CapraTek Employee Engagement Study Plan: 12-Slide PowerPoint on Pulse Survey Goals, Tool Selection, Budget and Timeline

CapraTek Employee Engagement Study Plan: 12-Slide PowerPoint With Presenter Notes (Pulse Survey, Budget and Timeline)

CapraTek (360 employees, three R&D divisions, two locations) struggles to retain millennial employees, has less-satisfied Boomers who are not applying for advancement, has no data on Generation X, is beginning to hire Generation Z and may have workspace issues. Leaders believe there are no engagement problems and blame hiring quality for turnover. The company has no survey program.

Create a 10–12 slide presentation with detailed presenter notes for the leadership team that:

• Analyzes the current engagement situation across generations, from employees’ and managers’ perspectives.
• Defines the goals and purpose of collecting engagement data and how it will address the issues.
• Analyzes the common process for selecting survey questions or a survey tool.
• Estimates the budget, time and resources needed.
• Gives an overview of the implementation plan, with an APA title slide and reference slide.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,780 words). The budget figures are planning estimates, not vendor quotes. Add observations from your own course discussions (weeks 1–6), as the assignment asks.

Slide 1 (title): Listening to Every Generation: A Plan for CapraTek's Employee Engagement Pulse Survey. [Student Name], [University], [Course], [Instructor], [Date].

Slide 2: Why Engagement, Why Now

• CapraTek: 360 employees, three R&D divisions, two locations
• Retention problems among millennial entry- and midlevel employees in all fields
• Lower satisfaction among Boomers, who are not applying for advancement
• No data on Generation X; Generation Z just entering the workforce
• Questions about how workspaces are organized and whether they fit different needs
• No active survey program: we are making decisions without employee data

Presenter notes: CapraTek is a research and development organization of 360 employees in three divisions at two sites. HR has observed three warning signs. First, we are losing millennial employees at entry and midlevels across all fields. Second, our Boomer employees are less satisfied than we would like and are not applying for advancement, which risks losing institutional knowledge without succession. Third, we have no data at all on Generation X, our likely middle-management bench, and we are only beginning to think about Generation Z as new graduates join. We have also heard concerns that our work areas may not suit how different employees prefer to work. The core problem is that we have no survey program, so we are guessing. Globally, Gallup reported that only 21% of employees were engaged in 2024, a 2-point decline, and manager engagement fell from 30% to 27% (Gallup, 2025). We should not assume we are the exception.

Slide 3: What We Observe Across Generations

• Millennials: want growth, feedback, flexibility and purpose; leave when paths are unclear
• Generation Z: expect digital tools, mental health support and inclusive culture
• Generation X: likely carrying management load; needs are unknown
• Boomers: deep expertise; may feel overlooked for advancement or nearing retirement
• Caution: differences within generations are often larger than differences between them

Presenter notes: Based on our weekly introductions and discussions over the first six weeks, employees in different generations describe different priorities. Millennial colleagues talk about career growth, regular feedback and flexibility. Our newest Generation Z hires expect modern digital tools and value wellbeing and inclusion. Generation X employees are often the managers holding teams together, but we have heard little from them. Boomers bring deep expertise but some feel advancement is not meant for them. I want to add an important caution: research suggests that generational differences in work attitudes are generally small, and individual differences within each generation are larger (Costanza et al., 2012). That is exactly why we need data rather than stereotypes. Generational labels follow common definitions, such as those used by the Pew Research Center (Dimock, 2019).

Slide 4: Engagement Issues: The Employee Perspective

• Unclear career paths and limited development, especially for younger employees
• Feeling unheard: no formal channel to raise concerns
• Recognition and advancement may feel uneven across age groups
• Workspace design may not support focus, collaboration or hybrid work
• Possible differences between the two locations and three divisions

Presenter notes: From the employees' perspective, the likely issues are a lack of visible career paths and development opportunities, which is a common reason younger employees leave. Without a survey or other structured listening, employees may feel their concerns are not heard. Boomers who do not apply for advancement may believe opportunities are not realistic for them, which may reflect perceived bias or simply a lack of encouragement. Workspace layout may be creating friction between people who need quiet focus and those who prefer collaboration. Finally, experiences may differ by division and location, so we need to be able to compare groups while protecting confidentiality.

Slide 5: Engagement Issues: The Manager Perspective

• Executive view: "no engagement issues" and turnover blamed on hiring quality
• Managers lack data to explain turnover or low satisfaction
• Limited insight into what motivates each team member
• Generation X managers may be stretched between leaders and staff
• Risk: solving the wrong problem (recruiting) instead of the real one (engagement)

Presenter notes: From the managers' and leaders' perspective, the current belief is that we do not have engagement problems and that turnover reflects poor candidate sourcing. That may be partly true, but we cannot know without data. Managers currently lack information on why people leave or stay, and they may not know what motivates each person on their team. Middle managers, many likely Generation X, may be stretched between executive expectations and staff needs, and Gallup's data show that manager engagement is falling globally (Gallup, 2025). The biggest risk for leadership is investing in recruiting fixes when the underlying cause is engagement after hire.

Slide 6: Goals and Purpose of the Engagement Study

• Purpose: give every employee a confidential voice and give leaders reliable data
• Goal 1: establish a baseline engagement score by division, location and generation
• Goal 2: identify the top drivers of retention and satisfaction for each group
• Goal 3: test whether workspace design and advancement practices affect engagement
• Goal 4: separate hiring-quality issues from post-hire engagement issues

Presenter notes: The purpose of collecting engagement data is twofold: to give every employee a safe, confidential way to share how they experience work, and to give leaders reliable evidence for decisions. Engagement can be understood as employees bringing their physical, cognitive and emotional selves to their work roles (Kahn, 1990). Our four goals are to establish a baseline engagement score that we can compare across divisions, locations and generations; to identify what drives retention and satisfaction for each group; to test our hypotheses about workspaces and advancement; and to determine whether turnover is mainly a hiring issue or an engagement issue. These goals directly address the concerns raised in the scenario.

Slide 7: How We Will Use the Data

• Share results transparently with all employees within 30 days
• Division leaders and HR co-create 2–3 action plans per division
• Targeted actions: career paths for millennials, advancement outreach for Boomers, onboarding for Gen Z, manager support for Gen X
• Workspace pilots where data show a need
• Re-survey with short pulses every 6 months to track progress

Presenter notes: Data only build trust if employees see action. We will share results with all employees within 30 days and ask each division to co-create two or three focused action plans with HR support. For example, if millennials report unclear career paths, we can introduce career frameworks and mentoring; if Boomers report feeling overlooked, we can invite them into advancement and knowledge-transfer roles; if Generation Z needs stronger onboarding, we can redesign it; and if Generation X managers are overwhelmed, we can provide training and support. Where workspace concerns appear, we can pilot changes before spending heavily. Short follow-up pulses every six months will show whether our actions are working.

Slide 8: Selecting the Right Survey Tool

• 1. Define objectives and the decisions the data must support
• 2. Choose validated items (for example, engagement scales such as the UWES) plus custom items on workspace and advancement
• 3. Compare vendors: validity, benchmarks, anonymity thresholds, analytics, languages, cost
• 4. Pilot with 20–30 employees across generations and both sites
• 5. Finalize: 25–35 items, about 10 minutes, mobile-friendly

Presenter notes: The common process in the field starts with clear objectives: what decisions will the data inform? Next, we should use validated measures rather than writing every question ourselves. For example, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has a short nine-item version with established reliability (Schaufeli et al., 2006), and many vendor platforms offer validated engagement indexes with industry benchmarks. We will add a few custom items on workspace design and advancement. We will compare vendors on scientific quality, benchmarking, confidentiality protections such as minimum group sizes for reporting, analytics, accessibility and cost. Then we will pilot the survey with a small cross-generational group at both sites to test clarity and length before launch.

Slide 9: Estimated Budget and Resources

• Survey platform subscription: about $6,000–$12,000 per year (illustrative; obtain quotes)
• Optional external analysis and focus groups: about $8,000–$15,000
• Communications and participation incentives: about $1,500
• Internal staff time: HR lead (~120 hours), HR analyst (~80 hours), manager training (2 hours per manager)
• Estimated total: about $16,000–$30,000 for year one

Presenter notes: These figures are planning estimates, and we would obtain at least three vendor quotes before finalizing. For 360 employees, a survey platform with analytics and benchmarking typically costs a few thousand to low five figures per year, depending on features. If we want an external partner to analyze results and run focus groups with each generation, that adds cost but improves objectivity. We also need a small budget for communications and possibly a team-level participation incentive. The largest resource is internal time: an HR project lead, analyst support and manager training on how to discuss results. Overall, year-one costs of roughly $16,000 to $30,000 are modest compared with the cost of replacing even a few skilled R&D employees.

Slide 10: Time Frame and Resources Needed

• Weeks 1–4: approve plan, select vendor, finalize questions
• Weeks 5–6: pilot test and revise; brief managers
• Weeks 7–9: launch survey (3-week window, both sites)
• Weeks 10–12: analyze results; focus groups by generation
• Weeks 13–16: share results; division action plans
• Month 6 and onward: pulse surveys every 6 months

Presenter notes: The full cycle from approval to action plans takes about 16 weeks. During the first month we would approve the plan, choose a vendor and finalize the questions. We would pilot the survey and brief managers in weeks five and six. The survey would be open for three weeks at both locations, with reminders and time set aside during work hours. Weeks ten to twelve are for analysis and optional focus groups that explore results by generation. In weeks thirteen to sixteen we would share results and build division action plans. After that, short pulse surveys every six months would keep the conversation going.

Slide 11: Conclusion: Implementation Plan Overview

• Decision requested: approve a year-one engagement study (about $16,000–$30,000)
• Executive sponsor plus HR project lead and a cross-generational advisory group
• Confidential, validated survey with custom workspace and advancement items
• Transparent results and division action plans within 16 weeks
• Ongoing pulses to measure progress on retention and satisfaction

Presenter notes: To summarize, we are asking leadership to approve a year-one engagement study. We recommend an executive sponsor, an HR project lead and a cross-generational advisory group with representatives from all three divisions and both sites. We will use a confidential, validated survey with a few custom questions, share results openly and turn them into division action plans within about 16 weeks. Ongoing pulse surveys will tell us whether retention and satisfaction improve. With this plan, CapraTek can replace assumptions with evidence and respond to what employees of every generation actually need. Thank you; I welcome your questions.

Slide 12: References

See the reference list below.

References

Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4

Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center.

Gallup. (2025). State of the global workplace: 2025 report. Gallup.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287

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/10.1177/0013164405282471

More model assignments posted today

• Field Experience #10: NASW and GaPSC codes
• Elementary education comprehensive exam
• Restaurant logo semiotic analysis
• Social media fraud OSINT briefing