Content uploaded by Mario Fernando
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mario Fernando on Apr 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Transformational leadership and work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in
work
Mohammed Yasin Ghadi, Mario Fernando, Peter Caputi,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mohammed Yasin Ghadi, Mario Fernando, Peter Caputi, (2013) "Transformational leadership and work
engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work", Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 34 Issue: 6,pp. 532-550, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110
Downloaded on: 11 April 2017, At: 01:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13657 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"Towards a model of work engagement", Career Development International, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp.
209-223 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
(2001),"Emotional intelligence and effective leadership", Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 5-10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730110380174
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:235887 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
Transformational leadership and
work engagement
The mediating effect of meaning in work
Mohammed Yasin Ghadi and Mario Fernando
School of Management and Marketing, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, Australia, and
Peter Caputi
School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – This paper reports the findings of a study examining the relationship between
transformational leadership and work engagement through the mediating role of meaning in work.
Design/methodology/approach – Transformational leadership, work engagement and perceptions
of meaning in work were assessed in an empirical study based on a sample of 530 full-time employees
working in Australia.
Findings – The results from structural equation modelling reveal that the transformational
leadership style influences followers’ attributes of work engagement. The direct relationship between
transformational leadership and work engagement was found to be partially mediated by employees’
perceptions of meaning in work.
Practical implications – Industry reports show that globally, the number of unengaged employees
have increased, costing nations billions in productivity losses. We present a model that could help
reduce these losses by providing human resource managers with new insights into developing training
programmes that could improve transformational leadership behaviours in the workplace. These
programmes could help re-design the context of work to make work more meaningful.
Originality/value – The relationship between transformational leadership style, perceptions of
meaning in work and work engagement were explored theoretically and tested empirically in an
Australian context.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Work engagement, Meaning in work, Mediation,
Australia
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Transformational leadership is one of the most dominant paradigms in the
contemporary leadership literature ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004). It is linked with
several employee outcomes, such as well-being (Nielsen et al., 2009), creativity (Shin
and Zhou, 2003) and task performance (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). The
transformational leadership style has been defined as “the process through which
leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morality and
motivation” (Burns, 1979, p. 21). Thus a transformational leader is a morally mature
leader who motivates followers’ behaviours and attitudes to generate higher levels of
moral reasoning in followers (Burns, 1979). However, transformational managers do
not influence subordinates’ attitudes and behaviours in a simple way. While evidence
suggest numerous mediation mechanisms through which transformational leadership
affect subordinates (Sivanathan et al., 2004), Avolio et al. (2009) found that the process
of influence (or the mechanism) through which transformational managers motivate
subordinates needed further investigation.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Received 16 October 2011
Revised 17 May 2012
Accepted 19 May 2012
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 34 No. 6, 2013
pp. 532-550
rEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110
532
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
Recently, the relationship between transformational leadership and employee
engagement at work has attracted much scholarly attention (Zhu et al., 2009; Salanova
et al., 2011). Specifically, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) refers to engagement as a
“positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterised by vigour,
dedication and absorption” (p. 295). The empirical findings from studies on the
relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement suggest that the
mechanism of influence has not been adequately studied (Zhu et al., 2009). These
researchers claim that this area should be further explored by using “other unmeasured
variables that could directly or indirectly influence feelings of work engagement” (Zhu
et al., 2009, p. 612).
One of the more recent conceptual articles in the engagement literature (Bakker
et al., 2011) argues that the direct relationship between transformational leadership and
engagement has different intensities under different conditions. They claim that such
direct influence is not simple, and can result from helping employees to construe
meaningfulness in work (p. 14). Meaning in work (or meaningfulness in work, as per
Rosso et al., 2010) has been conceptualised widely in the literature. According to
Arnold et al. (2007), meaningful work is all about “finding a purpose in work that is
greater than the extrinsic outcome of the work” (p. 195). It has been stated in the
literature that individuals’ primary aim is to be motivated to look for work that is
meaningful, personally fulfilling and motivating (Hackman and Oldham, 1976;
Chalofsky, 2003). Indeed, this perspective is evident in some of the previous work on
motivational theories. For instance, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs indicates that once
the lower survival needs which involves psychological, safety and social needs are
met, individuals seek to address their higher order needs, which involves progressing
from “belonging” to “esteem” to “self-actualisation”. Experiencing personal meaning
in work has been shown to relate closely to satisfying these higher order needs.
According to Chalofsky (2003), once these needs are met, individuals will seek a job
that is more meaningful and which fulfils their life purpose. Thus, individuals seek to
experience meaningful work that maximises their sense of motivation. Hackman and
Oldham (1976) established the interconnection of meaningful work and personal
motivation, and found that meaningful work – in addition to feedback and autonomy –
maximises the possibility of intrinsic motivation.
Our study aims to test the role of meaning in work as a mediator between
transformational leadership and employee engagement, an aspect also highlighted by
Bakker et al. (2011) as not having enough empirical scrutiny.
By examining the mediating role of perceptions of meaning in work, we hope
to contribute to the literature both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, this
study responds to calls by Roberts and Davenport (2002) and Shuck et al. (2011) for
engagement researchers to focus on the situational drivers of engagement that can be
changed over a period of time, such as the behaviours of managers and work structure.
First, our findings on transformational leadership reveal that the perceptions of
meaning in work promote employee feelings of work engagement differently.
Second, our study also enriches the work engagement literature that transformational
leadership is related to followers’ perceptions of meaning in work to affect the levels
of work engagement.
Industry reports show that only one-fifth of employees were engaged in their work,
and that the engagement levels were steadily declining and costing countries greatly in
lost productivity (e.g. US$300 billions annually in USA, approximately US$94.5-103.4
billions annually in UK, and over US$232 billions annually in Japan) (Gallup, 2009).
533
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
In Australia, the situation is worse. Recent estimates show that disengagement among
employees has increased to more than 82 per cent, costing the Australian economy
between US$37.5-47.2 billions annually in productivity losses (Gallup, 2009). Therefore,
organisations constantly need to look for fresh ways to create and then sustain higher
engagement levels. Findings of our proposed relationship should help address some
of these concerns by providing practitioners with guidelines for designing work
contexts to promote employee engagement.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1 Work engagement: stability and definition
It is important to ensure that engagement is independent of similar concepts and has
its own characteristics and measure. While some researchers have argued that work
engagement is a unique motivational construct that has distinguishable characteristics
from other constructs such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment or job
involvement (Bakker and Leiter, 2010), the majority of practitioner study findings do
not convincingly show that work engagement is different, and is only a repackaging
of other constructs (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Arguably, studies have recently
contended the appearance of employee engagement at work through clear and sufficient
theories such as the job-demand resource model (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), the
self-determination theory (Meyer and Gagne, 2008) and the conservation of resources
theory (Halbesleben, 2011). A detailed analysis of comparisons between work engagement
and job satisfaction, organisational commitment, flow notion and job involvement can be
found in Bakker and Leiter (2010), Albrecht (2010) and in Bakker et al. (2011).
Work engagement is a relatively new construct that has been conceptualised by
many (Wefald et al., 2011). A commonly cited definition (Schaufeli et al., 2002) states
that work engagement is a persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state of being
characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption. Vigour refers to high energy levels
and states of mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to involvement and
experiencing a sense of pride and challenge. Absorption refers to being highly
concentrated on and happily engrossed in work. Due to its close association with the
notion of flow, researchers believe that more research is required to examine whether
absorption is a core dimension or an outcome of work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011).
The current study uses Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) definition due to two reasons. First,
research on engagement is relatively recent, and researchers still debate whether
engagement should be practically differentiated from other related concepts. McBain
(2006) claims that other definitions of engagement more heavily emphasise
identification with or commitment to either the organisation or a job, and use terms
such as organisational commitment and satisfaction (Wefald and Downey, 2009) and
workaholism (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Hence, Schaufeli’s definition of engagement has
generated strong validity and appears to cover the missing elements of other
definitions (Wefald and Downey, 2009; Bakker, 2009). Second, researchers commonly
refer to Schaufeli’s view of work engagement as a basis for research as it includes the
affective and cognitive nature of employees’ perceptions of work. This line of thinking
is in line with the agreement that engagement has two core dimensions, energy and
involvement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010).
2.2 Transformational leadership
Bass (1985) cited in (Yukl, 1994) claims that transformational leadership has an
additive effect on followers to do more than originally intended by “(1) making them
534
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
more aware of the importance of task outcomes, (2) inducing them to transcend
their own self-interests for the sake of the organizations or team and (3) activating their
higher order needs” (p. 351).
Despite this additive influence, disagreements have been raised regarding the
different sub-dimensions of transformational leadership (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004).
In this sense, we followed Bass’ (1985) conceptualisation of transformational
leadership (1985) involving the four sub-dimensions referred to as the 4I’s. Bass’s four
sub-dimensions of transformational leadership have been proven to have construct
validity in assessing transformational leadership style. Judge and Piccolo (2004) stated
that there have been more studies conducted on Bass’s view transformational
leadership than about all the other popular theories of leadership combined.
The first transformational behaviour is idealised influence, which is a leader’s
ability to build loyalty and devotion without much consideration for their own
self-interest, and which also helps followers to identify with them. The second
behaviour is inspirational motivation, which involves a supervisor’s ability to create a
vision that appeals to followers and makes them a significant part of the organisation
(Bass and Riggio, 2006). The third behaviour is intellectual stimulation, which involves
leaders’ ability to stimulate employees’ efforts to be innovative through questioning
assumptions and taking calculated risks, so followers can think in a non-traditional
way. The final behaviour is individualised consideration. Here, leaders act as a mentor
or coach paying special attention to the different needs of individuals. These four
behaviours interact together and result in motivating followers’ professional
characteristics (Shamir et al., 1993; Bass and Riggio, 2006).
Despite the strong association between the behaviours of transformational
leadership and desirable outcomes, there has been a dearth of conceptual and empirical
research on examining the role of transformational leadership on followers’ affective
states (Avolio et al., 2009). As work engagement is defined as a positive affective state
of the mind (Schaufeli et al., 2002), the direct relationship between transformational
leadership and wok engagement can help address recent calls by Avolio et al. (2009).
In this study, we provide justification for how these behaviours influence feelings of
engagement.
2.3 Direct relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement
A central behaviour in the transformational leadership style involves acting as a role
model supervisor displaying idealised influence behaviour. “Role model” leaders build
loyalty and devotion while paying less attention to their own self-interests (Bass and
Bass, 2008). Followers strive to emulate their transformational managers because
they act in ways that allow them to serve as role models for their subordinates
(Bono and Judge, 2003). That is, followers who are certain of the virtues or visions
of their supervisor will be less likely to resist proposals for change and more likely to
perform their high risk tasks. In this context, subordinates perform effectively and are
energised to sacrifice and move beyond their own self-interests to make a better
contribution towards organisational performance (Shamir et al., 1993). When leaders
set themselves as examples for followers, followers’ sense of values and contributions
will enhance, and as a result, engage their whole self in work.
Another behaviour of transformational leadership that could be linked to employee
engagement is individualised consideration. The individualised consideration
behaviour demonstrates individualised attention towards their followers by identifying
and responding to followers’ demands, displaying care of individual differences and
535
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
paying special attention to followers’ needs for achievement and growth (Avolio and Bass,
2002; Bass and Riggio, 2006). One of the most influential theories in organisational
behaviour literature that could be used as an underlying theory to explain this
relationship is the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964). This theory is developed on
the premise of subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives.
It indicates that the series of interactions that can occur between two parties (e.g. the
manager and followers) will usually create obligations from one party to another.
Therefore, a party is likely to reciprocate according to the SET.
The application of SET on the relationship between the individualised consideration
behaviour and engagement can be presented as follows. When leaders demonstrate
genuine consideration and care for each follower, they are more likely to motivate
positive leader-follower relationships to improve their sense of belonging to the
organisation (Zhu et al., 2009). Because of their enhanced sense of belonging, a possible
way for employees to reciprocate to this special attention and care is by devoting
their very best effort in their work. It is believed that if a leader provides important
personal resources to followers (such as care, consideration and respect), followers are
likely to perceive that the workplace as supportive, and in turn help create a sense of
obligation to reciprocate positively to this support. Researchers have argued that this
reciprocation could be in the form of many desirable behaviours such as engagement at
work (Saks, 2006). Thus far, it might be argued that individualised consideration
behaviours of supervisors enhance employees’ attributes of engagement at work.
Furthermore, it can be stated that intellectually stimulating managers produce a
supportive organisational climate (Avolio and Bass, 2002) which can play a role in the
development of employees’ feelings of work engagement. Through this behaviour,
leaders stimulate their followers’ effort to be more creative in solving problems by
questioning old assumptions and solving problems depending on fresh perspectives
(Bass and Bass, 2008). Bass (1985) found that transformational leaders stimulate
subordinates to go beyond the basic needs to the needs of the organisational mission
and purpose. In turn, followers are likely to be more innovative and make considerable
contributions towards work (Shin and Zhou, 2003). When employees’ contributions to
work is not criticised, transformational leaders are likely to increase the intrinsic
motivation of followers, and thus increase their levels of dedication (Bass and Bass,
2008; Avolio and Bass, 2002). However, when employees perform at a high level
and their efforts are not recognised, their intrinsic motivation reduces which might in
turn influence their self-esteem. Taking into account that engaged workers are
highly involved and dedicated in work (Schaufeli et al., 2002), supervisors who display
intellectual stimulation behaviour can influence employees’ involvement in work and
thus work with high feelings of dedication, the second facet of engagement.
Engaged employees are characterised as completely concentrated and happily
absorbed while doing the job (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). More often, those employees
find it hard to detach the self while working. Through inspirational motivation,
supervisors create a vision of the future that appeals to subordinates and makes
them a significant part of the organisation (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). A vision
offers a picture of the future that consists of values, hopes and ideals. Inspirational
motivational managers are capable of establishing and conveying high expectations
that challenge and inspire subordinates to achieve more than they thought was
possible (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Such motivational leaders are often expected to
depend on idealistic visions and persuasive communication to influence followers
to immerse themselves in their work. Shamir et al. (1993) argued that “supervisors who
536
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
use verbal persuasion and emotional appeals act as a powerful source for
motivating subordinates effort, therefore developing a sense of identification in
subordinates with their work unit” (in Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006, p. 329). Thereby,
inspirational motivational behaviour is considered to be linked to the attribute of
absorption, the third facet of work engagement. Building on these justifications,
we hypothesised as follows:
H1. Transformational leadership behaviours significantly predict work
engagement.
2.4 Indirect relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement
through meaning in work
2.4.1 Meaning in work. The main interest in meaning in work has been fuelled by the
assumption that personal and organisational outcomes were associated with perceptions
ofmeaninginwork(Rossoet al., 2010). The significance of this study lies in its exploration
of H1 and in its exploration of how perceptions of meaning in work mediate the
transformational leadership-work engagement relationship. Scholars have increasingly
focused on meaning in work as a source of individuals’ and organisational outcomes,
such as well-being (Nielsen et al., 2008; Arnold et al., 2007), organisational commitment
(Wrzesniewski, 2003), job satisfaction (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) and absenteeism
(Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). In addition, as an indication for the importance of meaning in
the work, the construct of meaning in work has been found in major models, such as
in the empowerment model (Spreitzer et al., 1997) and job characteristics model (Hackman
and Oldham, 1976).
However, the major transformations that have occurred during the last 20 years
such as demographic changes, globalisation and technological development have
affected employees’ behaviours and their perceptions regarding work. In this regard,
Rosso et al. (2010) indicate that researchers must be more definite about what type of
meaning in work they use because earlier approaches for defining meaning may no
longer be appropriate with these recent changes. Indeed, Scroggins (2008) claim that
although the meaning in work has appeared in several models, the construct has only
recently received interest in the organisational behavioural literature. Hence,
researchers need to be more deliberate about what type of meaning in work they are
addressing because varying conceptualizations in the literature have resulted in
development issues of the construct (Rosso et al., 2010).
In our effort to address these issues, we reviewed some of the influential studies that
examined the role of meaning in work in the last ten years (Chalofsky, 2003; Pratt and
Ashforth, 2003; May et al., 2004; Wrzesniewski, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010). From this
review, we can claim that perceptions of meaning in work are mainly based on the
interactions and subjective interpretations of work experience that employees
experience in the work environment (Rosso et al., 2010). Moreover, we assume that
employees perceive meaning in work when work has a goal, purpose and value that is
connected to the employee and his ability to construct meaning in work (Chalofsky,
2003; Arnold et al., 2007), and when there is an interactional relationship between
employees’ values and goals on the one hand and organisational and work values and
goals on the other (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; May et al., 2004).
Meaning in work is considered as a mediator between transformational leadership
and work engagement if two conditions are met (Baron and Kenny, 1986). First,
transformational leadership must be related with both meaningful work and employee
537
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
engagement. Second, the introduction of meaningful work into the analysis must
reduce the initially observed link between transformational leadership and employee
engagement. The only way to investigate whether both conditions are met is to assess
them in a statistical manner. We have already reviewed the relevant literature on the
relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.
The following two sections will identify the relationship between transformational
leadership and meaningful work and the relationship between meaningful work and
employee engagement.
2.4.2 Transformational leadership and meaning in work. Chalofsky (2003) describes
employees who fail to find meaning in work as those who have high feelings of
rejection, prejudice or misunderstanding. We argue that in an environment where
supervisors possess transformational behaviours, such feelings might be diminished
or may even be non-existent by creating perceptions of meaning in work. For example,
through the use of intellectual stimulation, leaders can stimulate subordinates to
create solutions for the problems and to be openly creative (Shin and Zhou, 2003).
In an environment, where leaders are intellectually stimulated, followers’ self-esteem
will be enhanced (Shamir et al., 1993). Thus, they feel safe to express their opinions
without fear of criticism if they contribute something that is incorrect. This specific
behaviour might help followers to control their environment where feelings of rejection,
prejudice or misunderstanding prevents meaning in work to appear. This is in line
with Scroggins (2008) who claims “consistency between work experiences and
the individual’s perception of self may enhance self-esteem, which will also make the
work more meaningful” (p. 70).
Furthermore, it can be argued that perceiving meaning in work not only concerns
rewards an employee attracts for performance, but meaning in work also forms the
link between purpose and values (Chalofsky, 2003; Arnold et al., 2007). Supervisors
who develop specific missions, goals and identities for organisations are able to
influence subordinates’ perceptions to perceive work as meaningful. Through
inspirational motivation, transformational leaders are seen as having a compelling
vision of the future, and communicating optimism about future goals, which in turn
increases followers’ personal core values (Nielsen et al., 2008; Piccolo and Colquitt,
2006; Bono and Judge, 2003; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Consistency between managers’
vision of the organisation’s mission and the core values of their subordinates are
more likely to appear. Thus, subordinates are likely to perceive the work to be more
purposive, motivational and important – all of which are integral components
of perceiving meaning in work (Chalofsky, 2003). Thus, greater supervisors’ display of
transformational leadership behaviours, followers’ perception of meaning in work is
likely to increase. Accordingly, we hypothesised as follows:
H2a. Transformational leadership influences employees’ perceptions of meaning in
work.
2.4.3 Meaning in work and work engagement. The body of literature on meaning in
work and work engagement indicated the relationship between both terms but with
some contradictions. Work engagement has been studied in both directions: either as
an antecedent variable to appearance of meaning in work or as a consequence for
finding meaning in work. On one hand, some supported the idea that perceiving
meaning in work is an intrinsic motivational factor that predicts characteristics of
work engagement (May et al., 2004). Others found meaning in work as an antecedent to
538
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
work engagement (Mendes and Stander, 2011). Some also have suggested that during
times spent in work when the employee is being engaged, employees may come to
value the work they do and be more aware about the significance and values of the
work roles (Gallup, 2009). Employees may actively change the design of their jobs by
choosing tasks, negotiating different job content and assigning meaning to their tasks
or jobs (Bakker and Leiter, 2010, p. 190).
We follow the first party and hypothesised as follows:
H2b. Employees’ perceptions of meaning in work positively predict employees’
work engagement.
Altogether, the degree to which managers create meaning in work may differ.
Specifically, it has been justified that managers who posses transformational
leadership style motivate followers to look beyond everyday activities for the sake of
the organisation. Those managers not only present an impressive future for employees,
these managers also demonstrate for employees’ how they can work towards a better
future in their current job. This connection between employees’ current work and a
desirable future can instil meaning into the employees’ work. In that case, employees
derive more perceptions that work is a meaningful place. With this gap in knowledge,
it can be concluded that meaning in work can act as a possible mediator on the
transformational leadership-work engagement relationship. Accordingly, we hypothesised
as follows:
H3. Perceptions of meaning in work mediate the association between
transformational leadership and work engagement.
The above discussion is captured in Figure 1.
3. Methods
3.1 Sample and procedures for data collection
A total of 4,200 e-mail invitations to complete a web-based questionnaire were sent
out via a professional survey company based in Sydney, Australia. The invitation
letter also described the aims and objectives of the study, data collection, potential
contribution, potential use of the research and how confidentiality would be maintained
and privacy protected. The participants constituted a sample of full-time employees
working under a direct supervisor in various sectors in Australia. Employees who have a
part-time job were excluded from this study because they would have different
perceptions of and attitudes about the study variables from full-time employees. Five
hundred and thirty participant responses were usable for this study. Twenty-five
incomplete questionnaires were eliminated from the study, resulting in an overall response
H1
H2a H2b
Transformational
leadership
Work
engagement
Meaning in
work
H3
Figure 1.
Hypothesised model
proposing the direct and
(mediation) relationship
539
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
rate of 12.9 per cent. Because our response rate is relatively low, we found it helpful to
provide some comparison between answers of respondents and non-respondents.
Independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were performed to assess this concern.
On the basis of the results, it can be cautiously concluded that there were no significant
statistical differences between respondents and non-respondents with respect to their
demographic characteristics ( p40.05). The demographic profile of the participants is
presented in Table I.
Item Category Frequency %
Gender Male 259 48.9
Female 271 51.1
Age 20-30 128 24.2
31-40 178 33.6
41-50 126 23.8
51-60 82 15.5
61 years or more 16 3.0
Academic background High school or lower 81 15.3
Certificate/Associate Diploma 71 13.4
Diploma 78 14.7
Degree 166 31.3
Masters 85 16.0
PhD 44 8.3
Other 5 0.9
Industry type Agricultural 2 0.4
Construction 26 4.9
Innovation, science and technology 70 13.2
Mining 6 1.1
Retail 41 7.7
Manufacturing 43 8.1
Service industry 92 17.4
Tourism 16 3.0
Transport 23 4.3
Other 211 39.8
Working hours/week 10 hours or less 6 1.1
11-20 hours 36 6.8
21-30 hours 72 13.6
31-40 hours 235 44.3
41 hours or more 181 34.2
Duration of service in work Less than 6 months 45 8.5
7 months-1 year 69 13
2-5 years 198 37.4
6-10 years 110 20.8
11-20 years 73 13.8
21 years or more 35 6.6
Duration of service under supervisor Less than 6 months 77 14.5
7 months-1 year 115 21.7
2-4 years 184 34.7
5-8 years 77 14.5
9 years or more 77 14.5
Note: n¼530
Tabl e I.
Demographic profile
of participants
540
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
3.2 Measures
The measures used for the variables of the study are outlined below.
3.2.1 Transformational leadership. We used the Global Transformational
Leadership Scale (GTL) to assess the four behaviours of transformational leadership
(Carless et al., 2000). The literature has regularly reported GTL’s acceptable internal
consistency. Carless et al. (2000) reported strong evidence that the seven-item GTL is
highly reliable (a¼0.93), have strong validity evidence which should have substantial
utility value (Carless et al., 2000). Carless et al. (2000) have reported that the factor
loadings of the seven items are above the required 0.50 cut-off value which ranged from
0.78 to 0.88 with a mean of 0.84 (SD ¼0.05). Respondents were asked to rate their
immediate supervisor in the current work situation by indicating the extent to which
their supervisors engaged in behaviours of transformational leadership. The response
format of the GTL ranges from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). Examples
for these items include “My supervisor communicates a clear and positive vision of the
future”. The lower the scores reported by the participants, the lower they perceived
their immediate supervisors as possessing transformational characteristics.
3.2.2 Work engagement. We employed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17)
to measure work engagement. The scale is composed of three subscales, each measuring
one facet of work engagement. The three sub-dimensions of UWES-17 has good
psychometric qualities, and is able to measure the dimensions of employee engagement
without the length of the scale (17 items) influencing participants (Bakker, 2009).
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the UWES-17 is a
sufficient and clear three-factor model to measure employee engagement at work (Bakker,
2009; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010). Attributes of work
engagement was measured by asking participants to report their preference on a
seven-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always). The higher the score reported by the
employee, the greater they felt engaged at work. Examples for these items included
“At my work, I feel bursting with energy” and “I am enthusiastic about my job”.
3.2.3 Meaning in work. We used May et al.’s (2004) scale to assess meaning in work.
May et al. (2004) found that this scale has good psychometric qualities with a high
reliability of the scale (a¼0.90). Results of the factor analyses lend support to the
discriminant validity of this measure and did not suggest that common method
variance was a problem in the data. We measured participants’ perceptions of meaning
in work by asking employees to rate their perceptions of six items on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The lower the score reported by
the follower, the lower they perceive meaning in work. This scale included items such
as “My job activities are personally meaningful to me”.
3.2.4 Demographic profile. Employees were asked to provide information about their
age, gender, academic background, the industry they presently work, hours worked
per week, duration of service at work and the duration of service under the supervisor
at the time of data collection.
3.3 Procedures for data analysis
A major recommended approach in conducting SEM is the two-step modelling
approach developed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first stage, researchers
identify how well each underlying indicator and error is included in the model
(see Figure 2). This stage tests the reliability, factor loading and goodness-of-fit for each
scale of the study. The researchers in the second stage, namely the structural model
stage, focus on the overall relationship between constructs by specifying how each
541
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
construct appears in the model. The rationale for this approach is that accurate
representation of the reliability of the indicators is best accomplished in two-stages
to avoid the interactions between measurement and the structural model
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2000).
Preacher and Hayes (2004) acknowledge that the simple mediation model appears
when the independent variable (X) affects a dependent variable (Y) through a mediator
(M). The total effect of Xon Yrepresents the total effect (c). The direct effect of Xon Y
after the addition of Mis expressed as (c0). Path (a) represents the effect of Xon Mand
path (b) represents the effect of Mon Ycontrolling for the effect of X. The indirect effect
between Yand Xis defined as ab. In most cases, the indirect effect (ab) represents the
difference between the cand c0(ab ¼cc0) and thus the total effect (c) can be calculated
as the sum of cand ab (c¼c0þab). As a rule of thumb, a partial mediated model is
supported when the value of indirect effect path (ab) is smaller than the value of total
effect path (c) with the same sign.
The causal-steps approach developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) is the most cited
approach to test simple mediation (MacKinnon and Fairchild, 2009; Hayes, 2009).
Although it is widely used, it suffers from several limitations such as lower ability to
detect the mediation effect and the inability to explicitly quantify the magnitude of the
mediation effect. The limitations in this method makes it fallible to testing hypotheses
(MacKinnon and Fairchild, 2009; Hayes, 2009).
As another option, researchers show that the bootstrapping approach is a more
valid and powerful method for testing explicitly the mediation effects and, for this
reason; it should be the method of choice in mediation analysis (Hayes, 2009). In this
study, we used SEM which involves the bootstrapping function in AMOS software for
two reasons. First, it uses number of goodness of indices that help in assessing whether
Transformational
leadership
0.70
Employee
Engagement
0.49
Meaning in
work
0.67
TL1
e1
0.82
0.75
TL2
e2
0.87
0.77
TL3
e3
0.88
0.77
TL4
e4 0.88
0.70
TL5
e5 0.84
0.72
TL6
e6
0.85
0.80
TL7
e7
0.89
0.69
M1
e8
0.83
0.77
M2
e9
0.88
0.73
M3
e10
0.86
0.77
M4
e11
0.87
0.73
M5
e12
0.86
0.68
M6
e13
0.82
0.83
Vigor e24
0.91 0.87
Absorp-
tion e25
0.93
0.92
Dedica-
tion e26
0.96
0.70
0.21
0.67
resi1
resi2
Notes: n= 530. Bootstrap resample = 5,000; percentile and bias corrected confidence intervals
is on 99 per cent. e1-e26: errors terms for indicators; resi1 and resi2 are residuals for latent
variables; TL1-TL7: the seven items of GTL; M1-M6: the six items of meaning in work
c= 0.686
ab = 0.47
Figure 2.
Indirect relationship
between transformational
leadership, meaning
in work and
work engagement
542
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
the hypothesised model fits the observed data to meet the two-step approach developed
by (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Second, SEM allows testing a mediating hypothesis,
rather than separate regression analyses for testing them. The Maximum likelihood
estimation method, used as a default in SEM with AMOS, simultaneously calculates
all model paths together (Byrne, 2010).
The bootstrapping approach is a nonparametric method for assigning measures of
accuracy to sample estimates (Hayes, 2009). Preacher and Hayes (2004) argued that
the value of bootstrapping outweighs other methods for three reasons. First, it does not
impose the assumption of normality on the statistical distribution of the sample.
Second, this approach can be applied to small samples with confidence. Finally, the
bootstrapping method circumvents the power problem introduced by asymmetries and
other forms of non-normality in the sampling distribution of ab.
4. Analysis of results and hypotheses testing
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlation test
Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s afor all the study
variables are highlighted in Table II.
From Table II, it can be generalised that based on references cut-off points for
correlation (Cohen, 1992), the magnitude of Pearson’s correlation coefficient revealed
that there is a high correlation between constructs. No weak or moderate correlation
was found between constructs at the 0.01 significant levels. This might give
preliminary evidence to support the hypotheses of the study.
4.2 First step: measurement model
After conducting the correlation test, we applied Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two
steps of SEM. To do so, scale fit indices and factor loading needed to be checked.
Incremental (comparative fit index, Tucker fit index and normed fit indices), absolute
(w
2
,w
2
/df, p-value, goodness-of-fit index and adjusted goodness-of-fit index) and
badness-of-fit indices (standardised root mean residual and root mean square error of
approximation) that applied in this study were used according to the recommendations
of Hu and Bentler (1999) and Byrne (2010).
Consistent with previous research, we averaged the seven items to create a single
index to measure transformational leadership (Arnold et al., 2007). The fit indices
showed that the higher-order factor of the model fitted the data adequately:
w
2
¼68.807, w
2
/df ¼4.915, p¼0.000, GFI ¼0.96, AGFI ¼0.93, CFI ¼0.98, TLI ¼0.98,
NFI ¼0.98, RMSEA ¼0.086 and SRMR ¼0.018. Results of the CFA reveal that the
seven dimensions were significantly loaded on the transformational leadership
construct (b¼0.82 to 0.89; a¼95 per cent).
MSD Skewness Kurtosis
Transformational
leadership
Wor k
engagement
Transformational leadership
(a¼0.95) 3.43 1.09 0.55 0.71
Work engagement (a¼0.95) 3.76 1.22 0.55 0.76 0.686*
Meaning in work (a¼0.94) 3.77 0.95 0.96 0.22 0.69** 0.680**
Note: **po0.01 level
Table II.
Descriptive statistics and
Pearson’s correlation
coefficients for
transformational
leadership, meaning
in work, and work
engagement
543
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
For work engagement, scale fit indices show that work engagement indicated an
adequately acceptable fit (w
2
¼292.53, w
2
/df ¼4.7, GFI ¼0.92, AGFI ¼0.88, CFI ¼0.96,
TLI ¼0.95, NFI ¼0.95, RMSEA ¼0.048 and SRMR ¼0.027). Results of the second-order
CFA reveal that the three factors significantly loaded onto a higher-order construct of
work engagement (b¼0.97-0.99; a¼95 per cent). Thus, a higher-order factor of work
engagement was utilised in the statistical analysis.
The six items assigned for measuring meaning in work were averaged to create a
single index tapping of meaning in work (May et al., 2004). Conducting CFA reveals
that the scale fitted the data adequately (GFI ¼0.96, AGFI ¼0.91, CFI ¼0.98,
TLI ¼0.97, NFI ¼0.98, RMSEA ¼0.70 and SRMR ¼0.019). Furthermore, results show
that the six items significantly loaded onto the meaning in work construct with
(b¼0.81-0.88; a¼94 per cent).
One can conclude from the discussion above that the loading of items on each
constructs were valid and above the preferred 0.50 threshold of acceptability.
All values for the loadings are significant at p40.001. Furthermore, each scale was
with Cronbach’s aabove the preferred 0.70 requirements of acceptability.
4.3 Second step: structural model
Results from the CFA provided evidence that the hypothesised model fits the data
adequately (w
2
¼243, w
2
/df ¼2.8, GFI ¼0.94, AGFI ¼0.92, RMSEA ¼0.085,
SRMR ¼0.022; CFI ¼0.98; TLI ¼0.98; NFI ¼0.97). Hence, both steps have been met.
4.4 Hypotheses testing
In SEM, it is always necessary to assess whether the collected data violate certain key
assumptions. Multicollinearity and normality were checked for this reason. Results
of Tolerance value and variance inflation factor revealed that they were in the
satisfactory area indicating no multicollinearity, whereas the skewness value was in
the range for all constructs (0.55 to 0.96) indicating an approximately normal
distribution.
Figure 2 displays the output of SEM analysis. As can be seen, the standardised
coefficient for total effect (c) of transformational leadership on work engagement before
entering the mediator was significant with (b¼0.686; po0.001). This means that
hypothesis 1 is fully supported. . Furthermore, we can see from Figure 2 that when
meaning in work acts as a mediator, the influence of transformational leadership on
engagement remains significant but reduces to reach (b¼0.217; po0.001). We can
also lend support for H2a and H2b that there is a significant direct influence of
transformational leadership on meaning in work (b¼0.69; po0.001), and that there is
a significant direct influence of meaning in work on work engagement (b¼0.68;
po0.001).
Finally, on the indirect effects of H3, the bootstrapping procedure in AMOS was
used and performed with 5,000 resamples. Statistical significance for the indirect effect
was determined from 99 per cent bias and accelerated confidence intervals (Hayes,
2009). This indicates that meaning in work transmits almost (b¼0.47; po0.001) of
the influence of transformational leadership on work engagement with 99 per cent
confidence. We can conclude that the indirect effect of meaning in work is significantly
different from zero at po0.001.
As predicted, the results lend support to a partial mediation model since the total
effect of transformational leadership on work engagement attenuated slightly but
remained significant when controlling meaning in work.
544
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
AMOS provides the squared multiple correlation (R
2
) for each observed variable’s
rating. Each R
2
can be interpreted as the proportion of the total variance in an observed
rating that is explained by all variables that the rating directly depends on. As can be
seen from the model presented in Figure 2, large proportions of the variance in our
variables can be explained. Transformational leadership explains 43 per cent of the
variance in meaning in work while 64 per cent of the variance in work engagement is
explained by transformational leadership and meaning in work.
5. Discussion
As predicted, the direct relationship between transformational leadership and work
engagement in H1 was supported. First, the findings demonstrate that employees who
have transforming managers are more likely to be energetic, dedicated and absorbed in
work. The results of this hypothesis among Australian employees is in line with
previous studies conducted in South Africa (Zhu et al., 2009), the Netherlands (Tims
et al., 2011) and Portugal (Salanova et al., 2011). Second, this study identified
that transformational leadership creates meaning in work that followers do (as
hypothesised in H2a) and that meaning in work also predicts work engagement (as
expected in H2b). Finally, the results of H3 lend support to a partial mediation of
meaning in work between transformational leadership and work engagement. These
results address Bakker et al.’s (2011) conceptual claims that meaning in work might
mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement.
In this regard, we extend previous research findings in meaning in work to explain
the indirect portion of the influence from transformational leadership on work
engagement.
5.1 Implications for practice
We argue that relationships presented in the current study play a significant role in
halting losses from low figures of employee engagement by providing two practical
implications.
From the results of the direct influence, we suggest that human resource (HR)
managers who aim to generate levels of employee engagement on the long term, to
offer new programmes and training workshops that improve transformational
leadership behaviours (Nielsen and Cleal, 2011). We argue that these programmes, in
turn, can address employees’ needs and interests thus helping to reduce the financial
looses mentioned earlier from lack of engagement. Although this study highlighted the
mediating role of meaning in work between transformational leadership and work
engagement, previous studies (e.g. Saks, 2006) have found that employee engagement
mediates the relationship between different antecedents and job satisfaction, organisational
commitment and intentions to quit all of which are considered as motivators to limit
financial losses.
The results of mediation indicate that by training managers on transformational
leadership style and how to deal with different working conditions at different levels
in the organisation, meaning in work is likely to be enhanced whilst reducing the
percentage of disengaged employees. Previous studies have confirmed that
transformational leadership behaviours can be trained and learned (Barling et al.,
1996; Nielsena and Munir, 2009). These interventions could involve designing work
tasks to make it more meaningful to align with employees’ perceptions and interests.
Moreover, by having the ability to design work with different resources such as socio-
emotional, physical and economic resources, the employees perceive consistency
545
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
between work experience and self which will enhance self-esteem, and result in
more meaningful work (Scroggins, 2008). Based on the SET, Saks (2006) found
that when such conditions exist in the workplace, employees will reciprocate by being
more engaged.
5.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research
This study suffers from several limitations. Because this study used self-report
surveys to generate responses from different employees, there is a chance that
information provided was biased on answers that were provided on the basis of being
socially desirable. Fisher (1993) confirms that social desirability in answering social
science questions lead to misleading conclusions. Although the procedures applied
ensured minimum opportunities for this bias, there is still a possibility that employees
responded in a socially desirable manner favouring their behaviours because expecting
negative consequences from negative responses. Thus, we recommend future
studies to test the hypothesised conceptual model by using different data collection
approaches. A useful approach would be to rate employees’ work engagement and
supervisors’ transformational leadership style from both parties, i.e. managers
and employees. By doing so, we can reduce the probability of social desirable bias,
where reliability can be attributed to the results of the hypothesised model.
Another possible limitation in this study was related to the cross-sectional design in
data collection. The cross-sectional study approach compared with the longitudinal
approach does not allow the examination of data collection with a higher degree of
confidence. Thus, it would be interesting for future research to replicate findings of
the study using longitudinal analysis in order to draw more consistent and accurate
explanations to the causal influence of the constructs, and to see whether this
hypothesised model would change over time.
It is also important to note that the 4I’s of the transformational leadership is better
measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass. The GTL
scale was used to rate the four behaviours of transformational leadership because of
the costs associated with the MLQ survey. Studies in the transformational leadership
literature have argued that GTL dimensions are valid and reliable in assessing these
4I’s dimensions (Nielsen et al., 2008). The limitation of using the GTL survey comes
from the fact that we could not assess which specific transformational leadership
behaviour had the largest impact on work engagement and meaning in work.
As testing the influential role of each behaviour of transformational leadership was
beyond the aims of this study, we leave it for future research to examine the specific
influences of the 4I’s defined by (Bass, 1985) on the three dimensions of work engagement
defined by (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Finally, we recommend future studies to improve our proposed conceptual model by
including additional mediators (e.g. trust in manager) or moderators (e.g. personal
environment fit) that might provide more rigour to the model. The inclusion of
additional variables should help to build a more comprehensive model. It could provide
managers with critical information to develop new strategies to influence and then
enhance engagement levels of employees.
Among these notable improvements for the conceptual links is the extent to which
employees trust in their managers. Future studies can test the process underpinning
the direct relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ perceptions
of meaning in work. In the current study, we found evidence that transformational
leadership strongly predict these perceptions. Recently though, Rosso et al. (2010) claim
546
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
that either physical or social processes can play a role in the relationship between
antecedents (such as transformational leadership) and perceptions of meaning in work.
One process that can be used to refine this relationship isthe trust that employees hold for
supervisors. Trust in the direct manager should particularly play an important role when
evaluating transformational leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1985). Our recommendations
for this variable is further reinforced on the BlessingWhite (2008) report which showed
that only 28 per cent employees trust their managers. By studying the mediation role of
trust between transformational leadership and meaning in work, scholars can help
improve the theoretical underpinnings in the literature and develop an additional process
that helps enhancing levels of employee engagement at work.
Future studies could also focus on the role of the personal environment fit in this
proposed model. Shuck et al. (2011) found that employees with high perceptions
of fit with their current job influence the extent to which they are engaged at work.
However, limited research, if any, has focused on the role of perceptions of job/fit with
meaningful work. Understanding to what extent the perceptions of meaning in work is
affected or moderated by the personal environment fit factor would be useful.
If employees do not fit the goals of an organisation, this might influence the nature of
the mediating effect that we have found in the study. Future studies can extend this
model by understanding the role of personal environment fit as a moderator between
meaning in work and work engagement.
References
Albrecht, S.L. (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and
Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and McKee, M.C. (2007), “Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work”, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2002), Developing Potential Across a Full Range of Leadership:
Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and
future directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 421-449.
Bakker, A.B. (2009), “Building engagement in the workplace”, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C.L.
(Eds), The Peak Performing Organization, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 50-72.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career
Development International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2010), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and
Research, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), “Key questions regarding work engagement”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996), “Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 827-832.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
547
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NY.
BlessingWhite (2008), The State of Employee Engagement 2008 Asia Pacific Overview,
BlessingWhite Inc, Princeton, NJ, available at: www.blessingwhite.com/%5CContent%
5CReports%5C2008EmployeeEngagementAPOV.pdf (accessed 11 November 2009).
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Burns, J.M. (1979), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York, NY.
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J. and Mann, L. (2000), “A short measure of transformational
leadership”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389-405.
Chalofsky, N. (2003), “An emerging construct for meaningful work”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Cohen, J. (1992), “Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-159.
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the
Uninitiated, Sage Publications, London.
Fisher, R.J. (1993), “Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning”, The Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 303-315.
Gallup (2009), THE Gallup Q12 – Employee Engagement – Poll 2008 Results. Australia Overview,
Gallup Consulting, Sydney, available at: www.destinationtalent.com.au/blog/wp-content/
uploads/2009/02/the-gallup-q12-poll-2008-australia-10022009.pdf (accessed 3 February 2010).
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2011), “The consequences of engagement: the good, the bad, and the ugly”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 68-73.
Hayes, A.F. (2009), “Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 408-420.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal”,
Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
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, pp. 755-768.
McBain, R. (2006), “Employee engagement – the emergence of a new construct?”, Henley
Manager Update, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 21-32.
MacKinnon, D.P. and Fairchild, A.J. (2009), “Current directions in mediation analysis”, Current
Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.
548
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
Mendes, F. and Stander, M.W. (2011), “Positive organisation: the role of leader behaviour
in work engagement and retention”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 1-13.
Meyer, J.P. and Gagne, M. (2008), “Employee engagement from a self-determination theory
perspective”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 60-62.
Nielsen, K. and Cleal, B. (2011), “Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit
transformational leadership behaviors? An experience sampling method study on the
predictors of transformational leadership behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 344-352.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J. and Brenner, S.-O. (2008), “The effects of transformational
leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being:
a longitudinal study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R. and Munir, F. (2009), “The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional questionnaire
survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 9, 1236-1244.
Nielsena, K. and Munir, F. (2009), “How do transformational leaders influence followers’ affective
well-being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy”, Work & Stress, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 313-329.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the
mediating role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 327-340.
Pratt, M.G. and Ashforth, B.E. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work”, in
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship:
Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 309-327.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual
and empirical extensions”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.
Roberts, D.R. and Davenport, T.O. (2002), “Job engagement: why it’s important and how to
improve it”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 21-29.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), “On the meaning of work: a theoretical
integration and review”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 91-127.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M.J. and Martı
´nez, I.M. (2011), “Linking transformational
leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work
engagement”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2256-2266.
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 No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Defining and measuring work engagement: brining
clarity to the concept”, in Bakker, A.S. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook
of Essential Theory and Research,PsychologyPress,NewYork,NY,pp.10-24.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
549
Transformational
leadership and
work engagement
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
Scroggins, W.A. (2008), “Antecedents and outcomes of experienced meaningful work: a person-
job fit perspective”, Journal of Business Inquiry, Vol. 7, pp. 68-78.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-714.
Shuck, B., Relo, T.G. and Rocco, T.S. (2011), “Employee engagement: an examination of
antecedent and outcome variables”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 427-445.
Sivanathan, N., Arnold, K.A., Turner, N. and Barling, J. (2004), “Leading well: transformational
leadership and well-being”, in Linley, P.A. and Joseph, S. (Eds), Positive Psychology at Work,
Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 241-255.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2011), “Do transformational leaders enhance their
followers’ daily work engagement?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 121-131.
Wefald, A.J. and Downey, R.G. (2009), “Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation
with satisfaction”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 91-112.
Wefald, A.J., Reichard, R.J. and Serrano, S.A. (2011), “Fitting engagement into a nomological
network: the relationship of engagement to leadership and personality”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 1-16.
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003), “Finding positive meaning in work”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and
Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 309-327.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, B. (1997), “Jobs, careers, and callings:
people’s relations to their work”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Yukl, G.A. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “Moderating role of follower characteristics with
transformational leadership and follower work engagement”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 590-619.
About the authors
Mohammed Yasin Ghadi is a PhD candidate in management at the University of Wollongong.
For more than six years he has been interested in studying behaviours and attitudes of
employees and their role in influencing job-related outcomes in the work environment. Recently,
he has worked extensively on the areas of employee engagement and transformational
leadership. Mohammed Yasin Ghadi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
mg665@uow.edu.au
Mario Fernando is an Associate Professor in the School of Management and Marketing at the
University of Wollongong, Australia. His research interests are in the areas of virtue ethics,
leadership and spirituality and religion in management.
Peter Caputi is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of
Wollongong. His research interests are in the areas of applied psychology and occupational
health psychology.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
550
LODJ
34,6
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Saija Mauno, Mervi Ruokolainen, Ulla Kinnunen, Jessica De Bloom. 2016. Emotional labour and work
engagement among nurses: examining perceived compassion, leadership and work ethic as stress buffers.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 72:5, 1169-1181. [CrossRef]
2. Kaisa Perko, Ulla Kinnunen, Asko Tolvanen, Taru Feldt. 2016. Investigating occupational well-being
and leadership from a person-centred longitudinal approach: congruence of well-being and perceived
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25:1, 105-119. [CrossRef]
3. Ozgur Demirtas, Sean T. Hannah, Kubilay Gok, Aykut Arslan, Nejat Capar. 2015. The Moderated
Influence of Ethical Leadership, Via Meaningful Work, on Followers’ Engagement, Organizational
Identification, and Envy. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
4. 2015. Making people want to come to work. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International
Journal 29:5, 28-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Catherine Bailey, Adrian Madden, Kerstin Alfes, Luke Fletcher, Dilys Robinson, Jenny Holmes, Jonathan
Buzzeo, Graeme Currie. 2015. Evaluating the evidence on employee engagement and its potential benefits
to NHS staff: a narrative synthesis of the literature. Health Services and Delivery Research 3:26, 1-424.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 01:01 11 April 2017 (PT)
