MSA 699 Capstone

Running head: EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR
The Effects of Employee
Employee engagement in the federal sector
MSA699 Project Report
MSA 699 Project Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
Master of Science in Administration (Concentration in General Administration)
Central Michigan University
Submitted by:
Natalie Grime
Monitor: Dr. Dee Andrews
Central Michigan University
June, 2016
i

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR
Executive Summary
During and after the Recession, it is common knowledge that more often than not, companies are
still working very “lean” after numerous layoffs in order for organizations to stay afloat. Even
with the economy, in a slow recovery, organizations are still being cautious and seeking ways to
save money while increasing profit. Not all leaders view their employees as their most valuable
asset, however; for those companies who are hearing about the increasingly hot topic, employee
engagement, they are learning that there really might be something to the theory that an engaged
workforce is a productive and motivated workforce.
This research examines some of the areas of employee engagement and analyzes data
behind claims regarding what causes it and what happens when an organization has an engaged
workforce. Using raw data from the 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, there is an ample
amount of data from employee responses, that may shed light on the validity of whether or not
engagement levels are directly related to supervisors and senior leadership, as well as what
causes an employee to be engaged and what causes an employee to become disengaged.
The researcher used the raw data to create charts which aid in the visualization of the
survey results and drawing conclusions from the data. Many organizations have implemented
employee engagement programs, some use the help of consulting companies who step in to
educate the organization on what engagement is as well as create programs and plans in response
to the feedback from employee surveys.
In addition to addressing three research questions by using the data from Federal
Employee survey, recommendations will be provided and can apply to any person in a leadership
role and an organization of any size. The recommendations are relevant to anyone who may be
interested in capitalizing on the potential of an engaged workforce.
ii

Table of Contents
Page Number
Executive Summary……………………………………………………ii
List of Figures………………………………………………………….v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………...v
Chapter I Problem Definition……………………………………..6
Background…………………………………………………….6
Purpose of Study...…………………………………..…………7
Research Problem....................……………………………...…7
Research Objective…………………………………………….8
Scope and Limitations………………………………………….8
Relevance to Concentration……………………………………8
Definitions……………………………………………………..10
Chapter II Literature Review………………………………….......11
Introduction to Literature…………………………………..…..11
Chapter III Methodology…………………………………………..19
Research Approach……………………………………………19
Data Collection Approach and Procedures……………………19
Data to be Collected…………………………………………...20
Data Analysis and Synthesis…………………………………..21
Data Reliability and Reliability………………………………..21
Chapter IV Introduction...………………………………………….23
Date Presentation and Analysis……………………………….23
iii

Research Questions…………………………………………….35
Chapter V Summary……………………………………………….38
Conclusion……………………………………………………..39
Recommendations……………………………………………...40
References………………………………………………………….......42
Appendices……………………………………………………………..44
RRA Approval Letter…………………………………………..44
iv

List of Figures
Figure 1 Employee Engagement among the U.S. Working Population 13
List of Tables
Table 1 Respondent breakdown by generation. 25
Table 2 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 26
My Work Experience
My Agency
My Work Unit
My Supervisor
v

My Leader
My Satisfaction
My work/life
Table 9 Engagement Index Trends 34
Table 10 Global Satisfaction Index Trends 34
Table 11 Engagement Index Trends-Intrinsic Work Experience 34
Table 12 Engagement Index Trends-Supervisors 34
Table 13 Engagement Index Trends-Leaders Lead
vi

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR 1
Chapter I
Problem Definition
Background
The term employee engagement was first used by William A. Kahn in his article titled
“Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work,” in the 1990
Academy of Management Journal, in which he observed working conditions and situations that
led to engagement and disengagement (Zinger, 2013). According to Zinger (2013),
engagement’s scope and intensity began to grow at a rapid speed in the 2000’s; the search for the
term on Google brought approximately 50,000 results. Search for the term today and
approximately 47,500,000 results will be offered.
Engagement is becoming an increasingly popular area of focus of organizations and their
human resource (HR) departments because employers are beginning to see the extreme value of
an engaged workforce versus a disengaged workforce. Gallup’s findings from their “State of the
American Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for U.S. Business Leaders” study,
provides insight to leaders as to how engagement affects the performance of their organization as
well as what they can do to improve employee engagement. Organizations with engaged
employees have notably higher productivity, profitability, customer ratings, less turnover and
absenteeism, and fewer safety incidents. Gallup (2013) estimated “active disengagement costs
the U.S. $450 billion to $550 billion per year” (p. 5). Employers are learning that having an
engaged workforce does, in fact, impact business remarkably (Maylett & Nielsen, 2012).
i

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to establish the meaning of the term “engagement” and
determine the impact, if any, that employee engagement has on the success of an organization.
Furthermore, do leaders, including all levels of management, in organizations understand the
meaning of “employee engagement” and the potential correlation between engagement and
productivity and the direct tie to business financial performance (Frank, Finnegan, and Taylor,
2004)? Due to layoffs, labor shortage, and the younger generations saturating the workforce,
engaging employees has become a major focus but, for many in leadership roles, there is still
much to learn.
Research Problem
The topic of employee engagement in the workplace is fairly new and becoming
increasingly popular, especially to supervisors. It is the supervisors who have the ability to
release the potential in their employees to not only show up to work every day, but to become
inspired, innovative, passionate and willing to go above and beyond their job expectations.
Many leaders are not aware that their employees are not engaged, they may mistake
disengagement for unhappiness or poor attitude toward their work and the company. Employees
can lose engagement quickly when they do not feel support from their manager. Only after
senior leadership embraces and enforces the practices that promote engagement, will
organizational employee engagement ensue.

The intended audience for this research proposal is anyone who is in a leadership role.
The research results and recommendations for improvement should initially be presented to
senior leadership and then cascaded down to the leaders on each level below. The objective is to
educate leaders on the importance of employee engagement and gain their full understanding of
what engagement means. This report is intended to reveal the positive effects of having an
engaged workforce, for not only the employees, but the entire organization, thus providing ways
leaders can accelerate their employee’s level of engagement.
Research Objective
The purpose of this research proposal is to answer the question: How much of an effect
do supervisors and leaders have on employee engagement and the way employees feel about the
organization they are working for? The general research question for this proposal will be
examined as a series of sub-questions:
• Are employee engagement levels related to their direct supervisors?
• Are employee engagement levels related to the leadership of an organization?
• What causes employee engagement and disengagement?
In order to answer these sub-questions, this research will follow a methodical approach
examining related literature surrounding employee engagement.
Hypothesis
The level of employee engagement has a significant impact on productivity, quality of
service, and profitability.

Scope/Limitations
Due to the scope of this research, there are several limitations. First, the research will not
include studies or data concerning employee engagement that may be affected due to personal
situations that are not related to the workplace or personal behavioral issues that may affect the
productivity and success of an employee. This research will be based on data collected by
various consulting agencies who have surveyed employees from various organizations within the
United States and globally. The questions asked by each consultative group, do not vary
depending on country, age, gender, or education.
The second limitation is that employees who are interviewed in their working
environment or on company property may be somewhat hesitant to provide complete and honest
answers with the fear of co-workers or management hearing their feedback. These employees
may not speak as freely as they would in a more comfortable environment, where they do not
feel the need to be concerned their comments may be overheard.
A third limitation could have been the schedule of the employee interviewed and how
busy or hectic that might particular day may have been. If the employee is especially busy or
stressed due to interactions with customers or management that particular day, the frustration
may come through in their answers, which otherwise may not be as harsh.
Relevance to Concentration
The researcher’s field of study, Health Services Administration, the research will
correlate strongly to the skills essential to becoming a successful and effective leader. As a
leader, it is crucial to understand the importance of employee engagement as it relates to

retention and overall productivity. In the anticipation of numerous challenges, including
organizational budget cuts/expectations and continuously changing policies and regulations,
leaders must be prepared to engage and motivate their employees.
Definition of Terms
The following are terms used throughout this research study. Their definitions were
collected from BusinessDictionary.com (WebFinance, Inc., n.d.):
Employee engagement: Emotional connection an employee feels toward his or her
employment organization, which tends to influence his or her behaviors and level of effort in
work related activities. The more engagement an employee has with his or her company, the
more effort they put forth. Employee engagement also involves the nature of the job itself - if the
employee feels mentally stimulated; the trust and communication between employees and
management; ability of an employee to see how their own work contributes to the overall
company performance; the opportunity of growth within the organization; and the level of pride
an employee has toward working for or being associated with the company.

Statistically significant: The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other
than mere random chance.
Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
Introduction to the Literature
Until recently, employee engagement was not a term commonly heard around the office.
Within the last decade or so, the downturn of the economy and difficult financial times for most

organizations has helped shed some light on the subject. Budget cuts, layoffs, hiring freezes, and
lack of wage increases have forced most companies to make use of the resources they were able
to keep, forcing the employees who were left after many layoffs to take on extra job duties and
longer work hours without additional compensation. Peter Drucker made the point that “the
most valuable asset of a 21st-century institution, whether business or nonbusiness, will be its
knowledge workers and their productivity” (as cited in Maylett and Nielson, 2012). The value of
organizations is adjusting from material assets to cognitive assets. These assets, of the
employees’ hearts and minds, are becoming increasingly valuable (Maylett & Nielson, 2012).
Employee engagement has now become a term of interest to many in management as
they realize their employees are their most valuable assets and play an enormous part in the
financial future of their organization. A great deal of literature focuses on understanding what
engagement means, deciding which factors play a role in levels of engagement, consequences of
disengagement, who is responsible for increasing engagement, and methods to maximize
engagement in the workplace.
The Meaning of Employee Engagement
Engagement does not have one single definition; throughout the research, there are
numerous definitions and explanations for employee engagement. Kelleher (2011) defined
employee engagement as “the unlocking of employee potential to drive high performance.”
Kelleher believed commitment is the foundation of employee engagement, and that commitment
should be mutual between the employer and the employee. Employee engagement should not be
confused with employee satisfaction; employees may be satisfied but still underperform and not
be engaged. Satisfaction can be the product of a great work environment (Kelleher, 2011).

According to Psychometrics, a Canadian organization which provides assessments and tests
which aim for organizational development, employee engagement is “the connection people feel
to their work that results in higher levels of performance, commitment, and loyalty” (Control,
opportunity & leadership, 2011).
Saks (2006) provided numerous definitions for engagement, from several researchers, to
express his point that engagement has been explained in many different ways. He summed up
the definition of engagement by stating “…in the academic literature it has been defined as a
distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components
that are associated with individual role performance” (Saks, 2006, p. 602). Among the first to
study the behavioral components of engagement, and were ultimately the pioneers to research the
various elements which can change levels of engagement, were Dr. George Gallup and Dr.
Donald O. Clifton. Dr. Clifton began studying work environments in the 1950s to establish the
positive factors which allow employees to profit from their individual talents. From the 1950s to
the 1970s, Dr. Clifton used science and the study of strengths to research individuals’ attitudes.
Clifton’s techniques included interviews and rating scales to examine individual differences. He
studied notions such as “Focusing on strengths versus weaknesses,” “relationships,” “personnel
support,” “friendships,” and “learning.” Continuous feedback methods were created for the first
time; the purpose of asking questions, collecting data, and discussing the results, in order to give
feedback for improvement, was a “measurement-based feedback process” (Harter, Schmidt,
Killham, and Agrawal, 2009).
The Effects of Employee Engagement

As depicted in Figure 1 from Gallup’s State of the American Workplace study,
engagement levels have not shown much movement since first measured by Gallup in 2000; less
than one-third of Americans have been engaged in their job in any given year. Gallup’s research
shows a strong relationship between engagement and “business outcomes essential to an
organization’s financial success, including productivity, profitability, and customer satisfaction.”
The engaged employees are most likely to drive innovation, growth, and revenue, as these
employees are enthusiastic and committed towards their work, they “work with passion and feel
a deep connection to their
company” (Gallup, 2013).
Gallup grouped
employees into one of
three categories: engaged,
not engaged, and actively
disengaged, with engaged
workers described as:
…engaged
employees are the best
colleagues. They
cooperate to build an
organization,
institution, or agency, and
they are behind everything good that happens there. These employees are involved in,
enthusiastic about, and committed to their work. They know the scope of their jobs and look
Figure 1. Employee Engagement Among the U.S. Working Population
(“State of the American,” 2013)

for new and better ways to achieve outcomes. They are 100% psychologically committed to
their work. And, they are the only people in the organization who create new customers.
(p. 21)
The claim, made by other researchers in the field, that engaged employees perform better
than their non-engaged coworkers, is a fact accepted by organizations worldwide, due to research
and the evidence collected for more than over a decade. The evidence continues to validate there
is a quantifiable association between the levels of engagement in an organization and the
organization’s financial performance (“The Power of Three,” 2011).
John Baldoni (2013), chair of leadership development practice at N2Growth, reported in
an article in The Harvard, productivity is not the only outcome of employee engagement, “strong
employee engagement promotes a variety of outcomes that are good for employees and
customers.” Organizations, with highly engaged employees, have a success rate double that of
organizations with lower engagement. When comparing top-quartile companies to bottom-
quartile companies, evidence of engagement is very evident; top-quartile companies report lower
absenteeism and turnover (Baldoni, 2013).
Engaged employees do more than just show up to work, they bring their hearts and minds
and are motivated to do the job and go beyond their job description. Maylett and Julie Nielson
(2012) state:
...clear ties can be drawn between employee engagement and business factors such as
return-on-investment, increased customer service, quality, and overall profitability.
Organizations learned that engaged employees were not only nice to have: they actually
affect business in significant ways. (pg. 56)

Maylett and Nielson (2012), also made the point, “The ability to learn, change, and adapt
increasingly becomes the sustainable competitive advantage (p. 56).
The Effects of Employee Disengagement
Employees, who fall on the opposite side of the spectrum of being engaged, are
considered to be “not engaged” or “actively disengaged.” Gallup (2013) began tracking and
measuring engagement levels of the U.S. working population in 2000. Gallup’s 2013 most
recent results revealed 70% of American workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged.”
Gallop (2013) found “Currently, 52% of workers are not engaged, and worse, another 18% are
actively disengaged in their work” (p. 12).
According to a study by Psychometrics (2010) employees who are disengaged can affect
the output of their organization. The study showed poor and dysfunctional working
relationships, lower productivity, and an “unwillingness to go beyond their job description.
Michael Laff (2007) reports that disengagement is a valid concern for employers; research by Kenexa
Institute of New York shows an employee can become disengaged as rapidly as six months after he or she
begins a new position. The Kenexa Institute also found that 72 percent of hew hires are actively engaged,
however; the percentage of those actively engaged drops within the first two years and by the third year
of employment, 57 percent of those new hires remain actively engaged (Laff, 2007).
Psychometrics (2010) study on engagement found turnover (8%) and absences (7%) were lower
results of disengagement. What they found surprising about this find, was the fact that disengaged
employees do not necessarily quit their job or not show up to work, but remain with the company thus
causing further damage to productivity and relationships.
Based on the Gallup’s 2013 State of the American Workplace report, they grouped
employees who are not engaged in two different types of groups: not engaged and actively

disengaged. According to Gallup’s findings, workers who are not engaged are the most tricky to
single out because they are not necessarily disruptive or aggressive. These are the employees
who show up to work and have minimal or no concern regarding “customers, productivity,
profitability, waste, safety, mission, and purpose of the teams, or developing customers” (p. 21).
These employees’ waste time and have, for the most part, “checked out” (p.21).
Employees in the actively disengaged group, according to Gallop’s (2013) description,
include the workers who, essentially, are out to hurt their company. These workers undo the
actions and efforts put forth by the engaged workers. They account for more quality defects,
have more accidents on-the-job, contribute to employee theft, are sicker, and miss more days of
work, and control manager’s time. These workers act out their unhappiness and weaken what
their engaged coworkers achieve ("State of the American,” n.d.).
Drivers of Engagement/Disengagement
Many factors come into play regarding employee engagement levels; many may assume
how much an employee is paid, plays a large role in engagement, however, it does not. Bates
(2004) states “The engagement challenge has a lot to do with how an employee feels about the
work experience, about how he or she is treated. It has a lot to do with emotions.” Bates (2004)
also pointed out that studies have consistently shown employee emotions are deeply linked to
and are what drive the “bottom-line success in a company.” Researchers suggest one of the ways
organizations can heighten employee engagement is by showing their employees they care.
Another challenge organizations have in creating an engaging work environment is to
create an environment where employees comprehend and commit to the organization’s direction,
strategy, and goals. Haid and Sims (2009) state, “This requires a holistic, coordinated effort to
ensure that a number of key elements or building blocks are in place to promote alignment” (p.

6). The organization’s strategy needs to be clear in order for the employees to be aligned and
engaged. According to Haid and Sims (2009), in order to align and engage people to a clear
strategy, an organization needs a positive working environment and company culture, people and
systems that promote the right behavior, competent leaders, and an “organizational structure
where people understand the level of what is expected of them and what they are accountable
for” (p. 6).
Saks (2006) discussed Kahn’s (as cited in Saks, 2006) study on the “psychological
conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.” Kahn found three conditions,
meaningfulness, safety, and availability, connected with engagement and disengagement at work
(as cited in Saks, 2006). May et al. verified Kahn’s model and found meaningfulness, safety, and
availability were remarkably linked to engagement (as cited in Saks, 2006). May et al. also
found “job-enrichment and role fit were positive predictors of meaningfulness; rewarding co-
workers and supportive supervisor relations were positive predictors of safety, while adherence
to co-worker norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors” (as cited in Saks, 2006, pg.
604). The resources available to employees were a positive predictor, yet involvement in
activities outside of work was a negative predictor (Saks, 2006).
On a smaller scale, another factor which leads to low engagement is the issue of
employees who are promoted or placed in a position, which they may not be suitable for.
Situations such as this can lead to underperformance. When people are in roles that inhibit them
from maximizing their strengths and performing to the best of their ability, it can lead to
discouragement and disengagement (Cormier, 2009).
One of the things organizations can do to better understand engagement, what creates
engagement, and what can be done to measure and increase engagement would be to find out

what the drivers of employee engagement are. That is, according to Clapon (2016), “Learning
what motivates people, what drives their actions and how this translates into productivity,
performance and loyalty to the company, is the first step in acting towards employee
engagement, rather than just talking about it” (para. 2).
Key drivers of employee engagement may not be the same every year and at every
company and studies by different companies may produce different results in terms of key
drivers. Before an organization can develop employee engagement initiatives and plans, their
strategy will not be effective and should be designed and executed only after their internal
engagement drivers are recognized and understood (Clapon, 2016).

Chapter III
Methodology
Research Approach
The goal of this research is to determine the effects engagement has in the workplace in
terms of employee attitudes, productivity levels, and stress levels. Many employers are clueless
about what employees are looking for in the company they work for, and how the lack of
engagement can be detrimental to an employee’s productivity. Moreover, the research intends to
answer the question of whether or not organizational leaders should invest and focus on the level
of engagement of their employees. The literature review was based on existing data and
discusses one of numerous reports, concerning employee engagement, and research that has
suggested the strong correlation between employee engagement, performance, and productivity.
The intent of this research is to determine the factors that have an effect on levels of employee
engagement and to provide realistic suggestions on increasing engagement levels in the
workplace.
Data Collection Approach and Procedures
Research data collected for this study will primarily consist of secondary data from
independent research consulting organizations, journals, human resource websites, the researcher
searched for data that has already been collected from various resources. Several of the resources
contained data that was already compiled and analyzed by previous authors which creates a
foundation for the writer build on. The raw data that was analyzed by the writer was from an
annual survey of federal employees working for the United States Government. The researcher
used the raw data to analyze and present additional findings.

Data to Be Collected
The purpose of the data collection was to find the factors that have an impact on
employee engagement and to understand which factors affect the level of engagement in an
organization. It was important to find what mattered most to workers, regarding how happy they
were performing their daily tasks, how content they were with their working environment and
their level of satisfaction with their organization so that employers know where to focus in terms
of engagement efforts and improvements. A popular method used to obtain constructive
feedback from employees is the use of surveys.
The researcher located and analyze raw data from the United States Office of Personal
Management (OPM) 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). The FEVS web page
on OPM’s website states the FEVS:
…is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether, and to what extent,
conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agencies. Survey
results provide valuable insight into the challenges agency leaders face in ensuring the
Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce and how well they are
responding (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2015, para. 1).
The primary reason the author chose to analyze the raw data from a federal survey, was
because of the diversity among the participants. The demography of employees surveyed varied
in terms of profession, educational background, and ethnicity. The respondents were comprised
of full- and part-time and headquarters and field employees; veterans and non-veterans;
individuals living with disabilities; individuals with varying educational backgrounds, and
members of the LGBT communities and multiple racial and ethnic groups, all who work in a vast

array of occupations that make up our Federal workforce. There were 37 departments/Large
Agencies and 45 Small/Independent Agencies, from which the survey respondents represented.
The data also provides information regarding the respondents’ tenure, salary range, educational
level, and line of work since these are all factors that could affect their level of engagement.
Furthermore, the writer wanted to ensure observations were drawn from survey data that would
be considered valid, in that there was a high response rate from employees to ensure statistically
valid data. For the 2015 survey, there were 421,748 employee responses (United States Office of
Personnel Management, 2015).
Data Analysis and Synthesis
Since the research was based on existing data, the researcher located raw data available
on OPM’s website from the FEVS survey. OPM provided details in regard to how the survey
was conducted in terms of distribution, dates the survey was open, and response rates. The writer
will synthesize the secondary data with the conclusions drawn from the writer’s data analysis.
Reliability and Validity
The validity of the research techniques used to collect the preexisting data is high. The
agencies who conducted the research specialize in conducting surveys globally and analyzing
and presenting the data in a clear fashion. The research was conducted to investigate the factors
that promote employee engagement and to provide insight to leaders so they have the
opportunity to improve employee engagement in their organization.
The preexisting data collected is reliable since the studies, although tweaked a bit to
adapt throughout the years, have been tested and retested for over a decade. Lack of reliability
may occur because even though the studies have been tested and retested, the same employee
who took the survey the year before may not receive and/or take the survey the following year.

Another factor that may affect reliability is the possibility of employees providing dishonest
answers which could have been due to the fact that they were apprehensive to provide candid
feedback.

Chapter IV
Introduction
The data collected for this study will focus on factors contributing to high employee
engagement levels, as well as the qualities required from an organizational and management
perspective to increase and sustain those levels of engagement. The research will focus on the
factors that drive employee engagement and if or how those factors can be determined from the
questions asked in the employee survey given by the Office of Personal Management.
Data Presentation and Analysis
The 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) was conducted online through a
self-administered online survey. The survey was launched on April 27th
and on May 4th
, each
having administration periods of 6 weeks. Full-time, part-time permanent and non-seasonal
employees were qualified to take the survey. Employees from 82 agencies, 37 departments/large
agencies and 45 small/independent agencies, for a total of 848,237 employees receiving the 2015
FEVS with 421,748 employees receiving and completing the survey for a government wide
response rate of 49.7 percent (United States Office of Personnel Management, 2015).
The survey consisted of 84 statements in which the employee would indicate the extent to
which he or she agreed or disagreed with the statement. The survey grouped the 84 statements

into eight themes in order to measure Federal employee’s views on how valuable the agency
management is regarding their workforce. The eight topic areas covered in the survey were
personal work experiences, work unit, agency, supervisor, leadership, satisfaction, work/life
programs, and demographics (United States Office of Personnel Management, 2015).
The OPM utilize indices in the FEVS in order to ensure they are obtaining a thorough
perspective on an agency’s results. An index can be used by agencies as a way to measure and
monitor progress in specific areas where it is wanted to make improvements. Specifically,
according to OPM:
An index combines several items that refer to different facets of a broader area of
consideration, provided a more consistent and robust metric for measuring progress toward
objectives. The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey encompasses three important index
measures. These are the Engagement Index, global satisfaction index, and new inclusion quotient
(New IQ) (United States Office of Personnel Management, 2015, p. 5).
“Employee engagement is the employee’s sense of purpose” (United States Office of
Personnel Management, 2015, p. 6), and the FEVS Engagement Index is a measure of the
circumstances that are conducive to engagement which an agency uses to gauge their working
environments engagement potential. The three subfactors that make up the index are: Leaders
Lead, Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experience. With these subfactors, and the items or
questions in the survey that encompass these sub factors, the agencies are to gain insight into
their employee’s perceptions of leadership integrity and leadership communication and
motivation, the relationship between the employee and supervisor, and the employees’ feelings

of motivation and competency concerning their role in the workplace (United States Office of
Personnel Management, 2015).
Although not a focus of the writer’s research, but still important to note who the
respondents are representing in terms of age group, which is visualized in Table 1. Almost half
of the survey respondents were from the Baby Boomer generation, at 49%, with the next highest
respondents being from Generation X, followed by Millennials at 11%, and the lowest number of
respondents, from the Traditionalist generation at one 1%. The response rate from traditionalists
is minimal as most have retired so there are few left in the workforce.
Table 1. Respondent breakdown by generation.
The OPM site had data from the FEVS survey from 2012-2013. The writer began
analyzing the data by grouping the government-wide percent positive responses from the four
survey administrations. Responses counted as “positive” when the respondent selected “strongly
agree” or “agree.” Responses that were neutral “neither agree nor disagree” did not count as

positive. Each table shows the set of survey items for the items which are intended to gain a
viewpoint of employees on their overall work experience, how they view their agency, their
supervisor, leadership, and satisfaction.
Table 2 reflects employees feeling strongly about the work they do. It’s evident due to the
percent of positive responses to “the work I do is important,” I am constantly looking for ways to
do my job better,” and “When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done.”
It seems as though employees have a strong sense of pride in the work they do. The writer
notices the contrast in the percent of positive responses when looking at the items that seem to
have to do with how employees feel about the about whether or not they feel they are being set
up to be as successful in their job as they want and/or whether they are given the tools and
resources to get the job done and do it well. Overall, the percent of positive responses seems to
be slowly trending back upward since 2012.
Table 2. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: My Work Experience

The percentages of positive responses in Table 3 are in regard to how employees feel
about their agency’s environment, colleagues, and salary. The areas with the lowest percent of
positive responses are “I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a
Table 3. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: My Agency
better place to work,” with 39% positive responses, “pay raises depend on how well employees
perform their jobs,” with 21%, and “creativity and innovation are rewarded,” with 36.7%
positive responses.
In Table 4, when employees responded to items regarding their work unit, it seems there
are more positive responses when it comes to items about co-workers and the work done by the
group as a whole. The items where there was a lower percentage of positive responses were
regarding work unit awards for good performance, differences in performance are recognized in
a meaningful way, dealing with poor performers who cannot improve, promotions based on
merit, and recruiting people with the right skills.

Table 4. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: My Work Unit
The next two topics addressed in the survey were regarding supervisors and leadership.
These areas of the survey asked questions to gain insight into employees’ perceptions of their
supervisors as well as the effectiveness of leadership. Looking at Table 5 which shows the
percent of positive responses regarding employees’ supervisors; first, it seems employee
perceptions regarding intangible items such as supporting work/life balance, listening to
employees, and treating employees with respect, is on the up and up for the last 4 survey periods.
When looking at the more tangible items; supervisors providing employees with opportunities to
demonstrate skills, having worthwhile discussions about employee performance, and the ability
to provide employees constructive suggestions to improve job performance, the percent of
positive responses are considerably lower.

Table 5. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: My Supervisor
Employees were presented topics that were related to leadership and management in their
organization. These questions seemed to differ from the questions seen in Table 5 regarding “my
supervisor” and instead of questions regarding an employee’s supervisor who might oversee
him/her directly; the topics are geared toward high-level management and leadership, such as the
executives. The most noticeable trend seen in the data in Table 6 is the falling percentage of
positive responses from 2012. While it appears the percentages have increased each year, they
are still not at the point they were in 2012. The question in Table 6 where there are the least
number of positive responses is, “In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation
and commitment in the workforce.” Overall, of the 10 questions related to the leadership of

employees organizations, the percent of positive responses overall, is showing a downward
trend, which could mean that more employees each year are responding negatively.
Table 6. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: My Leader
In Table 7 employees are asked a set of questions regarding their satisfaction involving
everything that has to do with their position in the organization they work for. It is noticeable, as
with results seen in previous tables, there is an overall trend of a decline in positive responses,
year over year, since 2012, with the exception of the slight increase in the most recent 2015
FEVS. Considering the questions that received a low percent of positive responses, which, in
regard to Table 7, all questions except for one have a percent of positive responses below 60
percent, however; when employees were asked, “Considering everything, how satisfied are you
with your job?”, the percent of positive responses are the highest, above 60 percent.

The writer also noticed, almost immediately, that although the percent of positive
responses were relatively low regarding employee satisfaction in the other items presented in
these questions, there is a dramatic increase in positive responses, when comparing the other
questions to how satisfied employees are with their job overall, in some comparisons by more
than 20 percent. This applies to not only the results from the 2015 surveyAlso but from the years
(2012-2014) previous FEVS as well. Also, despite the low number of positive responses for the
questions asking employees how satisfied they are with their involvement in decisions that affect
their work, communication received from management, recognition received, opportunity to get
a better job in their organization, and the training they receive for their current job, the scores are
considerably higher when asked about satisfaction with their job overall, pay, and with their
organization.
Table 7. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: My Satisfaction

The FEVS results revealed high satisfaction in another area, work/life, as well. The
work/life questions focused on programs or benefits, available to employees, to assist with
balancing one’s work life and personal life. The positive responses regarding the questions under
the work/life topic have remained fairly steady, with the exception to how satisfied employees
are to telework, or work from home program, which has increased considerably from 2012 to
2015.
The question which gauged the highest percent of positive responses, 89 percent in the
2015 FEVS, was the question, “How satisfied are you with the Alternative Work Schedules
(AWS) program in your agency?” Similar to telework, the AWS allows employees to have some
flexibility in their work schedule. Examples of working an alternative work schedule could be
anything other than the regular Monday through Friday, 8:00am-5:00pm schedule. An employee
who works a compressed schedule, which involves working longer hours in a day but fewer
work days in a week, is an example of AWS (Office of Human Resources Management, 2016).
Table 8. Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: Work/Life

The remaining questions/results in Table 7, regarding the Employee Assistance Program,
Child Care Programs, and Elder Care Programs, all having somewhat significantly lower positive
responses, with the latter having the lowest positive responses. The reason these questions
received a lower number of positive responses, other than employees simply do not have a
positive perception of them, could be that the employees have not utilized these programs so
could not provide an honest answer, or perhaps many employees do not know these programs are
even offered and available to them.
The Office of Personal Management uses Engagement Indexes as a way to measure “the
conditions conducive to engagement, that is the engagement potential of an agency’s work
environment” (United States Office of Personnel Management, 2015, p.8). OPM describes the
index measures as providing “more comprehensive information on a wider topic area; an index
combines several; items that refer to different facets of a broader area of consideration”
(Unlocktalent.gov, 2015, para. 10). There are three subfactors that make up the index and each
subfactor exhibits a different characteristic of an engaging work environment. Those subfactors
that comprise the Engagement Index are:
Leaders Lead: Shows employee perceptions of the integrity of leadership and leadership
behaviors such as communication and workforce motivation (highlighted in red in Table 6).
Supervisors: Shows the interpersonal relationship between worker and supervisor, including
trust, respect, and support (highlighted in red in Table 5).
Intrinsic Work Experience: Reflects employee feelings of motivation and capability relating to
their position in the workplace (highlighted in red in Table 2) (United States Office of Personnel
Management, 2015, p. 6).

Additionally, the Global Satisfaction Index measures employee satisfaction regarding four facets
related to their work: “their job, their pay, their organization, and whether or not they would
recommend their organization as a good place to work” (United States Office of Personnel
Management, 2015, p. 9) (highlighted in green in Table 7 and Table 2).
In order to get an idea of what the Engagement Index scores look like year after year, and
to assist with answering the research questions from Chapter I, the writer gathered the
engagement indices for these subfactors from past surveys. The tables below display how the
Engagement Indices have trended government wide using data from the 2010 FEVS to the 2015
FEVS. Data was available for the indices from 2010-2015.
66
67
65
64
63
64
50
55
60
65
70
Table 9. Engagement Index Trends
Governmentwide Linear (Governmentwide )
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
72 72
71
69
68
69
50
55
60
65
70
75
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Table 11. Engagement Index
Trends-Intrinsic Work Experience
Governmentwide Linear (Governmentwide)
71 72 71 70 71 71
50
55
60
65
70
75
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Table 12.EngagementIndexTrends-
Supervisors
55
56
54
53
50
51
40
45
50
55
60
65
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Table 13.EngagementIndex Trends-
Leaders Lead
Governmentwide Linear (Governmentwide )
67 66
63
59 59 60
50
55
60
65
70
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Table 10. Global Satisfaction Index
Trends

Research Question 1: Are employee engagement levels directly related to their
supervisors?
Looking at Table 5, employees were responding to questions specific to their
supervisor. Overall, the percent of positive responses are on a, slight, upward trend,
especially when focusing on the six questions, highlighted in red, that are used to gauge the
Engagement Index. When comparing the percent of positive responses in Table 5 with the
Engagement Index Trends in Table 9, the writer observed that the percent of positive
responses, even though data was only available from 2012-2015, correlated with the
Engagement Index levels in Table 9. Furthermore, when looking at the positive responses
from year to year, for each of the index questions highlighted in Table 5, there is a small
increase in positive responses, for each of the Engagement Index questions from 2014-
2015. This increase mirrors the 1 point increase in Table 5.
The Global Satisfaction and Intrinsic Work Experience Index Trends which are
shown in Table 10 and 11, respectively, each have a 1 point increase from 2014-2015 as
well. Ironically, looking at Table 12 which focuses on the Engagement Index Trends
regarding employees’ supervisors, the index trend has varied the least over the past 6 years
and remained steady, at an index of 71, in 2014 and 2015.
Although the one point increase in FEVS’s overall Engagement Index Trend from
2014-2015 may seem small, with 421,378 responses to the 2015 survey, the increase is still
statistically significant. Also, note the Engagement Index also increased by one point in
Tables 11 and 13, which are considered the subfactors that comprise the Engagement
Index, as well as in the Global Satisfaction Index, in Table 10.

Research Question 2: Are employee engagement levels directly related to their senior
leadership?
While some employees may view their direct supervisor as a leader, and depending on
their position in the organization, they are, not only in the figurative sense but in the literal sense.
The questions regarding leadership in the FEVS survey referred to all manager’s and senior
leaders. Table 6 reflects the percent of positive responses regarding the leadership questions and
the questions in the square indicate the questions that made up the Engagement Index Trends for
leadership. The questions pertaining to employee perceptions of leadership, displayed a
significant drop in positive responses from 2012-2014, compared to the other sets of questions.
A significant drop can also be found in the Engagement Index tables as well. In Tables 9-
11 and Table 13, one can see the drop in the Engagement Index from 2012-2014. In some
instances, in Table 10, Global Satisfaction and Table 13, Leaders Lead, there was a drop in the
Engagement Index by four. Additionally, the decline is reflected in percent of positive responses
for each of the Engagement Index questions, highlighted in Table 6, from 2012-2014.
Research Question 3: What causes and employee to be engaged or disengaged?
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), along with other federal agencies,
created UnlockTalent.gov as part of their efforts to have all levels of an agency focus on
employee engagement. On the website it states:
We believe that employee engagement is a leading indicator of performance and
should be a focus for all levels of an agency, from the front line employee to the
agency head. Whether defending our homeland, restoring confidence in
our financial system, providing health care to our veterans, conducting

diplomacy abroad, providing relief to victims of disasters, or searching for
cures to the most vexing diseases, we are fortunate to be able to depend on a
skilled workforce committed to public service. (para. 1)
The FEVS Employee Engagement Index measures the engagement capacity of an
agency’s work environment or, the environments that lead to engagement (Unlocktalent.gov,
2015). Referring again to Tables 9-13 and agreeing with the OPM’s Employee Engagement
Index explanation, to create an engaged workforce and work environment, there are many
moving parts involved and it may not be an easy process, depending on the agency.
Going back to Tables 2-8, one can get a better idea of what it can take to acquire those
moving parts and create an engaged work environment. The writer noticed that although there
were a low number of positive responses for questions relating to pay, frequency of raises, and
having sufficient resources to get the job done, the number of positive responses from employees
to questions such as “The work I do is important,” “I am constantly looking for ways to do my
job better,” and “When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done” (U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2015).

Chapter V
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Summary
The purpose of this research project was to determine whether or not direct supervisors
and senior leadership affect employee engagement levels of employees working for the federal
government. The topic of employee engagement is not a new one, however; the topic has
become increasingly popular as organizations attempt to maximize the productivity of their
employees and the organization’s overall success. The research utilized raw data available from
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Chapter I provided a background of the term employee engagement and how it was first
used and how quickly the topic grew in the 2000’s and thereafter. Engagement has become a
popular focus area in organizations and their human resource departments because employers are
seeing how valuable it can be to have an engaged workforce as opposed to a disengaged

workforce. Because of the studies done by consulting organizations like Gallup, employers are
now learning that an engaged workforce has an impact on business.
The intent of this research was to analyze secondary raw data from employee surveys and
assess whether or not the following questions could be answered using that data:
1. Are employee engagement levels related to their direct supervisors?
2. Are employee engagement levels related to the leadership of an organization?
3. What causes employee engagement and disengagement?
Chapter II discusses the meaning(s) interpretations of employee engagement based on
different research as well as what studies say are the effects of employee engagement. Gallup
(2013) states engaged employees are enthusiastic about their job and committed to their work,
they are also 100% psychologically committed to their work. On the other hand, disengaged
employees, according to a study by Kenexa (2010), revealed disengaged employees can
negatively affect the output of their organization. Psychometics (2010) found disengaged
employees do not necessarily quit their job or no show up to work; they remain with the
company thus causing further damage to productivity and relationships.
Chapter III provides a description of the researcher’s methodology to conduct this study.
The primary method of data collection was through secondary data. The secondary data
referenced in the introduction and literature review consists of research consulting companies,
human capital/human resource websites, academic journals, and online magazine articles.

Chapter IV provides an analysis of the data the writer comprised using raw data that was
available to the public via The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) website. The raw data
consisted of survey results from the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).
Information regarding the technical aspects of the survey, such as the survey distribution method,
number of respondents, and generations (or age group) of the respondents, were also presented,
and noted as secondary data collected from the FEVS Technical Report and Governmentwide
Management Report.
Conclusion
The first research question asked if employee engagement levels are related to
employees’ direct supervisors. After reviewing the results of the data in Table 5 and comparing
those results to the Engagement Index Trends in Table 9, 10, and 11, there is a correlation
between the percent of positive responses from the Engagement Index questions highlighted in
the red square in Table 5. Being that there was a large response rate of 50% or more than
400,000 employees who responded to the survey, the increase in the indices is significant.
Reviewing this data, the writer concludes there is a correlation between employee engagement
levels and their supervisors.
The second research question asked if employee engagement levels are related to the
leadership of an organization. After reviewing the results and again seeing the results correlate
between the percent of positive responses to the survey questions, specifically the questions that
were marked with the square as the Engagement Index questions, and the Engagement Index
Trend tables, the writer concludes there is a correlation between employee engagement levels
and the senior leaders of an organization.

The third research question asked what causes employees to be engaged or disengaged.
While there were no questions in the survey specifically asking employees what types of things
or situations make them engaged or disengaged, the writer reviewed the questions that made up
the Engagement Indices and compared them to the questions that did not make up the
Engagement Indices. It was interesting to see that salary and raises, factors that many
automatically assume are the key to making employees happy, were not a key driver of the
Engagement Indices. According to the FEVS results, their organization’s integrity, motivation
generated by leaders, communication from management, senior leadership supporting work/life
programs, trusting their supervisor, etc., and additional non-monetary things, drive these
employees engagement levels.
Recommendations
The researcher recommends that future engagement surveys provide an open-ended
question or section where employees can write freely. In turn, there will more valuable feedback
from the raw data provided by these employees. A survey that only has questions that allow an
answer from a set of four or five designated responses can miss out on important details
employees would be able to provide if they had the opportunity to explain “why.” It is also
recommended that focus is not only placed on the percent of positive responses and drivers or
indices of engagement, the focus should be even stronger on the percent of negative responses
and the drivers or indices of disengagement.
The researcher recommends employee engagement education and training; because the
topic is relatively new to many managers and leadership, there might be those who are skeptical
of the theory and not take it very seriously. In order for any engagement initiatives to work,

management, especially those at the very top, must believe in its importance before trying to
push it out on the rest of the organization. Similarly to a salesman or woman, selling a product to
customers they do not believe in thus are not passionate in; the potential customer listening to
what the sales person has to say about said product will more often than not, either think he or
she is being scammed, and/or will have no interest and develop no respect for that salesperson
and his product.
Finally, it is imperative that organizations, which do choose to do a companywide
employee engagement survey, follow-through and study the feedback and actually do something
with the results. To go through all of the work of announcing the survey repetitively, putting up
posters, sending reminder emails, etc., only to share a brief summary months later of the results
with the employees or worse, not sharing anything at all about the results, and doing nothing to
address critical feedback, is a good way to lose the trust of employees. Trust is not a key driver
that is found only with Federal employees; companies and managers can make or break an
environment of engagement by creating or breaking trust.
References
Baldoni, J. (2013, July 4). Employee engagement does more than boost productivity. The
Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/07/employee-
engagement-does-more/

Bates, S. (2004, February 1). Getting Engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2). Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/publications/hrmagazine/editorialcontent/pages/0204covstory.aspx
Clapon, P. (2016, June 24). The top 3 employee engagement drivers | Hppy. Retrieved June 24,
2016, from http://www.gethppy.com/employee-engagement/the-top-3-employee-
engagement-drivers
Control, opportunity, & leadership-A study of employee engagement in the canadian workplace.
(n.d.). Psychometrics Canada | Psychometric Tests & Assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.psychometrics.com/docs/engagement_study.pdf
Cormier, R. (2009). Disarming the Dangerous. Training (Minneapolis, Minn.), 46(3), 12-14.
Gallup. (2013, June 11). State of the american workplace. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx
Haid, M., & Sims, J. (2009). Employee engagement: Maximizing organizational
performance. Leadership Insights, 1-24. Retrieved from https://www.right.com/thought-
leadership/research/employee-engagement---maximizing-organizational-performance.pdf
Harter, J., Schmidt, F., Killham, E., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12® meta-analysis-the relationship
between engagement at work and organizational outcomes [whitepaper]. Washington
D.C.: Gallup Press.
Kelleher, B. (2011). Engaged Employees = High-Performing Organizations. Financial Executive,
27(3), 51-53.
Laff, M. (2007). Employee Disengagement Strikes Early. T+D, 61(4), 20.
Maylett, T., & Nielsen, J. (2012). There Is No Cookie-Cutter Approach to Engagement. T+D,
66(4), 54-59.

Office of Human Resources Management. (2016). Alternative work schedules (AWS) - OHRM.
Retrieved May 27, 2016, from http://hr.commerce.gov/Employees/Leave/DEV01_005923
Unlocktalent.gov. (2015). About us. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from
https://www.unlocktalent.gov/about
Saks, A. (2006). Antecents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
Kenexa. (2012). Engagement levels in global decline: Organizations losing a competitive
advantage. Retrieved from
http://www.hreonline.com/pdfs/02012012Extra_KenexaReport.pdf.
The Power of three: Taking engagement to new heights. (2011, January). Towers Watson: HR
Consulting - Risk Management Insurance - Compensation Benefits.
Retrieved February 2013, from http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/3848/Towers-Watson-
Employee-Survey_power-of-three.pdf
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2015). 2015 employee survey results. Retrieved from
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/employee-
surveys/results/2015-employee-survey-results/#footnote1
WebFinance, Inc. (n.d.). BusinessDictionary.com - Online business dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/
Zinger, D. (2013, May 24). The history of employee engagement. Talent Space Blog, Retrieved
from http://blog.halogensoftware.com/the-history-of-employee-engagement
Prout, Christina Leigh
to me
Jun 24

Dear Natalie,
Your Research Review Application has been reviewed andapproved. You may start your
data collection. This approvalwill not expire as long as your topic and methodology remain
unchanged. If your topic or methodology changes, please submit a new Research Review
Application and supporting documents to your instructor by e-mail.
Please contact your instructor if you have any questions. Also, be sure to check with your
instructor concerning the due dates for your project.
Good luck with your project. This is the only notification you will receive. Please keep a
copy for your records.
Kim Gribben
Assistant Director, MSA Program
(Originally sent on February 2, 2016)
Christina Prout
Administrative Secretary Master of Science in Administration Program
Rowe 222 | Central Michigan University | Mount Pleasant, MI 48859
: 989-774-6525 : Fax 989-774-2575
1-800-950-1144, ext. 6525
: prout1cl@cmich.edu
: Visit us online!
WARNING: This message (including any attachment) may contain confidential information and is intended only
for the individual(s) named. Please do not distribute, copy, or forward this e-mail without the permission of the
sender. Please notify sender if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete it from your system. Thank you.

MSA 699 Capstone

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à MSA 699 Capstone

Similaire à MSA 699 Capstone (20)

MSA 699 Capstone