in scheduling their time, and received conflicting messages from school and university
sources relating to employee participation in physical activity. Participants volunteered that
interventions with mid-level managers could prevent ongoing mixed messages from PCU and
CLS. It was noteworthy that employees recommended educating supervisors about the
performance benefits of physical activity and requiring managers to support flexible time for
employees to participate in physical activity, which supports suggestions in Chapter 2 that such
time for exercise be viewed as a job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). All six interview
participants indicated that all levels of the university would need to be involved for the culture to
change, and managers have unique positionality to spur transformation. Furthermore, half of
132
interview participants indicated PCU should learn what kinds of physical activity interests
employees, indicating employee input is not currently used to create cultural settings that support
meaning and values, which would advance employee investment in cultural change (Berbary &
Malinchak, 2011).
Survey and interview data revealed university employees were highly interested in
participating in workday physical activity programming and aware of the impacts that doing so
had on their physical and mental health, as well as experiences of stress, mood, and work
productivity. Get Fit successfully engaged employees by fostering a welcoming environment of
support, accountability, and acceptance of all levels of fitness, ability, and effort. A well-
qualified instructor who facilitated such an environment and increased employees’ confidence
and mastery of exercises was an essential program component. However, the need for the
university to ensure employees have time to participate without concerns about others’
perceptions of their professionalism and dedication to the organization emerged. In the context of
PCU, employees identified the need for formal timekeeping policies related to physical activity
participation and clear and consistent support across all levels of the university, especially one’s
own department, to establish and grow a culture where physical activity is encouraged, valued,
and widely enjoyed.
Recommendations for Institutions of Higher Education Seeking to Improve Employee
Rates of Workplace Physical Activity
As discussed in Chapter 2, there is a known public health need for reductions in sedentary
behavior and increases in physical activity (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; WHO
Discussion Paper, 2018), and workplaces are an area of high need and potential for behavior
transformations (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; WHO Discussion Paper, 2018).
133
Among workplaces, institutions of higher education often possess diverse resources that uniquely
position them to respond to the need for workplace physical activity programming and to
produce credible research related to the program development, implementation, and assessment
that may occur to inform best practices for the field (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). As participant-
centered research that would inform best practices in university employee physical activity is
still relatively limited (Conn et al., 2009; DeJoy et al., 2014), the goal of this study was to
understand the characteristics of Get Fit, the promising practice that effectively engaged
university employees in physical activity during the workday, to inform recommendations for
program development and implementation more broadly at Pacific Crest University and other
institutions. Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Framework, the literature review
that comprised Chapter 2 informed the selection of influences that were assumed to be relevant
to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of college employees who participate
with Get Fit. Data analysis revealed that the assumed influences were important, with some
representing assets of the Get Fit program, and others requiring further support. Based on
findings of the analysis of these influences on the Get Fit program, the sections that follow
outline recommendations for PCU and other universities seeking to improve employee rates of
workplace physical activity.
Knowledge Recommendations
College Employees Need Knowledge of Available Physical Activity Resources
The results and findings of this study revealed participants had more factual knowledge
of the Get Fit program than the physical activity offerings of the PCU Fitness Center, which
influenced rates of participation. Such knowledge included details of class content, composition
of class participants, cost of participation, ease of accessibility for staff, and the time and location
of program offerings. Although participants understood PCU Fitness Center class options were
134
abundant, their number became overwhelming, and the lack of easily accessible information
presented an impediment to easily trying them, which supports this as a need. Another key
difference in participants’ factual knowledge related to how it was acquired. Participants learned
about Get Fit through word of mouth, while information on PCU options, many of which
changed each semester, had to be proactively sought out by a participant. Several learning
theories are useful to apply to this knowledge need. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) describe
learners as able to more quickly store and accurately remember information that is connected to
their prior knowledge. Additionally, Mayer (2011) states that the integrated use of auditory and
visual information maximizes the working memory capacity of learners. Scott and Palincsar
(2006) posit that social interaction and cooperative learning assist an individual in their
construction of new knowledge. These principles underscore the recommendation that PCU and
other institutions develop informational guides to inform employees about available physical
activity resources. It is recommended that these guides be shared in multiple formats to
encourage repeated exposure to the information, and that distribution be done through existing
commonly used access points in virtual and physical settings to increase the likelihood of
employees encountering the information. Because word of mouth was demonstrated as effective,
informational guides should be easily sharable to encourage employee-to-employee information
dissemination.
Information shared in multiple sensory formats and opportunities for collaborative
learning have successfully enhanced learning in the workforce. A randomized twelve-week study
evaluating the effectiveness of a workplace physical activity intervention revealed that
employees participated more in physical activity when they were exposed to environmental
prompts and educational signage and received guidance from peer leaders in the workplace
135
(Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009). Such social interaction and peer instruction supports learning
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006), and prompts help individuals identify important points (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). Further support for the suggested recommendations can be found in the work
of Plotnikoff and colleagues (2015), who completed a review of literature related to health
behavior interventions among university and college staff. Research revealed that programs with
online and face-to-face contact were more effective in achieving desired outcomes than their
respective control groups. Online educational modules and online reminders were also effective
in improving participant outcomes (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). The results of these studies are
consistent with sociocultural theory that describes the role of social interactions and cooperative
learning to construct new knowledge, including focus on the difference between an individual’s
performance and what they can do with guidance (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). The aforementioned
research supports the recommendation that relevant and site-specific informational guides about
available physical activity resources at PCU be created to increase employee knowledge of
opportunities for physical activity in the workplace. By locating this basic factual information
across a variety of environments of common employee use or exposure in multi-sensory formats
(Mayer, 2011), PCU and others can better support employee knowledge acquisition.
Furthermore, by creating information resources that employees can easily access and share with
one another, universities would support employees serving as trusted knowledge resources for
one another, bolstering their own knowledge retention in the process (Scott & Palincsar, 2006).
College Employees Need Knowledge of One’s Physical Activity and Perceived Impacts
As discussed previously, factual knowledge of the negative health impacts of sedentary
behavior has not proven sufficiently motivating to change behaviors (PA Guidelines Advisory
Committee, 2018), suggesting a need to prompt employee consideration of the associated
136
positive impacts they experience when performing physical activity. Engaging survey and
interview participants in thought about their own levels of physical activity and whether and how
physical activity influences their work performance revealed high levels of metacognition by
participants, particularly in relation to positive impacts on mood, stress, and productivity.
Participants’ metacognition demonstrated the need for such connections to be understood by
employees to inform their own continued participation. Principles from metacognitive theory and
social cognitive theory inform recommendations to address this influence. This combination
reflects an understanding that social ecological models are suggested to most effectively address
sedentary health behavior (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). Learning and motivation
are enhanced when learners set goals, monitor their performance, and evaluate their progress
toward achieving their goals (Ambrose et al., 2010; Mayer, 2011). Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the model is credible, similar (e.g. gender, culturally appropriate), and the
behavior has functional value (Denler et al., 2009). As such, the recommendations for PCU and
other institutions are as follows: (a) provide opportunities for individual journaling and
reflection, as well as group discussion about individual observations about trends in activity,
mood, and work performance; (b) recruit peer leaders who will model self-reflection and
encourage and sustain activities wherein individuals are supported in their own self-reflection
and goal setting; and (c) develop goals and timeframes for individual check-ins to note changes,
progress, setbacks, and to monitor the impact of self-reflection and assessment on employee
behaviors and outcomes.
The effectiveness of the modeling of metacognitive practice by credible peers in assisting
learners in their own metacognitive processes informs the recommendations above (Denler et al.,
2009). Metacognition will be supported by the establishment of peer groups and appointment of
137
leaders to encourage self-reflective behaviors (Baker, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Furthermore, having
peer groups conduct ongoing discussions that foster dialogue about the impact of physical
activity on each individual employee and the broader organization also promotes metacognition
(Baker, 2006; Mayer, 2011). A meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions
conducted by Conn and colleagues (2009) revealed that interventions that focused on participant
reflection revealed improvements in mood and quality of life with physical activity more than
reflection by those who did not perform physical activity. A separate study examining the
outcomes of midday exercise on employees revealed that those who performed exercise in the
middle of the day reported improved attitudes in the workplace, including in relation to their own
work and their colleagues (Coulson et al., 2008). Providing participants with opportunities to
reflect on their performance and its impacts as in the aforementioned study supports
metacognition (Ambrose et al., 2010; Mayer, 2011). Given the demonstrated effects of
workplace physical activity and the overwhelming benefits participants described, which also
influence their motivation to participate, engaging college employees in thinking about their
productivity and mood after physical activity is recommended. Inviting those who have yet to
participate in physical activity to hear the reflections of trusted peers with experience may also
promote their interest and understanding of physical activity’s utility value in addition to
knowledge acquisition.
Motivation Recommendations
College Employees Need to Believe They Know How to Successfully Perform Physical Activity
Employees need to believe they can successfully perform exercises featured in worksite
programs. Participants’ survey and interview data indicated a lack of self-efficacy beliefs
presented a barrier to engagement in physical activity, and that instructor modeling and
performance feedback assisted their development of self-efficacy beliefs. According to the work
138
of Pajares (2006), a high sense of self-efficacy can positively influence motivation, and feedback
and modeling increase self-efficacy. These theoretical principles inform the following
recommendations to improve employee self-efficacy beliefs around exercise: (a) provide
employees with specific physical activity instruction that incorporates modeled movement and
(b) provide employees with opportunities to replicate exercises and receive feedback to help lead
to mastery.
In self-efficacy theory, one’s beliefs about their capacity to learn or perform an action
influences the outcome of attempts at learning or actions (Pajares, 2006). Unless an individual
believes that their actions can produce a desired outcome, they have little incentive to act or to
persevere in the face of hardship when attempting an activity (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy
beliefs can be influenced by several sources, including mastery experiences, the vicarious
experience of observing others attempt a task, social persuasion, and one’s physiological or
emotional states (Pajares, 2006). Offering employees mastery experiences that may incorporate
social persuasion and vicarious modeling by instructors, or other employee participants,
enhances opportunities to develop positive self-efficacy beliefs about one’s ability to perform a
given exercise (Pajares, 2006). Research into effective workplace physical activity interventions
supports opportunities to influence employees’ self-efficacy beliefs. Pronk and Kottke (2009)
conducted a survey of literature and evaluation of two case studies regarding physical activity
promotion in business. Their research findings led them to conclude that employee physical
activity programming should be concurrently supported at the individual, organizational, and
environmental levels (Pronk & Kottke, 2009). The authors cite the need for programming that is
“tailored and targeted” (p. 320) to reach all employees, regardless of existing level of fitness and
physical activity. A separate systematic review of 17 health interventions targeting university
139
and college employees revealed that interventions tailored to individuals were the most effective,
with one such intervention leading to significant improvement in anxiety, self-efficacy, and
social support (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). Providing tailored physical activity instruction and
targeted opportunities for feedback and support of employee mastery goals will support
increased employee self-efficacy.
College Employees Must Find Value in Engaging in Physical Activity that Exceeds Perceived
Costs
Expectancy value theory examines whether one can perform a task, and whether they
want to perform the task, which depends on an individual’s beliefs about the value of the task
(Eccles, 2006). Survey responses and interview data supported the need to account for employee
expectancy value in consideration of workplace physical activity programming. As described in
Chapter 4, all four aspects of expectancy value—intrinsic, utility, cost, and attribution (Eccles,
2006)—were represented in employee data in relation to choices to engage in physical activity at
PCU. Research revealed that participants found intrinsic value in Get Fit programming and
understood the utility of their participation for the improvement of both personal and health
outcomes. However, participants’ perceptions of the possible cost of participation to one’s
esteem as a professional and attributions of control of one’s participation to external sources
were expectancy value assessments that could pose barriers to participation. Both data and
theoretical principles informed recommendations. For example, learning and motivation are
enhanced when a learner values a task (Eccles, 2006). Discussing the value of a task can also
help motivation engagement (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). The first recommendation is to use
team-level messaging to support employees electing to perform physical activity during the
workday to assuage concerns about the negative cost of participation. The second
140
recommendation is to communicate the utility value of physical activity in improving workers’
performance and mood, in addition to health benefits.
Modeling value, enthusiasm, and interest in a task, as well as having high expectations
that a task can successfully be completed, can help a learner increase motivation (Eccles, 2006).
Communicating the utility value of physical activity participation to employees and the
organization overall, and encouraging employees to successfully perform physical activity in the
workplace, builds on these theoretical principles. Empirical studies of workplace physical
activity interventions support this motivational approach. A meta-analysis of 18 articles
addressing workplace health promotion programs and factors that influence their effectiveness
revealed that programs that contacted participants at least once per week were almost four times
more effective than others (Rongen et al., 2013). Similar results occurred in a randomized
twelve-week workplace physical activity trial intervention examining more than 1400 employees
across 16 locations (Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009). Employees who participated in the physical
activity interventions received overt support from senior managers at the program’s outset and
middle managers were also asked to support employee participation. Furthermore, team-level
coordinators were selected to represent each team on a program steering committee and
communicate with their respective teams. Group and organizational goals were established, and
incentives were offered for their achievement. Finally, environmental prompts such as signage
that encouraged physical activity and its health benefits also supported participants selected for
the intervention (Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009). Participants in the intervention surpassed
members of the control group in meeting or exceeding pre-established physical activity goals. An
additional example supporting the recommendations relating to expectancy value is found in an
analysis of 17 university and college employee physical activity interventions. The research
141
revealed that weekly email reminders, motivational messaging relating to programming,
coaching and goal-setting, and team competitions were all effective in increasing rates of
physical activity participation (Plotnikoff et al., 2015). The results from the aforementioned
literature support the recommendations to implement team-level messaging encouraging
employee physical activity and to emphasize the utility value of physical activity in messaging
that supports their participation.
Organization Recommendations
The Organization Needs a Culture of Clear and Consistent Support for Health Promotion
As demonstrated in the preceding motivational influences, participant data indicated
organizational culture played a prominent role in employee engagement with physical activity
and their perceptions of its acceptability. An organizational communication framework was
selected as the most appropriate theoretical framework to address this cultural model.
Researchers describe effective change efforts as those that are communicated regularly and
frequently to stakeholders (Conger, 1991; Denning, 2005; Lewis, 2011). For their part, effective
leaders understand the intricacies of organizational communication (Fix & Sias, 2006).
Therefore, organizational leaders must make efforts to communicate the change to the cultural
model to stakeholders across the university. Recommendations are to create a communications
plan that flows from senior leaders downward emphasizing the institution’s interest in and
support of employee physical activity, and to use existing campus resources and informal and
formal communication infrastructure to disseminate, repeat, and reinforce the institution’s
culture of health promotion.
Organizational theory posits that whether or not an organizational change is sustained
depends on prevailing conditions when a change is introduced, including an organization’s
culture and climate (Schneider et al., 1996). In their article discussing the importance of
142
developing and implementing worksite health promotion programs to reduce the prevalence of
non-communicable disease, Cahalin and colleagues (2015) describe the essential role of senior
leadership’s support for health promotion efforts at the launch of workplace programming.
Furthermore, the authors state that support for health promotion within an organization must
begin with senior leadership and then disseminate to every level of management to establish an
environment—or cultural model—where employees “feel supported in choosing to participate”
(Cahalin et al., 2015, p. 98). A randomized twelve-week workplace intervention that analyzed
participation and impressions of more than 1400 employees across 16 worksites also supports
these recommendations (Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009). The study specifically established
organizational support for the workplace intervention by having senior management endorse the
programming at its launch and encouraging middle management to likewise show support. A
joint employee-manager steering committee at each site was responsible for program
implementation. Employees took a survey that used a Likert scale to assess employees’
perceptions of management support for their physical activity and participation in workplace
physical activity. Results showed that the perceptions of management support increased among
employees who were members of the intervention groups, while no change occurred for those in
the control group (Dishman, DeJoy, et al., 2009). Furthermore, in their article describing
workplace health promotion’s impact on improving employee health and organizational function,
Pronk and Kottke (2009) describe how managers at all levels can influence rates of employee
participation in workplace health interventions by communicating their value through both their
words and actions. These studies affirm the importance of establishing a cultural model where
health promotion is widely supported by management. Therefore, it is recommended that
143
university leaders clearly and repeatedly communicate and visibly demonstrate support for
university health programs and expect those they manage to do the same.
The Organization Needs a Culture of Willingness to Change Existing Behavior Patterns
In their survey responses and interviews, study participants indicated the importance of
change to existing organizational behavior norms to encourage more employees to participate in
workday physical activity. Participants offered suggestions for engaging senior leadership,
middle management, and local departments in change efforts, indicating it would be possible if
all levels were involved. Organizational leadership theory and organizational communication
theory inform recommendations to support the establishment of this cultural model to increase
support for employee engagement in workplace physical activity. Leaders who identify and
articulate their organization’s vision and guide efforts to achieve that vision influence improved
organizational performance (Knowles, 1980; Schein, 2017). Additionally, effective leaders
recognize and understand the range of communications and messaging, whether verbal or
nonverbal, personal or organizational, formal or informal, that affect an organizational
environment and impact change (Conger, 1991; Denning, 2005; Lewis, 2011). As such, the
context-specific recommendations that follow capitalize on communicating a new cultural model
across the organization. The first recommendation is to analyze and evaluate existing campus
culture to estimate change-readiness among key campus stakeholders. The second
recommendation is to have campus leaders repeatedly communicate the need for change and
their support of such change, which will be demonstrated by a provision of resources for the
change. A final recommendation is to identify and recruit “local level” leaders among staff and
faculty to promote the message of the need for this cultural model and overarching
organizational support for the change.
144
Attitudes and shared cultural practices are components of cultural models (Schein, 2017).
As such, it is necessary for employees to be willing to change behaviors and adopt workplace
physical activity as a new cultural practice for the change to occur and endure. In their meta-
analysis of studies on workplace physical activity interventions from 1969 through 2007, Conn
and her colleagues (2009) found that participants in physical activity programming designed by
members inside the organization experienced improved fitness levels compared to those who
participated in interventions designed by someone from outside the organization. The research of
Pronk and Kottke (2009) supports the need for employee involvement in physical activity change
efforts, as they suggest employee participation in the development, implementation, and
evaluation of workplace programming is a best practice and, therefore, highly recommended for
programmatic success. After analyzing aggregated responses to multiple years’ National Health
Surveys, DeJoy et al. (2014) suggest that it is necessary to understand the attitudes and
perspectives of employees to gain employee participation in an intervention. As organizational
change theory suggests, to encourage employee adoption of new expectations for workplace
physical activity, it will be necessary to deliver consistent organizational messaging, to support
employees with staff resources, and to trust that employees will solidify the organization’s new
cultural values through their own adoption of attitudes and behaviors that support and accept
workplace physical activity (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011). The recommendations are to assess
change readiness, provide resources that support the change, and build partnerships with
stakeholders to promote the change align with the broad scope of efforts needed to address this
organizational influence.
145
The Organization Needs to Provide Employees with Time to Participate in Physical Activity
Interventions
In both their survey responses and interview commentary, study participants
overwhelmingly indicated time to exercise influenced employee participation. Sufficient time to
exercise played an essential role in the expectancy value motivation influence discussed above.
In discussing cultural models of the university, participants indicated approval of flexible time as
the most prominent aspect of support university leaders should provide to encourage more
employees to participate in physical activity programming. Organizational change theories
undergird the three recommendations made to change this cultural setting for PCU and similar
institutions. In their extensive writing on improving organizational effectiveness, Clark and Estes
(2008) discuss the need for organizations to ensure that organizational messages, policies,
procedures, and rewards align with stated organizational goals and values. The authors also state
that, for change efforts to be effective, organizations must provide the resources of time,
equipment, and personnel to support employees in achieving their performance goals. Based on
the goal of engaging more university employees in physical activity, time is highlighted as a
resource of particular need for the change to be successful. As such, the following three
recommendations are advised for this context. The first recommendation is to perform an impact
study on effects of changing timekeeping policy and procedure as it relates to physical activity.
Next, if possible, change policy so that employee time is flexible for physical activity. Finally,
evaluate on-campus physical activity service provision to determine where improvements in
efficiency for employees might be possible.
It is necessary to remove barriers to change for change to occur (Kotter, 2007).
Therefore, it is necessary to remove barriers to employees’ controlling their time throughout the
146
workday to allow them to allot time to physical activity participation. An evaluation of an
exercise intervention at a public university system in the Midwestern United States determined
that total time of exercise, proximity to one’s home or workplace, and convenience of facility use
were significant factors in employee participation (Abraham et al., 2011). Similarly, in a study
examining employee attitudes toward barriers and incentives to participating in workplace health
promotion interventions, employees reported a lack of time before, during, and after work as the
greatest impediment to their participation (Kruger et al., 2007). By contrast, employees cited
paid time off to participate as the most significant incentive to elicit their participation (Kruger et
al., 2007). Additional research into employee attitudes describes employees’ concerns that
engaging in physical activity during the workday may contribute to their colleagues or
supervisors perceiving their work ethic or performance negatively (Coulson et al., 2008; Röttger
et al., 2017). Recommendations to formally change timekeeping policies to grant employees
control of their time and have supervisors promote schedule flexibility among their employees
will help address this influence. Additionally, working to ensure resources are in place to make
physical activity offerings efficient and widely available or convenient will support providing
employees with sufficient time to engage in physical activity.
The Organization Needs Employee Physical Activity Programming
The insights gleaned from participant data supported physical activity programming and
accompanying resources across areas including cost, convenience, physical facilities, and
coaching as important to the success of the program and in encouraging participation among a
diverse swath of employees. As data revealed, the Get Fit program was able to engage PCU
employees who did not engage in physical activity at PCU previously, which indicates the
importance of understanding the program characteristics that influence participation. As with the
147
preceding cultural setting, an organizational change framework informs recommendations. To
transform a cultural setting, adequate resources must be available to those who will help the
organization meet its vision and goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Recommendations, therefore, aim
to account for necessary resources. The first recommendation is to evaluate on-campus physical
activity programming, including instruction, equipment availability, and recreation center
policies, to determine possible areas for improvement. The second recommendation is to use data
from the initial evaluation to adjust and improve physical activity programming in line with
employee needs.
Employee physical activity programming must be afforded status as a necessary job
resource by the organization and employees (Schneider et al., 1996). The many positive health
(Alkhatib, 2015; WHO Discussion Paper, 2018), performance, mood (Coulson et al., 2008; Puig-
Ribera et al., 2015; Sjøgaard et al., 2016) and retention impacts (Huber et al., 2015) of physical
activity make programming an investment in the overall success of the organization (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). A meta-analysis of 26 workplace physical activity interventions indicated
that many were ineffective due to a lack of making optimal use of environmental and
organizational resources in the intervention programming (Dishman DeJoy, et al., 1998). Pronk
and Kottke (2009) describe the need for worksite interventions to be tailored to a specific
worksite. In an analysis of seventeen physical activity interventions among university
employees, the evidence revealed that three interventions in which participants significantly
improved their physical activity involved the use of existing campus resources and facilities
(Plotnikoff et al., 2015). Based on these results, the authors expanded upon the list of resources
typically available at colleges and universities that might be utilized in effective interventions,
including technology and accompanying support, and fitness and health professionals with
148
expertise. While many colleges and universities have the potential to use or augment existing
resources, the organizational will must exist to recognize employee physical activity
programming as a need and to allocate resources accordingly for organizational performance
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Evaluating existing programming
and offering or improving programming said programming is, therefore, necessary to address
this organizational influence.
Implications for Future Research
As previously discussed, the need for further research into effective ways to reduce
sedentary behavior and engage people in physical activity is well known, as is the need for
workplace physical activity studies. Extensive literature exists describing the specific needs for
improved study designs; study rigor; participant diversity; longitudinal tracking; integration of
behavioral change and other theoretical approaches; and reporting of results; among other needs.
As such, suggestions offered here resulted specifically from this promising practice study and its
data analysis.
One area that warrants further investigation involves the use of fitness technology and its
influence in encouraging physical activity participation and reducing sedentary behavior. The use
of fitness technology is an area of suggested and current research in health promotion and
preventive medicine (PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018), given its potential to reach a
large number of people with fitness information, prompts, and data. In the context of this study,
results were mixed among participants in terms whether or not they used fitness applications and
the level of influence that fitness technology had on their physical activity behaviors and
decisions. Interview participants indicated that they did not use fitness app technology in relation
to their participation in organized Get Fit classes, which may suggest the need to investigate
149
whether engaging employees through fitness apps would be likely to engage a different subset of
employees, since overall usage was mixed. While it was assumed fitness technology would only
assist in promoting physical activity participation, one interview participant mentioned the
incremental achievement-based notifications that applications generate as push notifications to
be a way for people to feel they were doing something when they were not actually working
hard. Exploration of the perceptions of university employees who use fitness applications for
step tracking and similar aims, but who do not exercise otherwise, relating to their own physical
activity may provide interesting launch points for research and opportunities to engage new
participants through technology.
In their estimations of how to most effectively engage more employees in physical
activity, study participants described involving middle managers in more active roles in cultural
change efforts by having senior administrators encourage or mandate that middle managers
support flexible time for employee participation in physical activity. Similarly, middle managers
were tapped by participants to transmit communications from university leaders and exercise
facilitators to their employees. Research exploring the perspectives of middle managers relating
to employee physical activity may reveal attitudes that are currently unknown. Understanding the
influences on managers’ perceptions of employee physical activity and their own job
performance may also yield interesting data. While flexible time and permission to participate
was much desired by employees, managers’ perspectives on the pressures they may face to
enforce timekeeping policies are unknown. Federal and local labor laws may hinder the
availability of managers and senior administrators to formally decree acceptance of flexible
timekeeping. If flexible time as a policy is not possible, investigation of whether and how to
150
communicate the acceptability of a de facto organizational norm without public comment may be
informative for future efforts to support employee exercise.
Another research consideration relating to managers involves a suggestion that only those
managers who exercise themselves, whether at PCU or elsewhere, understand the benefits for
employees. If growing managers’ metacognitive knowledge would improve their support of
employees, a managers’ exercise training and reflection session may be helpful. It also may be
necessary to understand employee and manager feelings about their comfort levels working out
with supervisors or subordinates. Several interview participants mentioned the discomfort they
experience working out with students nearby or in the same class. However, some of the same
participants indicated that an employee-only class encouraged camaraderie because participants
understand each other’s basic lives and job stresses. While one interview participant mentioned
someone in a managerial position going to Get Fit as informing her understanding that it was
acceptable to participate, it is unclear if anyone’s direct supervisor ever attended Get Fit sessions,
and, if they did, if employees experienced discomfort or felt restricted, or, conversely,
encouraged and supported. Further research would enable thoughtful design of program
constituencies to encourage participation.
Another area of possible investigation arose from consideration of the Get Fit as an
ongoing program rather than a physical activity intervention. Recommendations for knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors lean toward engaging new participants in a program and
offering supports to promote retention. However, for those who are already participating,
additional information or opportunities for engagement may not be ideal. For example, concerns
regarding time were ubiquitous for participants. While journaling and reflection may spur the
metacognition of participants who are just beginning to explore exercising, and email messages
151
may give new information to those who are not aware of current fitness offerings, investigation
of the threshold that would cause such communication to function as a burden for employees
rather than an aid would be helpful in planning and executing effective communication.
Similarly, participants indicated that the current size of typical classes was ideal. While interview
participants shared the sentiment that more, if not all, PCU employees should be exercising, it is
unclear how to scale up a program for more participants without losing the characteristics that
make it work for current participants.
When discussing participation in physical activity, interview participants indicated their
understanding that opportunities to participate varied by job role, employment type, schedule,
location, and access to programming or gyms (Blackwell & Clark, 2016). Concerns about health
equity and access to physical activity programming (Conn et al., 2009; WHO Discussion Paper,
2018) may be particularly important for universities to confront, given the themes of societal
improvement, including equity and access, that frequently are found in university mission
statements. Considering how to make programming available to and feasible for the most PCU
employees, and/or employees of non-traditional shifts in other disciplines, could help many gain
access to opportunities to improve their own health.
One consideration not addressed in adequate depth in this study was the impact of cost as
an incentive to participation. Benchmarking whether free classes incentivize employee
participation at other universities may prove useful in informing the role of cost as a barrier.
Investigating the threshold at which cost would become a barrier for participation may also be
useful in determining how to feasibly offer a program to more university employees. Similarly,
conducting cost-benefit analyses related to the cost of hiring additional instructors and whether
the use of adjunct faculty instructors may reduce cost when compared to hiring full-time staff
152
instructors may provide insight into avenues for cost savings for universities. More importantly,
literature suggests the need for organizations to conduct overarching cost-benefit analyses of the
costs associated with successfully engaging employees in health behaviors like physical activity
to prevent future health care costs versus incurring such costs in the future. If supporting such
programming makes financial sense in addition to upholding missions and stated support for
employees, universities would be even more incentivized to promote culture change.
Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic must be highlighted as an area rich with research
opportunities in relation to physical activity. Instructors of the Get Fit program and other
physical activity instructors worked to transition physical activity programming to online formats
to continue to engage people who would typically use on-campus facilities. Some online fitness
classes were offered live and others asynchronously, which offers interesting variables to
consider in examining rates of employee engagement. If online physical activity offerings
engaged similar class sizes and/or reached new participants, online course offerings would offer
a scalable platform to address the problem of university employee sedentary behavior. Research
into the challenges and successes found in developing and offering online physical activity
courses, and recommendations for sustained engagement of participants, whether through online
platforms or a hybrid model, could potentially inform cost-effective methods to serve a large
quantity of university employees without increasing the need for on-campus physical resources
to do so.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that affect college employee participation in a workplace physical
activity program to inform recommendations for other universities seeking to address the need to
153
reduce employee sedentary behavior and increase employee physical activity. This study utilized
the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) to create a conceptual framework that
reflected the interactions of the physical activity program in the larger context of the university,
and in relation to employee knowledge and motivation. A social ecological framework model
(PA Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018) was also used to analyze broad themes informed by
participant data in this study. The application of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
change theory to the survey and interview data resulted in conclusions being drawn about the
assets and needs of university employees to facilitate workday physical activity program
participation. With adequate organizational support and well-planned and implemented
instructor-led programming, a wide range of college employees were able to access and
participate in a midday physical activity break. Employees’ reports of the positive effects of the
exercise on their stress levels, mood, and affect in the workplace after participation, in addition
to physical and mental health, suggest that midday physical activity interventions of modest
resources can have a significant impact on organizational performance. The recommendations
presented may assist those tasked with planning or implementing a workday physical activity
program by suggesting avenues for further exploration to prevent avoidable negative health
impacts among university employees.
154
References
2008 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for
Americans. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.
https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/paguide.pdf
2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines
Advisory Committee scientific report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2018. https://health.gov/paguidelines/second-
edition/report/pdf/PAG_Advisory_Committee_Report.pdf
Abraham, J. M., Feldman, R., Nyman, J. A., & Barleen, N. (2011). What factors influence
participation in an exercise-focused, employer-based wellness program? Inquiry, 48(3),
221–241. https://doi.org/10.5034/inquiryjrnl_48.03.01
Alkhatib, A. (2015). High prevalence of sedentary risk factors amongst university employees and
potential health benefits of campus workplace exercise intervention. Work, 52(3), 589–
595. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152182
American College of Sports Medicine. (2020, June). ACSM Information on High-Intensity
Interval Training. https://www.acsm.org/docs/default-source/files-for-resource-
library/high-intensity-interval-training.pdf?sfvrsn=b0f72be6_2
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works:
Seven research-based principles for smart teaching (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. http://www.education.com/reference/article/ metacognition.
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (April 2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
155
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or
article (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990, November–December). Why change programs
don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158–166.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, May–June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78(3), 133–141.
Belsky, S. (2012). Making ideas happen: Overcoming the obstacles between vision and reality.
Penguin Group.
Berbary, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, 40(3) 55–59.
Blackwell, D. L., & Clarke, T. C. (2016). Occupational differences among employed
adults who met 2008 federal guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening
activities: United States, 2008–2014 (National Health Statistics Reports Number 94).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
https://permanent.fdlp.gov/gpo77566/nhsr094.pdf
Cahalin, L., Kaminsky, L., Lavie, C., Briggs, P., Cahalin, B., Myers, J., Forman, D., Patel, M.,
Pinkstaff, S., & Arena, R. (2015). Development and implementation of worksite health
and wellness programs: A focus on non-communicable disease. Progress in
Cardiovascular Diseases, 58(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2015.04.001
156
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Conn, V., Hafdahl, A., Cooper, P., Brown, L., & Lusk, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of workplace
physical activity interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(4), 330–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.00
Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. The Executive, 5(1), 31–45.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274713
Coulson, J. C., McKenna, J., & Field, M. (2008). Exercising at work and self-reported work
performance. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 1(3), 176–197.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative. Jossey-Bass.
DeJoy, D., Dyal, M., Padilla, H., & Wilson, M. (2014). National workplace health promotion
surveys: The Affordable Care Act and future surveys. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 28(3), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.121212-CIT-602
Dishman, R., DeJoy, D., Wilson, M., & Vandenberg, R. (2009). Move to Improve: A
randomized workplace trial to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 36(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.038
157
Dishman, R., Oldenburg, B., O’Neal, H., & Shephard, R. (1998). Worksite physical activity
interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15(4), 344–361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00077-4
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory
Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and
employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 35–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500535855
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) Pearson.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee motivation.
Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), 64–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368702034005010
Huber, M., Lechner, M., & Wunsch, C. (2015). Workplace health promotion and labour market
performance of employees. Journal of Health Economics, 43, 170–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.07.002
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (part 1of 3) (REL 2016-163). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
158
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.) Sage Publications.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy
(Rev. and Updated.). Association Press.
Kotter, J. P. (January 2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1).
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice:
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy, 41(4) 212–218.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kruger, J., Yore, M., Bauer, D., & Kohl, H. (2007). Selected barriers and incentives for worksite
health promotion services and policies. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(5),
439–447. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-21.5.439
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Wiley-Blackwell.
León-Latre, M., Moreno-Franco, B., Andrés-Esteban, E., Ledesma, M., Laclaustra, M., Alcalde,
V., Peñalvo, J., Ordovás, J., & Casasnovas, J. (2014). Sedentary lifestyle and its relation
to cardiovascular risk factors, insulin resistance and inflammatory profile. Revista
Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 67(6), 449–455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2013.10.015
159
Loeppke, R., Taitel, M., Richling, D., Parry, T., Kessler, R., Hymel, P., & Konicki, D. (2007).
Health and productivity as a business strategy. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 49(7), 712–721.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318133a4be
Matthews, C., Chen, K., Freedson, P., Buchowski, M., Beech, B., Pate, R., & Troiano, R. (2008).
Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003–2004. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 167(7), 875–881. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm390
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66–74.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010316226
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259200
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/ reference/article/self-
efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
160
Pedersen, C., Halvari, H., & Williams, G. (2018). Worksite intervention effects on motivation,
physical activity, and health: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Sport
& Exercise, 35, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.11.004
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Plotnikoff, R., Collins, C., Williams, R., Germov, J., & Callister, R. (2015). Effectiveness of
interventions targeting health behaviors in university and college staff: A systematic
review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 29(5), e169–e187.
https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.130619-LIT-313
Pronk, N., & Kottke, T. (2009). Physical activity promotion as a strategic corporate priority to
improve worker health and business performance. Preventive Medicine, 49(4), 316–321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.06.025
Puig-Ribera, A., Martínez-Lemos, I., Giné-Garriga, M., González-Suárez, Á., Bort-Roig, J.,
Fortuño, J., Muñoz-Ortiz, L., McKenna, J., & Gilson, N. (2015). Self-reported sitting
time and physical activity: Interactive associations with mental well-being and
productivity in office employees. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 72.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1447-5
Robinson, S. B. & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617
161
Rongen, A., Robroek, S., van Lenthe, J., & Burdorf, A. (2013). Workplace health promotion: A
meta-analysis of effectiveness. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(4) 406–415.
Röttger, S., Maier, J., Krex-Brinkmann, L., Kowalski, J., Krick, A., Felfe, J., & Stein, M. (2017).
Social cognitive aspects of the participation in workplace health promotion as revealed by
the theory of planned behavior. Preventive Medicine, 105, 104–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.09.004
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4
th
ed.). Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5
th
Edition). John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. http://www.education.
com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
162
Sjøgaard, G., Christensen, J., Justesen, J., Murray, M., Dalager, T., Fredslund, G., & Søgaard, K.
(2016). Exercise is more than medicine: The working age population’s well-being and
productivity. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 5(2), 159–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2016.04.004
Thygeson, N. (2010). A health plan perspective on worksite-based health promotion programs.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(2), S226–S228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.004
Tremblay, M., Aubert, S., Barnes, J., Saunders, T., Carson, V., Latimer-Cheung, A., Chastin, S.,
Altenburg, T., Koster, A., & Chinapaw, M. (2017). Sedentary Behavior Research
Network (SBRN) - Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. The
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8
World Health Organization. (2018, April 9). Discussion paper: Physical activity for health:
More active people for a healthier world: Draft global action plan on physical activity
2018–2030, April 2018. http://www.who.int/ncds/governance/who-discussion-paper-
gappa-
9april2018.pdf?ua=1http://www.who.int/ncds/governance/physical_activity_plan/en/
World Health Organization. (2018). Fact sheet on physical activity 2018.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs385/en/
163
Appendix A
Social Ecological Framework
Adapted from 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee scientific report, by U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2018 (https://health.gov/paguidelines/second-edition
/report/ second edition/report/pdf/PAG_Advisory_Committee_Report.pdf). In the public domain.
164
Appendix B
Survey Items
Questions and Items and Available Responses
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this brief survey.
Your responses will contribute to dissertation research examining physical activity in the
workplace. By completing the survey, you consent to the use of your responses in this specific
research.
Please note that all survey responses are anonymous and no personally identifying information
will be associated with survey responses.
Thank you!
165
1. Please select the range that best describes your age
o 18 - 19
o 20 - 30
o 31 - 40
o 41 - 50
o 51 - 60
o 61 - 70
o 70+
o Decline to state
2. Please select your gender
o Male
o Female
o Non-binary
o Decline to state
o Other
166
3. How many years have you worked for PCU?
o Less than one year
o 1 - 5 years
o 6 - 10 years
o 11 - 15 years
o 16 - 20 years
o More than 20 years
o Decline to state
4. How many years have you worked for CLS?
o Less than one year
o 1 - 5 years
o 6 - 10 years
o 11 - 15 years
o 16 - 20 years
o More than 20 years
o Decline to state
167
5. In a typical work week, how many days do you participate in Get Fit?
o I do not participate regularly
o About once per week
o 2 times per week
o 3 times per week
o 4 times per week
6. In a typical work week, how many days do you participate in physical activity on campus
other than Get Fit?
o I do not participate regularly
o About once per week
o 2 times per week
o 3 times per week
o 4 times per week
o Every day
168
7. NOT including during Get Fit, which of the following university resources do you utilize to
perform moderate to strenuous physical activity during the workday? Select all that apply.
o Locker Room
o Shower Facilities
o Instructor-led workout sessions using university facilities and equipment
o Workout equipment and machinery (e.g. treadmill, elliptical machine, free weights,
circuit machines, stationary bicycles, yoga mats)
o Campus physical and recreational facilities (e.g. pools, tennis courts, basketball courts,
volleyball courts, gymnasia, track and field)
o I do not use university resources to perform physical activity during the workday outside
of CLS offerings
8. Including Get Fit and all other activities, on average, how much time do you spend engaged in
moderate to strenuous physical activity each week?
o Fewer than 30 minutes
o 31 - 45 minutes
o 46 minutes - 1 hour
o 1.5 - 3 hours
o 3.5 - 5 hours
o 5.5 - 7 hours
o More than 7 hours per week
169
9. How did you learn about Get Fit? Select all that apply.
o Friend/Coworker
o CLS email about the program
o CLS advertisement for the program
o Internet search
o Saw a session underway and inquired
o Boss/Manager/Supervisor
o Department/office announcement
o Other (please describe) ________________________________________________
10. What are the primary reasons you participate in CLS's Get
Fit?________________________________________________________________
170
11. How influential is each of the following factors on your ongoing participation in CLS's Get
Fit with 1 being not influential at all and 10 being very influential?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Camaraderie with other participants
Coaching
Enthusiasm of instructors
Desire to be fit
Desire to lose weight
Schedule flexibility
Support of my supervisor(s)/manager(s)
12. How influential is each of the following factors on your ongoing participation in CLS's Get
Fit with 1 being not influential at all and 10 being very influential?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maintaining mental well-being
Maintaining emotional well-being
Preventing health problems
Participating in an activity with
colleagues/co-workers
Benefiting from university resources
Cost of participation
Convenience of location
Other (please describe)
171
13. To what extent does your level of physical activity affect the following?
Not at all A little
To Some
Extent
To a Great
Extent
My work
performance
o o o o
My mood
o o o o
My interactions
with my
colleagues
o o o o
How I feel about
my job
o o o o
172
14. For each item below, how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I don't
know
I know how to perform a variety of
muscle strengthening and endurance
exercises
o o o o o
Get Fit has increased my knowledge
of muscle strengthening and
endurance exercises
o o o o o
Get Fit has helped me to improve
my performance of muscle
strengthening and endurance
exercises
o o o o o
My direct supervisor is aware I
participate in Get Fit
o o o o o
My direct supervisor allows me to
take flexible or extended breaks to
participate in Get Fit
o o o o o
My coworkers are aware that I
participate in Get Fit
o o o o o
I worry my coworkers have a
negative perception of my physical
activity breaks
o o o o o
I am permitted to take time to
engage in physical activity during
the workday
o o o o o
It is easy and convenient to change
clothes before and after Get Fit
o o o o o
It is easy and convenient to shower
after Get Fit
o o o o o
173
15. Prior to your current position, have you worked for PCU outside of CLS?
o Yes
o No
*Skip To: Question 20 If Prior to your current position, have you worked for PCU outside
of CLS? = No
16. Did you participate in physical activity on site at PCU while employed in your previous job?
o Yes
o No
*Skip To: Question 19 If Did you participate in physical activity on site at PCU while
employed in your previous job? = No
17. In your previous role with PCU, on average, in a typical work week, how many days did you
participate in physical activity on campus?
o I did not participate regularly
o About once per week
o 2 times per week
o 3 times per week
o 4 times per week
o Every day
174
18. In your previous role with PCU, which of the following university resources did you utilize
to perform moderate to strenuous physical activity during the workday? Select all that apply.
o Locker Room
o Shower facilities
o Instructor-led workout sessions using university facilities and equipment
o Workout equipment and machinery (e.g. treadmill, elliptical machine, free weights,
circuit machines, stationary bicycles, yoga mats)
o Campus physical and recreational facilities (e.g. pools, tennis courts, basketball courts,
volleyball courts, gymnasia, track and field)
o I did not use university resources to perform physical activity during the workday
19. In thinking about your previous experience at PCU, how much do you disagree or agree with
the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I don't
know
My department encouraged
employees to be physically
active during the workday.
o o o o o
My direct supervisor
allowed me to take flexible
or extended breaks to
engage in physical activity.
o o o o o
175
20. Given your cumulative PCU work experience, how much do you disagree or agree with the
following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I don't
know
Overall, CLS supports
employee participation in
physical activity.
o o o o o
Overall, PCU supports
employee participation in
physical activity.
o o o o o
21. How likely are you to recommend Get Fit participation to a coworker?
o Very likely
o Likely
o Unlikely
o Very unlikely
22. How likely would you be to participate in another program that is similar to Get Fit in the
future?
o Very likely
o Likely
o Unlikely
o Very unlikely
23. Do you use fitness app technology?
o Yes
o No
*Skip To: Question 26 If Do you use fitness app technology? = No
176
24. If yes, which of the following do you use? Select all that apply.
o Wearable device (FitBit, Apple Watch, etc.)
o Fitness tracking app
o Online group support with other people
o Other (please describe) _______________________________
25. How often does your use of fitness app technology contribute to the likelihood you will
perform physical activity?
o Never
o Occasionally
o Frequently
o Always
26. Please share any comments about Get Fit that you would like to in the space below.
________________________________________________________________
27. Would you be willing to be interviewed about your Get Fit experience?
o No
o Yes
177
Appendix C
Interview Protocol for Get Fit Participants
Interview Script & Questions
Introductory Information for Participants
Thank you for agreeing to talk to me today. As you may remember from my email about
this project, I am trying to learn more about employee experiences with exercise and physical
activity at PCU and Get Fit. I want to ask you a few questions about your experiences. Your
participation is completely voluntary and if at any time you do not want to answer a question or
do not wish to continue the interview, please let me know. I also want to remind you that your
participation and any information you provide during our interview will be kept completely
confidential, and that your name and any other identifying characteristics will not be associated
with any of your responses, comments, or overall participation. Do you have any questions about
what I have just said? Ok then, let’s continue.
I would like to record our interview to help me make sure I have all the information that I
won’t be able to write down or remember during our discussion. Will it be ok with you if I
record our discussion? No information identifying you as the speaker of your comments will be
used and only I will have your recording for my own data purposes.
Thank you. Let’s get started.
Interview Questions
I first want to ask about your involvement with exercise at work. Later I will ask more
specifically about the Get Fit program.
1. How long you have worked at PCU?
178
2. Have you always been in the habit of exercising during your workdays at PCU?
a. (YES) – OK
b. (NO) – How long would you say you have exercised at PCU?
3. Can you recall how you started exercising at PCU?
a. Can you tell me more about what your first exercise experiences were like here?
b. How did you feel after starting to exercise?
4. What kinds of exercise options were available to you when you first started?
5. Do you feel like you know how to do more exercises now than you did when you started?
a. Can you say why you answered that way? Can you give me an example?
b. Probe (depending on answer): Was what you just described something you
learned through Get Fit?
6. Speaking generally, in your own words, what does “being fit” mean to you – what does
that look like?
Now I would like to ask you a little bit about your impressions of exercise and PCU.
7. How would you respond to a potential job applicant who asked you about exercising at
PCU? What would you say?
a. Can you tell me more about you answered that way?
7. Would your answer be the same to a friend if they wanted to know if you can exercise
easily at PCU? What about at CLS specifically?
8. In your opinion, how supportive would you say supervisors are of employees exercising
during the workday?
a. Do you have any specific experiences of you or a friend you could describe?
9. In your opinion, what are the biggest benefits of physical activity during the workday?
179
10. Thinking about your own physical activity, what impact does physical activity have on
you? (Probes: What about on your well-being? Your health? Your job?)
11. How do you think supervisors and managers feel about the impact of exercise during the
workday?
12. As an employee at PCU, what kind of messages do you receive about exercise during the
workday?
a. Are the messages accurate? Do they match the reality you experience?
b. What about as an employee of CLS? Are the messages different? In what way –
can you give me an example?
Now I want to ask questions specifically about the lunchtime program in which you participate.
13. How did you join the Get Fit program?
14. What are the primary reasons you started participating?
15. Can you describe a typical session to me?
16. Do you feel like you know your fellow Get Fit participants?
a. Can you tell me more about these relationships?
17. How would you describe the coaching you receive in Get Fit?
18. In a typical workday, do you feel like you have enough time to participate in the Get Fit
a. If not, why not?
19. What are the logistics of getting to and from Get Fit for you? Where do you change
clothes and transition from professional to gym and back again?
20. If your work schedule doesn’t allow you to go to the lunchtime program, do you exercise
on your own outside of those hours?
a. Can you tell me about what you’re likely to do on a day like that?
180
21. What effects has this lunchtime workout program had on you?
a. How does it make you feel?
22. Have there been any challenges to participating? What are they?
23. To what extent have you been able to mitigate those challenges? How have you done it?
24. Does it matter to you if students participate in your workout?
25. If you could run things at PCU for a month and wanted to gain more participants in the
lunchtime workout program, what would be some ways to gather more participants? Who
would you recruit to sponsor this?
26. If another department wanted to start something similar to Get Fit, what advice would
you give them?
27. What factors do you think are most important to the success of the Get Fit program? Why
does it work?
28. If you could change anything about Get Fit to improve it, what would that look like to
you?
29. Do you use a fitness tracking app? Yes/NO
a. (If Yes?) Does that influence your decision to participate in Get Fit?
30. Is there anything else that you feel we have not talked about that is important to know?
Thank you again for taking the time to talk to me today. Your insights really help me grow my
understanding of employee physical activity at PCU, and I appreciate you sharing them with me.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand factors influencing employee participation in a university-offered physical activity program to inform recommendations for other institutions of higher education seeking to address high rates of university employee sedentary behavior with physical activity programming. The instructor-led program was held four times per week beginning at noon each day and lasted one hour in duration on a university campus in the western United States. The program, which was offered at no cost to employees, typically served 20-30 participants each week. The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) was employed to assess relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting university employee engagement with the physical activity program. The study utilized a convergent parallel mixed methods design, engaging 24 university employees by means of a fifty-four-item quantitative survey. Six survey respondents also participated in interviews. Research findings revealed the importance of the interplay of employee factual and metacognitive knowledge, as well as motivation influences including self-efficacy and expectancy value within the organization’s cultural models and settings. Recommendations for other institutions seeking to engage employees in physical activity were informed by the findings and supported by a review of literature. Recommendations include the use of training, communication strategies, information guides, modeling, and opportunities for reflection to meet employee knowledge and motivational needs. Evaluating and changing organizational policies, cultural values, and existing physical activity programming was recommended to ensure employees understand an organization’s support for participation in physical activity. Additionally, implications for practice involved a focus on the role of instructors and the development of communities of continuity to support and improve rates of university employee engagement in physical activity during the workday.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism
PDF
Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS
PDF
Measuring the impact of short-term campus exchange programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study
PDF
An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study
PDF
Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study
PDF
Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study
PDF
Uncovering promising practices for providing vocational opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals
PDF
Bridging the employment gap for students of color: evaluating the effectiveness of internship programs and the level of engagement from employers
PDF
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
PDF
Creation and implementation of a comprehensive active shooter/safety plan: a promising practice study
PDF
Deckplate leadership: a promising practice study of chief petty officer development
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study
PDF
Evaluation of a post work related injury total wellness program designed for fire and police department employees
PDF
Collective Impact: a framework to advance health promotion in higher education
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools
PDF
Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model
PDF
Addressing the issue of college and career preparedness within a Texas high school: a promising practice
Asset Metadata
Creator
DeFrank, Ginny Mary
(author)
Core Title
Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
08/11/2020
Defense Date
06/19/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Exercise,OAI-PMH Harvest,physical activity,physical activity intervention,sedentary behavior,university physical activity,workplace physical activity
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney (
committee chair
), Canny, Eric (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
defrank@usc.edu,ginnydefrank@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-362731
Unique identifier
UC11666103
Identifier
etd-DeFrankGin-8921.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-362731 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DeFrankGin-8921.pdf
Dmrecord
362731
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
DeFrank, Ginny Mary
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
physical activity
physical activity intervention
sedentary behavior
university physical activity
workplace physical activity