managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry - dissertation - igor velasco

KINGSTON BUSINESS SCHOOL

Msc OCCUPATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2012/2014

Managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry

Author: Igor Velasco

Word count: 12,310

This work is the copyright of the author

This work is confidential - NO

ii

ABSTRACT

Background: Even though employee engagement has attracted lots of attention, research

shows that the number of engaged employees in the U.K. is far from ideal, 8% according to

the CIPD (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2010). The concept of sustainable

engagement approaches the topic based on the evidence that the positive outcomes produced

by employee engagement are greater in the presence of high levels of well-being (Wright &

Copranzano, 2000; Robertson, Birch, & Cooper, 2012). The “Managing for sustainable

employee engagement” framework aims to serve as a tool for managers to identify those

behaviours that promote both employee engagement and well-being (Lewis & Donaldson-

Feilder, 2012).

Aims: To study the relationship between manager’s behaviours and employee engagement

and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework as a

tool to measure management style. In addition, this study aims to add further validation to the

framework as it is examined in the retail industry.

Methods: 82 team members of the fast food chain Pret A Manger completed a questionnaire

measuring management style using the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement”

questionnaire, engagement using the UWES-17 scale and well-being using the GHQ-12

scale.

Results: Results show a strong relationship between positive manager behaviours and high

levels of both engagement and well-being. Results also show that well-being moderates the

relationship between manager’s behaviours and engagement. The higher the levels of well-

being are the stronger this relationship is.

Conclusions: Manager’s behaviours have a strong influence in the levels of employee

engagement and well-being. Greater levels of employee engagement occur in the presence of

well-being. It is necessary for managers and organizations to embed well-being in their

engagement programmes for them to be successful.

iii

DECLARATION

I declare that this dissertation is all my own work and the sources of information and material

I have used (including the Internet) have been fully identified and properly acknowledged as

required.

iv

LIST OF CONTENTS

Title page .................................................................................................................................. i

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii

List of contents ...................................................................................................................... iii

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Research aims ......................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Organizational context of the research ................................................................... 3

1.4 Structure ................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2: Literature review ................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Employee engagement ........................................................................................... 5

2.3 Employee engagement and well-being ................................................................... 8

2.4 Management and engagement .............................................................................. 10

2.5 Management and well-being ................................................................................ 11

2.6 Managing for sustainable employee engagement ................................................ 13

2.7 Conclusions and hypotheses ................................................................................. 14

3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Sample .................................................................................................................. 16

3.3 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Measures................................................................................................................ 17

v

3.4.1 Measuring management style ............................................................................ 17

3.4.2 Measuring engagement ...................................................................................... 17

3.4.3 Measuring well-being ........................................................................................ 19

3.5 Analysis ................................................................................................................ 19

3.5.1 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 19

3.5.2 Reliability analysis............................................................................................. 20

3.5.3 Regression analysis ........................................................................................... 20

3.5.4 Hierarchical multiple regression ....................................................................... 20

3.6 Ethical considerations .......................................................................................... 20

Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................................ 21

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Hypothesis 1 ......................................................................................................... 22

4.3 Hypothesis 2 ......................................................................................................... 23

4.4 Hypothesis 3 ......................................................................................................... 25

4.5 Competencies analysis ......................................................................................... 28

4.5.1 Individual competencies and engagement ......................................................... 28

4.5.2 Individual competencies and well-being ........................................................... 30

4.6 Summary of results ............................................................................................... 32

Chapter 5: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 34

5.2 Hypotheses results ................................................................................................ 34

5.3 Competencies analysis results .............................................................................. 35

5.4 Implications for research ...................................................................................... 36

vi

5.5 Implications for practice ....................................................................................... 37

5.6 Study limitations .................................................................................................. 38

5.7 Discussion summary ............................................................................................ 39

Chapter 6: Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 41

References.............................................................................................................................. 43

Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 48

Appendix 1: Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 48

1

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

As today’s global market becomes more and more demanding organizations need to

maximize their assets in order to remain competitive, and one of the most important if not the

most important asset for an organization is its employees. The question then is how can

organizations maximize their employees’ potential? The answer to this question could be

employee engagement.

In recent years employee engagement has become a concept of interest. Since the concept

appeared in 1990 (Kahn, 1990) a wide number of researchers have studied employee

engagement developing different definitions, different ways of measuring it and certainly

different ways of understanding what employee engagement is and is not, which will be

further explored in chapter 2. Despite the disagreement among scholars regarding the

construct of employee engagement, most researchers and practitioners agree to the idea that

employee engagement brings a substantial number of benefits to the organization, from

increased productivity to lower employee turnover, which ultimately translate into bottom

line results (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005; Schaufeli, Bakker, &

Van Rhenen, 2009). The benefits of an engaged workforce have driven the interest of

researchers and practitioners to the point that employee engagement has become a business

itself. Organizations have recognized the importance of having an engaged workforce due to

the competitive advantage that it results in, and hire experts and other companies to provide

for them consultancy services in order to increase the engagement levels of their workforce.

A report for the University of Bath (Rayton, 2012) shows that 70% of business leaders in the

U.K. believe that employee engagement is decisive for their success.

Unfortunately, all those efforts and all that money invested into different engagement

programmes could be being wasted. A research by the CIPD shows that the number of

engaged employees in the U.K could be as low as 8% (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby,

2010). These data suggest that there is an evident need to improve employee engagement in

the U.K. Rayton (2012) states in his report for the University of Bath that the average level of

engagement in the U.K. is 3.19 out of 5.0 and he suggests that an increase of 0.25 in

engagement levels could generate an increase in GDP of £25.8 billion per year. Rayton

(2012) considers that the recent recession has made engagement more important than ever,

2

but at the same time has made leaders focus on other issues. He suggests that the low

engagement levels in the UK are a problem but also an opportunity to improve, and that a

clear understanding of the link between engagement and performance is needed.

Recently the concept of sustainable engagement has emerged. Researchers have found

that in order to create employee engagement that is sustainable over time managers need to

promote employees’ well-being. The idea that managers play a key role in promoting

employee engagement and well-being is certainly not new, however, the concept of well-

being being a key element in the process of engaging employees in a sustainable way is. This

idea is based on the evidence that engagement and well-being together are better predictors of

positive organizational outcomes such as performance and productivity than engagement

alone (Wright & Copranzano, 2000; Robertson, Birch, & Cooper, 2012).

The “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework developed by

Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) sits within this approach. The framework, developed

from combining two previously developed management competencies frameworks, aims to

help managers understand which behaviours are necessary to promote employee engagement

while also protecting their well-being.

It is evident from the available literature and research that it is necessary to further

study the role that well-being plays in the process of engaging employees as well as identify

those managerial behaviours that encourage this process.

1.2 Research Aims

The aim of this dissertation is to study the relationship between manager’s

behaviours and employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable

employee engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style. In addition, this

study will add further validation to the framework as it will be examined in the retail

industry. This research intends to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of

sustainable employee engagement as well as to raise new unanswered questions that might

inspire future research and practice.

3

1.3 Organizational context of the research

Since this research will be studying employee engagement in the retail industry, this

paper will now briefly describe the organization which this research is based upon. It is also

necessary to declare that the researcher is an employee of this company in the position of

assistant manager at one of the stores in London. Thus the researcher has an appropriate

insight of the company’s culture and structure.

Pret A Manger is a fast food chain founded in 1986 in London, currently owned by

the private equity firm Bridge Point. Pret is a highly successful company; currently Pret A

Manger owns 289 in the UK of which 187 are based in London, where most of its trade is

concentrated. The company also owns stores in France, Hong-Kong, China and the United

States. In 2013 Pret reached £510 in sales, which was a growth in sales of 15% compared to

2012.

Pret A Manger’s mission statement states that “Pret creates handmade natural food

avoiding the obscure chemicals, additives and preservatives common to so much of the

'prepared' and 'fast' food on the market today”.

Pret A Manger employs approximately 4,500 people in the U.K., from which a big

percentage are foreign workers. The basic salary for team members in London is £7.80 an

hour including bonuses, which can increase with extra responsibilities and promotions to

positions such as team member trainer or team leader. Pret pays special attention to training

its staff and claims to invest heavily in employees’ development, with over 70% of the

management being employees who started as team members. Pret A Manger employs many

different nationalities and claims to have a very cosmopolitan and laid back culture.

Although the company does not implement any specific employee engagement

programme or survey, once a year Pret distributes an employee satisfaction survey called

“Pret’s big conversation” that gives employees an opportunity to rate the level of satisfaction

with certain aspects of the job such as salary and working hours, as well as the chance to

submit suggestion and give general feedback.

1.4 Structure

This dissertation begins with this introductory chapter that gives an overview of the

background of the study, as well as the organizational context and the aims of the research.

4

Chapter 2 is a literature review that provides an overview of the relevant literature

regarding the topic. The review also identifies the gaps in the existing literature and provides

a theoretical framework for the study. Chapter 2 concludes by presenting the conclusion

drawn from the literature review and the research hypotheses.

Chapter 3 is the methodology section. This chapter will describe the research methods

presenting the sample used for the study, the measurements of the different variables

involved in the research, the statistical methods used to analyse the data obtained with those

measurements and the ethical considerations.

Chapter 4 will present and analyse the results as well as evaluate the hypotheses.

Chapter 5 will discuss the results in relationship with the hypotheses and the existing

literature. This chapter will also discuss the implications for practice and future research

drawn from the study results, and will conclude evaluating the study limitations.

Finally, chapter 6 will present the conclusions of the study.

5

CHAPTER 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature in the area of employee

engagement and its relationship with management style and well-being. After presenting the

different concepts and approaches, this chapter introduces the idea of sustainable engagement

and the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework. This chapter

concludes by presenting the conclusions drawn from the review, and formulating the

hypotheses to be studied.

2.2 Employee engagement

Employee engagement is a relatively new concept in Occupational Psychology. Kahn

(1990) offered the first formal definition of employee engagement. He described it as “the

harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people

employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role

performances” (p.694). Since the publication of Kahn’s (1990) work, employee engagement

has become an evolving and popular concept among academics and practitioners (Saks,

2006).

Most scholars agree that employee engagement is related to high levels of energy and

individuals that strongly identify themselves with their work (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, &

Taris, 2008). However, definitions of the concept vary widely between academics (Saks,

2006).

One of the most widely used definitions is the one proposed by Schaufeli, Salanova,

Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002), these authors understand employee engagement as “a

positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and

absorption” (p.74). They see engagement as a persistent affective-cognitive state, rather than

a momentary state, that focuses on the individual’s feelings.

In contrast, other scholars have developed definitions more oriented towards

engagement with the organization. Shuk and Wollard (2010) define employee engagement as

6

“an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward

desired organizational outcomes” (p.103).

Although there is no general agreement among scholars regarding the definition of

employee engagement, there is a consensus regarding how to measure it. The most frequently

used instrument to measure engagement is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) that includes the three sub-scales mentioned in

their definition: vigour, dedication and absorption.

According to Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter and Taris (2008) the UWES scale is well

validated scale that has been the primary tool used to study work engagement with focus on

predictors, outcomes and differences from related concepts.

In the pursuit to conceptualise employee engagement, researchers have faced the

challenge of discriminating engagement from related concepts. Research shows that work

engagement is not the same as workaholism (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). These

researchers found that engagement and workaholism have some common outcomes like

positive work outcomes but with the difference that unlike workaholism, engagement is

positively related to good mental health.

Research also shows that engagement is an empirically distinct construct from job

involvement and organizational commitment because they reflect different aspects of work

attachment (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).

The reason behind the increased interest in the concept of employee engagement in

recent years is the idea that employee engagement brings bottom-line results (Macey &

Schneider, 2008). Rayton (2012) suggests that organizations with high employee engagement

levels outperform those with low levels of employee engagement in total shareholder returns

and higher annual net income. Some of these bottom-line results in the shape of positive

organizational outcomes are certainly supported by empirical evidence.

Research suggests that high employee engagement reduces turnover intention. Saks

(2006) found a significant negative correlation between job engagement and intention to quit.

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found similar support for the correlation between engagement

7

and low turnover intention. In more recent years, other researchers like Shuck, Reio, and

Rocco (2011) have also found support for this relationship. These authors conducted a

research using a heterogeneous sampling of organizations from different sectors, and found

that employee engagement predicted lower levels of employees’ intention to turnover.

Absenteeism is another issue that organizations face on a regular basis. According to

the Office for National Statistics (2014) 131 million days were lost due to sickness absences

in the UK in 2013. It seems reasonable to suggest that organizations need to tackle

absenteeism if they want to be competitive, and research suggests that employee engagement

might be the answer. A longitudinal study among managers conducted by Schaufeli, Bakker,

and Van Rhenen, (2009) showed that work engagement is negatively related to sickness

absence frequency.

Job performance is certainly a topic of interest for academics, practitioners and

organizations. Rich, Lepine Jeffrey, & Crawford (2010) studied the relationship between job

engagement and task performance. Results show a significant correlation between these two

constructs. Research has also shown that engagement is positively related to in-role

performance (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). Furthermore, research also shows that in the

services and retail industries employee engagement has a positive effect in creating an

excellent service climate that ultimately increases the customer’s evaluation of employee

performance and consequently customer loyalty (Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005).

Employee engagement also has a strong influence on innovation. (Hakanen,

Perhoniemi and Toppinen-Tanner, (2008) found that employee engagement lead to personal

initiative which had a positive impact in work-unit inovativeness.

A meta-analysis conducted by Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes (2002) studied 7,939

business unit in 36 companies. Results show that employee engagement has a substantial

relationship with customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover and safety.

The available evidence then suggests that employee engagement certainly yields

bottom line results due to the positive organizational outcomes that it produces. Research

shows that employee engagement reduces turnover intention, absenteeism and sickness

absence frequency. In addition, high levels of engagement are related to increased

8

productivity, performance, customer satisfaction, personal initiative and innovation and

safety levels.

2.3 Employee engagement and well-being

Well-being is also a concept that has been receiving a lot of attention in recent years.

One of the most accepted conceptualizations of psychological well-being is the one

developed by Ryff (1989), she describes psychological well-being as a concept with six

dimensions: Self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental

mastery, purpose in life and personal growth, other authors such as Robertson and Cooper

(2010) consider that research on psychological well-being has identified the idea of positive

emotions and purpose as the two key ingredients of the concept.

Research shows that employee well-being is related to positive organizational

outcomes. Donald, et al., (2005) conducted a research to study productivity across 15

different organizations in the U.K. Results show that psychological well-being is a strong

predictor of productivity; in fact, in this study psychological well-being was a stronger

predictor than organizational commitment and resources.

Research also suggests that well-being is a strong predictor of performance. Wright

and Copranzano (2000) conducted a research to study performance; results showed that

psychological well-being was a stronger predictor of performance than job satisfaction.

Although employee engagement and well-being are not always considered together,

research suggests that well-being certainly plays an important role in producing some of the

organizational outcomes attributed to engagement previously in this review. Robertson, Birch

and Cooper (2012) found support for the essential role of psychological well-being in

delivering organizational outcomes such as performance. They conducted a research to study

if productivity levels would be better predicted by engagement and psychological well-being

than by engagement alone. Results show that productivity is better predicted by

psychological well-being and engagement than by engagement alone. According to

Robertson, Birch and Cooper (2012) results also show than psychological well-being and

engagement are related but distinct constructs. They also suggest that these findings have

important practical implications. They consider that if employers do not promote

9

psychological well-being and engagement together, they will be narrowing the benefits they

could obtain from the engagement programmes they might put in place.

Taking this idea further, Robertson and Cooper (2010) suggest the need to create a

wider construct that they call “full engagement”. According to Robertson and Cooper (2010)

“full engagement” incorporates engagement and employee well-being in order to produce

more beneficial outcomes for both the employee and the organization. Furthermore, they

argue that employees cannot sustain high levels of engagement for a long period of time

without psychological well-being. It seems reasonable to suggest that this conception of well-

being as a key element of sustainable engagement is also supported by the findings of

Schaufeli, Taris and Van Rhenen (2008) regarding good mental health as the key difference

between engagement and workaholism.

In recent years, a new perspective to conceptualize engagement with stress on the

importance of well-being has arisen. Gourlay et al. (2012) suggest that employee engagement

is a complex issue and that different levels of engagement need to be acknowledged in order

to understand it. They suggest that engagement can be divided in two concepts, emotional

engagement and transactional engagement. According to Gourlay et al. (2012) emotional

engagement is displayed by those employees that identify positive feelings with their work

and its values, while transactional engagement is displayed by those employees that are

focused on the rewards or meet the minimal expectations of the employer in order to keep the

job. Gourlay et al. (2012) highlight that engagement surveys alone do not possess the

required depth in order to distinguish between employees that work engaged but does not feel

engaged. In their research, Gourlay et al. (2012) conducted a survey to study the effects of

emotional and transactional engagement on performance and well-being. Results show that

emotionally engaged employees have high levels of well-being and performance, while

transitionally engaged employees score lower on all performance dimensions.

Research then suggests that employee well-being is related to positive organizational

outcomes such as productivity and performance; furthermore, it suggests that the positive

organizational outcomes produced by employee engagement are greater when employee well-

being is present. Related to this idea, some authors consider well-being as a key element to

distinguish between truly engaged employees and those who just seem engaged but do not

feel engaged.

10

2.4 Management and engagement

In today’s competitive market having an engaged workforce is certainly an advantage.

Looking at the positive organizational outcomes that, according to research, engaged

employees seem to deliver, it comes to no surprise that the concept of employee engagement

is as popular as it has ever been. However, in order to obtain an engaged workforce it is

necessary to understand the antecedents that facilitate engagement.

Researchers consider that engagement is an individual construct that has

systematically been looked at from an organizational level (Shuk & Wollard, 2010). Certainly

there are individual variables that affect the level of engagement of employees and cannot be

overlooked. Some individual antecedents would include personality variables such as

hardiness, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Saks, 2006). However for the purpose of this paper

this review will focus on those antecedents that are influenced by managerial behaviours.

May, Gilson and Harter (2004) found that there are three psychological conditions –

meaningfulness, safety and availability- that relate to individuals’ engagement at work.

According to these authors, these findings have vast implications for managers in terms of

job design, selection and relations with employees. Similar results were found by Saks

(2006); he conducted a research among 102 employees working in different organizations to

study the antecedents of engagement. Results show that organizations that want to improve

employee engagement need to focus on the employees’ perception of support. He also

highlights the importance of the role of managers in order to improve employee engagement.

Saks (2006) considers that managers need to provide employees with resources and benefits,

addressing the individual needs of their employees and avoiding using the same approach for

all.

The role of managers in promoting employee engagement has been extensively

explored in recent years. In their report for the CIPD, Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, and Gatenby

(2010) also highlight the critical influence of management style on employee engagement.

These authors conducted a research across eight different organizations studying the level of

engagement among their employees. Alfes et al. (2010) consider that line management style

is one of the key drivers for engagement. They suggest that employees need to express their

11

views and know that their opinions are taken into consideration; in addition, it is necessary to

create meaning for employees in their work by linking their job to higher organizational

goals. According to Alfes et al. (2010) the role of line managers is to be the link between the

organization and the employee by taking into account their views and by communicating the

deeper levels of purpose that the employees have in the organization. Alfes et al. (2010) also

consider that senior managers play an important role. They suggest that senior managers need

to create and share a vision for the organization while being transparent and approachable.

Another point emphasized by Alfes et al. (2010) is how engagement levels are influenced by

the working environment. According to these authors greater engagement will be achieved if

employees perceive support from others in an environment where they can express

themselves freely.

The influence that managers have in encouraging and creating a supportive

environment has certainly been explored, Lewis, Donaldson-Feilder and Tharani (2011)

conducted a research in order to identify specific management behaviours that promote

employee engagement, they found that the most frequently mention competencies were those

related to management behaviours that support employee growth. Other authors have found

similar results regarding the role of line managers in creating supporting environments in

order to enhance employee engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Kroth & Keeler,

2009).

2.5 Management and well-being

The relation between supervisor’s behaviour and employee well-being has also been

extensively studied. Gilbreath and Benson (2004) studied how supervisor behaviour can

predict well-being compared to other variables. Results show that supervisor behaviour is a

better predictor of well-being than variables such as age, support from other people at work

or stressful life events.

Other researchers have focused on how managers can promote well-being. Arnold,

Turner and Barling (2007) conducted two studies investigating the relationship between

transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Their findings suggest that

transformational leaders positively influence employees’ psychological well-being by making

employees perceive their work as meaningful.

12

Van Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes and Stride (2004) conducted a research to study the

relationship between leadership’s behaviour and the well-being of subordinates. According to

these authors, results show that leadership’s behaviour and well-being are linked in a

feedback loop. This is, leadership’s behaviour influences employee’s well-being, the

employee then will behave in a certain way in response to the perceived leadership’s

behaviour, and this response will then influence leadership’s behaviour creating a loop. Van

Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes and Stride (2004) suggest that this has a number of practical

implications for managers. They consider that managers need to be aware that their behaviour

influences their subordinates’ well-being. They also argue that managers need to be trained to

identify and break a loop of negativity, not by avoiding problem people but motivating them

showing interest and underlining their value for the organization.

Related to these findings, Nielsen, Randall, Yarker and Brenner, (2008) found that

transformational leadership is related to employees’ well-being through employees’

perception of meaningful work environment, role clarity, and opportunities for development.

Nielsen et al. (2008) also consider this connection as a reciprocal relationship between the

managers’ perceived transformational leadership style and well-being. In addition, Nielsen,

Yarker and Munir, (2009) found that transformational leadership is related to well-being

through encoraging employees to take independent decisions and coaching employees

making them feel that they are capable of coping with challenges at work, increasing their

self and team efficacy.

These findings suggest that managers play an essential role in promoting employees’

well-being. Managers can improve their employees’ well-being through underlining their

value for the organization, creating a work environment that is perceived as meaningful,

clarifying role and resposibilities, offering opportunities for development, encouraging

independent decision making and coaching them so they can cope with challenges at work.

13

2.6 Managing for sustainable employee engagement

To support managers and organizations attaining sustainable employee engagement

Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) conducted a research focused on identifying the specific

management behaviours responsible for supporting and managing employee engagement and

employee well-being.

In order to develop a framework of the competencies needed Lewis and Donaldson-

Feilder (2012) combined two previously developed management competency frameworks,

the “Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement” framework (Lewis,

Donaldson-Feilder, & Tharani, 2011) and the “Management competencies for preventing and

reducing stress at work (MCPARS)” framework (Yarker, Lewis, Donaldson-Feilder, &

Flaxman, 2007). In order to identify the items for the new framework a questionnaire-based

research approach was taken. Further information on the methodology can be found in their

report (Lewis & Donaldson-Feilder, 2012).

The results unveiled a 54-item framework with a five competencies structure (Lewis &

Donaldson-Feilder, 2012):

Open, fair and consistent: Managing with integrity and consistency, managing

personal issues and taking a positive approach in interpersonal interactions.

Handling conflict and problems: Using appropriate organizational resources in order

to deal with employee conflicts.

Knowledge, clarity and guidance: Providing clear guidance, through clear

communication, responsible decision making and showing an appropriate

understanding of roles.

Building and sustaining relationships: personal interaction with employees that

focuses on empathy and consideration.

Supporting development: Supporting employee career and development.

Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) consider that there is enough empirical evidence to

suggest that in order to sustain an engaged workforce, especially in the current economic

climate, employers need to consider employee engagement alongside well-being in order to

create sustainable employee engagement. They also suggest that there is enough evidence of

14

the connection between management and employee engagement and well-being, so it is

important that managers work with their teams in ways that enhance both.

For Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) this framework has several implications. On the

one hand it offers managers the opportunities to not only identify which behaviours are in

used but also to identify and change those that are not. In the other hand, it opens the door for

future research to validate the framework studying if the teams working with managers that

display the positive behaviours or avoid the negative ones, are healthier, and more engaged

and productive over time. They also consider that future research needs to determine whether

some behaviours are more important than others in determining levels of engagement and

well-being.

2.7 Conclusions and hypotheses

In a world that is constantly evolving, where organizations face continuous change in

order to adapt, and under the current severe economic conditions an engaged workforce is

certainly an important asset for organizations to remain competitive. Employee engagement

has attracted a lot of attention from scholars and practitioners. Organizations have been

charmed by the positive outcomes that engaged employees deliver and researchers have

produced empirical evidence to demonstrate that employee engagement certainly has a

positive impact in the organization. However, despite being so important, research by the

CIPD (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2010) shows that the number of workers that

are truly engaged in the U.K. could be as low as 8%. It seems reasonable to suggest that

despite all the research available organizations have a hard time engaging their employees in

a sustainable way.

In recent years some researchers have focus their efforts on understanding how to

promote employee engagement that is sustainable over time. This perspective on research

highlights the importance of considering employee well-being as an essential part of

sustainable employee engagement. In addition, researchers emphasize the need to include

employee well-being when measuring engagement in order to discern truly engaged

individuals from those that behave engaged but do not feel engaged.

Taking into consideration the extensive empirical evidence that highlights the impact

that managers have on employees’ engagement and well-being, the “Managing for

sustainable employee engagement” framework takes a step forward in the search for learning

the processes that promote sustainable employee engagement. As mentioned before in this

15

paper, further empirical evidence that validates the framework is needed. Based on the

evidence available, this paper will study the relationship between manager’s behaviours and

employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable employee

engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style, providing further validation

to the framework by studying it in the retail industry. This research will test the following

hypotheses:

H.1 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of engagement.

H.2 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of well-being.

H.3 The relationship between positive manager behaviour and employee engagement

will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between manager behaviour

and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing than where

there is low wellbeing.

Due to the lack of research on the framework, the existing evidence is not conclusive

enough in order to formulate hypotheses regarding the relationship between the framework’s

individual competencies and engagement and well-being respectively. Accordingly this

research will use an exploratory approach in order to study these relationships.

16

CHAPTER 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the sample used in the research as well as the sampling method

used to reach and select the participants. Then the measures used to collect the data are

presented followed by a discussion of their psychometric properties. This chapter concludes

presenting the statistical methods used to analyse the data and discussing the ethical

considerations of the study.

3.2 Sample

The present study involved 82 Pret A Manger employees working at different shops

in London. Out of the 82 participant 39 were males and 43 were females. The average age of

the participant was 29 (SD = 4), the youngest participant was 22 and the oldest 39.

The average length of service in months was 37 (SD = 30). The participant with

shortest length of service worked for 3 months and the participant with the longest length of

service worked for 163 months.

The averaged worked hours per week of the participants was 37 (SD = 10). The least

amount of hours worked per week was 8 and the maximum 60.

3.3 Procedures

A self-administered questionnaire was uploaded to a survey administration website.

The link on the survey was then sent by email to 100 different Pret A Manger shops in

London together with a brief cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey. The email sent

to the different shops contained a message for the shop managers explaining the purpose of

the survey and requesting them to place the cover letter and the link in the shop’s staffroom,

so employees could choose whether to complete the survey. This method was selected in

order to reach the maximum number of participants, making the sample as representative as

possible (Howitt & Cramer, 2005). Approximately 1500 team members were reached which

equates to a 5% response rate. The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix at the end

of this paper.

17

3.4 Measures

The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between manager’s

behaviours and employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable

employee engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style, providing further

validation to the framework by studying it in the retail industry. In order to study the

hypotheses formulated in the previous section of this paper it was necessary to measure the

correlation between the perceptions that participants had of their managers, using the

“Managing for sustainable employee engagement” questionnaire, and their level of

engagement and their level of well-being.

3.4.1 Measuring management style

The “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” questionnaire has 54 items

grouped in a 5-factor or competencies structure. Out of the 54 items 29 are from the

“Managing engagement” questionnaire and 25 from the MCPARS questionnaire. The scale

was created in a 3 step process. In the first step 102 items were extracted from the “Managing

engagement” questionnaire and tested by 127 participants. In the second step those 102 items

were tested in 7 organizations from different sectors by 506 employees and 126 managers,

after conducting reliability and exploratory factor analyses 41 items were selected and

combined with 66 items from the MCPARS questionnaire. In the third and final step 2,378

employees and 108 managers completed the questionnaire. The 54 final items were obtained

after reliability and exploratory factor analysis were conducted.

The rating scale used in the questionnaire is a Liker-type scale with 5 different options

that go from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of the 54 items 26 are positive indicators,

and 28 are negatively worded to maintain the integrity of the data (Lewis & Donaldson-

Feilder, 2012), e.g., “My manager treats me with respect”, “My manager is overly critical of

me and other team members”. The questionnaire was administered respecting the original

wording. Once the data was collected the ratings of negatively worded items were re-coded in

order to make the statistical analysis possible. The reliability analysis for this sample

indicated that the scale had a good internal consistency, α = .97.

3.4.2 Measuring engagement

The selected questionnaire to measure the level of engagement of the participant was

the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17) developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003).

18

The scale is a self-report questionnaire that has 17 items measuring three scales - vigor,

dedication, and absorption- that are highly correlated (Schaufeli et al., 2002a).

The construct validity of the Uwes-17 has been extensively studied. Schaufeli,

Bakker and Salanova (2006) suggest that engagement is defined as the opposite to burnout,

so it is expected that both concepts are negatively related to the three burnout dimensions

measured with the Marslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leither, 1996).

Research shows that the three dimension of work engagement are indeed negatively

correlated to the three burnout dimensions (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al.,

2002b).

The scale also has excellent reliability. According to Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova

(2006) the Cronbach's alpha of the UWES-scales ranges between .80 and .90 according to

existing reliability studies (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) which exceeds the value of .70 that is

normally used as a general guideline (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994).

Research also confirms the cross-national validity of the scale that has been tested

across samples from Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal (Schaufeli, et al., 2002b). In

addition, a study conducted by Storm and Rothmann (2003) shows that the three factors in

the UWES-17 scale show equivalence for different race groups.

The UWES-17 scale has a positive but weak correlation with age, older employees

feel more engaged but the shared variance is less than 2% (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). The

correlation with gender is also statistically significant but small, with men scoring 3.89 and

women scoring 3.77 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), as a result there are no gender-specific

norm scores.


that go from never to always. All the items in the scale are positive indicators, e.g. “At my

work, I feel bursting with energy”, “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”.

The reliability analysis for this sample indicated that the scale had a good internal

consistency, α =.93.

19

3.4.3 Measuring well-being

The selected questionnaire to measure psychological well-being was the General

Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) (Goldberg, 1972). The GHQ-12 is a self administer

questionnaire that has 12 items and has been broadly used as a short screening instrument

(Goldberg, et al., 1997). Although there are longer versions of the questionnaire, the 12-item

version was chosen in order to keep the questionnaire as short as possible making it more

engaging for the participants. The GHQ-12 produces same results as the longer versions

(Goldberg, et al., 1997). In order to obtain a good score distribution the Likert (0-1-2-3)

scoring method was implemented. (Goldberg, et al., 1997)

The validity coefficient of the GHQ-12 ranges between .83 and .95 (Goldberg, et al.,

1997). In their Study Goldberg et al. (1997) translated the GHQ-12 into 10 other languages,

and studied the effect of translation as well as compare the coefficients of developed and

developing countries. Results show that translation has no significant influence and that there

is no tendency for developing countries to have lower coefficients.

Goldberg et al. (1997) also found that gender, age and educational level do not

influence its validity characteristics, which makes it an excellent tool to use with a

heterogeneous sample like the one used in this study.


that vary depending on the item. Out of the 12 items 6 are negatively worded, and the other 6

are positive indicators, e.g. “Have you recently lost much sleep over worry?”, “Have you

recently been able to concentrate on what you’re doing?”.

The reliability analysis for this sample indicated that the scale had a good internal

consistency, α =.91.

3.5 Analysis

The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using IBM SPSS 21.0 and Microsoft

Excel 2007.

3.5.1 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the demographics of the participants. This

information was collected at the beginning of the survey and included: age, gender, length of

service measured in months and the average amount of hours worked per week.

20

3.5.2 Reliability analysis

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated in order to study the internal

consistency of the measures.

3.5.3 Regression analysis

In order test hypotheses H1 and H2, as well as the individual competencies of the

framework, regression analyses were conducted. Regression analysis made possible to predict

dependant variables (engagement and well-being) using an independent variable

(management) while controlling for age, gender, length of service and average hours worked

per week.

3.5.4 Hierarchical multiple regression

A hierarchical multiple regression model was conducted in order to test Hypothesis

H3. A hierarchical multiple regression allows to assess if a moderating variable (well-being)

has any significant effect on an independent variable (management) predicting a dependent

variable (engagement).

In the first part of the analysis a 3 step regression was conducted to study if the model

including the interaction term accounted for more variance than the model including only the

independent and control variables.

A second analysis was conducted using an add-on process in SPSS. The purpose of

this analysis was to examine the moderation effect centering the terms and producing values

for an interaction plot.

3.6 Ethical considerations

All the respondents were informed of the purpose of the questionnaire and informed

of the level of confidentiality. All respondents participated voluntarily and were able to

withdraw at any time. The data obtained was stored and treated confidentially. Contact details

of the researcher were provided in case participants had any inquiry. The organization was

informed of the purpose of the study and confidentiality is not required.

21

CHAPTER 4: Results

4.1 Introduction

Following the data collection, the data obtained was cleaned and prepared for analysis. First

the negatively worded items were re-coded so all the items were positive indicators. Then the

missing values were identified and replaced by the value “9”, this value was recorded in

SPSS as discrete missing value so it was not included in any calculation.

The data was then checked in order to test if it satisfied the assumptions of

regression. An analysis of standard residuals was conducted, which showed that the data

contained no outliers. The data was the tested to see if it met the assumption of collinearity.

Results indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Management, tolerance = 1, VIF =

1). The data was then tested for the assumption of independent errors, results showed that the

data met the assumption (Durbin-Watson value = 2.34).

The assumption of normality was tested using the measures of skewness and kurtosis.

Results show that the data met the assumption of normality. (Management, skewness = -.15,

kurtosis = -.98; Engagement, skewness = -.17, kurtosis = -.31; Well-being, skewness = -.47,

kurtosis = -.17).

In order to test the homoscedasticity and linearity of the data a scatterplot of

standardised residuals was produced. The scatterplot showed that the data met the

assumptions of linearity and homocedasticity, showing homogeneity of variance.

Finally, the non-zero variance assumption was tested. Results of the statistic analysis

of the variance show that the data met the assumption. (Management, variance = .52;

Engagement, variance = 1.12; Well-being, variance = 51.92)

Once the data was cleaned and the assumptions were tested, the data was analysed in

order to find statistically significant relations to support or reject the proposed hypotheses.

The correlation matrices and descriptive statistics for the measures are presented below (see

table 4.0). This chapter will now present the results of those analyses.

22

Table 4.0 Means, standard deviation and intercorrelations (N = 82)

Variable Mean S.D 1 2 3

1.Management 3.20 .72 -

2.Engagement 3.29 1.06 .64** -

3.Well-being 22.81 7.20 .58** .51** -

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) **

4.2 Hypothesis 1. Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater

levels of engagement

To test the hypothesis that greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater

levels of engagement a regression analysis was conducted.

Results indicate that there is a significant correlation between positive manager

behaviours and levels of engagement (β = .64, p < .001, R2 = .41) (See table 4.1).

Table 4.1 H.1 Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .643a .414 .407 .81743

a. Predictors: (Constant), Management

Table 4.1 H.1 Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .288 .410 .702 .485

Management .939 .125 .643 7.516 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Engagement

When controlling for age, gender, tenure and average worked hours per week the

correlation is equally strong and significant. (β = .64, p < .001, R2 = .41) (See table 4.2). It is

also necessary to acknowledge that gender recorded a statistically significant correlation with

engagement. (β = -.24, p < .05), the negative correlation indicates that men display higher

levels of engagement. Results suggest support for hypothesis H1. The strong correlation

indicates that positive manager behaviours lead to greater levels of employee engagement.

23


Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .281a .079 .031 1.04443

2 .697b .486 .453 .78510

a. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,

Age

b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,

Age, Management


Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 3.442 1.048 3.284 .002

Age .006 .032 .024 .186 .853

Gender -.485 .245 -.230 -1.984 .051

Working in months .006 .004 .169 1.343 .183

Average worked hours

per week

.005 .012 .049 .430 .669

2

(Constant) .855 .855 1.000 .321

Age .004 .024 .016 .164 .870

Gender -.515 .184 -.244 -2.798 .007



per week

-.003 .009 -.030 -.352 .726

Management .939 .121 .643 7.763 .000


4.3 Hypothesis 2 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater

levels of well-being.

To test the hypothesis that greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater

levels of well-being a regression analysis was conducted. Results indicate that there is a

significant correlation between positive manager behaviours and levels of well-being (β =

.58, p < .001, R2 = .33) (See table 4.3)

24


Mode

l

R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .580a .336 .328 5.90829

a. Predictors: (Constant), Management



Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 4.418 2.964 1.491 .140

Managemen

t

5.744 .903 .580 6.364 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Wellbeing

When controlling for age, gender, tenure and average worked hours per week the

correlation is equally strong and significant. (β = .58, p < .001, R2 = .34) (See table 4.4).

Results show support for hypotheses H2. The strong correlation indicates that greater positive

manager behaviours lead to greater levels of well-being.


Mode

l

R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .100a .010 -.041 7.35402

2 .591b .349 .306 6.00353

a. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per

week, Working in months, Gender, Age

b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per

week, Working in months, Gender, Age, Management



Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 26.171 7.380 3.546 .001

Age -.082 .228 -.047 -.361 .719

Gender -1.382 1.722 -.096 -.802 .425

Working in months .011 .032 .046 .352 .726

25

4.4 Hypotheses 3 The relationship between positive manager behaviour and

employee engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the

relationship between manager behaviour and employee engagement will be

stronger where there is high wellbeing than where there is low wellbeing.

To test the hypothesis that the relationship between positive manager behaviour and

employee engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between

manager behaviour and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing

than where there is low wellbeing, a hierarchical multiple regression model was conducted.

In the first step four control variables were included, age, gender, length of service

and average hours worked per week. These variables accounted for a small amount of

variance and were not statistically significant R2 = .08, F (4, 77) = 1.65, p >.05. (See table

4.5)

In the second step two variables were included, management and well-being. These

variables were statically significant accounting for a significant additional 43% of variance in

engagement. R2 = .44, F (6, 75) = 13.37, p <.001. (See table 4.5)

For the third step, an interaction term between management and well-being was

created, to avoid potentially problematic high multicollinearity with the interaction term, the

variables were centered. Then the interaction term between management and well-being was

added to the regression model. This interaction accounted for an additional 5% of the

variance in engagement R2 = .56, F (7, 74) = 15.19, p <.05 (See table 4.5)


per week

.019 .086 .026 .221 .826

2

(Constant) 10.149 6.542 1.551 .125

Age -.095 .186 -.055 -.510 .611

Gender -1.563 1.406 -.109 -1.112 .270



per week

-.034 .070 -.046 -.476 .635

Management 5.813 .924 .587 6.288 .000


26

In this final third model the interaction term variable between management and well-

being recorded a significant Beta value (β = .23, p < .05), higher than well-being alone (β =

.20, p < .05). Management recorded the highest Beta value (β = .56, p < .001). (See table 4.6)

ANOVAa

Model

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 7.209 4 1.802 1.652 .170b

Residual 83.989 77 1.091

Total 91.197 81

2 Regression 46.283 6 7.714 12.881 .000c

Residual 44.915 75 .599

Total 91.197 81

3 Regression 50.941 7 7.277 13.378 .000d

Residual 40.256 74 .544

Total 91.197 81


b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months,

Gender, Age

c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months,

Gender, Age, Wellbeing, Management

d. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months,

Gender, Age, Wellbeing, Management, MNGM_x_Wellbeing


Mod

el R

R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .281a .079 .031 1.04440 .079 1.652 4 77 .170

2 .712b .507 .468 .77386 .428 32.624 2 75 .000

3 .747c .559 .517 .73756 .051 8.564 1 74 .005

a. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age

b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age,

Wellbeing, Management

c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age,

Wellbeing, Management, MNGM_x_Wellbeing

27


Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.958 .936 3.161 .002

Age .006 .032 .023 .185 .854

Gender -.485 .245 -.230 -1.984 .051



per week .005 .012 .049 .430 .668

2 (Constant) .115 .779 .147 .883

Age .006 .024 .025 .267 .790

Gender -.473 .183 -.224 -2.591 .012



per week -.002 .009 -.022 -.259 .797

Management .785 .147 .538 5.340 .000

Wellbeing .026 .015 .180 1.791 .077

3 (Constant) -.239 .752 -.317 .752

Age .010 .023 .038 .428 .670

Gender -.452 .174 -.214 -2.590 .012



per week -.004 .009 -.041 -.504 .616

Management .823 .141 .564 5.855 .000

Wellbeing .029 .014 .200 2.082 .041

MNGM_x_Wellbeing .051 .017 .231 2.926 .005


The interaction plot (see graph 4.7 below) shows that well-being has a moderation

effect between manager behaviour and employee engagement. Further examination shows

that at low well-being, engagement levels are similar for low, average and high manager

behaviours. Highest levels of engagement appear when higher levels of manager behaviour

and well-being occur together. Thus, these results support hypothesis H3 suggesting that the

28

relationship between manager behaviours and engagement is stronger in the presence of high

levels of well-being.

4.5 Managing for sustainable employee engagement framework competencies

analysis.

4.5.1 Individual competencies and engagement

In order to study the predicting ability of each individual factor of the “Managing for

sustainable employee engagement” framework a two stage hierarchical multiple regression

was conducted with engagement as the dependent variable.

Gender, age, length of service and average hours worked per week were entered at

stage one as control variables. The five individual factors of the framework (Open, handling

conflict, knowledge, relationships and support) were entered at stage two as independent

variables.

Results show that model 1 which includes only the control variables accounts for 7%

of variance in engagement but it is not statistically significant R2 = .07 F (4, 76) = 1.516; p >

.05.(See table 4.8 below)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low M.Behaviour

Average M.Behaviour

High M.Behaviour

Stan

dar

ize

d E

nga

gem

en

t

Standarized Management

Graph 4.7 Moderation

Low Well-being

Average Well-being

High Well-being

29

Model 2 that includes the five individual competencies explains an additional 50% of

variance in engagement and it is statistically significant R2 = .57 F (9, 71) = 10.411; p <

.001. (See table 4.8 below)

In this second model two of the four control variables were statistically significant.

Gender (β = -.29, p < .01) and length of service in months (β = .23, p < .05). .(See table 4.4.2

below)

` Out of the five competencies of the framework only two were statistically significant

with open, fair and consistent recording a higher Beta value (β = .53, p < .001) than handling

conflict (β = .36, p < .01). (See table 4.9 below)

Table 4.8 Model Summary

Mode

l R

R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .272a .074 .025 1.04831 .074 1.516 4 76 .206

2 .754b .569 .514 .73998 .495 16.306 5 71 .000


b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age, Knowledge,

Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships

ANOVAa

Model

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 6.665 4 1.666 1.516 .206b

Residual 83.520 76 1.099

Total 90.185 80

2 Regression 51.308 9 5.701 10.411 .000c

Residual 38.877 71 .548

Total 90.185 80


b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,

Age

c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender,

Age, Knowledge, Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships

30

4.5.2 Individual competencies and well-being

A second two stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted, this time with

well-being as dependent variable.

Gender, age, length of service and average hours worked per week were entered at

stage one as control variables. The five individual factors of the framework (Open, handling

conflict, knowledge, relationships and support) were entered at stage two as independent

variables.

Results show that model 1 accounts for 1% of the variance in well-being but is not

statistically significant. R2 = .01 F (4, 76) = .188; p > .05. (See table 4.10 below)

Model 2 which includes the five individual competencies accounts for an additional 46% of

variance in well-being and it is statistically significant R2 = .47 F (9, 71) = 6.966; p > .001

.(See table 4.10 below)

Table 4.9 Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 2.958 .936 3.161 .002

Age .006 .032 .023 .185 .854

Gender -.485 .245 -.230 -1.984 .051



per week

.005 .012 .049 .430 .668

2

(Constant) .486 .775 .628 .532

Age -.017 .024 -.065 -.703 .484

Gender -.613 .182 -.290 -3.360 .001



per week

-.007 .009 -.064 -.780 .438

Open .667 .157 .532 4.240 .000

Handling_conflict .655 .223 .356 2.934 .004

Knowledge -.255 .156 -.211 -1.634 .107

Relationships -.099 .183 -.090 -.540 .591

Development .200 .156 .185 1.283 .203


31

In this second model none of the control variables were statistically significant.

Regarding the five competencies only two of them were statistically significant with “Open,

fair and consistent” recording a higher Beta value (β = .46, p < .05) than “Knowledge, clarity

and guidance” (β = .34, p < .05). (See table 4.11 below)

Table 4.10 Model Summary

Mod

el R

R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .099a .010 -.042 7.40230 .010 .188 4 76 .944

2 .685b .469 .402 5.60855 .459 12.277 5 71 .000


b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age, Knowledge,

Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 41.236 4 10.309 .188 .944b

Residual 4164.345 76 54.794

Total 4205.580 80

2 Regression 1972.217 9 219.135 6.966 .000c

Residual 2233.363 71 31.456

Total 4205.580 80


b. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age

c. Predictors: (Constant), Average worked hours per week, Working in months, Gender, Age,

Knowledge, Handling_conflict, Development, Open, Relationships

32

4.6 Summary of results.

Hypothesis 1 “Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of

engagement” was supported. Results show a strong relationship (.64) between positive

manager behaviours and high levels of engagement.

Hypothesis 2 Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to greater levels of well-being”

was supported. Results show a strong relationship (.58) between positive manager

behaviours and well-being.

Hypothesis 3 “The relationship between positive manager behaviour and employee

engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between manager

behaviour and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing than

where there is low wellbeing” was supported. Results support the hypothesis showing a

Table 4.11 Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 24.803 6.647 3.731 .000

Age -.083 .231 -.047 -.360 .720

Gender -1.367 1.743 -.095 -.784 .435



per week .019 .086 .027 .224 .824

2 (Constant) 6.705 5.924 1.132 .262

Age -.196 .181 -.112 -1.084 .282

Gender -2.272 1.398 -.158 -1.625 .109



per week -.004 .068 -.005 -.056 .955

Open 3.997 1.209 .465 3.306 .001

Handling_conflict 2.541 1.718 .204 1.479 .144

Knowledge 2.825 1.192 .342 2.370 .021

Relationships -1.289 1.400 -.172 -.921 .360

Development -1.350 1.197 -.182 -1.128 .263


33

positive moderation effect. The interaction term variable between management and well-

being recorded a significant Beta value (β = .23, p < .05). The interaction plot in section 4.4

illustrates the direction of the moderation effect.

The results of the individual competencies analysis with engagement indicate that

only two competencies were statistically significant with “open, fair and consistent”

recording a higher Beta value (β = .53, p < .001) than “handling conflict” (β = .36, p < .01).

This suggests that these two competencies are the biggest contributors to engagement.

The results of the individual competencies analysis with well-being also recorded two

of the competencies being statistically significant. In this case “Open, fair and consistent”

recorded a higher Beta value (β = .46, p < .05) than “Knowledge, clarity and guidance” (β =

.34, p < .05). These results suggest that these two competencies are the two most important

contributors to well-being.

34

CHAPTER 5: Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the “Managing for sustainable employee

engagement” framework in the retail industry. The results will now be discussed in

relationships to existing literature and research. In addition, the implications of the study and

its limitations will be also discussed.

5.2 Hypotheses results

The three hypotheses proposed in this study were supported by the results. Results of

the statistical analysis for hypothesis H1 “Greater positive manager behaviours will lead to

greater levels of engagement” show a strong relationship (.64) between positive manager

behaviours and high levels of engagement. These results are in line with previous research

that has offered extensive evidence of the influence of manager style in the levels of

employee engagement (Saks, 2006; Alfes et al., 2010). The correlation between gender and

engagement levels (-.24) suggests that males tend to exhibit higher levels of engagement than

females, however this results need to be carefully interpreted. Firstly, Schaufeli and Bakker

(2003) state in the UWES-17 manual that men tend to score higher than women and, although

less than a standard deviation, the difference is statistically significant. Secondly, due to the

sample size (N = 82) the predicting ability of gender needs to be taken with caution as with a

larger sample the effect of gender might not be as significant.

Results of the statistical analysis for hypothesis H2 “Greater positive manager

behaviours will lead to greater levels of well-being” show as well a strong relationship (.58)

between positive manager behaviours and well-being, while none of the control variables

were statistically significant. These results show the strong influence that supervision has in

employees’ psychological well-being. Previous research has produced similar results (van

Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes, & Stride, 2004; Gilbreath & Benson, 2004) showing that

managers’ behaviour is a better predictor of well-being than other variables such as age,

gender or length of service.

35

Hypothesis H3 “The relationship between positive manager behaviour and employee

engagement will be moderated by wellbeing such that the relationship between manager

behaviour and employee engagement will be stronger where there is high wellbeing than

where there is low wellbeing” aimed to study the moderation effect of well-being in the

relationship between manager behaviour and employee engagement. Results support the

hypothesis showing a positive moderation effect. The statistical analysis suggest that in the

presence of low levels of well-being, manager’s behaviours have little or no influence in the

levels of employee engagement, while in the presence of high levels of well-being employee

engagement levels increase according to the quality of manager’s behaviours. It seems

reasonable to suggest that this moderation effect is in line with previous researches that

consider psychological well-being an essential element in order to promote sustainable

engagement (Robertson & Cooper, 2010; Gourlay et al., 2012). Furthermore, these results not

only support the argument by Robertson, Birch, and Cooper (2012) which states that

promoting engagement while ignoring well-being will narrow the results of any programmes

put in place by organizations, but also suggest that these programmes will not have any effect

on engagement if well-being is not addressed.

The strong support found for the three hypotheses formulated in this study is certainly

in line with the existing research; in addition it seems reasonable to suggest that results

indicate that the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement framework” is a valid tool

that can help managers identify those behaviours that will assist them to promote both

employee engagement and well-being.

5.3 Competencies analysis results

The analysis of the individual competencies of the framework aimed to study which

of them had a stronger effect in engagement and well-being respectively.

Results regarding the individual competencies and engagement showed that only two of them

were statistically significant. “Open, fair and consistent” which, relates to managing with

consistency and a positive attitude towards interpersonal relations, recorded the highest Beta

value (.53). It was followed by “handling conflict” (.36), which relates to using appropriate

organizational resources to deal with employee conflicts. In order to interpret these results it

is necessary to keep in mind the organizational context of the research, as well as the sample

characteristics and size. A possible explanation for the significant influence of these two

36

competencies is the fact that fairness, consistency in the management style and conflicts

might be the biggest issues affecting employee engagement, in addition the average age of

the sample (29) shows a rather young workforce which might be not so concern about

pursuing a career within the retail industry and therefore other competencies such as

supporting development or guidance do not have much influence. It is also necessary to

acknowledge that a bigger sample size might have produced statistically significant results

for the other competencies (Howitt & Cramer, 2005).

It is also interesting that gender and length of service were statistically significant in

predicting engagement. Gender recorded a moderate correlation (-.29), as mentioned before

in this paper this correlation might be the result of the tendency of males to score higher in

the UWES-17. Length of service on the other hand scored a moderate correlation (.24), in

order to interpret this relationship it seems reasonable to suggest that employees that remain

within an organization might do so because they feel engaged, as engagement is related to

low employee turnover intention (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

The results of the statistical analysis between the five individual competencies and

well-being also present really interesting effects. This time none of the control variables were

statistically significant, and again only two of the competencies were statistically significant.

“Open, fair and consistent” recorded the highest Beta value (.46) followed by “Knowledge,

clarity and guidance” (.34), which relates to managers providing clear guidance, through

clear communication and appropriate understanding of the roles. These results suggest that

certainly “Open, fair and consistent” is a strong predictor also of well-being and seems to be

the strongest predicting competency in the framework. However, as mentioned before, a

larger sample size would be desirable in order to draw more conclusive results regarding the

competencies analysis (Howitt & Cramer, 2005).

5.4 Implications for research

The results of this study suggest that the “Managing for sustainable employee

engagement” framework relates positively to higher levels of engagement and well-being. In

addition, results suggest that the effect of positive manager’s behaviours on levels of

engagement is stronger when higher levels of well-being are present. These results support

the theoretical basis of the framework and the suggestions made by Lewis and Donaldson-

37

Feilder (2012) regarding the importance of well-being in achieving sustainable engagement.

Therefore these results have several implications for future research.

First, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is a topic worth further study. As employee

engagement becomes more and more important for both researchers and practitioners it is

necessary to expand the body of knowledge on the processes that truly promote and maintain

employee engagement that is sustainable over time.

Second, it is necessary to produce further validation of the framework in both similar

and different industries in order to expand our understanding of the framework, in terms of,

whether some behaviours have a bigger influence in the levels of engagement and well-being

than others.

Third, it would be desirable for future studies to focus on longitudinal approaches in

order to obtain conclusive results regarding causality, and also study the levels of engagement

over time in the presence and absence of well-being.

Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) suggest that future research should focus on the

motivations behind employee engagement in order to understand these motivations, and

therefore understand engagement as a way employees feel, think and act, and not a mere

behaviour.

5.5 Implications for practice

This study has also several practical implications. First, it has important implications

for managers. Results show the importance of management style in determining the levels of

engagement and well-being of employees. Managers need to understand that their approach

to management will have an impact in the employees’ engagement and well-being levels and

therefore, as shown by research, in the organizations results.

Second, it is necessary to support managers to behave in ways that promote

engagement and well-being, and the “Managing for sustainable engagement” framework is

certainly a tool that can be used as a guideline for managers to identify which are desirable

behaviours and which should be avoided. Lewis and Donaldson-Feilder (2012) suggest that

learning and development interventions should be develop in order to support manager’s

38

skills development. Certainly, after further validation of the framework, it would be

beneficial, if not essential, to develop specific training programmes that managers can benefit

from.

Third, organizations need to acknowledge the key role of well-being in creating

sustainable employee engagement. It is essential for organizations to embed well-being on

any programmes or interventions aimed to support employee engagement in order to create

engagement that is sustainable over time. At this point, the empirical evidence supporting the

role of well-being as a predictor of positive organizational outcomes as well as its moderation

effect in the relationship between management style and employee engagement is to great to

be ignored.

Finally, as suggested by Saks (2006) employee engagement needs to be part of the

organizational and cultural strategy, involving not only managers but all levels of the

organization. Considering the evidence produced by research it seems sensible to suggest that

organizations need to consider employee sustainable engagement as a key element of the

overall strategy. Creating an organizational culture that promotes well-being and investing in

training, so managers can develop the necessary skills to lead an engaged workforce.

5.6 Study limitations

The results of this study need to be considered recognizing its limitations. First of all

it is a cross-sectional study which prevents its results from being conclusive about causality.

Even though the results are consistent with the existing literature regarding the influence of

manager behaviour’s on employee engagement and well-being, it is possible to argue that

engaged employees cause managers to behave in a more positive way, as some authors

consider that the relationship between managers and employees is a constant feedback loop

(van Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes, & Stride, 2004).

A second limitation is the potential common method bias, in this study there are

several potential causes of common method bias that need to be considered. The common

rater effect might be a potential cause since the predictors and the dependant variables are

rated by the same participants (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Transient

mood state (Podsakoff et al., 2003) is another possible source of bias since the study is cross-

39

sectional and uses self-report measurements that aim to rate managers. It seems reasonable to

consider that the ratings might be conditioned by the recent interactions between employee

and manager at the time of completing the self-report. Negatively worded items, like those

found in the “Managing for sustainable employee engagement” questionnaire can be a source

of bias according to Podsakoff et al. (2003), this bias can occur because respondents establish

a pattern of responding the questionnaire and fail to recognize that some items are reversed

coded.

Another limitation that needs to be considered is the sample used in this study. The

sample used is a self-selected sample, which implies that self-selection bias can occur

because the respondents were allowed to choose for themselves if they wanted to participate

in the survey (Grosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). This implies that the sample

might not represent the target population as those who chose to participate might have certain

characteristics that affect the results (Howitt & Cramer, 2005). Related to this issue is the low

response rate in this study which was approximately 5%. Low response rates in surveys are

also related to non random sampling because certain groups within the target population such

as less literate participants might choose not to participate affecting the results (Howitt &

Cramer, 2005). However, the low response rate does not necessarily mean that the sample is

not representative of the target population. Research shows that surveys with response rates

as low as 1% that aim for large samples pools are more representative that those with a 50%

response rate that aim for smaller samples (Krosnick, 1999).

Finally, it is also necessary to acknowledge that the sample size in this study is

adequate, although a larger sample size would have been desirable in order to obtain more

statistically significant results, especially in the individual competencies analysis (Howitt &

Cramer, 2005).

5.7 Discussion summary

Results evidence the relationship between management style and employee

engagement and well-being. Results also evidence a positive moderation effect in a way that

well-being moderates the relationship between management style and engagement. Results

are in line with previous research and support the concept sustainable engagement.

40

The study has several implications for future research. It is necessary to further

validate the framework in order to gain better understanding of the impact of the manager’s

behaviours. Longitudinal studies are recommended in order to be able to obtain conclusive

results regarding casualty, and also study the levels of engagement over time in the presence

and absence of well-being.

The practical implications discussed in this chapter include the need of managers to

acknowledge the impact they have in employees’ engagement and well-being levels, the need

to develop training programmes that help managers develop those skills, the need for

organizations to embed well-being in their engagement programmes and how employee

engagement needs to be part of the organization’s strategy and culture.

Finally, this chapter discussed the limitations of the study. Limitations included the

cross-sectional nature of the study, possible method bias caused by the raters and the negative

wording of some questionnaire items, and possible bias caused by the low response rate, and

the self-selected nature of the sample.

41

CHAPTER 6: Conclusion

This dissertation aimed to study the relationship between management style and

employee engagement and well-being, using the “Managing for sustainable employee

engagement” framework as a tool to measure management style. The research was based

upon the retail industry and sought to also serve as further validation for the framework.

The results of this research indicate that positive management behaviours are

positively related to higher levels of employee engagement and well-being. A moderation

effect was found. This moderation effect implies that the relationship between management

style and engagement is stronger in the presence of well-being. Further analysis of the data

revealed that in the presence of low levels of well-being the relationship between

management style and engagement was very weak, as high levels of positive manager’s

behaviours had none or little effect in the levels of employee engagement.

Exploratory analysis of the individual competencies of the framework revealed the

“open, fair and consistent” competency as the strongest predictor of both engagement and

well-being; however, due to the limitations of the study regarding the sample size it was not

possible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the lack of statistical significance of some of

the other competencies.

Although the study limitations mentioned in chapter 5 need to be considered before

generalizing the findings, it seems reasonable to suggest that the findings in this research

have made several contributions to the body of knowledge in the area of employee

engagement. While the importance of management style has been widely studied, the use of

the “managing for sustainable engagement” framework in this study serves a double purpose.

In the one hand it supplements the empirical evidence available regarding the importance

manager’s behaviours, in the other hand adds further validation to a relatively newly

developed framework that aims to support organizations in general and managers in

particular to identify the behaviours that will ultimately lead to higher levels of employee

engagement and well-being.

42

The positive moderation effect found in this research adds support to the concept of

sustainable engagement. In line with findings from other researchers (Wright & Copranzano,

2000; Robertson & Cooper, 2010; Robertson, Birch, & Cooper, 2012), these findings suggest

that promoting well-being is essential in order to maximize the potentially enhancing effect

that positive manager’s behaviours have in employee engagement levels.

To conclude, this study leaves some unanswered questions. How exactly will the

levels of engagement be affected overtime in the presence or absence of well-being? Which

behaviours have the most impact on engagement and well-being levels? In order to answer

this questions future longitudinal studies might be able to study the levels of engagement over

time, adding to our understanding of the topic. In addition, further validation of the

“Managing for sustainable employee engagement” framework will help to identify those

behaviours.

43

References

Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2010). Creating an engaged workforce. London: CIPD.

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2007). Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 12, 193-203.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress , 22, 187-200.

Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., & Robertson, S. (2005). Work Environments, Stress, and Productivity: An Examination Using ASSET. International Journal of Stress Management , 12, 409-423.

Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. Work & Stress , 18, 255-266.

Goldberg, D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, D., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli, M., Gureje, O., et al. (1997). The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine , 27, 191-197.

Gourlay, S., Alfes, K., Bull, E., Baron, A., Petrov, G., & Georgellis, Y. (2012). Emotional or Transactional engagement - Does it matter? London: CIPD.

Grosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires. American Psychologist , 59, 93-104.

Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 73, 78-91.

44

Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job. Work & Stress , 22, 242-256.

Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Can Work Engagement Be Discriminated from Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment? European Psychologist , 11, 119-127.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 268-279.

Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2005). Introduction to research methods in psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/. (2014, February 25). Retrieved July 31, 2014, from http://www.ons.gov.uk/: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_353899.pdf

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. The Academy of Management Journal , 33, 692-724.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology , 50, 537-567.

Kroth, M., & Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a Managerial Strategy. Human Resource Development Review , 8, 506-531.

Lewis, R., & Donaldson-Feilder, E. (2012). Managing for sustainable employee engagement. Developing a behavioural framework. London: CIPD.

Lewis, R., Donaldson-Feilder, E., & Tharani, T. (2011). Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement. London: CIPD.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. , 1, 3-30.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leither, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory—Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

45

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77,11-37.

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress , 22, 16-32.

Nielsen, K., Yarker, J. R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 46, 1236-1244.

Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88, 879-903.

Rayton, B. (2012). The evidence. Bath: University of Bath.

Rich, B. L., Lepine Jeffrey, A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal. , 53, 617-635.

Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 31, 324-336.

Robertson, I. T., Birch, A. J., & Cooper, c. L. (2012). Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance. Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 33, 224-232.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57, 1069-1081.

46

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21, 600-619.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. (2005). Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90, 1217-1227.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. A. (2003, December). Test manual for the UtrechtWork Engagement Scale. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/: http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 293-315 .

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 66, 701-716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior. , 30, 893-917.

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Baker, A. B. (2002b). Burnout and engagement in university students: Across national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology , 33,464-481.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies , 3, 71-92.

Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review. , 57, 173-203.

Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International , 14, 427-445.

47

Shuk, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9, 89-110.

Storm, K., & Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the UtrechtWork Engagement Scale in the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology , 29, 62-70.

van Dierendonck, D., Borrill, C., Haynes, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership Behavior and Subordinate Well-Being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 9, 165-175.

Wright, T. A., & Copranzano, R. (2000). Psychological Well-Being and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 5, 84-94.

Yarker, J., Lewis, R., Donaldson-Feilder, E., & Flaxman, P. (2007). Management competencies for preventing and reducing stress at work: Identifying and developing the management behaviours necessary to implement the HSE Management Standards. . Bootle : Health and Safety Executive.

48

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Management, engagement and well-being Questionnaire

Introduction Welcome to the management, engagement and well-being questionnaire. My name is Igor, I am working on a research for my MSc in Occupational Psychology. The purpose of this research is to study how management style affects the workers' engagement and well-being. All the information you provide is confidential and your individual responses will not be available to anyone apart from me. Neither your Manager nor the organization will have access to your individual responses. Your participation on this questionnaire is voluntary and you can withdraw at any time. If you would like to know more about this research please e-mail me on [email protected]. Thank you very much for participating in this research!

Personal information (For statistical purposes) Please answer all the questions

1) Age *

2) Gender *

0 Male

1 Female

3) Length of service in months *

4) Average hours worked per week *

My Manager Think about your current manager or a previous one within Pret. You need to have worked for at least 3 months with that manager. Every question refers to a specific behaviour, if you have not seen that behaviour in your manager please leave the question blank. Open, fair and consistent

5) Is overly critical of me and other team members

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

6) Blames me and other team members for decisions taken

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

7) Focuses on mistakes

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

8) Demonstrates a lack of faith in my capability

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

9) Tells me what to do rather than consulting me

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

10) Doesn’t allow decisions to be challenged

49

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

11) Uses humour and sarcasm inappropriately

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

12) Shows favouritism

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

13) Talks about team members behind their backs

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

14) Criticises me and other team members in front of others

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

15) Treats me with respect

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

16) Is unpredictable in mood

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

17) Acts calmly in pressured situations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

18) Passes on his/her stress to me

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

19) Is consistent in his/her approach to managing

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

20) Panics about deadlines

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

21) Seems to give more negative feedback than positive feedback

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

22) Imposes ‘my way is the only way’

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

My Manager Handling conflict and problems

23) Acts as a mediator in conflict situations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

24) Deals with squabbles before they turn into arguments

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

25) Deals objectively with employee conflicts

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

50

26) Deals with employee conflicts head on

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

27) Uses HR as a resource to help deal with problems

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

28) Seeks help from occupational health when necessary

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

29) Follows up conflicts after resolution

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

30) Supports employees through incidents of abuse

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

31) Doesn’t address bullying

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

32) Makes it clear he/she will take ultimate responsibility if things go wrong

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

My Manager Knowledge, clarity and guidance

33) Does not give advice when required

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

34) Deflects responsibility for problem-solving to senior management

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

35) Gives vague rather than specific advice

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

36) Does not clarify role requirements and expectations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

37) Is not clear of their own role requirements

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

38) Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the role I do

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

39) Does not communicate whether I am on track or not

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

40) Does not give adequate time for planning

51

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

41) Demonstrates a lack of understanding of processes and procedures

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

42) Does not follow up on action points

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

43) Is too busy to give me time

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

44) Is indecisive at decision-making

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

My Manager Building and sustaining relationships

45) Shows interest in my personal life

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

46) Checks I am feeling okay

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

47) Shows understanding of the pressures I am under

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

48) Provides regular opportunities to speak one-to-one

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

49) Brings in treats

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

50) Socialises with the team

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

51) Is willing to have a laugh at work

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

52) Takes an interest in my life outside work

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

53) Regularly asks ‘How are you?’

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

My Manager Supporting development

54) Takes time to discuss my career development

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

55) Actively supports my career development

52

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

56) Offers opportunities for career progression

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

57) Plans/arranges time off from day-to-day tasks for development opportunities

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

58) Arranges development activities

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

How do you feel? The following 17 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling, choose the “0” (zero) in the space after the statement. If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you feel it by choosing the number (from 1 to 6) that best describes how frequently you feel that way.

59) At my work, I feel bursting with energy *

0 Never

1 Almost never / A few times a year or less

2 Rarely / Once a month or less

3 Sometimes / A few times a month

4 Often / Once a week

5 Very often / A few times a week

6 Always / Every day

60) I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose *

0 Never







61) Time flies when I'm working *

0 Never







62) At my job, I feel strong and vigorous *

0 Never







63) I am enthusiastic about my job *

0 Never







64) When I am working, I forget everything else around me *

0 Never







65) My job inspires me *

53

0 Never







66) When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work *

0 Never







67) I feel happy when I am working intensely *

0 Never







68) I am proud of the work that I do *

0 Never







69) I am immersed in my work *

0 Never







70) I can continue working for very long periods at a time *

0 Never







71) To me, my job is challenging *

0 Never







72) I get carried away when I’m working *

0 Never







73) At my job, I am very resilient, mentally *

0 Never







74) It is difficult to detach myself from my job *

0 Never







54

75) At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well *

0 Never







How do you feel? We want to know how your health has been in general over the last few weeks. Please read the questions below and each of the four possible answers. Choose the response that best applies to you. Thank you for answering all the questions. Have you recently:

76) been able to concentrate on what you’re doing? *

0 Better than usual

1 Same as usual

2 Less than usual

3 Much less than usual

77) lost much sleep over worry? *

0 Not at all

1 No more than usual

2 Rather more than usual

3 Much more than usual

78) felt that you are playing a useful part in things? *

0 More so than usual

1 Same as usual

2 Less so than usual


79) felt capable of making decisions about things? *


1 Same as usual


3 Much less than usua

80) felt constantly under strain? *

0 Not at all




81) felt you couldn't overcome your difficulties? *

0 Not at all




82) been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities? *


1 Same as usual



83) been able to face up to your problems? *


1 Same as usual



84) been feeling unhappy or depressed? *

0 Not at all




85) been losing confidence in yourself? *

0 Not at all




86) been thinking of yourself as a worthless person? *

0 Not at all




87) been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered? *


1 Same as usual



managing for sustainable employee engagement in the retail industry - dissertation - igor velasco

Documents