IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ibrjnl/v14y2021i6p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Performance Goals and Development, Feedback and Recognition, and a Climate of Trust Improve Employee Engagement in Small Businesses in the United States?

Author

Listed:
  • Tywanda D. Tate
  • Franklin M. Lartey
  • Phillip M. Randall

Abstract

Small businesses are the predominant contributors to the U.S. economy, yet they face many challenges to remain competitive and sustainable. There are several reasons a small business could fail, including a lack of human resources, limited financial resources, competition, technological advancements, disaster, and globalization. Improving employee performance by getting them engaged and productive in their work is an issue that cannot be overlooked for small businesses to function and remain competitive. There is limited empirical evidence that explains the dimensions of performance management and employee engagement in small businesses. However, how small businesses sustain their long-term performance remains uncertain. This study sought to bring together two previously distinct constructs- overall employee engagement and overall performance management, characterized by performance goals and development, a climate of trust, and feedback and recognition. The research was correlational in nature. A survey was conducted to generate and analyze data gathered from 121 employees of small businesses located in the United States. A series of Pearson correlation analyses confirmed the existence of statistically significant positive relationships between employee engagement and each variable of performance management, namely performance goals and development, feedback and recognition, and climate of trust. Notwithstanding these positive correlations, a multiple regression model with the three performance management variables as independent variables and employee engagement as the dependent variable suggested that there was a statistically significant regression model F(3, 117) = 32.34, p < .001, R2 = .453, explaining 45.3% of the variability in employee engagement. Nonetheless, this model confirmed that the variables performance goals and development and climate of trust were not statistically significant in the model (p > .05). In other words, only the feedback and recognition variable was statistically significant in the regression model, suggesting that it explained most of the variability in engagement, including that already explained by the other two variables. Overall, the outcome of this study suggests that small businesses implementing performance management processes have more engaged employees. The conclusions drawn from these findings suggest that overall performance management and overall employee engagement contribute to small business productivity and organizational success.

Suggested Citation

  • Tywanda D. Tate & Franklin M. Lartey & Phillip M. Randall, 2021. "Do Performance Goals and Development, Feedback and Recognition, and a Climate of Trust Improve Employee Engagement in Small Businesses in the United States?," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(6), pages 1-1, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/download/0/0/45250/47997
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/0/45250
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Parker R.A. & Berman N.G., 2003. "Sample Size: More Than Calculations," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 57, pages 166-170, August.
    2. Brinckmann, Jan & Grichnik, Dietmar & Kapsa, Diana, 2010. "Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 24-40, January.
    3. Cory Searcy, 2012. "Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 239-253, May.
    4. Susan J. Kowalewski & Suzanne L. Phillips, 2012. "Preferences For Performance Based Employee Rewards: Evidence From Small Business Environments," International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 5(2), pages 65-76.
    5. Lenth R. V., 2001. "Some Practical Guidelines for Effective Sample Size Determination," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 187-193, August.
    6. Chenhall, Robert H. & Langfield-Smith, Kim, 2007. "Multiple Perspectives of Performance Measures," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 266-282, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walid Cheffi & Ahmed Abdel-Maksoud & Muhammad Omer Farooq, 2021. "CSR initiatives, organizational performance and the mediating role of integrating CSR into management control systems: Testing an inclusive model within SMEs in an emerging economy," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 333-367, September.
    2. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    3. Antje Schmitt & Kathrin Rosing & Stephen X. Zhang & Michael Leatherbee, 2018. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Uncertainty and Business Opportunity Identification: Exploration as a Mediator and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as a Moderator," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 42(6), pages 835-859, November.
    4. Sirén, Charlotta & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction between strategic planning and learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 653-663.
    5. Fiaz Ahmad Sulehri & Saba Sharif, 2022. "The Impact of Firm Sustainability on Firm Growth: Evidence from USA," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, August.
    6. Mihaela Brindusa Tudose & Valentina Diana Rusu & Silvia Avasilcai, 2021. "Performance Management for Growth: A Framework Based on EVA," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Thomä, Jakob & Murray, Clare & Jerosch-Herold, Vincent & Magdanz, Janina, 2019. "Do you manage what you measure? Investor views on the question of climate actions with empirical results from the Swiss pension fund and insurance sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115100, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. K. Poehlmann & R. Helm & O. Mauroner & J. Auburger, 2021. "Corporate spin-offs’ success factors: management lessons from a comparative empirical analysis with research-based spin-offs," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1767-1796, August.
    9. Justin R. Hall & Selen Savas-Hall & Eric H. Shaw, 2023. "A deductive approach to a systematic review of entrepreneurship literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 987-1016, September.
    10. Marco Caliendo & Alexander S. Kritikos & Claudia Stier, 2023. "The influence of start-up motivation on entrepreneurial performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 869-889, October.
    11. Erik Lundmark & Anna Krzeminska & Dean A. Shepherd, 2019. "Images of Entrepreneurship: Exploring Root Metaphors and Expanding Upon Them," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(1), pages 138-170, January.
    12. Nguyen Thi Duc Nguyen & Atsushi Aoyama, 2014. "Impact of Corporate Culture on the Relationship between Efficient Technology Transfer and Business Performance," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 15(4), pages 637-661, December.
    13. Anastasiia Laskovaia & Galina Shirokova & Michael H. Morris, 2017. "National culture, effectuation, and new venture performance: global evidence from student entrepreneurs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 687-709, October.
    14. Hoque, Zahirul, 2014. "20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-59.
    15. Susan Müller & Alyssa Lara Kirst & Heiko Bergmann & Barbara Bird, 2023. "Entrepreneurs’ actions and venture success: a structured literature review and suggestions for future research," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 199-226, January.
    16. Mayer-Haug, Katrin & Read, Stuart & Brinckmann, Jan & Dew, Nicholas & Grichnik, Dietmar, 2013. "Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1251-1273.
    17. Rajib Roy & Fatima Akhtar & Niladri Das, 2017. "Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology students in India: extending the theory of planned behavior," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 1013-1041, December.
    18. Alfonso Siano & Ralph Tench, 2022. "Editorial," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(3), pages 267-270, September.
    19. Rodney C. Shrader & Mark Simon & Steven Stanton, 2021. "Financial forecasting and risky decisions: an experimental study grounded in Prospect theory," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1827-1841, December.
    20. Unger, Jens M. & Rauch, Andreas & Frese, Michael & Rosenbusch, Nina, 2011. "Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 341-358, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.