Survey measurement items : Organizational Engagement

Breadcrumb navigation

Survey measurement items

In this section, we detail the specific measurement items utilized in our Organizational Engagement Survey Form.

Sense of Job Fulfillment

Original questions measuring work engagement

Sense of job fulfillment corresponds to the factor of work engagement and has been confirmed to have a very strong correlation (convergent validity) with the shortened Japanese UWES-J (Utrecht Work-Engagement Scale-Japanese; Shimazu, et al., 2008).

Additionally, it shows a strong positive correlation with the Japanese version of intrinsic motivation (Horie et al., 2007), the personal accomplishment component of the Japanese Burnout Scale (Tao, 1987), and emotional organizational commitment from the three-dimensional organizational commitment (Nishida, 2000). It also shows a weak negative correlation with depersonalization and emotional exhaustion from the Japanese Burnout Scale (Tao, 1987), and with intention to leave (Aoki, 2001).

Sense of job fulfillment consists of four questions about “inspiration,” “focus,” and “motivation.” These correspond to the three elements of work engagement: vigor, absorption, and dedication, confirming that the survey items measure the equivalent of work engagement.

The feeling of job fulfillment is a personal emotional state. Just like how one cannot necessarily become motivated simply by being told to 'get motivated', direct intervention is challenging. To effectively influence emotions, intervention at the cognitive level is necessary. This process is similar to how we engage with and are influenced by the narratives in novels or movies.

Attachment to the Organization

Engagement with the organization

Attachment to the organization is a factor based on affective organizational commitment. It has been confirmed to have a strong positive correlation (convergent validity) with affective organizational commitment. (Nishida (2000)

Further, this attachment is strongly correlated with work engagement (Shimazu, et al., 2008) and with the Japanese version of intrinsic motivation (Horie et al., 2007). It also strongly aligns with personal accomplishment from the Japanese Burnout Scale (Tao, 1987) and shows a moderate correlation with fulfillment and job satisfaction in the New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (Inoue, et al., 2016). Similar to job fulfillment, there is a noted negative correlation with depersonalization and emotional exhaustion, as per the Japanese Burnout Scale (Tao, 1987), and with the intention to leave (Aoki, 2001).

Attachment to the organization, while sharing traits similar to work engagement, is formed through elements that specifically pertain to the organization. Therefore, this attachment can be understood as a type of organization engagement. In other words, it represents how individuals connect with and engage in their organization.

The survey items used to measure attachment to the organization asked about perceived significance, pride, affinity, and satisfaction with the organization. This indicates that satisfaction with an organization alone does not equate to engagement. People with high organization engagement are those who find meaning and pride in the organization's purpose and are satisfied with and fond of the organization.

Job Satisfaction

Engagement potential in work

Job satisfaction is a factor based on the job characteristics outlined in the Job Redesign Theory (Hackman, Oldham, 1980). It encompasses three of the five job characteristics: task significance , autonomy, and feedback, as well as aspects such as transparency of information and ease of discussion.

There is a strong correlation between job characteristics (Ishibashi, 2016), procedural justice in the New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (=participation in decision-making), and job control (Inoue, et al., 2016), suggesting criterion-related validity. While job satisfaction can be broken down into factors, existing scales treat it as a complex concept. As such, no single scale that correlates particularly strongly with job satisfaction has been identified.

Job satisfaction can be interpreted as looking at the potential for employees to feel a sense of meaningfulness and increased intrinsic motivation, through measuring employees' perceptions of various job conditions. The three elements of intrinsic motivation are based on the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan, Deci, 1991). These are considered to be areas where engagement can increase, hence we call it engagement potential.

From a measurement perspective, to increase engagement potential, it is advisable to disclose all information within the organization to increase transparency, communicate the importance of the task to employees, grant them more autonomy to think and work independently, create mechanisms that allow employees to judge the quality of their work, and set up regular daily meetings to facilitate discussion, thereby enhancing job satisfaction.

Satisfaction with Evaluation

Is the evaluation perceived as fair?

Satisfaction with evaluation is a factor based on organizational fairness regarding evaluations. From the four elements of organizational fairness, procedural justice (correctness of the process) and distributive justice (fairness of rewards) were extracted through data analysis. There is a strong correlation with the Organizational Justice Scale (Shibaoka, et. al, 2010), which also measures organizational fairness, confirming convergent validity.

Furthermore, strong correlations were found with factors such as "monetary/status rewards" "esteem reward," and "fair personnel evaluation" in the New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (Inoue, et al., 2016), indicating the criterion-related validity of satisfaction with evaluation.

Satisfaction with evaluation represents employees' perception of personnel evaluations, focusing on 1) evaluations based on accurate information, 2) evaluations following proper procedures, 3) evaluations that reward effort, and 4) evaluations commensurate with outcomes. These four aspects were selected through data analysis. However, for point 2), correctness refers to moral and ethical correctness, not just systematic correctness.

In practice, this means supervisors must, when evaluating, 1) clarify the sources of information, 2) explain the mechanism of evaluation, 3) demonstrate how effort is rewarded, and 4) show that the evaluation is commensurate with the outcomes.

Openness in Communication

An open atmosphere pervading the organization

Openness in communication is measured through original questions developed from the elements of “free and open” and “flexibility, creativity, and uniqueness” extracted from the Organizational Climate Scale developed by Sekimoto et al. (2001). There is a strong correlation with these two elements, confirming convergent validity.

Additionally, in the New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (Inoue, et. al, 2016), there is a strong correlation with elements such as "respect for individuals," "workplace solidarity," and "esteem reward." It can be understood that this represents factors that indicate an open atmosphere where individual employees mutually understand and respect one another.

Based on the selected survey items from data analysis, 1) the need for individuals to be themselves without lying (authenticity), 2) the encouragement to speak one’s mind (honesty principle), 3) acceptance of differing opinions (diversity), and 4) acceptance of candid opinions without being disliked (acceptance) are essential for an open atmosphere.

In cultures that value individualism, an open atmosphere may be created by listening to each other's assertions and resolving conflicts. However, in cultures like Japan, which value harmony, self-assertion can be frowned upon. Likely, in Japanese culture, understanding each other’s true feelings, acknowledging individuality, and respecting differences in opinions are necessary. With this mindset, good relationships can be formed, potentially leading to an open and honest atmosphere.

Reliability of Supervisor

Leadership that enhances engagement

Reliability of supervisor is an original factor based on the "Trust in Supervisor" aspect of the Organizational Climate Characteristics Scale developed by Miyairi (2007). It represents subordinates' cognitive evaluation of their supervisors' capabilities, attitudes, and actions. Because emotional evaluation was termed "trust," cognitive evaluation was termed "reliability."

Reliability of supervisor strongly correlates with "Trust in Supervisor" (Miyairi, 2007), confirming convergent validity. It also shows strong correlations with factors such as “affect” and “loyalty” from the Multidimensional Leader-Member Exchange (Matsuura et al., 2009), “supervisor’s support,” “supervisor’s leadership,” and “fair personnel evaluation” in the New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (Inoue, et. al, 2016), indicating criterion-related validity.

This suggests that the reliability of a supervisor can be considered as a component of "leadership." According to the selected survey items from data analysis, this form of leadership is divided into 1) capabilities (problem-solving ability) and 2) attitudes (reliable attitude). In terms of capabilities, the questions are focused on whether the supervisor possesses a multifaceted viewpoint and innovative thinking (a mindset to embrace new things).In terms of attitude, the focus is on the importance of speaking in one's own words, refraining from insincere flattery towards superiors, and taking responsibility for subordinates.

If you are a supervisor, it might be good to start by changing your attitude. Instead of explaining the company's strategy to subordinates exactly as told by the president, digest it and convey it in your own words; clearly state to the president if something is wrong; and tell your subordinates, “I will take responsibility, so go ahead and try.”

Trust in Supervisors

Supervisor’s appealing personal traits in boosting engagement

Trust in supervisors is a factor based on the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, which views leadership as a transaction between supervisors and subordinates and represents the emotional evaluation of the supervisor by their subordinate.

Trust in a supervisor consists of factors formed by four questions covering two elements: “affection” and “loyalty,” which are part of the Multidimensional LMX (Matsuura et al., 2009). It uses original questions to measure equivalent factors and has confirmed a strong correlation with “affection” and “loyalty,” establishing convergent validity. Additionally, it has a unique characteristic of having weaker correlations with “trust in supervisor” and “supervisor's leadership” compared to the reliability of a supervisor.

Four items were selected through data analysis: 1) feeling that the supervisor is an ally, 2) expectation of protection from customers or higher management, 3) enjoying being with the supervisor, and 4) believing in the supervisor's words and actions.

Paradoxically, these imply that actions such as 1) consistently opposing subordinates, 2) passing unreasonable demands from customers or higher management onto subordinates, and 3) having inconsistent words and actions leading to a loss of trust are absolute don’ts for a supervisor.

Teamwork

Solidarity in working towards a common goal

Teamwork is a factor based on the 4D System, a team development assessment originally used by NASA (Pellerin, 2010). This factor shows a very strong correlation with one of the four aspects of group cohesion (Sugiyama et al., 2021), namely “Solidarity on issues.” This cohesion represents solidarity and alignment towards a common goal. In other words, teamwork signifies unity achieved through this alignment.

Additionally, strong correlations are found with another aspects of group cohesion, such as “group cohesion through social aspects (solidarity achieved through good interpersonal relationships),” as well as “group competence,” “solidarity in the workplace (social capital),” and “team psychological safety” (Edmondson, 2012; Nozu, 2014) from the New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (Inoue, et. al, 2016), suggesting its relevance to the functioning of teams.

According to data analysis, the teamwork factor consists of survey items that ask whether team members are "aiming for the same outcomes (expectations of intent)," "understand their roles, responsibilities, and authorities (expectations of action)," and "solve problems through discussion (fairness)." Therefore, to enhance the teamwork factor, it is necessary to 1) set a common goal that allows for solidarity, 2) define and respect roles, responsibilities, and authorities, and 3) avoid resolving problems using power or authority alone.

Trust in Coworkers

Familiarity like friends

Trust in coworkers is a factor based on the "evaluation from coworkers" question items used in the employee engagement research by May et al. (2004). However, data analysis extracted items related to the sense of distance with coworkers. In fact, there is a strong correlation with psychological distance (Kaneko, 1991), suggesting that trust in coworkers represents "emotional closeness."

Additionally, strong correlations are found with group cohesion in the "social aspect of group unity (solidarity achieved through good interpersonal relationships)" (Sugiyama et al., 2021) and "intimacy" (Tani et al., 2011) with coworkers as a substitute, indicating that trust in coworkers represents emotional closeness.

From data analysis, three items were selected: "mutual understanding (psychological connection)," "mutual respect," and "feeling like friends (sense of rapport)." Therefore, measures to enhance trust in coworkers may include deepening mutual understanding through dialogue, acknowledging each other, and developing a friendship-like feeling.

According to Sasaki et al. (2005), Japanese people tend to feel most embarrassed at medium psychological distances and less so at closer or further distances. Thus, trust in coworkers could also be measured by whether one “does not feel embarrassed even if they make a minor mistake."

Activities for the Organization

Engagement behavior

Activities for the organization is a factor based on one of the five elements of the Japanese version of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Tanaka, 2001), specifically "organizational support behavior” that represent actions taken for the good of the company or organization, even outside of it. However, this factor has fewer question items and represents more limited behaviors compared to organizational support behavior, showing only a moderate correlation with it.

Nevertheless, it shows a strong correlation with work engagement (Shimazu, et al., 2008), affective organizational commitment (Nishida, 2000), and intrinsic motivation (Horie et al., 2007). Particularly, it has quite a strong correlation with sense of job fulfillment and attachment to the organization, indicating that people with high engagement are likely to undertake actions for the benefit of the organization (engagement behavior).

According to data analysis, engagement behavior includes 1) acting in line with the organization’s image (image-conserving behavior), 2) recommending others to join the organization (organizational advocacy behavior), and 3) protecting the organization from external threats (organizational defense behavior).

However, it is important to note that engagement behavior does not necessarily equate to high engagement. For example, if employees’ behaviors are forcibly changed to engagement behaviors through rewards or penalties, it may only be superficial, without a genuine increase in internal engagement. Therefore, a strategy focusing solely on improving behaviors might not be the most effective approach.

Reference

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A., ... & Kitaoka‐Higashiguchi, K. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology, 57(3), 510-523.
Horie, T., Inuzuka, A., & Iakawa, Y. (2007). Relation between Knowledge Contribution and Intrinsic Motivation within an R&D Organization. Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 20(1), 1-12.
Tao, M. (1987). Theory and Measurement of Burnout in Human Services. Sci. Rep. Kyoto Prefectural University Humanist Science, 39, 99-112.
Nishida, T. (2000). Effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Justice, and OCB on Work Group Effectiveness. Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 13(3), 137-158.
Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Shimomitsu, T., Tsutsumi, A., Haratani, T., Yoshikawa, T., Shimazu, A., & Odagiri, Y. (2016). Development of the new brief job stress questionnaire. In Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific (pp. 225-247). Springer, Cham.
Ishibashi, S. (2016). The Effects on Job Characteristics and Satisfaction on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of the Japan Society for Information and Management, 66(4), 309-316.
Misawa, R., Sasou, K., & Yamaguchi, H. (2009). Development of the Teamwork Measure for Nursing Teams. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 24(3), 219-232.
Shibaoka, M., Takada, M., Watanabe, M., Kojima, R., Kakinuma, M., Tanaka, K., & Kawakami, N. (2010). Development and validity of the Japanese version of the organizational justice scale. Industrial health, 48(1), 66-73.
Sekimoto, M., Kamagata, M., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2001). An attempt to Create an Organizational Climate Scale (I). Bulletin of Toyohashi Sozo University, (5), 51-65.
Miyairi, S. (2007). Development of the Organizational Climate Characteristics Scale and Possibility of its Application for Organizational Change. Nihonbashi Gakkan University Bulletin, 6, 3-13.
Pellerin, C. J. (2010). The 4-D System: A Simple Tool to Analyze Team and Individual Performance. How NASA Builds Teams. Achievement Publishing.
Sugiyama, T., Nakamura, T., & Nishii, R. (2021). Development of Collective Cohesion Questionnaire in Sports. Japan Journal of Physical Education Health and Sport Sciences, 66, 327-342.
Edmonson, A.C. (2014). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. (T. Nozu, Trans.). Eiji Press.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. John Wiley & Sons.
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(1), 11-37.
Kaneko, T. (1991). Study on Psychological Distance in Parent-Child and Friend Relationships of Adolescent Girls. The Japanese Journal of Adolescent Psychology, 3, 10-19.
Tani, F., & Harada, S. (2011) Development of the New Intimacy Scale. Bulletin of Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, 5(1),1-7.
Sasaki, J., Sugawara, K., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Why is the diverse U letter relationship between embarrassment and psychological distance observed? In view of Schlenker and Leary (1982)'s self-presentation model of social anxiety. Japanese Psychological Research, 76 (5), 445-452.
Tanaka, K. (2002). The Development of the Japanese Version of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale. Japanese Association of Industrial/Organizational Psychology Journal, 15 (2), 77-88.