INTRODUCTION:

INTRODUCTION:
Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years. Despite this, there
remains a paucity of critical academic literature on the subject, and relatively little
is known about how employee engagement can be influenced by quality of
leadership and what are the personality traits which strengthen or weakens the
relation between them. This literature survey examined peer-reviewed journal
articles, working papers, textbooks and other published resources relevant to
employee engagement, leadership and personality traits.
Amongst various streams of leadership theory, LMX theory examines the quality of
leader-member relationships and offers researchers a unique lens to study
leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997;
Schriesheim, Castro, &Cogliser, 1999; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). The
Leader-Member Exchange Theory first emerged in the 1970s. This early theory
emphasizes the special relationship a leader shares with a subordinate, with each of
these relationships being unique and resulting in linkages within the dyads
(Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 2002). Leader-Member Exchange Theory, also
called LMX or Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, describes how leaders in groups
maintain their position through a series of implied exchange agreements with their
members. LMX theory is unique as the only leadership theory that makes the dyadic
relationships the central factor of leadership process. LMX directs our attention to
the importance of leadership communication and relationships. As a descriptive
theory it notes the importance of existence of in group and out group within an
organization. This research encompasses how the practice of LMX theory is related
to positive organizational outcomes. LMX is intuitive. It is what can be expected
from a leader-group structure. The theory points to what people could do to
strengthen or weaken the leadership dynamics (Dansereau, Graen, and
Haga, 1975).
Although many studies have been conducted in Pakistan related to personality
composition (Haider & Hussain, 2009) but none of the study was conducted
taking employee engagement in their consideration. However, there is also a need
to develop understanding of engagements bases within individuals themselves. The
meta-analysis by Halbesleben (2010) identified a small number of reports about
optimism and self-efficacy (e.g., Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and
Schaufeli, 2009a), but comprehensive information about a wider range of traits
appears to be lacking. For instance, within the widely-applied Big Five taxonomy
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness) it has yet to be determined which factors are or are not relevant
to engagement. Langelaan, Bakker, Van Doornen and Schaufeli (2006)
considered relationships with only two of those, Neuroticism and Extraversion,
but in a five-factor comparison controlling for some job variables Kim, Shin and
Swanger (2009) found that Conscientiousness alone was significant. Additional
information and theorizing are required.

However, despite the explosive progress in engagement-related research , there are

gaps that remain and have important implications for the future of employee
engagement research. One of these gaps concerns the leaders influence on
subordinates employee engagement and its contingencies in shaping different
levels of engagement among subordinates (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011),
such as the impact of conscientiousness associated to leadership processes on
employee engagement

subordinates (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011)

Problem statement:
Is the effect of leader member exchange and employee engagement
moderated by conscientiousness?

LITERATURE REVIEW:
LEADERSHIP:
Leadership is one of the most salient and vital aspects of the organizational context.
However, defining leadership has been challenging.
The essential definition of leadership refers to the influence of a leader over his
or her subordinates in motivating and enabling them to perform tasks and
contribute toward the effectiveness and success of their organizations
(Wexley & Yukel, 1975).
Leadership is the ability to evaluate and or forecast a long term plan or policy and influence the
followers towards the achievement of the said strategy( Adeoye Mayowa: A Leadership Manager
in Nigeria (2009).

A definition more inclusive of followers comes from Alan Keith of Genentech who
said "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to
contribute to making something extraordinary happen
"Leaders are individuals who establish direction for a working group of
individuals who gain commitment form these group of members to this
direction and who then motivate these members to achieve the
direction's outcomes.( Conger, J.A. Learning to Lead San Francisco: JosseyBass (1992, p18).
The core question about how leadership effectively influences others in the
workplace has been approached in various ways, but has not yet been examined in
all important aspects.
In most leadership situations not every follower is treated the same by the leader.
Leaders and followers develop dyadic relationships and leaders treat each follower
differently, resulting in two groups of followersan in-group and an out-group. One
2

of the implications of this theory is that the nature of the exchange is determined by
the leader based on some presumed characteristics of the follower.++. Leadership is
interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward
the attainment of a specified goal or goals.(Tannenbaum,Weschler & Massarik (1961, p.24)

LMX THEORY:
One prominent theory in the leadership literatures that examines how leaders
influence member behaviors is the LMX theory. Originally, LMX was rooted in Role
theory (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987) but has evolved to rely heavily
on Social Exchange theory (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Kamdar & Van Dyne,
2007; Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010; Wayne & Green, 1993)
LMX is defined as the quality of the relationship between supervisor and
subordinate (Graen and Scandura, 1987). Based on dimensions such as mutual
trust, respect and obligation, differentiated relationships between leaders and
followers have been found across cultures ( Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995).LMX
theory is based on the premise that the exchange relationships that leaders develop
with their followers differ with regard to the resources, information and support
exchanged by both parties (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006; Wayne
et al., 1997).
From a theoretical perspective, the study looked at the impact of quality of LMX
coming from two different perspectives: the superior-LMX and the subordinate-LMX.
By looking at both perspectives, we could understand better the many complexities
relating to the study of LMX in relation to employee engagement. LMX theory differs
from other leadership approaches by its explicit focus on unique, dyadic
relationships and the notion that leaders and followers negotiate their relationship
over time (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Graen & Schiemann).
The exchange between the superior-subordinate (dyad), a two-way relationship, is
the unique basic premise and the unit of analysis of LMX.

Relation of Leader with In-group and out-group Members:

Leaders treat subordinates differently at varying degrees and levels contingent on
whether the latter are part of the In group (high-quality relationship) or out
group (low-quality relationship) (Graen and Scandura, 1987). The theory
asserts that leaders do not interact with subordinates uniformly (Graen and
Cashman,1975) because supervisors have limited time and resources.

Leader
Member
Exchang
e

Ingrou
p

Outgro
up

High Quality Relationship-In-Group:

In-group subordinates perform their jobs in accordance with the employment
contracts and can be counted on by the supervisor to perform unstructured
tasks, to volunteer for extra work, and to take on additional
responsibilities. Supervisors exchange personal and positional resources
(inside information, influence in decision making, task assignment, job latitude,
support, and attention) in return for subordinates performance on unstructured
tasks (Graen and Cashman, 1975).As a result, research shows mutual trust,
positive support, informal interdependencies, greater job latitude, common bonds,
open communication, high degree of autonomy, satisfaction, and shared loyalty
exist (Dansereau, Graen, and Haga, 1975; Dienesch and Liden, 1986;
Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995).
This also puts constraints upon the leader. They have to nurture the relationship
with their inner circle whilst balancing, giving them power with ensuring they do
not have enough to strike out on their own.

Low Quality Relationship-Out-Group:

In contrast, subordinates who perform only in accordance with the prescribed
employment contract are characterized as Out-group with limited reciprocal trust
and support, and few rewards from their supervisors (Deluga, 1998).

LMX Models:
LMX
Models

Motivational
model

Social
Exchange

Researchers developed models from the Motivational and Social exchange

perspectives to examine the mechanisms through which LMX affects its work
outcomes. The motivational model holds that by creating conditions that support
employees experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, a leader fosters
the most volitional and high-quality forms of motivation and engagement for
activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The social exchange model
suggests that an employee who is treated fairly by his supervisor would be willing to
provide reciprocal favors to his or her supervisor (Liden & Graen, 1980; Loi, Mao,
& Ngo, 2009).

The LMX process:

These relationships, if they are going to happen, start very soon after a person
joins the group and follow three stages. (Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975),
Graen and Cashman (1975)

1. Role taking:
The member joins the team and the leader assesses their abilities and talents.
Based on this, the leader may offer them opportunities to demonstrate their
capabilities.Another key factor in this stage is the discovery by both parties of how
the other likes to be respected. (Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975), Graen
and Cashman (1975)

2.

Role making:

In the second phase, the leader and member take part in an unstructured and
informal negotiation whereby a role is created for the member and the often-tacit
promise of benefit and power in return for dedication and loyalty takes place.
Trust-building is very important in this stage, and any felt betrayal, especially by
the leader, can result in the member being relegated to the out-group.This
negotiation includes relationship factors as well as pure work-related ones, and a
member who is similar to the leader in various ways is more likely to succeed. This
perhaps explains why mixed gender relationships regularly are less successful than
same-gender ones (it also affects the seeking of respect in the first stage). The
same effect also applies to cultural and racial differences. (Dansereau, Graen
and Haga (1975), Graen and Cashman (1975)

3. Routinization
5

In this phase, a pattern of ongoing social exchange between the leader and the
member becomes established. (Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975), Graen
and Cashman (1975)

Employee Engagement:
Employee engagement has emerged as a popular organizational concept in recent
years, particularly among practitioner audiences (Saks, 2006; Bakker and
Schaufeli, 2008). This is seemingly as attractive for organizations as it is for the
professional societies and consulting groups.
One of the first challenges presented by the literature is the lack of a universal
definition of employee engagement.
The concept of employee engagement was developed by Kahn (1990). Kahn
(1990: pg:694) defines employee engagement as
The harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in
engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.

The physical aspect of employee engagement concerns the physical

energies exerted by individuals to accomplish their roles.

The cognitive aspect of employee engagement concerns employees
beliefs about the organization, its leaders and working conditions.
The emotional aspect concerns how employees feel about each of
those three factors and whether they have positive or negative
attitudes toward the organization and its leaders.
Thus, according to Kahn (1990), engagement means to be psychologically as
well as physically present when occupying and performing an organizational role.
Most often employee engagement has been defined as emotional and intellectual
commitment to the organization (Baumruk 2004, Richman 2006 and Shaw
2005) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their job
(Frank et al 2004). Truss et al (2006) define employee engagement simply as
passion for work, a psychological state which is seen to encompass the three
dimensions of engagement discussed by Kahn (1990).
6

Robinson et al (2004) defined engagement as one step up from commitment

Robinson et als (2004) described engagement as a two-way relationship
between the employer and employee. (Malouff et al., 1990). The review by
Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) identified a growing consensus that engagement can be
defined in terms of high levels of energy and high levels of involvement in work (p. 22).

Holbeche and Springett (2003) argue that high levels of engagement can only be
achieved in workplaces where there is a shared sense of destiny and purpose
that connects people at an emotional level and raises their personal aspirations. .
Some definitions claim that employee engagement is something that is
produced by aspects in the workplace (as suggested by McCashland 1999,
Miles 2001 and Harter et al 2003), while others assert that it is something that
the individual brings to the workplace (as suggested by Harter et al 2002 and
Goddard 1999)
Employee engagement is a complex, broad construct that encompasses many well
researched ideas such as commitment, satisfaction, loyalty and extra role
behaviour. An engaged employee extends themselves to meet the organizations
needs, takes initiative, reinforces and supports the organizations culture and
values, stays focused and vigilant, and believes he/she can make a difference
(Macey, 2006).
According to Saks (2006), a stronger theoretical rationale for explaining
employee engagement can be found in social exchange theory (SET). SET
argues that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between
parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. A basic principle of SET is
that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as
long as the parties abide by certain rules of exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell
2005).
The International Survey Research (ISR) team has similarly found encouraging
evidence that organisations can only reach their full potential through emotionally
engaging employees and customers (ISR 2005). . According to Gallups
engagement study conducted in 142 countries, only 13% of employees are
engaged at work (Gallup, 2013)
There are numerous positive outcomes from building employee engagement, and
both practitioners and academic literature seems to be more or less consistent
regarding the benefits of employee engagement. The outcomes of employee
engagement are advocated to be exactly what most organizations are seeking:
employees who are more productive in which they can work over the target within
working time, profitable in which they spend the financial usage of company
efficiently, safer, healthier, less likely to turnover, less likely to be absent, and more
willing to engage in discretionary efforts (Buchanan, 2004; Fleming and
Asplund, 2007; Wagner and Harter, 2006). It is not surprising that corporate
executives are consistently ranking the development of an engaged workforce as an
organizational priority (Ketter, 2008).
7

Although Kahn (1990) has not included outcomes in his studies, Kahn (1992)
proposed that high levels of engagement lead to both positive outcomes for
individuals, (e. g: quality of peoples work and their own experiences of doing that
work), as well as positive organisational-level outcomes (e. g :the growth and
productivity of organisations).

The Five-Factor Model of Personality:

The Big Five model implies that personality consists of five relatively independent
dimensions that altogether provide a meaningful taxonomy for the study of
individual differences. These five dimensions are Openness to Experience,
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Each of the Big
Five dimensions is like a bucket that holds a set of traits that tend to occur together.
Our interpretation of the Big Five directly corresponds to our measurement of the
five-factor model of personality.
Openess to
experience

Conscientious
ness

Extraversion

Agreeablenes
s

Neuroticism

Openness to experience refers the number of interests to which one is

attracted and the depth to which those interests are pursued. The behavioral
tendencies typically associated with openness to Experience include being
imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad minded, intelligent (Digman,
1990), and having a need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity, and
unconventional values (McCrae & John, 1992).
Conscientiousness refers to the number of goals on which one is focused. It
is related to dependability and volition and the typical behaviors associated
with it include being hard working, achievement- oriented, persevering,
careful, and responsible (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Extraversion refers to the level of sensory stimulation with which one is
comfortable. The behavioral tendencies used to measure this factor include
being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active (Barrick &
Mount, 1991).
Agreeableness refers to the number of sources from which one takes one's
norms for right behavior. The behavioral tendencies typically associated with
this factor include being courteous , flexible, trusting, good-natured,
cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Neuroticism refers to the number and strength of stimuli required to elicit
negative emotions in a person. Typical behaviors associated with this factor
include being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried,
and insecure (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Conscientiousness:
8

Baugmgarten (1933), Allport and Odbert (1936) were the first ones to study
the concept of personality. Specifically, these researchers addressed the personality
traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness taken from the Five-Factor Model of
Personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992), as well as positive affectivity and negative
affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1992).
Norman (1963) created the following factors which are extraversion (assertive,
talkative, energetic), agreeableness (cooperative, good-natured, trustful),
conscientiousness (responsible, orderly, dependable), emotional stability
versus neuroticism (calm, not easily upset) and culture (intellectual,
independent minded).
Conscientiousness, a component of the five-factor personality model, (Costa
& McCrae, 1988; Costa & McCrae, 1992), describes the extent to which
individuals are dutiful, hardworking, persevering, and self-disciplined and tend to
strive for achievement (Barrick & Mount, 1991)
Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates taskand goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification,
following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks (John
and Srivastava, 1999). It refers to individual differences in the propensity to
follow socially prescribed norms for impulse control, to be task- and goal-directed, to
be plan full, delay gratification, and follow norms and rules (John & Srivastava,
1999).
Conscientiousness is about how a person controls, regulates, and directs their
impulses. Persons who show the characteristics of conscientiousness are
dependable, careful, responsible, plan full, hardworking, persevering and
achievement oriented (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997). Conscientious individuals are
purposeful and determined. They have the tendency to act dutifully, show selfdiscipline, and aim for achievement against a measure or outside expectation
(Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997)
Conscientiousness (Generalized Compliance) refers to more impersonal
contributions to the organization such as excellent attendance, and adherence to
organizational rules and policies (Organ & Ryan, 1995, p.782). These
contributions are not directed at any one person or co-worker, but are indirectly
helpful to other members of the organization (Smith et al., 1983).The author
found the relationship between personality traits and economic outcomes. The
personality traits of emotional stability and conscientiousness are linked to objective
measures of economic success separately of education and cognitive ability.
(Pattarin, 2010).

Conscientiousness refers to individuals who exhibit traits of self-control by

means of being capable of planning, organizing, working strategically towards
goals, and carrying out tasks (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Barrick & Mount,
1998). Conscientiousness is also the trait that is associated with diligence, selfdiscipline, punctuality, and general competence (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
McCrae & Costa, 2003). The six sub dimensions included in this broad
dimension of personality refer to Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievementstriving, Self-discipline, and Deliberation (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Mount and
9

Barrick (1998, p. 851) individuals who are dependable, persistent, goal

directed, and organized tend to be higher performers on virtually any job;
viewed negatively, those who are careless, irresponsible, low achievement
striving, and impulsive tend to be lower performers on virtually any job.
,

Hypothesis Development:
Relation between LMX and Employee Engagement:
Supervisors play a critical role in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors and
that mentors increase employee engagement at workplace. Employee-employer
relationship is an important aspect in organizational life which influences the
behavioral outcomes as well as process of engagement (Rousseau, 1989).The
quality of exchange relationship of employee and employer decides the degree of
engagement of an employee in their work roles. Furthermore, this variation in the
degree of engagement through quality of exchange behaviors can be better
understand by Social exchange theory (Saks, 2004; Andrew & Sofian, 2011)
which constitutes that when individuals receive economic and socioeconomic
resources from their organization; they feel obliged to response in kind and repay
the organization (Emerson, 1976) by their level of engagement (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). High quality LMX relationship influences effective subordinate
work behaviors through the Intervening process of employee engagement
(Walumbwa,Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2011). Workers are motivated to exert
effort on behalf of their organizations which is based on the high quality exchange
relationship between employer and employee (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, &
Goldman, 2011, Cheung & Wu, 2012). Moreover, Leaders have been seen
differently with their one subordinate to others within work units (Liden,
Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Hence, the degree of engagement of an employee is
dependent on the perception of an employee towards the quality of leader member
exchange behaviors. Since organizations can never force employees to engage
while they can only facilitate by providing a good and trustworthy relationship with
their employers. Therefore, employees with higher quality LMX relationships (ingroup members) are more motivated and less stressed (Lagace, Castleberry &
Ridnour, 1993).

10

Despite the strong propositions suggesting, that high quality LMX can act as a
resource for employee engagement, there is not much research linking the two
constructs (except for the work of Li et al., 2012, Agarwal et al., 2012). .
LMX research shows that subordinates reporting high-quality LMX not only assume
greater job responsibilities but also express contributing to other units (Liden &
Graen, 1980). Hence, the quality of the LMX influences levels of delegation,
responsibility, and autonomy and in turn, employees perceive greater latitude,
decision influence, and feelings of contribution (Gomez & Rosen, 2001)
LMX research has also shown that employees who enjoy a high-quality LMX
relationship feel obliged to reciprocate to their supervisors by engaging in
discretionary processes at work (Ilies et al., 2007; Liden etal., 1997). Research

IN C R E A S E

indicates that the single most important factor to drive employee

engagement and retention is the Immediate Manager Working
Relationship. ( Ruyle, Eichinger & De Meuse (2009) .Engaged
employees enable an environment that values employer commitment and
business success (Vorhauser-Smith, 2013). In creating this environment it
is important for leaders to listen to, engage, and reward their employees to
be most successful (Vorhauser-Smith, 2013).

Therefore we hypothesize that:

LMX

EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMEN
T

H1 (a): There is a significant relationship between leader member

exchange and physical engagement.
H1 (b): There is a significant relationship between leader member
exchange and emotional engagement
H1 (c): There is a significant relationship between leader member
exchange and cognitive engagement
H1 (d): There is no significant relationship between leader member
exchange and any element of employee engagement

Moderating role of Conscientiousness

11

Conscientiousness is arguably the most important factor among personality

traits (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Roberts, Chernyshenko,
Stark, & Goldberg, 2005). "Of all personality traits, conscientiousness has

been associated with strong performance and success in almost all areas of work,"
write Ian MacRae and Adrian Furnham in "High Potential: How to Spot,
Manage and Develop Talented People at Work."
Other studies show that conscientiousness is the most important factor for
finding and retaining employment. However, being highly conscientious
isn't necessary MacRae and Furnham say that a middle level of

conscientiousness is "more than enough to do most jobs fairly well.".

By summarizing large amounts of data from studies conducted from 1952 to
1988, Mount and Barrick (1991), in their large scale meta-analysis,
investigated the relationship between the five factor model and job
performance. By utilizing both subjective and objective measures of
performance, they were hoping to find a strong and significant association
between at least one personality dimension included in the FFM, and job
performance across all occupations. The results indicated that their
hypothesis was supported. In fact, Conscientiousness correlated positively
in respect to successful job performance. In line with the results of Barrick
and Mount (1991), subsequent research findings support the notion that
expresses that Conscientiousness is the personality dimension that
correlates the strongest, out of all personality dimensions, with overall job
performance(Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Mount & Barrick,
1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Salgado, 1997; Vinchur et al., 1998)

Grant, Fried, and Juillerat (2010) suggest that it is time for researchers
to move beyond growth need strength as the primary individual difference
moderator of reactions to job characteristics (p. 438). They also
recommend additional research into the Big Five as moderators of
individuals attitudinal reactions to job characteristics. This dissertation
addressed their recommendation by investigating the facets of
conscientiousness as moderators of a work design element (autonomy) and
an attitudinal outcome (job satisfaction.) Grant, Fried, and Juillerat
(2010).

a)
Relation between LMX and
conscientiousness:
12

There has been surprisingly limited empirical research attention examining

the Big Five dimensions (i.e., conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, openness to experience, and neuroticism) and their
association with LMX. Of the factors, conscientiousness consistently has been
demonstrated as the most reliable predictor of job performance (Barrick &
Mount, 1991).
Supervisors treat their subordinates differentially, leading to the
development of relatively stable dyads that range from lower to higher
quality exchanges (Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Duchon et al.,
1986;Graen and Cashman, 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sherony
and Green, 2002).Relative to lower-quality exchanges, higher quality
exchanges are characterized by liking, loyalty, professional support and
contributory behaviours (Dienesch and Liden,1986; Liden and Maslyn,
1998). In higher-quality exchanges, both supervisors and subordinates enjoy
advantageous rewards. For instance, higher-quality exchange subordinates
acquire favourable performance evaluations (Gerstner and Day, 1997) and
satisfying positions (Graen et al., 1990). In return, supervisors receive
committed, competent and conscientious subordinates (Dansereau et al.,
1975, 1978; Liden andGraen, 1980).
Researchers have contended that LMX is dependent not only on
supervisor perceptions of member competence but also on member
achievement and dependability (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Liden & Graen,
1980), which are the two domains of conscientiousness (Mount & Barrick, 1995).
From past research on antecedents of LMX ( Liden et al., 1997 ),it is clear
that the behaviours associated with extraversion (e.g. socially engaging,
assertiveness, and possessing a great number of friends), agreeableness
(e.g. high motivation toward interpersonal relationships, caring, interested in
others), and conscientiousness (e.g. dependable, more inclined to ensure the
success of the workgroup; (Barrick and Mount, 1993; Costa and
McCrae, 1985) are likely to be associated with the development of highquality LMX relationships.
Bernerth et al. (2007) examined associations between these personality
characteristics (along with emotional stability and openness to experience;
the Big Five) and LMX using a sample of workplace manager-subordinate
dyads. The model included both manager and subordinate personality
characteristics as predictors of subordinate reports of LMX. Although they
proposed a significant relationship between each Big Five-personality
characteristic and LMX, they found that only managers agreeableness and
13

conscientiousness were (marginally) significant predictors. The leaders

possessing these characteristics should ultimately be more successful in
establishing larger numbers of positive LMX relationships. To conclude, with
regard to span of control, the researchers proposed that managers with
higher levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are
more likely to show greater effort and have greater success in developing
high-quality relationships in larger workgroups (Bernerth et al., 2007). Those who
are high in conscientiousness are dependable, careful, thorough, responsible,
organized, achievement-oriented, and planful (Mount & Barrick, 1995). Thus, it
is not surprising that conscientiousness is the most consistent personality
predictor of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). As Barrick, Mount, and Judge
(2001) suggest, it is hard to imagine a job where being careless, irresponsible,
lazy, impulsive, and low in achievement striving (low conscientiousness)
would have positive implications for performance.
Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhart (2002) conducted a meta-analysis and examined
the Five Factor Personality Model and its relationship to leadership, (or the
Big 5extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, and
agreeableness.) This research determined a strong relationship between five
personality traits and leadership. Conscientiousness is the second most strongly and
positively related factor ( Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhart (2002).

b)
Employee Engagement and
conscientiousness:
Literature supports the main effect of conscientiousness on work
engagement (Jeong et al., 2009; Mostert & Rothmann, 2006. Engagement has also
been associated with personality traits, most notably with conscientiousness
(Macey and Schneider, 2008).
A more comprehensive study by Kim, Shin and Swanger (2009) included the socalled Big Five personality traits and found that only conscientiousness
was significantly related to engagement whereas neuroticism and
extraversion were not . It is also seen that employee engagement was
interlink with performance (Truss et al 2006). Employees who are engaged can
perform better as compare to those who are not engaged (Macey and Schneider,
2008; Macey et al., 2009).
Employees high in conscientiousness are characterized by strong
responsibility, dedication, organizational skills, absorption and steadiness,
14

and are more likely to drive their energy into work (components of
engagement), complete the job, and ultimately feel a strong sense of
professional efficacy (Kim, Shin, & Swanger, 2009). In contrast,
individuals who are low in conscientiousness can be described as careless,
undependable, thoughtless, and sloppy (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Being
engaged in work is consistent with natural tendencies of high-conscientious
individuals. High conscientious individuals are likely to be dedicated,
vigorous and absorbed in their jobs, and motivated to perform experience for
their own sake. Put differently, the threshold for engagement is expected to
be low for highly conscientious employees. Thus, these individuals are likely
to manifest high levels of engagement regardless of whether or not their jobs
have high characteristics. On the other hand, employees low on
conscientiousness will be unlikely to be engaged for its own sake, because
the default behavior of these employees is to avoid hard work and to be
irresponsible and untrustworthy. .( Upasna A.Agarwal and Vishal Gupta,
March 2015) However, the presence of motivational job characteristics
(autonomy, skill, significance, feedback and variety) will strongly aggravate
the levels of engagement of conscientious employees, much more than nonconscientious employees.( Upasna A.Agarwal and Vishal Gupta, March
2015).Specifically, high conscientious employees are more likely to set and
pursue task-related goals at work (Malouff et al., 1990). On the other
hand, low conscientious employees, who are less disciplined and more
distracted, will have lesser engagement (Malouff et al., 1990).

Therefore we hypothesis that,

H2 (a): Conscientiousness will moderate the LMX- physical engagement
relationship such that this relationship will be strengthened when LMX is
high
H2 (b): Conscientiousness will moderate the LMX- emotional engagement
relationship such that this relationship will be strengthened when LMX is
high
H2 (c ) :Conscientiousness will moderate the LMX- cognitive engagement
relationship such that this relationship will be strengthened when LMX is
high

15

Theoretical framework
(Independent
variable )

(dependent
variable)

LEADER
MEMBER
PhysicalEnment
EXCHANGE

EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEME
NT

In group

Physical

Out group

Engagement Emotional
( MODERATOR)

engagement
CONSCIENTIOUS
NESS
Cognitive engagement

Independent variable: Leader member exchange includes in

group and out group
Dependent variable:
employee engagement includes
physical, emotional and cognitive engagement
Moderator:
Conscientiousness which strengthens and weakens
the relationship between LMX and Employee engagement.
16

STRENGTHEN THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LMX AND EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT

CONSCIENTIOUS
NESS HIGH

CONSCIENTIOUS
NESSLOW

WEAKEN THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LMX AND EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT

Graphical representation of Theoretical

framework:

17

Research Design:
After the identification of variables in the problem solution and development
of the theoretical, we will now move towards another important step of
research process that is Research Design.
The following figure shows the various issues involve in our research design.
The issues relating to decisions regarding the purpose of study, its location,
the type it should conform to, the extent to which it is manipulated and
controlled by the researcher, its temporal aspects and the level at which the
data will be analyzed are as follows.

Chart of research design of our

Study:

Purpose

Hypothesis

Type of investigation

Correlational

Researcher
interference

18

Minimal

Study setting

Non-contrived field

Unit of analysis

Dyads

Time horizon

Cross-sectional

1) Purpose of Study:
As in our research we are examining whether or not the conjectured
relationships have been established, we will engage in hypothesis testing
because it will explain the nature of the certain relationship between LMX,
employee engagement and conscientiousness or it will establish the differences
among them or the independence of two or more factors in this situation.

2) Type of Investigation:
As our research will delineate the important variables associated with the
problem therefore this research will be a correlational study. This will describe
the important factors involved in the relation between LMX , employee
engagement and conscientiousness.

3) Extent of researcher Interference:

The extent of interference by the researcher with the normal flow of work in the
work place as a direct bearing on whether the study undertaken is causal or
correlational. As our study is correlational which will be conducted in the natural
19

environment of the organization, therefore our interference will be minimal in

the normal activities of the organization.

4) Study Setting:
Our correlational study will be conducted in invariably in non contrived setting
of the organization; therefore it will be a field study.

5) Unit of Analysis:
Leaders and followers develop dyadic relationships and leaders treat
each follower differently, resulting in two groups of followers and employee
engagement is also a dyadic relation between employee and employer.
Therefore, the unit of analysis of this study are dyads.

6) Time horizon:
The study will be undertaken by the data gathered just once therefore the time
horizon of this study will be one shot or cross sectional. . Leaders and
followers develop dyadic relationships and leaders treat each follower differently,
resulting in two groups of followers.

20