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

Table 3 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 27My Agency

Table 4 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 28

My Work Unit

Table 5 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 29My Supervisor

Table 6 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 30My Leader

Table 7 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 31My Satisfaction

Table 8 Federal Viewpoint Survey Yearly Comparison by Question: 32 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

v

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.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/connection.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/associated.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/opportunity.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/performance.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/contribute.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ability.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/management.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/employee.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/communication.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trust.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/job.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/company.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/engagement.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/activity.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/work.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/level-of-effort-LOE.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/behavior.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/influence.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/employment.html


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:

Figure 1. Employee Engagement Among the U.S. Working Population (“State of the American,” 2013)


…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 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.


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.

http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx

http://www.psychometrics.com/docs/engagement_study.pdf

http://www.shrm.org/publications/hrmagazine/editorialcontent/pages/0204covstory.aspx


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

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/employee-surveys/results/2015-employee-survey-results/#footnote1

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/employee-surveys/results/2015-employee-survey-results/#footnote1

http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/3848/Towers-Watson-Employee-Survey_power-of-three.pdf

http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/3848/Towers-Watson-Employee-Survey_power-of-three.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm


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 989-774-25751-800-950-1144, ext. 6525: [email protected]

: Visit us online!

http://www.grad.cmich.edu/msa

mailto:[email protected]

http://blog.halogensoftware.com/the-history-of-employee-engagement


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

Documents