Questionnaire P 22

UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL 1
Understanding The Effects of Psychological Capital on Job Performance and Employee
Engagement Among Healthcare Information Technology Employees
Carla Michelle Tucker
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Business Psychology, Consulting Track
Niary Gorgian, Ph.D.
Robert Miller, Ph.D.
Justin Long, Ph.D.
September 29, 2022

Unpublished Work
2022 by Carla Michelle Tucker
All Rights Reserved

Understanding The Effects of Psychological Capital on Job Performance and Employee
Engagement among Healthcare Information Technology Employees
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Business Psychology PhD, Consulting Track
Carla Michelle Tucker
2022
Approved By:
Niary Gorjian, Ph.D., Chairperson

Professor, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
Robert Miller, Ph.D., Reader

Justin Long, Ph.D., Reader

Permission to Reproduce Copyrighted Material
I am grateful to Bruce J. Avolio, Bernard M. Bass, and Mind Garden for permission to
reproduce the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Copyright 1995, 2000, 2004 by B.
Bass & B. Avolio). See Appendix for permission.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Niary
Gorjian, for the positive outlook and encouragement that sustained me on this journey, to Dr.
Robert Miller’s tireless support and insight towards the statistical findings of this study, and Dr.
Justin Long’s ability to lend his expertise and guidance through my quest to succeed in during
this process. I have enjoyed learning a great deal from each of you.
In addition, I would like to acknowledge all the assistance and support from my fellow
doctoral scholars that I reached out to for guidance, insight and additional resources. This could
not be done without you and the accountability we established.
Thank you.
Dedication
I would like to dedicate my dissertation work to my loved ones, friends and colleagues
who have been a constant support and encouragement during this process. A special feeling of
gratitude to my loving parent, Carl and Lora Branche, who even though they are no longer
physically here I am confident that they viciously cheered me on through each step, my paternal
and maternal grandparents who will always be in my heart, along with my siblings who continue
to be my connection to joy and laughter.
I also dedicate this work and give special thanks to my four amazing children Joelle,
Justus, Jordyn, and Joshua along with my amazing partner, Randy Towns who were always there
with love, patience and support. I could not have asked for better support system.
Many thanks to all of you.

Abstract
This research targets the relationship between psychological capital and employee engagement
and its effect on manager perception based on the employee performance rating. Answering the
question: Does psychological capital affect manager perception of employee performance rating
through its influence on employee engagement? Supported with the theory of positive
psychology, psychological capital has been linked to valued work outcomes and positive job
performance. This quantitative study examined the core constructs associated with psychological
capital, and then investigated its effect on employee engagement. With the targeted sample size
of at least 149 adult female and male working professionals from a United States based
organization. The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) was used to assess the
employee’s level of positive psychological capital measuring the four constructs: Hope, self-
efficacy, resilience and optimism. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) measured the
participants’ vigor, dedication, and absorption level to assess engagement. The manager
perception of the employee’s job performance was assessed through a self-reported rating that
measured task and performance outcome. The results of this study showed Psychological
Capital to have a positive significant effect on engagement and performance. Engagement did
not serve as significant mediator between PsyCap and Performance.

Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 11
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 1: Nature of the Study ..................................................................................................... 13
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 14
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 14
Research Questions/Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................ 15
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework.............................................................................................. 15
Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 16
Definitions of Key Terms ............................................................................................................. 17
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 18
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 20
Research Strategy.......................................................................................................................... 21
Review of Current Research Literature ........................................................................................ 21
Employee Engagement .......................................................................................................... 23
Transformational Leadership ................................................................................................. 26
Training & Development ....................................................................................................... 27
Evaluation of Research Literature ................................................................................................ 27
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3: Research Design and Method...................................................................................... 30
Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................................... 30
Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 30
Research Design............................................................................................................................ 32
Operational Definitions of All Research Variables and Level of Measurement .......................... 32
Population and Sample ................................................................................................................. 33
Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 34
Validity ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................. 35
Data Processing ............................................................................................................................. 38
Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 38
Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................................................ 39
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 40
Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 41
Demographics ............................................................................................................................... 41
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ......................................................... 52
Interpretation of Findings ............................................................................................................. 52

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 55
Implications................................................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 56
References ..................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A: Email Advertisement ............................................................................................... 68
Appendix B: Informed Consent .................................................................................................... 69
Appendix C: Qualifying Questions ............................................................................................... 72
Appendix D: Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24)...................................................... 73
Appendix E: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) .......................................................... 74
Appendix F: Managers Perception of Employee Performance Rater ........................................... 75
Appendix G: Transformational Leadership MLQ-5X .................................................................. 76
Appendix H: Demographic Questionnaire.................................................................................... 79
Appendix I: G-Power Output ........................................................................................................ 80
Appendix J: Raffle Participation Inclusion Form ......................................................................... 81
Appendix K: Correlation............................................................................................................... 82
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants Characteristics ........................................................................................... 43
Table 2: Internal Consistency of PsyCap Scores (PCQ-24) ......................................................... 44
Table 3: Internal Consistency of Employee Engagement (UWES-9)............................................ 45
Table 4: Internal Consistency of Transformational Leadership (MLQ-5X SHORT) ................... 45
Table 5: Summary Statistics of Scores .......................................................................................... 47
Table 6: Coefficient for Meditation Regression ............................................................................ 48
Table 7: Direct Effect of X on Y .................................................................................................... 49
Table 8: Indirect Effect of X on Y.................................................................................................. 49
Table 9: Coefficient for Base Regression...................................................................................... 49
49
List of Figures
Figure 1: Research Model ............................................................................................................. 33

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study
Organizations strive to keep abreast of changes, trends, and threats, as well as
opportunities to develop strategies based on sustainable competitive advantages (Acker, 2001).
Can the opportunities be located within thriving and developed employees that have been
engaged through the principles of positive psychology? The Gallup Organization’s Chairman
and CEO, Jim Clifton stated, “in the new world of extreme competition, we are all going down
the wrong path unless we discover a new way to manage” (Coffman & Gonzalez-Molina, 2002,
p. xii).
Traditionally, leaders of organizations carry the weight of sustaining a competitive edge.
To maintain supremacy in technology and innovation, the advantage of investing in and
engaging employees can be overlooked (Luthans, 2002). Based on Luthans’ findings, the
business industry is beginning to understand how engaged employees can increase the effects of
a business’ strategy and economic standing. Focusing on personal strengths that can be found in
a high level of psychological capital and engagement could, in turn, advance both the employee
and organization’s performance.
Martin Seligman, a research psychologist, introduced positive psychology as a push for
change in how humans were viewed in the workplace (Seligman, M.E.P., 1998). The challenge
held a focus on strengths, rather than shortcomings, health, and wholeness over pathology and
affliction. Seligman began to ask questions regarding psychological capital and how hope,
efficacy, resilience, and optimism could provide an understanding of satisfaction and
improvement in manager perception of employee performance rating. According to his writings,
Seligman (2002) gave the answer, “when we are engaged (absorb in flow), perhaps we are
investing, building psychological capital for our future.” Being engaged proves to be the key,
based on Seligman's response. Without harmony between the organization and the employee,
there is room for disconnect which poses a problem and leads to differences in basic goals,
values and interest (Akinbobola, 2011). When organizations overlook positive psychology, and
center their focus on the company’s financial goal they miss the opportunity of valuing human
capital, enhancing the employees’ work experience, as well as the potential of increased
performance (Mills, et al., 2013).
Problem Statement
Over the years there has been extensive research on the impact of psychological capital
and employee engagement. This researcher will focus on how the relationship between these two
variables are impacted by manager’s perception of employee’s job performance. This study will
not only investigate the importance of positive psychology on employee engagement but also
seek to provide organizational leaders, scholars, and students with a comprehensive examination
of the importance of employee engagement, positive psychology, psychological capital, and its
impact on manager perception of employee job performance.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study is to test the effect of psychological capital on
manager perception of employee performance rating and whether employee engagement
mediates the effects of psychological capital on manager perception of employee performance
rating. Employees have been recognized as human capital and valuable to an organization and its
competitive advantage. High levels of psychological capital can lead employees to higher levels
of engagement and productivity (Larson & Luthans, 2006). Additionally, low levels of
psychological capital and employee engagement can negatively affect manager perception of
employee performance rating and how the employee is viewed as an individual contributor. It is
with the components of psychological capital, an employee’s job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and psychological well-being can be positively affected. (Avery, et al., 2011).
The research focus is on examining the constructs of psychological capital possessed by
employees associated with employee engagement and whether it mediates manager perception of
employee job performance. The results should enhance how organizations perceive the value of
the employee’s psychological capital and their level of engagement. The research design is a
correlation study of how the levels of psychological capital and the influence of employee
engagement effect manager perception of employee job performance rating indirectly, and the
level of effect psychological capital directly has on manager perception of employee
performance rating.
Research Questions/Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1: Does psychological capital effect manager perception of employee performance
rating through the influence of employee engagement?
Ho1: Psychological capital will not have a significant effect on manager perception of
employee performance rating through the influence of employee engagement.
Ha1: Psychological capital will have an indirect effect on performance through employee
engagement. It is expected that a high level of psychological capital will be associated with a
high level of employee engagement which will be associated with a higher level of job
performance rating.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Psychological capital, employee engagement, and performance are best described as
cognitive and behavioral management constructs that can positively raise the levels of
performance output (Avery, et al., 2011). This framework, however, focused on the Positive
Psychology Theory as defined by Martin Seligman as the scientific study of optimal human
functioning that aims to discover and promote the factors that allow individuals and communities
to thrive.
Scope of the Study
This quantitative study examined the core constructs associated with psychological
capital, and then investigated its effect on engagement. With the targeted sample size of at least
149 adult working professionals in Healthcare Information Technology Services from a United
States based organization. The online survey consisted of the Psychological Capital
Questionnaire (PCQ-24) which was used to assess the employee’s level of positive psychological
capital measuring the four constructs: Hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism. Secondly,
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) measured the participants’ vigor, dedication,
and absorption level to assess engagement. Lastly, the manager perception of the employee’s job
performance was assessed through a self-reported rating that measured task and performance
outcome. The research also included transformational leadership along with the training and
development which was obtained as covariants.

Definitions of Key Terms
• Efficacy. A person’s belief that they can perform a certain task successfully. A task-
specific version of self-esteem (Bandura, 1997; Brockner, 1998).
• Employee Engagement. Engagement is defined by Kahn, “as the harnessing of
organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and
express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance”
(Kahn, 1990).
● Job Performance: Defined by manager perception of employee performance rating from
the scale of 1 – 3, which was self-reported by participants.
● Hope. A positive motivational state based on an interactively derived sense of successful
(a) agency (goal-directed energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals) (Snyder et
al. 1991, p. 287).
● Optimism. Carver et al. (2010) describes optimism as a generalized positive outlook that
yields global positive expectancies. It can be interpreted as to say that optimists are
people who expect good things to happen.
● Positive psychology. Positive psychology refers to “experiencing well-being,
contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow
and happiness (in the present)” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
● Psychological Capital. A collection of four psychological variables: hope, optimism,
self-efficacy, and resilience. These variables are viewed as having a positive impact on
an employee’s happiness and desired work-related outcome (Luthans, et al., 2004).

● Resilience. The ability to withstand problems, increase positive attitudes that focus on
commitment, control, and challenge while decreasing feelings of isolation,
powerlessness, and threat (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2005).
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study will serve individuals and organizations in various ways.
Specifically, this study will identify additional ways to support organizational focus on
psychological capital and its effects on the engagement of their employees and job performance.
Also, an organizations human resource department as well as leaders will discover the benefits in
embracing and implementing employee training to include psychological capital as an adaptive
strategy to significantly affect the level of the employees buy-in to embrace organizational goals
with higher performance levels.
Summary
An employee’s experience, psychological capital, level of engagement and performance,
are valuable to an organization and can be considered as human capital. Taking into
consideration the recent epidemic and its lasting effect on employees, positive state of mind
founded in hope, efficacy, optimism and resilience can be essential to the organizations strategy
for managing performance and engagement levels that positively align with company goals.
In Chapter 1, the background and theoretical framework of psychological capital and its
effects on the manager perception of employee performance rating were deliberated. In Chapter
2, relative literature regarding the constructs of psychological capital and its significant cognitive
and behavioral benefits were laid out for review. Chapter 3 continues the discussion around the
research question and hypotheses. Further discussion focused on the correlation design and the
quantitative method in which data was collected. Chapter 4 presents the researchers findings,
results and interpretation of the outcome of the online survey and effects of the quantitative study
that focused on 70 completed surveys. Concluding with Chapter 5 where explanation of the
findings are taken into consideration for validating the research question and hypotheses
allowing for recommendations towards future studies and strengthening of the significance of the
presenters’ outcome.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This review is structured to illuminate the researched literature on psychological capital
and its history as well as its current impact and benefits of engaged employees and their
individual performance to an organization.
Character strength is a concept that lies in the center of positive psychology. This was
advanced by Peterson and Seligman (2004). Through countless research, they identified 24
characteristics that fell in line with six classifications: wisdom and knowledge; courage;
humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence. The researchers then developed the VIA
Inventory of Strengths, a tool that gave the capability to measure the impact of these
characteristics on the participants.
The field of positive psychology has crossed over to other countries as well. Positive
Psychology was explored in six African countries with thirty-seven psychologist participants that
worked in an educational setting to discover the perception and theoretical framework of positive
psychology in this nation. The researchers developed the Regional Survey on Positive
Psychology which consisted of open-ended questions and close-ended questions with the main
purpose of psychosocial issues, synoptic biographical information, and positive psychology
activity. This data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The quantitative data was
analyzed by a counting method and the qualitative data focused on the dominant themes.
Assumptions can be extracted from this research that positive psychology is attached to a native
knowledge system, with a limited scope. Yet, the findings found the participants in the six
countries of Africa view the future of positive psychology promising as described by Eloff et al.
(2008).
Research Strategy
The database used to conduct research was through the online library database of The
Chicago School of Professional Psychology using ProQuest, ProQuest Dissertations, and Google
Scholar. Key search terms included: psychological capital, employee engagement, job
performance, work engagement, and transformational leadership. With the above-mentioned key
words, articles relating to psychological capital, engagement and performance in various
organizational settings were supportive in identifying and narrowing down the literature used for
this study.
Review of Current Research Literature
Psychological Capital
As positive psychology has evolved, over time researchers have shown interest in long
term influence on employee’s well-being by gaining insight into the human experiences of the
highs and lows of life in the workplace, tying together positive psychology and the need for
psychological capital. With the incessant highs and lows in the workplace, developing positive
characteristics in an employee is vital. The employee’s attitude, along with work performance
and satisfaction, is noted to be positively affected by characteristics of self-efficacy, hope,
resilience, optimism - the four psychological variables of psychology capital (referred to as
PsyCap). Luthans et al. (2007) found evidence linking these four facets to performance
satisfaction in two individual studies.
Organizational performance, innovation, and business success are just a few attributes
sought after by organizations. According to Bakker & Schaufeli (2008) to achieve these
attributes organizational structures should shift from an economic focused environment to one
that is dedicated to engaging employees through self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience.
Developing PsyCap within an organization can increase the health of the organization an invoke
a company wide spread of positive business values (Burke & Richardson, 2019).
According to Avery et al. (2010), organizations that have taken the time to measure and
effectively develop their employees with high PsyCap are seeing a decrease in contempt in their
workforce with lower turnover and higher levels of hope in their future success on the job.
Higher levels of PsyCap are also found to be vital in employees positively adapting to change
strengthening their resiliency base. Through this study, the relationship of PsyCap was examined
within an overarching theoretical framework that entailed an equalized state of positive
(employee engagement) and negative (cynicism, intentions to quit) utilizing access to 336
employees across organizations that held management and non-management positions. The
PsyCap Questionnaire was used to evaluate the psychological capital during two timed sessions.
The results showed support of the hypothesized relationships.
Demir (2018) demonstrated the importance of cultivating PsyCap in teachers and how
performance outputs increased in teachers who were experiencing stress, anxiety, and burnout.
Having a high level of PsyCap flowed over and influenced other members of the school,
positively impacting job satisfaction and job involvement. Through this study, 335 teachers were
selected randomly from 27 schools and the data collected showed that it is essential for school
administrators to contribute to the development of teacher’s psychological capital if they seek a
shift in negative attitudes towards a more positive attitude. Given the increasing amount of
evidence of the value of PsyCap on employees, it is imperative to gain a clearer understanding of
how it impacts the way an organization engages the employee.

Beyond the influence of psychological capital, employee engagement has been found to
have a positive impact on creating a more effective employee. So, what is employee
engagement? Employee engagement was introduced by William Kahn, designed to “birth a
grounded theoretical framework showing how psychological experiences of work and work
contexts shape the process of people presenting and absenting their selves during task
performance” (Kahn, 1990). Data was collected by Kahn using qualitative methods, self-
reflection, and in-depth interviewing with a sample of 16 firm members with various
backgrounds and positions. Future research was suggested in the following areas: Individual
differences; the connection of personal engagement and disengagement.
Is there a disconnect with how organizations define employee engagement and how an
employee self-reflects on their experience? Review of the literature written by Harter et al.,
(2002), concentrated on the relationship at the business unit level and initiated an investigation
against the satisfaction of the employee against the business outcome of company profit,
productivity, and turnover. Substantial positive results were found between employee satisfaction
and business outcome. Naming that changes in management performances that cause an upsurge
in employee satisfaction may escalate the business unit outcome, which would positively affect
profit (Harter et al., 2002).
Employee Engagement
Employee Engagement has been expanded further by Alan Saks, with his proposal of the
social exchange theory (SET) testing a model of the antecedents and consequences of job and
organization engagement (Saks, 2006). The first study of its kind used a survey method with 102
various employees. The results highlighted a dissimilarity between job and organization
engagement and that support predicts both work and organizational engagement and the
relationship between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and behavior. Expounding on
Saks SET model researchers Makera et al. (2019) examined the connection between team and
co-worker relationship and employee engagement by studying 150 staff members from Federal
University of Technology. Their findings concur with the claim that an engaged employee is a
significant piece in an organization’s accomplishment along with competitive advantage. The
authors cited Gallup’s study (2008) that found an actively disengaged worker is 10 times more
likely to leave the organization in less than twelve months costing United States businesses
nearly $343 billion a year because of sluggish productivity.
Engaged individuals can be noted as satisfied individuals who more than likely have
more energy and more awareness of the needs of the organization and to others (Dutton, 2003).
Outperforming the disengaged employee and setting new standards are drivers that push
managers to create a workplace environment that delivers opportunities for the employee “to do
what they do best every day” (Pandita, 2019). Various studies have shown that engagement is
strongly associated with individual manager perception of employee performance rating (Rich et
al., 2010). As early as the mid-60’s Katz & Kahn (1966) have discussed the concept of
employee engagement and its connection to managerial effectiveness and awareness of the
support and development the employee needs to perform at a high level.
Manager Perception of Employee Job Performance Rating
Does employee engagement have an impact on manager perception of employee job
performance rating? According to Dutton & Kleiner (2015), the successful employee is an
engaged employee who understands what is expected of them and how their task links to the
organization’s goals. Engaged employees are employees who find fulfillment through
accomplishments, utilization of their skill set and the opportunity of potential growth (Ivancevich
et al., 2011). There is further research that proposes the benefits of the employees’ psychological
capital may have an influence on the engaged individual and their performance on the job.
Mindfulness and connectedness to tasks can be found when the employee is investing physical,
cognitive and emotional commitment to their work role, suggest Kahn (1990). Kahn (1992) also
recognizes that with this type of commitment, employees can surpass their required job
performance and exceed organizational expectations by behaviors that are ultra-conscientious,
interpersonally collaborative, innovative and involved.
In today’s business setting, employee performance plays a crucial role in achieving
organizational goals. Due to extremes levels of competition, managers are now more than ever
hypersensitive regarding managing the tasks and performance of their employees as highlighted
by Kappagoda (2018). The purpose of the study was to test a construct of PsyCap on task
performance and contextual performance of employees in the banking sector. Randomly
collected data was retrieved through a questionnaire form from 174 managers and 357 non-
managerial employees. The findings showed that self-efficacy had significantly and positively
correlated with performance, emphasizing the trust in their ability to organize and execute
actions needed to complete tasks that line up with the manager’s expectations.
The concern regarding performance is relevant however there are differing views from
managers focusing more on the organizations' performance while employees are more concerned
about daily, frontline work. Marvel (2017) tested perceptions and found that an employee’s
rating on challenges presented by their work and the manager’s perception differ. However, with
managerial efficacy, the effects of the employee performance and rating can be positively
impacted when managers make the effort to understand and embrace the employee.
Embracing the employee is not always found in team building events, elaborate meals
served in a meeting room, or by a new human resource incentive program. According to David
Dye (2018), author and international keynote speaker, the focus should be on the behavior that
could possibly create a low performance. Exploring why an employee is not connected to his
tasks or co-workers, digging deeper and gaining clarity of where the commitment declined by
asking the right questions. Is there a breakdown in communication from the top down? Is there a
leadership disconnect with their department? Is the manager bullying talent into performance?
Focusing on the reality and decreasing the pressure of motivating the employee out of
low morale are a couple of the tools that if utilized may address the problem. Using this concept
enables the structuring of a solid foundation between manager and team that can deliver positive
benefits in narrowing the gap between the manager’s perception and an employee’s perception of
ratings delivered on performance.
The above mentioned is a critical driver which explains the need for performance to be
explicit and measurable to assist leaders in the process of setting expectations, measuring and
reviewing results, and rewarding performance that focuses on continuous evolvement with a
focus on the future not the past (Den Hartog, et al., 2004).
Transformational Leadership
Culture plays a key role in how the vision of an organization is carried out. To carry out
that vision the proper and effective leader should be in place. The style of leadership that would
serve well in this position should understand the culture, assure that the cultural aligns with the
vision and make any adjustments necessary within the organization. Transformational leadership
is a leadership style that is known to be motivating and inspirational serving as a connector with
employees to work towards the vision of the organization and the potential of the employee as
well (Bass, 1998). Effective transformational leadership is identified by Podsakoff et al. (1990)
through the following six characteristics: Identifying and articulating vision. Providing an
appropriate model. Fostering the acceptance of group goals. Communicating high performance
expectations. Providing individualized support. High levels of charisma. Taking these key
characteristics in consideration can deliver the needed perception that employees need of a leader
to effect greater organizational performance, higher level of employee satisfaction, and an
elevated involvement within the team (Savic & Pagon, 2008).
Training & Development
The concept of training and development has been studied by many researchers as it
plays an important role in the success of an organization and the development of employees.
Research has also revealed that the development of an employee being a part of a company’s
human resource focus, benefits the employee’s productivity and organizations positive monetary
momentum (Cappelli, 2000; Gardner et al., 2001). Many organizations are interested in
availability of training and development due to the benefits that it offers. Furthermore, there is
the perspective of the value in employees and a trained employee with proper skills and
knowledge can provide a competitive advantage to the organization.
Evaluation of Research Literature
The literature utilized was informative and offered various concepts and in-depth
qualities found in psychological capital and its positive significant relationship with employee
engagement and performance output. Relationship development, attachment to co-workers,
workplace climate and opportunities for learning is viewed as an engaged employee who exhibits
desired individual contribution to organizational and individual performance (Shuck et al., 2011).
However, the literature also revealed that there may be a resistance to change and its negative
effects on the positive relationship with the employee and desirable performance (Avey et al.,
2011) which points to the need for a deeper focus on organizational culture work plan to increase
team involvement and satisfaction as it effects employee and organizational success. Job
performance can be strongly impacted by the type of leadership style within the company.
Transformational leadership, as stated, can encourage and create the necessary change that
catapults growth and future success on an individual and group basis. Researchers have also
stated the added benefit in training and development has a competitive advantage for the
employee, birthing satisfaction in their position and department contribution (Cappelli, 2000;
Gardner, et al., 2001). It is important to keep in mind that humans are complex and findings may
vary, nonetheless it is critical to moving forward in future research in this area to continue to
gain understanding and insight on job performance and the role that psychological capital plays
on engagement.
Summary
Positive psychology has opened the door to discovering the positive influence of
investing in human performance and the understanding of the benefits of flourishing relationally,
cognitively and organizationally. Intentional positivity that increases character strength has been
found to be the core of this theory.
Psychology capital with its components of efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience has
taken its place as a front runner not only in the practice of positive psychology but throughout
organizations globally impacting the attitude of the employee, behaviors and job performance
(Avery, et al., 2011). Research findings continue to affirm the negative connection amid PsyCap
and cynicism, turnover, anxiety and stress on the job.

Employee satisfaction-engagement and the business outcome has been linked but not
limited to productivity profit and employee turnover (Harter et al., 2002). Attitude and behavior
from the employee mixed with care and concern can create a level of obligation between the
employee and their level of engagement, positively affecting performance (Saks, 2006).
Research in this area is still emerging. However, these findings propose that individuals
who embrace the construct of psychological capital experience a direct influence on their
individual performance, as well as a higher level of maintained employee engagement. It is
imperative to continue with building on this theory and the strong evidence that has been offered.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Method
Chapter Overview
This chapter opens with an explanation of the hypotheses along with corresponding
rationales. A correlation design was used for this research; examining and analyzing the
construct manager perception of employee performance rating in relation to psychological
capital, and specifically the correlation between psychological capital and manager perception of
employee job performance rating mediated by employee engagement. This quantitative
methodology gathered data from a target population of adult working professionals from the
employees of an Information Technology Service department in the Health Care industry in the
United States. Criterion-statement recruitment took place through in-office recruitment email,
and from employees departmental wide willing to participate in the study. Data collection
included the employee participants completed emailed self-reporting surveys and engagement
scales. Participants were compensated through a drawing.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
For the purpose of this study the following research questions and hypotheses were
identified:
performance rating.
The rationale behind the alternative hypothesis is based on JD-R model, employees with
a higher level of psychological capital are found to have a higher level of motivation (through
hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism) fostering a higher level of engagement and performance
(Luthans, et al., 2007). According to Peterson et al. (2011) with a reserve of psychological
capital employees can withdraw from this reservoir to refresh their frame of mind and invest in
their performance which can positively impact ratings on job performance (Hakanen et al., 2008;
Schaufeli & Salanova, 2010). This psychological condition exhibits as a key element to
motivating employees to apply themselves, invest in tasks, and likely increase job performance
(Bakker & Bal, 2010; Hobfoll, 1989).
The discovery of empirical evidence was undertaken to determine how psychological
capital would have a positive indirect effect on manager perception of employee performance
rating through employee engagement, with the expectation, confirmed by substantial research,
that a high level of psychological capital will be associated with a high level of employee
engagement which will be associated with a higher level of manager perception of employee
performance rating. It was also taken into consideration that psychological capital will have a
significant negative relationship with low levels of employee engagement and manager
perception of employee performance rating. Additional testing was completed to discover if
there is no effect on employee engagement when psychological capital is considered. The
statistical level of confidence targeted was a .05 probability level proving the validity of the
above-mentioned hypotheses.
Research Design
A quantitative approach was utilized due to the extensive research previously made
available by scholars and theories that support psychological capital, employee engagement and
manager perception of employee performance rating. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey approach
allowed for investigation in individual levels of employee characteristics of psychological capital
and engagement. This research was inspired by the investigator’s observation of the necessity of
the construct of psychological capital and the benefits of employee engagement and higher
performance in the work place.
Operational Definitions of All Research Variables and Level of Measurement
Independent Variable. The independent variable for this study was psychological
capital that consisted of a collection of four psychological variables: hope, optimism, self-
efficacy, and resilience. These variables are viewed as having a positive impact on an
employee’s happiness and desired work-related outcome (Luthans, et al., 2004). This variable
was measured at the interval level of measurement
Dependent Variable. The dependent variable for this study was manager perception of
employee performance rating. The manager perception of employee job performance rating was
taken from the employee’s Personal Development Plan which measured the task and
performance outcome. This variable was measured at the interval level of measurement
Mediating Variable. The mediating variable for this study was employee engagement.
Engagement is defined by Kahn, “as the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their
work roles” (Kahn, 1990). This variable was measured at the interval level of measurement
Control Variable(s). The control variable(s) that were measured for this study are
training and development and transformational leadership. Training can be viewed as the ability,
knowledge, and skills that are required for the performance of a certain position (Ongwae et al.,
2018). Transformational leadership is focused on encouraging positive behavior or the leader
enables followers to think bigger (Burns, 1978). Both control variables were measured at the
interval level of measurement.
Figure 1
Research Model
Employee
Engagement
Psychological Capital Job Performance
X r = .4261 Y
Population and Sample
The participants for this study consisted of Information Technology Services
(ITS) department employees in a health care organization in the United States. Selection criteria
for the participants for this study were as follows: 1) they were required to be 18 years or older,
2) they worked in the same department for more than six months, 3) they had a current manager
assessed Personal Development Plan. All employees from the ITS department were recruited to
participate in the study, with expulsion of directors and executive employees. A G*Power
analysis (Faul et al., 2007) was used to determine that initial minimum sample of 114
participants, with the effect size f2 = 0.15, Power (1-β err prob) = 0.80 and α= 0.05, and 9
predictor variables (Appendix H). The nine predictors consisted of, the control variables of
transformational leadership and training & development, combined with 4 Psychological Capital
variables - Hope, Efficacy, Resilience and Optimism, along with employee engagement. An
extra 30 percent was added to the initial estimated sample size of 119 with the final number
being 149, to account for missing data, response sets, and other occurrences that affected the
data.
Procedures
The researcher obtained proper Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Chicago School
of Professional Psychology (TCSPP) approval prior to recruitment of participants and data. The
potential participants were recruited through Survey Monkey, a software that processed data
collected from the individual contributing employee in the Information Technology Services
department. The inclusion criteria were adults 18 years or older, who have been employed on a
full-time basis for at least six months and have a completed and rated personal development plan
from their current manager. An email containing the survey link was sent to each participant:
The survey link included an electronic consent form (Appendix B), qualifying questions
(Appendix C) and the instruments, Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) (Appendix D),
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Appendix E) and the self-reporting Mangers Perception of
Employee Job Performance (Appendix F) along with an instrument measuring Transformational
Leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Appendix G) followed by the
Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix H). Participants voluntarily consented to participate in
the raffle through the Raffle Participation Inclusion Form at the end of survey submittals
(Appendix J). The research instrumentation was administered online through Survey Monkey
and were completed remotely through the internet.

The criteria for exclusion were participants who were under 18 years of age, who have
not worked in the same department for more than six months, and have a current assessed
Personal Employee Development Plan rated by their current supervisor. Finally, participants
unwilling to sign the electronic informed consent form were excluded as well. This study did not
place emphasis on participants gender to remove stereotypical bias.
Validity
Potential internal threats to the validity and credibility of this research could have
occurred from sample size of the population. Depending on participants qualifying to take the
study and the number of participants that complete the study, serving as internal threats. Due to
these threats, the risk would be found in under powering the results and interfering with
observing the accurate relationship between the variables and threatening the internal validity.
For external validity, the research would increase its impact through generalizing the
population beyond one industry or identified department to allow for results that can be applied
universally. External threat that exist can be the disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic
negative impact on work, due to work from home order, childcare provision, and participation in
study capacity.
Instrumentation
Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24): Independent Variable
The 24-item Psychology Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) was used to assess the
employee’s level of positive psychological capital. As a self-reporting survey, the PCQ-24,
measures the four components that are incorporated within PsyCap: self-efficacy, resilience,
optimism, and hope. These four constructs were erected from the role Breadth Self-Efficacy
Scale (Parker, 1998); Resilience Scale (Wagnild, 2009). The Life Orientation Test which is used
to evaluate optimism and the State Hope Scale (Snyder, et al., 1996). With consideration of all
six designs and scales, only the most suitable measures from each were designated to produce the
24 items. The six selected items were evaluated for face and content validity, being state-like and
relevant to the workplace (Luthans, et al., 2007).
The Psycap uses a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree). PCQ scores were
aggregated and averaged which provided an overall PsyCap score. The higher the score, the
higher the levels of psychological capital in the respondent. Within the IBM Statistical Package
for Social Science (SPSS) software, Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the close relations
between the questions in the psychological capital survey and resilience, hope, efficacy, and
optimism. According to Luthans et al., (2007) Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.90 for PsyCap is
considerably high and the Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of the four subscales range from .65 to
.82 on subscale score (Avey, et al., 2006).
The use of the assessment within this study, did not require permission from the publisher of the
PCQ-24 by the researcher.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): Mediating Variable
Employee engagement is assessed by using the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES-9). UWES-9 provides a better fit to the data than a one- and two-dimensional
model with an indication of factorial invariance with acceptable internal consistencies.
The UWES-9 uses a seven-point Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = almost never, 2 =
rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 6 = always). Responses were aggregated and averaged to
provide an overall engagement score. Higher scores indicate higher levels of engagement in the
responder. According to Schaufeli et al. (2006), this survey has a high internal consistency of .90
and test-retest reliability of .72STr. Validity studies, according to Schaufeli & Bakker (2004),
states that work engagement is negatively linked with burnout. However, job resources, such as
training, can positively affect how an employee performs and well as their level of engagement.
The UWES-9 was used without charge, request for permission was not necessary.
Mangers Perception of Employee Performance: Dependent Variable
This instrument was used by the Information Technology Service department at a non-
profit organization to examine the stated hypotheses and research questions. Four questions are
used to rate the manager’s perception of employee performance with a rating scale from 1- 3 that
was utilized to measure the dependent variable for the study.
Transformational Leadership: Control Variable
To measure transformational leadership behavior of the manager/director based on the
employee view, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)-Short Form 5x (Avolio &
Bass, 2004) rater form was used utilized.
The three subscales – inspirational motivation (8 items, alpha = .91) measures behavior
of the leader and how desired goals and levels of expectations are communicated if meaningful
and challenging work is provided; individual consideration (9 items, alpha = .93) signifies the
leader who spends time teaching and coaching to employees individually; along with intellectual
stimulation (10 items, alpha = .92) that challenges the employees’ ideas and values for problem
solving will be assessed. These components were highly correlated and have been argued as the
best representation of a single transformational leadership scale (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994;
Carless, 1998). Participants utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = never, 1= once in a
while, 2= sometimes, 3= fairly often, 4= frequently, if not always. This survey required
approximately 10 minutes for completion.

The MLQ-5X is a widely-used instrument and highly referred as a valid, reliable measure
of transformational leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003; Avolio et al., 1999; Meunjohn &
Armstrong, 2008). The Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .74 to .94 for each leadership factor scale
measured by the MLQ-5X. To use the assessment within this study, permission was required
from the publisher, Mind Garden, and obtained by the researcher.
Demographic Questionnaire (DQ)
The researcher used the demographic questions to describe findings to discover the
impact that the characteristics may have on training and development. The demographic
questionnaire consisted of six multiple choice questions. The questions assisted in discovering
gender, age, ethnic background, tenure in current position, level of education and training and
development provided by organization.
Data Processing
To examine the overall relationship between psychological capital and employee engagement,
the research used the PROCESS analysis (Hayes, 2018) via the SPSS software. This was used to
measure and analyze the overall components of psychological capital and employee engagement
to discover if there was an indirect effect of psychological capital on employee performance
rating provided by the manager, through employee engagement.
Assumptions and Limitations
With little control over the missing data process, the researcher attempted to avoid the
effects by clearly communicating the requirements of the study. Communicating the
requirements was done to alleviate failure in completing the entire questionnaire or possibly the
morbidity of the respondent. Prior to the start of the investigation, the researcher conducted a
small pilot study to assist in identifying problems that may occur during the actual study, with
the goal of lessening an instance of missing data.
Ethical Assurances
During the study, information was collected about participants for the purpose of this
research. This included demographic questions such as gender, age group, and tenure.
To maintain confidentiality, participants or participants’ emails were not directly or indirectly
identified or associated with responses or completed questionnaires. Once closing the survey link
upon completion of participation in the study, participants were requested to voluntarily email
the researcher if they would like to be entered into a raffle.
Anonymity was crucial to the study to improve the integrity of responses. Therefore, any
information collected as a part of this study was treated as confidential. Analysis was done on the
aggregated survey group as a whole. The results collected was used solely for purpose of this
research. Individual responses remain confidential and can only be seen by the research
investigator and research supervisor.
Research material is kept for a minimum of five years as required by the American
Psychological Association (APA) and can only be accessed by the investigator, which is
protected by password. All research materials will be completely disposed after five years using
Secure Deletion Shredder software, which will destroy files and folders immediately and
permanently in a secure manner. Please note that Survey Monkey does not collect IP addresses.
Summary
This investigation provided information that confirmed that the constructs of
psychological capital, manager perception of employee performance rating and employee
engagement did not have significant interaction. The researcher tested the correlation between
psychological capital and manager perception of employee performance rating through
quantitative research. The PROCESS analysis was used to analyze the relationship between
psychological capital and employee engagement on manager perception of employee
performance rating sampled from working adult participants.
The participants were informed that they were answering Likert scale survey questions
about psychological capital and employee engagement. The participants were informed of the
use of individual personal development plan ratings. Data is ethically safeguarded and
electronically stored on an independent hard drive to protect the privacy and protection of
participants. The data retrieved from the quantitative surveys were used to inform, provide
evidence, and expand the current understanding of psychological capital and its influence of
manager perception of employee performance rating.
Chapter 4: Findings
This chapter includes findings and results of the data collection for The Effects of
Psychological Capital on Employee Engagement and Manager Perception of Employee Job
Performance Rating. The purpose of this quantitative study is to test the effect of psychological
capital on manager perception of employee performance rating and whether employee
engagement mediates the effects of psychological capital on manager perception of employee
performance rating. The survey comprised of 91 questions, with a cross-sectional survey
approach that allowed the investigation in individual levels of employee characteristics of
psychological capital and engagement. The required 149 participants of this study were engaged
from an Information Technology Services department of a United States organization. Online
data collection through Survey Monkey included the employee participants completed consent
form, self-reporting surveys and engagement scales: Positive Psychological Capital Survey
(PSQ-24), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
/Transformational Leadership (MLQ-5X SHORT), as well as the participants self-reported
Employee Performance Rating.
Setting
For this study, a three-step quantitative data analysis procedure was followed. It was
initiated by statistics that were summarized by frequency distribution to simplify the profile
characteristics or demographics structures.
Secondly, a test of internal consistency was performed to satisfy the reliability
requirements for the survey items used in generated scores for the test variables.
Finally, based and mediation analysis were carried out to determine the effect of
psychological capital on manager perception of employee performance rating and whether
employee engagement mediates the effects of psychological capital on manager perception of
employee performance rating. The findings were expected to validate the research hypothesis:
RQ1: Does psychological capital affect manager perception of employee performance
Demographics
At the onset of this study 148 participants were identified for the study, at the conclusion
of gathering data 168 participant replies were obtained, however, after further analysis was
conducted it was discovered that prominent data necessary from research questions and outcome
from psychological capital and work engagement had no response. Responses that had one or
more missing values were removed producing a total of 92 surveys that did not qualify for the
study, leaving 70 completed surveys deemed usable.

The researcher included a demographic questionnaire that identified the following
variables: gender, ethnicity, level of education, and tenure at current position. Most participants
were Male, accounting for 58.4% (n = 45), while Female accounted for a 32.5% (n = 25). Majority
of the employee participants are between the ages of 36 - 45 (36.4%, n = 28), closely followed by
ages 46 - 55 (33.8%, n = 26) with a lesser number of employee participants observed for 56 years
and above (15.6%, n = 12), and those between the ages of 26 – 35 (5.2%, n = 4). Across seven
ethnic groups, White (27.3%, n =21) and Asians (22.1%, n = 17) made up almost half the total
distribution while Pacific Islanders and Others (3.9%, n =3) made up the smallest portion of the
distribution. For Education, the largest count was observed for employees with Bachelor’s Degree
(42.9%, n = 33) and the lowest for employees with Doctorate Degree (1.3%, n =1). For tenure in
current position, employees with 2 -5 years of experience (40.3%, n = 31) made up the highest
portion of the distribution while employees with 6 months to 2 years’ experience (16.9%, n = 13)
made up the lowest portion of the distribution (see Table 1).

Table 1
Participants Characteristics
Number Percentage
Gender
Female 25 32.5
Male 45 58.4
Age
26 - 35 4 5.2
36 - 45 28 36.4
46 - 55 26 33.8
56+ 12 15.6
Ethnicity
Asian 17 22.1
Asian Indian 9 11.7
Black/African American 6 7.8
14.3
Hispanic/Latino 11
Other 3 3.9
Pacific Islander 3 3.9
White 21 27.3
Education
Associate's Degree 12 15.6
Bachelor's Degree 33 42.9
Doctorate Degree 1 1.3
Master's Degree 24 31.2
Tenure in Current Position
>10 14 18.2
2 - 5 yrs. 31 40.3
5 - 10yrs 12 15.6
6 mths - 2 yrs. 13 16.9
Total 70 100
Results
Cronbach Alpha (α) was carried out to test for internal reliability, which is how closely
the survey items are as a group. Table 2, 3 & 4, shows the alpha (α) values for PsyCap (PC)
items, employee engagement (WE) items and transformational leadership (TL) items.
The alpha (α), for employee engagement items are above 0.90 with a total reliability of
0.921. The alpha (α), for PsyCap items are above 0.79 with a total reliability of 0.851 while the
alpha (α), for transformational leadership items are above 0.870 with a total reliability of 0.881.
The alpha values reported reliability values of 0.8, indicating that internal consistency of survey
items has been met (Cronbach 1951 & 1970; Cho, 2016).
Table 2
Internal Consistency of PsyCap Scores (PCQ-24)
Description Cronbach's Alpha
I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find solution 0.801

I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with
management 0.803
I feel confident contributing to discussion about the organization’s
strategy 0.799
I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area 0.801
I feel confident contacting people outside the organization (e.g.
suppliers, customers) to discuss problems. 0.803
I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues 0.806
If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to
get out of it 0.806
At the present time, I am energetic pursuing my work goals 0.795
There are lots of ways around any problem 0.804
Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work 0.804
I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals 0.796
At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself 0.799
When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it,
moving on 0.845
I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work 0.814
I can be “on my own” so to speak, at work if I have to 0.816
I usually take stressful things at work in stride 0.808
I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced
difficulty before 0.808
I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job 0.802
When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best 0.803
If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will 0.832
I always look on the bright side of things regarding my jobs 0.8
I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains

to work 0.804
In this job, things never work out the way I want them to 0.841
I approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining” 0.804
Total Reliability 0.851
Table 3
Internal Consistency of Employee Engagement (UWES-9)
Cronbach's
Description Alpha
At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy 0.919
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 0.905
I am enthusiastic about my job 0.905
My job inspires me 0.906
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to
work 0.908
I feel happy when I am working intensely 0.919
I am proud of the work I do 0.917
I am immersed in my work 0.92
I get carried away when I'm working 0.911
Table 4
Internal Consistency of Transformational Leadership (MLQ-5X SHORT)
Description Cronbach's Alpha

Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 0.875
Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate 0.874
Fails to interfere until problems become serious 0.895
Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
standards 0.889
Avoids getting involved when important issues arise 0.894
Talks about their most important values and beliefs 0.879
Is absent when needed 0.891
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 0.885
Talks optimistically about the future 0.873
Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her 0.872
Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance
targets 0.876
Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 0.892
Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0.876

Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0.875
Spends time teaching and coaching 0.874
Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are
achieved 0.876
Shows that he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” 0.883
Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group 0.875
Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group 0.882
Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action 0.893
Acts in ways that builds my respect 0.871
Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and
failures 0.883
Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 0.872
Keeps track of all mistakes 0.883
Displays a sense of power and confidence 0.883
Articulates a compelling vision of the future 0.872
Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards 0.883
Avoids making decisions 0.887
Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others 0.882
Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 0.877
Helps me to develop my strengths 0.871
Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 0.875
Delays responding to urgent questions 0.887
Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission 0.873
Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations 0.877
Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 0.874
Is effective in meeting my job-related needs 0.874
Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying 0.873
Gets me to do more than I expected to do 0.877
Is effective in representing me to higher authority 0.874
Works with me in a satisfactory way 0.872
Heightens my desire to succeed 0.872
Is effective in meeting organizational requirements 0.872
Increases my willingness to try harder 0.872
Leads a group that is effective 0.873
Table 5
Summary Statistics of Scores
Mean Std. Deviation
Personal Development
2.518 0.552
Psychological Capital
4.661 0.433
Work Engagement
3.960 0.768
Transformational Leadership
2.518 0.552
For this study, each variable was analyzed and interpreted with a mediation analysis
using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4 using SPSS. Table 5 reports the mean and standard deviation
among variables. The mean of each score is more than 2, which indicates that the ITS employee
participants in general have a higher level of Job Performance (PD_Score), Psychological
Capital (PsyCap/PC_Score), Employee Engagement (WE_Score) and Transformational
Leadership (TL_Score). In order of mean increment, PC_Score (M = 4.661, SD = 0.433) and
WE_Score (M = 3.960, SD = 0.768) PD Score (M = 2.518, SD = 0.552), and TL_Score (M =
2.330, SD = 0.505).
The base regression results suggest that PsyCap positively and significantly affects
employee engagement (β1 = 1.011, p = .000 < 0.05, LLCI = .6675 & ULCI = 1.3548). The
covariates, transformational leadership (β2 = .278, p = .068 > .05) and training & development
(β3 = .0065, p = .914 > 0.05) were positively related to work engagement but non-significant.
While observing the relationship of the variables and the proving of the Research Question (RQ):
RQ: Does psychological capital affect manager perception of employee performance
performance rating.
The regression results suggest that PsyCap does not have a significant effect on manager
perception of employee performance through the influence of employee engagement.
Table 6
Coefficient for Meditation Regression
coeff se p LLCI ULCI
constant 0.7452 0.7372 1.0109 0.3158 -0.727 2.2174
PC_Score 0.4261 0.1915 2.2244 0.0296 0.0435 0.8086
WE_Score -0.0301 0.111 -0.271 0.7872 -0.2518 0.1916
TL_Score -0.077 0.1385 -0.5557 0.5803 0.3537 0.1997
Types_Tr 0.0241 0.0541 0.4443 0.6583 -0.0841 0.1322

The direct effect of psychological capital on employee performance is statistically
significant as indicated the p-value and confidence interval (Table 7). However, after
bootstrapping, the indirect effect of psychological capital on employee performance is not
statistically significant, given the negative and positive confidence interval, meaning that the
effect of psychological capital on employee performance through employee engagement is weak
and not significant (β = -.030, BootLLCI (=-.2977) & BootULCI (=.2181)) (Table 8).
Table 7
Direct Effect of X on Y
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
0.3113 0.0969 0.3036 1.7442 4 65 0.151
Table 8
Indirect Effect of X on Y
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

WE_Score -0.0304 0.1301 -0.2977 0.2181
A mediation analysis is comprised of three sets of regressions: X → Y (total effect), X →
M, and X + M → Y (Baron & Kenny 1986). The base regression analysis examines the X → M
pathway, given that a mediation makes sense if X affects M (Table 9). The mediation analysis
examines the X + M → Y pathway (Table 6).

Table 9
Coefficient for Base Regression
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant -1.4086 0.7989 -1.7631 0.0825 -3.0036 0.1865
PC_Score 1.0111 0.1721 5.8744 0 0.6675 1.3548
TL_Score 0.2776 0.1498 1.8534 0.0683 -0.0214 0.5767
Types_Tr 0.0065 0.06 0.1087 0.9137 -0.1134 0.1264

Summary
The researcher collected data using a cross-sectional survey approach through the online
survey site Survey Monkey for the investigation in individual levels of Information Technology
Services employee characteristics. The target sample size of 149 was exceeded having 163
surveys submitted, however only 70 accurately completed surveys held prominent data to
research questions and outcome (i.e., PsyCap (PCQ-24), and the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (MLQ-5X SHORT). After deletion of appropriate data, frequency distribution was used to
explore and understand the features of the sample.
The test for reliability was examined using the Cronbach Alpha to check for internal
consistency of the survey items. As expected by the researcher, an increase in PsyCap is
associated with a higher level of employee engagement which is associated with a high level of
job performance rating. A partial mediation was detected, given that the coefficient of PsyCap
reduced in magnitude in the mediation regression model. In extension, the results also reveal that
the inclusion of employee engagement weakens the total effect of PsyCap on employee
performance. However, there are two significant findings to a direct positive relationship
between PsyCap and Employee Engagement, as well as, a direct positive relationship between
PsyCap and Job Performance. The summary, conclusion and recommendations for future studies
and impact will be included in Chapter 5.

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The current study evaluated the positive effects of PsyCap through employees’ hope,
efficacy, resilience and optimism scores and their manager’s perception based on the employees’
job performance, while observing of how the level of an engaged employee may influence the
outcome. For the use of this study, employees from the Information Technology Services
department of a United States based health care company were recruited to participate.
Employees were selected based off the following criteria: 18 years or older, worked in the same
department for six months or more, with a current manager assessed and rated Personal
Development Plan. At the time of this study, working from home order was in effect because of
the Covid-19 pandemic. The environment at the time could be the culprit behind 168 participants
yielding 41.67% usable surveys.
Interpretation of Findings
This study builds upon previous research on psychological capital and employee engagement.
The importance of this study was to gain insight on the effects of psychological on employee
engagement. The findings provide support for the theoretical framework of this study.
A three-step quantitative data analysis procedure was followed to test the following
research question:
performance rating.
The regression results suggest that PsyCap does not have significant effect on manager
perception of employee performance through the influence of employee engagement. An
increase in PsyCap leading to a high increase in employee performance through the influence of
employee engagement was not supported. Hence, null hypothesis was retained which stated
that PsyCap will not have a significant effect on manager perception of employee performance
rating through the influence of employee engagement.
Overall, 9.7% of the variance in Job Performance was explained by PsyCap and
employee engagement as well as transformational leadership and training & development. It is
believed by the researcher that with a substantial increase in responses it would suggest that
mindfulness and connectedness to tasks could be observed when the employee is investing
physical, cognitive and emotional commitment to their tasks at work.
Based on the results regarding employee engagement, an increase in the employee’s
PsyCap score inevitably led to a high increase in employee engagement. The participants of this
study align with Ivancevich et al (2011) point of view that an engaged employee is one who
finds fulfillment using their skills to accomplish tasks and increases their opportunities for
potential growth. Reiterating an organizational need for engaged employees that will allow for a
better work culture established by hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism. An engaged employee
is a retained employee that helps build better work relations between colleagues and stakeholder
while increasing job performance.
Data collected from the employees suggest that the covariate transformational leadership
had a negative relation with employee engagement. This finding points to a fact that a motivating
and inspirational leadership style did not offer effective engagement for the participants of this
research, which is opposite of the findings stated by Bernard M. Bass (1998). The research also
showed results that the role of transformational leadership changes from positive, stating that a
higher level of transformational leadership positively effects a higher level of engagement, to
negative in the mediation analysis. Imperatively, the use of the mediator (work engagement) as a
determinant of employee performance changes the role or effect direction of transformational
leadership. A transformational leadership has been backed by research to be an effective
leadership style, which speaks to why the researcher chose this variant. With a higher number of
qualified participants, the researcher believes that a significant effect would have been
discovered without any negative changes across engagement or performance based on the
findings of Savic & Pagon (2008) that the characteristics of the transformational leader can meet
the need for higher level of performance, job satisfaction and elevated engagement.
Previous research indicates that training and development can raise an employee’s
competitive edge, delivering satisfaction in doing their job and having a positive impact on their
contribution to the departments goal (Cappelli, 2000; Gardner, et al., 2001). Based on the results
of this study, when testing how technical, soft, analytical and communication skills a significant
effect was not found on the participants’ level of engagement.
Based on the results, the training and development score on the employee engagement
was found to be non-significant when taking in consideration skills defined in this study as soft
skills, technical skill, analytical skill and communication skills. Training and development, in
past research, has been considered to raise an employee’s competitive edge, bring about
satisfaction in their role and increase their contributions to the organization (Cappelli, 2000;
Gardner, et al., 2001). This may still stand, when taking in consideration the participating
employee’s morale during the gathering of data and possible decline in work enjoyment due to
the pandemic. Nonetheless, based on the results of this study the obtained training &
development has insignificant effect on the participants’ level of engagement.
Recommendations
This current research study assessed the effects of psychological capital on employee
engagement and manager perception of employee job performance rating on health care
employees who worked in the Information Technologies Services department. Future research
studies can address the limitations of this study by expanding on Information Technology
Services in the health care industry with future consideration on a concentrated age bracket,
precise range of tenure, and specific gender role and/or ethnicity. Future research should also
reexamine the relationship between PsyCap and Performance. The significant and positive
relationship between PsyCap and Performance found in this study may have been impacted by
the halo effect, since mangers were rating employee performance during the pandemic without
physical observation of performance. Further consideration should be given to expanding on the
contribution of manager’s perception on employee performance rating and its effect on
employee’s psychological capital, as well as, replicating this study with a larger sample size to
increase the importance of the findings.
It is also recommended to replicate this study and include a qualitative analysis that
incorporates participant interviews to allow improvement in understanding of quantitative
findings and reducing limitations in understanding the effects of employee engagement on
performance ratings, and the logic behind a managers’ observation on performance rating. This
will also contribute with identifying any prejudice, past experiences or environmental hardships
that the pandemic, during the time that the research data was collected, may have on participant’s
response and manager’s perception.
Implications
It is recommended that organizations investigate the positive effect that psychological
capital which consist of hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism, can have a significant effect on
employee engagement and performance. Whether they exhibit higher engagement or obtain a
higher performance rating, based on relative literature these two dynamics are beneficial in
achieving organizational goals. One way to implement psychological capital awareness is to
include awareness through employee training, coaching and self-development allowing all
employees the opportunity to expand their personal and professional awareness and
effectiveness. Another option is to create opportunities to expand on the managers’ leadership
style. Managers can learn how to apply qualities that fit with the workplace culture and
workplace environment which may have a higher significant impact on their effect on employee
engagement and job performance. This adjustment may create value added behaviors that align
with the organizations values, which could be beneficial in influencing employee engagement
and increasing job performance ratings from the managers’ perspective.
Conclusion
Engaging the employee is not always found in team building events, elaborate meals
served in a meeting room, or by a new human resource incentive program. Employees are the
true asset to achieving the level of success an organization plans to accomplish. Higher levels of
psychological capital have a significant positive effect on the employee engagement levels as
well as significant effect on job performance. Given this, it is important for organizations to
focus on the employee’s mastery experiences to increase efficacy, while improving abilities,
knowledge, skills and positive work-life outlook. The resources found in psychological capital
can be developed in-person through workshops, via online training, coached, or included as part
of the employee’s personal development plan to enhance the elements of Hope, Efficacy,
Optimism and Resilience which govern their performance. When companies are intentional
about creating high performing employees with high psychological capital they in turn are
creating an environment that allows for success through challenges, desire to preserver towards
professional goals, and the ability to bounce back when faced with change and adversity.
Implementation of psychological capital may not be a quick fix for an organization but it does
generate positive transformation over time.

References
Acker, David A. (2001). Developing Business Strategies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Akinbobola, O.I. (2011). Conflict in human capital relationships: the impact of job satisfaction
on job involvement in a workplace. International Journal of Social Science and
Humanity, 1(2):92-95. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.16
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive psychological
capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(2), 430-
452. https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0149206308329961
Avey, J. B., Patera, J. L., & West, B. J. (2006). The implications of positive psychological capital
on employee absenteeism. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2).
https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/10717919070130020401
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of
positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1002/hrdq.20070
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1998). Individualized consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. In F. Dansereau & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches (pp. 53-74). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (2004) Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set
(3rd ed.) Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1348/096317999166789
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among
starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83(1). 189-206. https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1348/
096317909X402596
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees
in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147-154.
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1002/job.515
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industry, military and educational impact.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington Books
Burke, R.J., & Richardsen, A.M (2019). Creating psychologically healthy workplaces.
Edward Elgar Publishing.

Burns JM (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cappelli, P. 2000. A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review,
75(1), 103-111. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2000/01/
Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminate validity of transformational leadership behavior
as measured by the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
71(4), 353-358. https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30(7), 879-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006
Cho, E. (2016). Making reliability reliable: A systematic approach to reliability coefficients.
Organizational Research Methods, 19(4), 651-682.https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/
Coutu, Dianne L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Press.
Coffman, C., & Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002). Follow this path. How the world’s greatest
organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. New York: Warner Books.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. (3rd ed.). Harper and Row
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951). "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests". Psychometrika. 16(3): 297–334. doi:10.1007/bf02310555.
Demir, S. (2018). The relationship between psychological capital and stress, anxiety, burnout,
job satisfaction, and job involvement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 75(0),
137-153. Retrieved from www.ejer.com.tr
Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P. & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: a model and
research agenda. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 556-569. https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.

Du Plessis, Y., & Barkhuizen, N. (2012). Psychological capital: A requisite for organizational
performance in South Africa. South African Journal of Economics and Management
Sciences, 15(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v15i1.122.
Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high quality
connections at work. Jossey-Bass.
Dutton, K., & Kleiner, B. (2015). Strategies for improving individual performance in the
workplace. Franklin Business & Law Journal, 2. Retrieved from https://brainmass.com
Dye, D. (2018). Employee Engagement: How to avoid a tremendous leadership mistake.
Professional Safety, 63(12), 21. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com
Eloff, I., Achoui, M., Chireshe, R., Mutepfa, M., & Ofovwe, C. (2008). Views from Africa on
positive psychology. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(1), 189-194.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavior, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Gallup Organization (2008). What your disaffected workers cost. Gullup Management Journal.
Retrieved from www.gallup.com
Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., Park, H., & Wright, P. 2001. Beginning to Unlocking the black box
in the HR Firm Performance Relationship: The impact of HR Practices on Employee
Attitude and Employee Outcomes. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work:
From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit
innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.10.16/

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. http://doi.org/10.1037
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (3rd edition).The Guilford Press.
Hobfoll, S.. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.
The American psychologist. 44(3), 513-24. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
Ivancevich, John M. Konopaske, Robert., Matteson, & Michael T. (2011). Organizational
Behavior and Management. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. Journals.aom.org
Katz, D., & Kahn R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.
Kappagoda, S. (2018). Self-efficacy, task performance and contextual performance: A Sri
Lankan Experience. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 6(2).
DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3198802
Larson, M. & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting
work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(1), 45-62.
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/10717919070130010701
Lee, H., Cashin, A. G. Lamb, S. E., Hopewell, S., Vansteelandt, S., VanderWeele, T.J.,
MacKinnon, D.P., Mansell, G., Collins, G.S., Golub, R.M., McAuley, J.H., Localio, A.R.,
Amelsvoort, L., Gullar, Eliseo., Rijnhart, J., Goldsmith, K., Fairchild, A.J., Lewis, C.C.,
Kamper, S.J., Williams, C.M., Henschke, N. (2021). A Guideline for Reporting Mediation
Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: The AGReMA Statement.
JAMA; 326(11),1045–1056. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.14075
Lee, S.K.J., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 340-359. https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 695–706. https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/
Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital:
Beyond human and social capital. Management Department Faculty Publications. Paper
145.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avery, J.B. & Norman, S.M. (2007). Positive psychology capital
measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
60(3), pp. 541-572. Retrieved from scholar.google.com.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. & Avolio, B.J. (2007). Psychological capital: developing the human
competitive edge. Oxford University Press.
Maddi, S. R. & Khoshaba, D. M. (2005). Resilience at work: How to succeed no matter what
life throws at you. AMACOM.
Makera, A., Nasidi, Y., Kamaruddeen, A., & Jemaku, I. (2019). Correlation between team and
Co-worker Relationship and Employee Engagement. Journal of Advanced Research in
Business and Management Studies, 14(1), 16-24. Retrieved from researchgate.net.
Marvel, J.D. (2017). Not seeing eye to eye on frontline work: manager-employee disagreement
and its effect on employees. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 904-918.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12798
Mills, M.J., Fleck, C.R., & Kozikowski, A. (2013) Positive psychology at work: A
conceptual review, state-of-practice assessment, and a look ahead, The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 8(2), 153-164.
Mind Garden. (2019). Frequently asked questions.
Retrieved from https://www.mindgarden.com/content/23-faq#horizontalTab4
Muenjohn, D. N., & Armstrong, P. A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of
transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.704
Muenjohn, D. N., & Armstrong, P. A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of
transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.704
Oades, L. G., Steger, M. F., Fave, A. D., & Passmore, J. (2017). The psychology of positivity
and strengths-based approaches at work. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the
Psychology of Positivity and Strengths‐Based Approaches at Work, 1-8.
Ongwae, N. B., Lagat, C. & Odunga, R. (2018). Effect of organizational factors on employee
performance in Kenyan universities campuses; a case of Nakuru County, Journal of
Human Resource & Leadership, 2(3) pp. 1-26. Retrieved from stratfordjounals.org
Pandita, D. (2019). Drivers of employee engagement and engagement value proposition. In:
Management Techniques for Employee Engagement in Contemporary Organizations. 99-
108. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7799-7.ch006
Parker, S.K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835
Peterson, S.J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological
Capital and Employee Performance: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach. Personnel
Psychology, 64(2), 427-450. doi 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01215.x
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/
Pfeffer, J. & Veiga, J.F. (1998). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of
Management Executive, 13(2).
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617 – 635.
https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940619
Savic, B.S. & Pagon, M. (2008), "Individual involvement in health care organizations:
differences between professional groups, leaders and employees", Stress and Health:
Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 24(1), pp. 71-84.
doi:10.1002/smi.1164
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Preliminary
Manual. 1.1
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2010). How to improve work engagement? In S. L. Albrecht
(Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives,
issues, research and practice (p. 399–415). Edward Elgar Publishing
Seligman, M.E.P. (1998) Positive social science. APA Monitor, 29,2.
Seligman, Martin E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (2000). Positive psychology an
introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. https://doi-
org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Seligman, Martin E.P. (2002). Authentic happiness. Free Press.
Shuck, Brand M., Rocco, Tonette S., & Albornoz, Carlos A. (2011). Exploring employee
engagement from the employee perspective: implications for HRD. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 35(4), 300 - 325. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/
Sihag, P., & Sarikwal, L. (2014). Impact of psychological capital on employee engagement: A
study of IT professionals in Indian context. Management Studies and Economic Systems,
1(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067547.22.
Snyder CR, Irving L, Anderson J. 1991. Hope and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In
Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology, ed. CR Snyder, DR Forsyth, pp. 285–305.
Pergamon
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F.C. & Borders, T.F. (1996). Development and validation
of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321.
https://psycnet-apa-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321
Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A., (2011). Authentically leading groups: The
mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 4-24. https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/job.653
Wagnild, G. (2009). A review of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17(2),
105-13. doi: 10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105.
Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as
predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6). 566-
579. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610684409
Yammarino, F. & Dubinsky, A. (1994). ‘Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of
analysis to determine boundary conditions’, Personal Psychology, 47(4), 787-811.
https://doi-org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01576.x
Appendix A: Email Advertisement
Hello, my name is Carla Michelle Tucker. I am a doctoral student at The Chicago School of
Professional Psychology. As a part of my dissertation requirement I am conducting a research
study on Positive Psychology: The Effects of Psychological Capital on Employee Engagement
and Manager of Employee Job Performance Rating. The purpose of the research is to discover
levels of psychological capital (Hope, Efficacy, Resilience and Optimism) the effects of
employee engagement and the impact of managers’ perception on performance.
Eligibility to participate in the research study consists of persons who hold a position in the
Informational Technology Services as an employee, manager, or senior manager and are 18
years or older, have worked in the same department for more than six months, and have a current
manager assessed Personal Development Plan. Please note that participation in this research is
not a requirement of employment.
As a participant, it is required to complete three individual surveys: Psychological Capital,

Employee Engagement, and Leadership which should take approximately 15-30 minutes to
complete via Survey Monkey. If interested please click on (placeholder for survey link).
If questions arise related to the procedures prior to completing survey, please contact Carla
Michelle Tucker, Investigator, by calling 626.808.1474 or emailing:
ctucker@ego.thechicagoschool.edu.
This email is being sent via email from the SVP on the behalf of the Researcher, Carla Michelle
Tucker.
Appendix B: Informed Consent
Investigators: Carla Michelle Tucker
Study Title: Positive Psychology: The Effects of Psychological Capital on Employee

Engagement and Manager Perception of Employee Performance Rating.
I am a doctoral student at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. This study is being
conducted as a part of my dissertation requirement for the Chicago School of Professional
Psychology.
I am asking you to participate in a research study about how Hope, Efficacy, Resiliency and
Optimism effects your employee engagement and your job performance. You will be asked to
provide responses to three self-reporting surveys. This will take approximately 15-30 minutes of
your time. If at any time, you require a break you can complete a portion of the survey and return
later to finish. Although you may not directly benefit from this outcome, it will help to
understand how organizations perceive the value of the employee’s psychological capital and
their level of engagement. Please note that your participation in this research is not a requirement
for your employment.
Please take your time to read the entire document and feel free to ask any questions before
signing this document.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of psychological capital on employee
engagement and the employee performance rating.
Procedure: You will be asked to complete three self-report sections in the assessment, the entire
assessment will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. During the survey, you can
complete a portion of the survey and return later to finish if necessary. You will be asked to
follow the link to complete the assessments. The survey link will include the following three
instruments, Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES-9) and the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. You will also need to complete
the Personal Employee Development Plan Score Form that will be used to assess how your
employee performance rating effects the influence of your employee engagement.
Risks to Participation: The study presents no more than minimal risk because it is in no way
harmful or manipulative. While it is not likely, the questions about your engagement and
performance may make you feel uncomfortable: however, you are free to refuse to answer any
questions without penalty. The principal risk would be a breach of confidentiality. Please refer to
the Confidentiality section of this document for clarification about the procedures that will be
utilized in order to keep your data confidential and secure.
Benefits to Participants: You will not directly benefit from this study. However, the information
learned from this study may shed light to the leaders of non-profit organizations who seek to
increase the organizational commitment of their employees. The consumers will also indirectly
benefit from the organizational commitment from their service providers.
Alternatives to Participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw from
study participation at any time without any penalty and is not a requirement for your
employment. Please note that your decision to participate or not participate will no way be used
for decisions related to performance ratings, compensation, promotion or any other forms of
reward/recognition. If you agree to participate in the study, the data collected will only be used
for the purpose of data analysis.
Compensation: As a form of appreciation, once closing the survey link upon completion of
participation in the study, participants will be requested to voluntarily submit their email the
researcher if they would like to be entered into a raffle. The qualifying recipients of the prize will
receive one of the four electronic gift cards, each with a $25 value. The selected winners will be
drawn and separately emailed by the researcher as notification which will include the $25
electronic gift card.
Confidentiality: During the study, information will be collected about you for the purpose of this
research. This includes demographic questions such as your gender, your age group, and your
tenure. It is possible that your data may be used for future research or distributed to another
researcher without your consent. However, information that could identify you will be removed.
In order to maintain your confidentiality, you will not be directly or indirectly identified or
associated with your survey responses. Your confidentiality is crucial to the study to improve the
integrity of your responses. Any information collected as a part of this study will be treated as
confidential. Analysis will only be done on the aggregated survey group as a whole. The results
collected will be used solely for purpose of my research. Your individual responses will remain
confidential and can only be seen by the research investigator and research supervisor. Please
note that Survey Monkey will not collect IP addresses and your email address will not be linked
to completed questionnaires. Once closing the survey link upon completion of participation in
the study, participants will be instructed to voluntary email the researcher if he or she would like
to be entered into a raffle.
Your research records may be reviewed by federal agencies whose responsibility is to protect
human subjects participating in research, including the Office of Human Research Protections
(OHRP) and by representatives from The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees research.
Research material will be kept for a minimum of five years as required by the American
Psychological Association (APA) and can only be accessed by the investigator, which is
protected by password. All research materials will be completely disposed after five years using
Secure Deletion Shredder software, which will destroy files and folders immediately and
permanently in a secure manner.
Questions/Concerns: If you have questions related to the procedures described in this document
pleased contact Carla Michelle Tucker, Investigator, by calling 626.808.1474 or emailing:
ctucker@ego.thechicagoschool.edu; Dr. Niary Gorjian, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair at The Chicago
School of Professional Psychology, by emailing: ngorjian@thechicagoschool.edu; The
Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is concerned with the protection of participants in
research projects. You may reach the IRB office Monday – Friday by calling 312.467.2335 or
writing: Institutional Review Board, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 25 N.
Wells, Chicago, Illinois, 60654
Consent to Participate in Research
YES, I CONSENT NO, I DO NOT CONSENT
I have read the above information and have received satisfactory answers to my questions. I
understand the research project and the procedures involved have been explained to me. I agree
to participate in this study and understand my participation is voluntary.
Person Obtaining Consent: Carla Michelle Tucker (Investigator)

Appendix C: Qualifying Questions
If the participants consent to involvement, a qualifying questionnaire was included. If
participants answer the qualifying questions correctly, the participant could complete the survey.
Otherwise, if the participants’ answers do not qualify, they are sent to the “Thank You” page at
the end of the survey.
The qualifying questions consisted of the following:
1. Have you worked in the same organization for more than six months? Yes//No
2. Are you 18 years of age or older? Yes/No
3. Do you have a current manager assessed Personal Development Plan? Yes/No

Appendix D: Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24)
Instructions: Below are statements that describe how you may think about yourself right now.
Use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find solution.

2. I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management.
3. I feel confident contributing to discussion about the organization’s strategy.
4. I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area.
5. I feel confident contacting people outside the organization (e.g. suppliers, customers) to discuss
problems.
6. I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues.
7. If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it.
8. At the present time, I am energetic pursuing my work goals.
9. There are lots of ways around any problem.
10. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work.
11. I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals.
12. At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself.
13. When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on.
14. I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work.
15. I can be “on my own” so to speak, at work if I have to.
16. I usually take stressful things at work in stride.
17. I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before.
18. I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job.
19. When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best.
20. If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will.
21. I always look on the bright side of things regarding my jobs.
22. I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work.
23. In this job, things never work out the way I want them to.
24. I approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining”
Appendix E: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9)
The following 9 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement carefully
and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling, write “0”
(zero) in the space preceding the statement. If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you
feel it by writing the number (from 0 to 6) that best describes how frequently you feel that way.
Almost Rarely Sometimes Often Very often Always

never
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Never A few times Once a A few times Once a week A few times Every day
a year or less month or a month a week
less
1. At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy

2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
3. I am enthusiastic about my job
4. My job inspires me
5. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
6. I feel happy when I am working intensely
7. I am proud of the work I do
8. I am immersed in my work
9. I get carried away when I’m working
Appendix F: Managers Perception of Employee Performance Rater
The following 4 questions are used to rate the manager’s perception of employee performance with
a Rating scale from N/A- 3. Ratings are collected annually.
Score Rating Description
N/A Not Applicable Not Applicable
1 Does Not Meet Expectations Does not meet most goal component expectations
2 Meets Expectations Meets most goal component expectations
3 Exceeds Expectations Exceed most goal component expectations
1. Ability to do good work independently with limited or just enough instruction

2. Planning and executing work and dealing with unanticipated requests
3. The amount of deliverables provided by the employee
4. The effective utilization of tools and supplies to carry out work
Please provide your Personal Employee Development Plan rating below:
My Personal Development Plan Rating is:
Score 1 2 3
Appendix G: Transformational Leadership MLQ-5X

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Short
The survey will help you describe the leadership style of your direct manager. Please pick the
response that fits your experience. (Please Note: Survey questions cannot be used without
permission from Mind Garden- 3 sample question obtained from mindgarden.com)
0 1 2 3 4
Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if
not always
The manager I am rating …

1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 0 1 2 3 4
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are 0 1 2 3 4
appropriate
3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious 0 1 2 3 4
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations 0 1 2 3 4
from standards
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise 0 1 2 3 4
6. Talks about their most important values and beliefs 0 1 2 3 4
7. Is absent when needed 0 1 2 3 4
8. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 0 1 2 3 4
9. Talks optimistically about the future 0 1 2 3 4
10. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her 0 1 2 3 4
11. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving 0 1 2 3 4
performance targets
12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 0 1 2 3 4
13. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0 1 2 3 4
14. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0 1 2 3 4
15. Spends time teaching and coaching 0 1 2 3 4
16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are 0 1 2 3 4
achieved
17. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” 0 1 2 3 4
18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group 0 1 2 3 4
19. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group 0 1 2 3 4
20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action 0 1 2 3 4
21. Acts in ways that builds my respect 0 1 2 3 4
22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, 0 1 2 3 4
and failures
23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 0 1 2 3 4
24. Keeps track of all mistakes 0 1 2 3 4
25. Displays a sense of power and confidence 0 1 2 3 4
26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future 0 1 2 3 4
27. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards 0 1 2 3 4
28. Avoids making decisions 0 1 2 3 4

29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from 0 1 2 3 4
others
30. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 0 1 2 3 4
31. Helps me to develop my strengths 0 1 2 3 4
32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 0 1 2 3 4
33. Delays responding to urgent questions 0 1 2 3 4
34. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission 0 1 2 3 4
35. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations 0 1 2 3 4
36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 0 1 2 3 4
37. Is effective in meeting my job-related needs 0 1 2 3 4
38. Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying 0 1 2 3 4
39. Gets me to do more than I expected to do. 0 1 2 3 4
40. Is effective in representing me to higher authority 0 1 2 3 4
41. Works with me in a satisfactory way 0 1 2 3 4
42. Heightens my desire to succeed 0 1 2 3 4
43. Is effective in meeting organizational requirements 0 1 2 3 4
44. Increases my willingness to try harder 0 1 2 3 4
45. Leads a group that is effective 0 1 2 3 4
Appendix H: Demographic Questionnaire
Instructions:
Select the answer in each question that best represents you.
1. Gender
• Male • Female • Other
2. Age
• 18 – 25 • 26 – 35 • 36 – 45 • 46- 55 • 56+
3. Ethnicity
• Black/African American • Asian • American Indian or Alaska Native
• Hispanic/Latino • White • Pacific Islander • Asian Indian • Other
4. Tenure in current position
• 6 mths -2 yrs • 2 - 5 yrs • 5-10 yrs • >10
5. Education
• Associate’s degree • Bachelor’s degree • Master’s degree • Doctorate degree
6. Training and Development (provided by organization – mark all that apply)
• Soft Skills • Technical Skills • Analytical Skills • Communication Skills

Appendix I: G-Power Output
A G*Power analysis (Faul, et al., 2007) was used to determine that initial minimum sample of
114 participants, with the effect size f2 = 0.15, Power (1-β err prob) = 0.80 and α= 0.05, and 9
predictor variables.
Appendix J: Raffle Participation Inclusion Form
By submitting my email below, I am consenting to participate in the opportunity to receive an

electronic gift card of $25.00 that will be confidentially emailed by the researcher to each
individual winner once all survey submittals are completed.
Thank You for Participating

Positive Psychology: The Effects of Psychological Capital on Employee Engagement and
Manager Perception of Employee Performance Rating
Please provide your email address to enter the raffle and to be included for the four
chances to win a $25.00 electronic gift card.
Appendix K: Correlation
ProQuest Number: 29994715
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

Questionnaire P 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Questionnaire P 22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Questionnaire P 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL 1

Understanding The Effects of Psychological Capital on Job Performance and Employee

Engagement Among Healthcare Information Technology Employees

Carla Michelle Tucker

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Niary Gorgian, Ph.D.

Robert Miller, Ph.D.

Justin Long, Ph.D.

September 29, 2022

2022 by Carla Michelle Tucker

All Rights Reserved

Understanding The Effects of Psychological Capital on Job Performance and Employee

Engagement among Healthcare Information Technology Employees

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Business Psychology PhD, Consulting Track

Carla Michelle Tucker

Niary Gorjian, Ph.D., Chairperson

Robert Miller, Ph.D., Reader

Justin Long, Ph.D., Reader

Permission to Reproduce Copyrighted Material

Bass & B. Avolio). See Appendix for permission.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Niary

not be done without you and the accountability we established.

to be my connection to joy and laughter.

Many thanks to all of you.

not serve as significant mediator between PsyCap and Performance.

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 11

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study ..................................................................................................... 13

Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 14

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 14

Research Questions/Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................ 15

Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 16

Definitions of Key Terms ............................................................................................................. 17

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 20

Review of Current Research Literature ........................................................................................ 21

Employee Engagement .......................................................................................................... 23

Transformational Leadership ................................................................................................. 26

Training & Development ....................................................................................................... 27

Evaluation of Research Literature ................................................................................................ 27

Chapter 3: Research Design and Method...................................................................................... 30

Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................................... 30

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 30

Operational Definitions of All Research Variables and Level of Measurement .......................... 32

Population and Sample ................................................................................................................. 33

Data Processing ............................................................................................................................. 38

Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 38

Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................................................ 39

Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ......................................................... 52

Interpretation of Findings ............................................................................................................. 52

Appendix A: Email Advertisement ............................................................................................... 68

Appendix B: Informed Consent .................................................................................................... 69

Appendix C: Qualifying Questions ............................................................................................... 72