Work engagement challenges of employed master’s students and directions for improvement: The case of Georgia

  • 14 Views
  • 4 Downloads

Creative Commons License
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.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • 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
    • Conceptualization
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze
    • Data curation
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Formal Analysis
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Funding acquisition
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Investigation
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Methodology
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze
    • Project administration
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Resources
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Software
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Supervision
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Validation
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Visualization
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili
    • Writing – original draft
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze
    • Writing – review & editing
      Ekaterine Gulua, Tea Kasradze, Zurab Mushkudiani, Sopiko Mikabadze, Badri Gechbaia, Ia Jimshitashvili