The Effect of Access to Training and Development Opportunities,on Rates of Work Engagement,Within the U.S. Federal Workforce

Abstract

This study aims to identify how the access to training and development opportunities influence rates of work engagement in the U.S. federal workforce. Organizations with high rates of work engagement tend to be happier and more efficient than those with lower rates of work engagement. Studies have evidenced that organizational and managerial characteristics can promote work engagement among employees. Through the lens of high-performance work systems and the job demands-resource theory, access to training and development is used as both a high-performance work practice and a job resource to explore its effect on work engagement. Data were drawn from the 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, a nationally representative sample of U.S. federal employees. By employing ordinary least squares analyses, this study shows that there is a positive correlation between having access to training and development opportunities and higher rates of work engagement across the federal workforce.

Keywords

federal government training work engagement human resources job resources

Introduction

The federal workforce deals with an array of unique challenges and demands that has an impact on its employees. For example, many in the public view the federal government as wasteful and ineffective, yet simultaneously rely on the needed services and programs that it administers and provides. Similarly, the failures of the federal workforce are consistently displayed as evidence that the government makes the country worse off despite the many programs that are successful (Cohen et al., 2013). Likewise, the federal workforce is under increased pressure to do more with less, while receiving pay and promotions that many are dissatisfied with (Pitts et al., 2011; Yang & Kassekert, 2010). This continuous assault on the federal government, along with budget cuts, government shutdowns, furloughs, hiring and pay freezes, combined with policies to cut down on “federal waste” have created serious gaps: the federal workforce is aging, and younger generations are having to compete with older and more experienced workers (even for entry-level jobs), which has ultimately eroded the job security and the desirability of working in the federal workforce. These realities have created a work environment untenable for many public servants and have resulted in younger employees choosing to work elsewhere (Naylor, 2018; Paquette, 2019; Rein, 2014).

Unfortunately, federal managers have little recourse available to ameliorate these realities, since constraints are imposed on human resource (HR) policy that could potentially attract new recruits (Jahn et al., 2019; Meier & O’Toole, 2011; Yang & Kassekert, 2010). These factors have largely negatively affected federal employees’ behavior, attitudes, and performance. Specifically, this type of work environment produces low rates of engagement, which has led to the federal workforce losing high-quality employees who they are then unable to replace (Yang & Kassekert, 2010).

For decades, scholars have studied work engagement and its effect on the workforce at large. Employees who have high levels of work engagement tend to have higher rates of job satisfaction, motivation, and job performance (Bakker, 2015). Despite the increased attention surrounding work engagement, there are few studies that explore work engagement in the public sector context (Borst, 2018; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013), with even fewer examining the federal workforce. Of the public sector-specific studies conducted on work engagement, they suggest that employees in the public sector have lower rates of work engagement compared with their contemporaries in the private sector, which has engendered initiatives to help increase the rates of engagement across the government (Van den Broeck et al., 2017).

Many recognize that job characteristics and work environment promote or reduce rates of work engagement (Borst, 2018) and have conceptualized different ways to think about how job characteristics may promote work engagement and other organizational outcomes (Bakker, 2015; Selden & Sowa, 2015). Of the many frameworks theorized, this article uses a combination of two as a framing device. The first is high-performance work systems (HPWS). This framework explores how the strategic implementation of individual effective high-performance work practices (HPWPs) will cultivate a motivated and effective workforce (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Kwon et al., 2010; Mostafa et al., 2015; Selden & Sowa, 2015). Despite significant evidence linking HPWS with positive outcomes, how HPWPs influence employee behavior and attitudes remains unclear (Kehoe & Wright, 2013).

The second framework explored is the Job Demands-Resource (JD-R) theory, which also provides a framework on how job characteristics influence employee behavior and organizational outcomes. JD-R posits that any job has both inherent demands and resources, which ultimately results in employee outcomes (positive or negative) with burnout and engagement as mediators. Job demands are considered the stressors in a given work environment and are positively related to burnout. Job resources, on the other hand, are considered all of the factors found within an organization that help employees achieve their goals and reduce stress. Job resources are positively related to work engagement and have been shown effective at mitigating burnout (Bakker, 2015; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009).

This article uses a combination of both the HPWS framework and the JD-R Theory as a framing device to better think on how a job characteristic can be an HPWP (that fits into a broader HPWS) and can act as a job resource to promote work engagement. The relationship between an individual HPWP on work engagement could better clarify how HPWPs influence employee behavior through the lens of the JD-R Theory. Specifically, an HPWP could also act as a job resource, which has been shown to promote work engagement. This article specifically explores how the access to training and development opportunities may promote work engagement.

There is a dearth of research that explores the links between access to training and development opportunities with rates of work engagement. Since organizations achieve their missions through the people they employ, managers may improve organizational efficiency and efficacy by cultivating both the technical and soft skill competencies among their employees (U.S. Government Accountability Office [USGAO], 2015). Studies have linked training to both positive employee and organizational work outcomes, which include increased rates of positive self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and job performance (Ross et al., 2011; White & Cadiz, 2013).

How employees perceive their job duties and work environment can affect their attitudes and behavior, which has implications at both the individual and organizational levels (Borst, 2018; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Jin et al., 2019). Of the perceptual data used in studies to determine the efficacy of human resource management (HRM), there is limited evidence that the perception of having access to training and developmental opportunities are related to organizational outcomes: increased task performance, lower turnover intention, and organizational citizen behavior (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2008). Ultimately, the aforementioned low rates of work engagement could potentially be mitigated by increased training and development opportunities for employees.

Although academics and the federal government both explore the ways in which work engagement influences organizational outcomes, there has been little collaboration between both realms to create a scientifically validated standardized instrument to collect data on the federal workforce. The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) does collect data on the federal workforce through an annual self-reporting survey: the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), though many have criticized this survey instrument as being inherently flawed (Fernandez et al., 2015; Goldenkoff, 2015). Despite the criticism it has received, the FEVS is the only survey that collects annual data on the federal workforce, which is released to the public. Moreover, the FEVS measures a whole host of workforce characteristics, which includes both employees satisfaction with their training and their engagement. Scholars, on the other hand, have constructed different survey instruments to collect work engagement among employees; the most validated survey instrument used in the academic literature to collect engagement data is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).

An opportunity exists to structure FEVS survey items to better match the UWES to better measure work engagement within the federal workforce. The first objective of this article is to better integrate the academic theories of work engagement with the in-practice definitions and measures of work engagement measured by OPM through the FEVS. By using empirical evidence from academia, the federal government could improve data collection methods to more accurately measure employee and organizational outcomes and develop interventions that boost employee engagement across agencies (Byrne et al., 2017; Resh, 2021). The second objective of this article is to begin filling the gap in the literature that studies work engagement within the public sector context and more specifically in the U.S. federal government.

The third and last objective of this article is to determine whether federal employees’ perception of having access to training and development opportunities increases rates of work engagement and to determine whether differences exist between different demographic groups. Ideally, if this perception of having access to training is correlated with higher levels of work engagement then the funding of targeted trainings and development opportunities for federal employees could be one possible solution to cultivating a happier and more engaged federal workforce.

Literature Review

Work Engagement Theory

For decades, scholars have studied work engagement and its effect on the workforce at large. Through qualitative research, Kahn (1990, 1992); was the first to theorize about the concept of engagement, who defined engagement as the “harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). More recently, work engagement has been conceptualized as a three-component model, defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy, motivation, mental resilience, perseverance, and sustained effort on the job. Dedication is characterized by employees who are actively involved and enthusiastic, taking pride, being inspired, and challenged by their work. Finally, absorption is characterized by employees who are engrossed in their work, with time feeling to pass by quickly. Feelings of difficulty to disengage with one’s work is another symptom of the absorption dimension (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002).

High levels of work engagement are correlated with positive outcomes at both the individual and organizational levels. For example, work engagement is correlated to lower rates of absenteeism (Shantz & Alfes, 2015), better health, lower rates of depression, and higher rates of life satisfaction and happiness (Bakker, 2015; Demerouti, Bakker, de Jonge, et al., 2001; Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008a). Likewise, at the organizational level, work engagement is correlated to higher rates of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, increased initiative, learning motivation (Sonnentag, 2003), extra-role behavior, job performance (Salanova et al., 2003), customer service satisfaction, customer loyalty (Salanova et al., 2005), financial returns to the organization, and lower rates of turnover intention (Harter et al., 2002; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009b).

Work engagement in the public sector

Research suggests that public sector employees are more intrinsically motivated than their private sector counterparts (Christensen et al., 2017). Specifically, some suggest that economic rewards are more highly valued by those in the private sector than employees in the public sector, who seem to be more motivated by a sense of mission (Kim, 2018; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Employees in the public sector often choose to have an impact on public affairs (Borst, 2018; Buelens & Van den Broeck, 2007), deliver needed services to the public, and are more motivated to serve the community at large (Borst, 2018; Perry & Wise, 1990). Likewise, employees in the public sector often make personal sacrifices to fulfill their internal drive to serve (Kim, 2018).

Not only are public sector employees motivated differently, there are also specific public sector drivers of satisfaction and engagement. They have been identified as teamwork, work/life balance, satisfactory training and development, support for diversity, family-friendly culture, performance based rewards, employee-mission match (or ‘“fit’), employee voice, supervisor support, learning opportunities, increasing employees” challenges, and investing in job resources (Banks, 2006; Jin & McDonald, 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2017; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Despite this evidenced sector-specific motivation and drivers of engagement and satisfaction, employees in the public sector tend to have one of the lowest scores on work engagement (Van den Broeck et al., 2017). A report conducted by the United States Merit Systems Protection Board found that roughly only one third of federal employees are fully engaged, with the rest only being somewhat engaged or less (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2008). These findings are concerning and this lack of work engagement could potentially be mitigated by managers employing the aforementioned sector-specific drivers to engage their employees across the federal workforce.

Uncertainty around the construct of engagement

Although work engagement has become a popular subject in scholastic literature, there is currently little consensus on what work engagement actually is, with both scholars and practitioners defining and measuring it in different ways (Memon et al., 2016). First, OPM and academics define engagement differently (Byrne et al., 2017). Compared with the definitions proposed by both Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli et al. (2001) of engagement, OPM defines engagement as “an employee’s sense of purpose that is evident in their display of dedication, persistence and effort in their work or overall attachment to their organization and its mission” (USOPM, 2016a). OPM posits that the success of individual agencies determines the success of the government as a whole. If agencies are able to cultivate a work environment that engages employees and allows them to excel personally and professionally, then that agency will succeed in fulfilling its mission (USOPM, 2016b).

It is no surprise that a disparity exists between academia’s and the government’s definitions of engagement; their objectives are different. Despite these inconsistencies, both attempt to discover the antecedents and outcomes of engagement (Byrne et al., 2017) and focus on the idea that engaged employees are more connected to their work, team, and organization, which results in better overall performance (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2008). By looking at work engagement rates across the federal workforce, we can deduce that employees either perceive they have the job resources necessary to overcome the challenges they face in their day-to-day or they do not.

Practitioners and academics alike both recognize that work engagement does not manifest at random and that certain job characteristics promote or reduce rates of work engagement. For example, in the public sector, budget constraints, hiring freezes, pay freezes, and public mistrust have impeded employees from being engaged (Partnership for Public Service, 2018). Many have developed frameworks comprised of managerial strategies to try to better understand what job characteristics influence organizational outcomes, including work engagement. This article explores two such frameworks and uses them as a framing device for how training and development may be integrated into them: HPWS and the JD-R.

High-Performance Work Systems

HPWS is one theoretical framework that explores the links between HR practices and organizational outcomes. This framework is based on the belief that if an organization implements effective HR practices, it will produce a workforce that is comprised of skilled, motivated, and committed employees who are both effective and efficient (Kwon et al., 2010). HPWSs are comprised of interrelated HR practices (HPWPs) that are used to cultivate employees’ talents and skills and ultimately apply their abilities to their work, which promotes positive organizational outcomes such as motivation, commitment, and retention (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Mostafa et al., 2015; Selden & Sowa, 2015). The efficacy of a HPWS increases when multiple HPWPs are administered simultaneously in bundles (Selden & Sowa, 2015). Some HPWPs include efficient recruitment and selection, enhanced training and development, and competitive compensation and incentives (Jensen et al., 2013; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Mostafa et al., 2015; Selden & Sowa, 2015). Although HPWS affirms that a combination of workplace practices create the environment for positive outcomes, there is value to deconstruct the system to focus on a single practice and how that practice may fit into a system as whole; training and development opportunities may be one such HPWP that is explored further.

Training as an HPWP

HRM practices can encourage employees to work both harder and smarter, which can ultimately influence employee motivation (Huselid, 1995). One-way organizations can cultivate their human capital and enhance job portfolios is by providing ongoing training and developmental opportunities for employees to promote personal and professional growth (Bakker, 2017; Beltran-Martin et al., 2008). Organizations operate through the people they employ, whose careers are built upon knowledge and expertise. Often, work in the modern-day organization necessitates employees to have both the technical and soft skills to adequately fulfill their duties. Providing both formal and informal training can further cultivate an employee’s development. Examples of these types of training can include coaching, mentoring, skills training, on-the-job experience, and management development (Huselid, 1995).

Training and development is considered a core component of HPWS (Batt, 2002; Beltran-Martin et al., 2008; Huselid, 1995; Jensen et al., 2013; Kwon et al., 2010). Maurer (2001) defines developmental opportunities in the workplace as the possibility to advance skills and knowledge, to develop competencies, and obtain access to training and education in the organization. By investing in training and development, managers provide employees with the opportunity to gain new skills, knowledge, and abilities, which leads to higher levels of employee competence, performance, motivation, and effectiveness (Barbier et al., 2013; Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2008; Yang & Kassekert, 2010).

Training and development opportunities allow employees to grow professionally and personally, which prepares employees for functional flexibility to combat knowledge obsolescence and allows employees to get ahead of the learning curve (Beltran-Martin et al., 2008). Likewise, training as an HPWP promotes ongoing learning among employees, which results in the increased attainment of skills and abilities, along with increased problem-solving abilities (Batt, 2002; Beltran-Martin et al., 2008; Youndt & Snell, 2004). Moreover, when organizations invest in training and development opportunities, it fosters a supportive environment (Sun et al., 2007) while simultaneously providing opportunities to reinforce desired attitudes and behaviors (Mostafa et al., 2015).

Much of the literature revolving around HRM demonstrates that there is a relationship between HPWS and organizational outcomes; however, there is still uncertainty on how HPWS affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Mostafa et al., 2015). Despite significant evidence linking HPWS with positive outcomes, how HPWP influence employee behavior and attitudes remains unclear (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). The merging of the HPWS framework with the JD-R theory could potentially help fill this particular gap in the literature.

Job Demands-Resource Theory

The JD-R theory is considered the “gold standard” framework that explores the relationship between work characteristics and both employee and organizational outcomes, especially burnout and work engagement (Taris et al., 2017). JD-R posits that all jobs have both inherent demands and resources, which ultimately results in employee outcomes (positive or negative), with burnout and engagement as mediators (Bakker, 2015; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009).

Job demands are considered all of the stressors that one may experience within their work life. Examples of job demands include increased workloads, a wider array of job responsibilities, decreased job security, and role ambiguity (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). These demands, if not mitigated, can create a host of negative individual and organizational outcomes (Bakker et al., 2014). Job resources, on the other hand, can be anything that an employee uses to aid them in their work. Evidenced job include autonomy, social support, supervisory coaching, and performance feedback (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009a).

Many of the findings suggest that a work environment with high demands, coupled with low availability of job resources, is the most detrimental to employee well-being (Jong & Ford, 2016). Specifically, it is in these high demand/low resource situations where employees tend to have the lowest rates of engagement. Conversely, it has been established that job resources are positively correlated with work engagement and that having access to a robust suite of job resources is effective at mitigating employee burnout (Bakker et al., 2007). Job resources linked to work engagement include job safety, financial rewards, career opportunities (Van den Broeck et al., 2008), fairness (Viotti et al., 2017), and task significance (Bakker, 2015).

JD-R theory has mostly been studied in the context of the private sector, rather than the public sector; very few samples from the public sector have been conducted. Private sector theory is not always appropriate for the public sector since this work does not consider the variety of characteristics that make the public sector unique (Alford & Greve, 2017). However, JD-R theory could be applicable to the public sector because it is both versatile and parsimonious. By dividing job characteristics into two categories, it is able to cut across all sectors and types of work; each job will have its own specific demands and resources (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009).

Training and development as a job resource

Although training and development is considered a job resource in the JD-R model (Barbier et al., 2013; Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009), relatively few studies examine whether having access to training and developmental opportunities buffer the impact of job demands and increase rates of work engagement, especially on a sample from the federal workforce. Studies have linked training to work outcomes and have shown its positive effects on employees. These outcomes include increased rates of positive efficacy, job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational performance (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013; Ross et al., 2011; White & Cadiz, 2013). Likewise, access to training, as a job resource, positively correlates with work engagement and negatively correlates with burnout and turnover (Barbier et al., 2013; Curry et al., 2005; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). For example, Xanthopoulou et al. (2009a) conducted a two-wave longitudinal study and found that opportunities for development predicted higher levels of future work engagement among employees.

These studies demonstrate that there is either a positive relationship between training and positive outcomes or that employees perceive that the trainings offered positively affect their job and workplace. These measured outcomes include increased rates of job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and lower rates of burnout and turnover among the studied samples. Specifically, two studies linked training to reduced burnout and rates of turnover among participants (Lizano & Mor Barak, 2015; White & Cadiz, 2013); one study found that training slightly reduced rates of turnover (Curry et al., 2005); two studies linked training to increased rates of positive self-efficacy (Ross et al., 2011; Smith & Day, 2015); and one study linked training to better performance in ability (Evans et al., 2009).

Training in the federal government

Federal agencies are continually trying to decide how to best manage their workforce. The USGAO (2004) identified the ability to effectively obtain, cultivate, and retain talented employees as a major challenge the federal government is facing. If these HR challenges are not addressed, it could seriously undermine agency effectiveness (USGAO, 2004). In various reports, the GAO identified training and development as a critical piece to addressing this challenge and explicitly states that agencies could do more to prioritize training, especially due to resource constraints (USGAO, 2019) and encourages more agency investment in providing training and developmental opportunities to the federal workforce (USGAO, 2004). The GAO has evidenced that this agency investment can ultimately yield positive organizational outcomes. In their analysis, they found that training and career development were one of the strongest drivers of work engagement across the entire government (USGAO, 2016). Moreover, they discovered, that when controlling for other factors, those who believed they had training and development opportunities had an engagement score that was approximately 15 percentage points higher than someone who did not (USGAO, 2016).

Outside of a few mandated trainings, required by OPM, there are no technical trainings that are uniformly offered (or required) to all federal employees. However, two case studies conducted by the GAO provide insight into how training and development opportunities produce positive organizational outcomes in the federal workforce. First, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) requires each employee to create an individual development plan. For those employees who are new to credit union examining, the NCUA administers an 18-month training program, comprised of both classroom and practical work. NCUA leadership frequently assesses training (both formal and informal) for entry-level employees to identify potential improvement areas to enhance the curriculum and instruction. This process ultimately yielded a more engaged workforce, with improved individual and organizational performance (USGAO, 2016).

Second, the Education’s Office of General Counsel created a Workforce Improvement Team based on discussions with employees on their FEVS results (USGAO, 2016). This discussion resulted in the development and implementation of an enhanced onboarding process for new hires, which included a mentoring program, and additional training and professional development opportunities. The Workforce Improvement Team’s effort has resulted in increased levels of work engagement, feelings of employee ownership, communication, and organizational performance (USGAO, 2016). These GAO case study agencies demonstrate that training is related to positive organizational outcomes within the federal workforce.

Access to training has been shown to influence employees’ perception of being valued and influences positive organizational outcomes like increased task performance, job satisfaction, and organizational citizen behavior (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2008; Lee & Bruvold, 2003; Schmidt, 2007). Moreover, studies have related employee perception of training to rates of work engagement and retention (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2008; Lee & Bruvold, 2003; Saks, 2006). Conversely, employees who perceive that they are not provided with adequate training opportunities may choose to turnover (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999).

Despite this empirical evidence, organizations in the public sector have historically diminished the value of employee training and development opportunities, which tend to be either reduced or cut altogether due to limited finances or budget cuts. Even now, training and development opportunities are habitually neglected, despite the well-documented benefits that they provide (Daley, 2012). An analysis of the perception of training and development among the federal workforce was conducted between 1979 and 2002, on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree). The average scores of the perception of training and development from both years remained relatively unchanged: 3.43 in 1979 and 3.54 in 2002 (Lee et al., 2006). The JD-R theory may provide insight into how managers may use the access to training and development as a way to better engage employees to help mitigate the aforementioned workforce gaps identified within the federal workforce.

This article uses a combination of the HPWS framework with additional inputs from the JD-R model as a guiding framework to determine if the perception of having access to training and development opportunities influences work engagement among the federal workforce. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The perception of having access to training and development opportunities is positively related to work engagement in the federal workforce.

Research Design and Methodology

Data

Currently, there is no existing-academic data set that collects work engagement data on the federal workforce; however, the U.S. government does collect and publish annual data on its employees, through the OPM (Jennings & Nagel, 2018). Of the many data collected by OPM, this paper uses the FEVS as its data set. The FEVS is a self-reporting survey administered to a sample of the federal workforce each year, with the intended purpose of gauging employees’ perceptions on their work environment and associated positive outcomes (Byrne et al., 2017). Moreover, these annual data are meant to provide understanding on what specific inputs that government management can control that either inhibits or cultivates these qualities.

Independent variable: the perception of access to training and development

Four specific items from the FEVS’s Talent Management Index are used to operationalize the perceived access to training and development opportunities. These questions ask federal employees if their training needs are assessed, if they perceive that their agency and supervisors support skill development, and if they are satisfied with the training offered at their agency (USOPM, 2017b). Given the data available, these measures provide the best approximation to measuring perceived access to training and development opportunities. Principal factor analysis was used to load the respective survey items into the desired construct for training and development opportunities. Table 1 shows the items, factor loadings, and the reliability (Cronbach’s α) of the measure for the independent variable.

Table 1.

The FEVS Survey Items for the Perception of Access to Training and Development Opportunities.

Independent variable	FEVS questions	Cronbach’s alpha analysis
Perception of having access to training and development opportunities.	I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization.
	My training needs are assessed.	0.87
	Supervisors in my work unit support employee development.
	How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job?

Note. FEVS = Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.

Dependent variable: Work engagement

Beginning in 2010, OPM developed an Employee Engagement Index (EEI) within the FEVS. The EEI is measured using 15 of the overall 84 items, which are divided into three categories: Leaders Lead, Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experiences (USOPM, 2017b). This instrument was designed to measure the engagement of the federal workforce between years.

Although OPM’s efforts to measure and track rates of work engagement across the federal workforce, the items used in the survey do not actually measure work engagement as a construct; rather, the EEI instead measures the antecedents of engagement (Byrne et al., 2017). Despite the EEI measuring the drivers of engagement and not the construct of engagement, Hameduddin and Fernandez (2019) conducted an analysis on the EEI, which revealed that the EEI was a valid measure of the conceptualization of engagement. Furthermore, their analysis showed that OPM’s selected antecedents of engagement are highly reliable. Based on confirmatory factor analysis, they found that EEI does indeed measure the antecedents of engagement and they are positively related to performance (Hameduddin & Fernandez, 2019).

To scientifically measure work engagement, Schaufeli developed the UWES. The UWES is a self-reporting questionnaire that measures the three dimensions of work engagement through three subscales (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Participants are asked to score themselves on a series of statements that reflect the three dimensions of work engagement: vigor (six statements), dedication (five statements), and absorption (six statements). Examples are “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor); “I am proud on the work that I do” (dedication); “I feel happy when I am working intensely” (absorption). The respondents are then asked to rank the statements on a scale from one to five. The resulting score determines how engaged participants are with their work, which allows researchers to operationalize and quantify levels of work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).

Since academics and practitioners are using different instruments (with different survey items) to measure work engagement, the survey items from the FEVS were cross-walked with the UWES to better match the practitioner EEI to the academic construct of work engagement. Table 2 shows which survey items were selected that best match the spirit of the UWES. Based on the Cronbach’s alpha score shown in Table 3, these survey items fit together and are effective at measuring the construct of work engagement.

Table 2.

Academic and Practitioner Survey Item Cross-Walk.

UWES	FEVS
Vigor
At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well.	In my organization, senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.	When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done.
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
I can continue working for very long periods at a time.
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.
At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
Dedication
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.	I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.
I am enthusiastic about my job.	My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.
My job inspires me.	I like the kind of work I do.
I am proud on the work that I do.	The work I do is important.
To me, my job is challenging.	I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
Absorption
Time flies when I’m working.	Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
When I am working, I forget everything else around me.	I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better.
I feel happy when I am working intensely.	I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.
I am immersed in my work.
I get carried away when I’m working.
It is difficult to detach myself from my job

Note. UWES = Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; FEVS = Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.

Table 3.

The FEVS survey items for Work Engagement.

Dependent variable	FEVS questions	Cronbach’s alpha analysis
	In my organization, senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.
	When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done.
	I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.
Work engagement	My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.	0.88
	I like the kind of work I do.
	The work I do is important.
	I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
	Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
	I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better.
	I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.

Note. FEVS = Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.

Although not a perfect fit, the survey items selected from the FEVS are the best measures available to assess the academic construct of work engagement. No other article was found that attempted to match FEVS survey items with the UWES, to measure the scholarly construct of work engagement. This effort makes this study unique by attempting to actually measure work engagement rather than just the drivers of engagement in the federal workforce.

The survey items selected to measure work engagement for this article are a combination of questions and statements that ask respondents their perception of leadership and their organization, employees’ work ethic and drive, and job satisfaction (USOPM, 2017a). Principal factor analysis was employed to load the different survey items to create a single measurable construct. Table 3 shows the items, factor loadings, and the reliability (Cronbach’s α) of the measure for the dependent variable. Based on prior studies, since the three dimensions of engagement are highly correlated, the subscales of vigor, dedication, and absorption were combined into a combined measure of work engagement. A high score denotes high engagement and vice versa (Halbesleben et al., 2009; Hameduddin & Fernandez, 2019).

Principal factor analysis was also used to load the respective survey items into each desired construct: training, supervisory support, and employee cooperation. This study has one categorical variable: tenure. The tenure variable was transformed into a series of binary variables before running regression analyses. The descriptive statistics for each variable used in this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics.

Variable	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Training	0	0.916	–2.456	1.328
Work engagement	0	0.953	–4.082	1.305
Supervisory support	0	0.917	–2.826	0.932
Employee cooperation	3.956	1.014	1	5
Pay satisfaction	3.775	1.087	1	5
Tenure 1–10 years	0.429	0.495	0	1
Tenure 11–20 years	0.272	0.445	0	1
Tenure 20+ years	0.299	0.458	0	1
Supervisor	1.189	0.391	0	1
Racial minority	0.316	0.465	0	1
Female	0.475	0.499	0	1

Sample

The FEVS 2017 data were requested from the OPM’s website (www.fedview.opm.gov) and a downloadable data set of the 486,105 participants’ responses was received. Between May 2, 2017 and June 22, 2017, the FEVS sampled 1,068,151 federal employees from across 80 departments in the federal government (USOPM, 2017b). From this sample, only 486,107 responded to the survey, which resulted in a 45.5% response rate.

Method

Bivariate regression model

Bivariate regression was first used to analyze the relationship between the perception of having access to training and development opportunities on work engagement.

{Engagement}_{a i} = α_{i} + β_{1} {Training}_{a i} + ε_{i}

The variable work engagement represents to what extent an employee is dedicated, vigorous, and absorbed in their work. Training is represented by what extent an employee perceives they have access to training and development opportunities. The “a” and “i” subscripts in the presented regression equations denote observations at the agency level and at the individual level.

Multiple regression model

Multiple OLS regression was next used to analyze the relationship between training and development opportunities on work engagement, while controlling for a variety of potential confounding variables. Other job resources that could potentially cause omitted variable bias were controlled for.

These potentially confounding variables include employee pay satisfaction, supervisory support, and employee cooperation, all of which have been correlated to increased levels of engagement. Likewise, supervisory status was controlled for, since prior studies have evidenced that supervisors are more invested in their jobs (Caillier, 2012). Employee tenure was also controlled for, since it can be assumed that those who have more tenure have different characteristics than their less tenured counterparts. For example, those with more tenure may have higher investment in their position and have accrued more benefits than employees who have less tenure.

The following demographic variables were controlled for: females and racial minorities. These items are controlled for because of the perceived and real discrimination that exists against minorities and women. This may result in unequal access to training and developmental opportunities for people with different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. For example, there may be bias from leaders which could relegate minorities and women to positions that do not require training or preclude these groups of people from receiving training.

\begin{array}{l} {Engagement}_{a i} = α_{i} + β_{1} {Training}_{a i} + β_{2} {Supervisory Status}_{a i} \\ + β_{3} {Employee Cooperation}_{a i} + β_{4} {Pay Satisfaction}_{a i} \\ + β_{5} {Female}_{a i} + β_{6} {Racial Minority}_{a i} \\ + β_{7} Tenure {(> 10 y e a r s)}_{a i} + β_{8} Tenure {(11 - 20 years)}_{a i} + ε i \end{array}

The control variable supervisory status is defined by to what extent employees perceive that their supervisors support the work that they do; employee cooperation is defined by to what extent employees perceive that they and their colleagues work well together; pay satisfaction is represented by to what extent employees are satisfied with their pay; female is represented through the binary response of those who identify as a female; racial minority is represented by the binary response of those who identify as a minority; tenure (>10 years) is represented through the binary response of working in the federal workforce 10 years or less or not; and tenure (11–20 years) is represented through the binary response of working in the federal workforce between 11 years and 20 years or not.

Results

Table 5 presents the results from both models used to determine whether the perception of access to training and development opportunities is positively related to federal work engagement. Both models show that perception of access to training and development opportunities is statistically significantly and positively related to work engagement. When control variables are added, the magnitude of the effect of the independent variable decreases, though it is still statistically significant in the multiple regression model.

Table 5.

Regression Results on the Effects of the Perception of Access to Training and Development Opportunities on Work Engagement.

Independent variables	Model 1	Model 2
Independent variables	Bivariate	Multiple
Training	0.755***	0.291***
Training	–0.001	–0.002
Supervisory support		0.101***
Supervisory support		–0.001
Employee cooperation		0.055***
Employee cooperation		–0.001
Pay satisfaction		0.463***
Pay satisfaction		–0.001
Female		0.047***
Female		–0.002
Racial minority		–0.042***
Racial minority		–0.002
Supervisor		0.078***
Supervisor		–0.002
Tenure (1–10 years)		–0.013***
Tenure (1–10 years)		–0.002
Tenure (11–20 years)		–0.001
Tenure (11–20 years)		–0.002
Constant	0.011***	–2.095***
Constant	–0.001	–0.006
Covariates	No	Yes
Agency FE	No	No
Number of agencies	—	—
Observations	325,854	325,854
R ²	.53	.719

Note. Standard errors are reported in parentheses.

p < .1. **p < .05. *** p < .01.

Bivariate Regression

Column 1 shows the coefficient and standard error result of the bivariate regression model. Based on this model, every one standard deviation change in perception of access to training and development opportunities predicts a 0.755 standard deviation change in work engagement within the federal workforce. The relationship between these two variables is statistically significant (the p-value for the F statistic is 0.000). The R² for this model is a 53% of the variation on work engagement in the federal workforce can be explained by this model (leaving 47% unexplained).

Multiple Regression

Column 2 presents the OLS multiple regression model output. When controlling for supervisory support, employee cooperation, pay satisfaction, female status, racial minority status, and tenure, every one standard deviation change to perceived access to training and development opportunities predicts a 0.291 standard deviation change to work engagement, within the federal workforce. The relationship between the perception of access to training and development opportunities on work engagement is still statistically significant (p = .000). Furthermore, besides tenure, all other control variables yield statistically significant results.

Pay satisfaction has a strong-positive relationship with work engagement. For every one standard deviation change to employee pay satisfaction predicts a 46.3 percentage point increase in work engagement. This is unsurprising; those who believe they are being appropriately compensated for their work will probably be more engaged than those who do not. The control variables for employee cooperation, supervisory support, female status, and supervisor status all positively increased work engagement, though their impact was less than pay satisfaction.

Employee tenure and minority status both appear to be negatively related to work engagement. The second regression model shows that the relationship between tenure and engagement is statistically significant between employees who have 10 years or less of tenure in the federal government; however, this relationship is statistically insignificant among those who have over 11 to 20 years of tenure. Moreover, those who self-identify as a minority have a reduction in work engagement compared with their non-minority counterparts. Specifically, those who identify as a racial minority have work engagement scores 4.2 percentage points less than their non-minority counterparts, which suggests that diversity management strategies should be explored to increase work engagement among this group.

Discussion

This study further corroborates the claim that the perceptions of employees influence their behavior. The analyses conducted in this article provide evidence that supports H1. The hypothesis predicted that the perception of access to training and development opportunities is positively related to work engagement in the federal workforce. Both models corroborate this assumption. The focus of this study adds to the evidence that the perception of access to training and development opportunities is one way to achieve what the federal government has been attempting to do for the last several years: increase work engagement. This study corroborates the findings of previous studies, which also found that training and development was positively related to work engagement (Barbier et al., 2013; Curry et al., 2005; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). Specifically, JD-R theorists and HPWS theorist have used training and development as both an HPWP and a job resource and have related it to work engagement; this study furthers these assertions.

Many job characteristics and HR realities, within a federal agency, may be difficult to change. The federal government operates through laws, the budget that is appropriated by Congress, and led by individuals appointed by the Executive (Cahoon & Rowney, 1989; Hill & Lynn, 2009; Meier & O’Toole, 2011). For example, processes exist that dictate how employees can be hired, fired, disciplined, and rewarded, which has an influence on the number of employees in a given office, pay grades, and promotion potential. This, in turn, influences a variety of factors at the organizational level: vacancies, workload, number of employees, leadership, and hours worked. Despite these constraints and obstacles, some inputs can be more readily adjusted: cultivating employee support, supervisory coaching, and training and development opportunities for employees. Ultimately, by leveraging these easier-to-implement inputs, positive individual and organizational outcomes may result.

It can be challenging for those in the federal government to fully invest in increasing work engagement. Getting federal agency leaders to look at job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and citizen behavior data (and take it seriously) can be a daunting task for federal practitioners and scholars alike. In a doing “more with less” environment, where mission success comes first—it may become increasingly more challenging for agency leaders to understand: mission success is only possible through collective employee success. This has resulted in work engagement, its antecedents, and its benefits to not being fully explored in the public sector. This paper adds to the empirical evidence provided by both academics and practitioners that training matters and that investing in employees yields positive outcomes: higher work engagement. Of course, providing access to training is no panacea; however, it can move the needle in the right direction. Moreover, its effects can be further maximized by bundling it with other evidenced HPWPs to create an effective HPWS.

Limitations

This article ends with the discussion of limitations and areas for future research. First, though these models are statistically significant, there are other factors that contribute to employees’ attitudes and behaviors, which is evidenced by prior research (Bakker, 2015; Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Viotti et al., 2017; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009a). These factors include personal resources (e.g., resilience and motivation), other HPWPs, and other variables that are not included in the FEVS data set or that were not included in these regression analyses. For example, these differences could include the attitudes and behaviors between types of employees (e.g., paid by the hour versus salaried employees; the proportion of contract staff versus federal staff).

Threats to internal validity may also include social desirability bias, selection bias, temporal precedent, and history. In regards to social desirability bias, respondents may wish to showcase their agency as being a good place to work, so they may either underreport negative aspects or over-report good aspects of their agency/office. Likewise, since the response rate was only 45.5%, and those who did respond self-selected to take the survey, this study is susceptible to selection bias. Temporal precedent is another threat to internal validity and occurs when it cannot be determined which variable changed first, making it difficult to determine which variable is the cause and which is the effect. Finally, history could also be a threat to the internal validity of this model. History is when an event outside of an experiment may affect participants’ responses. In this instance, the FEVS survey was administered 6 months after the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, where governance switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party, which may have influenced participants’ responses or choice to opt into taking the survey.

Another potential limitation to this article could be threats to external validity. The external validity of this model may be accurately applied to other federal agencies who did not participate in the FEVs, since they are operating under the same training policy framework as those who did participate in the FEVS. However, the generalizability of this study may only be limited to the U.S. federal government and may not be accurately apply to local or state governments in the United States. Moreover, the generalizability may not be accurately applied to governments from other countries who may have a different training policy frameworks, outlook on HRM, and the many other contexts and factors that affect their employees’ behaviors and attitudes.

Recommendations for Future Research

More research should be conducted to further understand how training and development opportunities affect federal employees’ behaviors and attitudes. One such way this research can be improved upon is by exploring the interplay between the types of training available to federal workers and their perceptions and satisfaction on the offered training. By exploring this relationship, agencies can decide what trainings are more impactful and offer more of those types of training and development opportunities to their employees.

Another way this research can be expanded is by conducting a study across multiple years to see if the various government-wide initiatives that are meant to increase work engagement rates are successful. Likewise, research can be conducted to compare agency expenditures on training and rates of work engagement to see if there is a relationship between the amount an agency spends on training and organizational outcomes.

Conclusion

Both scholars and managers in the federal government are interested in having a refined and better FEVS; this result can only be accomplished through the communication and collaboration between both academics and practitioners. This study attempts to continue that communication and collaboration by merging the FEVS with the UWES to better test work engagement in the federal government and to determine if whether promoting training and development opportunities could be a viable policy choice to promote engagement rates. This article provides evidence that employees who perceive that they have access to training and development opportunities and have higher rates of work engagement. In an era of increasing budget cuts and efforts to reduce the federal workforce, training and development may indeed be a viable way to increase the efficiency and efficacy of the federal government.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michael P. Hassett

Author Biography

Michael P. Hassett is a budget analyst for NOAA. He co-founded and is president of Friends of Tonga Inc. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer, in Tonga, from 2012 to 2014. He earned his PhD and Masters of Public Policy from UMBC and his Bachelors of History and Political Science from La Roche College.

References

Alford

Greve

(2017). Strategy in the public and private sectors: Similarities, differences and changes. Administrative Sciences, (2076-3387), 7(4), 1–17.

Bakker

A. B.

(2015). A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 723–732.

Bakker

A. B.

(2017). Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 67–75.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

(2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411.

Bakker

A. B.

Hakanen

J. J.

Demerouti

Xanthopoulou

(2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274–284.

Banks

(2006). How one federal agency harnessed employee engagement as a tool for transformation. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 25(4), 21–30.

Barbier

Hansez

Chmiel

Demerouti

(2013). Performance expectations, personal resources, and job resources: How do they predict work engagement? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 750–762.

Batt

(2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 587–597.

Beltran-Martin

Roca-Puig

Escrig-Tena

Bou-Llusar

J. C.

(2008). Human resource flexibility as a mediating variable between high performance work systems and performance. Journal of Management, 34, 1009–1044.

10.

Borst

R. T.

(2018, January 1). Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 287–313.

11.

Bowen

D. E.

Ostroff

(2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the hrm system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.

12.

Brown

S. P.

Peterson

R. A.

(1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 63–77.

13.

Buelens

Van den Broeck

(2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 65–74.

14.

Byrne

Z. S.

Hayes

T. L.

Holcombe

K. J.

(2017). Employee engagement using the federal employee viewpoint survey. Public Personnel Management, 46(4), 368–390.

15.

Cahoon

Rowney

(1989). A comparison of burnout across public/private sector managers. Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 12(1), 79–94.

16.

Caillier

J. G.

(2012). The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a U.S. federal government agency. American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 461–480.

17.

Christensen

R. K.

Paarlberg

Perry

J. L.

(2017). Public service motivation research: Lessons for practice. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 529–542.

18.

Cohen

Eimicke

Heikkila

(2013). The effective public manager: Achieving success in government organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Curry

McCarragher

Dellmann-Jenkins

(2005). Training, transfer, and turnover: Exploring the relationship among transfer of learning factors and staff retention in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(8),931–948.

20.

Daley

D. M.

(2012). Strategic human resource management. In Riccucci

N. M.

(Ed.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (5th ed., pp. 120–134). Routledge.

21.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

de Jonge

Janssen

P. P.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 27, 279–286.

22.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

23.

Dysvik

Kuvaas

(2008). The relationship between perceived training opportunities, work motivation and employee outcomes. International Journal of Training & Development, 12(3), 138–157.

24.

Evans

W. P.

Sicafuse

L. L.

Killian

E. S.

Davidson

L. A.

Loesch-Griffin

(2009). Youth worker professional development participation, preferences, and agency support. Child & Youth Services, 31(1/2), 35–52.

25.

Fernandez

Moldogaziev

(2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 490–506.

26.

Fernandez

Resh

W. G.

Moldogaziev

Oberfield

Z. W.

(2015). Assessing the past and promise of the federal employee viewpoint survey for public management research: A Research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 382–394.

27.

Goldenkoff

(2015). Commentary: The federal employee viewpoint survey: A practitioner’s view of using the data. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 397.

28.

Hakanen

J. J.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141, 415–424.

29.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

Harvey

Bolino

M. C.

(2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465.

30.

Hameduddin

Fernandez

(2019). Employee engagement as administrative reform: Testing the efficacy of the OPM’s employee engagement initiative. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 355–369.

31.

Harter

J. K.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hayes

T. L.

(2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

32.

Hill

C. J.

Lynn

L. E.

Jr (2009). Public management a three-dimensional approach. CQ Press.

33.

Huselid

M. A.

(1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.

34.

Jahn

M. M.

Treverton

G. F.

Bray

D. A.

Jayamaha

Valdez

Carnes

Hutchison

Will

(2019). Are declines in US federal workforce capabilities putting our government at risk of failing? Senior Executives Association.

35.

Jennings

Nagel

J. C.

(2018). Federal workforce statistics sources: OPM and OMB. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.

36.

Jensen

J. M.

Pankaj

C. P.

Messersmith

J. G.

(2013). High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39, 1699–1724.

37.

Jin

M. H.

McDonald

B. D.

(2017). Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: The role of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning opportunities. American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 881–897.

38.

Jin

M. H.

McDonald

B. D.

Park

Trevor Yu

K. Y

. (2019). Making public service motivation count for increasing organizational fit: The role of followership behavior and leader support as a causal mechanism. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 98–115.

39.

Jong

Ford

M. T.

(2016). The lagged effects of job demands and resources on organizational commitment in federal government agencies: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 26(3), 475–492.

40.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

41.

Kahn

W. A.

(1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321.

42.

Kehoe

R. R.

Wright

P. M.

(2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366–391.

43.

Kim

(2018). The contrary effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on burnout and turnover intention in the public sector. International Journal of Manpower, 39(3), 486–500.

44.

Kwon

Bae

Lawler

J. J.

(2010). High commitment HR practices and top performers. Management International Review, 50, 57–80.

45.

Lee

C. H.

Bruvold

N. T.

(2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in employee development. International Journal Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981–1000.

46.

Lee

C. H.

Cayer

N. J.

Lan

(2006). Changing Federal Government Employee Attitudes since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(1), 21–51.

47.

Lizano

E. L.

Mor Barak

(2015). Job burnout and affective wellbeing: A longitudinal study of burnout and job satisfaction among public child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 18–28.

48.

Maurer

T. J.

(2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for development. Journal of Management, 27, 123–140.

49.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i283–i299.

50.

Memon

M. A.

Salleh

Baharom

M. N. R.

(2016). The Link between Training Satisfaction, Work Engagement and Turnover Intention. European Journal of Training and Development, 40(6), 407–429.

51.

Mostafa

A. M. S.

Gould-Williams

J. S.

Bottomley

(2015). High-performance human resource practices and employee outcomes: The Mediating role of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 747–757.

52.

Naylor

(2018, January 28). State of the federal workforce: Low. National Public Radio, Politics. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/28/581118791/state-of-the-federal-workforce-low

53.

Paquette

(2019, January 24). Skilled federal workers face a critical shutdown choice: Stay or quit? The Washington Post, Business. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/skilled-federal-workers-face-a-critical-shutdown-choice-stay-or-quit/2019/01/24/a80beb16-200d-11e9-8b59-0a28f2191131_story.html

54.

Partnership for Public Service. (2018). Employee engagement. https://ourpublicservice.org/our-solutions/employee-engagement/

55.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367–373.

56.

Pfeffer

Veiga

J. F.

(1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 237–248.

57.

Pitts

D. W.

Marvel

Fernandez

(2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among U.S. federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 751–760.

58.

Rein

(2014, December 15). Millennials exit the federal workforce as government jobs lose their allure. The Washington Post, Politics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/millennials-exit-the-federal-workforce-as-government-jobs-lose-their-allure/2014/12/15/ea3d4418-7fd4-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html?utm_term=.bce7cb193977

59.

Resh

Moldogaziev

Fernandez

Leslie

C. A.

(2021). Reversing the lens: Assessing the use of federal employee viewpoint survey in public administration research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 132–162.

60.

Ross

Buglione

Safford-Farquharson

(2011). Training the “wizards”: A model for building self efficacy and peer networks among urban youth workers. Child & Youth Services, 32(3), 200–223.

61.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

62.

Salanova

Agut

Peiró

J. M.

(2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227.

63.

Salanova

Llorens

Cifre

Martínez

I. M.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being, and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43–73.

64.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2003). UWES—Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test manual. Department of Psychology, Utrecht University. http://www.schaufeli.com

65.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Van Rhenen

(2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917.

66.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

Maslach

(2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204–220.

67.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

Gonzalez-Romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout and: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

68.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

van Rhenen

(2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 173–203.

69.

Schmidt

S. W.

(2007). The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 481–498.

70.

Selden

S. C.

Sowa

J. E.

(2015). Voluntary turnover in nonprofit human service organizations: The impact of high performance work practices. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(3), 182–207.

71.

Shantz

Alfes

(2015). Work engagement and voluntary absence: The moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4), 530–543.

72.

Smith

D. B.

Day

N. E.

(2015). Family development credential training impact on self-efficacy beliefs of human service workers. Journal of Health & Human Services Administration, 38(3), 317–349.

73.

Sonnentag

(2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.

74.

Sonnentag

Fritz

(2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72–S103.

75.

Sun

Aryee

Law

K. S.

(2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 5, 558–577.

76.

Taris

T. W.

Ybema

J. F.

Beek

I. V.

(2017). Burnout and engagement: Identical twins or just close relatives? Burnout Research, 5, 3–11.

77.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Human capital: A guide for assessing strategic training and development efforts in the federal government (Report No. GAO-04-546G). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-546G

78.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015). Federal workforce: Additional analysis and sharing of promising practices could improve employee engagement and performance (Report No. GAO-15-585). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-585

79.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). Federal workforce: Lessons learned for engaging millennials and other age groups (Report No. GAO-16-880T). https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Federal_Workforce.html?id=0Df2MAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

80.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). Federal workforce: Key talent management strategies for agencies to better meet their missions (Report No. GAO-19-181). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-181

81.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2008). The power of federal employee engagement. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/The_Power_of_Federal_Employee_Engagement_379024.pdf

82.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016a). Building an engaging workplace: Understanding and using engagement drivers. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/special-reports/summary-understanding-and-using-engagement-drivers-2016.pdf

83.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016b). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Government wide management report. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/governmentwide-report/2016/2016-governmentwide-management-report.pdf

84.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2017a). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Government wide management report. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/governmentwide-report/2017/2017-governmentwide-management-report.pdf

85.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2017b). Federal employee viewpoint survey: Technical report. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/technical-reports/technical-report/technical-report/2017/2017-technical-report.pdf

86.

Van den Broeck

Vander Elst

Baillien

Sercu

Schouteden

De Witte

Godderis

(2017). Job demands, job resources, burnout, work engagement, and their relationships: An analysis across sectors. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 59(4), 369–376.

87.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Lens

(2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277–294.

88.

Vigoda-Gadot

Eldor

Schohat

L. M.

(2013). Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 518–538.

89.

Viotti

Guidetti

Loera

Martini

Sottimano

Converso

(2017). Stress, work ability, and an aging workforce: A study among women aged 50 and over. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(Suppl. 1), 98–121.

90.

White

D. L.

Cadiz

D. M.

(2013). Efficacy of Work-based training for direct care workers in assisted living. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 25(4), 281–300.

91.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009a). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244.

92.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009b). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200.

93.

Yang

Kassekert

(2010). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 413–436.

94.

Youndt

M. A.

Snell

S. A.

(2004). Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 337–360.