Dissertation - Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry

KINGSTON BUSINESS SCHOOL
Msc OCCUPATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2012/2014
Managing for sustainable employee
engagement in the retail industry
Author: Igor Velasco
Word count: 12,310
This work is the copyright of the author
This work is confidential - NO

ii
ABSTRACT
Background: Even though employee engagement has attracted lots of attention, research
shows that the number of engaged employees in the U.K. is far from ideal, 8% according to
the CIPD (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2010). The concept of sustainable
engagement approaches the topic based on the evidence that the positive outcomes produced
by employee engagement are greater in the presence of high levels of well-being (Wright &
Copranzano, 2000; Robertson, Birch, & Cooper, 2012). The “Managing for sustainable
employee engagement” framework aims to serve as a tool for managers to identify those
behaviours that promote both employee engagement and well-being (Lewis & Donaldson-
Feilder, 2012).
Aims: To study the relationship between manager’s behaviours and employee engagement
and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework as a
tool to measure management style. In addition, this study aims to add further validation to the
framework as it is examined in the retail industry.
Methods: 82 team members of the fast food chain Pret A Manger completed a questionnaire
measuring management style using the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement”
questionnaire, engagement using the UWES-17 scale and well-being using the GHQ-12
scale.
Results: Results show a strong relationship between positive manager behaviours and high
levels of both engagement and well-being. Results also show that well-being moderates the
relationship between manager’s behaviours and engagement. The higher the levels of well-
being are the stronger this relationship is.
Conclusions: Manager’s behaviours have a strong influence in the levels of employee
engagement and well-being. Greater levels of employee engagement occur in the presence of
well-being. It is necessary for managers and organizations to embed well-being in their
engagement programmes for them to be successful.

iii
DECLARATION
I declare that this dissertation is all my own work and the sources of information and material
I have used (including the Internet) have been fully identified and properly acknowledged as
required.

iv
LIST OF CONTENTS
Title page .................................................................................................................................. i
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of contents ...................................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research aims ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Organizational context of the research ................................................................... 3
1.4 Structure ................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2: Literature review ................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Employee engagement ........................................................................................... 5
2.3 Employee engagement and well-being ................................................................... 8
2.4 Management and engagement .............................................................................. 10
2.5 Management and well-being ................................................................................ 11
2.6 Managing for sustainable employee engagement ................................................ 13
2.7 Conclusions and hypotheses ................................................................................. 14
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Sample .................................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 16
3.4 Measures................................................................................................................ 17

v
3.4.1 Measuring management style ............................................................................ 17
3.4.2 Measuring engagement ...................................................................................... 17
3.4.3 Measuring well-being ........................................................................................ 19
3.5 Analysis ................................................................................................................ 19
3.5.1 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 19
3.5.2 Reliability analysis............................................................................................. 20
3.5.3 Regression analysis ........................................................................................... 20
3.5.4 Hierarchical multiple regression ....................................................................... 20
3.6 Ethical considerations .......................................................................................... 20
Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................................ 21
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Hypothesis 1 ......................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Hypothesis 2 ......................................................................................................... 23
4.4 Hypothesis 3 ......................................................................................................... 25
4.5 Competencies analysis ......................................................................................... 28
4.5.1 Individual competencies and engagement ......................................................... 28
4.5.2 Individual competencies and well-being ........................................................... 30
4.6 Summary of results ............................................................................................... 32
Chapter 5: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 34
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Hypotheses results ................................................................................................ 34
5.3 Competencies analysis results .............................................................................. 35
5.4 Implications for research ...................................................................................... 36

vi
5.5 Implications for practice ....................................................................................... 37
5.6 Study limitations .................................................................................................. 38
5.7 Discussion summary ............................................................................................ 39
Chapter 6: Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 41
References.............................................................................................................................. 43
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix 1: Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 48

1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
As today’s global market becomes more and more demanding organizations need to
maximize their assets in order to remain competitive, and one of the most important if not the
most important asset for an organization is its employees. The question then is how can
organizations maximize their employees’ potential? The answer to this question could be
employee engagement.
In recent years employee engagement has become a concept of interest. Since the concept
appeared in 1990 (Kahn, 1990) a wide number of researchers have studied employee
engagement developing different definitions, different ways of measuring it and certainly
different ways of understanding what employee engagement is and is not, which will be
further explored in chapter 2. Despite the disagreement among scholars regarding the
construct of employee engagement, most researchers and practitioners agree to the idea that
employee engagement brings a substantial number of benefits to the organization, from
increased productivity to lower employee turnover, which ultimately translate into bottom
line results (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005; Schaufeli, Bakker, &
Van Rhenen, 2009). The benefits of an engaged workforce have driven the interest of
researchers and practitioners to the point that employee engagement has become a business
itself. Organizations have recognized the importance of having an engaged workforce due to
the competitive advantage that it results in, and hire experts and other companies to provide
for them consultancy services in order to increase the engagement levels of their workforce.
A report for the University of Bath (Rayton, 2012) shows that 70% of business leaders in the
U.K. believe that employee engagement is decisive for their success.
Unfortunately, all those efforts and all that money invested into different engagement
programmes could be being wasted. A research by the CIPD shows that the number of
engaged employees in the U.K could be as low as 8% (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby,
2010). These data suggest that there is an evident need to improve employee engagement in
the U.K. Rayton (2012) states in his report for the University of Bath that the average level of
engagement in the U.K. is 3.19 out of 5.0 and he suggests that an increase of 0.25 in
engagement levels could generate an increase in GDP of £25.8 billion per year. Rayton
(2012) considers that the recent recession has made engagement more important than ever,

2
but at the same time has made leaders focus on other issues. He suggests that the low
engagement levels in the UK are a problem but also an opportunity to improve, and that a
clear understanding of the link between engagement and performance is needed.
Recently the concept of sustainable engagement has emerged. Researchers have found
that in order to create employee engagement that is sustainable over time managers need to
promote employees’ well-being. The idea that managers play a key role in promoting
employee engagement and well-being is certainly not new, however, the concept of well-
being being a key element in the process of engaging employees in a sustainable way is. This
idea is based on the evidence that engagement and well-being together are better predictors of
positive organizational outcomes such as performance and productivity than engagement
alone (Wright & Copranzano, 2000; Robertson, Birch, & Cooper, 2012).
The “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework developed by
Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) sits within this approach. The framework, developed
from combining two previously developed management competencies frameworks, aims to
help managers understand which behaviours are necessary to promote employee engagement
while also protecting their well-being.
It is evident from the available literature and research that it is necessary to further
study the role that well-being plays in the process of engaging employees as well as identify
those managerial behaviours that encourage this process.
1.2 Research Aims
The aim of this dissertation is to study the relationship between manager’s
behaviours and employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable
employee engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style. In addition, this
study will add further validation to the framework as it will be examined in the retail
industry. This research intends to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of
sustainable employee engagement as well as to raise new unanswered questions that might
inspire future research and practice.

3
1.3 Organizational context of the research
Since this research will be studying employee engagement in the retail industry, this
paper will now briefly describe the organization which this research is based upon. It is also
necessary to declare that the researcher is an employee of this company in the position of
assistant manager at one of the stores in London. Thus the researcher has an appropriate
insight of the company’s culture and structure.
Pret A Manger is a fast food chain founded in 1986 in London, currently owned by
the private equity firm Bridge Point. Pret is a highly successful company; currently Pret A
Manger owns 289 in the UK of which 187 are based in London, where most of its trade is
concentrated. The company also owns stores in France, Hong-Kong, China and the United
States. In 2013 Pret reached £510 in sales, which was a growth in sales of 15% compared to
2012.
Pret A Manger’s mission statement states that “Pret creates handmade natural food
avoiding the obscure chemicals, additives and preservatives common to so much of the
'prepared' and 'fast' food on the market today”.
Pret A Manger employs approximately 4,500 people in the U.K., from which a big
percentage are foreign workers. The basic salary for team members in London is £7.80 an
hour including bonuses, which can increase with extra responsibilities and promotions to
positions such as team member trainer or team leader. Pret pays special attention to training
its staff and claims to invest heavily in employees’ development, with over 70% of the
management being employees who started as team members. Pret A Manger employs many
different nationalities and claims to have a very cosmopolitan and laid back culture.
Although the company does not implement any specific employee engagement
programme or survey, once a year Pret distributes an employee satisfaction survey called
“Pret’s big conversation” that gives employees an opportunity to rate the level of satisfaction
with certain aspects of the job such as salary and working hours, as well as the chance to
submit suggestion and give general feedback.
1.4 Structure
This dissertation begins with this introductory chapter that gives an overview of the
background of the study, as well as the organizational context and the aims of the research.

4
Chapter 2 is a literature review that provides an overview of the relevant literature
regarding the topic. The review also identifies the gaps in the existing literature and provides
a theoretical framework for the study. Chapter 2 concludes by presenting the conclusion
drawn from the literature review and the research hypotheses.
Chapter 3 is the methodology section. This chapter will describe the research methods
presenting the sample used for the study, the measurements of the different variables
involved in the research, the statistical methods used to analyse the data obtained with those
measurements and the ethical considerations.
Chapter 4 will present and analyse the results as well as evaluate the hypotheses.
Chapter 5 will discuss the results in relationship with the hypotheses and the existing
literature. This chapter will also discuss the implications for practice and future research
drawn from the study results, and will conclude evaluating the study limitations.
Finally, chapter 6 will present the conclusions of the study.

5
CHAPTER 2: Literature review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature in the area of employee
engagement and its relationship with management style and well-being. After presenting the
different concepts and approaches, this chapter introduces the idea of sustainable engagement
and the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework. This chapter
concludes by presenting the conclusions drawn from the review, and formulating the
hypotheses to be studied.
2.2 Employee engagement
Employee engagement is a relatively new concept in Occupational Psychology. Kahn
(1990) offered the first formal definition of employee engagement. He described it as “the
harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role
performances” (p.694). Since the publication of Kahn’s (1990) work, employee engagement
has become an evolving and popular concept among academics and practitioners (Saks,
2006).
Most scholars agree that employee engagement is related to high levels of energy and
individuals that strongly identify themselves with their work (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, &
Taris, 2008). However, definitions of the concept vary widely between academics (Saks,
2006).
One of the most widely used definitions is the one proposed by Schaufeli, Salanova,
Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002), these authors understand employee engagement as “a
positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and
absorption” (p.74). They see engagement as a persistent affective-cognitive state, rather than
a momentary state, that focuses on the individual’s feelings.
In contrast, other scholars have developed definitions more oriented towards
engagement with the organization. Shuk and Wollard (2010) define employee engagement as

6
“an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward
desired organizational outcomes” (p.103).
Although there is no general agreement among scholars regarding the definition of
employee engagement, there is a consensus regarding how to measure it. The most frequently
used instrument to measure engagement is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) that includes the three sub-scales mentioned in
their definition: vigour, dedication and absorption.
According to Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter and Taris (2008) the UWES scale is well
validated scale that has been the primary tool used to study work engagement with focus on
predictors, outcomes and differences from related concepts.
In the pursuit to conceptualise employee engagement, researchers have faced the
challenge of discriminating engagement from related concepts. Research shows that work
engagement is not the same as workaholism (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). These
researchers found that engagement and workaholism have some common outcomes like
positive work outcomes but with the difference that unlike workaholism, engagement is
positively related to good mental health.
Research also shows that engagement is an empirically distinct construct from job
involvement and organizational commitment because they reflect different aspects of work
attachment (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).
The reason behind the increased interest in the concept of employee engagement in
recent years is the idea that employee engagement brings bottom-line results (Macey &
Schneider, 2008). Rayton (2012) suggests that organizations with high employee engagement
levels outperform those with low levels of employee engagement in total shareholder returns
and higher annual net income. Some of these bottom-line results in the shape of positive
organizational outcomes are certainly supported by empirical evidence.
Research suggests that high employee engagement reduces turnover intention. Saks
(2006) found a significant negative correlation between job engagement and intention to quit.
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found similar support for the correlation between engagement

7
and low turnover intention. In more recent years, other researchers like Shuck, Reio, and
Rocco (2011) have also found support for this relationship. These authors conducted a
research using a heterogeneous sampling of organizations from different sectors, and found
that employee engagement predicted lower levels of employees’ intention to turnover.
Absenteeism is another issue that organizations face on a regular basis. According to
the Office for National Statistics (2014) 131 million days were lost due to sickness absences
in the UK in 2013. It seems reasonable to suggest that organizations need to tackle
absenteeism if they want to be competitive, and research suggests that employee engagement
might be the answer. A longitudinal study among managers conducted by Schaufeli, Bakker,
and Van Rhenen, (2009) showed that work engagement is negatively related to sickness
absence frequency.
Job performance is certainly a topic of interest for academics, practitioners and
organizations. Rich, Lepine Jeffrey, & Crawford (2010) studied the relationship between job
engagement and task performance. Results show a significant correlation between these two
constructs. Research has also shown that engagement is positively related to in-role
performance (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). Furthermore, research also shows that in the
services and retail industries employee engagement has a positive effect in creating an
excellent service climate that ultimately increases the customer’s evaluation of employee
performance and consequently customer loyalty (Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005).
Employee engagement also has a strong influence on innovation. (Hakanen,
Perhoniemi and Toppinen-Tanner, (2008) found that employee engagement lead to personal
initiative which had a positive impact in work-unit inovativeness.
A meta-analysis conducted by Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes (2002) studied 7,939
business unit in 36 companies. Results show that employee engagement has a substantial
relationship with customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover and safety.
The available evidence then suggests that employee engagement certainly yields
bottom line results due to the positive organizational outcomes that it produces. Research
shows that employee engagement reduces turnover intention, absenteeism and sickness
absence frequency. In addition, high levels of engagement are related to increased

8
productivity, performance, customer satisfaction, personal initiative and innovation and
safety levels.
2.3 Employee engagement and well-being
Well-being is also a concept that has been receiving a lot of attention in recent years.
One of the most accepted conceptualizations of psychological well-being is the one
developed by Ryff (1989), she describes psychological well-being as a concept with six
dimensions: Self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental
mastery, purpose in life and personal growth, other authors such as Robertson and Cooper
(2010) consider that research on psychological well-being has identified the idea of positive
emotions and purpose as the two key ingredients of the concept.
Research shows that employee well-being is related to positive organizational
outcomes. Donald, et al., (2005) conducted a research to study productivity across 15
different organizations in the U.K. Results show that psychological well-being is a strong
predictor of productivity; in fact, in this study psychological well-being was a stronger
predictor than organizational commitment and resources.
Research also suggests that well-being is a strong predictor of performance. Wright
and Copranzano (2000) conducted a research to study performance; results showed that
psychological well-being was a stronger predictor of performance than job satisfaction.
Although employee engagement and well-being are not always considered together,
research suggests that well-being certainly plays an important role in producing some of the
organizational outcomes attributed to engagement previously in this review. Robertson, Birch
and Cooper (2012) found support for the essential role of psychological well-being in
delivering organizational outcomes such as performance. They conducted a research to study
if productivity levels would be better predicted by engagement and psychological well-being
than by engagement alone. Results show that productivity is better predicted by
psychological well-being and engagement than by engagement alone. According to
Robertson, Birch and Cooper (2012) results also show than psychological well-being and
engagement are related but distinct constructs. They also suggest that these findings have
important practical implications. They consider that if employers do not promote

9
psychological well-being and engagement together, they will be narrowing the benefits they
could obtain from the engagement programmes they might put in place.
Taking this idea further, Robertson and Cooper (2010) suggest the need to create a
wider construct that they call “full engagement”. According to Robertson and Cooper (2010)
“full engagement” incorporates engagement and employee well-being in order to produce
more beneficial outcomes for both the employee and the organization. Furthermore, they
argue that employees cannot sustain high levels of engagement for a long period of time
without psychological well-being. It seems reasonable to suggest that this conception of well-
being as a key element of sustainable engagement is also supported by the findings of
Schaufeli, Taris and Van Rhenen (2008) regarding good mental health as the key difference
between engagement and workaholism.
In recent years, a new perspective to conceptualize engagement with stress on the
importance of well-being has arisen. Gourlay et al. (2012) suggest that employee engagement
is a complex issue and that different levels of engagement need to be acknowledged in order
to understand it. They suggest that engagement can be divided in two concepts, emotional
engagement and transactional engagement. According to Gourlay et al. (2012) emotional
engagement is displayed by those employees that identify positive feelings with their work
and its values, while transactional engagement is displayed by those employees that are
focused on the rewards or meet the minimal expectations of the employer in order to keep the
job. Gourlay et al. (2012) highlight that engagement surveys alone do not possess the
required depth in order to distinguish between employees that work engaged but does not feel
engaged. In their research, Gourlay et al. (2012) conducted a survey to study the effects of
emotional and transactional engagement on performance and well-being. Results show that
emotionally engaged employees have high levels of well-being and performance, while
transitionally engaged employees score lower on all performance dimensions.
Research then suggests that employee well-being is related to positive organizational
outcomes such as productivity and performance; furthermore, it suggests that the positive
organizational outcomes produced by employee engagement are greater when employee well-
being is present. Related to this idea, some authors consider well-being as a key element to
distinguish between truly engaged employees and those who just seem engaged but do not
feel engaged.

10
2.4 Management and engagement
In today’s competitive market having an engaged workforce is certainly an advantage.
Looking at the positive organizational outcomes that, according to research, engaged
employees seem to deliver, it comes to no surprise that the concept of employee engagement
is as popular as it has ever been. However, in order to obtain an engaged workforce it is
necessary to understand the antecedents that facilitate engagement.
Researchers consider that engagement is an individual construct that has
systematically been looked at from an organizational level (Shuk & Wollard, 2010). Certainly
there are individual variables that affect the level of engagement of employees and cannot be
overlooked. Some individual antecedents would include personality variables such as
hardiness, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Saks, 2006). However for the purpose of this paper
this review will focus on those antecedents that are influenced by managerial behaviours.
May, Gilson and Harter (2004) found that there are three psychological conditions –
meaningfulness, safety and availability- that relate to individuals’ engagement at work.
According to these authors, these findings have vast implications for managers in terms of
job design, selection and relations with employees. Similar results were found by Saks
(2006); he conducted a research among 102 employees working in different organizations to
study the antecedents of engagement. Results show that organizations that want to improve
employee engagement need to focus on the employees’ perception of support. He also
highlights the importance of the role of managers in order to improve employee engagement.
Saks (2006) considers that managers need to provide employees with resources and benefits,
addressing the individual needs of their employees and avoiding using the same approach for
all.
The role of managers in promoting employee engagement has been extensively
explored in recent years. In their report for the CIPD, Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, and Gatenby
(2010) also highlight the critical influence of management style on employee engagement.
These authors conducted a research across eight different organizations studying the level of
engagement among their employees. Alfes et al. (2010) consider that line management style
is one of the key drivers for engagement. They suggest that employees need to express their

11
views and know that their opinions are taken into consideration; in addition, it is necessary to
create meaning for employees in their work by linking their job to higher organizational
goals. According to Alfes et al. (2010) the role of line managers is to be the link between the
organization and the employee by taking into account their views and by communicating the
deeper levels of purpose that the employees have in the organization. Alfes et al. (2010) also
consider that senior managers play an important role. They suggest that senior managers need
to create and share a vision for the organization while being transparent and approachable.
Another point emphasized by Alfes et al. (2010) is how engagement levels are influenced by
the working environment. According to these authors greater engagement will be achieved if
employees perceive support from others in an environment where they can express
themselves freely.
The influence that managers have in encouraging and creating a supportive
environment has certainly been explored, Lewis, Donaldson-Feilder and Tharani (2011)
conducted a research in order to identify specific management behaviours that promote
employee engagement, they found that the most frequently mention competencies were those
related to management behaviours that support employee growth. Other authors have found
similar results regarding the role of line managers in creating supporting environments in
order to enhance employee engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Kroth & Keeler,
2009).
2.5 Management and well-being
The relation between supervisor’s behaviour and employee well-being has also been
extensively studied. Gilbreath and Benson (2004) studied how supervisor behaviour can
predict well-being compared to other variables. Results show that supervisor behaviour is a
better predictor of well-being than variables such as age, support from other people at work
or stressful life events.
Other researchers have focused on how managers can promote well-being. Arnold,
Turner and Barling (2007) conducted two studies investigating the relationship between
transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Their findings suggest that
transformational leaders positively influence employees’ psychological well-being by making
employees perceive their work as meaningful.

12
Van Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes and Stride (2004) conducted a research to study the
relationship between leadership’s behaviour and the well-being of subordinates. According to
these authors, results show that leadership’s behaviour and well-being are linked in a
feedback loop. This is, leadership’s behaviour influences employee’s well-being, the
employee then will behave in a certain way in response to the perceived leadership’s
behaviour, and this response will then influence leadership’s behaviour creating a loop. Van
Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes and Stride (2004) suggest that this has a number of practical
implications for managers. They consider that managers need to be aware that their behaviour
influences their subordinates’ well-being. They also argue that managers need to be trained to
identify and break a loop of negativity, not by avoiding problem people but motivating them
showing interest and underlining their value for the organization.
Related to these findings, Nielsen, Randall, Yarker and Brenner, (2008) found that
transformational leadership is related to employees’ well-being through employees’
perception of meaningful work environment, role clarity, and opportunities for development.
Nielsen et al. (2008) also consider this connection as a reciprocal relationship between the
managers’ perceived transformational leadership style and well-being. In addition, Nielsen,
Yarker and Munir, (2009) found that transformational leadership is related to well-being
through encoraging employees to take independent decisions and coaching employees
making them feel that they are capable of coping with challenges at work, increasing their
self and team efficacy.
These findings suggest that managers play an essential role in promoting employees’
well-being. Managers can improve their employees’ well-being through underlining their
value for the organization, creating a work environment that is perceived as meaningful,
clarifying role and resposibilities, offering opportunities for development, encouraging
independent decision making and coaching them so they can cope with challenges at work.

13
2.6 Managing for sustainable employee engagement
To support managers and organizations attaining sustainable employee engagement
Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) conducted a research focused on identifying the specific
management behaviours responsible for supporting and managing employee engagement and
employee well-being.
In order to develop a framework of the competencies needed Lewis and Donaldson-
Feilder (2012) combined two previously developed management competency frameworks,
the “Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement” framework (Lewis,
Donaldson-Feilder, & Tharani, 2011) and the “Management competencies for preventing and
reducing stress at work (MCPARS)” framework (Yarker, Lewis, Donaldson-Feilder, &
Flaxman, 2007). In order to identify the items for the new framework a questionnaire-based
research approach was taken. Further information on the methodology can be found in their
report (Lewis & Donaldson-Feilder, 2012).
The results unveiled a 54-item framework with a five competencies structure (Lewis &
Donaldson-Feilder, 2012):
 Open, fair and consistent: Managing with integrity and consistency, managing
personal issues and taking a positive approach in interpersonal interactions.
 Handling conflict and problems: Using appropriate organizational resources in order
to deal with employee conflicts.
 Knowledge, clarity and guidance: Providing clear guidance, through clear
communication, responsible decision making and showing an appropriate
understanding of roles.
 Building and sustaining relationships: personal interaction with employees that
focuses on empathy and consideration.
 Supporting development: Supporting employee career and development.
Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) consider that there is enough empirical evidence to
suggest that in order to sustain an engaged workforce, especially in the current economic
climate, employers need to consider employee engagement alongside well-being in order to
create sustainable employee engagement. They also suggest that there is enough evidence of

14
the connection between management and employee engagement and well-being, so it is
important that managers work with their teams in ways that enhance both.
For Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) this framework has several implications. On the
one hand it offers managers the opportunities to not only identify which behaviours are in
used but also to identify and change those that are not. In the other hand, it opens the door for
future research to validate the framework studying if the teams working with managers that
display the positive behaviours or avoid the negative ones, are healthier, and more engaged
and productive over time. They also consider that future research needs to determine whether
some behaviours are more important than others in determining levels of engagement and
well-being.
2.7 Conclusions and hypotheses
In a world that is constantly evolving, where organizations face continuous change in
order to adapt, and under the current severe economic conditions an engaged workforce is
certainly an important asset for organizations to remain competitive. Employee engagement
has attracted a lot of attention from scholars and practitioners. Organizations have been
charmed by the positive outcomes that engaged employees deliver and researchers have
produced empirical evidence to demonstrate that employee engagement certainly has a
positive impact in the organization. However, despite being so important, research by the
CIPD (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2010) shows that the number of workers that
are truly engaged in the U.K. could be as low as 8%. It seems reasonable to suggest that
despite all the research available organizations have a hard time engaging their employees in
a sustainable way.
In recent years some researchers have focus their efforts on understanding how to
promote employee engagement that is sustainable over time. This perspective on research
highlights the importance of considering employee well-being as an essential part of
sustainable employee engagement. In addition, researchers emphasize the need to include
employee well-being when measuring engagement in order to discern truly engaged
individuals from those that behave engaged but do not feel engaged.
Taking into consideration the extensive empirical evidence that highlights the impact
that managers have on employees’ engagement and well-being, the “Managing for
sustainable employee engagement” framework takes a step forward in the search for learning
the processes that promote sustainable employee engagement. As mentioned before in this

15
paper, further empirical evidence that validates the framework is needed. Based on the
evidence available, this paper will study the relationship between manager’s behaviours and
employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable employee
engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style, providing further validation
to the framework by studying it in the retail industry. This research will test the following
hypotheses:
H.1 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of engagement.
H.2 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of well-being.
H.3 The relationship between positive manager behaviour and employee engagement
will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between manager behaviour
and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing than where
there is low wellbeing.
Due to the lack of research on the framework, the existing evidence is not conclusive
enough in order to formulate hypotheses regarding the relationship between the framework’s
individual competencies and engagement and well-being respectively. Accordingly this
research will use an exploratory approach in order to study these relationships.

16
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the sample used in the research as well as the sampling method
used to reach and select the participants. Then the measures used to collect the data are
presented followed by a discussion of their psychometric properties. This chapter concludes
presenting the statistical methods used to analyse the data and discussing the ethical
considerations of the study.
3.2 Sample
The present study involved 82 Pret A Manger employees working at different shops
in London. Out of the 82 participant 39 were males and 43 were females. The average age of
the participant was 29 (SD = 4), the youngest participant was 22 and the oldest 39.
The average length of service in months was 37 (SD = 30). The participant with
shortest length of service worked for 3 months and the participant with the longest length of
service worked for 163 months.
The averaged worked hours per week of the participants was 37 (SD = 10). The least
amount of hours worked per week was 8 and the maximum 60.
3.3 Procedures
A self-administered questionnaire was uploaded to a survey administration website.
The link on the survey was then sent by email to 100 different Pret A Manger shops in
London together with a brief cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey. The email sent
to the different shops contained a message for the shop managers explaining the purpose of
the survey and requesting them to place the cover letter and the link in the shop’s staffroom,
so employees could choose whether to complete the survey. This method was selected in
order to reach the maximum number of participants, making the sample as representative as
possible (Howitt & Cramer, 2005). Approximately 1500 team members were reached which
equates to a 5% response rate. The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix at the end
of this paper.

17
3.4 Measures
The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between manager’s
behaviours and employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable
employee engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style, providing further
validation to the framework by studying it in the retail industry. In order to study the
hypotheses formulated in the previous section of this paper it was necessary to measure the
correlation between the perceptions that participants had of their managers, using the
“Managing for sustainable employee engagement” questionnaire, and their level of
engagement and their level of well-being.
3.4.1 Measuring management style
The “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” questionnaire has 54 items
grouped in a 5-factor or competencies structure. Out of the 54 items 29 are from the
“Managing engagement” questionnaire and 25 from the MCPARS questionnaire. The scale
was created in a 3 step process. In the first step 102 items were extracted from the “Managing
engagement” questionnaire and tested by 127 participants. In the second step those 102 items
were tested in 7 organizations from different sectors by 506 employees and 126 managers,
after conducting reliability and exploratory factor analyses 41 items were selected and
combined with 66 items from the MCPARS questionnaire. In the third and final step 2,378
employees and 108 managers completed the questionnaire. The 54 final items were obtained
after reliability and exploratory factor analysis were conducted.
The rating scale used in the questionnaire is a Liker-type scale with 5 different options
that go from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of the 54 items 26 are positive indicators,
and 28 are negatively worded to maintain the integrity of the data (Lewis & Donaldson-
Feilder, 2012), e.g., “My manager treats me with respect”, “My manager is overly critical of
me and other team members”. The questionnaire was administered respecting the original
wording. Once the data was collected the ratings of negatively worded items were re-coded in
order to make the statistical analysis possible. The reliability analysis for this sample
indicated that the scale had a good internal consistency, α = .97.
3.4.2 Measuring engagement
The selected questionnaire to measure the level of engagement of the participant was
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17) developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003).

18
The scale is a self-report questionnaire that has 17 items measuring three scales - vigor,
dedication, and absorption- that are highly correlated (Schaufeli et al., 2002a).
The construct validity of the Uwes-17 has been extensively studied. Schaufeli,
Bakker and Salanova (2006) suggest that engagement is defined as the opposite to burnout,
so it is expected that both concepts are negatively related to the three burnout dimensions
measured with the Marslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leither, 1996).
Research shows that the three dimension of work engagement are indeed negatively
correlated to the three burnout dimensions (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al.,
2002b).
The scale also has excellent reliability. According to Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova
(2006) the Cronbach's alpha of the UWES-scales ranges between .80 and .90 according to
existing reliability studies (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) which exceeds the value of .70 that is
normally used as a general guideline (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994).
Research also confirms the cross-national validity of the scale that has been tested
across samples from Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal (Schaufeli, et al., 2002b). In
addition, a study conducted by Storm and Rothmann (2003) shows that the three factors in
the UWES-17 scale show equivalence for different race groups.
The UWES-17 scale has a positive but weak correlation with age, older employees
feel more engaged but the shared variance is less than 2% (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). The
correlation with gender is also statistically significant but small, with men scoring 3.89 and
women scoring 3.77 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), as a result there are no gender-specific
norm scores.
that go from never to always. All the items in the scale are positive indicators, e.g. “At my
work, I feel bursting with energy”, “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”.
The reliability analysis for this sample indicated that the scale had a good internal
consistency, α =.93.

19
3.4.3 Measuring well-being
The selected questionnaire to measure psychological well-being was the General
Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) (Goldberg, 1972). The GHQ-12 is a self administer
questionnaire that has 12 items and has been broadly used as a short screening instrument
(Goldberg, et al., 1997). Although there are longer versions of the questionnaire, the 12-item
version was chosen in order to keep the questionnaire as short as possible making it more
engaging for the participants. The GHQ-12 produces same results as the longer versions
(Goldberg, et al., 1997). In order to obtain a good score distribution the Likert (0-1-2-3)
scoring method was implemented. (Goldberg, et al., 1997)
The validity coefficient of the GHQ-12 ranges between .83 and .95 (Goldberg, et al.,
1997). In their Study Goldberg et al. (1997) translated the GHQ-12 into 10 other languages,
and studied the effect of translation as well as compare the coefficients of developed and
developing countries. Results show that translation has no significant influence and that there
is no tendency for developing countries to have lower coefficients.
Goldberg et al. (1997) also found that gender, age and educational level do not
influence its validity characteristics, which makes it an excellent tool to use with a
heterogeneous sample like the one used in this study.
that vary depending on the item. Out of the 12 items 6 are negatively worded, and the other 6
are positive indicators, e.g. “Have you recently lost much sleep over worry?”, “Have you
recently been able to concentrate on what you’re doing?”.
The reliability analysis for this sample indicated that the scale had a good internal
consistency, α =.91.
3.5 Analysis
The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using IBM SPSS 21.0 and Microsoft
Excel 2007.
3.5.1 Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the demographics of the participants. This
information was collected at the beginning of the survey and included: age, gender, length of
service measured in months and the average amount of hours worked per week.

20
3.5.2 Reliability analysis
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated in order to study the internal
consistency of the measures.
3.5.3 Regression analysis
In order test hypotheses H1 and H2, as well as the individual competencies of the
framework, regression analyses were conducted. Regression analysis made possible to predict
dependant variables (engagement and well-being) using an independent variable
(management) while controlling for age, gender, length of service and average hours worked
per week.
3.5.4 Hierarchical multiple regression
A hierarchical multiple regression model was conducted in order to test Hypothesis
H3. A hierarchical multiple regression allows to assess if a moderating variable (well-being)
has any significant effect on an independent variable (management) predicting a dependent
variable (engagement).
In the first part of the analysis a 3 step regression was conducted to study if the model
including the interaction term accounted for more variance than the model including only the
independent and control variables.
A second analysis was conducted using an add-on process in SPSS. The purpose of
this analysis was to examine the moderation effect centering the terms and producing values
for an interaction plot.
3.6 Ethical considerations
All the respondents were informed of the purpose of the questionnaire and informed
of the level of confidentiality. All respondents participated voluntarily and were able to
withdraw at any time. The data obtained was stored and treated confidentially. Contact details
of the researcher were provided in case participants had any inquiry. The organization was
informed of the purpose of the study and confidentiality is not required.

21
CHAPTER 4: Results
4.1 Introduction
Following the data collection, the data obtained was cleaned and prepared for analysis. First
the negatively worded items were re-coded so all the items were positive indicators. Then the
missing values were identified and replaced by the value “9”, this value was recorded in
SPSS as discrete missing value so it was not included in any calculation.
The data was then checked in order to test if it satisfied the assumptions of
regression. An analysis of standard residuals was conducted, which showed that the data
contained no outliers. The data was the tested to see if it met the assumption of collinearity.
Results indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Management, tolerance = 1, VIF =
1). The data was then tested for the assumption of independent errors, results showed that the
data met the assumption (Durbin-Watson value = 2.34).
The assumption of normality was tested using the measures of skewness and kurtosis.
Results show that the data met the assumption of normality. (Management, skewness = -.15,
kurtosis = -.98; Engagement, skewness = -.17, kurtosis = -.31; Well-being, skewness = -.47,
kurtosis = -.17).
In order to test the homoscedasticity and linearity of the data a scatterplot of
standardised residuals was produced. The scatterplot showed that the data met the
assumptions of linearity and homocedasticity, showing homogeneity of variance.
Finally, the non-zero variance assumption was tested. Results of the statistic analysis
of the variance show that the data met the assumption. (Management, variance = .52;
Engagement, variance = 1.12; Well-being, variance = 51.92)
Once the data was cleaned and the assumptions were tested, the data was analysed in
order to find statistically significant relations to support or reject the proposed hypotheses.
The correlation matrices and descriptive statistics for the measures are presented below (see
table 4.0). This chapter will now present the results of those analyses.

22
Table 4.0 Means, standard deviation and intercorrelations (N = 82)
Variable Mean S.D 1 2 3
1.Management 3.20 .72 -
2.Engagement 3.29 1.06 .64** -
3.Well-being 22.81 7.20 .58** .51** -
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) **
4.2 Hypothesis 1. Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater
levels of engagement
To test the hypothesis that greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater
levels of engagement a regression analysis was conducted.
Results indicate that there is a significant correlation between positive manager
behaviours and levels of engagement (β = .64, p < .001, R2
= .41) (See table 4.1).
Table 4.1 H.1 Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .643a
.414 .407 .81743
a. Predictors: (Constant), Management
Table 4.1 H.1 Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) .288 .410 .702 .485
Management .939 .125 .643 7.516 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Engagement
When controlling for age, gender, tenure and average worked hours per week the
correlation is equally strong and significant. (β = .64, p < .001, R2
= .41) (See table 4.2). It is
also necessary to acknowledge that gender recorded a statistically significant correlation with
engagement. (β = -.24, p < .05), the negative correlation indicates that men display higher
levels of engagement. Results suggest support for hypothesis H1. The strong correlation
indicates that positive manager behaviours lead to greater levels of employee engagement.

23
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .281a
.079 .031 1.04443
2 .697b
.486 .453 .78510
a. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,
Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,
Age, Management
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 3.442 1.048 3.284 .002
Age .006 .032 .024 .186 .853
Gender -.485 .245 -.230 -1.984 .051
Working in months .006 .004 .169 1.343 .183
Average worked hours
per week
.005 .012 .049 .430 .669
2
(Constant) .855 .855 1.000 .321
Age .004 .024 .016 .164 .870
Gender -.515 .184 -.244 -2.798 .007
per week
-.003 .009 -.030 -.352 .726
Management .939 .121 .643 7.763 .000
4.3 Hypothesis 2 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater
levels of well-being.
To test the hypothesis that greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater
levels of well-being a regression analysis was conducted. Results indicate that there is a
significant correlation between positive manager behaviours and levels of well-being (β =
.58, p < .001, R2
= .33) (See table 4.3)

24
Mode
l
R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .580a
.336 .328 5.90829
a. Predictors: (Constant), Management
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 4.418 2.964 1.491 .140
Managemen
t
5.744 .903 .580 6.364 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Wellbeing
When controlling for age, gender, tenure and average worked hours per week the
correlation is equally strong and significant. (β = .58, p < .001, R2
= .34) (See table 4.4).
Results show support for hypotheses H2. The strong correlation indicates that greater positive
manager behaviours lead to greater levels of well-being.
Mode
l
R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .100a
.010 -.041 7.35402
2 .591b
.349 .306 6.00353
a. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per
week, Working in months, Gender, Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per
week, Working in months, Gender, Age, Management
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 26.171 7.380 3.546 .001
Age -.082 .228 -.047 -.361 .719
Gender -1.382 1.722 -.096 -.802 .425
Working in months .011 .032 .046 .352 .726

25
4.4 Hypotheses 3 The relationship between positive manager behaviour and
employee engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the
relationship between manager behaviour and employee engagement will be
stronger where there is high wellbeing than where there is low wellbeing.
To test the hypothesis that the relationship between positive manager behaviour and
employee engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between
manager behaviour and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing
than where there is low wellbeing, a hierarchical multiple regression model was conducted.
In the first step four control variables were included, age, gender, length of service
and average hours worked per week. These variables accounted for a small amount of
variance and were not statistically significant R2
= .08, F (4, 77) = 1.65, p >.05. (See table
4.5)
In the second step two variables were included, management and well-being. These
variables were statically significant accounting for a significant additional 43% of variance in
engagement. R2
= .44, F (6, 75) = 13.37, p <.001. (See table 4.5)
For the third step, an interaction term between management and well-being was
created, to avoid potentially problematic high multicollinearity with the interaction term, the
variables were centered. Then the interaction term between management and well-being was
added to the regression model. This interaction accounted for an additional 5% of the
variance in engagement R2
= .56, F (7, 74) = 15.19, p <.05 (See table 4.5)
per week
.019 .086 .026 .221 .826
2
(Constant) 10.149 6.542 1.551 .125
Age -.095 .186 -.055 -.510 .611
Gender -1.563 1.406 -.109 -1.112 .270
per week
-.034 .070 -.046 -.476 .635
Management 5.813 .924 .587 6.288 .000

26
In this final third model the interaction term variable between management and well-
being recorded a significant Beta value (β = .23, p < .05), higher than well-being alone (β =
.20, p < .05). Management recorded the highest Beta value (β = .56, p < .001). (See table 4.6)
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 7.209 4 1.802 1.652 .170b
Residual 83.989 77 1.091
Total 91.197 81
2 Regression 46.283 6 7.714 12.881 .000c
Residual 44.915 75 .599
Total 91.197 81
3 Regression 50.941 7 7.277 13.378 .000d
Residual 40.256 74 .544
Total 91.197 81
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months,
Gender, Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months,
Gender, Age, Wellbeing, Management
d. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months,
Gender, Age, Wellbeing, Management, MNGM_x_Wellbeing
Mod
el R
R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .281a
.079 .031 1.04440 .079 1.652 4 77 .170
2 .712b
.507 .468 .77386 .428 32.624 2 75 .000
3 .747c
.559 .517 .73756 .051 8.564 1 74 .005
a. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age,
Wellbeing, Management
c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age,
Wellbeing, Management, MNGM_x_Wellbeing

27
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.958 .936 3.161 .002
Age .006 .032 .023 .185 .854
Gender -.485 .245 -.230 -1.984 .051
per week
.005 .012 .049 .430 .668
2 (Constant) .115 .779 .147 .883
Age .006 .024 .025 .267 .790
Gender -.473 .183 -.224 -2.591 .012
per week
-.002 .009 -.022 -.259 .797
Management .785 .147 .538 5.340 .000
Wellbeing .026 .015 .180 1.791 .077
3 (Constant) -.239 .752 -.317 .752
Age .010 .023 .038 .428 .670
Gender -.452 .174 -.214 -2.590 .012
per week
-.004 .009 -.041 -.504 .616
Management .823 .141 .564 5.855 .000
Wellbeing .029 .014 .200 2.082 .041
MNGM_x_Wellbeing .051 .017 .231 2.926 .005
The interaction plot (see graph 4.7 below) shows that well-being has a moderation
effect between manager behaviour and employee engagement. Further examination shows
that at low well-being, engagement levels are similar for low, average and high manager
behaviours. Highest levels of engagement appear when higher levels of manager behaviour
and well-being occur together. Thus, these results support hypothesis H3 suggesting that the

28
relationship between manager behaviours and engagement is stronger in the presence of high
levels of well-being.
4.5 Managing for sustainable employee engagement framework competencies
analysis.
4.5.1 Individual competencies and engagement
In order to study the predicting ability of each individual factor of the “Managing for
sustainable employee engagement” framework a two stage hierarchical multiple regression
was conducted with engagement as the dependent variable.
Gender, age, length of service and average hours worked per week were entered at
stage one as control variables. The five individual factors of the framework (Open, handling
conflict, knowledge, relationships and support) were entered at stage two as independent
variables.
Results show that model 1 which includes only the control variables accounts for 7%
of variance in engagement but it is not statistically significant R2
= .07 F (4, 76) = 1.516; p >
.05.(See table 4.8 below)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low M.
Behaviour
Average M.
Behaviour
High M.
Behaviour
StandarizedEngagement
Standarized Management
Graph 4.7 Moderation
Low Well-being
Average Well-being
High Well-being

29
Model 2 that includes the five individual competencies explains an additional 50% of
variance in engagement and it is statistically significant R2
= .57 F (9, 71) = 10.411; p <
.001. (See table 4.8 below)
In this second model two of the four control variables were statistically significant.
Gender (β = -.29, p < .01) and length of service in months (β = .23, p < .05). .(See table 4.4.2
below)
` Out of the five competencies of the framework only two were statistically significant
with open, fair and consistent recording a higher Beta value (β = .53, p < .001) than handling
conflict (β = .36, p < .01). (See table 4.9 below)
Table 4.8 Model Summary
Mode
l R
R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .272a
.074 .025 1.04831 .074 1.516 4 76 .206
2 .754b
.569 .514 .73998 .495 16.306 5 71 .000
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age, Knowledge,
Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.665 4 1.666 1.516 .206b
Residual 83.520 76 1.099
Total 90.185 80
2 Regression 51.308 9 5.701 10.411 .000c
Residual 38.877 71 .548
Total 90.185 80
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,
Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,
Age, Knowledge, Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships

30
4.5.2 Individual competencies and well-being
A second two stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted, this time with
well-being as dependent variable.
Gender, age, length of service and average hours worked per week were entered at
stage one as control variables. The five individual factors of the framework (Open, handling
conflict, knowledge, relationships and support) were entered at stage two as independent
variables.
Results show that model 1 accounts for 1% of the variance in well-being but is not
statistically significant. R2
= .01 F (4, 76) = .188; p > .05. (See table 4.10 below)
Model 2 which includes the five individual competencies accounts for an additional 46% of
variance in well-being and it is statistically significant R2
= .47 F (9, 71) = 6.966; p > .001
.(See table 4.10 below)
Table 4.9 Coefficientsa
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 2.958 .936 3.161 .002
Age .006 .032 .023 .185 .854
Gender -.485 .245 -.230 -1.984 .051
per week
.005 .012 .049 .430 .668
2
(Constant) .486 .775 .628 .532
Age -.017 .024 -.065 -.703 .484
Gender -.613 .182 -.290 -3.360 .001
per week
-.007 .009 -.064 -.780 .438
Open .667 .157 .532 4.240 .000
Handling_conflict .655 .223 .356 2.934 .004
Knowledge -.255 .156 -.211 -1.634 .107
Relationships -.099 .183 -.090 -.540 .591
Development .200 .156 .185 1.283 .203

31
In this second model none of the control variables were statistically significant.
Regarding the five competencies only two of them were statistically significant with “Open,
fair and consistent” recording a higher Beta value (β = .46, p < .05) than “Knowledge, clarity
and guidance” (β = .34, p < .05). (See table 4.11 below)
Table 4.10 Model Summary
Mod
el R
R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .099a
.010 -.042 7.40230 .010 .188 4 76 .944
2 .685b
.469 .402 5.60855 .459 12.277 5 71 .000
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age, Knowledge,
Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 41.236 4 10.309 .188 .944b
Residual 4164.345 76 54.794
Total 4205.580 80
2 Regression 1972.217 9 219.135 6.966 .000c
Residual 2233.363 71 31.456
Total 4205.580 80
b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age,
Knowledge, Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships

32
4.6 Summary of results.
Hypothesis 1 “Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of
engagement” was supported. Results show a strong relationship (.64) between positive
manager behaviours and high levels of engagement.
Hypothesis 2 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of well-being”
was supported. Results show a strong relationship (.58) between positive manager
behaviours and well-being.
Hypothesis 3 “The relationship between positive manager behaviour and employee
engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between manager
behaviour and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing than
where there is low wellbeing” was supported. Results support the hypothesis showing a
Table 4.11 Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 24.803 6.647 3.731 .000
Age -.083 .231 -.047 -.360 .720
Gender -1.367 1.743 -.095 -.784 .435
per week
.019 .086 .027 .224 .824
2 (Constant) 6.705 5.924 1.132 .262
Age -.196 .181 -.112 -1.084 .282
Gender -2.272 1.398 -.158 -1.625 .109
per week
-.004 .068 -.005 -.056 .955
Open 3.997 1.209 .465 3.306 .001
Handling_conflict 2.541 1.718 .204 1.479 .144
Knowledge 2.825 1.192 .342 2.370 .021
Relationships -1.289 1.400 -.172 -.921 .360
Development -1.350 1.197 -.182 -1.128 .263

33
positive moderation effect. The interaction term variable between management and well-
being recorded a significant Beta value (β = .23, p < .05). The interaction plot in section 4.4
illustrates the direction of the moderation effect.
The results of the individual competencies analysis with engagement indicate that
only two competencies were statistically significant with “open, fair and consistent”
recording a higher Beta value (β = .53, p < .001) than “handling conflict” (β = .36, p < .01).
This suggests that these two competencies are the biggest contributors to engagement.
The results of the individual competencies analysis with well-being also recorded two
of the competencies being statistically significant. In this case “Open, fair and consistent”
recorded a higher Beta value (β = .46, p < .05) than “Knowledge, clarity and guidance” (β =
.34, p < .05). These results suggest that these two competencies are the two most important
contributors to well-being.

34
CHAPTER 5: Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the “Managing for sustainable employee
engagement” framework in the retail industry. The results will now be discussed in
relationships to existing literature and research. In addition, the implications of the study and
its limitations will be also discussed.
5.2 Hypotheses results
The three hypotheses proposed in this study were supported by the results. Results of
the statistical analysis for hypothesis H1 “Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to
greater levels of engagement” show a strong relationship (.64) between positive manager
behaviours and high levels of engagement. These results are in line with previous research
that has offered extensive evidence of the influence of manager style in the levels of
employee engagement (Saks, 2006; Alfes et al., 2010). The correlation between gender and
engagement levels (-.24) suggests that males tend to exhibit higher levels of engagement than
females, however this results need to be carefully interpreted. Firstly, Schaufeli and Bakker
(2003) state in the UWES-17 manual that men tend to score higher than women and, although
less than a standard deviation, the difference is statistically significant. Secondly, due to the
sample size (N = 82) the predicting ability of gender needs to be taken with caution as with a
larger sample the effect of gender might not be as significant.
Results of the statistical analysis for hypothesis H2 “Greater positive manager
behaviours will lead to greater levels of well-being” show as well a strong relationship (.58)
between positive manager behaviours and well-being, while none of the control variables
were statistically significant. These results show the strong influence that supervision has in
employees’ psychological well-being. Previous research has produced similar results (van
Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes, & Stride, 2004; Gilbreath & Benson, 2004) showing that
managers’ behaviour is a better predictor of well-being than other variables such as age,
gender or length of service.

35
Hypothesis H3 “The relationship between positive manager behaviour and employee
engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between manager
behaviour and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing than
where there is low wellbeing” aimed to study the moderation effect of well-being in the
relationship between manager behaviour and employee engagement. Results support the
hypothesis showing a positive moderation effect. The statistical analysis suggest that in the
presence of low levels of well-being, manager’s behaviours have little or no influence in the
levels of employee engagement, while in the presence of high levels of well-being employee
engagement levels increase according to the quality of manager’s behaviours. It seems
reasonable to suggest that this moderation effect is in line with previous researches that
consider psychological well-being an essential element in order to promote sustainable
engagement (Robertson & Cooper, 2010; Gourlay et al., 2012). Furthermore, these results not
only support the argument by Robertson, Birch, and Cooper (2012) which states that
promoting engagement while ignoring well-being will narrow the results of any programmes
put in place by organizations, but also suggest that these programmes will not have any effect
on engagement if well-being is not addressed.
The strong support found for the three hypotheses formulated in this study is certainly
in line with the existing research; in addition it seems reasonable to suggest that results
indicate that the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement framework” is a valid tool
that can help managers identify those behaviours that will assist them to promote both
employee engagement and well-being.
5.3 Competencies analysis results
The analysis of the individual competencies of the framework aimed to study which
of them had a stronger effect in engagement and well-being respectively.
Results regarding the individual competencies and engagement showed that only two of them
were statistically significant. “Open, fair and consistent” which, relates to managing with
consistency and a positive attitude towards interpersonal relations, recorded the highest Beta
value (.53). It was followed by “handling conflict” (.36), which relates to using appropriate
organizational resources to deal with employee conflicts. In order to interpret these results it
is necessary to keep in mind the organizational context of the research, as well as the sample
characteristics and size. A possible explanation for the significant influence of these two

36
competencies is the fact that fairness, consistency in the management style and conflicts
might be the biggest issues affecting employee engagement, in addition the average age of
the sample (29) shows a rather young workforce which might be not so concern about
pursuing a career within the retail industry and therefore other competencies such as
supporting development or guidance do not have much influence. It is also necessary to
acknowledge that a bigger sample size might have produced statistically significant results
for the other competencies (Howitt & Cramer, 2005).
It is also interesting that gender and length of service were statistically significant in
predicting engagement. Gender recorded a moderate correlation (-.29), as mentioned before
in this paper this correlation might be the result of the tendency of males to score higher in
the UWES-17. Length of service on the other hand scored a moderate correlation (.24), in
order to interpret this relationship it seems reasonable to suggest that employees that remain
within an organization might do so because they feel engaged, as engagement is related to
low employee turnover intention (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
The results of the statistical analysis between the five individual competencies and
well-being also present really interesting effects. This time none of the control variables were
statistically significant, and again only two of the competencies were statistically significant.
“Open, fair and consistent” recorded the highest Beta value (.46) followed by “Knowledge,
clarity and guidance” (.34), which relates to managers providing clear guidance, through
clear communication and appropriate understanding of the roles. These results suggest that
certainly “Open, fair and consistent” is a strong predictor also of well-being and seems to be
the strongest predicting competency in the framework. However, as mentioned before, a
larger sample size would be desirable in order to draw more conclusive results regarding the
competencies analysis (Howitt & Cramer, 2005).
5.4 Implications for research
The results of this study suggest that the “Managing for sustainable employee
engagement” framework relates positively to higher levels of engagement and well-being. In
addition, results suggest that the effect of positive manager’s behaviours on levels of
engagement is stronger when higher levels of well-being are present. These results support
the theoretical basis of the framework and the suggestions made by Lewis and Donaldson-

37
Feilder (2012) regarding the importance of well-being in achieving sustainable engagement.
Therefore these results have several implications for future research.
First, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is a topic worth further study. As employee
engagement becomes more and more important for both researchers and practitioners it is
necessary to expand the body of knowledge on the processes that truly promote and maintain
employee engagement that is sustainable over time.
Second, it is necessary to produce further validation of the framework in both similar
and different industries in order to expand our understanding of the framework, in terms of,
whether some behaviours have a bigger influence in the levels of engagement and well-being
than others.
Third, it would be desirable for future studies to focus on longitudinal approaches in
order to obtain conclusive results regarding causality, and also study the levels of engagement
over time in the presence and absence of well-being.
Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) suggest that future research should focus on the
motivations behind employee engagement in order to understand these motivations, and
therefore understand engagement as a way employees feel, think and act, and not a mere
behaviour.
5.5 Implications for practice
This study has also several practical implications. First, it has important implications
for managers. Results show the importance of management style in determining the levels of
engagement and well-being of employees. Managers need to understand that their approach
to management will have an impact in the employees’ engagement and well-being levels and
therefore, as shown by research, in the organizations results.
Second, it is necessary to support managers to behave in ways that promote
engagement and well-being, and the “Managing for sustainable engagement” framework is
certainly a tool that can be used as a guideline for managers to identify which are desirable
behaviours and which should be avoided. Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) suggest that
learning and development interventions should be develop in order to support manager’s

38
skills development. Certainly, after further validation of the framework, it would be
beneficial, if not essential, to develop specific training programmes that managers can benefit
from.
Third, organizations need to acknowledge the key role of well-being in creating
sustainable employee engagement. It is essential for organizations to embed well-being on
any programmes or interventions aimed to support employee engagement in order to create
engagement that is sustainable over time. At this point, the empirical evidence supporting the
role of well-being as a predictor of positive organizational outcomes as well as its moderation
effect in the relationship between management style and employee engagement is to great to
be ignored.
Finally, as suggested by Saks (2006) employee engagement needs to be part of the
organizational and cultural strategy, involving not only managers but all levels of the
organization. Considering the evidence produced by research it seems sensible to suggest that
organizations need to consider employee sustainable engagement as a key element of the
overall strategy. Creating an organizational culture that promotes well-being and investing in
training, so managers can develop the necessary skills to lead an engaged workforce.
5.6 Study limitations
The results of this study need to be considered recognizing its limitations. First of all
it is a cross-sectional study which prevents its results from being conclusive about causality.
Even though the results are consistent with the existing literature regarding the influence of
manager behaviour’s on employee engagement and well-being, it is possible to argue that
engaged employees cause managers to behave in a more positive way, as some authors
consider that the relationship between managers and employees is a constant feedback loop
(van Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes, & Stride, 2004).
A second limitation is the potential common method bias, in this study there are
several potential causes of common method bias that need to be considered. The common
rater effect might be a potential cause since the predictors and the dependant variables are
rated by the same participants (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Transient
mood state (Podsakoff et al., 2003) is another possible source of bias since the study is cross-

39
sectional and uses self-report measurements that aim to rate managers. It seems reasonable to
consider that the ratings might be conditioned by the recent interactions between employee
and manager at the time of completing the self-report. Negatively worded items, like those
found in the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” questionnaire can be a source
of bias according to Podsakoff et al. (2003), this bias can occur because respondents establish
a pattern of responding the questionnaire and fail to recognize that some items are reversed
coded.
Another limitation that needs to be considered is the sample used in this study. The
sample used is a self-selected sample, which implies that self-selection bias can occur
because the respondents were allowed to choose for themselves if they wanted to participate
in the survey (Grosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). This implies that the sample
might not represent the target population as those who chose to participate might have certain
characteristics that affect the results (Howitt & Cramer, 2005). Related to this issue is the low
response rate in this study which was approximately 5%. Low response rates in surveys are
also related to non random sampling because certain groups within the target population such
as less literate participants might choose not to participate affecting the results (Howitt &
Cramer, 2005). However, the low response rate does not necessarily mean that the sample is
not representative of the target population. Research shows that surveys with response rates
as low as 1% that aim for large samples pools are more representative that those with a 50%
response rate that aim for smaller samples (Krosnick, 1999).
Finally, it is also necessary to acknowledge that the sample size in this study is
adequate, although a larger sample size would have been desirable in order to obtain more
statistically significant results, especially in the individual competencies analysis (Howitt &
Cramer, 2005).
5.7 Discussion summary
Results evidence the relationship between management style and employee
engagement and well-being. Results also evidence a positive moderation effect in a way that
well-being moderates the relationship between management style and engagement. Results
are in line with previous research and support the concept sustainable engagement.

40
The study has several implications for future research. It is necessary to further
validate the framework in order to gain better understanding of the impact of the manager’s
behaviours. Longitudinal studies are recommended in order to be able to obtain conclusive
results regarding casualty, and also study the levels of engagement over time in the presence
and absence of well-being.
The practical implications discussed in this chapter include the need of managers to
acknowledge the impact they have in employees’ engagement and well-being levels, the need
to develop training programmes that help managers develop those skills, the need for
organizations to embed well-being in their engagement programmes and how employee
engagement needs to be part of the organization’s strategy and culture.
Finally, this chapter discussed the limitations of the study. Limitations included the
cross-sectional nature of the study, possible method bias caused by the raters and the negative
wording of some questionnaire items, and possible bias caused by the low response rate, and
the self-selected nature of the sample.

41
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion
This dissertation aimed to study the relationship between management style and
employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable employee
engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style. The research was based
upon the retail industry and sought to also serve as further validation for the framework.
The results of this research indicate that positive management behaviours are
positively related to higher levels of employee engagement and well-being. A moderation
effect was found. This moderation effect implies that the relationship between management
style and engagement is stronger in the presence of well-being. Further analysis of the data
revealed that in the presence of low levels of well-being the relationship between
management style and engagement was very weak, as high levels of positive manager’s
behaviours had none or little effect in the levels of employee engagement.
Exploratory analysis of the individual competencies of the framework revealed the
“open, fair and consistent” competency as the strongest predictor of both engagement and
well-being; however, due to the limitations of the study regarding the sample size it was not
possible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the lack of statistical significance of some of
the other competencies.
Although the study limitations mentioned in chapter 5 need to be considered before
generalizing the findings, it seems reasonable to suggest that the findings in this research
have made several contributions to the body of knowledge in the area of employee
engagement. While the importance of management style has been widely studied, the use of
the “managing for sustainable engagement” framework in this study serves a double purpose.
In the one hand it supplements the empirical evidence available regarding the importance
manager’s behaviours, in the other hand adds further validation to a relatively newly
developed framework that aims to support organizations in general and managers in
particular to identify the behaviours that will ultimately lead to higher levels of employee
engagement and well-being.

42
The positive moderation effect found in this research adds support to the concept of
sustainable engagement. In line with findings from other researchers (Wright & Copranzano,
2000; Robertson & Cooper, 2010; Robertson, Birch, & Cooper, 2012), these findings suggest
that promoting well-being is essential in order to maximize the potentially enhancing effect
that positive manager’s behaviours have in employee engagement levels.
To conclude, this study leaves some unanswered questions. How exactly will the
levels of engagement be affected overtime in the presence or absence of well-being? Which
behaviours have the most impact on engagement and well-being levels? In order to answer
this questions future longitudinal studies might be able to study the levels of engagement over
time, adding to our understanding of the topic. In addition, further validation of the
“Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework will help to identify those
behaviours.

43
References
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2010). Creating an engaged workforce.
London: CIPD.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2007). Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well-
Being: The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 12,
193-203.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging
concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress , 22, 187-200.
Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., & Robertson, S. (2005). Work
Environments, Stress, and Productivity: An Examination Using ASSET. International Journal of
Stress Management , 12, 409-423.
Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee
psychological well-being. Work & Stress , 18, 255-266.
Goldberg, D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London: Oxford University
Press.
Goldberg, D., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli, M., Gureje, O., et al. (1997). The validity
of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care.
Psychological Medicine , 27, 191-197.
Gourlay, S., Alfes, K., Bull, E., Baron, A., Petrov, G., & Georgellis, Y. (2012). Emotional or Transactional
engagement - Does it matter? London: CIPD.
Grosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A
Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires. American
Psychologist , 59, 93-104.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job
resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of
Vocational Behavior , 73, 78-91.

44
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in
predicting job. Work & Stress , 22, 242-256.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Can Work Engagement Be Discriminated from Job
Involvement and Organizational Commitment? European Psychologist , 11, 119-127.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between
Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology , 87, 268-279.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2005). Introduction to research methods in psychology. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/. (2014, February 25). Retrieved July 31, 2014, from
http://www.ons.gov.uk/: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_353899.pdf
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.
The Academy of Management Journal , 33, 692-724.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology , 50, 537-567.
Kroth, M., & Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a Managerial Strategy. Human Resource Development
Review , 8, 506-531.
Lewis, R., & Donaldson-Feilder, E. (2012). Managing for sustainable employee engagement.
Developing a behavioural framework. London: CIPD.
Lewis, R., Donaldson-Feilder, E., & Tharani, T. (2011). Management competencies for enhancing
employee engagement. London: CIPD.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. , 1, 3-30.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leither, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory—Manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

45
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77,11-37.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on
followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study.
Work & Stress , 22, 16-32.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J. R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the
relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological
well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International
Journal of Nursing Studies , 46, 1236-1244.
Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 88, 879-903.
Rayton, B. (2012). The evidence. Bath: University of Bath.
Rich, B. L., Lepine Jeffrey, A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:Antecedents and effects on
job performance. Academy of Management Journal. , 53, 617-635.
Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement
and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 31, 324-336.
Robertson, I. T., Birch, A. J., & Cooper, c. L. (2012). Job and work attitudes, engagement and
employee performance. Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal , 33, 224-232.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological
Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57, 1069-1081.

46
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology , 21, 600-619.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. (2005). Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to
Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology , 90, 1217-1227.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. A. (2003, December). Test manual for the UtrechtWork Engagement
Scale. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/:
http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWE
S_English.pdf
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25,
293-315 .
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With
a Short Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 66, 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources
predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. , 30, 893-917.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Baker, A. B. (2002b). Burnout and
engagement in university students: Across national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural
Psychology , 33,464-481.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement of
Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies , 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work
Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-being? Applied
Psychology: An International Review. , 57, 173-203.
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent
and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International , 14, 427-445.

47
Shuk, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the
Foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9, 89-110.
Storm, K., & Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the UtrechtWork Engagement Scale in
the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology , 29, 62-70.
van Dierendonck, D., Borrill, C., Haynes, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership Behavior and Subordinate
Well-Being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 9, 165-175.
Wright, T. A., & Copranzano, R. (2000). Psychological Well-Being and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of
Job Performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 5, 84-94.
Yarker, J., Lewis, R., Donaldson-Feilder, E., & Flaxman, P. (2007).
Management competencies for preventing and reducing stress at work:
Identifying and developing the management behaviours
necessary to implement the HSE Management Standards. . Bootle : Health and Safety
Executive.

48
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Management, engagement and well-being Questionnaire
Introduction
Welcome to the management, engagement and well-being questionnaire. My name is Igor, I am working on a
research for my MSc in Occupational Psychology. The purpose of this research is to study how management
style affects the workers' engagement and well-being. All the information you provide is confidential and your
individual responses will not be available to anyone apart from me. Neither your Manager nor the organization
will have access to your individual responses. Your participation on this questionnaire is voluntary and you can
withdraw at any time. If you would like to know more about this research please e-mail me on
igorvelasco@hotmail.com. Thank you very much for participating in this research!
Personal information (For statistical purposes)
Please answer all the questions
1) Age *
2) Gender *
0 Male 1 Female
3) Length of service in months *
4) Average hours worked per
week *
My Manager
Think about your current manager or a previous one within Pret. You need to have worked for at least 3 months
with that manager. Every question refers to a specific behaviour, if you have not seen that behaviour in your
manager please leave the question blank. Open, fair and consistent
5) Is overly critical of me and other team members
Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
6) Blames me and other team members for decisions taken
7) Focuses on mistakes
8) Demonstrates a lack of faith in my capability
9) Tells me what to do rather than consulting me
10) Doesn’t allow decisions to be challenged

Dissertation - Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry

Dissertation - Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (15)

Similaire à Dissertation - Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry

Similaire à Dissertation - Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Dissertation - Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry