virginia polytechnic institute and state university’s ... · effectiveness, but will increase...

RUNNING HEAD: Climate Survey Employee Engagement 1

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’s Climate Survey: Employee Engagement

Kortni T. Lindsay

Report submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

In

Agriculture and Life Sciences

Dr. Eric K. Kaufman, Committee Chair

Dr. Ross L. Mecham, Committee Member

Dr. Richard J. Rateau, Committee Member

November 20, 2019

Keywords: Climate Survey, Construct, Employee Engagement, Leadership

Acknowledgement: Director of Human Resources Analytics Reporting, Dr. Christine Luketic,

conducted the data analysis for this study. We thank Dr. Luketic for her time and dedication that

greatly improved this project.

Climate Survey Employee Engagement 2

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’s Climate Survey: Employee Engagement

Kortni T. Lindsay

Abstract

The purpose of this project was to explore the engagement levels across nine colleges at

Virginia Tech based on data collected from the 2018 Climate Survey. Additionally, the project

provided recommendations for leadership in an effort to help increase employee engagement in

the future. The quantitative climate survey consisted of an online questionnaire sent to all

employees at Virginia Tech. Across nine colleges, 2,104 responses were analyzed. The study

was guided by constructs of The HayGroup Employee Effectiveness Model, including respect

and recognition, development opportunities, clear communication, confidence in leadership, and

enabling environment. Results highlight potential areas of improvement, including helping

employees receive and seek help if they are treated unfairly, showing recognition to all

employees, and helping employees advance their career. Engagement within the clear

communication construct resulted in the highest average across the colleges, while respect and

recognition resulted in the lowest. Universities, human resource departments, and organizations

across the world can utilize this research to compare engagement averages as well as find

recommendations to increase employee engagement within each construct and the workplace in

general.


Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5

Significance of the Problem .................................................................................................................... 6

Project Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................................. 7

Climate Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Employee Engagement ........................................................................................................................... 9

Framework: HayGroup Model ............................................................................................................ 10

Constructs for Research ....................................................................................................................... 12

Respect and Recognition .................................................................................................................. 13

Development Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 13

Clear Communication....................................................................................................................... 14

Confidence in Leaders ...................................................................................................................... 15

Enabling Environment ..................................................................................................................... 15

Improving Employee Engagement ...................................................................................................... 16

Relation to Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 17

Literature Review Summary................................................................................................................ 18

Chapter Three: Project Methodology ..................................................................................................... 19

Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 19

Instrumentation..................................................................................................................................... 19

Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter Four: Summary of Outcomes, Discussion, and Recommendations....................................... 22

Respect and Recognition ...................................................................................................................... 23

Development Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 23

Clear Communication .......................................................................................................................... 24

Confidence in Leadership ..................................................................................................................... 24

Enabling Environment ......................................................................................................................... 25

College Summary .................................................................................................................................. 25

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 25

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................................. 29

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 30


References .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix A: Climate Survey Questions Used in Construct Areas ................................................... 39

Appendix B: Defense Presentation ...................................................................................................... 44


Chapter One: Introduction

Since the start of globalization, many organizations have undergone transformation and

change to remain competitive in the market. Highly engaged employees could be the most

effective and valuable asset for organizations to execute change more effectively (Saad, Sudin, &

Shamsuddin, 2018). Organizational leaders are in the position to increase employee engagement

and do more than simply encourage or motivate employees. In today’s world, this is even more

difficult, because leaders are challenged to engage and motivate employees, while also

responding to disruptive shifts within the organization (Ferry, 2019). Employee engagement is

not only about investing financially in employees through perks and pay hikes, but more so

investing emotionally within the organization. In exchange, employees will start to make small

emotional investments their work, delivering superior performance. It is the responsibility of

leadership to give meaning and passion to employees; this will not only help organizational

effectiveness, but will increase employee engagement (HayGroup, 2018).

Ferry (2019) surveyed 6.4 million employees in 390 organizations worldwide and found

that employee engagement scores in the United States, Middle East, and Africa are improving,

with employees’ willingness to stay longer within their organizations; but engagement scores in

Europe and Asia are stagnating. With organizations evolving rapidly, employees are becoming

increasingly diverse, meaning the engagement scores within organizations could also change

rapidly (Ferry, 2019). Gaining a better understanding of how engagement differs around the

world is essential for leaders who want to inspire employees to be their best. Rather than

focusing on the one-size-fits-all approach, leaders will need to focus more individually and

develop engagement strategies that support their own employees based on their own unique

values and expectations (Ferry, 2019).


When comparing organizations, organizational pride and satisfaction levels are reported

lower across public sector organizations (Pritchard, 2008). Forty four percent of private sector

employees report being fully engaged, while only 38 percent of public sector employees are

engaged, with state and federal government ranked lowest (Lavigna, 2019). Universities,

especially, are among the least engaged workplaces in our world (Gallup, 2019). Rather than just

measuring engagement across a university, it is vital to learn how to improve from the results, as

this will help maximize universities’ biggest asset: their faculty and staff (Gallup, 2019).

In order to make appropriate improvements, it is important for leaders to access overall

employee engagement. HayGroup has touted the following benefits when utilizing the Employee

Effectiveness Model to access employee engagement: enhanced performance, retention,

improvement of customer satisfaction, enhanced corporate value, and a better

established/competitive organization (HayGroup, 2013). This study highlights Virginia Tech

employees’s perceptions of engagement, including the five components of the Employee

Effectiveness Model: respect and recognition, development opportunities, clear communication,

confidence in leadership, and enabling environment. Research indicates these five categories

drive engagement, which increases employee effectiveness (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011;

Gupta & Aileen, 2017; Khan, 2015; Shenoy & Uchil, 2018; Ugwu, Onyishi, & Rodriguez-

Sanchez, 2013).

Significance of the Problem

It is leadership’s job to engage and motivate employees (Ferry, 2019). Once an overall

employee engagement level is determined for a department, researchers can provide areas of

improvement to enhance overall engagement in the future. By coaching leadership first and

establishing an engagement plan for employees, organizations can create a strong, engaged

workplace. The long-term significance is to increase engagement across the university; this will


increase retention and create a sense of loyalty and motivation within any organization (Kruse,

2012). After time and training of leadership, Virginia Tech and other organizations can benefit

from this research through lower turnover, higher productivity, decreased absenteeism, and

increased employee loyalty (Gallup, 2016).

Project Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this research was to explore the engagement level of nine colleges at Virginia

Tech based on data collected from the 2018 Climate Survey. In particular, the goal was to

consider the Climate Survey in light of five constructs from the Hay Model: respect and

recognition, development opportunities, clear communication, confidence in leadership, and

enabling environment. The project was framed with two specific objectives:

1) Identify employee engagement levels within the colleges at Virginia Tech, including

categories that contain high engagement and others highlighting areas that colleges can

improve upon.

2) Provide college leadership specific recommendations for increasing employee

engagement, based on findings from the analysis.

Definition of Terms

The following key terms are used throughout this report:

Employee Engagement- The emotional commitment employees have to an

organization—in this study Virginia Tech—and its goals (Kruse, 2012).

Climate Survey- A survey tool used to gauge employee perceptions about Virginia

Tech’s climate, leadership, work environment, and job satisfaction (Virginia Tech, 2018).

Construct- A theme the researcher measures using survey questions (Lavrakas, 2008); in

this study, respect and recognition, development opportunities, clear communication,

confidence in leadership, and enabling environment.


Chapter Two: Review of Literature Engaged performance is about disseminating enthusiasm and passion for work

(HayGroup, 2001). Leadership must access the climate of an organization or university before

determining areas of improvement that will increase employee engagement. This section will

highlight the importance of measuring employee engagement within a climate survey while

highlighting the importance of five constructs areas identified by the Hay Group Employee

Effectiveness Model: respect and recognition, development opportunities, clear communication,

confidence in leadership, and enabling environment.

Climate Survey

A climate survey is used for organizational training and development to provide a picture

of an organization’s needs. A staff climate survey can be designed to assess campus life and

climate of diversity from staff, faculty, and administrators (Virginia Tech, 2013), as well as to

understand attitudes, standards, and behaviors of employees (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Harper

and Hurtado (2007) suggest the objective of conducting a campus climate survey is to collect

data necessary to drive institutional transformation.

A few examples of organizations that have found benefits from administering climate

surveys include SAGES, The Department of Visual Communication and Technology Education

at Bowling Green State University, and Florida International University. The SAGES Climate

Survey addressed issues of membership recruitment, committee engagement, transparency,

diversity awareness, and leadership development. While the survey provided significant insight

into the organization, researchers implicate the importance to survey more members of the

organization so data is not skewed towards only engaged and satisfied members (Telem et al.,

2018). The study conducted by the Department of Visual Communication and Technology

Education at Bowling Green State University in Ohio supported that Faculty members contribute


to the communication of personal and professional goals as well as identify how they align with

departmental goals (Duwvw, Columbaro, & Poggiali, 1992). Additionally, Florida International

University (FIU) has been recognized from their climate survey scores in key areas:

compensation/benefits, confidence in leadership, jobs satisfaction, respect/appreciation,

development programs, facilities/workspace/security, and work/ life balance (FIU Human

Resources, 2017). All of these themes contribute to high engagement levels in an organization

(HayGroup, 2013); therefore, organizations should utilize these areas to measure engagement

within their organization.

Specific to this research, Virginia Tech employees were administered a climate survey to

access employee engagement. Virginia Tech has distributed many climate surveys to date

including one in 2009, 2011, 2013, and most recently 2018. In 2009, the survey supported that

employees are proud to work at Virginia Tech and overall considered the University a good

place to work (Virginia Tech, 2009). The 2011 survey found that employees wanted to be even

richer in diversity, including initiatives with gender equality and partner health benefits (Virginia

Tech, 2011). The survey in 2013 found an improvement in relationships with co-workers and

commitment to quality work, yet also found areas for improvement, particularly citing a lack of

progress in diversity (Virginia Tech, 2013). Hence, to accomplish the mission of Virginia Tech

and those specific to organizations, leaders must continue to assess climate; it is only after we

collect data and take stock of our current position on an issue that we move to find a path

forward (Telem et al, 2018).

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is the emotional commitment the employee has to the

organization and its goals; this emotional commitment supports that engaged employees care

about their work and their organization (Kruse, 2012). When employees are engaged, they tend


to be more emotionally connected to others in the organization (Harter et al., 2002). Employee

engagement is the approach for all employees to come in and do their best each day while

committing to their organization’s goals and values. Engaged employees have been identified as

loyal and productive (HayGroup, 2013) and motivated, rational, and emotional toward their

company to help the organization succeed with focus and direction (Watson Wyatt, 2008).

Statistics support that employee engagement has been on a consistent decline globally (Shuck &

Wollard, 2008). Despite these low numbers, leaders are making employee engagement a top

priority within organizations (Ketter, 2008). While no three things drive engagement in an

organization, many studies have found trends that are strongly connected to engagement,

including extraversion, conscientiousness, being emotionally stable, and proactive. This suggests

that employee selection is a problem to some degree (Makikangas et al., 2013).

With employee engagement levels dropping, it is important for organizations to make

engagement a priority to ensure organizational success. Engaged employees are four times less

likely to leave their organization and on average take 2.69 sick days per year, where disengaged

employees use roughly 6.19 sick days (Kruse, 2012). These statistics help support that engaged

employees are more motivated in their organization and help drive toward organization goals.

Respect and recognition, development opportunities, pay and benefit, clear communication, and

confidence in leadership impact employee engagement significantly (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter,

2011; Gupta & Aileen, 2017; Khan, 2015; Shenoy & Uchil, 2018; Ugwu, Onyishi, & Rodriguez-

Sanchez, 2013).

Framework: HayGroup Model

The HayGroup Employee Effectiveness Model served as the framework for this study.

HayGroup is a management-consulting firm that focuses on employee engagement. The surveys

administered by HayGroup helps leaders identify the barriers to individual and organization


effectiveness (HayGroup, 2018). Countries have begun to see the sharpest increase in employee

turnover; this brings a call to action for leadership. Employee engagement plays a key role to

employee effectiveness and job satisfaction. The HayGroup Employee Effectiveness Model

(Figure 1) identifies many constructs that increase engagement, which in return increases

employee effectiveness and business results.

Figure 1. Hay model of employee effectiveness. From “Employee Engagement Forum” (p. 18),

by HayGroup, 2013

(https://mba.americaeconomia.com/sites/mba.americaeconomia.com/files/engagementwork-

eventpresentation6-6-2013-131021064501-phpapp01.pdf).

Considering the questions outlined in Virginia Tech’s 2018 climate survey, this study

investigates five HayGroup constructs: respect and recognition, development opportunities, clear

communication, confidence in leaders, and enabling environment. According to the Haygroup

(2013), most of these constructs scored highest when employees were asked about engagement

(Figure 2). Researchers will use the constructs to test engagement levels across nine Virginia

Tech colleges, to recognize areas of improvement for the future.

https://mba.americaeconomia.com/sites/mba.americaeconomia.com/files/engagementwork-eventpresentation6-6-2013-131021064501-phpapp01.pdf



Figure 2. HayGroup engagement dimensions. From “Employee Engagement Forum” (p. 21), by

HayGroup, 2013

(https://mba.americaeconomia.com/sites/mba.americaeconomia.com/files/engagementwork-

eventpresentation6-6-2013-131021064501-phpapp01.pdf).

Constructs for Research

A construct is a theme the researcher measures using survey questions (Lavrakas, 2008).

To explore Virginia Tech’s employee engagement scores across five construct areas, this study

used components of the Employee Effectiveness Model, including respect and recognition,

development opportunities, clear communication, confidence in leadership, and enabling

environment. Research supports that these five constructs increase engagement, which increases

employee performance (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Gupta & Aileen, 2017; Khan, 2015;

Shenoy & Uchil, 2018; Ugwu, Onyishi, & Rodriguez-Sanchez, 2013).




Respect and Recognition

Respect and recognition are behaviors that support employee engagement—both are

critical to achieve high levels of engagement. People like to be appreciated and respected, so

they know their efforts are making a difference in an organization. In addition to receiving

praise, employees want their opinions valued, and they rely on the respect and support from their

leadership (Wiley, 2010). Saks’ (2006) research suggests engagement with recognition and

respect increases role performances and employee engagement. Responses from the Saks’

Toronto sample included: A pay raise, a promotion, more freedom and opportunities, respect

from the people you work with, public recognition (e.g., employee of the month), and a reward

of appreciation (e.g., lunch). According to Shenoy and Uchil (2018), employees receiving strong

recognition are more likely to generate innovations and increased efficiency at work. Saks’

(2006) results helped researchers understand how recognition fuels employee innovation, which

fuels employee engagement. Respect and recognition are key to improve organizational climate.

Shenoy and Uchil (2018) find that, within the variables tested, organization climate has the most

influence in creating employee experience and engagement.

Development Opportunities

Gupta and Aileen’s (2017) support that training and development opportunities have a

significant correlation with engagement. When employers provide training and development

opportunities, employees are more engaged and committed at work (Johari et al., 2013). Training

and development focuses on improving knowledge and skills of individuals. Leadership should

ensure that continuous training is offered to all employees to achieve future goals for both the

individual and the organization. When provided the right training and development, employees

tend to show more confidence when executing their job—thus development and training play a

major role when determining employee engagement.


Drivers of an engaging work environment include growth and development opportunities.

As evidence, Tepayakul and Rinthaisong (2018) tested the relationship of job satisfaction and

employee engagement among human resources staff in private higher education institutions.

Results support that growth and development opportunities increase job satisfaction and are

needed for having an engaged work life. Job satisfaction relates to many sides of employee

engagement, so this research should be used to encourage development opportunities in the

workplace to increase job satisfaction, which will increase employee engagement.

Additionally, supervisor support positively links to employee development. Jin and

McDonald (2017) found that learning opportunities show a positive link to supervisor support;

by allowing employees to learn and grow in their profession, they create positive relationships. If

supervisors support growth opportunities job satisfaction will increase.

Clear Communication

Communication is a part of organizational context in which employees are engaged or

disengaged (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011). Vercic and Vokic (2017) support that employee

engagement increases with communication between supervisors and employees, sharing

information with employees at meetings, and soliciting direct employee feedback. This suggests

that communication and employee engagement are a continuous circle, as sharing information

with employees is vital for engagement. Potoski and Callery (2018) tested if peer communication

has an effect on employee engagement programs, specifically with employees in a retail banking

operation in the US. Employees received two primary channels of communication, one through

mass email, or newsletters, and the other through a peer communication program. Researchers

found that peer communication improves employee engagement because employees perceive the

information they are receiving is more credible and valuable. These results support new modes

of internal communication, which can eventually improve employee engagement ratings.


Confidence in Leaders

The next category outlined in the Hay Model is confidence in leaders. Engaging

employees in an environment with insufficient trust and confidence is a challenge; leadership

creates the environment in which trust is built (Khan, 2015). Transactional and autocratic leaders

are characterized by one-way communication, which lacks trust and confidence. Servant

leadership encourages two-way communication, which builds trust and confidence in leadership.

Therefore, servant leadership positively relates to employee engagement (Amah, 2018). A key

element in building confidence is having people in leadership who inspire belief in the

organization’s future (Wiley, 2010). Employees have more confidence in leaders who define

clear goals and expectations. According to Wiley (2010), higher levels of engagement requires

the message from leadership to employees to include responsibility and accountability;

employees who understand their expectations focus their time and energy on results.

Enabling Environment

Lastly, creating an enabling environment is key to increase employee engagement.

Leadership that controls resources in an organization understands the need to provide an

environment that includes a friendly, well-designed, safe space, effective communication,

organizational trust, and good training to help improve productivity (HayGroup, 2001). To create

an enabling environment, employers need to recognize the factual needs of an organization and

deliver that environment where it matters most. Ugwu, Onyishi, and Rodriguez-Sanchez (2013)

tested 715 employees from commercial banks in Nigeria to investigate the relationship of

organization trust, empowerment, and employee engagement. Organization trust and

empowerment provide key elements for an enabling, positive environment (Ugwu, Onyishi, &

Rodriguez-Sanchez, 2013), and these behaviors enhance work performance.


Improving Employee Engagement

After testing an employee engagement score, it is vital to provide steps and strategies to

improve engagement in the future. Business Wire (2018) provides three steps for leadership to

improve employee engagement: (1) assign everyone a suitable role, (2) train employees properly,

and (3) assign meaningful work. These steps will help improve operational efficiency and

profitability. The company stated: “Transparent approach and regular conversations with the

team helps in improving employee engagement to a great extent. Moreover, discussing solutions

with the team helps in staying ahead of competitors and driving better financial returns for

businesses due to increased engagement” (Business Wire, 2018). This will help create a culture

of trust and accountability.

Another approach after identifying areas of improvement is to identify engagement areas

most meaningful to leadership and then develop strategies by division and by team (Wells &

Bravender, 2016). Wells and Bravender (2016) identified many ways to improve an overall cycle

and results of an organization, some include:

“Power of one” meetings - which bring together employees to network and connect to the

overall goals of the division,

Pre-hire job shadowing - this ensures that team members know the jobs before accepting

the position,

Offline leadership meetings- which allow team members and senior leadership to

evaluate what is working well and what needs to be improved,

Open door promise, implementing programs in which employees and leaders can

improve a system- training programs,

Implement employee recognition events/ initiatives.


There is no one approach that garners results to improve engagement, but listening to employees

to understand engagement drivers can help significantly in the process (Wells & Bravender,

2016).

Relation to Leadership

The evolution of leadership has attracted researchers to explore the influence of

leadership within organizations, one of those being how leadership effects engagement. Sahu,

Pathardikar, and Kumar (2018) found that transformational leadership was positively correlated

with employee engagement, indicating leadership style can influence productivity and

performance through engagement and attachment to an organization. Many of the skills outlined

in courses for leadership are transferrable including: communication, trust, respect,

supportiveness, adaptability, and relationship building; all of which are skillsets needed for

successful leadership (Siddique et al, 2011). Thus, successful leadership with those skills could

play a significant role on engagement levels within an organization.

Buckinham and Goodall (2019) discuss how global worker engagement is weak and

whatever our current practices may be, they are no longer contributing to an organization’s

productivity. Rather than focusing on setting goals and expanding out of our comfort zone, we

must learn to set goals and work within our comfort zone. A cause of low organizational

productivity could be naming the wrong person manager and training them on administrative

things, rather than maximizing human potential (Clifton & Harter, 2019). Only fifteen percent of

employees are engaged at work- front-line managers are most responsible for engaging teams, so

there is a need to train both the managers and the managers who manage the managers. Clifton

and Harter (2019) share five considerations for managers seeking to improve engagement and

work culture:

1. Nothing works in the absence of great managers—even leadership.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Pathardikar%2C+Avinash

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Kumar%2C+Anupam


2. Build a purpose that goes further than a paycheck. Building profit is assumed, but should

not be the mission.

3. Provide employees career development, so they can improve and take a real interest in

their development.

4. Maximize on individual strengths and build employees’ careers around those strengths.

5. Be a coach, not a boss.

The greatest act of any leader is to find something every employee is good at and encourage

them to act on that strength everyday (Clifton & Harter, 2019).

Literature Review Summary

In the past few years, countries have seen the sharpest increase in employee turnover

(Hay Group, 2013), which brings a call to action for leadership. Employee engagement plays a

key role with employee effectiveness and job satisfaction. The purpose of this research is to

explore the engagement level of colleges at Virginia Tech based on data collected from the 2018

Climate Survey. Questions from the Climate Survey can be scaled into five categories from the

Hay Model, including: respect and recognition, development opportunities, clear

communication, confidence in leadership, and enabling environment. Once an overall employee

engagement level is determined for a college, that data can inform areas of improvement to

enhance engagement in the future and ways one can improve within specific constructs.


Chapter Three: Project Methodology

The purpose of this research is to explore the engagement level of nine colleges at

Virginia Tech based on data collected from the 2018 Climate Survey. All Virginia Tech

employees were asked to complete the 2018 Climate Survey between October 15 and November

9, 2018. The survey included 79 questions targeting the university’s environment, vision and

mission. Both multiple choice and rating scale questions were used to provide a well-rounded

view of the campus climate.

Sampling Procedures

Data was collected from approximately 3,336 employees, 34% of Virginia Tech’s

employee population. Respondents included faculty (55%) and staff (34%), as well as wage and

part-time employees. Among respondents, 52% identified as female and 37% identified as male.

Roughly, 45% of respondents reported working in their current position 1-5 years, and 18%

reported 5-10 years. The data includes a variety of races and ethnicities, with the largest

affiliation being white (39%). None of the questions were mandatory, resulting in a varying

number of responses for each question.

Instrumentation

A Climate Survey Team at Virginia Tech developed the climate survey, including

members from the following divisions: Human Resources, Provost, Graduate School, and

Diversity/ Leadership. The instrument was formatted using Qualtrics Survey Software, an online

survey panel that can be used for research while allowing the respondents to remain anonymous.

Employees were asked to participate by completing the survey, allowing Virginia Tech’s leaders

to receive valuable input about the campus climate. The survey was distributed electronically via

email to all employees with a Virginia Tech identification number. Two hundred employees

without identification numbers were administered hard copies of the surveys to complete. When

distributed, employees were asked to complete the survey between October 15 and November 9,


2018. The survey originally consisted of 79 questions with a combination of multiple choice and

rating questions on a four and five-point scale. Scales varied throughout the survey:

3-point scale: No; Yes, through a formal mentorship program; Yes, through an informally

developed relationship.

4-point scale type one: Not at all, Not Very, Somewhat, Very

4-point scale type two: Very Poor, Poor, Positive, Very Positive.

5-point scale type one: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree,

Strongly Agree

5-point scale type two: Extremely Often, Very Often, Somewhat Often, Not Very Often,

Never.

Data Collection

A team consisting of members from the Human Resources, Provost, Graduate School,

and Diversity / Leadership offices created and distributed the climate survey. This certified that

the questions asked throughout the survey were relevant to the goals of the institution. The

survey collected demographic and campus environment information. The feedback from this

survey helps the university understand the perception employees have on diversity, inclusion,

leadership, and job satisfaction. It also helps leaders better understand the campus experience

from diverse groups of individuals (Virginia Tech, 2018). The survey was distributed via both

email and paper to all employees that work for Virginia Tech.

Data Analysis

Once approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), respondents’ answers were used

to run analysis to capture employee engagement construct averages across colleges. First,

questions were categorized from the climate survey into five potential construct areas identified

by the HayGroup framework, outlined in Appendix A. Not all questions from the climate survey


were used, as some did not fit within a construct. Next, questions within the constructs were

examined using a confirmatory factor analysis. Based on the results of the factor analysis using

the statistical analysis software JMP, some questions were removed completely. A question was

removed if the absolute leading value reported below a .3; identifying it was a poor fit for the

construct. If a question reported, a loading value of .3 or higher it was retained. Fifty-four of the

79 questions were used to test construct scores.

Once questions were identified under the appropriate construct, if appropriate, items were

recoded to remove “I don’t know” and “Does not apply” responses. Next, the following steps

were taken to capture a construct score:

1. Researchers averaged the rating of individual items to calculate individual construct

scores.

2. The collection of individual construct scores were averaged across colleges to calculate

construct scores for each college.

For example, in the clear communication construct respondent X answered all seven

questions identified through the factor analysis. The total average across the seven questions for

respondent X was 3.0, this being respondent X’s construct score. Next, individual construct

scores in the same college, e.g. College of Business, were averaged, providing researchers the

college construct score.

Once all college construct scores were collected, all five-construct scores within the

college were averaged to provide the college index score. For example, in The College of

Business, the construct average for clear communication, confidence in leadership, development

opportunities, enabling environment, and respect and recognition were averaged to provide the

index score for the college.


Next, the Virginia Tech population construct scores were averaged. This average was

collected by averaging all nine college construct scores within one construct area. For example,

in the clear communication construct colleges averaged 3.98, 3.78, 3.85, 3.83, 3.86, 3.86, 4.05,

3.81, and 3.92. When averaging all the scores together, the clear communication construct had an

overall average college score of 3.88. As a final step, the scores across constructs and colleges

were averaged to identify an overall Virginia Tech engagement index score.

Chapter Four: Summary of Outcomes, Discussion, and Recommendations

This section contains results collected from 2,104 employees represented across nine

colleges. The Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine was new to campus, so researchers did

not include their data in the analysis. The first objective for this study was to identify employee

engagement levels within nine colleges at Virginia Tech, including constructs that contain high

and low engagement averages. Second, recommendations for leadership are provided to help

increase employee engagement across constructs. Descriptive statistics (i.e., standard averages)

are presented in Table 1. Results support that the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, had

the highest employee engagement average (3.37) across all five constructs, while Architecture

and Urban Studies averaged the lowest (3.08). Virginia Tech’s overall population recorded

highest engagement within the clear communication construct (3.88) and lowest in the respect

and recognition construct (2.89). It should be noted that the clear communication and enabling

environment constructs had an advantage in that all items were on a five-point scale; other

constructs had a variety of point options.


Table 1

Employee Engagement Scores Across Virginia Tech Colleges (n=2,104)

Colleges N Clear

Communication

Confidence in

Leadership

Development

Opportunities

Enabling

Environment

Respect and

Recognition

Index

Score

CALS 556 3.98 3.05 3.02 3.82 2.97 3.37

CAUS 95 3.78 2.72 2.84 3.33 2.74 3.08

CoB 147 3.85 3.10 2.97 3.77 2.89 3.32

CoE 384 3.83 3.07 3.08 3.80 3.01 3.36

CoS 294 3.86 3.03 3.05 3.70 2.91 3.31

CVM 158 3.86 2.95 2.89 3.66 2.76 3.22

GS 37 4.05 3.02 2.95 3.83 2.93 3.36

CLAHS 335 3.81 2.88 2.92 3.48 2.83 3.18

CNRE 98 3.92 3.00 3.09 3.67 3.00 3.34

Across

Colleges 3.88 2.98 2.98 3.67 2.89 3.28

Note: CALS = College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, CAUS = College of Architecture & Urban

Studies, CoB= Pamplin College of Business, CoE= College of Engineering, CoS= College of

Science, CVM= College of Veterinary Medicine, GS= Graduate School, CLAHS= College of

Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, CNRE= College of Natural Resources & Environment.

Respect and Recognition

Among all five HayGroup constructs, the Virginia Tech population rated highest within

the respect and recognition construct (2.89), which was composed of 15 survey items. The

College of Engineering ranked highest with a mean response of 3.01, while Architecture &

Urban Studies ranked lowest with a 2.74 average. Respondents within Architecture & Urban

Studies averaged lowest (1.70), when answering the question “How satisfied are you with the

recognition you receive for Teaching?” While, the College of Engineering averaged highest

(4.20), when answering “People in my department/unit regularly collaborate well with others

outside our department/unit.”

Development Opportunities

The construct of development opportunities was composed of four survey items. The

College of Natural Resources ranked highest with an average of 3.09, while Architecture &

Urban Studies ranked lowest (2.84). Colleges and organizations such as Architecture & Urban


Studies that score low within development should incorporate a plan to enhance engagement.

Detailed suggestions are presented within the discussion portion of this project.

Clear Communication

Among all five HayGroup constructs, the Virginia Tech population rated lowest within

the construct of clear communication, which was composed of six survey items. The Graduate

School ranked highest, with a mean response of 4.05, while Architecture & Urban Studies

ranked lowest, averaging a 3.78. While the Graduate School averaged highest in the clear

communication construct, they averaged second lowest out of the colleges when responding to

“The University and its leadership respond effectively to current events of importance to the

university community.” This result could be due to the fact that this specific question was

directed towards Virginia Tech leadership, while other questions within the construct were

related to leadership within The Graduate School. Therefore, it can be suggested that the

Graduate School ranks communication highly within their college, while also acknowledging

that communication within the university needs effort.

Confidence in Leadership

The construct of confidence in leadership was composed of nine survey items. The

Pamplin College of Business ranked highest (3.10), while Architecture & Urban Studies ranked

lowest (2.72). All colleges presented low ratings to the following questions: “How equitable do

you feel graduate student or resident/ fellow assignments have been in your department/unit”

(2.00), “How equitable do you feel that promotion decisions have been in your department/ unit”

(2.10), and “If you experienced treatment that as not fair/equitable, how confident are you that

you can file a complaint or grievance without fear of negative consequences” (2.20). Colleges

rated highly the question “current practices for recruiting faculty and staff in my department/ unit

are effective” (3.60). Overall, this construct averaged 2.98, tying for second lowest within the


constructs. Colleges at Virginia Tech should focus on increasing averages within this construct in

years to come.

Enabling Environment

The construct of enabling environment was composed of 11 survey items. The Graduate

School averaged highest (3.83), while Architecture & Urban Studies averaged lowest (3.33).

While the Graduate School averaged highest in the enabling environment construct, they average

lowest across all colleges when answering, “My campus is inclusive” (3.40). The Virginia Tech

population averaged 3.67 within this construct, averaging second highest following

communication.

College Summary

In summary, clear communication averaged highest in each college, while respect and

recognition averaged lowest in all colleges, besides the Colleges of Architecture & Urban

Studies and Natural Resources & Environment, which averaged lowest in the confidence in

leadership construct. The total engagement index score for Virginia Tech reported for the 2018

Climate Survey is 3.28.

Discussion

The 2018 Climate Survey administered at Virginia Tech was distributed to assess all

employees including faculty and staff perceptions of their college and/or University’s climate,

diversity, inclusion, leadership, work environment, and job satisfaction. Results suggest areas of

improvement in the following areas: helping employees receive and seek help if they are treated

unfairly, showing recognition to all employees, and helping employees advance their career. To

help increase engagement within construct areas, practitioners can draw upon recommendations

grounded in related literature.

With respect and recognition, averaging lowest across the five constructs, it is vital

university leadership focus on enhancing engagement within this construct. To increase respect


and recognition, colleges and organizations can incorporate a recognition program that will help

build opportunities for leadership and university employees. One possible approach is the Higher

Education Academy (HEA), which Beckmann (2017) reported to be 86% successful. The HEA

can accredit institutions to award recognition of their own staff in ways that reflect the nature of

their institution. The three main steps in this process are: (1) be involved, (2) support processes,

and (3) participate in professional development. This shared leadership model allows leadership

to be supported by recognition, and more than 60% of survey respondents reported being more

confident about their ability to lead teams after being recognized through the HEA program

(Beckmann, 2017). Employees want their opinions valued (Wiley, 2010), and this program can

help leadership within institutions and organizations listen and be involved in planning and

decision making that involves the recognition of their employees.

When provided training and development opportunities, employees are more engaged

and committed at work (Johari et al., 2013). Currently, the Virginia Tech population averages

2.98 within this construct, with the College of Architecture & Urban Studies averaging lowest

(2.84). Employees’ decisions about their development and career are determined by skill,

interest, and plans for the future (Hedge & Rineer, 2017). A career pathway model can help

bridge the framework of an organization and the individual; a career pathway program helps the

career development of an employee. Adopting a career pathway can guide the development of

competencies and increase a person’s employability, while in return the organization builds

talent strategically. If employees are provided with training and development opportunities

where they can learn new skills and abilities and envision a path to advancement within their

organization, they are more likely stay (Hedge & Rineer, 2017). Jin and McDonald (2016) note

that supervisors who support their employees provide opportunities to learn and grow, which


increases empowerment and engagement. Organizations should create programs in which every

position has training and development opportunities in areas outside their main task.

No matter the size of an organization, gaps in communication exist that can make the

dissemination of information difficult. Based on the Virginia Tech Climate Survey questions,

communication was measured both from a college level and departmental level. While colleges

across Virginia Tech averaged highest within this construct, it is important to still focus on

communication. Cox (2014) suggests to increase effective communication a department or

implementation team of individuals should be created to discuss a strategic plan to effectively

communicate with all employees. The plan should include communication across all platforms

and when to use each platform, including but not exclusive to email, text message, calls, social

media, websites, media, etc. The plan should also include a written guide where all employees

have access to view it. The guide should be detailed to know who will initiate the

communication and when each platform will be used. Being prepared to use these innovations

for communication is vital for all organizations (Cox, 2014).

Ongoing two-way communication is key for increasing confidence in leadership (Wiley,

2010). Xu and Cooper Thomas (2011) suggest that leadership is a key antecedent of

engagement. Some leadership behaviors have clear association with engagement constructs such

as motivation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational behavior (Xu &

Cooper Thomas, 2011). To motivate and gain confidence of others, it is vital to communicate a

goal, monitor the progress, and hold individuals accountable; this will help increase engagement

(Wiley, 2010). For example, a large optical retailer found great success through leadership

articulating a value system and measuring the goal on an annual basis (Wiley, 2010). Results are

shared with employees with suggestion for improvements, and employees are updated on


problems in certain areas where solutions will be made. When employees understand where to

focus their time and energy, they are more likely to achieve great results (Wiley, 2010). Wiley

(2010) also suggests the following tips to increase confidence in leadership:

Be visible to employees,

Be truthful,

Communicate progress,

Practice accountability, and

Encourage upward communication.

Since the colleges of Architecture & Urban Studies, Liberal Arts and Human Sciences averaged

lowest within this construct, it is vital for leadership to utilize these recommendations to increase

engagement in the future.

Lastly, creating an enabling environment includes evaluating both the physical workplace

and the interaction between employees (Jaramillo & Richardson, 2017). Virginia Tech averaged

second highest within this construct (3.67), supporting Virginia Tech provides a friendly and

supportive campus. Three factors that can help foster an enabling environment include capacity,

safety, and meaning. An effective company to analyze is Jimmy John’s. Jimmy John’s

employees support that the company commits to firing and promoting quickly, based on the

performance of that employee; this goes along with their slogan, “Subs so fast you’ll freak”

(Jaramillo & Richardson, 2017). When values are shared within an organization, employees are

empowered to direct their energy towards the organizational goal. To establish an enabling

environment, organizations should first analyze three items: Meaning: how motivated are

employees to work towards a goal, Safety: how safe is the environment, and Capacity: how

strong and trained are employees within the organization (Jaramillo & Richardson, 2017). If


organizations focus on these three efforts, they can create a meaningful and safe environment for

all employees to engage.

Recommendations for Future Research

Whereas the number of responses (n=3,336) from the climate survey might seem high,

only 34% of Virginia Tech’s population participated, and this number is down the last climate

survey (n=3,954), distributed to the campus in 2015. Telem and colleagues (2018) highlight the

importance of surveying more members of the organization so data is not skewed towards only

engaged and satisfied members. In the future, increased marketing and an extended time period

for completion could increase response rates. The larger the sample size, the more results can be

generalized, detecting a meaningful difference (Fowler & Valerie, 2019).

Another limitation in the study was that only two questions supported the development

opportunities construct. Miller and colleagues (2010) suggest including multiple items when

assessing constructs. Thus, it could be that two questions were not enough. When provided

training and development opportunities by their respected employer, employees are more

engaged and committed at work (Johari et al., 2013). Future surveys should add additional items

that assess development and training at Virginia Tech, which would help researchers identify a

better understanding of engagement within that construct.

Next, when further analysis was conducted, it appeared additional construct areas could

be present within the climate survey. Because this study focused on the HayGroup framework,

researchers did not explore any further constructs. Future researchers should be open to

exploring additional construct areas to see where additional engagement levels could be tested.

Future researchers are encouraged to use the same scale throughout the entire survey, if

appropriate. When using multiple scales with different midpoints, interpretation issues can occur.

The most accurate surveys are clear and specific, making it easy for respondents to easily


interpret the scale point. Numbered scales should be used when collecting numeric data; this will

produce more reliable and valid data (Krosnick & Berent, 1993).

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the engagement averages across nine

colleges at Virginia Tech based on data collected from the 2018 Climate Survey. The study was

guided by constructs of The HayGroup Employee Effectiveness Model, including respect and

recognition, development opportunities, clear communication, confidence in leadership, and

enabling environment. Engagement within the clear communication construct resulted in the

highest average across the colleges, while respect and recognition resulted in the lowest.

Universities, human resource departments, and organizations across the globe can utilize this

research to compare engagement averages as well as find recommendations to increase employee

engagement within each construct. The first objective of this project was to identify employee

engagement levels within the colleges at Virginia Tech, including categories that contain high

engagement and others highlighting areas that colleges can improve on. Second, from this

analysis, recommendations for leadership were provided to help increase employee engagement

within each construct.

The findings from this research can be used at Virginia Tech and other universities to

compare engagement results/averages, but also to provide support and proper training for

leadership to help build engagement across departments. Human resources departments

worldwide can also utilize these findings to perceive strengths and weaknesses within their

organizations, and use the recommendations to strengthen engagement.

The results of this evaluation will be disseminated on the VTechWorks website, which

will contain a special page devoted to this project and report. Additional dissemination could


occur through presentations in the Virginia Tech Human Resources department, and potentially

through articles published in peer-reviewed journals.


References

Amah, O. E. (2018). Employee engagement in Nigeria: The role of leaders and boundary

variables. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology. 44, 1-8.

http://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v44i0.1514

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work

engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352

Beckmann, E. A. (2017). Leadership through fellowship: Distributed leadership in a professional

recognition scheme for university educators. Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management, 39(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276663

Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2019). Nine lies about work: A freethinking leaders guide to

the real world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Business Wire (2018). Infiniti research discloses 4 successful steps in improving employee

engagement for businesses. London, United Kingdom: Author. Retrieved from

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181112005394/en/

Clifton, J., & Harter, J. K. (2019). It’s the manager: Gallup finds the quality of managers and

team leaders is the single biggest factor in your organizations long-term success. New

York, NY: Gallup Press.

Cox, A. (2014). Increasing purposeful communication in the workplace: Two school-district

models. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(3), 34–38.

Ferry, K. (2019). Employee engagement: Where does your country rank. Retrieved from

https://www.kornferry.com/institute/employee-engagement

FIU Human Resources. (2017). FIU recognized as one of the greatest colleges to work for.

Retrieved from https://hr.fiu.edu/2017/07/17/fiu-recognized-one-greatest-colleges-work/

http://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v44i0.1514

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352

https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276663

https://www.kornferry.com/institute/employee-engagement

https://hr.fiu.edu/2017/07/17/fiu-recognized-one-greatest-colleges-work/


Fowler, S. B., & Valerie. L. (2019) Sample size in quantitative research: Sample size will affect

the significance of your research. American Nurse Today, 14(5), 61.

Gallup. (2016). Engagement at work: Its effect on performance continues in tough economic

times: Key findings from Gallup’s Q12 meta-analysis of 1.4 million employees.

Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/services/176657/engagement-work-effect-

performance-continues-tough-economic-times.aspx

Gallup. (2019) Higher Education Employee Engagement: The Engaged University. Retrieved

from https://www.gallup.com/education/194321/higher-education-employee-

engagement.aspx

Gupta, M. & Aileen, J. (2017) Development of employee engagement model in a tertiary care

hospital. International Journal of Nursing Education. 9(4), 77-82.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-9357.2017.00100.3

Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for

institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7–24.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.254

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), 268–279. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-

9010.87.2.268

HayGroup. (2001). Engage employees and boost performance [Working paper]. Philadelphia,

PA: Author. Retrieved from

https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/642/Articles%20syllabus/Hay%20assoc%20engaged_perfo

rmance_120401.pdf

https://www.gallup.com/services/176657/engagement-work-effect-performance-continues-tough-economic-times.aspx

https://www.gallup.com/services/176657/engagement-work-effect-performance-continues-tough-economic-times.aspx

https://www.gallup.com/education/194321/higher-education-employee-engagement.aspx

https://www.gallup.com/education/194321/higher-education-employee-engagement.aspx

http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-9357.2017.00100.3

https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/642/Articles%20syllabus/Hay%20assoc%20engaged_performance_120401.pdf

https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/642/Articles%20syllabus/Hay%20assoc%20engaged_performance_120401.pdf


HayGroup. (2013). Employee engagement forum. Retrieved from

https://mba.americaeconomia.com/sites/mba.americaeconomia.com/files/engagementwor

k-eventpresentation6-6-2013-131021064501-phpapp01.pdf

Hedge, J., & Rineer, J. R. (2017). Improving career development opportunities through rigorous

career pathways research. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0037.1703

Jaramillo, S., & Richardson, T. (2017). Agile engagement: how to drive lasting results by

cultivating a flexible, responsive, and collaborative culture. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Jin, M. H., & McDonald, B. (2017). Understanding employee engagement in the public sector:

the role of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning

opportunities. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 881–897.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643817

Johari, J., Adnan, Z., Yean, T. F., Yahya, K. K., & Isa, S. N. (2013). Fostering employee

engagement through human resource practices: a case of manufacturing firms in

malaysia. Jurnal Pengurusan, 38, 15-26. https://doi.org/ 10.17576/pengurusan-2013-38-

02

Khan, S. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and turnover intention: The mediating effects of

trust and performance (Doctoral dissertation). Bangkok University.

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4),

321-49. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679204500402

Ketter, P. (2008). What’s the big deal about employee engagement? Training and Development,

62(1), 44-49.



https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0037.1703

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643817


Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy

references: the impact of survey questions format. American Journal of Political Science,

37(3), 941-964. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2111580

Kruse, K. (2012). Employee Engagement 2.0. Richboro, PA:The Kruse Group.

Lavigna, B. (2019, September). Make measuring employee engagement a priority. HR News,

20- 21. Retrieved from https://www.cpshr.us/services/resources/org-strat/employee-

eng/2019Sept_MeasuringEngagement.pdf#page=22

Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947

Makikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mauno, S. (2013). Does personality matter? A

review of individual differences in occupational well-being. Advances in Positive

Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 107-143. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2046-

410X(2013)0000001008

McMullen, T. (July/August, 2013). Eight recommendations to improve employee engagement.

Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 23-29.

Miller, V. A., Reynolds, W. W., Ittenbach, R. F., Luce, M. F., Beauchamp, T. L., & Nelson, R.

M. (2009). Challenges in measuring a new construct: perception of voluntariness for

research and treatment decision making. Journal of Empirical Research on Human

Research Ethics, 4(3), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2009.4.3.21

Murlis, H., & Schubert, P. (2001). Engage employees and boost performance [working paper].

Philadelphia, PA: Hay Group, Inc.

https://www.cpshr.us/services/resources/org-strat/employee-eng/2019Sept_MeasuringEngagement.pdf#page=22

https://www.cpshr.us/services/resources/org-strat/employee-eng/2019Sept_MeasuringEngagement.pdf#page=22

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947

https://doi.org/10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001008

https://doi.org/10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001008

https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2009.4.3.21


Potoski, M., & Callery, P. J. (2018). Peer communication improves environmental employee

engagement programs: evidence from a quasi-experimental field study. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 172(20), 1286-1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.252

Pritchard, K. (2008). Employee engagement in the UK: meeting the challenge in the public

sector. Development and learning in organizations. 22 (6), 15–17. Retrieved from

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14777280810910302/full/pdf?title

=employee-engagement-in-the-uk-meeting-the-challenge-in-the-public-sector

Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach

to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–

274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014018

Saad, Z. M., Sudin, S., & Shamsuddin, N. (2018). The influence of leadership style, personality

attributes and employee communication on employee engagement. Global Business and

Management Research: An International Journal, 10(3), 743-753.

Sahu, S., Pathardikar, A., & Kumar, A. (2018). Transformational leadership and turnover:

Mediating effects of employee engagement, employer branding, and psychological

attachment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(1), 82-99.

https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2014-0243

Saks, A. M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

Shenoy, V., & Uchil, R. (2018). Influence of cultural environment factors in creating employee

experience and its impact on employee engagement: An employee perspective.

International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 11(2), 18-23.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.252

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14777280810910302/full/pdf?title=employee-engagement-in-the-uk-meeting-the-challenge-in-the-public-sector

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14777280810910302/full/pdf?title=employee-engagement-in-the-uk-meeting-the-challenge-in-the-public-sector

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014018

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Sahu%2C+Sangeeta

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Pathardikar%2C+Avinash

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Kumar%2C+Anupam

https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2014-0243

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169


Siddique, A., Aslam, H. D., Khan, M., & Fatima, U. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on

faculty’s motivation, and organizational effectiveness in higher education system.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8), 184-191.

Telem, D. A., Qureshi, A., Edwards, M., Jones, D. B., & Force, W. T. (2018). SAGES climate

survey: results and strategic planning for our future. Surgical Endoscopy, 32(10), 4105-

4110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6149-5

Tepayakul, R., & Rinthaisong, I. (2018). Job Satisfaction and employee engagement among

human resources staff of Thai private higher education institutions. The Journal of

Behavioral Science, 13(2), 68-81.

Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodriguez-Schanchez, A. M. (2013). Linking organization trust

with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personal Review.

43(3), 377-400. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0198

Vercic, A. T., & Vokic, N. P. (2017). Engaging employees through internal communication.

Public Relations Review, 43(5), 885-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.005

Virginia Tech. (2009). 2009 climate survey. Retrieved from https://www.hr.vt.edu/our-

workplace/climate-survey/2009.html






workplace/climate-survey.html

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6149-5

https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0198

https://www.hr.vt.edu/our-workplace/climate-survey/2013.html

https://www.hr.vt.edu/our-workplace/climate-survey/2013.html

https://www.hr.vt.edu/our-workplace/climate-survey.html

https://www.hr.vt.edu/our-workplace/climate-survey.html


Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (2008). Driving business results through continuous engagement.

WorkUSA survey. Retrieved from https://www.hr.com/en/communities/watson-wyatts-

workusa-survey-identifies-steps-to-k_fr1elg39.html

Wells, S. T., & Bravender, R. (2016). Improving employee engagement in the revenue cycle.

Healthcare Financial Management, 70(10), 36-38.

Wiley, J. W. (2010). The impact of effective leadership on employee engagement. Employment

Relations Today, 37(2) 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.20297

Xu, J., & Cooper Thomas, H. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?

Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 32(4), 399–416.

https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111134661

https://www.hr.com/en/communities/watson-wyatts-workusa-survey-identifies-steps-to-k_fr1elg39.html

https://www.hr.com/en/communities/watson-wyatts-workusa-survey-identifies-steps-to-k_fr1elg39.html

https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.20297


Appendices

Appendix A: Climate Survey Questions Used in Construct Areas

Key Respect and recognition

Development opportunities

Clear Communication

Confidence in leaders

Enabling environment

Virginia Tech Climate Survey Hay Model Question/Items Scale

My campus is friendly. Enabling

environment

Q3-3 5-point

My campus is inclusive. Enabling

environment

Q3-5 5-point

My campus is diverse. Enabling

environment

Q3-7 5-point

My department/unit is diverse. Enabling

environment

Q3-8 5-point

I feel isolated in my workplace. Enabling

environment

Q3-9 5-point

I feel comfortable expressing my

personal identity at my workplace.

Enabling

environment

Q3-10 5-point

I am familiar with the Virginia Tech

Principles of Community.

Clear

Communication

Q3-11 5- Point

The Virginia Tech Principles of

Community are important in

maintaining a positive and productive

environment on my campus.

Clear

Communication

Q3-12 5- Point

I am familiar with InclusiveVT. Clear

Communication

Q3-13 5- Point

InclusiveVT is important in maintaining

a positive and productive environment

on my campus.

Clear

Communication

Q3-14 5- Point

How effective are the actions of each of the following with respect to

promoting inclusion and diversity at Virginia Tech?

University leadership (President,

Provost, and Board of Visitors)

Confidence in

leadership

Q4-1 4-Point

Campus leadership (Deans, Vice

Presidents, Vice Provosts)

Confidence in

leadership

Q4-2 4-Point

Your department/unit leadership

(Department/Unit Head, Chair, or

Manager)

Confidence in

leadership

Q4-3 4-Point



In the past year, how equitable do you feel the following practices or

processes have been in your department/unit?

Recruitment policies and practices Confidence in

leaders

Q7-1 4-Point

Promotion decisions Confidence in

leaders

Q7-2 4-Point

Salary decisions Confidence in

leaders

Q7-3 4-Point

Allocation of space/equipment or other

resources

Confidence in

leaders

Q7-4 4-Point

Access to departmental support staff Confidence in

leaders

Q7-5 4-Point

Graduate student or resident/fellow

assignments

Confidence in

leaders

Q7-6 4-Point

Retention practices Clear

Communication

Q7-7 4-Point

How effective is your department/unit at

attracting faculty and staff from groups

currently underrepresented in your

department (e.g. gender, race, ethnicity,

disability, sexual orientation, or other

identity characteristics)?

Confidence in

leaders

Q9-1 4-Point


retaining faculty and staff from groups

who are underrepresented in your

department (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity,

disability, sexual orientation, or other

identity characteristics)

Confidence in

leaders

Q9-2 4-Point


addressing issues of unfair or

inequitable treatment on the basis of

age, color, disability, sex (including

pregnancy), gender, gender identity,

gender expression, genetic information,

national origin, political affiliation, race,

religion, sexual orientation, veteran

status, or any other identity

characteristics?

Confidence in

leaders

Q9-3 4-Point

How effective are university processes

in addressing issues of treatment that are

not fair and equitable?

Confidence in

leaders

Q9-4 4-Point

If you experienced treatment that was

not fair and equitable, how confident are

you that you can file a complaint or

Confidence in

leaders

Q9-5 4-Point



grievance without fear of negative

consequences to you?

The university and its leadership

respond effectively to current events of

importance to the university community.

Clear

Communication

Q12-1 5-Point

My department/unit head, chair, or

manager creates a positive work

environment for me.

Enabling

environment

Q12-2 5-Point

Recruitment practices in my

department/unit contribute to

maintaining a positive work

environment.

Enabling

environment

Q12-3 5-Point

Current practices for recruiting faculty

and staff in my department/unit are

effective.

Confidence in

leaders

Q12-4 5-Point



Current practices for retaining faculty

and staff in my department/unit are

effective.

Confidence in

leaders

Q12-5 5-Point

The university leadership (President,

Provost, and Board of Visitors)

effectively promotes practices that help

recruit underrepresented students.

Confidence in

leaders

Q12-6 5-Point

The university is committed to

increasing access and broadening

accessibility for students, particularly

those who may have more financial

constraints.

Confidence in

leaders

Q12-7 5-Point

How satisfied are you with the recognition</strong> you receive for each of

the following types of contribution to your job:

Day-to-day responsibilities

Teamwork

Research

Teaching

Service

Inclusion and Diversity

Outreach

Leadership

Respect and

Recognition

Q13-1-8 4-Point

I feel safe in my immediate work

environment.

Enabling

environment

Q14-1 5-Point

I feel safe on my campus. Enabling

environment

Q14-2 5-Point

I have a voice in shaping my work

environment.

Respect and

Recognition

Q14-3 5-Point

How satisfied are you with the recognition</strong> you receive for each of

the following types of contribution to your job:

Among faculty

Among staff

Between faculty and staff

Between faculty/staff and upper

administration

Between faculty and students

Between staff and students

Respect and

Recognition

Q15-1-6 5-Point

Please rate your personal agreement with the following statements related to

Quality Relationships:

People in my department/unit regularly

collaborate well with each other.

People in my department/unit regularly

collaborate well with others outside our

department/unit.

Clear

Communication

Q17-1-3 5-Point



I have high quality relationships with

students at the university.

Please rate your personal agreement with the following statements related to

Resources and Infrastructure:

I have the right tools and resources to do

my job well.

Enabling

environment

Q18-1 5-Point

The buildings on my campus meet

accessibility needs.

Enabling

environment

Q18-2 5-Point

I have access to accurate and timely

information about university policies

and procedures that I need to do my job

well.

Enabling

environment

Q18-3 5-Point

The opportunities you have for

interesting and challenging work in your

current job

Development

opportunities

Q19-2 4-Point

The opportunities you have for career

advancement within the university

Development

opportunities

Q19-5 4-Point


Appendix B: Defense Presentation

virginia polytechnic institute and state university’s ... · effectiveness, but will increase...

Documents