Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship betweentransformational leadership, meaningful work and workplace engagement. Although there isconsensus that better engaged employees help organizations to perform better, industry reportsindicate that only one fifth of employees are engaged in their work.
University of Wollongong
Research Online
Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences - Papers
(Archive)
Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health
2010
Transformational leadership, workplace
engagement and the mediating infuence of
meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework
Mohammed Ghadi
University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Mario Fernando
University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Peter Caputi
University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the
University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW
Library: [email protected]
Publication Details
Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. & Caputi, P. (2010). Transformational leadership, workplace engagement and the mediating infuence of
meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework. Australian New Zealand Academy of Management Annual Conference (pp.
1-15). Adelaide: ANZAM.
Transformational leadership, workplace engagement and the mediating
infuence of meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework
Abstract
Te purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship betweentransformational leadership,
meaningful work and workplace engagement. Although there isconsensus that beter engaged employees help
organizations to perform beter, industry reportsindicate that only one ffh of employees are engaged in their
work. While there is some evidence inthe literature to suggest a link between transformational leadership
factors such as idealizedinfuence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration, and thecomponents of workplace engagement such as vigor, dedication and absorption, litle is
known abouthe nature of this relationship. Tis paper proposes a conceptual framework supporting an
indirectrelationship between transformational leadership and followers workplace engagement, arelationship
mediated by followers perceptions of meaningful work. Te paper provides insights into enhancing followers
workplace engagement via transformational leaders through their ability tocreate meaningful work. Te
proposed conceptual framework has implications for researchersexamining the link between transformational
leadership and work engagement, and for organizationskeen to improve employee engagement levels through
by leaders.
Keywords
Transformational, leadership, workplace, engagement, mediating, infuence, meaningful, work, Building,
conceptual, framework
Disciplines
Arts and Humanities | Life Sciences | Medicine and Health Sciences | Social and Behavioral Sciences
Publication Details
Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. & Caputi, P. (2010). Transformational leadership, workplace engagement and the
mediating infuence of meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework. Australian New Zealand Academy
of Management Annual Conference (pp. 1-15). Adelaide: ANZAM.
Tis conference paper is available at Research Online: htp://ro.uow.edu.au/hbspapers/2200
Transformational Leadership, Workplace Engagement and the Mediating Influence
of Meaningful Work: Building a Conceptual Framework
Mohammed Ghadi
School of Management & Marketing, Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Mario Fernando
School of Management & Marketing, Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Peter Caputi
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Behaviour Science, University of Wollongong, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 15 ANZAM 2010
1
Transformational Leadership, Workplace Engagement and the Mediating Influence of
Meaningful Work: Building a Conceptual Framework
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship between
transformational leadership, meaningful work and workplace engagement. Although there is
consensus that better engaged employees help organizations to perform better, industry reports
indicate that only one fifth of employees are engaged in their work. While there is some evidence in
the literature to suggest a link between transformational leadership factors such as idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, and the
components of workplace engagement such as vigor, dedication and absorption, little is known about
the nature of this relationship. This paper proposes a conceptual framework supporting an indirect
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ workplace engagement, a
relationship mediated by followers’ perceptions of meaningful work. The paper provides insights into
enhancing followers’ workplace engagement via transformational leaders through their ability to
create meaningful work. The proposed conceptual framework has implications for researchers
examining the link between transformational leadership and work engagement, and for organizations
keen to improve employee engagement levels through by leaders.
Keywords: Transformational leadership, Workplace engagement, Perceived work characteristics.
PREFACE
Engagement as a broad psychological phenomena shares many characteristics with various
workplace phenomena. By itself engagement might be examined as existing in a collection of
different work related phenomena, which all describe in different but overlapping ways how people
relate to work (Saks 2006). Some authors consider engagement as simply mix of various traditional
concepts, such as job commitment, involvement, satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour
(e.g. Ferguson 2005). Other authors consider engagement as unique and separate phenomenon that
goes beyond these traditional concepts (e.g. Maslach and Leiter 2008).
Given the relationship between engagement and other well known psychological phenomena, the
increasing interest on engagement comes from researchers’ calls to deeply focus on unique workplace
psychological phenomena, rather than negative terms in organizational behaviour research such as job
stress and burnout. For example, Myers (2000) called for more research on positive states of
individuals’ health, since the “number of publications on negative states exceeds that on positive states
by a ratio of 14:1” (cited in Bakker & Schaufeli 2008: 187). Interestingly, Schaufeli and Bakker
(2003) added that about 95% of the articles that have been published in 2003 in the Journal of
Page 2 of 15 ANZAM 2010
2
Occupational Health Psychology deals with negative states of workers' health. Thus, the current
conceptual paper draws attention to a positive workplace phenomena and how it relates to
transformational leadership i.e. engagement.
BACKGROUND
While there is no one overarching explanation of engagement, what most scholars agree on is that
engagement is a motivational notion which has been characterized as “a distinct and unique construct
that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components . . . associated with individual role
performance” (Saks 2005: 602). According to Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker
(2001), the feeling of engagement manifests when employees experience a more persistent and
pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or
behaviour. According to Schaufeli et al. (2001: 74), work engagement is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption.
Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties.
Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being
fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has
difficulties with detaching oneself from work. (2001: 74)
Engaged employees often display a deep, positive emotional connection with their work, are likely
to exert extra effort and are willing to go the extra mile to achieve organizational accomplishments
(Schaufeli et al. 2001; Saks 2006). The term workplace engagement has been identified as one of
strongest predictors of organizational success (Attridge 2009; Richman 2006) because when it is
understood and assessed well, it gives organizations a remarkable ability to influence various
operational areas in the organization.
Although there is consensus that better engaged employees move organizations forward (Shuck &
Wollard 2010), global consultancy firm reports show that only one fifth of employees are engaged in
Page 3 of 15 ANZAM 2010
3
their work, and that the engagement levels are steadily declining (e.g. Gallup 2009; Tower Perrin
2009). More critically, organizations are neglecting to assess the levels of employee engagement.
According to Attridge (2009: 386), although there is an increasing desire to measure employee
engagement, most companies are not measuring it. Thus due to this lack of knowledge about employee
engagement, organizations are unaware of the critical strategies necessary to promote employee
engagement (Czarnowsky 2008).
Reports have estimated that the percentage of engaged employees are declining and costing
countries greatly in productivity losses. For instance, in Australia, figures show that disengaged
employees
1
have increased to reach more than 82%, costing the Australian economy between A$36.1-
A$45.4 billion annually in productivity losses (Gallup 2009). Studies estimate that these losses will
increase to more than A$100 billion annually (Smith 2009: 59). The negative impacts from disengaged
employees are still evolving, a survey by Tower Perrin (2009) indicates that 80% of losses in any
company are generated from disengaged employees.
Due to the negative impacts of disengaged employees, halting and reducing the increase in the
disengagement levels should become a key research focus of work engagement scholars (Attridge
2009). Although several studies in organizational behaviour literature provide a better understanding
of some of the key components of workplace engagement (e.g. Saks 2006), organizations need to
constantly look for fresh ways to create and then sustain higher employee engagement levels. Working
on the premise that organizational leaders could make a significant contribution towards this goal,
a broad research question for this study would be: What are the main factors that help leaders to attain
higher levels of employee engagement?
Given that workplace engagement is a state of being which often results from positive
psychological traits (Macey & Schneider 2008; Kahn 1990; Shuck & Wollard 2010), this paper
proposes a conceptual framework based on two positive factors, namely, transformational leadership
as an antecedent and perceived meaningful work as the hypothesized mediator. The paper develops
1
Disengaged employees are those who negatively influence customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, customer
retention, efficiency, and productivity (Attridge, 2009).
Page 4 of 15 ANZAM 2010
4
conceptual arguments for a theorized relationship summarizing two specific questions: (1) what is the
nature of the relationship between transformational leaders’ behaviours and followers’ levels of
workplace engagement? (2) Does transformational leadership and work engagement mediated by
followers’ perceptions generate more meaningful work?
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS AND WORKPLACE ENGAGEMENT
The Influence of Transformational leadership
Employees’ levels of engagement increase when there is a positive relationship between
employees and their direct supervisors (Bakker & Schaufeli 2008; Gopal 2006; May, Gilson & Harter
2004). Blizzard (2003, in Ferguson 2005: 9) reveals that engagement at work tends to be based on
factors such as the relationship they have with their managers. Despite this assertion, employees
claim that their direct supervisors do not have the essential skills or behaviours to make them better
engaging leaders (Gagnon & Michael 2004). Figures show that only 28% of supervisors play a role in
engaging subordinates and more than 74% of the employees say that being recognized by managers is
a key component for engagement (Tasker 2004; BlessingWhite report 2008). These alarming levels
represent a serious problem for organizations because workplace engagement cannot be achieved if
leaders’ lack skills and behaviours required to generate better levels of employee engagement at work.
A popular leadership style that has gained prominence in the behavioural leadership arena is
transformational leadership (Judge & Piccolo 2004). Transformational leadership is one of the most
dominant paradigms in the contemporary leadership literature due to its substantial motivational
strengths for achieving number of employee outcomes such as well being (Nielsen, Yarker, Barnner,
Randoll & Borg 2008; Nielsen, Randall, Yarker & Brenner 2006), self efficacy, job commitment
(Rafferty & Griffin 2004) and job satisfaction (Nemanich & Keller 2007). According to Bass (1985),
organizations increasingly utilize transformational leadership strategy to motivate and inspire
employees, especially during times of rapid changes. Thus, linking the components of
transformational leadership with workplace engagement will help to promote our conceptual
understanding of this relationship.
Page 5 of 15 ANZAM 2010
5
Transformational leadership is “the process through which leaders and followers help each other
to advance to a higher level of morality and motivation”, and transformational leaders “raise the level
of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both the leader and led, and thus it has transforming effect
on both” (Burns 1978: 20). The transformational leadership theory has evolved as a process of
motivational effect. Such motivational effect appears when leaders create changes and develop
followers’ personal and professional characteristics by exhibiting four types of behaviours (Yukl
2006). First is Idealized Influence, which is the degree of leaders’ ability to build loyalty and devotion
without any consideration for their own self interests which helps followers to identify with the
leaders. Second, Inspirational Motivation involves leaders’ ability to create a vision in a way that
appeals to followers and makes them a significant part of the organization (Bass & Avolio 1994;
Piccolo & Colquitt 2006). Third, Intellectual Stimulation involves leaders’ ability to stimulate
followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative through questioning assumptions, taking calculated
risks, and seeking the input of followers. Finally, Individualized Consideration is the extent to which
leaders act as mentor or coach and pay special attention towards followers’ differences. These
characteristics allow followers to have the basis to change, to unleash their potential, and diminish
their negative behaviours that foster followers into more successful and productive individuals (Hay
1995; Bass & Riggio 2006; Bass 1985). Thus, it is likely that transformational leadership, as a
motivational style of both the leader and the led can play a positive role in generating higher levels of
vigor, dedication and absorption.
The Direct Relationship between transformational leadership and workplace engagement
Leaders, who exercise the above four behaviours, increase followers’ appealing of self-interests
and emotional response by increasing their maturity, ideals, and personal identification (Bass 2008;
Druskat 1994). Furthermore, by questioning followers’ beliefs, supervisors who engage in Intellectual
Stimulating and Individualized Consideration behaviours are able to encourage followers to be more
creative thinkers and innovators which will heighten their need to make significant contributions
towards work. These contributions are likely to increase the intrinsic motivation of followers and
involvement in the work. According to Harter, Schmidt & Hayes (2002, in Jones and Harter, 2005)
Page 6 of 15 ANZAM 2010
6
and Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001), in order to be engaged in work, employees must be
involved, energetic and efficient in the face of difficulties, which might be created by transformational
leaders intellectually stimulating and individually considerate behaviour. By showing humbleness,
values, and concern for the well-being of others; followers are keen to show higher and new energies
and enthusiasm in their work, i.e. vigor and dedication according to Schaufeli & Bakker (2004).
In further support of this claim, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) suggest a positive link between
supervisory coaching and feedback, which are key attributes of individualized consideration, and the
components of workplace engagement (vigor, dedication and absorption). They agreed that when
leaders act effectively as coaches, the leader-follower relationship affects employees positively as they
feel empowered and proud. On the other hand, by supporting employees with effective feedback,
transformational leaders generate positive leader-follower relations to satisfy employee needs, thus
generating positive life outcomes such as higher wellbeing. Popper, Mayseless, and Castelnovo (2000:
269) claim that transformational leaders are more successful in motivating their followers to move
beyond “Maslow’s (1954) need hierarchy from needs for safety and security to needs for achievement
and self-actualization” (in Bass 1995: 467). Transformational leaders do this through improving
followers’ self-efficacy (Pillai & Williams 2004), self-esteem (Shamir, House & Arthur 1993), sense
of belonging to the organization (Sosik 2006) and optimism (Bass 2008; Medlin & Green 2009).
These in turn will help employees to give extra effort in achieving work results. This aspect is similar
to the scholarly views expressed in the extant literature on employees’ levels of vigor, dedication and
absorption at work (Bakker & Demerouti 2008; Macey & Schneider 2008).
Finally, according to Schaufeli et al. (2001), engaged employees have higher levels of dedication
and absorption in one’s work. Leaders who engage in Inspirational Motivation behaviour impart a
sense of self significance to their followers (Bass & Riggio 2006). Transformational leaders have a
positive influence on followers’ effort and performance levels, both of which could indicate high
levels of absorption in one’s work. Supervisors who engage in Idealized Influence and Inspirational
Motivation are often expected to depend on idealistic visions and persuasive communication to
influence followers to immerse themselves in their work. Shamir, House and Arthur (1993, cited in
Page 7 of 15 ANZAM 2010
7
Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006: 329) found that supervisors who apply verbal persuasion, and clearly
communicate the value of the organization’s mission to develop a sense of followers’ identification
with their work unit and enjoyment in their task or role, which in turn, act as a powerful source for
motivating followers’ effort. This is likely to enhance the feelings of dedication and absorption (two of
the components of engagement).
From the above, it is likely that transformational leaders engaging in the four specific behaviours
develop a sense of a need in their followers to engage in work by being able to identify with the
leaders. Therefore, the proposed overall relationship between transformational leadership and
followers’ workplace engagement can be hypothesized as follows:
Proposition 1: transformational leadership is positively related to followers’ workplace
engagement.
Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Perceptions of Meaningful Work
Kular, Gatenby, Rees, Soane and Truss (2008) argue that organizations seeking to increase
employee engagement should focus on employees’ perceptions of work and the behaviours they
experience towards work. Although there is strong evidence to support the influential role of
transformational leadership, it is claimed that less is known about the mechanisms through which
transformational leadership exerts its motivational effect (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway and
McKee 2007). Yukl (1999) calls for more studies on possible mediators for the influential role of
transformational leadership to explain the complete picture of the transformational leaders’ influence.
This conceptual paper aligns with this call and assumes that transformational leadership-workplace
engagement is not a simple direct relationship, that it is indirect, and impacted through the mechanism
of perceived meaningfulness of work.
Perceptions of workplace could play an influential role in mediating the relationship between
transformational leadership and followers’ levels of work engagement. Thus, transformational leaders
could play a considerable mediating role to generate favourable employee outcomes such as, well
being (Nielsen et al. 2008, 2006; Arnold et al. 2007), task performance and organizational citizenship
behaviour (Piccolo & Colquitt 2006; Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski 2006; Piccolo, Greenbaum,
Page 8 of 15 ANZAM 2010
8
Den Hartog, & Folger 2010). Perceptions of work have a significant mediating role in such relations
because employees take action on their perceptions and interpretations of the work situation, rather
than on the work situation itself (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon 2003). Transformational leaders,
according to Nielsen et al. (2008: 17), motivates followers to perceive work characteristics positively
since they provide personal attention to promoting development through individual consideration,
enabling new ways of working, encouraging novel problem solving, and providing coaching and
encouragement of specific behaviours in subordinates through intellectual stimulation.
When the mission of the organization and goals of the activities match with the employees’ value
system, they are likely to perceive work significant and meaningful (Quinn and Spreitzer 1997 in Zhu,
Avolio & Walumbwa 2008: 66). Admittedly, employees naturally like to work with leaders whose
behaviour create meaningful work. Transformational leaders have the ability to create meaningful
work which generates in followers the need for a strong sense of purpose to be motivated to act (Burns
1978; Singer 1985; Bass 1985). To motivate followers, transformational leaders characterized by
Inspirational Motivation create a shared sense of purpose through establishing clear shared visions and
promoting group goals in their work. Bono and Judge (2003) claim that when there is a match between
leaders’ vision and followers’ values, goals in hand are likely to be more meaningful. For example,
inspirational and mentoring leaders are judged to articulate a compelling vision of the future,
communicate optimism about future goals and provide followers with clear feedback about their
achievements, which in turn increase followers’ sense of value (Nemanich & Keller 2007; Nielsen et
al. 2008: 467-468). Consequently, because transformational leaders enhance followers’ personal
values, personal identification, and self-worth (Kark & Shamir 2002, in Avolio & Yammarino 2002),
followers’ feelings are heightened to perceive work with more purpose, motivation and importance,
which are integral to experience the meaningfulness at work.
Furthermore, transformational leaders characterized by Inspirational Motivation are likely to
consider empowering in what is significant, and ignore others (Bass & Riggio 2006). Transformational
leaders move followers out of their conceptual channels by reformulating the problems which need to
be solved (Bass 2008). Supervisors who engage in Intellectual Stimulation, stimulate their followers’
Page 9 of 15 ANZAM 2010
9
efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching
old situations in new ways (Bass & Riggio 2006: 7). Inspiring leaders on the other hand formulate a
clear vision for their followers. According to Nielsen et al. (2008), transformational leaders provide
clear feedback to the followers, and communicate with their followers providing them with knowledge
and support to develop the skills that are required to analyse the information. With clearer and more
effective communication from the leaders, more positive social relationships are likely to develop,
resulting in more significant and meaningful work. Therefore, the proposed overall relationship
between transformational leadership and followers’ perceptions of meaningful work can be
hypothesized as follows:
Proposition 2: transformational leadership positively relates to followers’ perceptions of
meaningful work.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (THE INDIRECT RELATIONSHIP)
As highlighted earlier, supervisors who engage in the transformational leadership style tend to
increase the value and significance of the work, and therefore satisfy the way that employees view
their work. Hence, followers will be intrinsically motivated, increasing their feelings that they are
more useful and personally worthwhile (Kahn 1990). When satisfying the higher order needs followers
will be more self-efficacious, self determinant to act in the interest of the group and more likely to go
beyond expectations to immerse themselves in their work (Lockwood 2007). Thereby, followers
become more energetic, dedicated and absorbed (cognitive) in their work, having a higher sense for
the three primary components of workplace engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker 2004; Macey &
Schneider 2008).
Further support for this claim is based on the work of (Kahn 1990). Kahn’s (1990) aim was to
develop a theoretical framework explaining the psychological conditions that motivate people to
engage in work roles. Kahn (1990) found that employees are more likely to perceive their work to be
more interesting to engage when positive psychological conditions are available (i.e. psychological
meaningfulness and psychological safety). He confirms that psychological meaningfulness is the
strongest antecedent to be psychologically present in employees’ role performance. Because our study
Page 10 of 15 ANZAM 2010
10
identifies the mediating role of followers’ perception of meaningful work and there is evidence for a
positive link between transformational leadership and meaningful work, this paper asserts that
transformational leaders increase followers’ perception of meaningful work, resulting in increased
levels of engagement at the workplace.
The levels of a higher sense of engagement depend on the extent to which employees are prepared
to offer discretionary effort (Medlin & Green 2009; Furness 2008; Lockwood 2007; Richman 2006;
Lanphear 2004). Discretionary behaviour has been found to be an important outcome that is caused by
engagement which involves mental and emotional commitment that employees have in exchange for
benefits (Kular et al 2008; Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young 2009; Macey & Schneider 2008).
Transformational leaders who are rated highly in the transforming style of leadership establish a
positive connection with followers, thereby developing followers who are highly involved, committed
and attached to their work. When followers believe in their organizations, they are likely to reflect that
belief in their work outcomes. They will exert an extraordinary effort and go the extra mile in looking
for creative solutions while taking intelligent risks (Wildermuth & Pauken 2008; Richman, 2006;
Bass, 2008; Podsakoff, Mackenzie & Bommer, 1996; Shamir et al, 1993). Furthermore, leaders who
articulate a shared vision and are stimulating create an optimal climate for work where followers can
activate their lower order needs and also reach higher needs (self-actualization) (Bass 1985, 2008;
Bass & Riggio 2006). Therefore, the proposed overall relationship between transformational
leadership, followers’ perceptions of meaningful work and followers’ workplace engagement can be
hypothesized as follows:
Proposition 3: perceptions of meaningful work positively mediate the relationship between
transformational leadership and workplace engagement.
The above discussion is captured in Figure 1 below through a hypothesised process explaining the
indirect relationship between transformational leaders and workplace engagement using significant
and meaningful work as a mediator.
Page 11 of 15 ANZAM 2010
11
----------------------------------------
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
-----------------------------------------
In summary, we have argued that although there is evidence to suggest a relationship between
transformational leadership factors such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration with the components of workplace engagement (vigor,
dedication and absorption), little is known about the nature of this relationship. After reviewing the
key literature addressing the nature of the relationship between transformational leadership and
workplace engagement, we proposed a conceptual framework depicting an indirect relationship
between transformational leadership and followers’ workplace engagement mediated by the followers’
perceptions of meaningful work.
IMPLICATIONS
The proposed conceptual framework (see Figure 1) has implications for organizations keen to
improve employee engagement levels by developing transformational leaders. Several implications
from this conceptual paper may be helpful for leaders and organizations in the development of
workplace engagement. The conceptual framework of this paper will help human resource managers
in designing the work more appropriately. Specifically, by providing work with socio-emotional,
physical and economic resources, employees will increase their obligations and feelings of an elevated
sense of belonging at work. Saks (2006) observes that employees are more likely to reciprocate with
greater levels of engagement when they provided with suitable resources.
The conceptual framework of this paper recommends leaders to conduct surveys on employees’
needs and concerns so they can collate critical information to set up interventions in workplace design.
Regular interventions on workplace design will provide employees with more sense of significance in
challenging circumstances. This would result in positive employee outcomes, thereby positively
impacting on organization’s competitiveness and profitability.
Page 12 of 15 ANZAM 2010
12
REFERENCES
Arnold KA, Turner N, Barling J, Kelloway EK & McKee M (2007) Transformational leadership and
psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 12: 193-203.
Attridge M (2009) Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the Research
and Business Literature, Journal of Workplace Behavioural Health 24: 383-398.
Bakker AB & Schaufeli WB (2008) Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior 29: 147-54.
Bakker, AB & Demerouti E (2008) towards a model of work engagement, Career Development
International 13: 209-223.
Bass B M & Riggio R E (2006) Transformational leadership, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bass B M (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass B M (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, New York, The Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1995), Theory of transformational leadership redux, The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463-
478.
BlessingWhite (2008) The state of employee engagement 2008. Asia-Pacific overview, online,
available at
ttp://www.blessingwhite.com/%5CContent%5CReports%5C2008EmployeeEngagementAPOV.
pdf. (accessed January 2010).
Blizzard R (2003) Employee Engagement: Where Do Hospitals Begin? The Gallup Poll, Tuesday
Briefing, Nov, p.91(2).
Bono JE & Judge TA (2003) Self-Concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders, Academy of Management Journal 46: 554-571.
Burns, J M (1978) Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.
Carr JZ, Schmidt AM, Ford K & DeShon RP (2003) Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path
analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states and individual level work
outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 605-619.
Czarnowsky M (2008) Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study,
Alexandria, VA, American Society for Training & Development.
Druskat VU (1994) Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the
Roman Catholic church, Leadership Quarterly 5: 99-119.
Ferguson A (2005) Employee engagement: Does it exist, and if so, how does it relate to performance,
other constructs and individual differences?, online, available at:http://www.lifethatworks.com/Employee-Engagement.prn.pdf. (accessed March 2010).
Furness V (2008) Employee management: engagement defined, Employee Benefits:56- 57, online,
available athttp://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/ (accessed June 2010)
Gagnon MA & Michael JH (2004) Outcomes of perceived supervisor support for wood production
employees, Forest Products Journal 54: 172-177.
Gallup (2009) The Gallup Q12 – Employee Engagement - POLL 2008 RESULTS Australia Overview,
online, available athttp://www.destinationtalent.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/the-
gallup-q12-poll-2008-australia-10022009.pdf. (accessed February 2010).
Gopal A (2006) Worker disengagement continues to cost Singapore, The Gallup Management Journal,
online, available at:http://gmj.gallup.com/content/22720/Worker-Disengagement-Continues-
Cost-Singapore.aspx (accessed August 2009)
Harter JK, Schmidt FL & Hayes, TL (2002) Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology 87: 268-279.
Hay I (1995) Transformational leadership: Characteristics and criticisms. E-journal of Organizational
Learning and Leadership, online available at:http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/,
accessed (March 2010).
Jones JR & Harter JK (2005) Race effects on the employee engagement: Turnover intention
relationship, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 11: 78-88.
Page 13 of 15 ANZAM 2010
13
Judge TA & Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of
their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 755-768.
Kahn WA (1992) To be full there: Psychological presence at work, Human Relations 45: 321-349.
Kahn WA. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal 33: 692-724.
Kark R & Shamir B (2002) The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and
collective selves and further effects on followers. In Avolio BJ & Yammarino FJ,
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 2, 67-91. Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Kular S, Gatenby M, Rees C , Soane E & Truss K (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature
Review. (Working Paper) Kingston upon Thames, U.K.: Kingston Business School, Kingston
University.
Lanphear S (2004) Are Your Employees Highly Engaged? Credit Union Executive, 30: 2-3
Lockwood NR (2007) Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s strategic
role, Society for Human Resource Management Quarterly 52: 1-11.
MacDonald (2002) How companies can find renewed focus during uncertain times, Journal of
Communication Management, 6: 220-227.
Macey HW & Schneider B, Barbera KM & Young SA (2009) Employee Engagement: Tools for
Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Michigan, Wiley-Blackwell.
Macey WH & Schneider B (2008) The meaning of employee engagement". Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 1: 3-30.
Maslach C & Leiter MP (2008) Early predictors of job burnout and engagement, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93: 498-512.
Maslach C, Schaufeli, WB & Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397-
422.
May DR, Gilson, RL & Harter LM (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: 11–37.
Medlin B & Green K, Jr (2009) Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and
optimism”. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109: 943 – 956.
Myers DG (2000) The funds, friends and faith of happy people, American Psychologist, 55: 56-67.
Nemanich L & Keller RT (2007) Transformational Leadership in an Acquisition: A Field Study of
Employees, The Leadership Quarterly 18: 49-68.
Nielsen K, Yarker J, Brenner SO & Randall R (2008) The importance of transformational leadership
style for the well-being of employees working with older people, Journal of Advanced Nursing
63: 165-175.
Nielsen ML, Rugulies R, Christensen KB, Smith-Hansen L & Kristensen, TS (2006) Psychosocial
work environment predictors of short and long spells of sickness absence during a two-year
follow-up, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48: 591-595.
Piccolo RF & Colquitt JA (2006) Transformational leadership and job behaviours: The mediating role
of core job characteristics, Academy of Management Journal 49: 327-340.
Piccolo RF, Greenbaum R, Den Hartog DN & Folger R (2010) The relationship between ethical
leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31: 259-278.
Pillai R & Williams EA (2004) Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness,
commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management 17: 144-159.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB & Bommer WH (1996) Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management 22: 259-298.
Popper M, Mayseless O & Castelnovo O (2000) Transformational leadership and attachment, The
Leadership Quarterly 11: 267-289.
Purvanova RK, Bono JE & Dzieweczynski J (2006) Transformational leadership, job characteristics,
and organizational citizenship performance, Human Performance 19: 1-22.
Quinn, RE & Spreitzer GM (1997) The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader should
consider, Organizational Dynamics 26: 37-49.
Richman A (2006) Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?, Workspan 49: 36-
39.
Page 14 of 15 ANZAM 2010
14
Saks AM (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial
Psychology 21: 600-619.
Schaufeli WB & Bakker AB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout
and engagement: A multi-sample study, Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 293-315.
Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V & Bakker, AB (2001), The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of
Happiness Studies 3: 71-92.
Schermerhorn JR, Hunt JG & Osborn RN (2005) Organizational Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Shamir B, House RJ & Arthur MB (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-
concept based theory, Organization Science 4: 577-593.
Shuck B & Wollard K (2010) Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the
Foundations, Human Resource Development Review 9: 89–110.
Singer MS (1985) Transformational versus transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company
managers. Psychological Reports 57: 143-146.
Smircich L & Morgan G (1982) Leadership: the management of meaning. Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science 18: 257-73.
Smith F (2009) Workers as disengaged as ever, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 59.
Sosik JJ [(2006) Full range leadership: Model, research, extensions and training, In Cooper C & Burke
R (Eds.), Inspiring leadership: 33-66.
Tasker J (2004) Engagement equals productivity. Personnel Today, October 5: 8-9.
Tower Perrin (2009) Employee Engagement – a Towers Perrin study, online, available athttp://www.reach1to1.com/2009/03/09/employee-engagement-drives-business-performance/
(accessed: August 2009)
Wildermuth C & Pauken P (2008) A perfect match: decoding employee engagement. Part I: Engaging
cultures and leader, Industrial & Commercial Training 40: 122-128.
Yukl GA (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic leadership
theories. Leadership Quarterly 10: 285-305.
Yukl GA (2006) Leadership In Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall
Zhu W, Avolio BJ &Walumbwa FO (2009) Mediating role of follower characteristics with
transformational leadership and follower work engagement, Group Organ. Manage 34: 590-
619.
Figure (1) Hypothesized framework explaining the indirect relation
Transformational
leaders (The four I’s)
Creating significant
work
Followers feel obliged
to reciprocate by sense
of belonging to work
Followers perceive
work to be more
meaningful
Workplace engagement
(vigor, dedication and
absorption)
Followers arouse
their positive
behaviours (respect,
trust, and loyalty)
Page 15 of 15 ANZAM 2010
doc_167968786.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship betweentransformational leadership, meaningful work and workplace engagement. Although there isconsensus that better engaged employees help organizations to perform better, industry reportsindicate that only one fifth of employees are engaged in their work.
University of Wollongong
Research Online
Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences - Papers
(Archive)
Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health
2010
Transformational leadership, workplace
engagement and the mediating infuence of
meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework
Mohammed Ghadi
University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Mario Fernando
University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Peter Caputi
University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the
University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW
Library: [email protected]
Publication Details
Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. & Caputi, P. (2010). Transformational leadership, workplace engagement and the mediating infuence of
meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework. Australian New Zealand Academy of Management Annual Conference (pp.
1-15). Adelaide: ANZAM.
Transformational leadership, workplace engagement and the mediating
infuence of meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework
Abstract
Te purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship betweentransformational leadership,
meaningful work and workplace engagement. Although there isconsensus that beter engaged employees help
organizations to perform beter, industry reportsindicate that only one ffh of employees are engaged in their
work. While there is some evidence inthe literature to suggest a link between transformational leadership
factors such as idealizedinfuence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration, and thecomponents of workplace engagement such as vigor, dedication and absorption, litle is
known abouthe nature of this relationship. Tis paper proposes a conceptual framework supporting an
indirectrelationship between transformational leadership and followers workplace engagement, arelationship
mediated by followers perceptions of meaningful work. Te paper provides insights into enhancing followers
workplace engagement via transformational leaders through their ability tocreate meaningful work. Te
proposed conceptual framework has implications for researchersexamining the link between transformational
leadership and work engagement, and for organizationskeen to improve employee engagement levels through
by leaders.
Keywords
Transformational, leadership, workplace, engagement, mediating, infuence, meaningful, work, Building,
conceptual, framework
Disciplines
Arts and Humanities | Life Sciences | Medicine and Health Sciences | Social and Behavioral Sciences
Publication Details
Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. & Caputi, P. (2010). Transformational leadership, workplace engagement and the
mediating infuence of meaningful work: Building a conceptual framework. Australian New Zealand Academy
of Management Annual Conference (pp. 1-15). Adelaide: ANZAM.
Tis conference paper is available at Research Online: htp://ro.uow.edu.au/hbspapers/2200
Transformational Leadership, Workplace Engagement and the Mediating Influence
of Meaningful Work: Building a Conceptual Framework
Mohammed Ghadi
School of Management & Marketing, Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Mario Fernando
School of Management & Marketing, Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Peter Caputi
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Behaviour Science, University of Wollongong, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 15 ANZAM 2010
1
Transformational Leadership, Workplace Engagement and the Mediating Influence of
Meaningful Work: Building a Conceptual Framework
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the relationship between
transformational leadership, meaningful work and workplace engagement. Although there is
consensus that better engaged employees help organizations to perform better, industry reports
indicate that only one fifth of employees are engaged in their work. While there is some evidence in
the literature to suggest a link between transformational leadership factors such as idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, and the
components of workplace engagement such as vigor, dedication and absorption, little is known about
the nature of this relationship. This paper proposes a conceptual framework supporting an indirect
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ workplace engagement, a
relationship mediated by followers’ perceptions of meaningful work. The paper provides insights into
enhancing followers’ workplace engagement via transformational leaders through their ability to
create meaningful work. The proposed conceptual framework has implications for researchers
examining the link between transformational leadership and work engagement, and for organizations
keen to improve employee engagement levels through by leaders.
Keywords: Transformational leadership, Workplace engagement, Perceived work characteristics.
PREFACE
Engagement as a broad psychological phenomena shares many characteristics with various
workplace phenomena. By itself engagement might be examined as existing in a collection of
different work related phenomena, which all describe in different but overlapping ways how people
relate to work (Saks 2006). Some authors consider engagement as simply mix of various traditional
concepts, such as job commitment, involvement, satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour
(e.g. Ferguson 2005). Other authors consider engagement as unique and separate phenomenon that
goes beyond these traditional concepts (e.g. Maslach and Leiter 2008).
Given the relationship between engagement and other well known psychological phenomena, the
increasing interest on engagement comes from researchers’ calls to deeply focus on unique workplace
psychological phenomena, rather than negative terms in organizational behaviour research such as job
stress and burnout. For example, Myers (2000) called for more research on positive states of
individuals’ health, since the “number of publications on negative states exceeds that on positive states
by a ratio of 14:1” (cited in Bakker & Schaufeli 2008: 187). Interestingly, Schaufeli and Bakker
(2003) added that about 95% of the articles that have been published in 2003 in the Journal of
Page 2 of 15 ANZAM 2010
2
Occupational Health Psychology deals with negative states of workers' health. Thus, the current
conceptual paper draws attention to a positive workplace phenomena and how it relates to
transformational leadership i.e. engagement.
BACKGROUND
While there is no one overarching explanation of engagement, what most scholars agree on is that
engagement is a motivational notion which has been characterized as “a distinct and unique construct
that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components . . . associated with individual role
performance” (Saks 2005: 602). According to Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker
(2001), the feeling of engagement manifests when employees experience a more persistent and
pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or
behaviour. According to Schaufeli et al. (2001: 74), work engagement is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption.
Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties.
Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being
fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has
difficulties with detaching oneself from work. (2001: 74)
Engaged employees often display a deep, positive emotional connection with their work, are likely
to exert extra effort and are willing to go the extra mile to achieve organizational accomplishments
(Schaufeli et al. 2001; Saks 2006). The term workplace engagement has been identified as one of
strongest predictors of organizational success (Attridge 2009; Richman 2006) because when it is
understood and assessed well, it gives organizations a remarkable ability to influence various
operational areas in the organization.
Although there is consensus that better engaged employees move organizations forward (Shuck &
Wollard 2010), global consultancy firm reports show that only one fifth of employees are engaged in
Page 3 of 15 ANZAM 2010
3
their work, and that the engagement levels are steadily declining (e.g. Gallup 2009; Tower Perrin
2009). More critically, organizations are neglecting to assess the levels of employee engagement.
According to Attridge (2009: 386), although there is an increasing desire to measure employee
engagement, most companies are not measuring it. Thus due to this lack of knowledge about employee
engagement, organizations are unaware of the critical strategies necessary to promote employee
engagement (Czarnowsky 2008).
Reports have estimated that the percentage of engaged employees are declining and costing
countries greatly in productivity losses. For instance, in Australia, figures show that disengaged
employees
1
have increased to reach more than 82%, costing the Australian economy between A$36.1-
A$45.4 billion annually in productivity losses (Gallup 2009). Studies estimate that these losses will
increase to more than A$100 billion annually (Smith 2009: 59). The negative impacts from disengaged
employees are still evolving, a survey by Tower Perrin (2009) indicates that 80% of losses in any
company are generated from disengaged employees.
Due to the negative impacts of disengaged employees, halting and reducing the increase in the
disengagement levels should become a key research focus of work engagement scholars (Attridge
2009). Although several studies in organizational behaviour literature provide a better understanding
of some of the key components of workplace engagement (e.g. Saks 2006), organizations need to
constantly look for fresh ways to create and then sustain higher employee engagement levels. Working
on the premise that organizational leaders could make a significant contribution towards this goal,
a broad research question for this study would be: What are the main factors that help leaders to attain
higher levels of employee engagement?
Given that workplace engagement is a state of being which often results from positive
psychological traits (Macey & Schneider 2008; Kahn 1990; Shuck & Wollard 2010), this paper
proposes a conceptual framework based on two positive factors, namely, transformational leadership
as an antecedent and perceived meaningful work as the hypothesized mediator. The paper develops
1
Disengaged employees are those who negatively influence customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, customer
retention, efficiency, and productivity (Attridge, 2009).
Page 4 of 15 ANZAM 2010
4
conceptual arguments for a theorized relationship summarizing two specific questions: (1) what is the
nature of the relationship between transformational leaders’ behaviours and followers’ levels of
workplace engagement? (2) Does transformational leadership and work engagement mediated by
followers’ perceptions generate more meaningful work?
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS AND WORKPLACE ENGAGEMENT
The Influence of Transformational leadership
Employees’ levels of engagement increase when there is a positive relationship between
employees and their direct supervisors (Bakker & Schaufeli 2008; Gopal 2006; May, Gilson & Harter
2004). Blizzard (2003, in Ferguson 2005: 9) reveals that engagement at work tends to be based on
factors such as the relationship they have with their managers. Despite this assertion, employees
claim that their direct supervisors do not have the essential skills or behaviours to make them better
engaging leaders (Gagnon & Michael 2004). Figures show that only 28% of supervisors play a role in
engaging subordinates and more than 74% of the employees say that being recognized by managers is
a key component for engagement (Tasker 2004; BlessingWhite report 2008). These alarming levels
represent a serious problem for organizations because workplace engagement cannot be achieved if
leaders’ lack skills and behaviours required to generate better levels of employee engagement at work.
A popular leadership style that has gained prominence in the behavioural leadership arena is
transformational leadership (Judge & Piccolo 2004). Transformational leadership is one of the most
dominant paradigms in the contemporary leadership literature due to its substantial motivational
strengths for achieving number of employee outcomes such as well being (Nielsen, Yarker, Barnner,
Randoll & Borg 2008; Nielsen, Randall, Yarker & Brenner 2006), self efficacy, job commitment
(Rafferty & Griffin 2004) and job satisfaction (Nemanich & Keller 2007). According to Bass (1985),
organizations increasingly utilize transformational leadership strategy to motivate and inspire
employees, especially during times of rapid changes. Thus, linking the components of
transformational leadership with workplace engagement will help to promote our conceptual
understanding of this relationship.
Page 5 of 15 ANZAM 2010
5
Transformational leadership is “the process through which leaders and followers help each other
to advance to a higher level of morality and motivation”, and transformational leaders “raise the level
of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both the leader and led, and thus it has transforming effect
on both” (Burns 1978: 20). The transformational leadership theory has evolved as a process of
motivational effect. Such motivational effect appears when leaders create changes and develop
followers’ personal and professional characteristics by exhibiting four types of behaviours (Yukl
2006). First is Idealized Influence, which is the degree of leaders’ ability to build loyalty and devotion
without any consideration for their own self interests which helps followers to identify with the
leaders. Second, Inspirational Motivation involves leaders’ ability to create a vision in a way that
appeals to followers and makes them a significant part of the organization (Bass & Avolio 1994;
Piccolo & Colquitt 2006). Third, Intellectual Stimulation involves leaders’ ability to stimulate
followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative through questioning assumptions, taking calculated
risks, and seeking the input of followers. Finally, Individualized Consideration is the extent to which
leaders act as mentor or coach and pay special attention towards followers’ differences. These
characteristics allow followers to have the basis to change, to unleash their potential, and diminish
their negative behaviours that foster followers into more successful and productive individuals (Hay
1995; Bass & Riggio 2006; Bass 1985). Thus, it is likely that transformational leadership, as a
motivational style of both the leader and the led can play a positive role in generating higher levels of
vigor, dedication and absorption.
The Direct Relationship between transformational leadership and workplace engagement
Leaders, who exercise the above four behaviours, increase followers’ appealing of self-interests
and emotional response by increasing their maturity, ideals, and personal identification (Bass 2008;
Druskat 1994). Furthermore, by questioning followers’ beliefs, supervisors who engage in Intellectual
Stimulating and Individualized Consideration behaviours are able to encourage followers to be more
creative thinkers and innovators which will heighten their need to make significant contributions
towards work. These contributions are likely to increase the intrinsic motivation of followers and
involvement in the work. According to Harter, Schmidt & Hayes (2002, in Jones and Harter, 2005)
Page 6 of 15 ANZAM 2010
6
and Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001), in order to be engaged in work, employees must be
involved, energetic and efficient in the face of difficulties, which might be created by transformational
leaders intellectually stimulating and individually considerate behaviour. By showing humbleness,
values, and concern for the well-being of others; followers are keen to show higher and new energies
and enthusiasm in their work, i.e. vigor and dedication according to Schaufeli & Bakker (2004).
In further support of this claim, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) suggest a positive link between
supervisory coaching and feedback, which are key attributes of individualized consideration, and the
components of workplace engagement (vigor, dedication and absorption). They agreed that when
leaders act effectively as coaches, the leader-follower relationship affects employees positively as they
feel empowered and proud. On the other hand, by supporting employees with effective feedback,
transformational leaders generate positive leader-follower relations to satisfy employee needs, thus
generating positive life outcomes such as higher wellbeing. Popper, Mayseless, and Castelnovo (2000:
269) claim that transformational leaders are more successful in motivating their followers to move
beyond “Maslow’s (1954) need hierarchy from needs for safety and security to needs for achievement
and self-actualization” (in Bass 1995: 467). Transformational leaders do this through improving
followers’ self-efficacy (Pillai & Williams 2004), self-esteem (Shamir, House & Arthur 1993), sense
of belonging to the organization (Sosik 2006) and optimism (Bass 2008; Medlin & Green 2009).
These in turn will help employees to give extra effort in achieving work results. This aspect is similar
to the scholarly views expressed in the extant literature on employees’ levels of vigor, dedication and
absorption at work (Bakker & Demerouti 2008; Macey & Schneider 2008).
Finally, according to Schaufeli et al. (2001), engaged employees have higher levels of dedication
and absorption in one’s work. Leaders who engage in Inspirational Motivation behaviour impart a
sense of self significance to their followers (Bass & Riggio 2006). Transformational leaders have a
positive influence on followers’ effort and performance levels, both of which could indicate high
levels of absorption in one’s work. Supervisors who engage in Idealized Influence and Inspirational
Motivation are often expected to depend on idealistic visions and persuasive communication to
influence followers to immerse themselves in their work. Shamir, House and Arthur (1993, cited in
Page 7 of 15 ANZAM 2010
7
Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006: 329) found that supervisors who apply verbal persuasion, and clearly
communicate the value of the organization’s mission to develop a sense of followers’ identification
with their work unit and enjoyment in their task or role, which in turn, act as a powerful source for
motivating followers’ effort. This is likely to enhance the feelings of dedication and absorption (two of
the components of engagement).
From the above, it is likely that transformational leaders engaging in the four specific behaviours
develop a sense of a need in their followers to engage in work by being able to identify with the
leaders. Therefore, the proposed overall relationship between transformational leadership and
followers’ workplace engagement can be hypothesized as follows:
Proposition 1: transformational leadership is positively related to followers’ workplace
engagement.
Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Perceptions of Meaningful Work
Kular, Gatenby, Rees, Soane and Truss (2008) argue that organizations seeking to increase
employee engagement should focus on employees’ perceptions of work and the behaviours they
experience towards work. Although there is strong evidence to support the influential role of
transformational leadership, it is claimed that less is known about the mechanisms through which
transformational leadership exerts its motivational effect (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway and
McKee 2007). Yukl (1999) calls for more studies on possible mediators for the influential role of
transformational leadership to explain the complete picture of the transformational leaders’ influence.
This conceptual paper aligns with this call and assumes that transformational leadership-workplace
engagement is not a simple direct relationship, that it is indirect, and impacted through the mechanism
of perceived meaningfulness of work.
Perceptions of workplace could play an influential role in mediating the relationship between
transformational leadership and followers’ levels of work engagement. Thus, transformational leaders
could play a considerable mediating role to generate favourable employee outcomes such as, well
being (Nielsen et al. 2008, 2006; Arnold et al. 2007), task performance and organizational citizenship
behaviour (Piccolo & Colquitt 2006; Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski 2006; Piccolo, Greenbaum,
Page 8 of 15 ANZAM 2010
8
Den Hartog, & Folger 2010). Perceptions of work have a significant mediating role in such relations
because employees take action on their perceptions and interpretations of the work situation, rather
than on the work situation itself (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon 2003). Transformational leaders,
according to Nielsen et al. (2008: 17), motivates followers to perceive work characteristics positively
since they provide personal attention to promoting development through individual consideration,
enabling new ways of working, encouraging novel problem solving, and providing coaching and
encouragement of specific behaviours in subordinates through intellectual stimulation.
When the mission of the organization and goals of the activities match with the employees’ value
system, they are likely to perceive work significant and meaningful (Quinn and Spreitzer 1997 in Zhu,
Avolio & Walumbwa 2008: 66). Admittedly, employees naturally like to work with leaders whose
behaviour create meaningful work. Transformational leaders have the ability to create meaningful
work which generates in followers the need for a strong sense of purpose to be motivated to act (Burns
1978; Singer 1985; Bass 1985). To motivate followers, transformational leaders characterized by
Inspirational Motivation create a shared sense of purpose through establishing clear shared visions and
promoting group goals in their work. Bono and Judge (2003) claim that when there is a match between
leaders’ vision and followers’ values, goals in hand are likely to be more meaningful. For example,
inspirational and mentoring leaders are judged to articulate a compelling vision of the future,
communicate optimism about future goals and provide followers with clear feedback about their
achievements, which in turn increase followers’ sense of value (Nemanich & Keller 2007; Nielsen et
al. 2008: 467-468). Consequently, because transformational leaders enhance followers’ personal
values, personal identification, and self-worth (Kark & Shamir 2002, in Avolio & Yammarino 2002),
followers’ feelings are heightened to perceive work with more purpose, motivation and importance,
which are integral to experience the meaningfulness at work.
Furthermore, transformational leaders characterized by Inspirational Motivation are likely to
consider empowering in what is significant, and ignore others (Bass & Riggio 2006). Transformational
leaders move followers out of their conceptual channels by reformulating the problems which need to
be solved (Bass 2008). Supervisors who engage in Intellectual Stimulation, stimulate their followers’
Page 9 of 15 ANZAM 2010
9
efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching
old situations in new ways (Bass & Riggio 2006: 7). Inspiring leaders on the other hand formulate a
clear vision for their followers. According to Nielsen et al. (2008), transformational leaders provide
clear feedback to the followers, and communicate with their followers providing them with knowledge
and support to develop the skills that are required to analyse the information. With clearer and more
effective communication from the leaders, more positive social relationships are likely to develop,
resulting in more significant and meaningful work. Therefore, the proposed overall relationship
between transformational leadership and followers’ perceptions of meaningful work can be
hypothesized as follows:
Proposition 2: transformational leadership positively relates to followers’ perceptions of
meaningful work.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (THE INDIRECT RELATIONSHIP)
As highlighted earlier, supervisors who engage in the transformational leadership style tend to
increase the value and significance of the work, and therefore satisfy the way that employees view
their work. Hence, followers will be intrinsically motivated, increasing their feelings that they are
more useful and personally worthwhile (Kahn 1990). When satisfying the higher order needs followers
will be more self-efficacious, self determinant to act in the interest of the group and more likely to go
beyond expectations to immerse themselves in their work (Lockwood 2007). Thereby, followers
become more energetic, dedicated and absorbed (cognitive) in their work, having a higher sense for
the three primary components of workplace engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker 2004; Macey &
Schneider 2008).
Further support for this claim is based on the work of (Kahn 1990). Kahn’s (1990) aim was to
develop a theoretical framework explaining the psychological conditions that motivate people to
engage in work roles. Kahn (1990) found that employees are more likely to perceive their work to be
more interesting to engage when positive psychological conditions are available (i.e. psychological
meaningfulness and psychological safety). He confirms that psychological meaningfulness is the
strongest antecedent to be psychologically present in employees’ role performance. Because our study
Page 10 of 15 ANZAM 2010
10
identifies the mediating role of followers’ perception of meaningful work and there is evidence for a
positive link between transformational leadership and meaningful work, this paper asserts that
transformational leaders increase followers’ perception of meaningful work, resulting in increased
levels of engagement at the workplace.
The levels of a higher sense of engagement depend on the extent to which employees are prepared
to offer discretionary effort (Medlin & Green 2009; Furness 2008; Lockwood 2007; Richman 2006;
Lanphear 2004). Discretionary behaviour has been found to be an important outcome that is caused by
engagement which involves mental and emotional commitment that employees have in exchange for
benefits (Kular et al 2008; Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young 2009; Macey & Schneider 2008).
Transformational leaders who are rated highly in the transforming style of leadership establish a
positive connection with followers, thereby developing followers who are highly involved, committed
and attached to their work. When followers believe in their organizations, they are likely to reflect that
belief in their work outcomes. They will exert an extraordinary effort and go the extra mile in looking
for creative solutions while taking intelligent risks (Wildermuth & Pauken 2008; Richman, 2006;
Bass, 2008; Podsakoff, Mackenzie & Bommer, 1996; Shamir et al, 1993). Furthermore, leaders who
articulate a shared vision and are stimulating create an optimal climate for work where followers can
activate their lower order needs and also reach higher needs (self-actualization) (Bass 1985, 2008;
Bass & Riggio 2006). Therefore, the proposed overall relationship between transformational
leadership, followers’ perceptions of meaningful work and followers’ workplace engagement can be
hypothesized as follows:
Proposition 3: perceptions of meaningful work positively mediate the relationship between
transformational leadership and workplace engagement.
The above discussion is captured in Figure 1 below through a hypothesised process explaining the
indirect relationship between transformational leaders and workplace engagement using significant
and meaningful work as a mediator.
Page 11 of 15 ANZAM 2010
11
----------------------------------------
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
-----------------------------------------
In summary, we have argued that although there is evidence to suggest a relationship between
transformational leadership factors such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration with the components of workplace engagement (vigor,
dedication and absorption), little is known about the nature of this relationship. After reviewing the
key literature addressing the nature of the relationship between transformational leadership and
workplace engagement, we proposed a conceptual framework depicting an indirect relationship
between transformational leadership and followers’ workplace engagement mediated by the followers’
perceptions of meaningful work.
IMPLICATIONS
The proposed conceptual framework (see Figure 1) has implications for organizations keen to
improve employee engagement levels by developing transformational leaders. Several implications
from this conceptual paper may be helpful for leaders and organizations in the development of
workplace engagement. The conceptual framework of this paper will help human resource managers
in designing the work more appropriately. Specifically, by providing work with socio-emotional,
physical and economic resources, employees will increase their obligations and feelings of an elevated
sense of belonging at work. Saks (2006) observes that employees are more likely to reciprocate with
greater levels of engagement when they provided with suitable resources.
The conceptual framework of this paper recommends leaders to conduct surveys on employees’
needs and concerns so they can collate critical information to set up interventions in workplace design.
Regular interventions on workplace design will provide employees with more sense of significance in
challenging circumstances. This would result in positive employee outcomes, thereby positively
impacting on organization’s competitiveness and profitability.
Page 12 of 15 ANZAM 2010
12
REFERENCES
Arnold KA, Turner N, Barling J, Kelloway EK & McKee M (2007) Transformational leadership and
psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 12: 193-203.
Attridge M (2009) Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the Research
and Business Literature, Journal of Workplace Behavioural Health 24: 383-398.
Bakker AB & Schaufeli WB (2008) Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior 29: 147-54.
Bakker, AB & Demerouti E (2008) towards a model of work engagement, Career Development
International 13: 209-223.
Bass B M & Riggio R E (2006) Transformational leadership, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bass B M (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass B M (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, New York, The Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1995), Theory of transformational leadership redux, The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463-
478.
BlessingWhite (2008) The state of employee engagement 2008. Asia-Pacific overview, online,
available at
ttp://www.blessingwhite.com/%5CContent%5CReports%5C2008EmployeeEngagementAPOV.
pdf. (accessed January 2010).
Blizzard R (2003) Employee Engagement: Where Do Hospitals Begin? The Gallup Poll, Tuesday
Briefing, Nov, p.91(2).
Bono JE & Judge TA (2003) Self-Concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders, Academy of Management Journal 46: 554-571.
Burns, J M (1978) Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.
Carr JZ, Schmidt AM, Ford K & DeShon RP (2003) Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path
analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states and individual level work
outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 605-619.
Czarnowsky M (2008) Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study,
Alexandria, VA, American Society for Training & Development.
Druskat VU (1994) Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the
Roman Catholic church, Leadership Quarterly 5: 99-119.
Ferguson A (2005) Employee engagement: Does it exist, and if so, how does it relate to performance,
other constructs and individual differences?, online, available at:http://www.lifethatworks.com/Employee-Engagement.prn.pdf. (accessed March 2010).
Furness V (2008) Employee management: engagement defined, Employee Benefits:56- 57, online,
available athttp://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/ (accessed June 2010)
Gagnon MA & Michael JH (2004) Outcomes of perceived supervisor support for wood production
employees, Forest Products Journal 54: 172-177.
Gallup (2009) The Gallup Q12 – Employee Engagement - POLL 2008 RESULTS Australia Overview,
online, available athttp://www.destinationtalent.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/the-
gallup-q12-poll-2008-australia-10022009.pdf. (accessed February 2010).
Gopal A (2006) Worker disengagement continues to cost Singapore, The Gallup Management Journal,
online, available at:http://gmj.gallup.com/content/22720/Worker-Disengagement-Continues-
Cost-Singapore.aspx (accessed August 2009)
Harter JK, Schmidt FL & Hayes, TL (2002) Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology 87: 268-279.
Hay I (1995) Transformational leadership: Characteristics and criticisms. E-journal of Organizational
Learning and Leadership, online available at:http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/,
accessed (March 2010).
Jones JR & Harter JK (2005) Race effects on the employee engagement: Turnover intention
relationship, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 11: 78-88.
Page 13 of 15 ANZAM 2010
13
Judge TA & Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of
their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 755-768.
Kahn WA (1992) To be full there: Psychological presence at work, Human Relations 45: 321-349.
Kahn WA. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal 33: 692-724.
Kark R & Shamir B (2002) The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and
collective selves and further effects on followers. In Avolio BJ & Yammarino FJ,
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 2, 67-91. Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Kular S, Gatenby M, Rees C , Soane E & Truss K (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature
Review. (Working Paper) Kingston upon Thames, U.K.: Kingston Business School, Kingston
University.
Lanphear S (2004) Are Your Employees Highly Engaged? Credit Union Executive, 30: 2-3
Lockwood NR (2007) Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s strategic
role, Society for Human Resource Management Quarterly 52: 1-11.
MacDonald (2002) How companies can find renewed focus during uncertain times, Journal of
Communication Management, 6: 220-227.
Macey HW & Schneider B, Barbera KM & Young SA (2009) Employee Engagement: Tools for
Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Michigan, Wiley-Blackwell.
Macey WH & Schneider B (2008) The meaning of employee engagement". Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 1: 3-30.
Maslach C & Leiter MP (2008) Early predictors of job burnout and engagement, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93: 498-512.
Maslach C, Schaufeli, WB & Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397-
422.
May DR, Gilson, RL & Harter LM (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: 11–37.
Medlin B & Green K, Jr (2009) Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and
optimism”. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109: 943 – 956.
Myers DG (2000) The funds, friends and faith of happy people, American Psychologist, 55: 56-67.
Nemanich L & Keller RT (2007) Transformational Leadership in an Acquisition: A Field Study of
Employees, The Leadership Quarterly 18: 49-68.
Nielsen K, Yarker J, Brenner SO & Randall R (2008) The importance of transformational leadership
style for the well-being of employees working with older people, Journal of Advanced Nursing
63: 165-175.
Nielsen ML, Rugulies R, Christensen KB, Smith-Hansen L & Kristensen, TS (2006) Psychosocial
work environment predictors of short and long spells of sickness absence during a two-year
follow-up, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48: 591-595.
Piccolo RF & Colquitt JA (2006) Transformational leadership and job behaviours: The mediating role
of core job characteristics, Academy of Management Journal 49: 327-340.
Piccolo RF, Greenbaum R, Den Hartog DN & Folger R (2010) The relationship between ethical
leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31: 259-278.
Pillai R & Williams EA (2004) Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness,
commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management 17: 144-159.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB & Bommer WH (1996) Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management 22: 259-298.
Popper M, Mayseless O & Castelnovo O (2000) Transformational leadership and attachment, The
Leadership Quarterly 11: 267-289.
Purvanova RK, Bono JE & Dzieweczynski J (2006) Transformational leadership, job characteristics,
and organizational citizenship performance, Human Performance 19: 1-22.
Quinn, RE & Spreitzer GM (1997) The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader should
consider, Organizational Dynamics 26: 37-49.
Richman A (2006) Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?, Workspan 49: 36-
39.
Page 14 of 15 ANZAM 2010
14
Saks AM (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial
Psychology 21: 600-619.
Schaufeli WB & Bakker AB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout
and engagement: A multi-sample study, Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 293-315.
Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V & Bakker, AB (2001), The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of
Happiness Studies 3: 71-92.
Schermerhorn JR, Hunt JG & Osborn RN (2005) Organizational Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Shamir B, House RJ & Arthur MB (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-
concept based theory, Organization Science 4: 577-593.
Shuck B & Wollard K (2010) Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the
Foundations, Human Resource Development Review 9: 89–110.
Singer MS (1985) Transformational versus transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company
managers. Psychological Reports 57: 143-146.
Smircich L & Morgan G (1982) Leadership: the management of meaning. Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science 18: 257-73.
Smith F (2009) Workers as disengaged as ever, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 59.
Sosik JJ [(2006) Full range leadership: Model, research, extensions and training, In Cooper C & Burke
R (Eds.), Inspiring leadership: 33-66.
Tasker J (2004) Engagement equals productivity. Personnel Today, October 5: 8-9.
Tower Perrin (2009) Employee Engagement – a Towers Perrin study, online, available athttp://www.reach1to1.com/2009/03/09/employee-engagement-drives-business-performance/
(accessed: August 2009)
Wildermuth C & Pauken P (2008) A perfect match: decoding employee engagement. Part I: Engaging
cultures and leader, Industrial & Commercial Training 40: 122-128.
Yukl GA (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic leadership
theories. Leadership Quarterly 10: 285-305.
Yukl GA (2006) Leadership In Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall
Zhu W, Avolio BJ &Walumbwa FO (2009) Mediating role of follower characteristics with
transformational leadership and follower work engagement, Group Organ. Manage 34: 590-
619.
Figure (1) Hypothesized framework explaining the indirect relation
Transformational
leaders (The four I’s)
Creating significant
work
Followers feel obliged
to reciprocate by sense
of belonging to work
Followers perceive
work to be more
meaningful
Workplace engagement
(vigor, dedication and
absorption)
Followers arouse
their positive
behaviours (respect,
trust, and loyalty)
Page 15 of 15 ANZAM 2010
doc_167968786.pdf