The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF

TEAMBUILDING ACTIVITIES ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

A Dissertation in

Workforce Education and Development

by

Matthew R Raup

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

August 2020

The dissertation of Matthew R Raup was reviewed and approved by the following:

Judith A. Kolb Dissertation Co-Adviser Associate Professor of Education Co-Chair of Committee

William J. Rothwell Dissertation Co-Adviser Professor of Education Co-Chair of Committee Wesley E. Donahue Associate Professor of Management Development and Education Jamie Myers Professor of Education Susan Land LPS Department Director of Graduate Studies

iii ABSTRACT

The purpose of the qualitative case study was to provide insight into the experiences of higher

education IT staff who participated in an organization sponsored teambuilding event. By

exploring the lived experiences of these staff, it may shed light on the influence teambuilding

events have on employee engagement. My interest on this topic was a result of working for the

target organization in a leadership position. The research and analysis of the study were

conducted through a social constructivist perspective. This study utilized the conceptual

framework of Social Exchange Theory (SET). Research questions focused on understanding an

individual’s perspective of engagement, experience of engagement, and how a teambuilding

event influenced that experience of engagement. Data collection consisted of semi-formal

interviews. The data were analyzed using Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis

of Phenomenological Data as defined by Moustakas (1994). The study revealed the themes of

(a) peer relationships, (b) supervisor relationships, (c) customer relationships, and (d)

relationship with self. The study concludes with recommendations for OD practitioners, industry

leadership, teambuilding facilitators, and educational scholars.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 4 Conditions of the Setting ............................................................................... 4

Purpose of Study ................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 6 Rationale and Significance ................................................................................... 6 Operationalized Definitions .................................................................................. 8 Summary ............................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 10

Definitions of Engagement ................................................................................... 10 Frameworks of Employee Engagement ................................................................ 12

Kahn Needs-Satisfaction Framework ............................................................ 13 Job Demands-Resources Model .................................................................... 13 Social Exchange Theory ................................................................................ 14 Satisfaction-Engagement Model ................................................................... 15

Antecedents of Employee Engagement ................................................................ 16 Benefits of Employee Engagement ...................................................................... 17

Individual Benefits ........................................................................................ 17 Business Benefits ........................................................................................... 18

Engagement Interventions .................................................................................... 21 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 23 Summary ............................................................................................................... 26

Chapter 3 Design and Methodology ............................................................................ 27

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 28 Research Approach ............................................................................................... 28

Social Constructivist Worldview ................................................................... 29 Researcher’s Role .......................................................................................... 30

Research Design ................................................................................................... 31 Phenomenological Research Design ............................................................. 32 Case Study ..................................................................................................... 34

Boundaries of the Case Study ............................................................................... 35

v Setting ............................................................................................................ 36 Time Frame ................................................................................................... 36 Intervention: Teambuilding Events ............................................................... 37 Participants .................................................................................................... 38

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 39 Archival Engagement Data ............................................................................ 40 Interview Instrument ..................................................................................... 41 Interviews ...................................................................................................... 45

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 47 Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method ..................................................... 48 Horizontalization ........................................................................................... 49 Memoing ........................................................................................................ 50 Ethical Procedures ......................................................................................... 50

Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................... 51 Transferability ............................................................................................... 52 Dependability ................................................................................................ 52 Confirmability ............................................................................................... 53 Credibility ...................................................................................................... 53 Triangulation ................................................................................................. 54 Member Checking ......................................................................................... 55

Summary ............................................................................................................... 55

Chapter 4 Results ......................................................................................................... 57

Data ....................................................................................................................... 57 Research Setting ............................................................................................ 57 Participants .................................................................................................... 58 Interviews ...................................................................................................... 59

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 59 Bracketing ...................................................................................................... 60 Horizontalization ........................................................................................... 62 Imaginative Variation .................................................................................... 62

Emerging Themes ................................................................................................. 63 Theme 1: Peer Relationships: ........................................................................ 63 Theme 2: Supervisor Relationships ............................................................... 69 Theme 3: Customer Relationship ................................................................. 75 Theme 4: Self-Relationship .......................................................................... 78 Themes Summary .......................................................................................... 80

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 82 RQ1: What is the staff’s perception of engagement? .................................... 82 RQ2: What is the staff’s experience of engagement in the workplace? ........ 84 RQ3: What influences a staff’s experience of engagement? ......................... 89

Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 91

Chapter 5 Findings ....................................................................................................... 92

vi Conclusions........................................................................................................... 96

Peer Relationships ......................................................................................... 97 Supervisor Relationships ............................................................................... 99 Teambuilding Events ..................................................................................... 102

Implications .......................................................................................................... 104 OD Practitioners ............................................................................................ 105 Teambuilding Facilitators .............................................................................. 105 Organization Leadership ............................................................................... 106 Scholarly Researchers ................................................................................... 107

Recommendations for Future Study ..................................................................... 107 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 108 Final Summary ...................................................................................................... 109 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 111 Appendix A HRP-591 - Protocol for Human Subject Research ........................... 122 Appendix B Project Plan ..................................................................................... 129 Appendix C Initial Organization Survey Results ................................................. 131 Appendix D Interview Guide (Pilot Test) ............................................................ 133 Appendix E Interview Guide ................................................................................ 137 Appendix F Bartell AMP Tool Research Agreement ....................................... 140

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Representation of Social Exchange Theory ............................................... 24

Figure 3.1 Analysis Framework .................................................................................. 49

Figure 5.1 Study Engagement Model .......................................................................... 94

Figure 5.2 Example of cost / reward relationship ........................................................ 95

Figure 5.3 Teambuilding event’s influence on peer relationships .............................. 102

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Definitions of Employee Engagement .......................................................... 11

Table 2.2 Theories of Employee Engagement.............................................................. 12

Table 2.3 Antecedents of Employee Engagement ........................................................ 16

Table 2.4 Business Outcomes of Employee Engagement ............................................. 19

Table 3.1 Engagement Survey (AMP) Results ............................................................. 40

Table 4.1 Participant Demographics ........................................................................... 58

Table 4.2 Participants’ Emergent Themes and Subthemes ......................................... 81

Table 4.3 Perception of Engagement by Theme .......................................................... 83

Table 4.4 Peer Relationship Theme ............................................................................. 84

Table 4.5 Supervisor Relationships Theme .................................................................. 86

Table 4.6 Customer Relationship Theme ..................................................................... 87

Table 4.7 Self-relationship Theme ............................................................................... 88

Table 4.8 Influences of staff’s experience of engagement by theme ............................ 89

ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would never have had the motivation or the strength to pursue and complete a Ph.D.

program without my family. From my parents Larry and Marylou and little brother Jon who

always encouraged me to take chances and pursue my dreams, to my big sister Janice who

showed me the way by achieving her Ph.D. I also want to thank Kyley who was an ever-present

nag to force me to stick with it, even when things were busy and tough. She also motivated me

and encouraged me and supported me in any way she could to help me achieve this goal.

I also want to thank my friend Leen Zaballero for being there for me during this process.

As someone who needs to talk through their thoughts, Leen was an ever-present sounding board

who willingly put up with me rambling about my ideas and thoughts. She helped me both as a

friend and a colleague and I would have never been able to accomplish this without her.

I am thankful to my doctoral committee: Dr. Rothwell, Dr. Kolb, Dr. Donahue, and Dr.

Myers. Dr. Rothwell was my go-to person who was always responsive (good or bad) on getting

me to the next steps that I need to accomplish. Dr. Kolb inspired my passion of employee

engagement, the subject of my dissertation and an area of focus I would like to pursue moving

forward. Dr. Donahue was part of the motivation for joining the Ph.D. program, as I interacted

with him as a customer in my job before he became an encourager and motivator on my

committee. Lasting, Dr. Myers had the difficult tasks of helping me develop my qualitative

analysis skills. This was no easy hurdle as my instinct is having answers and looking at

quantitative data.

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

According to the Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace, in a Gallup World Poll results

from 155 countries, only 15% of employees are engaged at work, which “represents a barrier to

creating high-performing cultures around the world” (2017, p. 5). Although employee

engagement in the United States (33%) is higher than the global average, “16% of employees are

actively disengaged – they are miserable in the workplace and destroy what the most engaged

employees build … and the remaining 51% of employees are not engaged – they’re just there”

(Gallup, 2017, p. 2). Employee engagement directly impacts productivity and efficiency in all

sectors; yet, according to Gallup, university employees are among the least engaged workforce.

The need for engagement within higher education is increasing as academics have to perform

complex tasks with an increasingly demanding environment (Houston et al., 2006). In addition,

higher education is performing these tasks with a decreasing amount of resources which is

leading to increased amounts of stress (Daly & Dee, 2006; Gillespie et al., 2001; Kinman &

Jones, 2003). However, you do not need in depth research studies to determine how people feel

at work these days: simply view your favorite social media app and you can find friends, family,

and coworkers who either hate their job or are complaining about others at work who do not

work hard. Though a meme of people being lazy at work can be fun and humorous, this clear

lack of disengagement of so many employees has negative effects both on employees and their

organizations. Studies have shown that companies with high employee engagement substantially

outperformed those with low engagement level based on financial measurements (Yalabik et al.,

2 2013). Organizations with higher levels of engagement also received higher customer reviews

and benefit from higher levels of customer loyalty (Salanova et al., 2005). In addition to

organization benefits, employees with higher levels of engagement enjoy greater life satisfaction

(Shimazu et al., 2012). Engaged employees also have lower rates of stress/burnout (Buys &

Rothmann, 2010). It is clear to see that lack of employee engagement is a real and substantial

problem.

Working in the IT industry for over fifteen years has given me a firsthand experience of

the engagement challenges and opportunities within IT. Holtbrügge et al., (2010) identifies the

IT industry as an industry most impacted by employee engagement because the industry is so

heavily reliant on human capital. From my experience, I feel this is an accurate perspective

because in IT, you are constantly being forced to adapt and innovate to stay in front of the

competition. Reilly (2014) identifies innovation as a key attribute to engaged employees. In an

age with a highly competitive global marketplace, engaged employees provide an organization

with a competitive advantage that other organizations cannot imitate (Kang, 2014). Because

innovative and talented employees are the driving factor of successful IT organizations, it is very

common for organizations to consistently poach talent from other organizations. Turnover

within the IT industry is increasing as the competition for IT talent continues to increase (Top

Employee Engagement Trends to Watch in IT Industry, n.d.). This increased competition

combined with other factors has led to the IT industry having the highest turnover rate of all US

industries at a staggering 13.2% (T. Johnson, n.d.). The combination of IT and higher education

make this population increasingly important to engage. The IT industry within higher education

faces the same challenges as IT organizations outside of higher education. In addition to those

3 challenges, educational institutions tend to have lower salaries than business counterparts,

making recruitment increasingly difficult.

Team Member Exchange (TMX) has been identified as becoming increasingly important

as organizations become organizationally flatter (Bettis & Hitt, 1995). As organizations have

become more team focused (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009), there is a need for more

research on a better understanding of social exchange relationships within workgroups (Liao et

al., 2010). Within the context of a TMX relationship, the word “team” has been defined by

Kozowski, Gully, Salas, and Connon-Boweres (1996) as: (a) multiple individuals, (b) formed to

perform task-relevant functions, (c) who mutually interact, (d) exhibit task interdependence, (e)

possess one more shared goals, and (f) are embedded in a broader organizational setting.

The literature on interventions to improve engagement is sparse (Bailey et al., 2017).

However, it is believed that teambuilding activities can increase employee engagement. Knight,

Patterson and Dawson, identified team training as one of the major types of interventions that

improves employee engagement (2017) and is one of the most commonly applied group

development interventions in organizations today (Klein et al., 2009). The concept of team and

of the effects of the work environment on productivity was first examined in the Hawthorne

experiment (Gray & Herr, 1998). Although it generally delivers a positive experience, “the

empirical research on the effectiveness of teambuilding for improving employee and workgroup

performance is inconclusive” (DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980 as

cited in Buller, 1986, p.147).

4 Statement of the Problem

Employee engagement within IT and particularly the IT organizations within higher

education is growing increasingly important. From the need to decrease employee turnover,

improve innovation, and improve customer service, engagement is a critical component to

organizational success. Because of the increasing importance of engaged employees,

engagement as a management practice has become a significant area of interest in the

management field (Alfes et al., 2013). There is a gap between present scholarly literature and

business needs and more research is needed to close the gap (Kim et al., 2013). In the instance

of this case study, the team building activity was selected because it is a popular intervention and

is widely available from several different consultants and organizations.

Conditions of the Setting

My interest in this topic was driven by the phenomenon that occurred in the target

organization of this case study. The target organization launched an employee engagement

initiative that was sparked by low scores received on an engagement survey distributed to all

departments of the college by the central human resources (HR) department. The reason for

HR’s survey is not known, as there was not centralized action taken on the results of the survey

and there was no follow-up survey performed. However, the target organization chose to act on

the survey results, identifying it as an opportunity to improve. As previously discussed,

engagement is a hot topic in industry. Though it may not be fully understood, many

organizations desire to have higher engagement levels and are willing to act without fully

understanding the problems, the benefits, or the best way to approach it. This organization was

5 no exception, as the survey indicated low engagement levels which led to immediate action.

Though several engagement interventions were initiated, I have selected the organization

sponsored team building events to focus on for this study due to the size, cost, and visibility of

these events.

During the three-year period that the engagement initiative was in place, bi-annual

engagement surveys indicated little to no engagement improvement. With the measuring tool

indicating no perceived benefits, the engagement initiative was terminated. As an individual

who is passionate about engagement and the importance it has on both individuals and the

organization, it was frustrating to be a member of an organization that gave up on an engagement

initiative. The only metric used to measure the success of the engagement initiative showed no

significant changes. Though leadership saw no impact and moved on, the only way to truly

understand how these events influenced the staff who participated is through a phenomenological

case study of this organization.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological case study is to gain an

understanding of the lived experiences of the information technology (IT) staff at a large

research institution who participated in organized teambuilding events targeted at improving

employee engagement. Participants in this study were selected to provide an accurate

representation of non-management IT staff and to provide a balance that would alleviate

demographic differences such as age and gender. Management was not included in the study

because they were tasked by leadership to increase employee engagement, therefore their

6 experiences would be skewed. By examining the lived-in experiences of this population, this

research may lead to a deeper understanding of how employees of an organization define their

work engagement and the influence a teambuilding event can have on their engagement.

In a phenomenological study, the first challenge of the researcher is to arrive at a topic

and questions with social meaning and personal significance (Moustakas, 1994) In addition, the

purpose of a phenomenological study is to explore the phenomena and how it is perceived and

experienced by individuals in the phenomenological event (Lester, 1999). Given the purpose of

this study, phenomenological research method was selected and influenced the creation of the

research questions.

Research Questions

The central inquiry of research is: What influence does teambuilding have on employee

engagement? The following research question serves to guide this study:

• RQ1: What is the staff’s perception of engagement?

• RQ2: What is the staff’s experience of engagement in the workplace?

• RQ3: What influences a staff’s experience of engagement?

Rationale and Significance

The rationale for this study is focused upon two main areas, each representing the

different benefits of employee engagement. The first is the desire and need for organizations to

have an engaged workforce to be successful. The second is the benefits to employees of being

7 engaged in the workplace.

Truss et al. (2013) identified ‘engagement as a management practice’ as a new and

emerging area of interest for organizations. From reducing employee turnover (Agarwal et al.,

2012; Soane et al., 2012) to improving employee innovation (Alfes et al., 2013), the benefits for

an organization are substantial. The growing awareness of the benefits of engaged employees

for organizations has put an emphasis on leader, managers, and supervisors to improve the

engagement of their workforce.

While organizations focus on employee engagement for their own benefit, engaged

individuals also receive benefits of their own. Engaged workers have higher levels of job

satisfaction (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013). Other than Texas Roadhouse employees who are

required to wear a shirt that reads “I love my job”, it seems like a forgotten concept that people

could love their job these days.

Both individuals and organizations would welcome any opportunity to gain more

understanding around employee engagement and methods to raise engagement levels. Two areas

that Saks (2006) identifies as opportunities for future research include ethnographic or qualitative

studies that enable deep insights to be generated into the contextual aspects of engagement and

intervention studies. With little research on the influence of engagement interventions, a deep

understanding of individual’s experiences with team building events within the context of

engagement in the workplace would provide an insight into team building events and factors that

influence team building.

8 Operationalized Definitions

For the purpose of this research, terms are defined as follows:

• Engagement – Two of the more common definitions of engagement in dealing with in

context of their job are “people employ and express themselves, physically, cognitively,

or emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.964) and “a positive, fulfilling,

work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli

et al., 2002, p.75). There are several terms used interchangeably while some are used to

provide a more specific identification of one’s engagement. For my purposes, I will use

the term “employee engagement” to indicate engagement of employees within their

organization.

o Work Engagement – Work engagement and employee engagement are terms

used interchangeably dealing with engagement in the workplace

o Employee Engagement – Work engagement and employee engagement are

terms used interchangeably dealing with engagement in the workplace

o Job Engagement – Employee engagement that is focused on the tasks of one’s

role. An example of an individual with job engagement would be “Sometimes I

am so into my job that I lose track of time” (p. 608) (Saks, 2006)

o Organizational Engagement – Employee engagement that is focused on the

organization that one belongs to. An example of organizational engagement

would be “One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things

happening in this organization” (p.608) (Saks, 2006)

9 • Teambuilding –“a class of formal and informal team-level interventions that focus on

improving social relations and clarifying roles, as well as solving task and interpersonal

problems that affect team functioning” (Klein et al., 2009)

• Team-Member Exchange (TMX) – A horizontal social exchange process within

workgroups (Seers, 1989)

• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) – A vertical social exchange processes between

employee and leadership (Graen & Cashman, 1975)

Summary

Industry focus on engagement has been the driving force behind the revival of employee

engagement in the academic realm (Macey & Schneider, 2008). However, literature on

interventions to improve engagement levels have been lacking (Bailey et al., 2017). As

organizations attempt to engage their employees, there is a valuable opportunity to explore and

learn from these activities in order to better understand employee engagement and influences on

engagement. This study investigates the experience of staff who participated in organization

sponsored team building events and how it influenced their engagement within the workplace.

10 Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological case study is to gain an

understanding of the lived experiences of the information technology (IT) staff at a large

research institution who participated in organized teambuilding events targeted at improving

employee engagement. This chapter presents the literature reviewed that shaped the design and

research questions of this study. First, studies that examine and define employee engagement

will be presented. This will provide an overview of engagement and its transformation from

Kahn’s (1990) original definition into the complex theory it has become today. In addition to

engagement definitions, we will explore the different theories that have shaped our

understanding of engagement. Lastly, this chapter will overview the benefits of employee

engagement and why it is so important in the world today.

Definitions of Engagement

Kahn (1990) was the first academic researcher to define the concept of employee

engagement. Since that time there has been numerous definitions that have been developed.

Employee engagement has been defined in many different ways and the definitions and measures

often sound like other better known and established constructs like organizational commitment

and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson et al., n.d.). Table 2.1 provides an overview

of many of the more prevalent definitions.

11 Table 2.1 Definitions of Employee Engagement

Authors Definitions Kahn (1990) “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their

work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p.694)

Maslach et al. (2001) “engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy—the direct opposites of the three burnout dimensions” (p.416)

Rothbard (2001) Defined as a psychological presence but adds attention (“cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role”) and absorption (“being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role.”) (p.656)

Harter et al. (2002) “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (p. 269)

Schaufeli et al. (2002) “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p.74)

Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004)

“the positive attitude held by the employees towards the organization and its values” (p. 9)

Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p.295)

Erickson (2005) “Engagement is above and beyond simple satisfaction with the employment arrangement or basic loyalty to the employer—characteristics that most companies have measured for many years. Engagement, in contrast, is about passion and commitment—the willingness to invest oneself and expend one’s discretionary effort to help the employer succeed” (p.14)

Saks (2006) “a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance” (p.602)

Bakker et al. (2008) “a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being” (p.187)

Macey & Schneider (2008) “engagement construct we have presented to this point in the review is thus a new blend of old wines with distinct characteristics and ‘‘feel.’’ More specifically, although aspects of these older constructs are relevant to state engagement (those connoting affect and feelings of energy), those facets of the older constructs connoting satiation and contentment are not” (p.10)

Demerouti et al. (2010) Concludes that engagement is the vigor employees experience as the result of resources

12 Shuck and Wollard (2010) “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and

behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (p.103)

Bakker (2011) “employees are physically, cognitively, and emotionally connected with their work roles. They feel full of energy, are dedicated to reach their work-related goals, and are often fully immersed in their work” (p.268)

Wellins et al. (2011) “the extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do and feel valued for doing it” (p. 2).

Soane et al. (2012) A work focused role that “can be complemented by two additional conditions: activation and positive affect” (p.6)

As shown by the chart, there have been a wide range of definitions over the years. There

is no single correct definition, as each definition typically is written in a way to support the

chosen framework of the researcher. For the purpose of this study, the definition that will be

used is the one that emerges from the participants of this study.

Frameworks of Employee Engagement

Over the last thirty years, a wide range of theoretical frameworks have been used to

explain employee engagement. Different researchers explain engagement from different

theoretical frameworks. To date, there is no singular accepted theory. The chart below provides

a brief outline of some of the more popular theoretical frameworks.

Table 2.2 Theories of Employee Engagement

Theories Authors Characteristics Needs-Satisfaction Framework

Kahn (1990) Characterized by meaningfulness, safety, and availability

Job Demands-Resources Model

Bakker et al. (2003)

Characterized by job demands and job resources, with the level of the two indicating the level of engagement

Social Exchange Theory

Levinson (1965) Characterized by both parties benefitting with the exchange relationship

13 Masterson et al. (2000)

Characterized by a sense of responsibility to return positive actions with equally positive actions.

Eisenberger et al. (1986)

Individuals feel obligation to pay an organization with good work performance in exchange for organization support

Saks (2006) Employees will engage themselves in an organization in exchange for resources

Satisfaction-Engagement Model

Harter, Schmidth, & Hayes (2002)

Individual’s involvement in the workplace and satisfaction with the organization

Kahn Needs-Satisfaction Framework

The first scholarly theory on employee engagement was developed by Kahn (1990). In

this theory, he claimed that employees are more engaged in their work with the following three

psychological needs are met: meaningfulness, safety, and availability (Kahn). In this theory, the

employee’s engagement is dependent on how well the organization provides those three

resources. Kahn developed his theory from a qualitative study based on interviews and

observations of 16 camp counselors.

Job Demands-Resources Model

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model states that regardless of stress risk factors of

any particular occupation, the stress factors can be categorized as either a job resource or a job

demand (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). A job demand is characterized by physical and

psychological effort required to complete a task or is required as part of the job. Demerouti et al.

(2001) identifies that these job demands are associated with psychological and/or physiological

14 costs. A job resource is characterized by physical, psychological, social, or organizational

aspects of the job that enables employees to achieve their work tasks and goals. Xanthopoulou et

al. claims that job resources can also alleviate job demands and all of its associated cost, as well

as stimulate personal growth, learning, and development. Studies have found that job resources

are better predictors of engagement than job demands (Xanthopoulou et al.).

The study consisted of 374 employees from the northern part of Germany. The

employees were spread out between 21 different jobs within the fields of human resources,

industry, and transport (Demerouti et al. (2001). The study concluded that engagement was

composed of job resources and job demands. This model, along with Saks (2006) Social

Exchange Theory model were foundational models of this study.

Social Exchange Theory

Levinson (1965) stated that employment is a transaction between labor, loyalty and actual

interest, and social rewards. Saks (2006) identified that one way individuals can repay their

organization is through their level of engagement. Saks also distinguished between job

engagement (psychological presence in one’s job) and organizational engagement (psychological

presence in one’s organization) to form what is identified as the multidimensional approach.

Prior to Saks (2006), research had focused primarily on engagement in one’s job. The study

performed by Saks consisted of a survey with 102 participants working in a variety of jobs and

organizations. The study found that individuals were more engaged with their jobs (M = 3.06)

than their organizations (M = 2.88) and engagement antecedents related to both job engagement

and organization engagement.

15 Engagement with the organization was based on obligations that are generated through a

series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence (Saks,

2006). Masterson et al. (2000) stated that one party expects a return in the future after

contributing or providing services to the other party. Eisenberger at al. (1986) proposed that

high level of perceived organizational support create obligations within individuals to repay the

organization. These researchers all use Social Exchange Theory to describe the employee vs

organization relationship. This study builds on the SET model of engagement by identifying

additional work relationships.

Satisfaction-Engagement Model

Harter, Schmidth, & Hayes (2002) used positive psychology framework to introduce the

satisfaction-engagement Model. Harter et al. (2002) used the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA, or

Gallup Q 12), a scale that assesses the experience of engagement as illustrated by employee

involvement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm (Harter et al., 2002). The study contained results from

36 independent companies and 21 different industries. In total, there were nearly 200,000

respondents. Findings from the study were the first to look at the business unit level on how

employee engagement had a positive relationship to important business outcomes such as

customer satisfaction (r = .33), turnover (r = –.36), and safety (r = –.32) (Harter et al., 2002). A

year later, (Harter et al., 2003) was one of the first to suggest health benefits as a function of

being engaged.

This model was important to this study because of its use of the Gallup Workplace Audit.

The questions from this survey were very similar to the Amp survey (Bartell & Bartell) used by

16 the target organization to survey their staff. The Gallup survey used, and the results of this study

were helpful in relating the survey results available from this case study to existing engagement

research.

Antecedents of Employee Engagement

The different engagement models and theories have led to many antecedents of employee

engagement. The antecedents of engagement are important to this study as they provide a list of

variables that researchers have found to be related to employee engagement. The chart below

outlines antecedents of many of the more prevalent researchers.

Table 2.3 Antecedents of Employee Engagement

Authors Antecedents Summary Kahn (1990) Task characteristics, role characteristics, work

interaction, group dynamics, supervisory management style, physical energeias, emotional energies, and life outside of work.

Harter et al. (2002) Supervisory support. Positive relationship with management and peers. Positive work environment.

May et al. (2004) Employee role fit. Supervisory support. Schaufeli & Bakker (2004), Bakker & Demerouti (2008) Xanopoulou et al. (2009)

Available job resources

Zhang & Can (2005) Supervisory support. Sense of organizational fairness Bakker et al. (2006) Increased employee resilience Salanova et Schaufeli (2008) Supervisor support. Supervisor feedback. Job

participation. Job rewards, job security Xanthopoulou (2009) Self-efficacy and optimism Rich et al. (2010) Self-efficacy Christian et al. (2011) Increased sense of responsibility. Positive employee

attitudes Farndale (2015) Employee participation in decision-making.

17 From the list of antecedents of prevalent researchers, there are commonalities that help

validate some of the findings of this study. The supervisor relationship stands out as multiple

researchers reference some type of supervisor interaction as an antecedent to employee

engagement self-efficacy and employee resilience stands out as factors important to the

individual and how they view themselves. Group dynamics, positive relationships with peers,

and available job resources all play a part in the peer relationship. Later sections of this study

will further expand on these concepts and how they help validate the findings of this study.

Benefits of Employee Engagement

There are a wide range of benefits for employee engagement, to both the individual and

the organization. Kumar and Swetha (2011) identify engagement as an organization’s

competitive advantage that competitors will find very difficult to imitate. It is in the best interest

of both the organization and the individual for employees to be engaged.

Individual Benefits

Though organizations are highly motivated to engage their workforce (Macey &

Schneider, 2008), engagement still exists as an individual-level construct (Saks, 2006). This

means organizations cannot bypass the individual to achieve their own desired benefits.

Organizations must work to develop and nurture engagement of their employees (Robinson et

al., n.d.).

The most obvious benefit as defined by Burnout-Antithesis approach (Maslach et al.,

2001) is reduced burnout. If engagement is defined as the opposite of burnout, then logically

18 being engaged reduces burnout. However, other researchers who use other models also have

recognized that engagement reduces the risk of burnout (Buys & Rothmann, 2010). The

exhaustion component of burnout is related to stress-related health outcomes (Maslach et al.,

2001) and also influence decreased employee performance (Maslach & Leiter, 2008).

Another individual benefit that has been identified is life satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002).

The main point here is that individuals are not able to fully separate work from non-work life

(Shimazu et al., 2012), so being engaged at work has a positive effect on non-work life. Even

still, life satisfaction has a positive influence on work in areas such as performance (Baptiste,

2008) and job satisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000).

General and psychological health has also been linked to work engagement (Freeney &

Fellenz, 2013). Research has shown that workaholism has a negative impact on psychological

health while engagement has a positive impact on psychological health (Shimazu et al., 2012).

Furthermore, burnout is more common with individuals who are not engaged and burnout-

induced stress has both negative psychological and physical health concerns (Maslach et al.,

2001). Overall, being engaged in the workplace helps reduce factors that are known to cause

both mental and physical health issues.

Business Benefits

Employee engagement has become one of the most leading priorities of human resource

practitioners and senior managers in the corporate world today (Bhatla, 2011). The reason for

the focus being placed on engagement is because of the substantial impact engagement has been

found to have on giving organizations competitive advantages over competing companies and

19 generating favorable business outcomes (Kang, 2014). The chart below provides an overview of

some of those organization focused benefits.

Table 2.4 Business Outcomes of Employee Engagement

Authors Outcomes Harter et al. (2002) Organizations with lower employee turnover had on average

29% higher engagement scores than organizations with high employee turnover 2.9% higher customer satisfaction of highly engaged organizations vs disengaged organizations

Salanova et al. (2005) Engagement components of dedication (r =.52) and vigor (r-.31) were found to be related to employee performance

Saks (2006) 13% increase or organization citizenship behavior 15% increase in job satisfaction 5% increase in organizational commitment

Harter et al. (2009) Engagement accounted for 78% of profitability variance Macey et al. (2009) Top 25% on engagement scale index had double shareholder

value of the bottom 25% Xanthopoulou (2009) Engagement was found to be related (t = 2.92, p < .05) to

financial business outcomes Christian, Garza & Slaughter (2011)

adds 21% unique variance in contextual performance adds 19% unique variance in task performance

Menguc et al. (2017) Engagement is positively related to customer service (y = .221)

One of the reasons engaged employees provide organizations with improved business

outcomes is because they are more aware of business context (Sharma & Raina, 2010). Kumar

and Swetha (2011) identify energy and commitment as leading factors engaged employees

improve business performance. Lastly, Baker and Leiter (2010) attribute dedication of engaged

employees to increased business efficiency and production. Though there are several factors that

may lead to improved business outcomes, employee engagement certainly can certainly play a

role.

20 One benefit that an engaged employee provides to their organization is improved

production (Sundaray, 2011) . Reilly (2014) states that engaged employees drive organizations

forward through their passion while Mani (2011) characterizes it as energy and enthusiasm. The

burnout-antithesis approach identifies vigor as one of the key components of engagement, and

this vigor helps improve performance by the engaged individuals putting more energy into their

work (Maslach et al., 2001).

Another common benefit of engagement is that it reduces employee turnover (Mortimer,

2010). In addition to retaining talent, (Rana & Chhabra, 2011) engagement is also a powerful

strategy to attract, nurture, and retain manpower in the organization. Engaged employees have a

greater sense of loyalty with decreased intentions of leaving (Cook, 2008). There is an old

expression that people do not leave organizations, they leave supervisors. Though it is true that

supervisors play a role in employee engagement, research has indicated that social interactions

with peers is a stronger relationship with engagement than interactions with supervisor (Muller et

al., 2016). Regardless of an individual’s reason for staying, engaged employees tend to have a

lower turnover rate than non-engaged employees.

An engaged workforce also has been positively linked to higher levels of customer

service (Menguc et al., 2017). Engaged workers are more likely to recommend their

organization’s products and engage with marketing their products to customers (Harmeling et al.,

2017). On the other hand, highly disengaged employees create a negative experience for

customers (Pansari & Kumar, 2017). Job autonomy, a component of the JD-R engagement

model, is argued to improve customer service by empowering employees to take action on

customer service failures without having to wait for approval from a supervisor (Menguc et al.,

2017). Bakker & Sanz-Vergel (2013) argue that service employees can view a customer issue as

21 either a problem or an opportunity, with resources at their disposal being the differentiating

factor. Engaged employees feel empowered and feel like they have the resources in dealing with

customer service, creating a better customer experience.

Engagement Interventions

The literature on interventions to improve engagement is sparse (Bailey et al., 2017).

Knight, Patterson and Dawson, identified four types of interventions that improve employee

engagement: personal resource building, job resource building, leadership and team training, and

health building (2017). Personal resource building focuses on increasing the individuals’ self-

perceived attributes, which aid in building self-efficacy, resilience or optimism (Ouweneel et al.,

2013; Vuori et al., 2012). The Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R) identify personal

resources as a direct or indirect factor in work engagement (Demerouti et al., 2001).

Interventions that build personal resources should then in theory increase work engagement for

those individuals.

Job resource building inventions focus on increasing work related resources such as

autonomy, social support and feedback (Naruse et al., 2015). As another component of the JD-R

engagement model (Demerouti et al., 2001), increasing job resources would in turn increase

work engagement of the individual.

Leadership interventions focus on managers and supervisors who directly oversee

employees to build awareness and skills in dealing with employees that encourage work

engagement (Rigotti et al., n.d.). Again, the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) focuses on

supervisor support and motivation as a key component of work engagement. By training the

22 leaders to better support and empower their employees, they would build greater levels of

employee engagement within their staff.

The last of the four types of interventions is the health-promoting intervention. This

intervention encourages employees to adopt healthier lifestyles, which includes both physical

and mental health. (Fredrickson, 2001) states that physical exercise can aid with personal

resources being built by widening an individual’s range of thoughts and actions in accordance

with the broaden-and-build theory. Strijk et al. (2013) claim that physical exercise may increase

work engagement and decrease stress and burnout, as suggested by the burnout antithesis theory

(Maslach et al., 2001). Any intervention that promotes physical and / or mental health for

individuals would potentially have a positive effect on work engagement.

Teambuilding interventions are one of the most commonly applied group development

interventions in organizations today (Klein et al., 2009). According to (Beer, 1976), there are

four basic approaches to team building: (a) a goal-setting, problem-solving model; (b) an

interpersonal model; (c) a role model; and (d) the Managerial Grid.

Teambuilding interventions promote teamwork and collaboration. Kolb & Gray (2007)

identified individuals not pulling their weight on a project as a top barrier to collaborative effort,

second only to a missing or unclear goal. Ciborra & Patriotta (1998) identifies employee

resistance of knowledge sharing to be one of information technology industries biggest

problems. In addition, organizational knowledge is gaining acceptance as the fundamental and

critical source for organizational long-term success (Song & Kolb, 2009). The data of this study

heavily references asking a peer for information, confirming the importance of knowledge

sharing within the organization. To improve the success and comfort level in acquiring

knowledge from their peers, the participants of this study frequently mentioned the tactic of

23 starting the interaction with some personal conversation. Having that personal relationship made

a big difference for these participants, in obtaining the information and knowledge that they

needed.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study was selected after analyzing the data. This

process was chosen because “qualitative research is designed to inductively build rather than to

test concepts, hypotheses, and theories” (Merriam, 1998, p.44). Through the process of data

analysis, relationships emerged as a key concept. Therefore, Social Exchange Theory was

selected as the conceptual framework to best organize and understand the data.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) maintains that individuals enter into relationships with

others in order to maximize their benefits and it emphasizes the importance of understanding

motivations and their relationship to achievement of goals (Blau, 1964). A basic tenet of SET is

that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as long as the

parties abide by certain “rules” of exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). SET deals with

intrinsic rewards and is among the most influential conceptual paradigms for understanding

workplace behavior (Blau, 1964). It maintains that individuals participate in relationships with

others to maximize their benefits and accomplish their goals (Blau, 1964). SET focuses on

relationship feelings with the exchange process while economic exchange theory focuses on set

mediums and costs that cannot be bargained (Bock & Kim, 2002).

A psychological contract is the individual’s personal interpretation of the expectations of

the exchange relationship, and research provides rich evidence that perceived fulfillment of the

24 psychological contract is directly related to the quality of the employment relationship (Coyle-

Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). The psychological contract is viewed as a powerful determinant in

forming employee attitudes (Rousseau, 1998). A perceived breach in a psychological contract

could undermine the employment relationship, yielding lower employee contribution and

lessened employer investment (Rousseau).

Figure 2.1 is a basic diagram of Social Exchange Theory. Every relationship has both a

cost and a reward that measures how much you are getting out of the relationship in comparison

with how much you are putting into the relationship.

Figure 2.1 Representation of Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange applied to the employee supervisor relationship has been identified by

Graen and Cashman (1975) as leader-member exchange (LMX) while social exchange applied to

team member relationships has been identified by Seers (1989) as team-member exchange

(TMX).

25 LMX is founded on the belief that leaders develop relationships of different qualities with

their subordinates (Graen & Cashman, 1975). The relationship of leader to employee includes

opportunities, information, and support in exchange for effort, commitment, and proactive

behaviors (Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). Several studies have identified the important of LMX

within workgroup context (e.g., Ford & Seers, 2006; Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, &

Chaudhry, 2009; Tse, Dasborough, & Ashkanasy, 2008).

TMX has been defined as a team member’s perception of the quality of “the reciprocity

between a member and his or her team with respect to the member’s contribution of ideas,

feedback, and assistance to other members and, in turn, the member’s receipt of information,

help, and recognition from other team members” (Seers et al., 1995, p. 21). TMX has been

identified as becoming increasingly important as organizations become organizationally flatter

(Bettis & Hitt, 1995).

As research has proven the increasing importance of TMX, the question then arises of

whether one form of social exchange still matters in the presence of the other (Liao et al., 2010).

Tse and Dashborough (2008) state that it is not known if the limited time of employees is best

spent developing their vertical relationships (LMX) or their horizontal relationships (TMX).

This question becomes significantly more important in this study, as up to four relationships

have emerged as important to employees in the workplace.

A study by Muller et al. (2016) supports the notion that peer relationships have a strong

connection to employee engagement, by proving that relationships with co-workers (peers) have

more of an impact on employee engagement than relationships with supervisors. Muller et al.)

also states that supervisor relationships influence engagement as well, though not as significantly

26 as peer relationships. This is notable as there have been over eight studies that linked supervisor

support to engagement (Karatepe, 2012).

Summary

Researchers have expressed a need for more qualitative studies to explore engagement.

Researchers have also identified a need for more research regarding engagement interventions.

Social Exchange Theory has been used by Saks (2006) and other researchers as a lens in

investigating employee engagement. Studies by Graen & Cashman (1975) and Seers (1989) also

used Social Exchange Theory to explore work relationships. Because work relationships

emerged from the data, Social Exchange Theory was the selected lens to explore this

phenomenon.

Engagement literature also showed a trend of engagement becoming more of a focus of

senior level leadership within organizations. Studies have showed the importance of engagement

on organization success, leading more organizations to prioritize engaging their workforce. This

attention to engagement is driving industry research on engagement and creating a gap between

scholarly literature. Teambuilding has become a popular intervention due to its popularity of

ease of access. There is little research exploring the impact of teambuilding on employee

engagement, particular qualitative studies from the participant perspective.

27 Chapter 3

Design and Methodology

Crotty states that “all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is

contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human

beings and their work and developed and transmitted within an essentially social content” (1998,

p. 42). I feel that the development of engagement as a management practice has decreased the

focus on the individual and their experience. Rather, more attention is being given to the

perceived benefits and outcomes of engagement. Therefore, a research method that is focused on

understanding the experiences of the participants was selected. The task of the researcher is to

analyze the experience of consciousness to perceive how a phenomenon is experienced, which

gives it its meaning and establishes the essence of the phenomenon. (Sadala & Adorno, 2002).

A phenomenological qualitative design was chosen as the method to explore the lived

experiences of those who participated in an organized teambuilding events targeted at improving

employee engagement. Engagement is an important construct today to both individuals and

organizations. The engagement gap continues to grow while industry human resource

organizations attempt to fix the issue by “doing engagement” (Truss et al., 2013). As the

industry continues to address the issue, engagement scholars continue to call for studies that

clarify it and unify it across both academic and industry realms (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).

This research study will attempt to do just that, as it investigates a management-initiated

engagement effort highlighted by team building events. This chapter presents the research

questions, research approach, research design, context of the study, data collection, strategies to

analyze the data, and techniques to ensure trustworthiness. Finally, a timeline of the research will

be presented with a Gantt chart that can be found in Appendix B.

28 Research Questions

The central inquiry of this dissertation is to explore the influence of teambuilding

activities on employee engagement. This research question poses both industry and scholarly

significance. The industry significance provides guidance for future employee engagement

interventions while the scholarly significance provides a deeper understanding of an individual’s

experience of engagement and their experience of a teambuilding event on their engagement.

The following research question serves to guide this study: What influence does teambuilding

have on engagement?

• RQ1: What is the staff’s perception of engagement?

• RQ2: What is the staff’s experience of engagement in the workplace?

• RQ3: What influences a staff’s experience of engagement?

Research Approach

The beliefs and ideas of a researcher shapes the research itself. According to Creswell

(2014) it is important to identify and examine the philosophical worldview and role of the

researcher. He identified four different worldviews that explains why a researcher selects a

qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method design (2014):

• Postpositivist: “seeks absolute truth of knowledge … developing numeric

measures of observations” (p. 36);

• Constructivist: “seeks understanding of the world in which they live and work …

rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied”

29 (p. 37);

• Transformative: “advocates for an action agenda … constructs a picture of the

issues being examined, the people to be studied, and the changes that are needed”

(p. 38); and

• Pragmatic: “emphasize the research problem and use all approaches available to

understand the problem” (p. 39).

Social Constructivist Worldview

Guba states that philosophical worldview is “a basic set of beliefs that guide action”

(1990, p. 17). A social constructivist view is where meaning is constructed from the language

and interaction. I have selected to use this view because it draws attention to the complex ways

in which employees construct the meaning of their work and the complex interactions of

engagement.

Having worked in IT for the past fifteen years, my more natural approach is that of a

positivist. I am someone who takes pride in having all the answers and I consistently approach

each problem in order to solve it, not understand it. During my journey as a PhD student, I have

come to learn and appreciate the ability to ask questions rather than always having answers, and

to appreciate how incredibly complex people’s experiences and perspectives can be. This has

led me to purposely take a constructivist approach and challenge myself to look at the world

through that lens.

30 Researcher’s Role

Qualitative research takes into account the role of the researcher, from conceptualization

of the design, data collection and analysis, and through reporting of the results (Creswell, 2014).

I was a member of the target organization at the time the phenomena took place. This provided

me access to rich data that may not have been accessible otherwise; however, it also provided

challenges when looking at the phenomena from the perspective of the participants.

I am a Caucasian male in his mid-thirties. At the time of the phenomena, I was working

for the target organization in a role of middle management. In addition, I was working on my

Ph.D. in Workforce Education and Development at the time. It was this combination of roles

that made this phenomenon stand out as important and unique. However, I did not want to take

any action on performing research on the phenomena while I was in a position of leadership with

the organization. Therefore, I did not begin my research on the subject until I was no longer a

member of the organization.

Though I was in a leadership position with the organization, staff of the organization

were very comfortable sharing information. While a leader, I was very staff focused and had a

reputation as someone who put staff first and could be trusted. In addition, in the researcher role,

I very clearly pointed out my separation from the organization and that anything shared would be

anonymous.

Although my previous role with the target organization would make it difficult to put

aside my own perspectives and biases, I was very excited and committed to practice the art of

epoche. The researcher must “bracket personal past knowledge and all other theoretical

knowledge, regardless of its source, so that full attention can be given to the instance of the

phenomenon that is currently appearing” (Giorgi, 2006, p. 3.55). It has been suggested that

31 researchers must take time to reflect on their own biases, preconceptions, motives, and beliefs

(Munhall, 2007). Being able to separate and bracket your own biases and perceptions is an

important and valuable skill to have, therefore I was committed to building this skill and

experience.

Research Design

The purpose of this phenomenological case study is to provide insights from staff who

participated in organization sponsored team building events aimed at improving staff

engagement levels. The selection of a phenomenological case study was not a choice of method,

but a choice of what to study (Stake, 2005) Husserl’s (1931) transcendental phenomenology

method was used to understand the experience and perspectives of these events within the

context of their environment. The following section will justify the design for phenomenological

case study.

The main object of qualitative research is to understand people, the things they value and

meanings they attach to their own experiences. This social construct differentiates qualitative

research from quantitative research. Qualitative research also relies on the researcher’s

observations and is often inductive in nature. Merriam (2002) writes, “The key to understanding

qualitative research lies with the idea that meaning is socially constructed by individuals in

interaction with their world” (p. 3). By using critical incident interviews, I will be able to collect

rich, descriptive data. This data represents the experiences of the participants and can be

analyzed by looking for common themes and insights.

32 Phenomenological Research Design

Phenomenology is a way of looking at the lived experience of the individual, aimed at

describing rather than explaining the conceptualization of engagement. (Creswell, 2014) states “a

phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals of their lived

experiences of a concept or a phenomenon” (p.76). Johnson & Christensen (2000) assert “the

purpose of phenomenological research is to obtain a view into your research participants’ life-

worlds and to understand their personal meaning (i.e. what something means to them)

constructed from their “lived experiences” (p.315). Given that the overarching research question

is to understand the lived experiences of staff who participated in organization team building

events, phenomenology is the best research design for that question.

More specifically, a transcendental phenomenological approach was used for my study.

Working in IT and being a problem solver, I have typically had a very positivist approach to

knowledge and information. However, for this study I have purposely taken a constructivist

approach, as I seek to truly understand each individual’s experience, and to grow my ability to

stop seeking to understand just to fix a problem. Transcendental phenomenology was chosen

over interpretive phenomenology because it focuses the study around rich, textural descriptions,

structural descriptions and an essence of the study (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Creswell

identifies textural descriptions as those that examine the participants’ experiences, while the

structural descriptions develop through how the participants experienced the phenomenon. The

focus of the study was the participants’ lived experiences and not my interpretation of those

experiences. In order to focus on the participants’ experiences and not my own interpretations, I

bracketed out biases and experiences. This opened me to new ideas and consciousness

(Moustakas, 1994).

33 Edmund Husserl, the primary founder of phenomenology, believes that the researcher is

supposed to perform his descriptions from a first-person point of view to ensure that the

respective item is described exactly as it is experienced (Husserl, 2001). He explained the noema

is the object being described while the noesis is the perception of the object. Figure 3.1, Noesis

of Phenomenology, illustrates Husserl’s explanation. The intentionality is the action of applying

one’s consciousness on the noema, which includes referential consciousness. The horizon is the

individual’s experience of the noema. For example, figure 3.1 has an image of a flower.

However, some individuals may have experienced that flower differently, leading to varied

interpretations of the flower. For instance, to one person a flower is a plant that has thorns while

to someone else it is a plant without thorns. Still, another person may not associate it with a plant

at all because they have only experienced fake flowers. This is why the experience of it is

necessary in defining what “it” is.

Figure 3.1 Noesis of Phenomenology

34 Case Study

A case study is defined by (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) as “a single entity, a unit around

which there are boundaries”. The focus of this study is a single organization’s experience of a

phenomena during a three-year time period. Though limiting the study to a single entity makes

generalization of the study more difficult, “Sometimes it is better to learn a lot from an atypical

case than a little from a seemingly typical case” (Stake, 2005, p. 451). The team building events

experienced by this organization were specifically implemented to improve employee

engagement, therefore making this a unique case and an excellent candidate for a case study

research approach. “A case study is preferred in examining contemporary events, but when the

relevant behaviors cannot be manipulated” (Yin, 2017, p. 11). With this phenomenon having

occurred in the past, there is no risk of manipulating behaviors. Rather I will be able to explore

the phenomena within the context that it naturally occurred. With the phenomena having

happened in the past prior to any research attempt, other research methods would not be as

useful. Gay et al. (2009) state “case study research allows a researcher to study phenomena that

are not easily or appropriately studies by other research methods” (p.427).

Furthermore, a phenomenological case study allows the researcher to better understand

the complex human experiences and “the essence and the underlying structure of a phenomenon

that is anchored in real-life situations” (Merriam, 2009, p. 51). In performing a

phenomenological study with the case study approach, I can explore the event in great detail and

the context in which the phenomena occurred.

35 Boundaries of the Case Study

“A case is defined as a bounded system … to indicate that we are going to try to figure

out what complex things go on within that system” (Stake, 1997, p. 256 as cited by Johnson &

Christensen, 2014, p. 580). Because it is a bounded system, “a case could be a single person

who is a case example of some phenomenon, a program, a group, an institution, a community, or

a specific policy” (Stake, 2005, p. 40).

As a bounded system, it creates a context that is unique solely to this case study.

“Thereby context-dependent, implies that one cannot replicate a case study as a whole. If we

redo the case study at another point of time, the context will have changed at least in some

extent” (Karlsson, 2016, p. 6). The diagram below provides the boundaries of the case and the

following section describes in greater detail the context of the case study.

Figure 3.2 Case Study Boundaries

36 Setting

This study was conducted at an IT organization within a college at a higher education

institution in Pennsylvania. The organization size was 70 full time staff. The organization

managed roughly 300 servers, 1,200 workstations, 52 conference rooms, and supports roughly

700 users. The organization was led by an executive director who oversees three different IT

pillars, each led by an IT director. Each pillar had multiple teams led by a manager. The

operating budget for the unit was 6 million dollars a year, which included salaries, benefits,

hardware, software, and IT service contracts of the organization.

The work environment was stable compared to other organizations in the IT industry.

Typical hours were from 8 AM to 5 PM. One team did have staff who as part of their normal

weekly shift worked nights and weekends. As typical for IT, there was an on-call schedule for

incidents that occurred at night or on the weekends. Most of the staff worked in a single building

and working from home on occasions did exist but was not the norm. It was a pretty well balance

between the laid-back culture of higher education and the 24-hour demand of the IT industry.

Time Frame

The selected time frame correlates to when the target organization-held sponsored

teambuilding events. Prior to this time, there was not an emphasis on employee engagement. As

stated earlier, the emphasis on engagement began with poor results from a January 2015

engagement survey sent out by the central HR unit. After 2017, senior leadership of the

organization stopped investing in engagement activities, therefore teambuilding events were no

longer held.

37

Intervention: Teambuilding Events

Poor engagement scores from a human resources survey prompted the executive

leadership of the organization to launch an employee engagement initiative. Engagement

initiatives included several activities and events including teambuilding events, employee

recognition program, employee-led team meetings, and organized parties for holidays and

special events. Teambuilding events were held once a year and required the most resources and

investment from the organization, making it the selected intervention for this study. Over a

period of three years, there were three separate team building events held in the fall of each of

those years. Two of the three events took place outside, while the third occurred inside due to

the weather. There were different event facilitators each year, though they all performed similar

team building activities. The events lasted a full day with formal activities taking place from 9

AM to 3 PM. Each event had roughly 50 participants, with the majority of the participants

participating multiple years.

Teambuilding Event #1

The first organization team building event took place in October of 2015. It was held

outside at an environmental-education facility that offered team building events. This venue

provided four trained teambuilding facilitators. The event included a catered lunch. There were

54 participants, including both management and staff.

38 Teambuilding Event #2

The second team building event occurred in October of 2016. It was again facilitated by

the same group as the first event, but took place in a different outdoor recreation area. Again,

like the first event, it started at 9 am and lasted until 3pm and included a catered lunch. There

were 48 participants at this event including management and staff.

Teambuilding Event #3

The third and final teambuilding event took place at a ski lodge in November of 2017.

This event was a little smaller, with only 35 participants. In addition, this event had a smaller

budget and only included a single teambuilding facilitator. Some of the teambuilding activities

were planned to be outside; however, rain forced the entire event to take place inside.

Participants

The organization was selected due to their three-year program of improving employee

engagement within the organization. The highlight of this initiative was a yearly team building

event. There were roughly 50 staff who participated in these events from 2015-2017. Both

leadership and staff participated in the events, however this research will focus only on the

staff’s perspective. I have selected to only include staff because leadership was tasked with

improving employee engagement. Their perspective of the events and the influence on

engagement would more than likely be biased due to their engagement-building directive.

In order to help understand the context of the individual’s experience of engagement in

an organization, it is important to understand the organization. This information will also aid in

the transferability of the study findings.

39 Participant Recruitment

Participants of the study were non-leadership staff of the target organization who

participated in the organization’s team building events from 2015 to 2017. This was composed

of a possible 32 participants. To recruit volunteers, I emailed this population to inform them of

the study being conducted and ask for volunteers. I was a member of the selected organization

during the time of the phenomena and therefore had the email addresses of all the staff involved.

Nine individuals responded with interest in participating. Seven of those individuals were

interviewed while two cancelled multiple times due to a busy work schedule. After analyzing

data from the seven participants, it looked like saturation had occurred, therefore no more

attempts were made to reschedule with the two applicants.

Data Collection

This phenomenological case study of IT staff who participated in organization-sponsored

team building events involved collecting data from 7 individuals who volunteered for the study.

As Creswell (2014) purported, the subjective meaning of experiences looks at the “complexity of

views rather than narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas … and rely as much as

possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied” (p. 37). Yin (1984) also

recommends the use of multiple sources of evidence, including archival data. Using additional

sources provide a more holistic perspective of the phenomenon being investigated.

40 Archival Engagement Data

Archival records may also be relevant for many case studies (Yin, 2003). There are two

sets of engagement survey data that were taken within the boundaries of the case study. This

data provides some context of the engagement levels of the organization at the time of the team

building events.

The first set of data is from a 2015 job satisfaction and engagement survey conducted by

the human resources department of the organization. This set of data is what originally triggered

the target organization to launch an engagement initiative for its staff. From the data, you can

see the target organization scored lower than the rest of the organization in nearly every

category, though the survey findings still considered the organization “moderately engaged”.

The second set of engagement data is from a tool created by the Bartell & Bartell

consultant organization called AMP. An agreement to discuss the tool and access the data they

used can be found in Appendix H. They do not identify this as an “engagement survey”, rather

they identify it as a connectedness tool used to identify employees who are at risk for leaving the

organization. However, after analyzing the specific questions of the tool, it is very similar to the

Gallup Q12 engagement survey. The “survey” was conducted every six months and a summary

of the data used by leadership at the time is found below.

Table 3.1 Engagement Survey (AMP) Results

Question 2015 2016 Change Management

Communication between employees and senior management

38% 48% + 10%

Autonomy and independence 58% 70% +12% Recognition by management about your job performance 55% 61% +6% Relationship with immediate supervisor 77% 66% -11%

Team

41 The people in my work group are constantly looking out to see what challenge is coming next.

51% 66% +15%

In OOE, employees are encouraged to take action when they see a problem or opportunity

58% 66% +8%

The people in my work group are always flexible in expanding the scope of their work

51% 58% +7%

The people in my work group never give up 58% 73% +15% Self

I have passion and excitement about my work 64% 73% +9% I am often so wrapped up in my work that hours go by like minutes.

53% 58% +5%

I am determined to accomplish my work goals and confident I can meet them.

87% 83% -4%

Source: Data was provided by Bartell & Bartell as collected by their AMP tool

The AMP data provided a quantitative measurement to the possible influence of the

teambuilding events and the other engagement interventions. Though the data showed a positive

increase in most areas, the heavy decline of the relationship with immediate supervisor was

concerning. The engagement results were anonymous, and the survey was dispersed

electronically, so there was no consultant or personal interaction with this data collection. At the

time, there were no good means to dig into the data due to the sensitive topic and the desire to

not “punish” staff with interviews or focus groups to further explore less than ideal survey

results. This helped lead to my selection of qualitative study and interviews as the research

method.

Interview Instrument

Examining the lived experiences of IT staff may lead to a better understanding of how to

improve employee engagement, therefore, the most appropriate instrument for data collection is

a semi-structured open-ended interview (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Open-ended

42 questioning prompts the researcher to listen more intently and gives the interviewee a broader

range to share their personal experience. The overarching question to be answered by this study

was to understand what influence teambuilding events had on employee engagement. In order to

effectively answer this question, it was important to understand (a) how the participants defined

employee engagement, (b) how the participants experienced engagement in the workplace, and

(c) what influences the participant’s employee engagement. To obtain this data, the critical

incident technique was used to develop questions that focused on particular participant

experiences from which answers to these questions would emerge.

Critical Incident Interviews

Critical incident technique (CIT) was developed by John Flanagan during World War II

as a technique to analyze “actual incidents of success and failure in training and work backwards

to determine the specific behaviors that let to positive or negative results” (Hettlage & Steinlin,

2006, p.4). The flexibility of this method makes it an ideal tool to establish performance

requirements, system development, or customer service. CIT draws out descriptive details that

may unlikely be identified in a conventional interview. A key limitation is that it depends on the

cooperation and memory of the person being interviewed (Gremler, 2004).

It relies on a set of procedures for gathering and analyzing. Hettlage and Steinlin (2006,

p.5) describes the three features:

1. A description of a specific situation.

2. An account of the actions or behavior of a key player in the incident.

3. The outcome or result.

CIT is meant to provide a description of an event or phenomenon, not explain why it

happened (Hettlage & Steinlin, 2006). As an interview technique, participants are encouraged to

43 talk about specifics of the incident rather than focus on their opinions of the event (Hettlage &

Steinlin). This provides rich information of the event from the participant’s point of view. CIT

does not have to follow a rigid set of rules to govern the data collection, so this allows flexibility

that can be modified and adapted to fit the needs of the research (Hettlage & Steinlin)

Interview Protocol

Both the pilot interview protocol and the final interview protocol can be found in the

appendix section Appendix E and Appendix F. The questions were designed to be open-ended in

order to create rich context of not only a participant’s perspective of engagement, but also of the

teambuilding event that they attended, and any changes in engagement that resulted from the

teambuilding event. Probing questions were developed to assist in facilitating the interview in a

way to help explore the participant’s experiences.

Pilot Interviews

Yin (1994) identifies a researcher’s work to refine research questions and data collection

plan as a pilot test. The pilot test was performed by using the interview protocol with a first set

of participants. After the planned interview questions, a few additional questions were asked to

gain feedback from the participant on the effectiveness on the questions and interview process.

In addition, the interviews were analyzed to determine if there were any additional questions that

should be asked, based on the responses gathered thus far.

The results of the pilot identified a few areas for improvement. These areas were

changed within the interview protocol for use on the remaining participants.

1. Because it was my first interview protocol, I wrote the questions to identify the target

organization as “organization” rather than call it by its name. This was done because I

44 knew the interview protocol would be shared and I wanted to ensure the confidentiality of

the organization. However, I found that participants would get confused at times when I

was not directly specific about the organization I was referring to, as many participants

had moved on to different organizations by the time of the interviews. I noted on

interview protocol I used the organization name and used that for the remaining

interviews.

2. I changed wording on a question that asked for the participant’s personal definition of

engagement from just “engagement” to “employee engagement”. This was done in

response to a participant trying to define generic definition of engagement and not how it

relates to them personally or within the workplace.

3. There were two questions that participants identified as redundant and the data confirmed

that assessment. The first question asked for the participant’s perspective on the

definition of engagement and the second question asked the participant to describe what

it looks like in the workplace. From a scholarly view, these questions made sense, as a

definition of what it is can be separate from what it looks like. However, because the

participants are sharing their definition of engagement from their perspective and

experience, that turned out to be their experience of how it was viewed in the workplace.

The second question was replaced by why participants feel it is important to be engaged

in the workplace.

4. The last finding that sparked a minor change was the wording with another one of the

questions. A question was worded “What part(s) of the teambuilding experience would

you say influenced your engagement?”. This was confusing because the participants

were unsure if I meant at the team building event or at work. The question was reworded

45 to read “What part(s) of the teambuilding experience would you say influenced your

engagement back at the workplace?”

The pilot was very beneficial in adjusting the interview protocol, so that the questions

were as logical as possible, and to ensure that the data was as effective and meaningful as

possible. What I feel was the most impactful part of the pilot study was the realization that

answers that seek a person’s experience cannot be compartmentalized. There is a great deal of

overlapping as there can be many factors that shape each person’s perceptions and experience

and those cannot be placed within neat and organized questions. The time for organizing those

experiences comes through the data analysis and the questions should be worded to ensure the

most flexibility as possible.

Interviews

The interview data collection method was selected because it allows the researcher to

understand how a person feels and gain a deeper insight their experience of the phenomena. An

interview also gives participants a chance to give their point of view without limiting their

response and losing important contextual details.

Though there are many advantages of interviews as a research method, there is also

challenges that the researcher must face. First, participants are sometimes reluctant to share their

true feelings about a subject or naturally provide short answers that leave out important details.

The critical incident technique used in this study helps reduce that risk. Another disadvantage is

that interviews require a good deal of time and generate a large pool of data that must be sorted

46 through. Though that is a challenge, it is also a powerful tool as sometimes themes are found in

the data that may originally be viewed as unimportant.

Another way to reduce risk of interview data collection is to select a quiet place with few

distractions, reconfirm the purpose of the study, remind the participant of the confidentiality of

the interview, and share how the interview will be conducted (McNamara, 2009). Due to the

COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews took place using video conferencing technology. It was

difficult to establish a calm setting with few distractions as participants were working from

home. Two of the participants rescheduled multiple times and eventually determined they did

not have time for the interviews. However, I used techniques suggested by McNamara and still

established a comfortable setting as much as possible.

Because the researcher is part of the instrument during interviews, the researcher must be

aware of any preconceived biases and adopt bracketing to keep an open mind (Moustakas, 1994).

Bracketing occurs when the researcher sets aside preconceived notions, experiences and

perceptions to negate any biases that would preventing the researcher from viewing the

experience through the eyes of the participants (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Moustakas, 1994).

Moustakas (1994) defines this process of bracketing “epoche”. Having been a part of the

organization at the time of the phenomena, bracketing was a necessary component to identify

and isolate my biases.

The study used semi-structured interviews following the guidelines of (Seidman, 2006).

He states, “At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the lived

experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience” (p. 9). Interview

questions were carefully constructed to ensure open-ended questions that allow the greatest

47 flexibility in responses, and to focus responses to be on the “how” rather than the “why”

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The final interview questions can be found in Appendix F.

Data Analysis

Once the data had been collected, the researcher will then organize, categorize,

synthesize, and analyze the data to address the research questions (Yin, 2003). For my research I

selected the Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis method described by

Moustakas (1994). The analysis process includes bracketing, horizontalizing, organizing

invariant qualities and themes, and constructing textural description (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas,

1994). With this method, data analyzation begins as soon as the first data set is available. The

use of horizontalization assigns equal value to each statement which represents a segment of

meaning (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). Next, the segments will be clustered into themes.

Finally, the segments and themes will be synthesized into a description of the texture.

Each dataset will produce its own textural description as each participant has their own

perspective (also referred to as imaginative variation). Imaginative variation is defined as

“infinite multiplicities of actual and possible cognitions that relate to the object…and can thus

somehow go together to make up the unity of an identifying synthesis of meanings and essences”

(Husserl, 1977, p.63). When synthesized with each other, you will arrive at a description of the

structure (the what). That synthesized textural description represents the meaning and the

essence of the experience (Creswell, 1998; Moustakas, 1994).

48 Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method

Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis utilizes phenomenological

reeducation. The following outline describes the specific steps used for this study (Moustakas,

1994, p. 121 – 122). Figure 3.3 illustrates the iteration of each step.

1. Using a phenomenological approach, obtain a full description of your own experience of

the phenomenon.

2. From the verbatim transcript of your experience complete the following steps:

a. Consider each statement with respect to significance for description of the

experience.

b. Record all relevant statements.

c. List each non-repetitive, non-overlapping statement. These are the invariant

horizons or meaning units of the experience.

d. Relate and cluster the invariant meaning units into themes.

e. Synthesize the invariant meaning units and themes into a description of the

textures of the experience. Include verbatim examples.

f. Reflect on your own textural description. Through imaginative variation,

construct a description of the structures of your experience.

g. Construct a textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of your

experience.

3. From the verbatim transcript of the experience of each of the other co-researchers,

complete the above steps, a through g.

4. From the individual textural-structural descriptions of all co-researchers' experiences,

construct a composite textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of the

49 experience, integrating all individual textural- structural descriptions into a universal

description of the experience representing the group as a whole.

Figure 3.1 Analysis Framework

Note. This is a figure adapts the Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis as described by Moustakas (1994)

Horizontalization

Horizontalization involves the researcher listing every discernable attribute and treating

these attributes with equal value (Moustakas, 1994). After going through all the data, the

researcher then removes duplicates and extraneous data while still preserving the horizon.

Charmaz (2006) states that if you ignore or gloss over meaningful data, your data will reflect an

“outsider’s” view. Meaning units are clustered into categories and themes, removing

overlapping or repetitive statements (Moustakas, 1994). Through coding this way, the researcher

50 can discover the “essence” of the phenomenon.

Memoing

Memoing is a helpful tool for recording ideas generated during data analysis. Memos are

reflective notes that describe what the researcher is learning from the data. For this study, the

researcher created a digital logbook. (Clarke & Clarke, 2005) states that failure to use memos or

substandard use of memos is a downfall of many qualitative studies. Proper memo writing can

help ensure the retention of ideas that may otherwise be lost (Glaser, n.d.). At the time of the

memo, the thought may initially seem unimportant or inconsequential, however the idea may

later prove to be significant (Polit & Beck, 2006). Lastly, the practice of memoing is an ongoing

practice throughout the course of the research. This practice helps ensure that a researcher

continues to make progress (Charmaz, 2006). Memoing was performed throughout the analysis

to make sure that no ideas were lost. In addition, themes and subthemes were compared against

initial memos and the interview transcripts for consistency of meaning and intent.

Ethical Procedures

Safety of the participants began with working with the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

to ensure a research plan that was low risk and met all guidelines in protecting the participants

and organization of the study. The approved IRB submission can be found in Appendix A.

Participants were provided an overview of the study and had to provide verbal consent before the

interview process began. The researcher received verbal consent to record the interviews, which

were stored in the university’s Box cloud solution, which is password protected and setup for

51 dual authentication access. The interviews were transcribed with the files also being stored in

the secure Box location. Pseudonyms were given to all the participants to protect their identity.

The researcher also received written approval by the university HR department that they were

aware and approved the study, providing there was IRB approval. Leadership of the target

organization also sent written consent, providing the approval of IRB and the human resources

department.

Though the researcher was a member of the organization at the time of the phenomena,

he resigned from the position prior to starting his research to help ensure there was no conflict of

interest. Member checking was used with the participants to ensure the recorded and transcribed

data accurately reflected their experiences. Memoing was used throughout the process and used

to verify identified themes aligned with the original intent of the participants.

Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of research have

traditionally included transferability, dependability, confirmability and credibility of the data

collected from the study (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2006). Trustworthiness and reliability are used

interchangeably. To better understand the term, you can image the research like a test. “The

more reliable a test is, the more confidence we can have that the scores obtained from the test are

essentially the same scores that would be obtained if the test were read ministered to the same

test takers at another time or by a different person.” (Gay et al., 2009, p. 165).

52 Transferability

The transferability of the study refers to the ability to transfer the results of the study to

another group of participants (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004), while (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

defines it as the researcher’s belief that everything is context-bound.(Gay et al., 2009).

However, (Transformative Mixed Methods Research - Donna M. Mertens, 2010, n.d.) suggests

that “thick description” can assist with transferability. My study provides thick description in

context of both the organization and the participants. This would aid in the transferability of the

study.

Dependability

Dependability is defined by stability of the data, determining if there were any design

changes during the analysis process (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). If there were any design changes,

they would have to be reported to IRB. There were no design changes after IRB approval and

the beginning of collecting data other than clarifications recommended by participants during the

pilot study. Terrell (2015) asserted that dependability is a function of the repeatability of the

research and the consistency of the results. Further expanding on that notion, Shenton (2004)

stated that dependability of a qualitative research design can be improved using practices that

produce similar results when conducted with the same participants in the same situation.

Following these best practices, I have worked to establish dependability through sharing all

relevant information. This includes how the data was gathered through the interview protocol

and process. It also includes how the data was analyzed, by providing a detailed description of

the analysis technique.

53 Confirmability

Confirmability deals with the neutrality or objectivity of the date, and how well the

results of the study can be confirmed by others. Guba & Lincoln (1989), state the confirmability

can be accomplished by explaining the process in detail so that others could replicate the effort

with different participants. Given the transcendental phenomenological method of my study, I

worked to ensure the data would speak for itself and not be influenced by any preconceived ideas

that I had.

Credibility

Credibility of a qualitative study deals with the focus of the study, criteria for selecting

participants, data collection, and coding and themes (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). It deals

with the researcher’s ability to take into account all of the complexities that present themselves

in the study and deal with patterns that are not easily explained (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). It also

deals with consistency of the research, as Loh (2013) cites that researchers can ensure

perceptions are accurate by repeated listening of the taped interviews.

As a member of the organization, I was familiar with the participants and took every

effort to ensure a diverse group, including both genders. Participants from the different teams of

the organization were selected to ensure representation of the teams. I also ensured there were

participants who were still with the target organization and participants who were no longer with

the organization. Interviews were recorded and listened to multiple times. The recorded

interviews were transcribed, and each participant received their transcribed interview to ensure it

accurately reflected their thoughts and experience.

54 In addition to the member checking, a peer review provided me with another perspective

on the transcribed data. The peer was an individual familiar with the target organization who

worked in the human resources department. They identified very similar categories as the

researcher with one notable exception: they did not identify the customer relationship as a

category or a theme. Based on my experience with the organization and my experience with the

participants, I felt the customer relationship was a significant part of the participant’s

engagement experience. I decided to keep the customer relationship theme in the study, but I

have a great awareness that it may be unique to employees who work in customer service

positions.

Triangulation

“Triangulation is the process of using multiple methods, data collection strategies, and

data sources to obtain a more complete picture of what is being studied and to cross-check

information” (Gay et al., 2009). The strength of a qualitative research often is based on the

ability to collect information in many ways and not just relying on a single collection method. It

not only helps validate the different data methods, but it helps fill in gaps that may exist from a

single source of data.

The researcher received approval to use the engagement survey results that were

performed by the organization. One survey was performed by the central HR department while

the other survey was conducted using a tool that the target organization purchased. Interviews

were conducted on a diverse set of participants. The researcher was also a member of the

55 organization at the time and wrote down their experience as part of the bracketing and epoche

process. Collecting data from these multiple sources helped improve triangulation of the study.

Member Checking

Member checking is the process of validating that the data collected accurately represents

the experiences of the participants. Guba & Lincoln (1989), identify this step as the most crucial

technique for establishing credibility. In phenomenological research, it is especially important as

“the point of phenomenological research is to ‘borrow’ other people’s experiences and their

reflections on their experiences in order to be better able to come to an understanding of the

deeper meaning or significance of an aspect of human experience, in the context of the whole

human experience” (p. 62) (Van Manen, 2016).

For this research, member checking was performed a number of ways. First, participants

were provided a transcript of their interview to check for accuracy. In addition, if reading the

transcript generated any additional thoughts, a second interview was offered to provide them the

opportunity to share their thoughts. In addition to the raw data, participants were provided a

semi-polished product which included the major findings and themes, as recommended by

(Creswell, 2014).

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the influence team building events

had on staff’s employee engagement. Given the importance that engagement plays in today’s

56 organizations, and recognizing current industry demands to improve engagement with its

employees, it is important to understand the staff perspective.

My research paradigm is social constructiveness, which led me to approach the problem

with a qualitative research methodology. My use of qualitative research was also dictated by

lack of understanding and consistency within the employee engagement theory and the lack of

research around engagement interventions.

Based on the research question and purpose of the study, I employed phenomenological

research to gain insights and perspectives from staff who had participated in organization team

building events. I selected a case study approach so that I could gain in-depth knowledge. I

chose an IT organization within higher education due to the importance of engagement to this

population in dealing with decreasing resources and rising expectations in an increasingly

competitive field.

My role as the researcher had both some benefits and some challenges. As a member of

the organization at the time of the phenomena, I had access to data and information that others

may not have. However, it also provided challenges, like realizing that participants may not

have disclosed certain details to me in interviews, assuming that I already knew the details.

Also, as a member of the organization, it also came with perspectives and biases that I did my

best to neutralize using the practice of epoche.

57 Chapter 4

Results

This chapter presents the data collected and reports the findings of the qualitative analysis

that was conducted and the synthesis of those findings. The purpose of the study was to explore

the influence of teambuilding events on employee engagement. Interviews were conducted and

the results analyzed using Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of

Phenomenological Data as defined by Moustakas (1994).

NVivo (version 20) qualitative analysis software was used to aid in the analysis process.

This software helped keep the data organized and made it easier to have statements coded to

multiple codes when relevant.

Data

Research Setting

Engagement survey results from a Human Resources initiative survey identified the

target organization to have substantially lower engagement scores when compared to other

departments within the larger organization (See Appendix D). Leadership of the target

organization were tasked with improving employee engagement. To improve engagement, the

organization established an engagement committee that planned and coordinated a number of

events and initiatives they felt would improve engagement. Organization-wide teambuilding

events were the largest (and most expensive) of the engagement interventions that took place.

58 Due to the resources committed to these events and the popularity of teambuilding events, this

particularly invention was chosen for the focus of this study.

Participants

There were seven participants in the study. Each participant (a) was a member of the

target organization, (b) attended one or more of the organizations’ sponsored teambuilding

events held from 2015-2017, and (c) was not in a management role. The total organization size

at the time of the teambuilding events was 52 employees; however, 11 of the 52 did not qualify

for this study because they were in leadership/management positions. Out of the 41 staff

members of the organization, 32 participated in the teambuilding events. All qualified

candidates were sent a recruitment email. Nine individuals responded, while seven followed

through to make time for the interviews. This represents a 22% participation rate.

The organization was composed of several teams performing different roles within the

organization: (a) service desk, (b) desktop support, (c) walk-up desk, (d) infrastructure, (e) IT

consultant, and (f) enterprise applications. Service desk, desktop support, and walk-up desk

were front-facing employees who worked frequently and directly with the customer. The

remaining roles focused more on the back-end technology and did not interface as frequently

with the customer or other teams within the organization. The selected participants represented

all the different roles except for the enterprise applications group. Only one member of that

group attended a teambuilding event and this member did not volunteer to participate in the

study. The chart below provides brief demographics of the participants.

Table 4.1 Participant Demographics

59

Pseudo Name Gender Role in Organization

Time with origination

Still with origination

Carmen Female Service Desk Few months yes

Dave Male Service Desk One year yes

George Male Desktop Support Three years No

Mark Male Desktop Support One year No

Jen Female Walk-up Desk Two years no

Joe Male Infrastructure Four years yes

Sarah Female IT Consultant One year yes

Interviews

Due to the corona virus pandemic, which was occurring at the time of the interviews, all

interviews were held remotely using Zoom video conferencing. Participants were emailed a

calendar invite which included a link to the Zoom session. Once connected, I provided the

participants an overview of the study (see appendix f). I also ensured that they understood that

their interviews were confidential and voluntary and could be stopped at any time. Once

establishing that they understood and consented to everything, I asked them if I could record the

interview. When the participant agreed, I started recording and began the formal interview.

After the formal interview was complete, I stopped recording and thanked the participant for

their time.

Data Analysis

Data analysis is the process of bringing together all the data collected and then

60 bracketing, horizontalizing, organizing invariant qualities and themes, and constructing textural

description (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). Following the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method,

the following section will describe my own experience of the phenomenon, present the textural-

structural descriptions, and the resulting themes

Bracketing

During the practice of bracketing, it is not uncommon for researchers to list out all their

perspectives and biases. My perspectives and biases I feel are formed from three main areas:

leadership in the target organization, participant in the target organization team building events,

and scholarly researcher. However, by doing transcendental phenomenology, I am not looking

to define the lens that I will be using; rather I am focused on not using any lens or using my own

experience to interpret the data. It is my role to let the data speak for itself.

The epoche allowed me to disclose my own experience and feelings to avoid judgment

and biases (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). To do this, I described all my personal

experiences with the target organization and teambuilding events (see Appendix G). By

bracketing out my experiences and perspectives, I focused on listening and understanding before

reflectiveness (Moustakas, 1994). Epoche and bracketing allowed me to focus the research on

the participants' lived experiences while removing the focus away from my own preconceived

perspectives. Moustakas (1994) states that the purpose of epoche through reflection is a way to

prepare for new knowledge. Though a researcher may apply a great deal of effort to remove

conscious and unconscious biases, being completely unbiased is rarely achieved; however, the

practice of continual reflection can increase the competency of examining the phenomenon with

61 a fresh perspective (Moustakas, 1994).

I was working in a management position of the target organization and was a student in

the Penn State University Workforce Education and Development program at the time of the

interventions. I recently resigned from the target organization to complete my dissertation. By

resigning, I felt it would provide me more time to focus on the study, as well as remove me from

the relationships of the target organization that could hinder participants from openly sharing

their experiences with me.

Because I am the human instrument of this phenomenological study, all writing is in my

voice. As a manager in the target organization, I was among the leadership tasked with

improving engagement within the workplace. I have always had a caring personality, and I felt

this was a great opportunity for me to combine my passion for people with my job and career.

This was a very engaging time for me during my career. I was able to lead and participate in

more engaging activities and make a difference in the lives of my staff and the organization.

As a member of the organization, I attended the teambuilding events along with many of

the staff. I was able to see firsthand the impact the teambuilding events had on myself and my

staff. As a leader, I really used these events as an opportunity to connect with my staff on a more

personal level, something I never felt I had the opportunity to do otherwise. In addition to the

events, I was able to witness the influence these events had on my engagement as well as the

engagement of my staff. This was a pretty positive experience at the time.

Though I feel my passion can be a valuable asset, I realized through personal reflection

that my passion can also negatively influence my relationship with others who do not share my

perspectives. I felt engagement was critical to our organization and our employee’s success. It

was difficult for me to understand how others could not see the importance and benefits that I

62 saw with engagement. After coming to this realization, I was committed to investigate others’

experiences and to take a fresh perspective. In addition to learning from the data of this case

study, it is an opportunity for personal growth by learning to bracket my perspectives and truly

seek to understand.

Horizontalization

Horizontalization was performed using EnVivo computer software. Transcripts of the

interviews were imported into EnVivo and statements were marked going through each

transcript. After all relevant statements were identified, duplications and irrelevant data were

then removed. This left only the meaningful data that could then be grouped into categories and

themes.

Imaginative Variation

This phase provided structural descriptions of each theme at the individual level. This

tool helps uncover the essence of the phenomenon. Moustakas (1994) provided guidance to

uncover the essence by identifying it as the themes, if removed, would no longer be the same.

The themes emerged from the categories that were groupings of similar statements. These

categories changed names as more participants used different words but had the same meanings.

The categories also began to form a hierarchy of categories and sub-categories as themes

emerged. The final themes emerged from grouping together the high-level categories. These are

themes that were repeated multiple times and were a necessary part of the essence. During this

process, the themes emerged because they were common to each of the participants and if not

63 included, would completely change the essence of the phenomenon.

Emerging Themes

In this section I discuss patterns that emerged from the data analysis to understand higher

education IT staff’s experience of employee engagement and the influence teambuilding event

has on that experience. Four themes emerged from the rich descriptions provided by study

participants through semi structured interviews. The themes that emerged from the data were (a)

peer relationships, (b) supervisor relationships, (c) customer relationships, and (d) self-

relationship.

Theme 1: Peer Relationships:

Participants in the study discussed in detail the importance of relationships with their

peers. Some participants focused on the feeling of family while others reflected on how

important their peer relationships were to complete their work. Within the peer relationship

theme, a number of subthemes emerged: (a) sense of belonging, (b) interaction opportunities, and

(c) work collaboration.

Sense of Belonging

The sub-theme of belonging emerged from participants reporting their desire to feel like

part of the group. Different terms were used to describe that group such as group, team, and

family. Carmen stated: “Well, you want to feel like, or at least I want to feel like, I’m part of a

group. Almost like a little family, though the term family is probably a little too personal”. Jen

64 also referred to the feeling of family when she said, “It makes me feel like I’m part of the team

and it makes me feel like when I’m engaged at work, it’s like work becomes my work family, so

to speak.”

George reiterated the importance of feeling part of the team when he said, “I felt like an

important team member… they treated me like I was important… so it really made me feel like

part of the team.” Sarah used the term comradery when describing her feelings of belonging:

You get camaraderie out of it... You know, where you're talking about it like, our team

beat your team. Or, um, like I said, coworkers and I are still doing that special handshake,

you know, it was, uh, like the high five handshake thing. That kind of thing where you're

like, Oh yeah, we, we had that moment together.

When this sense of belonging is not present, it creates a feeling of loneliness and

separation. When describing an experience where she was moved to a new location to work, Jen

had this to say:

By myself with no one really stopping by, not even to say, you know, good morning,

hello, anything like that to, uh, the only time I would actually be able to talk with others

is if someone would stop by or they're at least within a year, earshot that could yell at

them like, Hey, how's it going? But then, you know, you seem like crazy person, so you

try to avoid that. Um, it maybe. Feel disengaged because I didn't, I didn't have the ability

to, you know, see my team members or my organizational team folk as often as before.

Uh, I wasn't seeing customers all the time over there, so. Yeah, it was kind of, you know,

lonely.

George also shared an experience of feeling loneliness as a result of moving as part of a

departmental reorganization.

65 You go into work, and you know what you need to do. There's no question that this is

your job, this is what you do, and this is what you enjoy. When you do a reorg, you

understand that, yeah, there's going to be a benefit to it. But during that change, you kind

of lose what you're doing, who you are in the organization… You lose your singularity in

the process.

This lost sense of belonging for George eventually led to him leaving the organization.

Another participant, Dave, shares how his role and team never provided him an

opportunity for that sense of belonging and how it made him feel alone.

I was working weekends and we had two people there. We were in our cubes and well,

the other person that was working with me wasn't a very personal. They stayed to their

cube and did their thing. So then I stayed to my cube and did my thing. And it really was

lonely. I could have been one employee in the company. That was for me, that least

engaged I have been with anything.

Interaction Opportunities

In addition to the feeling of belonging to a group, so is the opportunity to interact with

that group. Participants reported increases in the feeling of engagement when provided with the

opportunity to socialize with their peers, while reporting decreased engagement when they feel

they do not have the opportunity to interact with their peers, for whatever reason.

Jen compared her role to a prison when she had a job that required her to stay in a single

location for her whole shift and did not have the opportunity or flexibility to interact with her

team.

I want to say like being in a prison because you know, I couldn’t get up and go out or

something. That's kind of what it was like because it's like… I could see you guys out

66 there. I can hear you laughing, but I'm not part of it. Like, you know, you kind of feel

left…. It wasn’t that you weren’t invited, you just couldn’t participate because you had

something else taking precedent.

Sarah shared a similar experience of not being able to interact. In this experience, it was

not prompted by being physically separate from a group, rather the inability to interact was a

result of it being one large group. Sarah states,

The interactions that involved large groups became a little harder to, you know, feel I was

getting much out of it. You have the people who are stronger personalities kind of taking

the lead. If there's a larger group where there's not as many opportunities for individuals

to participate, it starts to feel more like a waste of time. It's like, I think I might walk

around and take more pictures because I felt like, okay, well I'm just going to leave them

to do their thing.

Dave had similar experiences as Sarah. While being forced into large group trainings or

meetings, Dave felt the most interaction with peers at lunch time when he had the opportunity to

just interact with his peers on a more one to one basis.

People were just focused on getting something completed, but what task were we really

trying to complete? And if the discussions don’t really go outside of that, how are you

really able to get anyone’s perspective. During lunch when everyone was waiting

around, you know, to get their food, you could sit and just talk to one another… so for

me, it was more social, a chance for a social gathering than it was necessarily anything

else.

Work Collaboration

Work collaboration emerged as a sub-theme as participants indicated that working with

67 someone or asking them for help is much easier when you have a social relationship from which

to build upon. Carmen states, “It was easier to reach out with questions to somebody that I can

put a face to the name, and they were a nice person. Even if they don’t know what I am talking

about, they’re probably going to be understanding.”

Dave reiterates that sentiment by saying “You do not feel as apprehensive to go talk to

someone instead of trying to spend more time figuring it out on your own”. Dave goes on to say:

I can kind of get a better idea of how they are, how they react, and you know, what makes

them tick. So for me, I felt like it was positive because I did get a chance to talk to those I

knew a little bit, talk a little bit more with them, and get to know a little bit better. I am

more comfortable approaching them later down the road if I have a relationship with

them… asking them any questions or, um, maybe I need them to do something for me. I

feel more comfortable asking them”.

The feeling of being more comfortable working with a peer that you have a social

relationship was also shared by George. He states, “It just felt more comfortable going up to that

person and saying, Hi, then start off with personal questions, then go into, this is the problem I

am running into.” George again spoke about the importance of the personal relationship when he

stated,

Made it more comfortable to work with each other. Um, so it was like, Oh, that's John so-

and-so, and this is what he does. It's John, you know, the one that with the wife and his

kids. They lived there. They do this, he likes to do this and this in his off times. Stuff

like that. It made it more personable to go over there and say, Hey, can you give me a

hand?

68 Jen also shared in this feeling of being more comfortable working with someone who

asking them for help if there was a personal relationship with the person that could be leveraged.

She went as far as identifying those relationships as resources.

“So I would feel more comfortable going over and talking to that person… have a more one on

one conversation to help complete the task because they had the comfort with me to just talk to

me. So it opened up different communication pathways for sure. Whether it is to accomplish a

task, get more information or just have additional resources, or whatever the case is”.

Sarah identifies that asking for help and working on group projects are easier when you

know someone and are able to have a friendly conversation with them. She states,

Feel more comfortable having a quick, friendly conversation with them or asking them

for help. Um, and so knowing, um, knowing the people you work with a little better

through those events has benefits, you know, and even just even in those like, um, when

you have to work on a group project, knowing the people a little better.

She went on to say “… doing what we needed to together…” when referring to how she handles

stressful situations.

Joe identified how personal relationships enable people to be more effective when

collaborating. He states, “if you had someone you know and have worked with them before, it

basically lets you build and learn new ways to form ideas”. He goes on to say “the first time you

work with someone, you’re kind of learning how to interact because everybody interacts

differently.” While other participants focused on the comfort level of collaboration with

someone you know, Joe focused on the improved ability to collaborate due to the fact of

knowing how they work and being able to grow together.

69 In all the experiences of the participants, anytime discussing collaboration or working

with others, it was combined with statements about the influence personal or social relationship

had with that collaboration.

Theme 1 Summary

The peer relationship theme is characterized by: (a) sense of belonging, (b) interaction

opportunities, and (c) work collaboration. Each of these categories identified a part of the peer

relationship that was important to the participants. A sense of belonging allowed participants to

feel they were an important part of a group. Interaction opportunities represented the non-work

part of the peer relationship. It allowed the participants to build relationships on a more personal

level, going beyond work interactions. Lastly, collaboration consisted of peer interactions that

focused on the work. These three categories built a peer relationship that focused both on work

and personal interactions, which developed a sense of belonging where the participants felt like a

member of a group.

Theme 2: Supervisor Relationships

Another theme that emerged from the data was the relationship that the participants had

with their supervisor and the leadership of the organization. The term for this relationship was

used interchangeably be the participants with terms such as leader or manager. Within the theme

of supervisor relationships, the following subthemes emerged: (a) employee empowerment, (b)

being valued by the organization, and (c) opportunities for growth.

70 Employee Empowerment

Many of the participants shared their desire to be heard by the organization and for their

thoughts and opinions to be wanted and considered. They wanted leadership to value their input

and empower them to make decisions within the organization. Not having a voice left the

participants feeling like they did not matter and were not valued by the organization.

Carmen reveals how she felt during an experience where leadership made a decision with

a service that she was the main employee who worked with that technology. She stated:

I guess just taken along for the ride. You want to have some say in what's going on. Um,

and if your opinion is not taken into consideration, then you don't feel like matter. Or

maybe your opinion doesn't matter.

In another experience, she was empowered to make decisions. She states…

I guess when I'm, when I'm able to make decisions, it usually means that I'm good at

what I'm doing, or at least, I know what I'm doing. So I guess that, um, have increased

confidence as well. I'm more confident to be engaged.

In George’s role on the desktop support team, he feels he had good knowledge of the

technology and the customers because he physically goes out and interacts with them. In fact he

refers to himself and his peers as “boots on the ground”. In George’s case he wants leadership to

seek and value the unique opinion he and his other peers have. George states:

“They should also be listening to the people, as I said, the boots on the ground saying,

okay, this needs to be done. That needs to be done. I've seen this issue. I've, I've worked

on this issue. I found this solution. All that ties together. Every department has some

input into what we are doing and that makes it a stronger organization.”

He goes on to say that:

71 “I personally feel engagement when a company, uh, has their employees, uh, not only

feel like they're an important part of it, but also try to emphasize that by listening to their

needs, their wants. Uh, and also trying to make sure that, you know, some of it is

addressed. It doesn't have to be like extravagant or anything like that, but at least lets you

know that they are listening”.

George was not as focused on being able to make decisions himself, but at least wanted to be

heard and feel like he was part of the decision process.

In Jen’s experience, she really appreciated the teambuilding event because she found that

to be an opportunity where leadership was supposed to be on the same level, and she felt more

comfortable to speak up without fear of retaliation. She says:

“I also feel that it helps as far as relationships with managers, because during the activities the

managers and the directors were on the same level as the minions. So to speak. So, you know, we

have like a director or a manager and an employee all doing the same activity, trying to work

together to get this done where, you know, everyone was on the same level. So they were able to

work with the management staff on a different level where they're equal and not in a tiered

relationship… people were more comfortable being able to just go up and do that without, you

know, getting in trouble for stepping up. I felt more open working with everyone being at the

same level, so I didn't feel like I would get in trouble for speaking my mind or whatever the case

is.”

Sarah also commented about the teambuilding event providing the opportunity to be on

the same level by saying, “everyone was participating in the activities, kind of on equal footing

as participants”. She also mentioned the desire to “be heard by leadership”.

72 Joe’s perspective expressed a desire to have a voice by sharing a negative experience he

had and continues to have with the organization.

“I know that the times that that would have happened to me would have been when we

were mandated to do something we didn't like. Being forced to time track. And then

when we sat through one of those meetings telling us that this is why we're trying to

tracking and this is what you have to do, that was probably the least engaged I ever was,

because I just wanted to tune out and not hear any of it.”

Though he would not have been a fan of his time tracking regardless, the feeling of it being

mandated without any type of opportunity to provide input made it such a disengaging

experience.

Valued by Organization

The participants also expressed a desire for the organization to recognize their value in

the organization and to show recognition and appreciation.

When talking about a positive experience with her supervisor, Carmen said, “I got

thanked by my supervisor. I felt like they really appreciated what I was doing”. This

appreciation gave Carmen a sense of confidence, as she stated “I think I was successful with it

too. I can’t think of any unresolved issues or big problem”.

George also commented on valuing appreciating from leadership, “Feeling appreciated

for a job well done”. But he goes onto say “Not just a pat on the back, but actually coming out

and telling people that we succeed in this because this team really took the problem and made it

their own.” From George’s experience, he didn’t feel valued just from words of appreciation, he

wanted to ensure leadership truly recognized and were aware when he did great work. He says,

73 “I want them to say, hey, I notice you did X amount of work and your peers only did X amount

of work, so I know you basically handled that whole thing yourself”.

Opportunities for Growth

Opportunities for growth emerged from the data as participants shared their expectations

of leadership and how that would have a positive influence on their feeling of engagement. The

participants identified opportunities for growth as any opportunity to be involved in something

else or something new beyond their normally assigned work.

As mentioned earlier, Dave’s role did not provide him many opportunities to interact with

others. He was typically stuck in a cube answering phone calls and his peers that sat around him

kept to themselves. Dave expressed his desire for his supervisor to expand his opportunities by

saying “I would like to see if maybe the manager could come up with a way to get the different

departments involved with one another.” He continues by saying “maybe it would help getting

the departments, you know, engaged with one another and what that might look like.”

Mark shared Dave’s perspective that it would be helpful for management to give the staff

more opportunities to build relationships and get to know one another. He said, “Maybe

something hosted by the manager or a team lead, kind of engage all the team members, and you

know, get to be one on one and build a better rapport with each other.” Mark stated being busy

as a hindrance to having those opportunities, “I had a lot to do and it was always really packed.

There was always something happening back to back to back.”

George shared an experience where he moved to a new role, but had a difficult time

getting his supervisor to give him work to do and prove himself and his abilities. George said,

“And basically, I sat there and wasn't given stuff because people weren't, uh, either aware

that that's what I was supposed to be doing, or they didn't believe in my ability to be able

74 to do it. I didn't really feel engaged at that point because it felt like I can tell somebody

till I'm blue in the face and nothing's going to change if management does enforce it. I

asked the supervisor, Hey, you know, this is happening. I mean, do you want me to do

this job? Do you not want me to do this job? What do you need me to do? What do I need

to do as an employee to be able to get a chance to do this work?

In this case, it wasn’t necessarily additional opportunities, but George did not feel he even was

given the opportunity to do the job he was assigned to do because the supervisor did not help

ensure work was being assigned to him to do.

Sarah reflected on her experience of trying to receive more opportunities by looking for

things to do beyond her assigned work.

“I was not just sitting back and waiting for the next order to come down the line. I was

looking for ways to keep busy and keep helping their coworkers, finding, you know, what

I can do to help my immediate coworkers… more actively participating and initiating

things… kind of goes along with things like innovation.

Despite her work, Sarah acknowledge “I’m not getting much interaction with my direct

supervisor”.

Theme 2 Summary

The supervisor relationship was composed of the following categories: (a) employee

empowerment, (b) being valued by the organization, and (c) opportunities for growth. These

were all important attributes of the relationship of the participant to their supervisor. Employee

empowerment focused on the supervisor trusting and listening to what their employee had to say

and allowing them to make certain decisions on their own and be part of the decision-making

process. The category of being valued by the organization consisted of words and actions that

75 went beyond the typical work relationship. It provided the participants with a feeling that they

were more than just a resource of the organization, they were an individual who was recognized

and appreciated by the organization. Lastly, opportunities for growth represented work or

training opportunities that were not part of the documented job description. These were

activities that participants perceived as an opportunity to build their skills and grow their careers.

In addition to the opportunity itself, participants looked for support from the supervisor to

provide the safety and confidence to attempt something new without fear of failure.

Theme 3: Customer Relationship

The data indicated a theme of customer relationship, but this theme was not referenced as

often as the first two themes. This may be a result of the interview focus on teambuilding, which

encompasses peer relationships and customer relationships, but does not focus on customer

relationships. However, the customer relationship was an important part for a few of the

applicants. The customer relationship theme contained two subthemes, (a) meaningful work and

(b) customer appreciation.

Meaningful Work

Meaningful work was identified by a few participants as what gave them purpose in the

position. It was what helped give the work they did value.

Sarah was very adamant about the importance meaningful work played within her

employee engagement. She stated the importance of “feeling that what I’m doing matters”. She

identified her most engaging moment in the workplace as a project she worked on. “It was

something that was seen as high importance. I was working on something that other people said,

76 this matters”. Her most disengaging experience was a result of a reorg and the work she was

doing was no longer actively being used.

“You know, still doing some of those things like running reports that I'm generating.

You know, I'm seeing all the things people are doing wrong, but they don't care about

fixing it. That kind of stuff, um, like, why am I even doing this work? You know, I had a

lot of those days of, why am I even here? What good does it do me sitting here, you

know, running a report that no one is looking at, what good is this?”

George also shared how important it is that someone benefits from the work that he does.

He shared how he looked at what he did for the customer:

“Say somebody has a problem, they come up and say, I got a problem. I can't get this to

work, or I can't get this done. I let them know I understand your problem. Let's see what

we can do about it and come up with a great solution. Then later on, those people don't

have to have that problem anymore because I went out of their way to make sure they got

the help that they needed, and it met their needs.”

He also commented on how the most engaging project he was on made a real impact for the

customer. “We wanted everybody to succeed because as an organization, they were very

dependent on that piece of software”

Lastly, a number of the participants identified “helping people” as something that

motivates them. Jen stated, “I’d help people out all that I could”. Joe phrased it by saying “I

was able to help a lot of people. I’ve always felt good when I’m able to help people”. Lastly,

Sarah also commented on helping people saying, “I see the value that it creates for somebody,

and I know that this will really be helpful for someone”.

77 Customer Appreciation

Customer appreciating was mentioned by three of the participants. These comments

were closely related to meaningful work, as the appreciation was a result of the times that the

participants provided meaningful work.

George shared that after completing a large project, “… everybody was very impressed.

Very happy to have us there and were very appreciative.” Sarah commented on a moment after

providing training on the new software they created, “you had that positive social interaction and

the feeling that the work mattered.” In this case, she was able to see the customer interactions

when they used the software for the first time. When discussing how the work he does matters,

Joe stated “I personally think it does… if you interact well with your customers… you’ll be

successful.”

Theme 3 Summary

Though the customer relationship was not discussed as frequently as peer and supervisor

relationships, it still represented a significant relationship in the participants’ view of

engagement. It consisted of two categories: (a) meaningful work and (b) customer appreciation.

Participants identified and measured meaningful work by what was important to their customer.

What was important to the customer was discovered through the relationship with the customer.

The customer success was important to the participants as it was viewed as a result of their own

success. In addition to the work they provided the customer, the customer’s response of

appreciation was important to the participants. This relationship with the customer was

important to the participants and helped provided purpose and motivation for the work they

performed.

78 Theme 4: Self-Relationship

The data indicates that participants feel better about their engagement in the workplace

when they feel better about themselves. This confidence or self-efficacy is established by

successfully accomplishing difficult tasks.

Challenging Work

The participants expressed a desire to be busy and to complete challenging work. They

did not want to be bored and they did not want to perform monotonous tasks that did not

challenge them.

Carmen shares, “I feel the most engaged when I am the busiest”. However, the busy

work needs to be challenging, not monotonous. When performing tasks, she felt was easy, she

stated “It got a little monotonous. It was hard to focus. I just didn’t feel very engaged…” She

went on to say, “I was just following instructions, you know, rather than figuring out solutions

for myself.” Lastly, she says, “I was kind of just dealing with everyone’s little issues, you know,

just the job itself got kind of annoying.” Carmen felt more engaged when she was busy doing

challenging work vs. being bored and doing monotonous work.

Dave also felt more engaged with challenging work. He states, “It is hard to do day to

day activities that’s expected of you.” Rather, he states, “… for me personally, anything that

gets me out of an area of my expertise and into something new, I feel more engaged.”

Joe focuses his comments on the frustrations of doing mundane tasks. He says the

following when discussing time tracking the organization was required to do.

“Most people dislike it and I find it to be a mundane task that adds no value and is just

waste of time, our time when we could be working on other technical work accomplished

79 for people. Instead, we are having to focus on what did we do this week to track our, you

know, where do we put this time… But to me it's a waste of time and it's really

frustrating. So anytime we go to a meeting at a time, tracking is talked about, it really

brings me down. “

This frustration emphasizes having to work on a monotonous task rather than more technical

work. He views this more technical work as being more valuable, indicating that challenging

work is also more valuable.

Lastly, Sarah mentioned “… intellectually a good challenge as well. So, it held my

attention and kept me engaged in that way too.”

Self-Efficacy

One of the participants made a few references of self-efficacy which was often a result of

accomplish a challenging task or being trusted by leadership to make a decision. This helped

promote confidence in the individual which increased their sense of engagement.

Carmen discussed her self-efficacy by saying:

“When I'm able to make decisions, it usually means that I'm good at what I'm doing, or I

at least know what I'm doing. So I guess that, um, have increased competence as well. So

I think that also helps to feel engaged. I'm more confident to be engaged.

She goes on to say “It was like an internal confidence. I was just happy to do something where I

felt like I know what I was doing and was doing a good job.”

George expressed frustration in dealing with a situation where he knew he could do the

work and was confident in his skillset but was not given the support by the supervisor. He

stated,“You know, that kind of stuff did not leave me feel very engaged in the new job. I knew I

could do the work. But I think that things from a supervisor's perspective was like, okay, it’s not

80 going to happen.” By not trusting George to do something he was confident in doing, it left

him feeling disengaged.

Theme 4 Summary

The final theme identified was self-relationship. This theme consisted of challenging

work and self-efficacy. Though not directly referred to as a relationship by the participants, it

represented another individual that it was important to keep happy for an individual to be

engaged with the workplace. As important as it was to have positive relationships with their

peers, supervisor, and customer, it was just as important to be happy with themselves. One way

that individuals improved how they felt about themselves was through challenging work.

Challenging work promoted a feeling of accomplishment and aided in increasing the applicant’s

skills. Self-efficacy was the other important part of the participants’ self-relationship. While

challenging work focused on the work aspect of the relationship, self-efficacy focused on the

emotional component of the self-relationship. It represented how the participants felt about

themselves.

Themes Summary

In summary, the themes that emerged from the data were (a) peer relationships, (b)

supervisor relationships, (c) customer relationships, and (d) self-relationship. These themes were

identified because the foundation of a relationship is that it consists of two or more parties. It

also represents an exchange and interaction between the two parties. By the themes being

identified as relationships, it incorporates the two-way exchange and complexities that define

relationships. Table 4.2 provides an overview of the themes discussed by each participant.

Table 4.2 Participants’ Emergent Themes and Subthemes

Theme and subthemes Carmen Dave George Mark Jen Joe Sarah Theme 1: Relationship with Peers

Interaction Opportunities X X X X X X Sense of Belonging X X X X X X Work Collaboration X X X X X X

Theme 2: Supervisor Relationships Employee Empowerment X X X X X Opportunity for Growth X X X X X X Valued by Organization X X X X

Theme 3: Customer Relationships Meaningful Work X X X Employee Appreciation X X X

Theme 4: Self Relationship Challenging Work X X X X Self-Efficacy X X

Research Questions

This next section discusses the data in context of the research questions. This not only

provides a synthesis of responses to the questions but provides insight to the experience of the

participants. The central inquiry is to explore the influence of teambuilding activities on

employee engagement. The research questions are:

• RQ1: What is the staff’s perception of engagement?

• RQ2: What is the staff’s experience of engagement in the workplace?

• RQ3: What influences a staff’s experience of engagement?

RQ1: What is the staff’s perception of engagement?

The first research question aimed to understand the participants’ perspective on what they

perceive employee engagement really is. Without context of what it is or how it is defined, it is

impossible to understand what it looks likes in the workplace or how it can be influenced. Table

4.3 provides a list of quotes organized by theme that describe the participants’ perception of

employee engagement.

Table 4.3 Perception of Engagement by Theme

Participant Peer Relationship Supervisor Relationship Relationship with Self

Carmen … mentally invested in something with the goal of helping it succeed…

Dave … interactions with team members…

George … company makes employees feel important by listening to their needs…

Mark … how employees interact with each other in and out of the office…

… being listened to and providing input…

Jen … people working together on the same goal…

Joe … how employees interact with coworkers, managers, anybody else in there and anybody else involved in their job role…

Sarah … good morale with other people at work…

… heard by leadership…

Most of the participants perceived engagement to be a relationship with their peers and /

or their supervisor. The relationship with peers focused on collaborating and interacting with

each other. The relationship with the supervisor is focused on being heard. One participant did

not associate engagement with either a peer or supervisor relationship; rather they perceived it to

be an internally focused activity which was focused on the work.

84 RQ2: What is the staff’s experience of engagement in the workplace?

Engagement in the workplace was identified by participants by describing what it looks

like, as well as describing an experience where they were most engaged and an experience when

they were least engaged. The data of this research question consisted of four themes that

represented different relationships within the organization. The feeling of engagement existed

when there was a positive experience with the relationship while disengagement existed when

there was a negative experience with the relationship.

Table 4.4 represents participant experiences that deal with their peer relationships.

Engaged experiences frequently included friendly interactions and positive collaboration work

experiences.

Table 4.4 Peer Relationship Theme

Participant Positive Negative

Carmen … feel like part of a group… part of a family…

… I didn’t see many people, I was like in my own little world…

… you feel out of the loop… like no one is taking your opinion into consideration…

Dave …feel comfortable asking someone for help instead of spending more time trying to figure it out on your own…

… they have information that I don’t, therefore I want to engage with them…

George … I felt like an important team member…

… when I changed roles, I lost my work, you kind of lose your singularity…

85 … felt comfortable going over to someone and saying hey, this is the problem I am running into…

Mark … I'm an easygoing, fun kind of guy that likes to have fun with each other…

…it's always good to be. All right. You know, engaged with, with each other to kind of develop that good relationship….

Jen … it makes me feel that I'm part of the team…

… it's like my work becomes my work family, so to speak...

… people working together towards the same goal…

Joe … working together, breaking down the silos…

… we do have our team meeting where people stand up and call, but you're not interacting with them….

Sarah … friendly interactions with the people they see…

… they're smiling or they're striking up conversation when they see you in the hallway….

…to succeed, we needed to do it together…

The supervisor relationship was the second most referenced relationship by the

participants, second only to the peer relationships. While peer relationships focused on friendly

interactions, positive supervisor relationship experiences were primarily focused on being

86 recognition and empowerment from the supervisor. The negative experiences most frequently

dealt with not being listened to or having a say in the decision-making process.

Table 4.5 Supervisor Relationships Theme

Participant Positive Negative

Carmen … you want to have a say in what is going on…

… I got thanked by my supervisor, appreciated what I was doing…

… opinion didn’t matter… so just doing what I had to do…

Dave … no response from management… no hello, how is your day going…

George … I notice you are doing (x) amount of work while others are only doing (y). You are basically doing it yourself…

… appreciating when a job is well done…

… if you try to separate management from employees… that’s were employees lose faith in the management…

Mark … be closer with one-on-one or develop a, you know, a better rapport with each other…

… it could be getting a compliment from your manager…

Jen … being listened to and providing input…

… able to make a connection instead of just being like “Hey my manager”

Joe

… we were mandated to do something we didn’t like…

Sarah … heard by leadership…

87 … interaction with direct supervisor…

… feeling appreciated…

Customer relationships were mentioned anytime staff were referring to meaningful work.

The work got its meaning from the impact it had on the customer or the appreciation received

from the customer for the work. Table 4.6 identifies the experiences the participants referenced

with the customer.

Table 4.6 Customer Relationship Theme

Participant Positive Negative Carmen

Dave

George … everybody was very, very impressed. Very happy to have us there and very appreciative… … we wanted everyone in the organization to succeed and we know that piece of software was important…

Mark Jen … I'd help out people that I could…

Joe … I was able to help a lot of people…. I've always felt good when I'm able to help people.

Sarah … you have that positive social interaction and the feeling that the work mattered…

… feeling that what I'm doing matters…

… I see the value it creates for somebody…

88

The last relationship referenced was the relationship with self. Table 4.7 identifies

experiences the participants discussed that dealt with how they felt about themselves and the

influence the workplace had on their self-efficacy.

Table 4.7 Self-relationship Theme

Participant Positive Negative

Carmen … like an internal confidence…

… I have increased competence as well… I’m more confident to be engaged

… feel most engaged when I am the busiest…

Dave … anything that gets me out of my area of expertise and into something new…

George

Mark

Jen …It's something new and challenging…

Joe … I find it to be a mundane task that adds no value and is just waste of time, our time when we could be working on other technical tasks…

Sarah … Intellectually a good challenge as well. So it held my attention and kept me engaged in that way too…

89 The participants’ experience of engagement was composed of the positive and negative

experiences with the relationships between peers, supervisors, customers, and self. The most

mentioned of those four was the peer relationship. Participants were most engaged when

working with their peers on challenging and meaningful work for their customers while being

supported and empowered by the supervisors. They became less engaged when they felt lonely

or bored and were not given new and challenging opportunities by their supervisor.

RQ3: What influences a staff’s experience of engagement?

The last research question was the primary focus of the study, which was to understand

the influence teambuilding events had on employee engagement. The four themes of

What influences a staff’s experience of engagement broken down by theme

Table 4.8 Influences of staff’s experience of engagement by theme

Participant Peer Relationship Supervisor Relationship

Carmen … It just, it made you feel like people knew who you were and that they wanted you... it made it easier to reach out with questions…

Dave … it made it more comfortable to go talk to someone about it instead of trying to spend more and more time trying to figure it out on your own…

… comfortable with one another or maybe engaged with one another and what that might look like…

George … Hey, this is, this is the problem I'm running into…

Mark …you could find out somebody's personality by listening to them tell a joke during an icebreaker...

… it could be as something as getting a compliment from your manager…

90 Jen … I was connecting with my

organization as a whole, making us like one gigantic team, not just each team of 10…

… we work as a technical team on a daily basis, and then all of a sudden we work on this… basically letting you learn and build a new way to form ideas…

… also feel that it helps as far as relationships with managers … were at the same level as the minions…

Joe … we work as a technical team on a daily basis, and then all of a sudden we work on this… basically letting you learn and build a new way to form ideas…

… learn to build a new way to form ideas (as a team)…

Sarah … Feel more comfortable having a quick, friendly conversation with them or asking them for help. Um, and so knowing, um, knowing the people you work with a little better through those events has benefits, you know, and even just even in those like, um, when you have to work on a group project, knowing the people a little better.

… leadership organize an event that we know costs money and takes us away from our normal jobs … getting paid to spend the day outside… contributes to feeling appreciated in general…

By far the biggest influence of teambuilding events on employee engagement was the

comfort level it provided staff to work with each other. Staff all identified it as easier to

collaborate with people that you know on a personal level. This comfort level led individuals to

proactively reach out rather than wasting time trying to figure out an issue on their own. The

events also helped individuals to feel valued by leadership because they spent resources to

91 provide the event which made the participants feel important. It also gave staff an opportunity to

improve their relationship with their supervisor which would ideally lead to more empowerment

and opportunities in the future.

Conclusion

Through semi-structured interviews, seven participants shared their perspective on

employee engagement and their experience with engagement in the workplace and the influences

a team building event had on their engagement. The themes that emerged from the data were (a)

peer relationships, (b) supervisor relationships, (c) customer relationships, and (d) self-

relationship.

In the next chapter, I will present my personal analysis of the findings from the study.

The themes mentioned above, and the Social Exchange Theory will be discussed. Also included

will be the implications, recommendations and areas of future research.

92 Chapter 5

Findings

Employee engagement is a critical component of business performance (Kumar &

Swetha, 2011). More specifically, engagement within the IT sector is increasingly important

because IT relies so heavily on human capital to sustain success (Holtbrügge et al., 2010).

Academic researchers have concentrated mainly on clarifying the psychological construct and its

measurement while the industry stream is primarily focused on the outcomes such as

performance, retention, and commitment (Wefald & Downey, 2009). The purpose of this study

was to explore the participants’ perspective and experience of engagement and discover how a

teambuilding event influences that engagement.

Teambuilding events are one of the most commonly applied group development

interventions in organizations today (Klein et al., 2009) and they have had the largest impact in

terms of improved financial measures of any other intervention (Macy & Izumi, 1993). While

the teambuilding event may have been selected by the target organization due to its popularity

and ease of access, this study has found that it can have a significant influence on employee

engagement because of the influence it has on peer and supervisor relationships.

Chapter four analyzed interview data using Modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of

Analysis method described by Moustakas (1994). This process revealed the following themes

regarding employee engagement that emerged from the participants’ experiences: (a) peer

relationships, (b) supervisor relationships, (c) customer relationships, sand (d) self-relationship.

This study found employee engagement to be a combination of workplace relationships.

Each of the relationships have a cost vs. benefit component. When the overall benefits outweigh

the costs, then the individual experiences engagement. When the costs outweigh the benefits, the

93 individual experience a feeling of disengagement. Not all of the relationships are equal, though

the importance of the different relationships differs based on the individual.

Figure 5.1 shows a model of engagement as defined by this study. The overall model is

one of Social Exchange Theory (SET), as it is based on the cost vs rewards of relationships in the

workplace. Saks (2006) introduced SET into an engagement, focusing on the relationship of

employee to organization. Social exchange of supervisor relationships was first identified by

Graen & Cashman (1975) and peer relationships by Seers (1995). Muller (2016) identified peer

relationships of having a substantial influence on employee engagement. The importance of

meaningfulness in engagement was first identified by Kahn (1990). This study identified

“meaningful” as being based on the relationship with the customer. Lastly, relationship with self

has been discussed in terms of “self-efficacy” and other internally focused themes. This study

did not identify anything new when it comes to engagement, rather it put each component in

terms of relationship as identified by the data of this study.

I feel the model of this engagement makes it more understandable and relatable to non-

scholars. Everyone is familiar with the concept of relationships and explaining engagement in

these terms makes it more palatable and actionable, thus allowing for more meaningful

engagement interventions.

94

Figure 5.1 Study Engagement Model

In terms of exchange theory, the study also identified there was not always a set exchange

rate and the reward vs cost were not always with the same relationship. Rather the costs and

rewards for a particular action involved multiple relationships which would then determine if the

individual felt more engaged or less engaged. For example, below is a relationship breakdown

of an individual who is assigned a task by their supervisor. This example represents the

interaction of the different relationships and the complexity of how multiple interactions come

together to form an engaging or disengaging experience.

95

Figure 5.2 Example of cost / reward relationship

1. Supervisor assigns work to employee

2. Employee talks to one of his peers, first discussing personal matters and asking how they

are doing.

3. Peer provides the employee the information they need

4. Individual completes the work

a. Work is meaningful to the customer

b. Work is challenger for the individual

5. Customer shows appreciation for work well done

6. Individual feels increased self-efficacy from the challenging work

96 Conclusions

The findings of this study identified relationships as the key for how the participants of

this case study viewed and experienced employee engagement. In addition, teambuilding events

had a positive influence on employee engagement because it provided both formal and informal

opportunities to build and strengthen peer relationships and supervisor relationships.

One thing I found to be important that differed from traditional engagement models is

that relationships contained components that are typically viewed as separate. Interestingly,

participants discussed “the work” like it was a normal part of their relationship. For example,

collaborative work was just a part of peer relationship. Meaningful work was all about what it

meant to the customer and had little to do with the actual work itself. Work performance and

doing what they are assigned to do is just a typical part of the relationships with the supervisor /

organization.

Another interesting note is that even though there may be relationships with different

groups, the organization (including management) can negatively or positively impact those

relationships. For example, peer relationships may refer to relationships with their peers, but

management has ability to influence them. They can create an environment that provides no

time for social interaction. They can transfer someone from one team to another team, isolating

them from the co-workers they had already established a relationship. They can assign them

work that limits interactions with others. They can institute policies and procedures that limit

staff’s ability to reach out to other teams. Though different relationships have been identified, it

is important to remember the influence an organization can have on those relationships.

97 Peer Relationships

Peer relationships emerged as a critical component of employee engagement and the

primary factor influenced by teambuilding events. Peer relationships were found to consist of

the following components: Work collaboration, sense of belonging, and personal interactions.

Work Collaboration

Work collaboration was by far the most mentioned aspect of peer relationships.

Collaboration is at the core of teamwork and the focus of many studies. Within the IT industry,

knowledge and information are the key resources to most every task and project. The most

difficult part of collaboration within this setting was successfully obtaining knowledge. This

could be because of not knowing where to get it from, feeling uncomfortable asking for it, or

having the person resist in sharing that information with you. Personal relationships helped

address each of those issues, providing a more effective collaborative environment.

Sense of Belonging

A quote from a participant summed it up best when they stated, “everyone wants to be

wanted”. This sense of belonging took many shapes and forms. It involved individuals feeling

like they were a valuable member of the team. It also involved a sense of community which

went beyond a work team or the work organization. Lastly, it also referred to a role, being an

individual who was needed because of a special need they filled for the organization or the

group.

The study had multiple participants identify a lost sense of belonging when the

organization restructured, and they no longer had a role they viewed as important and were no

98 longer a part of the same team they had become familiar with. When the individuals lost their

sense of belonging, they lost any desire to go to work and felt a strong lack of purpose.

Interaction Opportunities

The final component within peer relationships deals with interaction opportunities.

Interaction opportunities refers to the opportunities to interact with peers in a way that allows

them to get to know each other on a more personal level. This turned out to be an important part

of the participants’ engagement as it provided a foundation to the other themes of work

collaboration and sense of belonging.

In this study, effective work collaboration was dependent on personal relationships

between peers. The participants felt more comfortable approaching coworkers for help or

information when they had a personal relationship to connect with before asking for what they

needed. Without a personal relationship, collaboration becomes significantly more challenging.

Therefore, an opportunity to build that personal relationship is a critical component of building

the social resources needed to be successful in the workplace.

In addition, employees’ sense of belonging is also heavily impacted by the opportunity

for personal interactions with peers. The sense of belonging felt by the participants knowing

each other and caring about each other beyond just the normal expectations of the workplace.

Individuals who were emotionally evolved with each other prompted those feelings of belonging.

Without opportunities to build those relationships, it would be more difficult to establish that

sense of belonging.

Though interaction opportunities may focus on personal relationships and not necessarily

work, they are important to employee engagement and workplace collaboration. Leadership is a

critical component in making this happen. Leaders can help provide interaction opportunities by

99 assigning individuals to teams and providing an environment that permits teams to work

effectively together. Management can also provide informal opportunities by allowing

“downtime” where socialization is permitted and encourage. When employees are too busy to

interact with each other, it can reduce the quality of relationships in the workplace which reduces

employee engagement and negatively impacts collaborative work.

Supervisor Relationships

Supervisor relationships has been a well-known influencer of employee engagement as

there have been multiple studies linking supervisor relationship to engagement. Supervisor

relationships differ from those of peer relationships because there is a traditional and

foundational expectation that supervisors provide employees with compensation for doing work.

There is not the same social expectation as one may expect to find with peer relationships. In

many cases, personal relationships with supervisors is discouraged or not permitted in many

organizations. Relationships with supervisors falls in this ambiguous space where ethics state

they shouldn’t be your friend, but employees are looking for something more than just a tradition

“boss.”

Employee Empowerment

Employee empowerment was a strong component of the supervisor relationship.

Empowerment consisted of two components: having the opportunity to provide input and having

the opportunity to make decisions. As organizations have become flatter, more organizations are

empowering employees to make more decisions. A leader who chooses to “micromanage’ their

100 employees does not empower their employees and thus can hurt the relationship with their

employee and reduce employee engagement.

Opportunity for Growth

Opportunity for growth is the expectation that an employee has that they will be given a

chance to work on something outside their normal assigned duties that increases their skills or

experiences, which could lead to job promotions or furthering one’s career. This could include

something as formal as training to learn new skills but could also include being assigned to a

special project that allows the employee to work with new people or to showcase their skills. A

critical component of providing employees new opportunities is to also provide the safety and

support which provides employees the confidence to embrace the new challenge. Kahn (1990)

identifies a learning environment as one where there are opportunities to learn at work “without

fear or negative consequences to self-image, status, or career” (p.705). Removing those negative

consequences typically associated with doing new things motivates individuals to be more open

to taking on the new opportunities.

Though opportunities can improve the relationships with the supervisor, it can also hurt

the relationship if supervisors attempt to make increased workload as “opportunity”. One

participant of the study commented on this very thing when they stated, “I was doing the new

job, but I still had to keep doing all the things I was before”. In this case, the supervisor

camouflaged assigning more work to their workers with the shiny package of “opportunity”. It

has become common for today’s workers to be completing their own tasks as well as the tasks of

previous colleagues (Kim et al., 2013). This is not what is meant by proving individual’s

opportunity for growth and this would have disengaging effects.

101 The AMP survey data showed significant engagement improvements in all areas except

for supervisor relationship and confidence to accomplish work goals. These two areas showed a

decreased score. In comparing those scores with the data from the interviews, it leads me to

conclude that some supervisors were using the engagement initiative to get more out of their

employees. The employees were overburdened with work and grew a resentment towards their

supervisor because the things they said did not always match their actions. Two of the

participants commented on taking on new roles as growth opportunities but became less engaged

as a result.

Valued by the Organization

Employees want to be valued by the organization, both as an individual and for the work

that they perform. Employees are looking for more than just words of affirmation. There is an

expectation that if an employee does a good job, they are rewarded with a raise, a bonus,

increased time off, or some other incentive. One participant defined empty appreciation as “just

a pat on the back”. Feeling valued by the organization can also be as much about what they

don’t do as by what they do. If an organization fails to provide something that is expected, it

will lead to a feeling of being less valued. Though this may be an organization decision and not

necessarily a decision by the supervisor, it still negatively impacts that relationship with the

supervisor because they represent the organization from the perspective that they are the ones

you expect to get you what you deserve or what you need.

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) identify social exchange theory in the workplace when

individuals receive economic resources from the organizations in exchange for their work.

Furthermore, (Colquitt, 2001) states that procedural justice is the perception by the employees

102 that things are fair. If they feel that they are not getting what they deserve, or that someone is

less deserving is getting more than them, it can create a feeling of disengagement.

Teambuilding Events

Teambuilding as an engagement intervention was highly impactful in this research

because it positively influenced all three components of peer relationships as identified by this

study. The chart below demonstrates the three components of peer relationship and how they

were influenced by the teambuilding event.

Figure 5.3 Teambuilding event’s influence on peer relationships

Teambuilding events can be facilitated different ways which would impact how the event

influences the engagement of the participants. As shown in figure 3.1, the teambuilding events

103 performed in the target organization were designed in a way that influenced all components of

employee engagement. The following paragraphs will discuss each component and how it was

influenced by the teambuilding event.

Influence on Collaboration

Although this study found collaboration to be easier when there is a personal relationship,

the job of problem solving or completing tasks is still the focus of collaboration. As expected,

the teambuilding event provided opportunities for individuals to work with others on completing

tasks. This effort required the participants to use a number of different skills, such as

communication and teamwork. Many of the tasks were impossible to complete without each

person on the team doing their part. These teambuilding activities reinforced the importance of

teamwork and helped refine those skills. The influence on peer relationships was especially

meaningful due to it influencing all three subthemes identified with how employees experience

engagement. By influencing all areas of something that emerged as such an important factor of

engagement made the teambuilding events extremely impactful.

Sense of Belonging

The sense of belonging was positively increased, and participants had both formal and

informal interactions that helped build that sense of team and belonging. A number of the

participants commented that they appreciated how activity included more than just their

immediate team, because they had that greater sense of belonging when they realized how they

fit into the larger organization as a whole. They were also appreciative of being able to work

with people that they had never worked with previously. You could imagine it like a family

104 reunion: you have that greater sense of family when you are in a big event with distant relatives

than you do with your immediate family you see and interact with every day.

Personal Interactions

The first area was that of interaction opportunities. Because of how the teambuilding events

were held, participants had substantial amount of downtime in order to interact with each other

informally. This specifically included an hour-long catered lunch and the opportunity to stay and

socialize at the conclusion of the event instead of going back to work.

Work collaboration was impacted both directly and indirectly. It was impacted directly

through formal teambuilding activities that build skills such as communication understanding. It

helped impact it indirectly by building personal relationships that made participants feel more

comfortable collaborating with each other back in the workplace.

Implications

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, it provides great opportunity for additional

studies to fully explore the phenomenon. As the importance of engagement for organization

success continues to grow, there will be an increasing need for executive-level leadership to

positively influence engagement within their organizations. Based on the findings and analysis

of this study, I offer recommendations for practitioners and scholars to improve employee

engagement in the workplace and to further develop scholarly employee engagement research.

105 OD Practitioners

This study found teambuilding events to have a positive influence on the participants’

relationships with their peers, which was found to be a core factor of employee engagement. The

engagement intervention was with the entire organization, which gave participants access to

individuals they typically do not interact with. These “new” relationships provided the

individuals with access to resources they may not have had access to before. A teambuilding

event with a smaller group of individuals who already work together on a frequent basis may not

have the same effect as the teambuilding event with the larger organization. OD practitioners

would want to get a feeling of the organization prior to the event. If peer relationships are

already high and the group is already familiar with each other, the effect may not be as strong as

with a group who doesn’t know each other well and / or interact frequently. Much of the success

of the teambuilding intervention will be identifying the right group to use it with.

Teambuilding Facilitators

It could be tempting as a teambuilding facilitator to try to ensure that you fill up every

second of the event with teambuilding activities in efforts to do the best job possible. However,

my data suggest there is significant value in informal socialization at the teambuilding events.

Participants of this study identified lunch time and time spent after the formal

teambuilding was over as some of the most memorable and influential moments of the

teambuilding events. In part, this was a result of the things learned about people at that time

being more applicable when returning to the workplace. For example, a participant learned that

another member of the organization liked dogs. From that moment on, anytime they saw each

106 other, they would ask how each other’s dog was doing. This study was not focused on

teambuilding facilitation and therefore cannot make many recommendations other than there is

value to informal socialization opportunities, and the teambuilding event may be one of the only

times some of the individuals have time to informally interact with each other.

Organization Leadership

Teambuilding events can be an effective way to improve employee engagement within an

organization due to its positive influence on peer relationships. It can also have a positive

influence on management relationships. The AMP survey results indicated a 10% increase with

the communication between employee and senior level leadership. However, the AMP survey

also indicated a 12% decrease with the supervisor relationship.

A teambuilding event can provide individuals access to someone they may not usually

get to interface with. This was true in this case study, as participants were able to interact with

senior-level leadership. The data also indicated that relationship with supervisors did not

improve. One possible explanation for the decrease in supervisor relationship could be new

opportunities that staff were given without the necessary support or compensation. This study

identified participants who became highly disengaged when they were given a new

“opportunity” to take on more work. However, they did not receive compensation for this new

work and often times had to continue to do the work they were already doing.

When increased performance is the goal of the engagement initiative, staff are more

likely to resist, and experience decreased engagement levels rather than increased. Performance

and other favorable business outcomes should be a secondary benefit to the overall wellbeing of

107 the employee. This study identifies engagement as relationships and relationships that must be

built over time and cannot be forced. Therefore, leadership who are only willing to invest in

engagement when they see direct results may often find themselves disappointed.

Scholarly Researchers

My literature review indicated a gap between scholarly research and industry practice.

As a PhD student who works within a leadership role in industry, I felt an obligation to attempt

to address that gap. Engagement is an extremely important topic for both workers and

organizations alike. I feel it is important for scholarly research to continue to explore

engagement and to generate findings that can be taken by industry to identify and address

engagement issues and opportunities.

Recommendations for Future Study

As was stated earlier, the voice of the employee is missing from research when it comes

to employee engagement. This study helped provide a voice to IT staff in higher education who

participated in a teambuilding event but replicating this study with a larger sample size across

multiple industries would provide a full description of the phenomenon. In addition, studies

which focus on the different relationships would provide a deeper understanding of that

relationship.

Because of this study, there are many more questions to be answered.

• Is the customer relationship importance limited to service industries that deal directly

with customers?

108 • Do supervisors have the same engagement model, or does it differ for individuals in

leadership positions?

• Do the staff who did not participate in the teambuilding event have a different perspective

or experience of engagement?

Limitations

One limitation of the study was the homogeneity of the participants. Because this study

was designed around a single case, it allowed for a greater degree of focus, but it limits the

ability for cross-case analysis. Performing a multi-case or cross-case analysis can be used to

substantiate the findings of pattern-matching analyses and establish the phenomenon as not being

unique to just that single case. Future research could also expand the scope of this study to

include IT organization outside of higher education or focus the study on different industries.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that prolonged engagement with a case study organization

can affect data collection if the researcher allows themselves to “go native”. In this study, I was

a member of the target organization for 9 years. This time with the organization certainly

effected my perspective, even after leaving the organization before performing the study. To

address the concern, I provided a section that discussed my background which would help bring

that perspective to light. In addition, through the processes of epoche and bracketing, I tried my

best to set aside my preconceived notions and approach the study like I was a “stranger in a

strange world”.

Another limitation of the study was that the interviews were conducted almost three years

after the phenomena. Because I worked for the target organization in a leadership role, I elected

109 to not perform the research while I was in that role. I felt that interviewing staff while in a

leadership position could sway or impact participant responses. During the interviews, the

participants were very open, but may have struggled recalling certain details of the event. Had

the interviews taken place closer to when the phenomena occurred, there may have been

additional details that were identified.

Final Summary

Utilizing the theoretical framework of Social Exchange Theory, this study aimed to

describe the phenomenon of the influence of teambuilding events on employee engagement.

Participants of the study identified the themes of (a) peer relationships, (b) supervisor

relationships, (c) customer relationships, and (d) relationship with self.

As a manager at the organization that held the teambuilding events, listening to the

participants’ experience of the events allowed me to understand the event from another

perspective. As one of the leaders being tasked with improving employee engagement, I was

more concerned with the results of the teambuilding events than understanding the experience.

However, going through this study has enabled me to relive the experience through the

participants’ eyes and allowed me to understand both the employee perspective and supervisor

perspective of the event.

The participants identified peer and supervisor relationships as when describing their

perspective of employee engagement. When describing their experience of engagement, they

added customer relationships and self-relationship to the list. In analyzing the influence

teambuilding events had on engagement, I identified that peer relationships and supervisor

110 relationships were both influenced, which raised the overall engagement experience for the

participants.

This study provides some direction to industry leaders who are looking to improve

employee engagement within their organization. It always provides teambuilding facilitators

with insight into how a teambuilding event can influence staff when they go back to the

workplace.

111

REFERENCES

Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake‐Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work

behaviour and turnover intentions. Career development international.

Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The relationship between line

manager behavior, perceived HRM practices, and individual performance: Examining the

mediating role of engagement. Human resource management, 52(6), 839-859

Sundaray, B. K. (2011). Employee engagement: a driver of organizational effectiveness. European

Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 53-59.

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of

employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 19(1), 31-53.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., Bakker, A., & Leiter, M. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of

essential theory and research. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and

research.

Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of

hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 397-409.

Baptiste, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and

performance. Management decision.

Beer, M. (1976). The technology of organization development.

Bettis, R., & Hitt, M. The new competitive landscape: strategic management journal. Special Issue,

Summer, 1195, 7-19.

Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: role of perceived

organizational support, PO fit, organizational commitment and job

satisfaction. Vikalpa, 38(1), 27-40.

112

Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes

about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 15(2), 14-21.

Buys, C., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Burnout and engagement of reformed church ministers. SA Journal

of Industrial Psychology, 36(1), 1-11.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.

sage.

Ciborra, C. U., & Patriotta, G. (1998). Groupware and teamwork in R&D: limits to learning and

innovation. R&D Management, 28(1), 43-52.

Clarke, E. F. (2005). Ways of listening: An ecological approach to the perception of musical

meaning. OUP USA.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a

measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386.

Cook, S. (2008). The essential guide to employee engagement: better business performance through

staff satisfaction. Kogan Page Publishers.

Coyle‐Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the

employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of management studies, 37(7), 903-

930.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. Sage publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Sage publications.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.

113

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research

process. Sage.

Daly, C. J., & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public

universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 776-803.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources

model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500.

Erickson, T. J. (2005). Testimony submitted before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,

Labor and Pensions, May 26.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 327.

Ford, L. R., & Seers, A. (2006). Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation

versus agreement. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 258-270.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-

build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218.

McDermott, A. M., Keating, M. A., Freeney, Y., & Fellenz, M. R. (2013). Work engagement as a key

driver of quality of care: a study with midwives. Journal of Health Organization and

Management.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (1976). Educational research: Competencies for analysis

and application. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M. H. W. A., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational

stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of

stress. Work & stress, 15(1), 53-72.

Glaser, B. G. (n.d.). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. 1978,

Mill Valley, Calif. Sociology Press.

114

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A

developmental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143, 165.

Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of service

research, 7(1), 65-89.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts,

procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105-112.

Gray, K. C., & Herr, E. L. (1998). Workforce education: The basics (pp. 150-152). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.

Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be

discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?. European

psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.

Harmeling, C. M., Moffett, J. W., Arnold, M. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2017). Toward a theory of

customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 45(3), 312-

335.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-

analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship

to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12 meta-analysis: The

relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Hettlage, R., & Steinlin, M. (2006). The critical incident technique in knowledge management-related

contexts. Zurich: IngeniousPeoplesKnowledge. Available online at http://www. ipk.

ch/files/CriticalIncidentTechnique_in_KM. pdf.

115

Holtbrügge, D., Friedmann, C. B., & Puck, J. F. (2010). Recruitment and retention in foreign firms in

India: A resource‐based view. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with

the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the

Society of Human Resources Management, 49(3), 439-455.

Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction:

Expectations and values in academe. Journal of higher education policy and

management, 28(1), 17-30.

Husserl, E. (2001). Logical investigations (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, T. (n.d.). Council Post: The Real Problem With Tech Professionals: High Turnover. Forbes.

Retrieved March 15, 2020, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2018/06/29/the-real-

problem-with-tech-professionals-high-turnover/

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its influence on

supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 399-416.

Karatepe, O. M. (2012). Job resources, work engagement, and hotel employee outcomes: a time-

lagged analysis. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 25(3), 644-665.

Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and

performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human

Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248-276.

Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2003). 'Running Up the Down Escalator': Stressors and strains in UK

academics. Quality in Higher education, 9(1), 21-38.

116

Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009).

Does team building work?. Small Group Research, 40(2), 181-222.

Kolb, J. A., & Gray, B. L. (2007). Using collaborative alliances to build leadership capacity: A five-

year initiative. Central Business Review, 26(1), 11-16.

Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and

development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams.

Kumar, D. P., & Swetha, G. (2011). A prognostic examination of employee engagement from its

historical roots. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(3), 232.

Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research.

Levinson, H. (2009). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.

Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social

cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on

creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090-1109.

Loh, J. (2013). Inquiry into Issues of Trustworthiness and Quality in Narrative Studies: A

Perspective. Qualitative Report, 18(33).

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.

Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation: a meta-

analysis of 131 North American field studies—1961–1991. Research in organizational

change and development, 7(1993), 235-313.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal

stress and what to do about it. John Wiley & Sons.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of

psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

117

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social

exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work

relationships. Academy of Management journal, 43(4), 738-748.

McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews.

Menguc, B., Auh, S., Yeniaras, V., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2017). The role of climate: implications for

service employee engagement and customer service performance. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 45(3), 428-451.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and

Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome

St, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.

John Wiley & Sons.

Mortimer, D. (2010, May 26). Employee engagement: 5 Factors that matter to employees. HRreview.

https://www.hrreview.co.uk/analysis/analysis-wellbeing/employee-engagement-5-factors-

that-matter-to-employees/8221

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications.

Muller, M., Shami, N. S., Guha, S., Masli, M., Geyer, W., & Wild, A. (2016, November). Influences

of peers, friends, and managers on employee engagement. In Proceedings of the 19th

International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 131-136).

Naruse, T., Taguchi, A., Kuwahara, Y., Nagata, S., Sakai, M., Watai, I., & Murashima, S. (2015).

The effect of skill mix in non‐nursing assistants on work engagements among home visiting

nurses in J apan. Journal of nursing management, 23(4), 532-541.

Ouweneel, E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2013). Believe, and you will achieve: Changes

over time in self‐efficacy, engagement, and performance. Applied Psychology: Health and

Well‐Being, 5(2), 225-247.

118

Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and

consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294-311.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being

reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 29(5), 489-497.

Organization: An Exploratory Study. Advances In Management.

Rana, N., & Chhabra, N. L. (2011). Employee engagement: a primer for strategic human resource

management. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 1(2), 16-

27.

Reilly, R. (2014). Five ways to improve employee engagement now. Gallup Business Journal, 2–3.

Rigotti, T., Holstad, T., Mohr, G., Stempel, C., Hansen, E., Loeb, C., ... & Perko, K.

(2014). Rewarding and sustainable healthpromoting leadership. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für

Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Report-

Institute for Employment Studies.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family

roles. Administrative science quarterly, 46(4), 655-684.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). The ‘problem’of the psychological contract considered. Journal of

Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and

Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(S1), 665-671.

Sadala, M. L. A., & Adorno, R. D. C. F. (2002). Phenomenology as a method to investigate the

experience lived: a perspective from Husserl and Merleau Ponty's thought. Journal of

advanced nursing, 37(3), 282-293.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial

psychology.

119

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work

engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service

climate. Journal of applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making

research. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 43(1), 118-135.

Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional

management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization

Management, 20(1), 18-38.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and

the social sciences. Teachers college press.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kubota, K., & Kawakami, N. (2012). Do workaholism and work

engagement predict employee well-being and performance in opposite directions?. Industrial

health, 50(4), 316-321.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the

foundations. Human resource development review, 9(1), 89-110.

Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and

application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale. Human

resource development international, 15(5), 529-547.

Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the

levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The journal of socio-economics, 29(6), 517-538.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies.

Strijk, J. E., Proper, K. I., van Mechelen, W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2013). Effectiveness of a

worksite lifestyle intervention on vitality, work engagement, productivity, and sick leave:

120

results of a randomized controlled trial. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &

Health, 66-75.

Terrell, S. R. (2015). Writing a proposal for your dissertation: Guidelines and examples. Guilford

Publications.

Top Employee Engagement Trends to watch in IT industry. (n.d.). BW People. Retrieved March 22,

2020, from http://bwpeople.businessworld.in/article/Top-Employee-Engagement-Trends-to-

watch-in-IT-industry/06-08-2018-156846

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(6), 469-474.

Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement,

organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the

theory.

Tse, H. H., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member

relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194-215.

Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive

pedagogy. Routledge.

Vuori, J., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Mutanen, P. (2012). Effects of resource-building group

intervention on career management and mental health in work organizations: randomized

controlled field trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 273.

Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with

satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91–112.

Wellins, R. S., Bernthal, P., & Phelps, M. (2005). Employee engagement: The key to realizing

competitive advantage. Development Dimensions International, 5, 1-31.

Wilson, K. S., Sin, H.-P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member

exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of

Management Review, 35(3), 358–372.

121

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Dollard, M. F., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., &

Schreurs, P. J. (2007). When do job demands particularly predict burnout?. Journal of

managerial psychology.

Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., & Rayton, B. A. (2013). Work engagement as a

mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24(14), 2799-2823.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (ed.). Thousand Oaks.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.

122

Appendix A HRP-591 - Protocol for Human Subject Research

Protocol Title: A Phenomenological Study of the Influence of Teambuilding Activities on Employee Engagement

Principal Investigator: Matthew Raup Workforce Education and Development 570-713-4965 mrr18@psu.edu

Version Date: 02-24-20

1.0 Objectives 1.1 Study Objectives The primary purpose of this study is to provide insight into the experience of staff members who participate in organizational team building events as a possible means to better understand employee engagement. By examining the lived-in experiences of this population, this research may lead to more effective engagement interventions and reducing the engagement gap within organizations. 1.2 Primary Study Endpoints This is a qualitative study and therefore not applicable 1.3 Secondary Study Endpoints This is a qualitative study and therefore not applicable

2.0 Background 2.1 Scientific Background and Gaps Employee Engagement has been linked to many desirable organizational outcomes, including but not limited to: improved profits, improved customer service, lower turnover rates, etc. Despite the well documented benefits of employee engagement, there is a growing engagement gap. Research needs to be done to help find ways to engagement employees and close that gap. 2.2 Previous Data There is no previous data. 2.3 Study Rational The rationale for this study is that organization sponsored teambuilding events may influence employee engagement. Many of the existing studies focus on the quantitative data such as surveys or measuring performance outcomes. This study will seek to understand the experiences of those participating in such events in order to better understand what they are feeling and experiencing and how it influences their engagement moving forward.

123

3.0 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

3.1 Inclusion Criteria Subjects eligible for study enrollment must meet the following criteria:

1. Adult 18 and older 2. A staff member of Outreach Information Technology at The Pennsylvania

State University between 2016-2018 3. Must have participated in at least one of the organization’s sponsored

teambuilding events during that time 4. Not a member of senior leadership of the organization

3.2 Exclusion Criteria

1. Individuals less than 18 years old 2. Individuals who do not meet the inclusion criteria

3.3 Early Withdrawal of Subjects 3.3.1 Criteria for removal from study

If subjects do not agree with the protocol requirement or do not provide their consent, they will be removed

3.3.2 Follow-up for withdrawn subjects

If a subject must be removed, the principal investigator will explain the removal in person or email and thanking them for their earlier participation.

4.0 Recruitment Methods

4.1 Identification of subjects Subjects who meet the earlier stated inclusion criteria will be identified as potential subjects 4.2 Recruitment process

4.2.1 How potential subjects will be recruited. The principal investigator was a member of the organization during the above-mentioned time period and thus knows all of the potential subjects that meet the inclusion criteria. An email will go out to all subjects that meet the inclusion criteria. The email will overview the research study being performed and seek volunteers who would be willing to participate in the study. The subjects email addresses will be obtained through snowball sampling, as subjects can refer other potential subjects who would be meet the inclusion criteria.

4.2.2 Where potential subjects will be recruited. Many of the potential subjects are still with the identified organization, (OIT). Other potential subjects have moved on to other departments around The Pennsylvania State University.

4.2.3 When potential subjects will be recruited.

124

Potential subjects will be recruited within the first two weeks of March 2020, providing IRB approval is complete at that time.

4.2.4 Describe the eligibility screening process and indicate whether the

screening process will occur before or after obtaining informed consent. Screening begins when the investigator obtains information about or from a prospective participant in order to determine their eligibility. In some studies, these procedures may not take place unless HIPAA Authorization is obtained OR a waiver of HIPAA Authorization when applicable for the screening procedures is approved by the IRB. Recruitment emails will only go out to potential subjects who are already known to meet the inclusion criteria. The informed consent process will be performed after potential subjects respond with their willingness to participate in the study.

5.0 Consent Process and Documentation 5.1 Consent Process

Implied or verbal consent will be obtained – subjects will not sign a consent form (waiver of written documentation of consent) 5.2 Consent Documentation 5.2.1 Timing and Location of Consent

Prior to the meeting, email correspondence will ensure participation is voluntary and providing a background of the study and its purpose.

5.2.2 Waiver of Documentation of Consent Prior to any in person meeting, the principal investigator will explain the

consent process via email. The process will be explain again in person along with the potential subject being provided a consent form before any research activity begins.

5.3 Waiver of Written Documentation of Consent 5.3.1 Indicate which of the following conditions applies to this research:

The research presents no more that minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.

5.3.2 Indicate what materials, if any, will be used to inform potential subjects about the research (e.g., a letter accompanying a questionnaire, verbal script, implied consent form, or summary explanation of the research)

The initial recruitment letter will provide a summary of explanation about the research. A summary will also be provided in person before obtaining participation consent.

125

5.3.2.1 Capability of Providing Consent If the person is awake, alert and able to respond in conversation, then it is assumed the subject is able to provide consent.

6.0 HIPAA Research Authorization and/or Waiver or Alteration of Authorization Not applicable, no identifiable protected health information (PHI) is accessed, used or disclosed in this study.

7.0 Study Design and Procedures

7.1 Study Design This qualitative study consists of conducting recorded semi-structured interviews with subjects and analyzing their own transcribed interview transcripts with a Thematic content analysis method. Prior to the interview, subjects will be asked to provide their verbal consent for the interview to be recorded. 7.2 Study Procedures The study will proceed according to the events in the following phases:

1. Recruit subjects. 2. Gain subjects’ voluntary consent and assent with appropriate documentation. 3. Conduct recorded individual semi-structured interviews with subjects. 4. Transcribe recorded interviews. 5. Share each transcript privately with each subject to determine that the transcript

accurately represents the subject’s responses. 6. Code transcripts. 7. Determine descriptive statistics of survey data. 8. Write analysis and conclusions.

7.2.1 Visit 1 or Day 1 or Pre-test, etc. The meeting will begin by providing an overview of the study and its objectives and then going over the consent information. This will then be followed by performing a recorded semi-structured interview. After completion of the interview, I will thank them for their time and instruct them that they will receive a transcript of the interview to verify once it is completed. 7.2.2 Visit 2 or Day 2 or Post-test, etc. (If applicable) Subject will be provided a transcript of their interview for them to verify. This will be done via email. I will thank them for their participation and let them know no further action is needed once transcript is verified.

7.3 Duration of Participation There will be one session of a recorded semi-structured interview. The session will last approximately 90 minutes..

8.0 Subject Numbers and Statistical Plan 8.1 Number of Subjects

126

10 subjects will be accepted. As stated earlier, the email will only go to potential subjects that meet all selection criteria.

8.2 Sample size determination NA 8.3 Statistical methods

For the interviews, data will be analyzed according to thematic content analysis method.

9.0 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan NA 10.0 Risks The principal investigator does not intend to make subjects uncomfortable or put them at any potential risk. The organization leadership has changed since the time of the events that will be discussed. The principle investigator is also communicating with the current leadership of the organization and human resources, ensuring all potential groups are aware of the research being done and helping to identify any potential risks to either the staff or the organization.

There is a risk of loss of confidentiality if your information or your identity is obtained by someone other than the investigators, but precautions will be taken to prevent this from happening. The confidentiality of your electronic data created by you or by the researchers will be maintained as required by applicable law and to the degree permitted by the technology used. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.” 11.0 Potential Benefits to Subjects and Others

11.1 Potential Benefits to Subjects The only potential benefit to the subjects is the satisfaction of participating in something intended to help make people’s lives better. Because of the limited benefits to the subject, the principal investigator is attempting to make the participation as easy as possible on the subjects by choosing times and locations convenient to them.

11.2 Potential Benefits to Others The benefits of employee engagement are well known and make a better workplace for both the organization and the employee. Despite everyone wanting engagement, there is a growing gap. This research will potentially help identify themes that can be used to increase employee engagement.

12.0 Sharing Results with Subjects Subjects will get a copy of their interview transcript in order to verify accuracy. 13.0 Subject Payment and/or Travel Reimbursements There will not be any payment or reimbursements for subjects. The interviews will be scheduled at a location convenient for the subject, removing the need for any travel.

14.0 Economic Burden to Subjects

14.1 Costs No financial costs will be incurred by subjects choosing to participate in the study.

127

14.2 Compensation for research-related injury There will be no more than minimal risk of research-related injury.

15.0 Resources Available 15.1 Facilities and locations Interviews will take place in quiet rooms in a public place at the selection of the participant. 15.2 Feasibility of recruiting the required number of subjects The population being targeted consists of 41 individuals. The principal investigator has a relationship with this population and does not expect recruiting 10 subjects out of this group will be a problem. 15.3 PI Time devoted to conducting the research The principal investigator is currently a full time student with their time focused on this study, therefore time should not be an issue. 15.4 Availability of medical or psychological resources N/A 15.5 Process for informing Study Team This is an individual dissertation. Only the investigator’s dissertation committee will be updated on the research progress.

16.0 Other Approvals

16.1 Other Approvals from External Entities The principal investigator has communicated with the leadership of the organization that sponsored the teambuilding events being discussed and Penn State human resources. Both groups are aware and supportive of the research being conducted.

17.0 Multi-Site Study NA 18.0 Subject Stipend (Compensation) and/or Travel Reimbursements

18.1 Reporting Adverse Reactions and Unanticipated Problems to the Responsible IRB

In accordance with applicable policies of The Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board (IRB), the investigator will report, to the IRB, any observed or reported harm (adverse event) experienced by a subject or other individual, which in the opinion of the investigator is determined to be (1) unexpected; and (2) probably related to the research procedures. Harms (adverse events) will be submitted to the IRB in accordance with the IRB policies and procedures.

19.0 Study Monitoring, Auditing and Inspecting

19.1 Communication Plans

128

The investigator will permit study-related monitoring, audits, and inspections by the Penn State quality assurance program office(s), IRB, the sponsor, and government regulatory bodies, of all study related documents (e.g., source documents, regulatory documents, data collection instruments, study data etc.). The investigator will ensure the capability for inspections of applicable study-related facilities (e.g., pharmacy, diagnostic laboratory, etc.).

20.0 Future Undetermined Research: Data and Specimen Banking NA 21.0 References

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Schaufeli, W. (2012). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go?. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 3-10.

22.0 Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Management

22.1 Which of the following identifiers will be recorded for the research project? Check all that apply. If none of the following identifiers will be recorded, do not check any of the boxes.

Names and/or initials (including on signed consent documents) Electronically Store 22.2 Which of the following identifiers NA 22.3 If storing electronic records of research data, indicate where the electronic data

associated with this research study will be stored. Box.psu.edu 22.4 Is there a list/key that links code numbers to identifiers? Both the coded data and the list will be stored in principal investigators PSU assigned Box folder. The list will be in a separate folder that is no shared with any other individuals. In addition, the file containing the identifiers will be password protected.

22.5 Which of the following identifiers

No

22.6 Describe the mechanism in place to ensure only approved research personnel have access to the stored research data (electronic and paper).

Password-protected files Role-based security

129

Appendix B

Project Plan

Step Task Activities Research Design

Select Research Topic

• Identify topics that I am passionate about • Filter topics by what topic I have unique

access to explore • Select topic

Perform Literature Review

• Established a new project in Zotero to manage and organize references

• Performed search of dissertations performed already on the topic

• Performed search for journal articles that identify current issues and trends

• Identify leaders in the field and explore their works

Identify Research Problem

• Reflect issue experienced with topic from personal experience in industry

• Compare problem to literature

Instrumentation Research Approach • Selected qualitative methodology based on research question

• Selected case study approach because of unique access

Population Sample • Identify a target group that would benefit from research

• Select target group that I have access to

Recruitment and Interview Protocol

• Emailed target population for volunteers • Developed pilot interview protocol • Performed pilot study • Refined interview protocol

Approval

IRB

• Complete IRB prerequisites

130

Step Task Activities Target Organization Participants

• Submit IRB approval • Modify IRB submission based on feedback • Receive final IRB approval

• Receive written approval from target organization HR department

• Receive written approval from target organization leadership

• Provide participants details on the study, privacy, and risk

• Received verbal approval to record interviews

Data Collection Data Analysis

Interviews

• Performed interviews • Create interview memos • Transcribed recorded interviews verbatim

• Bracketed my own perceptions as part of

the epoche process • Familiarized self with data • Imported all transcripts into NVivo • Recorded all relevant statements • Listed each non-repetitive statement • Synthesized invariant meaning units and

themes into description of the textures • Constructed textural-structural description

of meanings for each participant • Constructed composite textural-structural

description

131

Appendix C Initial Organization Survey Results

Job Satisfaction Career Development Rest of Org Target Org Career advancement opportunities 38 21 Career development opportunities 59 42 Job-specific training 62 47 Networking 53 40 Opportunities to use skills and abilities 80 68 Paid training and tuition reimbursement programs 68 67 Org’s overall commitment to professional development 70 58 Relationship with Management Communication between employees and senior management 53 38 Autonomy and independence 72 58 Recognition by management about your job performance 62 55 Relationship with immediate supervisor 84 77 Compensation Compensation/pay 48 32 Base rate of pay 45 21 Being paid competitively with the local market 39 19 Benefits Benefits 89 92 Health care / medical benefits 82 75 Family-friendly-benefits 72 83 Paid time off 95 92 Defined contribution plans 84 94 Defined benefit pension plan 80 91 Flexibility to balance life and work issues 83 64 Work Environment Feeling safe in the work environment 82 81 Job Security 79 68 Meaningfulness of job 74 60 Org’s commitment to university social responsibility 61 51 Org’s commitment to a “green” workplace 64 69 Overall culture 68 47 Relationship with co-workers 87 85 Contribution of work to org’s overall goals 73 68 The work itself 81 68 Variety of work 78 68 Diverse and inclusive workforce 63 52

Engagement Engagement Opinions – “I” focused

132

Determined to accomplish work goals 91 87 Highly motivated by work goals 74 70 Wrapped up in work 66 70 Completely plugged in at work 58 53 Volunteer for activities beyond job requirements 69 62 Passionate and excited about work 75 64 Putting effort into work 81 79 Completely focused on work projects 76 77 Engagement Behaviors – “Work Group” Colleagues adapt to challenging or crisis situations 79 75 Work group never gives up 75 66 Employees take action when a problem or opportunity arises 59 58 Work group anticipates next challenge 65 51 Employees embrace unexpected responsibilities 46 32 Employees volunteer for new projects 55 43 Work group is flexible in expanding scope of work 69 51 Employees are flexible in unpredictable work situations 56 53 Employee Capacity to Engage Career advancement opportunities 38 21 Career development opportunities 59 42 Job-specific training 62 47 Org’s overall commitment to professional development 70 58 Relationships with co-workers 87 85 Reasons to Engage Networking 53 40 Opportunities to use skills and abilities 80 68 Meaningfulness of job 74 60 Contribution of work to Org’s overall goals 73 68 The work itself 81 68 Variety of work 78 68 Feel Free to Engage Communication between employees and senior management 53 38 Autonomy and independence 72 58 Management recognition of employee job performance 62 55 Relationship with immediate supervisor 84 77 Org’s commitment to university social responsibility 61 51 Overall culture 68 47 Overall Overall, how satisfied are you with your current job? 81 66 Overall, how satisfied are you with the organization? 71 49 Overall Employee Engagement 3.8 3.5 Note: Engagement is based on a scale where 1.0 = “not engaged”, 3.0 = “moderately engaged” and 5.0 = “highly engaged”

133

Appendix D Interview Guide (Pilot Test)

INTERVIEW DETAILS

90 Minute Semi-structured

PRE-INTRODUCTION

NOTE: Begin with social conversation to create relaxed environment.

PILOT-INTRODUCTION

Thank you for being willing to meet with me today. This interview will also be used to pilot my

interview process and questions; therefore, I will have a few more questions at the end. Please

feel free to make any notes of ambiguity or areas of improvement. Your honest feedback will be

greatly appreciated.

NOTE: Time the interview.

INTRODUCTION

“Again, thank you for being willing to meet with me today. As you are already aware,

my name is Matthew Raup and I am a Ph.D. student in the Workforce Education and

Development at Penn State. I am doing a research study to understand the experiences of staff

during organization team buildings activities and how it influenced your engagement as an

employee. As a staff member who participated in one or more of those events, I would like to

talk with you about your experiences of these events. I have informed Penn State human

resources and organization leadership of this study to ensure they are aware and have no

concerns. Your participation is anonymous, and your responses will not be shared with them in

any way. With your permission, I would like to record this conversation. This will enable to

focus more on our conversation, and I can listen to the recording at a later time to take notes.

134

Do I have your permission to record?” (RESPONDENT ANSWER) “No identifiable

information will be shared about you or the organization, and all information will be securely

stored in Box, with only myself having access. After I transcribe this interview, I will share it

with you in order for you to verify its accuracy. As a reminder, you do not have to answer any

questions that you do not want to. This is completely voluntary, and you can stop at any time. I

will start with some general background questions and then we will move into your experiences

with the engagement activities. Do you have any questions before we start?”

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Before we get started with the interview questions, I would like to ask a few background questions.

How long had you been a member of the organization during the team building events?

Are you still a member of the organization currently?

The first set of questions are going to focus on your definition and perceptions of engagement.

How do you personally define engagement?

Describe what it means to be engaged in the workplace.

The next set of questions are going to focus on your experiences of engagement within the workplace

Tell of a time when you were most engaged in the workplace (OIT)

(Probing Questions) • What did it look like? • How did it feel? • Why do you feel it occurred?

Tell of a time when you were least engaged in the workplace (OIT)

(Probing Questions) • What did it look like? • How did it feel? • Why do you feel it occurred?

135

These next questions will focus on your experiences with the teambuilding activities you attended that were sponsored by OIT. If you attended multiple teambuilding events, pick the one that was most memorable to you

Describe the event, where did it take place, what happened, who was there, what stood out to you?

What part(s) of the teambuilding experience would you say influenced your engagement?

(Probing Questions)

• What occurred? • Who was involved? • Why do you feel it was memorable?

What part of the teambuilding experience did you find unhelpful or a waste of time?

(Probing Questions) • What occurred? • Who was involved? • Why do you feel it was unimportant?

Compare your daily normal day prior to teambuilding event to after the teambuilding event, how were things different?

(Probing Questions)

• What things were different? • What things stayed the same? • What behaviors (you or others) changed as a result of participating in the

teambuilding? • Where those behaviors sustained, if so, for how long? • Where there some behaviors that were not sustained? • How do you feel it influenced your relationship with others?

For the last question, I would like for you to combine your perspective from all of your experiences

From your experience, how would you say does teambuilding influence engagement in the workplace?

Is there anything else you would to add regarding your engagement at work or your experience of the teambuilding activities you participated in?

136

PILOT INQUIRY

That has completed the planned interview process. I have a few more questions that I would appreciate your honest feedback.

Were there any questions that I asked today that you felt were not needed or could have been worded better?

Were there any questions missing from the interview that you feel would be important for me to ask future participants?

What is your feedback on the interview process, including the flow of the interview and the interview process?

Lastly, do you have any final thoughts on improvements that could be made to the interview questions or the interview process?

137

Appendix E Interview Guide

INTERVIEW DETAILS

90 Minute Semi-structured

PRE-INTRODUCTION

NOTE: Begin with social conversation to create relaxed environment.

INTRODUCTION

“Thank you for being willing to meet with me today. As you are already aware, my name is

Matthew Raup and I am a Ph.D. student in the Workforce Education and Development at Penn

State. I am doing a research study to understand the experiences of staff during organization

team buildings activities and how it influenced your engagement as an employee. As a staff

member who participated in one or more of those events, I would like to talk with you about

your experiences of these events. I have informed Penn State human resources and organization

leadership of this study to ensure they are aware and have no concerns. Your participation is

anonymous, and your responses will not be shared with them in any way. With your

permission, I would like to record this conversation. This will enable to focus more on our

conversation, and I can listen to the recording at a later time to take notes. Do I have your

permission to record?” (RESPONDENT ANSWER) “No identifiable information will be

shared about you or the organization, and all information will be securely stored in Box, with

only myself having access. After I transcribe this interview, I will share it with you in order for

you to verify its accuracy. As a reminder, you do not have to answer any questions that you do

not want to. This is completely voluntary, and you can stop at any time. I will start with some

138

general background questions and then we will move into your experiences with the

engagement activities. Do you have any questions before we start?

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Before we get started with the interview questions, I would like to ask a few background questions.

How long had you been a member of (organization name) before attending your first team building event?

Are you still a member of (organization name) currently?

The first set of questions are going to focus on your definition and perceptions of engagement.

How do you personally define engagement?

Why do you feel it is important to be engaged in the workplace?

The next set of questions are going to focus on your experiences of engagement within the workplace

Tell of a time when you were most engaged in the workplace (OIT) (Probing Questions)

• What did it look like? • How did it feel? • Why do you feel it occurred?

Tell of a time when you were least engaged in the workplace (OIT)

(Probing Questions) • What did it look like? • How did it feel? • Why do you feel it occurred?

These next questions will focus on your experiences with the teambuilding activities you attended that were sponsored by OIT. If you attended multiple teambuilding events, pick the one that was most memorable to you

Describe the event, where did it take place, what happened, who was there, what stood out to you?

What part(s) of the teambuilding experience would you say influenced your engagement most?

(Probing Questions)

139

• What occurred? • Who was involved? • Why do you feel it was memorable?

What part of the teambuilding experience did you find unhelpful or a waste of time?

(Probing Questions) • What occurred? • Who was involved? • Why do you feel it was unimportant?

After the teambuilding experience, how do you feel it influenced your engagement at work moving forward?

(Probing Questions)

• What things were different? • What things stayed the same? • What behaviors (you or others) changed as a result of participating in the

teambuilding? • Where those behaviors sustained, if so, for how long? • Where there some behaviors that were not sustained? • How do you feel it influenced your relationship with others?

For the last question, I would like for you to combine your perspective from all of your experiences

Based on your experience, how would you say teambuilding influences employee engagement in the workplace?

Is there anything else you would to add regarding your engagement at work or your experience of the teambuilding activities you participated in?

“Thank you for your responses and for taking the time to meet with me today. I will be transcribing the recording of this interview for your review. I will contact you when it is ready. If you have any questions or issues with the transcript when you receive it, please let me know.”

140

Appendix F Bartell AMP Tool Research Agreement

This AGREEMENT is made as of this 12th day of January, 2018 (the "Effective Date") by and between Bartell & Bartell, Ltd., with offices at 432 Rolling Ridge Drive, Suite 4, State College, PA 16801 ("Company" or "Bartell"), and Matthew Raup who is a researcher ("Researcher") who has offices at 306 The 329 Building, University Park, PA 16802

In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, acknowledged by each

Party to be satisfactory and adequate, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows.

1. TERM. This Agreement continues until terminated by either Party upon two (2)

week's written notice to the other Party.

2. NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT. Researcher has requested access to data collected by Bartell for purposes of conducting research for a dissertation project for a Doctoral program from The Pennsylvania State University ("Research Project"). Specifically, Researcher seeks to study employee engagement in IT Departments of Higher Education Institutions, and has requested anonymous AMP data to be provided from several Pennsylvania State University IT Departments. On the condition that Researcher has obtained permission from the required parties at the Pennsylvania State University for the release of their data, Bartell agrees to provide Researcher with the selected data gathered from instruments owned and utilized by Bartell for the sole purpose of analysis by Researcher for the given Research Project. In exchange, Researcher will provide and allow Bartell to utilize the published results of the Research Project for marketing and/or internal product development purposes, if deemed appropriate.

If Researcher is undergoing the Research Project as part of a program related to a third party (including a university or corporation), this agreement only applies to the relationship between Bartell and Researcher.

3. RESEARCH RELATIONSHIP. It is understood by both Parties that Researcher is

an independent contractor and not an employee of Bartell. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed by the Parties or by any third party as creating the relationship of principal and agent, employer and employee, joint enterprise, or any other fiduciary or special business relationship. There is to be no payment made from Researcher to Bartell, or from Bartell to Researcher as part of this research project.

4. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. For purposes of this

Agreement, "Proprietary Information" is any information, process or idea that is not generally known in the industry and gives a company a competitive advantage. Proprietary Information includes without limitation all trade secrets, information and data related to business systems, computer programs and all other technical and business

141

information, marketing and financial data, client lists, protocols and other information which each Party considers to be confidential or proprietary, or which the other Party has a duty to treat as confidential.

Both Parties agree that they will protect the Proprietary Information of the other Party from unauthorized use, access, or disclosure in the same manner as the Party protects its own confidential or proprietary information of a similar nature, and with no less than the greater of reasonable care or industry standard of care. Neither Party will use any such information for its own benefit or for any purpose other than fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement and shall not disclose such information to any third party except with disclosing Party's prior written consent.

5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF BARTELL. The following Products are the

Intellectual Property of Bartell: ASAP™ (Assessment Selection Assistance Profiling), Know Thy Hire®, Know Thy Self Know Thy Team TM, Leadership Flight School™, organizational diagnostics such as AMP™, Lyte, ODDIS™, Excellerator™, ODDIS™ 360°, Radiant Leadership™ 360°, Peer Leadership 360°, Boundary Intensity, and TeamNav™. Researcher acknowledges that other Bartell Products existing as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and/or which Bartell may develop during this Agreement also may be considered to be Bartell's Intellectual Property.

Researcher acknowledges that Bartell is the sole and exclusive owner of the assessment instruments, the data collected via these instruments, and diagnostic tools and proprietary processes identified above. Researcher agrees not to contest or challenge the ownership of Bartell's Intellectual Property or take any other action that challenges or impairs Bartell's exclusive ownership of the same. Researcher shall not represent as its own any of the Products, data, materials, training programs, and se1vices provided by Bartell.

6. SHARING AND PRESENTATION OF DATA. Researcher agrees to not share,

display, or in other way present any data or information provided by Bartell that could in any way be used by third parties to reverse engineer, or in other ways recreate the Proprietary Information or Intellectual Property of Bartell.

7. SOLICITATION. During this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year after termination of this Agreement, neither Researcher nor Bartell shall hire, solicit, or induce or assist any third party in soliciting or inducing any employee of Researcher or Bartell to leave his or her employ or cease providing services to Researcher or Bartell, as applicable.

8. ADDITIONAL TERMS. Bartell is not responsible for Researcher's interpretation or analysis of provided data, or for any decision or conclusion made by Researcher as a result of Researcher's analysis of Bartell data, instruments or products. Researcher assumes all responsibility for Researcher's own liability. Bartell assumes all responsibility for Bartell’s own professional liability.

142

Researcher acknowledges and agrees that, unless authorized in writing by Bartell, that they will not use the data provided by Bartell for any commercial use. This includes, but is not limited to, development of products or services, development of assessment instruments, providing or selling data to third parties, or for any use beyond the Research Project into which is contract was entered.

Researcher agrees that they have received the appropriate permission from any necessary parties to access the provided information, including (where necessary) the original source of information, and are additionally authorized and approved by any necessity third parties to conduct this Research Project.

9. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either Party,

for any reason, upon two (2) weeks’ notice via e-mail, facsimile or hand delivery. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will survive any termination of this Agreement.

After termination of this Agreement, researcher shall have no further right to use any Bartell data, product access, or materials (30) days of the date of termination and shall return or destroy all copies of any Confidential Information, Products and other Bartell Intellectual Property along with a declaration signed by Researcher that all materials have been returned or destroyed.

10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This Agreement constitutes the entire

agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and merges all prior or contemporaneous understanding, negotiations, discussions, communications and agreements (whether written or oral) between the Parties. This Agreement may not be amended, supplemented or modified unless such amendment, supplement or modification is in writing and signed by both Parties.

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

VITA

Matthew R Raup

Education

Ph.D. Candidate, Workforce Education and Development, Pennsylvania State University, 2020

MS, Instructional Technology, Bloomsburg University, 2010

BS, Information Technology, Juniata College, 2005

Professional Experience

Desktop Services Manager, Penn State University (2011-2020)

IT Consultant, Everett Cash Mutual, (2010 – 2011)

IT Coordinator, Milton Area School District (2005 – 2010)