Work engagement challenges of employed master’s students and directions for improvement: The case of Georgia
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(1).2026.33
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #1, pp. 504-516
- 14 Views
-
4 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
In Georgia, employed master’s students face a unique conflict between professional and academic roles, which can critically undermine their work engagement and performance. This study aims to identify the challenges to work engagement faced by employed master’s students in Georgia and to explore practical strategies for improvement. A cross-sectional, anonymous survey of 437 employed master’s students was conducted in the spring semester of 2023 across major universities in Tbilisi, Kutaisi, Batumi, and Telavi, ensuring national representativeness. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics via Pearson’s correlation, ANOVA, and regression analysis. The results quantitatively demonstrate that work engagement is strongly correlated with workplace learning opportunities (r = .702), supervisory responsibility (r = .704), and, most significantly, with high-quality supervisor communication (r = .989) and democratic management styles (r = .809). The study confirms that engagement is significantly higher when students feel their opinions are valued and when supervisors effectively communicate organizational goals. In conclusion, the findings provide empirical evidence that modifying workplace management practices, specifically by enhancing supervisory communication, adopting democratic styles, and offering developmental opportunities, can significantly improve the work engagement of employed master’s students. These insights offer clear directives for employers, universities, and policymakers seeking to better support this key demographic group.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M12, I23, J24, M54
-
References33
-
Tables18
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. The engagement management process model
-
- Table 1. Parameters for sample size calculation
- Table 2. Demographic, academic, and employment characteristics of survey respondents (N = 437)
- Table 3. Reliability statistics
- Table 4. Descriptive statistics of survey responses by thematic blocks (%)
- Table 5. ANOVA results for the regression model on supervisory responsibility
- Table 6. ANOVA results for the regression model on training effectiveness
- Table 7. Regression model summary for motivating conditions (Q30)
- Table 8. ANOVA results for the regression model on motivating conditions
- Table 9. Regression model summary for supervisor communication ease (Q29)
- Table 10. ANOVA results for the regression model on supervisor communication ease
- Table 11. Chi-square test results for the association between team respect (Q20) and goal alignment (Q32)
- Table 12. ANOVA results for the regression of team respect on goal alignment
- Table 13. Chi-square test results for the association between opportunity identification (Q23) and feeling valued (Q37)
- Table 14. ANOVA results for the regression of opportunity identification on feeling valued
- Table 15. Chi-square test results for the association between readiness for change (Q26) and advancement opportunities (Q34)
- Table 16. ANOVA results for the regression of readiness for change on advancement opportunities
- Table 17. Chi-square test results for the association between supervisor support (Q28) and communication ease (Q29)
- Table 18. ANOVA results for the regression of supervisor support on communication ease
-
- Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106-115.
- Chhabra, B. (2018). Impact of core-self evaluation and job satisfaction on turnover intentions: A study of Indian retail sector. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 9(2), 292-310.
- Ferguson, A. (2007). ‘Employee engagement’: Does it exist, and if so, how does it relate to performance, other job constructs and industry differences? Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(Suppl), 92.
- Gemeda, H. K., & Lee, J. (2020). Leadership styles, work engagement and outcomes among information and communications technology professionals: A cross-national study. Heliyon, 6(4), Article e03699.
- Gulua, E. (2018). Challenges of higher education learning and scientific research process management. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3), 80-100.
- Gulua, E., & Kharadze, N. (2017). Impact of time management on personal development of master’s degree students. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 11(2).
- Gulua, E., & Kharadze, N. (2022). Employed students’ development challenges in Georgia. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 8(2), 81-112.
- 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.
- Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2004). In search of meaning in the workplace. West Sussex: Roffey Park Institute Limited.
- Ismail, M., Abd Rahim, A. N., Lee, K. H., & Mohd Thahrir, N. F. (2016). Cultural values and career goal of gen-x and gen-y employees: Evidence from selected Malaysian companies. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 43-64.
- Ismail, M., Baki, N. U., & Omar, Z. (2018). The influence of organizational culture and organizational justice on group cohesion as perceived by merger and acquisition employees. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 9(2), 233-250.
- Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
- Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: A literature review. Kingston upon Thames, U.K.: Kingston Business School, Kingston University.
- Kwon, K., & Kim, T. (2020). An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review, 30(2), Article 100704.
- Malik, A., Thevisuthan, P., & De Sliva, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence, employee engagement, experience, and HRM. In A. Malik (Ed.), Strategic Human Resource Management and Employment Relations (pp. 171-184). Springer International Publishing.
- Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
- May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
- McCown, N. (2023). Hope International: A case study in nonprofit employee engagement through internal communication, leadership, and culture. In N. McCown, L. R. Men, H. Jiang, & H. Shen (Eds.), Internal communication and employee engagement: A case study approach (pp. 13-29). Routledge.
- Minelgaitė, I., Littrell, R. F., & Škudienė, V. (2018). Preferred leader behaviour in the business sector of Lithuania: Follower diversity perspective. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 9(2), 272-291.
- Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance management. Routledge.
- National Statistics Office of Georgia. (2023). Number of students in public and privat institutions by programs (2017–2023).
- Nguyen, C. N., Tho, A., & Nguyen, T. B. (2023). Understanding generation Z’s job engagement and performance in generationally diverse workplace. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science – Economics and Business Administration, 14(2), 93-108.
- Perumal, M., & Umarani, P. (2021). Models of employee engagement. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 9(8), 665-674.
- Prentice, C., Wong, I. A., & Lin, Z. (CJ). (2023). Artificial intelligence as a boundary-crossing object for employee engagement and performance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, Article 103376.
- Rahman, Md. H. A., & Karim, D. N. (2022). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of work engagement. Heliyon, 8(5), Article e09450.
- Rao, S., Chitranshi, J., & Punjabi, N. (2020). Role of artificial intelligence in employee engagement and retention. Journal of Applied Management – Jidnyasa, 12(2), 42-60.
- Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
- Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery concept. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39-46.
- Shuck, B., Adelson, J. L., & Reio, T. G. Jr. (2016). The employee engagement scale: Initial evidence for construct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 953-977.
- Stamenkovic, S., Ratkovic Njegovan, B., & Vukadinovic, M. S. (2018). Intra-national diversity: Perception of organizational justice and ethical climate in organizations in Serbia. Cross Cultural Strategic Management, 25(3), 425-442.
- Truss, K., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006). Working life: employee attitudes and engagement 2006 (Research Report). Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
- Udin, U., Handayani, S., Yuniawan, A., & Rahardja, E. (2019). Leadership styles and communication skills at Indonesian higher education: Patterns, influences, and applications for organization. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 111-131.
- Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878-890.


