BUS 6533 Module 3 Engagement Measurement Study Example

Measuring What the Barriers Cost: A UWES-9 Engagement Study Across 41 Grocery Stores

Student Name

American College of Education

BUS6533: Advancing Access and Engagement in Organizations

Module 3 Assignment

Instructor Name

August 6, 2029

Introduction

The previous paper showed that three groups at Prairie Fresh Markets, the composite 41-store chain studied in this course, advance far less often than their numbers would suggest: associates on reduced hours, those on the overnight crew and those whose first language is Spanish. If engagement depends on access to job resources such as development and supervisor support, these groups should report lower engagement, and the difference should shrink once access is taken into account. This paper reports a survey designed to test those expectations with a validated instrument. It explains the choice of measure, the sampling and administration plan, the analysis and the results, and it sets out what the findings can and cannot show.

Research Questions

Three questions guided the study. First, does work engagement differ between full-time and part-time associates, between day and overnight workers and between English and Spanish speakers? Second, do these groups differ in perceived access to development opportunities and supervisor support? Third, if engagement differs, how much of the difference is accounted for by those two resources? The questions follow the job demands-resources model reviewed in the first module, which predicts that resources drive engagement.

Choosing the Instrument

The chain's existing pulse survey uses eight vendor items that mix satisfaction, intent to stay and engagement, so it cannot separate engagement from related attitudes. The study instead used the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, a shortened version that Schaufeli et al. (2006) validated across ten countries, finding that its three subscales were closely related and that the nine items could be used as a single engagement score. The short form suited a busy retail setting, and an authorized Spanish version was available. Two job resource scales were added: four items on access to development, adapted from published scales, and four on supervisor support, both answered on seven-point agreement scales.

Reaching Every Group

A survey that reaches mainly full-time day staff would understate the very gaps under study. The survey was therefore offered on paper and by phone link, in English and Spanish, during paid time at shift meetings across all three shifts. Store managers were asked to schedule ten paid minutes for each associate, including part-time and overnight staff, over two weeks. Taking part was optional and no names were collected; no figure is shown for any group with fewer than 20 replies. Of about 2,900 hourly employees, 1,846 responded, a rate of 64 percent, with response rates by group ranging from 57 percent for overnight staff to 69 percent for full-time day staff.

Guarding Against Bias

Because engagement and job resources were measured on the same survey at the same time, relationships between them could be inflated by common method variance. Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommended procedural remedies such as protecting anonymity, separating predictor and outcome items and varying response formats. The survey placed the resource items before the engagement items with a short section of unrelated demographic questions between them, assured anonymity and used different response anchors. These steps reduce but do not remove the risk, which the paper acknowledges in its interpretation.

Reliability

Internal consistency was acceptable for all scales. Cronbach's alpha was .91 for the engagement scale in English and .89 in Spanish, .84 for access to development and .88 for supervisor support. These values are in line with those typically reported for the instruments and suggest the scales measured consistently in both languages, although formal tests of measurement equivalence across languages, which would require larger subsamples, were not conducted.

Results: Engagement by Group

On the seven-point engagement scale, full-time associates averaged 4.6 and part-time associates 4.1. Day workers averaged 4.5 and overnight workers 3.9. English speakers averaged 4.4 and Spanish speakers 4.0. Each difference was statistically significant and of small to moderate size. The pattern matches the access gaps found in the previous paper: the groups with narrower paths to advancement also reported lower engagement.

Results: Access to Resources

The same groups reported less access to resources. Part-time associates scored 3.4 on access to development compared with 4.5 for full-time associates, overnight workers 3.2 compared with 4.3 for day workers and Spanish speakers 3.5 compared with 4.2 for English speakers. Differences in supervisor support were smaller but in the same direction, largest for overnight workers, who often see their store manager only at shift changes.

Results: Accounting for the Gap

A regression predicted engagement from work arrangement, shift, language, tenure and the two resource scales. Before the resource scales were added, the three group variables together explained 6 percent of the variance in engagement. After the resource scales were added, the model explained 31 percent, and the coefficients for part-time status, overnight shift and Spanish language fell by between 55 and 70 percent. Access to development was the stronger predictor. These results are consistent with the expectation that unequal access to resources accounts for much of the engagement gap, although they do not establish cause.

What the Results Mean for Managers

For store managers, the results translate into concrete signals. An overnight crew with low engagement scores is not necessarily a crew that cares less; it may be a crew that rarely sees a manager and has never been offered the leadership course. A part-time associate who seems uninterested in growth may never have been told that growth is possible on a reduced schedule. Presenting results this way, at store meetings and in manager training, can shift attention from fixing attitudes to widening access.

Ethics of Sharing the Results

The results also raise questions about how they are shared. Reporting lower engagement for Spanish speakers or overnight workers could reinforce stereotypes if presented without the access findings that explain it. The study team therefore agreed with the chain's leaders that group results would always be presented together with the resource results and the barrier analysis, and that no store-level results for small groups would be released. Associates will receive a summary in both languages describing what was found and what the chain plans to do.

Interpreting the Findings

The findings fit the job demands-resources model and the meta-analytic evidence linking engagement to performance reviewed earlier, including Christian et al. (2011). They suggest that the chain's engagement problem among some groups is substantially an access problem, rooted in the practices identified in the previous paper rather than in those employees' attitudes. Bakker and Demerouti (2007) argued that resources become most important when demands are high, and overnight work, with its physical demands and isolation, fits that description, which may explain why the gap was largest there.

Limitations

Because the survey was taken at one point in time, it cannot establish that access produces engagement; engaged employees might also seek out or perceive more opportunity. Common method variance may inflate relationships despite the safeguards. Nonresponse was higher among overnight workers, whose actual engagement may differ from respondents'. And measurement equivalence across languages was assumed rather than tested. A follow-up survey after the interventions planned in the next module would provide stronger evidence.

Conclusion

Using the nine-item Utrecht scale in two languages and a survey designed to reach every shift, the study found lower engagement among part-time, overnight and Spanish-speaking associates, the same groups with narrower paths to advancement. These groups also reported less access to development and supervisor support, and those resources accounted for much of the engagement gap. Interpreted cautiously, the findings point to access as a lever for engagement, which the next module will address through specific interventions.

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

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(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471