How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?

Running head: How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?

Title: How Can Leaders Achieve High Employee Engagement?

Jessica Xu*
IBM New Zealand
Auckland, New Zealand

Helena D Cooper-Thomas*
Department of Psychology
The University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – Organizations aspire to have engaged employees, and spend considerable

resources to measure and improve employee engagement. Theoretically, leadership is a

key antecedent of engagement, yet there is no research directly linking leader behaviors and

follower engagement. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evidence for such a

link.

Design/ methodology/ approach – Research was conducted with a large New Zealand

insurance organization, using data from direct reports. A pilot study was first conducted (n

= 236), in which the JRA 360-degree feedback instrument was factor analyzed.

Subsequently, a linkage analysis (n = 178) was conducted to establish the relationship of

the resultant leadership factors with JRA’s employee engagement measure.

Findings –Three factors emerged from the JRA 360: Supports team, performs effectively,

and displays integrity. Correlation and regression results showed that supports team was
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 2

the strongest predictor of engagement; semi-partial correlations showed that the three

leadership factors overlapped in their relationships with engagement, with supports team

predicting most unique variance.

Research limitations/ implications – Additional research is needed to assess the

generalizability of the findings, and to establish causality.

Practical implications – The results demonstrate that there are multiple ways in which

leadership behaviors are associated with employee engagement. The primacy of supports

team suggests that leader behaviors in this domain should be a priority. Although our

design does not establish causality, we suggest that leaders should capitalize on their

strengths to improve engagement among their followers.

Originality/ value – The design of this study is superior to previous research, in particular

using a clear measure of employee engagement. The results suggest that team-oriented

behaviors are the most important for leaders in achieving high employee engagement.

Importantly, the results also indicate that other leadership behaviors – relating to effective

performance and displaying integrity – may also facilitate employee engagement.

Keywords: Employee engagement, Feedback, 360-degree feedback, Multisource feedback.

Paper type: Research paper

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 3

Introduction

Employee engagement concerns the degree to which individuals make full use of their

cognitive, emotional, and physical resources to perform role-related work (Kahn, 1990;

May et al., 2004). This fits with other recent psychological approaches that draw on

positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and focus on making best use

of individual strengths (Hatcher and Rogers, 2009; Luthans, 2002). Thus, employees who

are engaged in their work have an energetic, enjoyable, and effective connection with their

work (Kahn, 1990; Macey and Schneider, 2008). In addition to humanistic reasons for

pursuing engagement, there are commercial incentives also. Higher levels of employee

engagement are associated with increased return on assets, higher earning per employee,

higher performance, greater sales growth, and lower absenteeism (Banks, 2006; Harter et

al., 2002; JRA, 2007; Salanova, Agut, and Peiró, 2005; Towers Perrin, 2003). Further,

greater engagement is associated with decreased costs, including reduced turnover, lower

cost of goods sold, and fewer quality errors (Banks, 2006; Harter et al., 2002; JRA, 2007;

Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Towers Perrin, 2003). Moreover, a recent study shows that

engagement is a conduit for the effects of broader individual and workplace factors on job

performance (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, in press).

Previous research has typically adopted one of two approaches to understanding

antecedents of engagement. One approach is Kahn’s (1990, 1992) psychological

conditions of engagement, where the employee needs to have sufficiently meaningful work,

have the personal resources available to do that work, and feel psychologically safe in

investing themselves in that work in order to become engaged in their work (May et al.,
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 4

2004; Rich et al., in press). A second approach is the job demands-resources model, in

which the availability of constructive job resources leads to engagement (Bakker and

Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2007; Mauno et al., 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).

These resources can include organizational factors such as job security, interpersonal

elements such as supervisor support, and also role and task features such as role conflict,

and autonomy.

Although there is a growing body of literature investigating engagement, scholars

have noted that academic research lags behind practitioner developments (Macey and

Schneider, 2008; Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday, 2004). This is particularly notable

with respect to the role of leadership in employee engagement. While there has been initial

research on the relationship of leadership dimensions with engagement, this literature is

limited in that measures of engagement have not been provided for scrutiny (Alban-

Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2008; Palalexandris and Galanaki, 2009), or have assessed

antecedents of engagement rather than engagement itself (Atwater and Brett, 2006). Aside

from these, researchers have confirmed both indirect relations (Kahn, 1990; May, Gilson,

and Harter, 2004; Rich et al., in press) and moderating effects of leadership on engagement

(Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthpoulou, 2007). Yet there remains a lack of

research looking at the direct effects of leadership, using a clear measure of engagement.

Such a relationship looks likely, given the wealth of evidence that good leadership is

positively related to follower attitude and behavior concepts that overlap with engagement.

Past research has shown that transformational leadership is positively associated with

follower commitment (Lee, 2005), job satisfaction (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) and work

motivation (Judge and Piccolo, 2004), and leader-member exchange is positively associated
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 5

with organizational citizenship behaviours (Ilies, Nahrgang, and Morgeson, 2007). Hence,

the purpose of this paper is to investigate the direct relationship between leader behaviors

and follower engagement.

What is employee engagement?

The concept of employee engagement was developed by Kahn (1990) in his ethnographic

work on summer camp employees and also employees at an architecture firm. He defined

employee engagement as the “harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work

roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and

emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). Engaged employees are fully

present, and draw on their whole selves in an integrated and focused manner to promote

their role performance. They are willing to do this because three antecedent conditions are

met: Employees feel psychologically safe in the presence of others to apply themselves in

their role performances, they have sufficient personal resources available to devote to such

performances, and their work is sufficiently meaningful that such personal investment is

perceived as worthwhile (Kahn, 1990, 1992). These conditions are called psychological

safety, psychological availability, and psychological meaningfulness, respectively.

The engagement concept put forward by Kahn (1990, 1992) is of an integrated,

profound, and purposeful use of a person’s whole self in his or her role performance. This

overlaps with other concepts that depict a cognitive, affective, and behavioral connection of

the individual employee with the role and organization. Accordingly, some researchers

propose that other psychological concepts that connect employees with their work are also

part of engagement. These concepts include motivation (Salanova et al., 2005), job
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 6

involvement (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002; Salanova et al., 2005), job satisfaction

(Harter et al., 2002), organizational commitment (Macey and Schneider, 2008),

organizational identification (Gonzalez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, and Lloret, 2006),

proactive behaviors (Macey and Schneider, 2008), and organizational citizenship behaviors

(Macey and Schneider, 2008). Thus, in reviewing relevant literature, we include studies

investigating these engagement-congruent concepts in relation to leadership.

Antecedents of employee engagement

It is understandable that organizations wish to increase employee engagement, given that

engaged employees are willing to make use of their full selves in their work roles in a

positive way (Kahn, 1990), have better wellbeing (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006), are more

productive (Rich et al., in press), and remain in their jobs for longer (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli

and Bakker, 2004). The three antecedent conditions proposed by Kahn (1990), of

psychological meaningfulness, availability, and safety, provide opportunities for

intervention to increase levels of engagement. Psychological meaningfulness is influenced

by work characteristics, such as challenge and autonomy (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

Psychological availability depends on individuals having sufficient psychological and

physical resources, such as self-confidence, to invest in their role performances (Hallberg

and Schaufeli, 2006). Psychological safety stems from organizational social systems, with

consistent and supportive coworker interactions and organizational norms allowing for

greater engagement (Bakker and Xanthapoulou, 2009). This third antecedent condition,

psychological safety, offers the most potential for leadership to influence engagement.

Specifically, leadership that provides a supportive, trusting environment allows employees

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 7

to fully invest their energies into their work roles. Kahn (1990) established theoretical and

initial empirical evidence for a link between supportive leadership and employee

engagement. In the next section, we investigate subsequent theoretical and empirical

evidence, first from a leadership theory perspective, and then from an employee

engagement theory viewpoint.

The relationship between leader behavior and follower engagement

Evidence from leadership research

Theoretical work has suggested a key role for transformational leadership in engagement

(Macey and Schneider, 2008, p. 6), and consequently we adopt it here as a framework for

investigating the association of leader behaviors with engagement, although we note the

overlap of transformational leadership with other neocharismatic conceptualizations of

leadership (Bass, 1997; Howell and Shamir, 2005). The concept of transformational

leadership has four components: Idealized influence, with followers trusting and identifying

with their leader; inspirational motivation, by which leaders provide meaning and challenge

in followers’ work; intellectual stimulation, whereby leaders invigorate followers’

adaptivity and creativity in a blame free context; and individualized consideration, in which

leaders support followers’ specific needs for achievement and growth (Bass, 1985; Bass,

Avolio, Jung, and Berson, 2003). These leadership behaviors have clear links with

engagement constructs. Trust in the leader, support from the leader, and creating a blame-

free environment are components of psychological safety which enable employee

engagement (Kahn, 1990). The experience of meaningful work is an antecedent of

engagement also, through psychological meaningfulness (Kahn, 1990). Further, adaptivity

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 8

and proactivity, which are encouraged via intellectual stimulation, are elements of

engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008).

Leadership research shows consistent links between transformational leadership and

constructs that are argued by some to be part of engagement, such as motivation, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, proactive behaviors, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. In a meta-analysis, Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed that

transformational leadership is strongly positively correlated with follower job satisfaction

and follower motivation. Research has shown that transformational leadership is positively

associated with organizational commitment (Erkutlu, 2008; Lee, 2005); that leader vision

interacts with personal characteristics to positively predict follower adaptivity and

proactivity (Griffin, Parker, and Mason, 2010); and that high quality leader-member

exchange positively predicts organizational citizenship behaviors (Burton, Sablynski, and

Sekiguchi, 2008). These studies provide evidence for a link between positive leader

behaviors with follower attitudes and behaviors associated with engagement. Other

research has aimed to provide direct evidence, and we review this next.

Evidence from engagement research

Three studies claim to have directly investigated the relationship between leadership

behavior and employee engagement, although there are limitations to each which we

discuss below. Atwater and Brett (2006) looked at subordinate, peer, and supervisor

multisource feedback and engagement over two measurements. Three leadership behaviors

were extracted from the multisource feedback measure, namely employee development,

consideration, and performance-orientation. The only information provided on these

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 9

dimensions is that the first two are labeled relationship-oriented, and the third as task-

oriented. Increases in direct reports’ ratings of leaders on these three dimensions were

positively associated with increases in engagement. However, the Gallup Workplace Audit

was used to measure employee engagement in their study. This Audit measures

engagement as aspects of the workplace that leaders may act on, such as showing that they

care for the direct report, encouraging the direct report’s development, and providing

recognition for good work (Harter et al., 2002). In line with this, Atwater and Brett (2006,

p. 582) state, “employee engagement includes facets of work on which leaders can take

action”, including task and relationship components. The Audit items infer engagement

through a range of potential antecedents of engagement rather than tapping into the

construct of engagement itself (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Therefore, Atwater and

Brett’s (2006) study links task- and relationship-oriented leadership behaviors measured by

a 360 feedback instrument with a measure of mostly leadership-related antecedents of

engagement. Their research does not address the relationship of leadership behaviors with

actual engagement.

Two other recent studies are useful in linking leadership with engagement, but

again, both used quasi-measures of engagement. Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe

(2008) present the ranges of positive correlations between the leadership scales of their

(Engaging) Transformational Leadership Questionnaire with criterion variables that include

job- and organizational commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction. Similarly,

Papalexandris and Galanaki (2009) present a combined engagement measure comprising

subordinates’ commitment, effectiveness, motivation and satisfaction. They use the term

engagement for “economy of space and in order to avoid repetition” (p. 369). Since
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 10

engagement comprises aspects of commitment, identification, satisfaction, and

involvement, such measures appear acceptable. However, in both studies, the term

engagement is used as a blanket term to cover a wide range of measures, with no

information on the actual items or the weighting of different constructs in the final measure.

As a first point, this contrasts with the considerable care that Human Resources consulting

firms, client organizations, and academics take in defining engagement, and hence

developing or choosing their measures (Rich et al., in press; Macey and Schneider, 2008).

Second, this clouds the interpretation of findings, since leadership behaviors are associated

with a broad yet unknown measure of engagement.

In spite of these limitations, both studies contribute to our understanding of

leadership and engagement. Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe’s (2008) study shows

that transformational leadership behaviors are associated with more positive attitudes from

employees. The leadership scales in their research are predominantly relationship-oriented,

for example showing genuine concern, and acting with integrity, although task-oriented

behaviors are also present, such as resolving complex problems, and focusing effort. Their

results suggest that various relationship- and task-oriented leader behaviors are associated

with engagement. Papalexandris and Galanaki’s (2009) research is useful in identifying

two factors that positively predict engagement: management and mentoring behaviors (e.g.,

follower confident, power sharing, communicator, role clarifying) and articulating a vision

(e.g., inspirational, visionary, decisive, team oriented). The first set are task-oriented while

the latter set are relationship-oriented, suggesting that engagement can be achieved using

different leadership approaches. Three other sets of leadership behaviors (self-management

and inner balance, collaboration with other people – sociability, and processes/ bureaucratic
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 11

inclinations) were not related to engagement. These results show that it is only certain

leader behaviors that are associated with engagement, principally those that support

follower performance (e.g., role clarifying) or connect followers with the organization’s

goals (e.g., inspirational).

More general measures of supervisor support have also shown positive associations

with engagement. In line with Kahn’s (1990, 1992) research, May et al. (2004) showed

that supportive supervisor relations were positively correlated with engagement, with this

relationship mediated by psychological safety. Thus, supportive supervisor relationships,

as well as coworker relations and coworker norms, contributed to an environment in which

employees felt they could be themselves, and therefore were free to engage fully in their

work. Saks (2006) found a positive association of supervisor support and engagement.

Taking the job demands-resources approach (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), Bakker and

colleagues found supervisor support buffered the potential negative influence of job

demands on engagement (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthapoulou; 2007).

Together, these studies show that higher levels of engagement are found for employees

whose direct managers exhibit more relationship-oriented behaviors.

In summary, prior research suggests that both task-oriented and relationship-

oriented behaviors should be positively associated with employee engagement. Further, it

seems that leadership behaviors may overlap in their associations with engagement. Hence,

we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Relationship-oriented leadership behaviors will be positively

related to engagement.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 12

Hypothesis 2: Task-oriented leadership behaviors will be positively related

to engagement.

Research Question: To what extent do leadership behaviors overlap in their

relationships with employee engagement?

The relationship between leadership position and engagement

Previous research has confirmed that certain job characteristics are associated with

employee engagement. Specifically, employees with more autonomy and more control

both report higher levels of engagement (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006; Salanova et al.,

2005). Those in more senior positions in organizations have greater autonomy over how

they do their work, and are more likely to be in interesting roles that allow for cognitive,

emotional, and physical engagement in work (Kahn, 1990). Being able to make greater

contributions to organizational performance has also been argued to be associated with

work engagement (Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa, 2009), with more senior employees/

managers likely to occupy roles that allow this (IES, 2004; Towers Perrin, 2003). In line

with these findings, practitioner research by Towers Perrin shows the highest level of

engagement for senior executives (53% highly engaged, 4% disengaged), next directors and

managers (25% highly engaged, 10% disengaged), with the trend continuing down to

hourly workers who have the lowest engagement levels (12% highly engaged, 25%

disengaged). We anticipate the same trend in the current research.

Hypothesis 3: Holding a leadership position will be positively related to

engagement.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 13

The relationship between tenure and engagement

There is some direct evidence from consultancy surveys that engagement is inversely

related to tenure (Brim, 2002; Buckingham, 2001; IES, 2004). In line with this, research on

job attitudes has shown that these tend to decline over time, in a so-called “honeymoon-

hangover” effect (Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, and Stinglhamber, 2005; Boswell,

Boudreau, and Tichy, 2005). This echoes other literatures that examine employees’

perceptions of their relationships with their employer, such as unmet expectations and

psychological contract literatures. With increasing tenure, employees have more

opportunities to experience disappointments and contract breaches, and these are associated

with cognitive, emotional, and physical disengagement from work (Deery, Iverson, and

Walsh, 2006; Montes and Irving, 2008; Premack and Wanous, 1985; Robinson and

Rousseau, 1994). Accordingly, we expect a similar relationship for engagement:

Hypothesis 4: Tenure will be negatively related to engagement.

Method

Sample

Respondents were employees working at a large New Zealand-based insurance company.

In April 2008, 261 direct reports (among other colleagues) were invited to provide ratings

for their immediate managers (42 managers in total were rated) using the JRA 360-degree

feedback measure. 236 employees responded yielding a response rate of 90.4%. These

data were used for the factor analysis of the 360-degree measure.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 14

Three months later, employees from the largest section of the company were asked

to respond to JRA’s employee engagement measure (n = 486, response rate 90.0%).

Overall, 178 employees could be matched across the two datasets, and their data were used

for the linkage analysis. These comprise 16% managers/team leaders and 79% non-

managerial staff, with 50% of these respondents having 1 to 6 years of tenure. In terms of

role, 36% of the respondents were contact centre and support staff, and 62% of the

respondents worked in claims and membershipi.

Procedure

For each survey, staff members received an internal email invitation to participate in the

survey with a secure web link taking them to the online survey. All surveys were completed

via the internet.

Measures

Leadership. Leader competencies were measured with JRA’s 360-degree tool. This

comprises 65 items structured around 9 competencies: Leadership, communication,

problem solving/decision making, quality/customer service, teamwork, planning/work

allocation, coaching/training, relationship building, and personal effectiveness. Each item

is phrased as a behavioral statement. Respondents are asked to indicate how much their

manager displays the behavior on an 8 point Likert scale, ranging from “never like

him/her” (0), to “exactly like him/her” (8). “Do not know” responses and skipped items

were coded as missing values.

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 15

Following data screening, four cases and one item were removed due to substantial

missing data. The remaining missing values appeared to be at random, and therefore

missing values were replaced with maximum likelihood estimation (Tabachnick and Fidell,

2001), using expectation maximization imputation (Schafer, 1997). A further two cases

were removed due to outliers. All 360-degree leadership items were significantly

correlated and no substantial problems of singularity or non-linearity were observed.

To explore the data, we conducted Principle Component Analysis with varimax

rotation in an iterative manner. Items that did not load on any factor or that cross-loaded on

multiple factors were removed at each step until a clean factor structure emerged. The

initial run suggested five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (explaining 76.41% of the

variance). A stringent cut-off point of .50 was used for screening factor loadings due to

high correlations among the 360-degree leadership items. The final factor analysis was run

with a total of 33 items and yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining

74.10% of the variance.

The items and factor loadings are presented in Table 1. The first factor relates to

behaviors that maintain a high level of team performance and ongoing development,

including helping team members develop their potential, promoting team pride, and

encouraging a superior customer service role. Items in the second factor relate to leaders’

effective problem solving, and good management of time and priorities. The third factor

comprises behaviors that demonstrate high stands of ethics and honesty, as well as good

interpersonal skills. The three factors were named supports team, performs effectively, and

displays integrity respectively, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .91 to .99 (see Table 2).
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 16

Supports team and displays integrity are categorized as relationship-oriented, and performs

effectively is categorized as task-oriented.

Employee engagement. This was measured using the JRA Employee Engagement scale,

consisting of 6 items, with 2 items each for the cognitive, emotional and behavioral

components of engagement respectively. These three components are consistent with

Kahn’s (1990) conceptualization of employee engagement and we note that this structure

has been used in survey measures constructed by academics (May et al., 2004; Rich et al.,

in press) and other engagement survey providers (ISR, 2004).

The two emotional items are “Overall, I’m satisfied with my job” and “I feel a sense

of commitment to this organization”. The two cognitive items are “I take an active interest

in what happens in this organization” and “Overall, I would recommend this organization

as a great place to work”. The two behavioral items are “I feel inspired to go the extra mile

to help this organization succeed” and “I look for ways to do my job more effectively”.

These cover engagement towards work and the organization, and include the aspects of

satisfaction, involvement and commitment, including extra-role or citizenship behaviors.

Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree”

(5), with “neutral” being the mid-point and a “do not know” option also, which we coded as

missing values. The Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

Position. For position, respondents indicated whether their position involved managing

others (senior executive, manager, or team leader), or whether they were a non-managerial

employee.

Tenure. Tenure was measured using 7 intervals, of 0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-3 years, 4-6

years, 7-10 years, 11-15 years, and 16 years or more.

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 17

Data Analysis

The full sample of 236 responses was used in the exploratory factor analysis for the JRA

360-degree leadership measure. From this, 178 were matched with the subsequent

engagement survey data. Subsequently, two cases were removed due to substantial missing

values, with expectation maximization again used to estimate the remaining missing data.

Three cases were removed due to substantial outliers. Since most leadership scales were

severely negatively skewed (absolute skewness greater than 1; Meyers et al., 2006), reflect

inverse transformations were used (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001) which greatly improved

normality.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 18

Table 1. Factor loadings for the final 33 items on the JRA 360-degree leadership measure.
Factor Loadings
360 Items Supports Performs Displays
team effectively integrity
Takes a genuine interest in the personal development of
his/her team members .75
Helps his/her team members identify and develop their skills
and potential .74
Celebrates his/her team's successes .73
Encourages commitment to organization objectives .70
Ensures his/her team members are sufficiently trained to do
their jobs .69
Promotes a sense of loyalty and pride within his/her team .69
Encourages other to deliver superior levels of customer
service .68
Approaches tasks with enthusiasm and energy .67
Personally strives to excel in all activities .65
Supports team decisions, even if they differ from his/her own
view .65
Seeks opportunities to improve the quality of service to
customers .61
Builds positive, long-term internal working relationships .61
Willingly shares own knowledge and ideas with others .61
Demonstrates good presentation skills .59
Makes timely decisions, without unnecessary delay or haste .85
Provides timely responses to requests, phone calls, or
problem situations .78
Deals effectively with multiple demands and conflicting
priorities .77
Takes action without prompting .74
Anticipates workload and plans accordingly .72
Handles multiple demands effectively .72
Proactively deals with problems .69
Keeps promises made .67
Keeps others well informed .61
Is readily accessible to discuss progress or assist with
delegated tasks .60
Communicates clear performance expectations .51
Demonstrates high ethical standards .77
Can be trusted with confidential information .74
Is honest in dealings with others .73
Communicates openly and honestly - no hidden agendas .69
Accepts feedback (and criticism) constructively .68
Is a good listener when others are speaking .65
Maintains appropriate self control .62
Demonstrates flexibility and open-mindedness .58
Cronbach’s alpha .97 .97 .94
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 19

Findings

The means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables are shown in

Table 2. The correlations among leadership factors are high. Due to the negative skewness

in the 360 degree items, even following transformation, we used non-parametric correlation

(Spearman’s rho) for these variables. All of the JRA 360-degree leadership dimensions

significantly moderately correlated with employee engagement. Holding a leadership

position positively correlated with employee engagement, but tenure did not. Due to the

large amount of shared variance between the leadership factors, we also calculated semi-

partial correlations with engagement. Hence, each semi-partial correlation indicates the

unique variance of that leadership factor with engagement, which reflects the relative

importance of each leadership factor in predicting engagement (see Table 2).

To test all study hypotheses simultaneously, multiple regression was conducted with

employee engagement as the dependent variable. Tenure and leadership position were

entered in the first step, and the three leadership factors in the second step. Given their

high correlations, and that supports team has the highest semi-partial correlation (see Table

2), it was anticipated that only this factor would be significant in the second step. The

results are shown in Table 3 and confirm this. In the first step, tenure is not a significant

predictor of engagement, but leadership position is (β = .37, p < .001), and remains so when

the leadership factors are added in step two (β = .34, p < .001). Of the leadership factors,

only supports team is significant (β = .48, p < .01), with the three leadership factors

explaining an additional 22% of variance.

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 20

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations and partial correlations for study
variables.
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.17 .38 --
1. Leadership Position
2. Tenure 3.87 1.39 .32† --
3. Supports Team 7.04 .96 .02 -.03 .97
4. Performs Effectively 6.80 1.11 .02 -.01 .89† .97
5. Displays Integrity 6.97 1.02 -.02 -.01 .87† .84† .94
6. Employee 4.22 .51 .35† .06 .48† .42† .38† .85
Engagement
Engagement – semi- -- -- -- -- .21# .03 -.07 --
partial correlations

Note. *p < .05, # p < .01, † p < .001. Correlation coefficients were Spearman’s rho
correlation coefficients, unless indicated otherwise. Each semi-partial correlation controls
for the other two leadership factors.

The correlation results in Table 2 support three of the four study hypotheses. Both

relationship-oriented leadership factors (Hypothesis 1; supports team and displays integrity)

and the task-oriented leadership factor (Hypothesis 2; performs effectively) are positively

associated with engagement. Holding a leadership position is confirmed as being positively

associated with engagement (Hypothesis 3) whereas tenure has no relationship with

engagement (Hypothesis 4). With regard to our Research Question, our results show that

leadership behaviors overlap considerably in their relationship with employee engagement.

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 21

Table 3. Summary statistics for the hierarchical multiple regression conducted for employee
engagement

β ΔF R² ΔR²
Step 1: 11.44*** .13 --
Tenure -.06
Leadership Position .37***
Step 2: 17.47*** .35 .22
Tenure -.03
Leadership Position .34***
Supports Team .48**
Performs Effectively .06
Displays Integrity -.08

Note. **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

Previous research has strongly suggested that various relationship- and task-oriented leader

behaviors are positively associated with engagement. However, conclusions from past

research are limited by inadequate measures of engagement. This research unequivocally

confirms the positive associations between relationship- and task-oriented leader behavior,

as reported by followers, and those followers’ levels of engagement. The leadership factor

of supports team, a relationship-oriented construct, was the strongest unique predictor.

This suggests that direct reports react positively to leaders who behave in ways that support

the team, for example taking a genuine interest in team members’ personal development,

and celebrating team successes, and respond to this support with higher levels of

engagement.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 22

In addition to this finding, there was a considerable overlap in the variance in

engagement predicted by the three leadership factors. Thus, performs effectively (task-

oriented) and displays integrity (relationship-oriented) had approximately similar

correlations with employee engagement, although their semi-partial correlations (Table 2)

show that they predicted no unique variance in engagement. This suggests that engagement

among followers is associated with a range of leader behaviors, although leader behaviors

that support and recognize team members are more strongly and uniquely associated with

engagement.

The three factors we found in this study, and their relationships with engagement,

have similarities with Atwater and Brett’s (2006) study. For example, Atwater and Brett

(2006) extracted three leadership factors of employee development, consideration, and

performance, which are similar to our supports team, displays integrity, and performs

effectively factors. Similar to our results, employee development was the most strongly

correlated with engagement, although in their research also, the correlations for all three

factors with engagement were similar. The primacy of team-oriented leadership behaviors

that aim to develop employees (i.e., supports team) is also consistent with research showing

that supportive supervisor behaviors facilitate engagement (Bakker et al., 2007; Kahn,

1990; May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006). Moreover, the overall results link with survey firms’

white papers which show that integrity and confidence in leadership predict engagement

(ISR, 2004; JRA, 2007). However, this research is the first to supply clear evidence of the

relationship of leader behaviors with follower engagement.

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 23

The relationships of leadership and tenure with engagement

The results supported our hypothesis that leaders would be more engaged than those in staff

positions. This is consistent with previous research (JRA, 2007; Robinson et al., 2004;

Towers Perrin, 2003). There may be a number of factors underlying this, including

managers’ greater access to organizational information that may engender feelings of

inclusion in the organization, make their work more interesting, and enable greater

contributions to organizational performance (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006; Salanova et al.,

2005; Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa, 2009).

Against our hypothesis, tenure was not related to engagement. This null result

contrasts with previous research on engagement (IES, 2004) as well as research on attitudes

of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bentein et al., 2005; Boswell et al.,

2005). While this result may be specific to this organization, it suggests that engagement

does not necessarily decrease with tenure.

Practical implications

There are two important practical implications from our findings with regard to leadership

behaviors. First, leaders who act in ways that support and develop team members can

expect to have team members who show higher levels of engagement, with supports team

explaining the most unique variance in employee engagement. Although our research

design does not prove causality, other longitudinal research has shown links between leader

behaviors and engagement-relevant behaviors across time. For example, leadership vision

interacts with individual characteristics to predict greater adaptivity and proactivity

(Griffin, Parker, and Mason, 2010), and transformational leadership has positive effects on

follower performance (Dvir , Eden, Avolio, and Shamir, 2002). It is likely that the same
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 24

causality applies here and, accordingly, we suggest that leaders wishing to achieve the

benefits of engagement should focus on team-oriented behaviors primarily, such as being

genuinely interested in team members’ personal development, and celebrating the team’s

successes. Second, for leaders who are less able to develop their interpersonal skills, they

may be able to increase follower engagement through task-oriented behaviors.

Specifically, leaders may achieve this by delivering performance, such as through good

decision making and effective task management, and in displaying integrity, by showing

high ethical standards, and through being open and honest in communications. Thus, we

suggest that leaders should capitalize on their current strengths, whether these are in

relationship- or task-oriented domains (Luthans, 2002). However, we note that the three

leadership dimensions had strong positive correlations with each other, and therefore we

emphasize that our suggestions concern working on relative strengths.

For the employment variables examined, having a leadership position was

positively associated with engagement. Leaders need to recognize that they are likely to be

more involved in and passionate about their work than those reporting to them. Leaders

can consider what it is about their work that particularly engages them, and strive to

increase these aspects for their direct reports. For example, if their engagement stems from

knowing the importance of their work to the organization’s overall direction and

performance, then they should aim to communicate to the team exactly how the team’s

work contributes. This fits with a transformational approach to leadership (Bass, 1997),

and is in keeping with the primary factor identified here, supports team.

In this research, tenure was not related to employee engagement. The key

implication is that employees can be engaged with their work regardless of their tenure in

the organization. Given the potential for longer-tenured staff to contribute to organizational
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 25

memory and, in turn, performance (Cross and Baird, 2000), it is good news that such

employees can be as engaged in their work as their newer colleagues.

Strengths and limitations

Two strengths of our research were, first, the use of a thorough behavioral measure of

leadership and, second, a theoretically-based measure of employee engagement. The use of

these measures distinguishes this study from previous research that has sampled leadership

with few items (Towers Perrin, 2003), or used quasi-employee engagement measures

(Atwater and Brett, 2006; Papalexandris and Galanaki, 2009). Moreover, our two sets of

variables were collected at separate time points, with a four-month interval; asked about

different constructs; and each survey itself was approximately 60 items. These

methodological factors mean that the relationships found are likely to be true, rather than

the result of common rater effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff, 2003).

While our results are consistent with previous research in other countries and

sectors with regard to leadership behaviors and leader position, those for tenure are

different. Hence, some of our results may not generalize, and there is a need for continued

exploration of the links between leadership and engagement in other industry sectors.

Future research

Our study confirms the link between leadership behaviors and employee engagement.

Employee engagement is, in turn, associated with positive organizational performance,

including customer service, productivity, and safety (Towers Perrin, 2003; Harter et al.,

2002; JRA, 2007, 2008). More evidence is needed that links leader behaviors, employee

engagement, and organizational performance in a single study. Longitudinal data would be

 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 26

particularly useful in this regard, to explore causality in the leadership-engagement

relationship. Additionally, there is a need to assess whether leadership development

programs are effective in improving organizational performance via engagement (Atwater

and Brett, 2006).

In line with previous research, we found that being in a leadership position was

associated with higher levels of engagement. More research is needed to understand why

leaders have higher engagement levels, for example looking at job characteristics and social

networks of leaders versus followers to assess the most important contributors (Bakker and

Xanthopoulou, 2009; Bono and Anderson, 2005). From a practical perspective, it may be

possible to make use of some of these factors to promote engagement among other

employees. For instance, if inclusion in social networks is key in making work meaningful

or providing a safe environment for engagement (Kahn, 1990), then more emphasis can be

placed on supporting employees in building their networks, for example through

organization-supported special interest groups or mentoring.

Conclusion

This research confirms that leadership behaviors (supports team, performs effectively, and

displays integrity) are positively associated with followers’ engagement, with leadership

behaviors focused on supporting and developing the team being the strongest unique

predictor of engagement among followers. Holding a leadership position was also

associated with higher engagement, but tenure was not associated with engagement. These

findings are in line with earlier research, and support the link between the behavior of

leaders and the willingness of employees under their guidance to fully engage in their work

roles.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 27

References
Alban-Metcalfe, J., and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2008), “Development of a private sector
version of the (Engaging) Transformational Leadership Questionnaire”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 104-121.
Atwater, L. E., and Brett, J. F. (2006), “360-degree feedback to leaders”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, 578-600.
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the
art”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 2, 274-284.
Bakker, A. B., and Xanthopoulou, D. (2009), “The crossover of daily work engagement:
Test of an actor-partner interdependence model”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 94 No. 6, 1562-1571.
Bass, B. M. (1985), “Leadership and performance beyond expectations”, New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52
No. 2, 130-139.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, 207-218.
Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C., and Stinglhamber, F. (2005), “The role of
change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth
modeling approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, 468-482.
Bono, J. E., and Anderson, M. H. (2005), “The advice and influence networks of
transformational leaders”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, 1306-
1314.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., and Tichy, J. (2005), “The relationship between
employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, 882-892.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 28

Brown, T. A. (2006), “Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research”, New York: The
Guilford Press.
Buckingham, M. (2001), “What a waste”, People Management, 11 October, pp. 36-39.
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., and Sekiguchi, T. (2008), “Linking justice, performance, and
citizenship via leader–member exchange”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 23, 51-61.
Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), “Technology is not enough: Improving performance by
building organizational memory”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, 69-78.
Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., and Walsh, J. T. (2006), “Toward a better understanding of
psychological contract breach: A study of customer service employees”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, 166-175.
Erkutlu, H. (2008), “The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and
leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 27 No. 7, 708-726.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Lloret, S. (2006), “Burnout and
work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles?”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 68, 165-174.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., Mason, C. M. (2010), “Leader vision and the development of
adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study” Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, 174-182.
Hallberg, U. E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2006), “"Same same" but different? Can work
engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational
commitment?”, European Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, 119-127.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., and Hayes, T. L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, 268-279.
Hatcher, R. L., and Rogers, D. T. (2009), “Development and validation of a measure of
interpersonal strengths: The inventory of interpersonal strengths”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 4, 554-569.
Howell, J. M., and Shamir, B. (2005), “The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 30 No. 1, 96-112.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 29

ISR (2004), Creating Competitive Advantage from your Employees: A Global Study of
Employee Engagement, Chicago, IL: Author.
JRA (2007), Employee Engagement: Driving Employee Performance, Auckland, NZ:
Author.
JRA (2007), Employee Engagement: Stories of Success, Auckland, NZ: Author.
Judge, T. A., and Piccolo, R. F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 5, 755-768.
Kahn, W. A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, 692-724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992), “To be fully there: Psychological presence at work”, Human
Relations, Vol. 45 No. 4, 321-349.
Lee, J. (2005), “Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, 655-672.
Luthans, F. (2002), “Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing
psychological strengths”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No.1, 57-72.
Macey, W. H., and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, 3-30.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., and Leiter, M. P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, 397-422.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A. J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research:
Design and Interpretation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montes, S. D., and Irving, P. G. (2008), “Disentangling the effects of promised and
delivered inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the
mediating role of trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, 1367-1381.
Papalexandris, N., and Galanaki, E. (2009), “Leaderships' impact on employee engagement:
Differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, 365-385.
Perrin, T. (2003), “Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement”, (pp.
1-35), Stamford, CT: Author.
 How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? 30

Podsakoff, P. M.,McKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), “Common

method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, 879 – 903.
Premack, S. L. and Wanous, J. P. (1985), “A meta-analysis of realistic job preview
experiments”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 70, 706-719.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (in press), “Job engagement: Antecedents
and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement,
(Report 408), Brighton, UK: Institute of Employment Studies.
Robinson, S. L., and Rousseau, D. M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: Not
the exception but the norm”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, 245-259.
Saks, A. M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, 600-619.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., and Peiró, J. M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and
work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of
service climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, 1217-1227.
Schafer, J. L. (1997), Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data, London: Chapman and
Hall.
Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, 293-315.
Seligman, M. E. P., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “ Positive psychology: An
introduction”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, 5-14.
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.), Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Towers Perrin (2003), Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee
Engagement, Stamford, CT: Author.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2009), “Work
engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal
resources”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82, 183-
200.
i
The client organization did not wish for any sociodemographic information to be collected on variables such as age,
gender, and ethnicity, so that respondents would feel confident that their responses were anonymous. Hence, the sample
cannot be further described. However, the high response rates provide confidence that these results were representative of
the organization.