1

Introduction

Work environment today is characterized by globalization, rapid change in

technologies and markets, together with changes in cultural patterns, role definitions and
procedures. Given these developments in the global business world, it has become crucial for
organizations to have an engaged workforce who can take initiative, bring innovation, be
proactive with solutions to current needs, and contribute to company success by going above
and beyond. Employee engagement is thus increasingly becoming a strategic business
priority among many public sector and private sector organizations.

It is an important leadership skill to know how to increase the level of engagement in

the workforce. The way leaders provide direction, coach, correct, and motivate employees,
has a direct impact on the organization and whether its employees take ownership and engage
in their work (Lewin, 1939). Leadership is thus critical in creating and fostering an
environment of engagement.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between leadership styles and
employees work engagement. We first look at the constructs of work engagement and
leadership. Then we present a review of literature on the relationship between leadership
styles and work engagement. Lastly, the hypotheses based on the findings in the literature are
proposed.

Work Engagement

Engagement at work has emerged as a potentially important employee performance

and organizational management topic. A growing body of evidence supports the relationship
between engagement of the employee at work and organizational outcomes, including those
which are performance based (Harter et al., 2002)

Work engagement is an individuals involvement with, satisfaction with, and

enthusiasm for, the work she does. Highly engaged employees have a passion for their work
and feel a deep connection to their company; disengaged employees have essentially checked
outputting time but not energy or attention into their work. Work engagement is the
assumed opposite of burnout. Contrary to those who suffer from burnout, engaged employees
have a sense of energetic and effective connection with their work activities and they see
themselves as able to deal well with the demands of their job.
 2

In 1990, William Kahn, with his work on personal engagement and disengagement at
work, was the first to tackle the engagement construct and bring it into the workplace
(Serrano & Reichard, 2011). Personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and
expression of a person's "preferred self" in task behaviours that promote connections to work
and to others, personal presence (cognitive, emotional and physical), and active, full role
performances (Kahn, 1990).

Maslach and Leiter (1997) assumes that engagement and burnout constitute the
opposite poles of a continuum of work related well-being, with burnout representing the
negative pole and engagement the positive pole. Because Maslach and Leiter (1997) define
burnout in terms of exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy, it follows that
engagement is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy. By definition, these three
aspects of engagement constitute the opposites of the three corresponding aspects of burnout.
In other words, according to Maslach and Leiter (1997), low scores on the exhaustion- and
cynicism-scales and a high score on the professional efficacy scale of the MBI (Maslach,
Jackson & Leiter, 1996) is indicative of engagement.

Schaufeli and Baker (2004) define work engagement as a concept distinct from
burnout and suggest that they should be assessed independently. They define engagement as a
positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more
persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object,
event, individual, or behavior. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental
resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in ones work, and persistence even
in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and
experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.
Absorption, is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in ones
work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from
work. It
According to Rich et al. (2010) work engagement is the simultaneous investment of
cognitive, affective, and physical energies into performance-related outcomes that represents
something distinct and fundamental, differentiating engagement from other potentially related
variables (i.e., job satisfaction and commitment; Newman et al., 2011). The two main
characteristics of engagement should be considered when distinguishing the concept in
 3

operationalization (Christian et al., 2011): (a) intensity of focus on the task and (b) the
decision to invest personal resources toward the tasks.

With respect to the focus toward work, or more specifically, tasks related to the
immediate work of the employee; several researchers have pointed out (Maslach, Schaufeli,
& Leiter, 2001; Rich et al., 2010; Shuck, Reio, et al., 2011; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz,
2011), although levels of engagement can be affected by a variety of organizational
antecedents (i.e., job fit and psychological climate), it involves performance on immediate,
work-related tasks, not attitudinal functions about or perceptions of the work environment.
This does not downplay the utility of understanding antecedents to engagement although the
two perspectives should be distinguished in research. The experience and interpretation of
work during the ephemeral moment that work is underway is the focal point of employee
engagement.

Work engagement and other job-related constructs

Work engagement and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been defined as a favorable evaluation of ones work role (Smith
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Several researchers and authors explicitly define employee
engagement as a satisfaction-related concept (Fleming & Asplund, 2007; Harter, Schmidt, &
Keyes, 2003; Wagner & Harter, 2006).

On the other hand, Erickson (2005) pointed out that engagement is a progressively
forward moving state in which satisfaction is stationary and is understood as fulfillment.
Satisfaction in this context conveys contentment and the fulfillment of human needs through
organizational means (Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009). While satisfaction
connotes fulfillment, engagement connotes urgency, focus, and intensity (Macey et al.,
2009, p. 40). Heger (2007) suggested that measuring satisfaction provided a barometer about
an employees general perception but did not capture expression in day-to-day interactions.
In this context, satisfaction could be operationalized as more trait-like, whereas engagement
could be operationalized as more state-like.

The fundamental drive of a satisfied employee is to maintain a certain level of status

quo (i.e., I like the way things are, dont change them, I am satisfied). This however is very
different from current viewpoints of engagement (Christian et al., 2011; Cole Walter,
Bedeian, & OBoyle, 2012; Shuck, 2011).
 4

Work engagement and job involvement

Brown (1996) suggested, Job involvement implies a positive and relatively complete
state of engagement regarding the core aspects of the job itself (S. Brown, p. 235). Cooper-
Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) further suggested that job involvement is the degree to which
a person psychologically relates to his or her job, which in some operationalizations is a
component of the engagement construct.

May et al. (2004), Saks (2006) suggested that job involvement is a cognitive judgment
about the job itself, which is tied to self-image, whereas employee engagement is a broader,
more inclusive construct consisting of energy and enthusiasm toward the job (Christian et al.,
2011; Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010;). Conceptually, job involvement is a judgment;
engagement is a psychological state (Saks, 2006). However, they have the propensity to share
antecedents such as self-esteem and supervisory support and feedback and to be related to
common organizational outcome variables such as performance and employee turnover (S.
Brown, 1996; Wollard & Shuck, 2011), which perhaps is the impetus for the confusing state
of affairs.

A comparison of the definitions of the two constructs helps make clear that the focus
of job involvement is on cognition (e.g., Lawler & Hall, 1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965;
Kanungo, 1982; Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994), whereas, engagement, according
to most definitions (e.g., Baumruk 2004; Frank, Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004; Kahn, 1990;
Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005; Shuck & Wollard, 2010), encompasses cognition, emotion, and
behavior.

Another important distinction between the two constructs is their association with role
perceptions and related physical or mental health outcomes. For instance, research suggests
that employee engagement represents a psychological health concept (Hallberg & Schaufeli,
2006) that negatively correlates with health ailments (e.g., burnout symptoms such as sleep
disturbances, depression, etc.) and role perceptions (e.g., workload, role conflict). Job
involvement, on the other hand, appears to be unaffected by role perceptions and shows no
association with any mental or physical health outcomes (S. Brown, 1996; Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006). This remains an important distinction as research begins to focus on
understanding relations between well-being and work and individual levels of health and
welfare.
 5

Work engagement and organizational commitment

Several practitioners define employee engagement explicitly as commitment

(Corporate Leadership Council, 2004; Wellins & Concelman, 2005) or as a component of the
commitment concept (Towers Perrin, 2003, 2007).

However, as noted by Christian et al. (2011), organizational commitment refers to an

employees attachment to the organization as a whole, whereas employee engagement
represents employees perceptions that are based on the job they are asked to do as well as
the organization that is asking them to do it (Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, & Diehl, 2009).

Macey and Schneider (2008) suggested that organizational commitment might be a

facet of engagement but may not embody the entirety of the engagement concept. From this
context, engagement seems bigger. Following this logic, scholars have even considered
commitment to be the prior reason for the state of engagement (Robinson, Perryman, &
Hayday, 2004; Rothbard, 2001).

While distinguished conceptually in the literature, employee engagement and

organizational commitment share commonly specified antecedents and consequences.
Examples of common antecedents include perceived organizational support, supportive
organizational culture, and leadership (Lok & Crawford, 1999; Rhoades et al., 2001; Saks,
2006; Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Consequences include but are not limited to organizational
citizenship behavior, turnover intent, and performance (S. Brown, 1996; Meyer & Allen,
1997; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Riketta & Landerer, 2002). Thus it
is not surprising that only a few authors have suggested that organizational commitment is
related to, but could also be distinct from, engagement as an antecedent variable (Macey &
Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006; Shuck, Reio, et al., 2011). However, the incremental variance
predicted in performance variables by employee engagement over and beyond organizational
commitment is supported in recent organizationally focused research (Christian et al., 2011).

Models of Work Engagement

Job Demands Resources Model

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model originated from research on workplace

burnout and proposes two processes: job demands lead to burnout, the energetic process, and
job resources lead to engagement, the motivational process. The model is based on the work
 6

done by Demerouti et al. (2001) and Schaufeli & Bakker (2004). The variables job demands
and job resources are respectively defined as those physical, social or organisational aspects
of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with
certain physiological and psychological costs and those physical, psychological, social or
organisational aspects of the job that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in
achieving work goals; (b) reduce job demands at the associated physiological and
psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and development (Demerouti et al.,
2001). Subsequently, the energetic process implies a process of overtaxing and wearing out
in which high job demands exhaust the employees energy backup (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004a, p.296) while the second process, which is motivational in nature, assumes that job
resources have motivational potential and lead to engagement. The motivational process,
further, operates through two different channels, for job resources may either play an intrinsic
or an extrinsic motivational role. According to Schaufeli & Bakker (2004a) job resources
play an intrinsic motivational role because they fulfill basic human needs and job demands
play an extrinsic motivational role because they are instrumental in achieving work goals.

Figure 1: Jobs Demand Resource Model by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004)

Saks Multidimensional Model

According to Shuck & Wollard (2010, p.97), the study conducted by Saks was the
first explicit research to test antecedents and consequences to employee engagement in the
 7

academic literature. In contrary to the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, Saks model
specifically focuses on the construct of employee engagement instead of looking at the
construct through a burnout perspective. Saks model even distinguishes between two types of
employee engagement: job engagement and organisation engagement. Based on the work of
Kahn (1990), which states that meaningfulness, safety and availability are associated with
engagement, and the work of Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter (2001), where workload, control,
rewards and recognition, community and social support, perceived fairness and values lead to
engagement, Saks (2006) indentifies the following potential antecedents of engagement: job
characteristics (autonomy, task identity, skill variety, task significance and feedback),
perceived organisational support, perceived supervisory support, rewards & recognition,
procedural justice and distributive justice.

Figure 2: A model of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement

Hewitt Engagement Model

Aon Hewitt is part of the bigger Aon plc group and claims to be among the worlds
top global human capital and management consulting firms, providing a complete array of
consulting, outsourcing and insurance brokerage services (Aon Fact Sheet, 2012; About
Aon, 2013). Besides the individual state of engagement, presented in figure 3, Aon Hewitts
engagement model also examines organisational antecedents, which is a critical part of Aon
Hewitts model for understanding an organizations engagement level is of little value
without knowing what actions will be most effective in increasing engagement (Aon Hewitt,
2012). Therefore Aon Hewitts employee engagement model, tested and validated by over
15 years of research on millions of employees across a variety of companies and industries
 8

and across Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America and North America, further shows that there
are 22 organisational antecedents (six categories) that can potentially drive an individuals
engagement (Aon Hewitt, 2012). A key assumption that Aon Hewitts engagement model
proposes is the fact that the defined engagement drivers are interrelated. The drivers thus do
not operate in isolation as depicted in the figure.

Figure 3: Aon Hewitts engagement drivers

Burkes Engagement Model

Burke claims to be one of the premier international research and consulting firms in
the world and is 100% employee owned (About Burke, 2011). Since the early 1990s, the
company has been conducting employee research, moving the focus, in accordance with the
trend, from satisfaction to commitment to engagement (EERM, 2011). In the year 2000, the
company even formed the employee engagement and retention management practice area.
Burkes employee engagement and retention management practices are aimed at better
understanding, enriching, and continually building our knowledge of employee engagement
and retention (Employee engagement, 2012). Through extensive research using qualitative
as well as quantitative assessment methods, the company identified the top influencers of
engagement and developed Burkes engagement model which comprises six components:
company, manager, work group/team, job, career and customers (Employee engagement
model, 2011). Besides the six engagement components, Burkes engagement model also
shows various sample drivers of employee engagement. The model mentions the term sample
 9

drivers, instead of drivers, for the company states that our research shows that the drivers of
engagement vary across industry and organisation and even within organisation by function,
job type and individual employee characteristics such as job tenure (Employee engagement
model, 2011).

Figure 3: Burkes engagement model

Leadership

Traditionally, leadership has been defined as the heroic individual, often charismatic,
whose positional power, intellectual strength, persuasive gifts motivate followers (Luthans,
2011). But with globalization and consequent changes in the organizations, leadership has
been defined as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of
goals (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The source of this influence may be formal, such as that
provided by managerial rank in an organization. But not all leaders are managers. Just
because an organization provides its managers with certain formal rights is no assurance they
will lead effectively. Non-sanctioned leadership the ability to influence that arises outside
the formal structure of the organizationis often as important as or more important than
formal influence. In other words, leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by
formal appointment. Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for
optimal effectiveness. We need leaders today to challenge the status quo, create visions of the
future, and inspire organizational members to want to achieve the visions. We also need
managers to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and oversee
day-to-day operations.
 10

Trait Theories of Leadership

The scientific analysis of leadership started off by concentrating on the trait approach
to the leadership. Attention was given to the search for the universal traits possessed by the
leaders. The first theory to emerge in this regard was the Great Person Theory. According to
this theory, history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes: highly
influential individuals who, due to their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or political
skill utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. The theory was
popularized in the 1840s by Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. However, the results of this
early research effort were very disappointing. When the findings were combined with those
studies of the physical traits, the conclusion seemed to be that leaders were bigger and
brighter than the group being led, but not too much so. For example, this line of research
concluded that the leader was more intelligent than the average of the group being led, but
interestingly, was not the most intelligent of the group. Another problem with the trait
approach is that little evidence has been found that supports the observed descriptive traits of
successful leaders.

However, with the emergence of the importance of Big Five-Factor personality

traits in the organizational behavior, a recent qualitative and quantitative analysis review
found strong empirical support for the leader trait perspective when the traits were organized
according to the big five-factor model (Judge et al., 2002). Specifically, the personality trait
of extraversion had the highest (.31) average correlation with leader emergence and
leadership effectiveness, followed by conscientiousness (.28), openness to experience (.24),
neuroticism (-.24) and nonsignificant agreeableness (.08). These results and newly developed
trait-like theoretical frameworks such as the motivation to lead (MTL), has been
demonstrated to predict leadership potential.

Behavioral Theories of Leadership

According to this approach, leaders are shaped by environment and learning.

Behavioral theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders.

The Iowa Leadership Studies: A series of pioneering leadership studies conducted in

the late 1930s by Lippitt and White under the general direction of Kurt Lewin at the
University of Iowa have had a lasting impact. In the initial studies, hobby clubs for ten-year-
old boys were formed. Each club was submitted to all three different styles of leadership
 11

authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. The authoritarian leader was very directive and
allowed no participation. This leader tended to give individual attention when praising and
criticizing, but tried to be friendly or impersonal rather than openly hostile. The democratic
leader encouraged group discussion and decision-making. This leader tried to be objective
in giving praise or criticism and to be one of the group in spirit. The laissez-faire leader gave
complete freedom to the group; this leader essentially provided no leadership. Nineteen out of
twenty boys liked the democratic leadership style. That kind of a leader never tried to boss
over them, yet they had plenty, to do. The only boy who liked the authoritarian style of
leadership happened to be the son of an army officer. It was also observed that seven out of
ten boys preferred the laissez-faire leader to the autocratic one as they preferred confusion
and disorder to strictness and rigidity present in the autocratic style. Boys under the latter
style exhibited more of aggressive, hostile and indifferent behavior as compared to their
counterparts under other styles of leadership.

The Ohio State Leadership Studies: At the end of World War II, the Bureau of
Business Research at Ohio State University initiated a series of studies on leadership. An
interdisciplinary team of researchers from psychology, sociology, and economics developed
and used the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) to analyze leadership in
numerous types of groups and situations. In the rst step, the LBDQ was administered in a
wide variety of situations. In order to examine how the leader was described, the answers to
the questionnaire were then subjected to factor analysis. Two dimensions of leadership
continually emerged from the questionnaire data. They were consideration and initiating
structure. These two factors were found in a wide variety of studies encompassing many
kinds of leadership positions and contexts.

The Early Michigan Studies: A group of researchers from the Survey Research Center
at the University of Michigan began their studies of leadership in the early 1940s. In the
original study at the Prudential Insurance Company, 12 high-low productivity pairs of groups
were selected for examination. Each pair represented a high-producing section and a low-
producing section, with other variables such as type of work, conditions, and methods being
the same in each pair. Results showed that supervisors of high-producing sections were
signicantly more likely to be general rather than close in their supervisory styles and be
employee-centered (have a genuine concern for their people). The low-producing-section
supervisors had essentially opposite characteristics and techniques. They were found to be
close, production-centered supervisors. Also, employee satisfaction was not directly related
 12

to productivity, the type of supervision was the key to their performance. The Michigan
group came up with two behavioral dimensions: the employee-oriented leader who
emphasized interpersonal relationships by taking a personal interest in the needs of
employees and accepting individual differences among them, and the production oriented
leader who emphasized the technical or task aspects of the job, focusing on accomplishing
the groups tasks.

Managerial Grid Theory: Managerial Grid style of leadership was developed by

Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1969). Blake and Moutons model helps to measure a
managers relative concern for people and task and reflects bi-directional nature of
leadership. The managerial grid identifies a range of management behavior based on the
various task oriented and employee oriented styles of leadership, which have been explained
as a continuum on a scale of 1 to 9:

1. Impoverished Management (1:1): This style is referred to as impoverished

management or Laissez-faire type of management. Managers do not involve
themselves with the work or people, they only mark time and have abandoned
their job.
2. Team Management (9:9): At the extreme opposite is team management style
of leadership where managers mesh interest of people and production needs in
the balanced manner. Their involvement is total.
3. Country Club Management (1:9): Leaders who follow this style of leadership
display very high concern for people and very little interest for production.
4. Autocratic-task Oriented (9:1): This leadership style concentrates on setting of
organizational goals, development of effective operations systems, utilization
of organizational resources, achievement of objectives and stress on quality of
work and production.
5. Middle of the Road Management (5:5): Managers have both concern for
people and production. They set moderate production goals and achieve them.
 13

Figure 4: Managerial Grid

Group and Exchange Theories of Leadership

Group theories of leadership have their roots in social psychology. Classical exchange
theories, in particular, serve as a basis for this approach. Exchange simply means that the
leader provides more benefits/rewards than burden/costs for followers. There must be a
positive exchange between the leaders and followers in order for the group goals to be
accomplished. According to Yammarino and Dansereau (2000), In work organizations, the
key partners involved in exchange relationships of investments and returns are superior and
subordinates. Superiors make investments (e.g., salary, office space) in and receive returns
(e.g., performance) from subordinates; subordinates make investments in and receive returns
from superiors.

A growing number of research studies have indicated that the followers/associates

may actually affect leaders as much as the leaders affect the followers/associates. For
example, one study found that when the associates were not performing very well, the leader
tended to emphasize the task or initiating structure, but when the associates were doing the
good job, leaders increased emphasis on their people or consideration (Cohen et al., 1975). In
another study, it was found that group productivity had greater impact on leadership style
than the leadership style on the group productivity (Borrow, 1976).

Contingency Theories of Leadership

Contingencies theories focus on the contextual and situational aspects of leadership.

Social psychologists began the search for situational variables that affects the leadership
roles, skills and behaviors, and followers performance and satisfaction.
 14

Fred Fiedlers Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: This model described

the relationship between leadership style and the favorableness of the situation. He described
situational favorableness in terms of three empirically derived dimensions:

1. The leader-member relationship, which is the most critical variable in

determining the situations favorableness.
2. The degree of task structure, which is the second most important input into the
favorableness of the situation.
3. The leaders position power, which is obtained through the formal authority.

Situations are favorable to the leader if all three dimensions are high. If the leader is
generally accepted and respected by followers (high first dimension), if the task is very
structured and everything is spelled out (high second dimension), and if a great deal of
authority and power are formally attributed to the leaders position (high third dimension),
the situation is favorable. If the opposite exists, the situation will be very unfavorable for the
leader. Fiedler pointed out that under very favorable and very unfavorable situations, the
task-directed, or hard-nosed and authoritarian, type of leader was most effective.

Figure 5: Fiedlers Contingency Model of Leadership

Path-Goal Leadership Theory: It is derived from the expectancy framework of

motivation theory. It was developed by Martin Evans and Robert House (1971, 1996). It
attempts to explain the impact that the leader has on associate motivation, satisfaction and
performance. It incorporates four major styles of leadership:

Directive Leadership is the one in which the associates know exactly what is expected
from them, and the leader gives specific directions. There is no participation by the
subordinates.
 15

Supportive Leadership is one in which the leader is friendly and approachable and
shows a genuine concern for the associates.

Participative Leadership is one in which the leader asks for and uses suggestions
from associates but still makes the decisions.

Achievement-oriented Leadership is one in which the leader sets challenging goals for
the associates but still makes the decisions.

The theory suggests that these various styles can be and are actually used by the same
leader in different situations. Two of the situational factors that have been identified are
personal characteristics of associates and the environmental demands and pressures facing
associates. Leader behavior will be acceptable to the subordinates to the extent that the
subordinates see such behavior as either an immediate source of satisfaction or as an
instrumental to future satisfactions.

Figure 6: Path Goal Theory Leadership

Hersey and Blanchards Situational Leadership Model: Situational leadership theory

(SLT) focuses on the followers. It was given by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969. It
says successful leadership depends on selecting the right leadership style contingent on the
followers readiness, or the extent to which they are willing and able to accomplish a specific
 16

task. A leader should choose one of four behaviors depending on follower readiness. If
followers are unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and specific
directions; if they are unable and willing, the leader needs to display high task orientation to
compensate for followers lack of ability and high relationship orientation to get them to buy
into the leaders desires. If followers are able and unwilling, the leader needs to use a
supportive and participative style; if they are both able and willing, the leader doesnt need to
do much.

Figure 7: Situational Leadership Model

Modern Theoretical Processes of Leadership

Besides the aforementioned approaches to leadership, a number of other widely

recognized theories have emerged in recent years. These include:

Charismatic Leadership Theory: It is a throwback to the old conception of leaders as

being those who by force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and
extraordinary effects on leadership (House & Baetz, 1979). The concept of charisma has its
roots in the ancient Greek works and the Bible. Later, Max Weber (1890) defined charisma
(from the Greek for gift) as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of
which he or she is set apart from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural,
 17

superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are not accessible
to the ordinary person and are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis
of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. Weber argued that charismatic
leadership was one of several ideal types of authority.

The first researcher to consider charismatic leadership in terms of OB was Robert

House (1976). He suggested that the charismatic leaders are characterized by self-confidence
and confidence in their associates, high expectations for associates, ideological vision, and
the use of personal example. Followers of the charismatic leaders identify with the leader and
the mission of the leader, exhibit extreme loyalty to and confidence in the leader, emulate the
leaders values and behavior, and derive self-esteem from their relationship with the leader.
Bass (1985) has extended the profile of charismatic leaders to include the superior debating
and persuasive skills as well as technical expertise and the fostering of attitudinal, behavioral,
and emotional changes in their followers. Because of the effects that the charismatic leaders
have on their followers, the theory predicts that charismatic leaders will produce followers
performance beyond expectations as well as strong commitment to the leader and his or her
mission. The impact of such charismatic leaders increase when the followers exhibit higher
levels of self-awareness and self-monitoring, especially when observing the charismatic
leaders behavior and activities.

Transformational Leadership Theory: Transformational Leadership was first

distinguished by Downtown (1973) to account for the differences among revolutionary,
rebellion, reform and ordinary leaders. However, it was Burns (1978) who produced the most
seminal work in this area on political leaders. Bass (1985) build his theory of
transformational leadership on Burns work. Bass (1985) described the transformational
leaders as those who raise associates level of awareness of the importance of achieving
valued outcomes and the strategies for reaching them; encourage associates to transcend their
self-interest for the sake of the team, organization, or larger policy; develop associates needs
to higher levels in such areas as achievement, autonomy, and affiliation, which can be both
work related and not work related. A transformational leader differs from the transactional
one by attempting to develop their associates needs from lower to higher levels of maturity.
Bass and Avolio (1994, 1995) used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to do
further research in this area. They gave the Full Range of Leadership Model based on the
findings of their research. Bass and colleagues describe the Full Range of Leadership Model
as assessing leadership styles along a spectrum of effectiveness. The most effective
 18

leadership style according to the model is transformational leadership style. According to

Bass and Avolio (1994, 1995), the transformational leadership includes:

Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors): These leaders are admired, respected
and trusted. Followers identify with their leader and want to emulate them. This trait has two
components Idealized Attributes (the leader instill pride in others for being associated with
him, goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group, acts in ways that build others
respect for him, and display a sense of power and confidence) and Idealized Behavior (he
talks about his most important values and beliefs, specifies the importance of having a strong
sense of purpose, consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions, and emphasize
the importance of having collective sense of mission)

Inspirational Motivation: The leader behaves in a way that motivates those around
him by providing meaning and challenge to his followers work. He talks optimistically about
the future, talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished, articulates a
compelling vision of the future, and expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.

Intellectual Stimulation: The leader stimulates his followers effort to be innovative

and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching old situations
in new ways. He re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate,
seeks differing perspectives when solving problems, gets others to look at problems from
many different angles, and suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.

Individual Consideration: The leader pays attention to each individuals need for
achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor. He spends time teaching and
coaching; treats others as individuals rather than just as a member of the group; considers
each individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others; and helps
others to develop their strength.

Moving down the scale are the two low order leadership styles emphasizing
transactional approaches. In his work on political leaders, Burns (1978) only talked about the
political transactional leaders, who motivated associates by exchanging rewards for services
rendered. Bass (1985) then extended the definition of a transactional leader to the military,
industrial, public and educational sectors. Bass (1985) described these leaders as those who
recognize what their associates want to get from their work, and try to see they get it, if their
performance so warrants; exchange the rewards and promises of rewards for appropriate
 19

levels of efforts; and respond to the needs and desires and of associates as long as they are
getting the job done. Bass and Avolio (1994, 1995) gave the following characteristics of
transactional leaders in their model:

Contingent Reward: The leader clarifies expectations and offers recognition when
goals area achieved. He provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts,
discusses in specific terms which people are responsible for achieving performance targets,
makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals area achieved, and
expresses satisfaction when others meet expectations.

Management-by-Exception-Active (MBEA): The leader specifies the standards for

compliance, as well as what constitutes ineffective performance, may punish followers for
being out of compliance with those standards. He focuses attention on irregularities,
mistakes, exceptions and deviations from standards; concentrates his full attention on dealing
with mistakes, complaints and failures; keeps track of all mistakes, and directs the his
attention toward failure to meet standards.

Passive-Avoidant Style is characterized by the leader-follower interactions that are

totally non-participative/ disengaged or that only engage employees when problems become
serious. It has two features.

Management-by-Exception- Passive (MBEP): The leader fails to interfere until the

problems become serious, waits for things to go wrong before taking action, shows a firm
belief in if it aint broke, dont fix it, and demonstrates that problems must become chronic
before he takes action.

Laissez Faire Leadership: He avoids getting involved when important issues arise, is
absent when needed, avoids making decisions, and delays responding to urgent questions.

According to Full Range of Leadership Model, Laissez-faire is the most passive and
therefore least effective of leader behaviors. Management by exceptionactive or passive
is slightly better, but its still considered ineffective. Management-by-exception leaders tend
to be available only when there is a problem, which is often too late. Contingent reward
leadership can be an effective style of leadership but will not get employees to go above and
beyond the call of duty. Only with the four remaining stylesall aspects of transformational
leadershipare leaders able to motivate followers to perform above expectations and
transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization. Individualized consideration,
 20

intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence all result in extra
effort from workers, higher productivity, higher morale and satisfaction, higher
organizational effectiveness, lower turnover, lower absenteeism, and greater organizational
adaptability. Based on this model, leaders are generally most effective when they regularly
use each of the four transformational behaviors.

Figure 8: Full Range of Leadership Model

Authentic Leadership Theory: Although there are a number of newly emerging

theories, in these times of unprecedented challenges facing organizational leaders, Avolio,
Luthans and colleagues developed the authentic leadership approach. Drawing from Luthans
work on positive organizational behavior (2007) and psychological capital (2007) and
Avolios work on transformational (1998) and full range leadership (1999), Avolio, Luthans
and colleagues (2003) have recently proposed a specic model of authentic leadership
development. Authentic leadership in organizations is a process that draws from both positive
psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both
greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and
associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is condent, hopeful,
 21

optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to

developing associates to be leaders. The authentic leadership process involves antecedent-
positive psychological capacities and positive organizational context leading to positive self-
development and the product of the authentic leader. In other words, this developmental
approach to leadership focuses on the positive (both personal and contextual) in getting to
know and regulate ones self. The outcomes of authentic leadership are positive
psychological capital (condence, hope, optimism, and resiliency) and transparency,
moral/ethical behavior, future-orientation, and building associates.

Work engagement and leadership styles

Leadership at every level is crucial to the functionality, consistency, and performance

of the organization. For an organization to succeed in todays work environment, its leaders
must foster employee engagement and create an environment where each individual buys in
and take ownership in the organization and themselves. Leadership has been recognized as
one of single biggest elements that contribute to employee perceptions in the workplace and
workforce engagement (Wang and Walumbwa, 2007; Macey and Schneider, 2008). Attridge
(2009) concluded that leadership style is very important in enhancing employee engagement.
Dale Carnegie Training Indias Employee Engagement Study (2014) revealed that the three
key drivers of employee engagement were relationship with immediate manager, belief in
senior leadership and pride in the organization. A considerate, supportive manager is the most
important influencer of employee motivation. In another study, Babcock-Roberson and OJ
Strickland (2010) explored how employees perceptions of their leaders influence their work-
related thoughts and behaviors. The results indicated a significant positive relation between
charismatic leadership and work engagement, between work engagement and OCB, and
between charismatic leadership and OCB.

The full range model of leadership has been used as a framework to explore the role
of the leader in a changing work environment. It suggests a positive relation between
transformational/transactional leadership and other constructs such as organizational
commitment, job involvement, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, leader
effectiveness and employee engagement. However, transformational leadership, when
compared with transactional and laissez faire leadership, has a stronger positive relationship
with these constructs (Avolio & Bass, 1999). According to Bass and Avolio (1994)
transformational leadership provides an ideal of leadership, given contemporary
 22

developments in the global business world. Research supports the use of a transformational
style given the rapidly changing technology (Howell & Higgens, 1990), shift in work force
expectations (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and need for doing business
internationally and in multicultural environments (Church & Waclawski, 1999). Metzler
(2006) found that both transformational and transactional leadership positively predicted the
greater vigour, dedication and absorption, with transformational leadership having greater
predictive strength. Another study done by Tims, Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2011) found
that daily transformational leadership related positively to employees' daily engagement, and
day-levels of optimism fully mediated this relationship. However, daily self-efficacy did not
act as a mediator. These findings expand theory and previous research by illuminating the
role of transformational leaders in fostering employee work engagement.

Bakker and Schaufeli (2008) found that employees who have positive interactions with
their managers have increased levels of engagement. Additionally, Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang,
and Lawler (2005) found that using a transformational leadership style leads to increased
organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and still Cartwright and Holmes (2006)
found that leaders who focus on relationship building and trust development increase
engagement levels. Zhu et al. (2009) found that transformational leadership predicted
followers work engagement, especially for individuals with positive characteristics (e.g.,
active learning). In an online experiment, Kovjanic, Schuh, and Jonas (2013) found that
individuals who imagined their leader to be transformational by reading a vignette were more
engaged because it fulfilled their need for relatedness and need for competence. Trott and
Windsor (1999) provided findings that indicate that staff nurses are more satisfied with
transformational leaders, and that their level of satisfaction increases as the leader uses a
more participative style. Furthermore, Hater and Bass (1988) found transformational
leadership to be positively correlated with how effective subordinates perceive leaders, how
much effort they say they will expend for the leader, how satisfied they are with the leader,
and how well subordinates perform as rated by the leader.

Research further indicates that transactional leaders motivate employees to get the
work done and reward employees accordingly (Bass, 1985), but external rewards
(particularly those that are given after finishing a specific task) have been consistently found
to have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).
 23

Finally, several studies provide evidence for the destructiveness of the laissez-faire
leadership style. Skogstad and Hetland (2007) found that this leaderless leadership style
was positively associated with job stressors such as role ambiguity, role conflict and conflict
with co-workers, while Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen (2007) supported its positive
relationship with bullying at work.

Swatee et al. (2012), in their paper identified key dimensions of organizational culture
and communication which can shape employee engagement in banks. Pradeep et al (2011),
suggested that people seek more meaning in their day-to-day work than they do in their
personal lives. This implies employers should be seeking to make work meaningful by
finding out what matters to their employees especially since evidence suggests that
meaningfulness impacts not only on the individual, but also on the bottom line. They also
suggested a connection between employee engagement and business result, the effect of
individual differences on work performance, perception and personality, emotional factor,
personal relationship and demographic factors.

Based on the findings in the literature, it is proposed that employee engagement is

influenced by leadership style. Specifically, the study examines the following hypotheses:

(a) Transformational leadership is positively correlated with employees work

engagement and other outcome variables.
(b) Transactional leadership is positively correlated with employees work engagement
and other outcome variables, though not as strongly as transformational leadership.
(c) Passive-avoidant leadership is negatively correlated with employees work
engagement and other outcome variables.

The study also examines the difference between public and private sector employees on
their work engagement and leadership styles and proposes that:

(d) Leadership styles differ across public and private sector banks.
(e) Employees work engagement differs across public and private sector banks.

Lastly, the study attempts to qualitatively describe the constructs of leadership and work
engagement.
 24

Method

Participants

The total sample of the study was 90 participants. The age of the participants ranged
from 25-55 years. The participants had at least 2 years of experience working in a private or
public sector bank. Each researcher collected the data from two participants. The
demographic details of the two participants are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic details of two participants

Demographic Details Participant 1 Participant 2

Gender Male Female

Educational qualification Post Graduate Post Graduate

Age (in years) 26 27

Marital status Married Married

No. of Dependents 2 _

Type of Organisation Private sector bank Private sector bank

Designation/position in the
Assistant Manager Assistant Manager
organization

Tenure 2 years 2 months 3 years

Duration of reporting under

the same supervisor 2 years 2 months 3 years
/manager

Tools

MLQ: The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (1994,
1995) was used. The scale has four dimensions: transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, passive-avoidant and outcomes of leadership. Each dimension consists of various
subscales such as transformational leaderships subscales include (IM) Inspirational
Motivation; (IA) Idealized Influence attributed; (IB) Idealized Influence behavior; (IS)
 25

Intellectual Stimulation; (IC) Individualized Consideration; and the internal consistency for
each subscale is 0.77, 0.84, 0.75, 0.79 and 0.76 respectively. Transactional leadership
consists of the following subscales (CR) Contingent Reward; (MBEA) Active Management
by Exception with internal consistency of 0.76 and 0.71 respectively. Passive-avoidant
leadership consists of the following subscales: (MBEP) Management by Exception Passive;
(LF) Laissez-Faire with internal consistency of 0.69 and 0.69 respectively. Outcomes of
leaderships subscales include: (EEF) Extra Effort; (EFF) Effectiveness; (SAT) Satisfaction
with internal consistency of 0.88, 0.81 and 0.75 respectively. The raw scores obtained on
MLQ is the average of the total of each of the four dimensions.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was
developed by Wilmar Schaufeli & Arnold Bakker (2003). The scale has three dimensions
which are vigour, dedication and absorption, all these components are essential to understand
the concept of work engagement holistically. It consists of 17 items. 6 items for vigour, 5 for
dedication and 6 for absorption. Validity studies that have been carried out with the UWES
show that work engagement is negatively associated with burnout, albeit that the relationship
between vigour and exhaustion and between dedication and cynicism is somewhat less strong
than was expected. All the scales of the UWES are highly internally consistent. To measure
the test-retest reliability, two longitudinal studies were carried out that included the
international database which allowed assessing the stability of the UWES across time. The
UWES was administered twice with an interval of one year among 293 Australian Salvation
Army officers and among 563 Norwegian paramedics. It was found that no large differences
in stability exist between the three dimensions of the UWES, perhaps with the exception of
vigour that seems to be slightly more stable across time. It was also found that, adding
another item to the vigour and absorption scales does not increase the scale's internal
consistence. The internal consistency for vigour, dedication and absorption is 0.83, 0.92 and
0.82 respectively. (Salanova et al., 2000; Salanova, Grau, Llorens & Schaufeli, 2001;
Demerouti et al., 2001; Montgomery, Peeters, Schaufeli & Den Ouden, 2003; Salanova,
Bres & Schaufeli, 2003a; Schaufeli, Taris & Van Rhenen, 2003). The raw scores obtained
on UWES is the average of the ratings on the three dimensions of UWES as well as the
average of the total of WE.

Semi-structured Interview Schedule: A semi-structured interview is a method

of research used in the social sciences. While a structured interview has a rigorous set of
questions which does not allow one to divert, a semi-structured interview is open, allowing
 26

new ideas to be brought up during the interview as a result of what the interviewee says. The
interviewer, in a semi-structured interview, generally has a framework of themes to be
explored. The questions for the interview were based on an extensive literature review and
were refined based on the suggestions of all the researchers. Any item that was ambiguous or
overlapped was checked and a total of 18 questions were finally arrived at.

Demographic Profile Sheet: The demographic profile sheet was prepared in a way that it
can give the researchers information about the participants age, gender, educational
qualification, tenure, years of experience, no. of dependents, supervisors name and years of
reporting.

Procedure

The total sample of the study was 90 participants. Each researcher collected the data
from one male and one female participant ranging between 25-55 years.

Managers of either private or the public banking sector banks were approached with an
introductory letter to seek their permission to carry out the research. Once permission was
given by them, the researcher introduced herself to the participants for the study and formed
rapport with them. The researchers shared some information about herself like her name, the
institution she belongs along with information about what the research holds. The researcher
informed the participants that the purpose of the study was to understand organizational
variables in a field setting. There were assured of confidentiality of results and were asked to
read and sign the consent letter.

In the next step, the semi-structured interview was conducted by giving out clear instructions
to the participants. The participants responses were further probed to have a rich data for
analysis. After the compeltion of the inetrview, the questionnaires were handed over to the
participants and clear instructions were given to fill in the responses. If the participants did
not have sufficine time to complete the questionnaires in the first session, another date was
finalised for the second session for the same purpose. In the end, the participants were
thanked for their valuable contribution.

The responses provided by the participants on the scales of MLQ and UWES were scored
according to the scoring insructions given in the manual. Average ratings for
transformational, transactional, passive-avoidant and outcomes of leadership were obtained
from MLQ. Average ratings for vigor, dedication, absorption, and total work enagement were
 27

obtained from UWES. These scores for the two participants were converted into
corresponding percentile ranks for MLQ and assigned descriptive categories for UWES for
individual analysis.

For the purpose of examining the research hypotheses of the study, data of 90 participants
was pooled in. This data was analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive indices (mean and standard
deviation) for the variables, intercorrelations among the variables (Pearsons r) and
differences between public and private sector banks (t-test for independent samples) were
examined.

Further, the data obtained through the semi-structured interview was analyzed using directed
content analysis. The goal of a directed content analysis is to validate or extend conceptually
a theoretical framework or theory. Existing theory or research can help focus the research
question. It can provide predictions about the variables of interest or about the relationships
among variables and thus helps to determine the initial coding scheme or relationships
between codes. This has been referred to as deductive category application (Mayring, 2000).

Results

Table 2: Raw score and percentile ranks obtained by the participants on MLQ

Participant 1 Participant 2
Dimensions Percentile Percentile
Raw score Raw score
rank rank

IA 3 50 2.75 30

IB 2.75 30 2.75 30

IM 3.5 80 3.25 70

IS 3 60 2.25 20

IC 2.25 20 1.75 10

Transformational (total) 2.9 2.5

CR 3 50 2.5 20

MBEA 2.5 70 2.5 70

 28

Transactional (total) 2.75 2.5

MBEP 1 50 1 50

LF 0 5 0.25 30

Passive avoidant (total) 0.5 0.62

EE 3.66 90 2.66 40

EFF 3.75 80 3.25 50

SAT 3.5 60 3 30

Outcomes of leadership
3.66 3
(total)

Table 3: Raw scores and descriptive categories obtained by the participants on UWES

Participant 1 Participant 2
Dimensions Descriptive Descriptive
Raw score Raw score
category category

Vigour 5.33 High 3.5 Average

Dedication 5.8 Very high 3.8 Average

Absorption 5.33 High 3.33 Average

WE (total) 5.33 High 3.53 Average

Table 4: Mean and SD for 4 dimensions on MLQ and 4 dimensions on UWES (N=90)

Dimensions Mean SD

TF 2.66 0.63

TS 2.67 0.71

PA 1.07 0.71

OL 2.80 0.72

VI 4.11 0.84

DE 4.54 0.99
 29

AB 4.18 0.95

WE 4.28 0.84

Table 5: Inter correlations among dimensions of MLQ and dimensions of UWES

OL VI DE AB WE

TF 0.54** 0.23* 0.209* 0.108 0.125

TS 0.593** 0.171 0.216* 0.154 0.181

PA -0.137 -0.233* -0.189 -0.09 -0.2

*p<.05; **p<.01

Table 6: Mean, SD, t values and p values on dimensions of MLQ and UWES for public and
private sector employees

Public sector Private sector

Dimensions t value p value
Mean SD Mean SD

TF 2.54 0.63 2.76 0.615 -1.645 0.103

TS 2.48 0.80 2.81 0.599 -2.233* 0.028

PA 1.24 0.81 0.94 0.60 1.989* 0.050

OL 2.63 0.78 2.91 0.66 -1.841 0.069

VI 4.03 0.86 4.17 0.83 -0.780 0.437

DE 4.51 0.95 4.56 1.03 -0.234 0.816

AB 4.23 0.95 4.14 0.96 0.424 0.673

WE 4.239 0.83 4.32 0.85 -0.461 0.646

*p<.05

Table 7: Analysis of qualitative data through the process of directed content analysis.

Categories Male Female

Experience of Work Required skills present, work Required skills present,

 30

Engagement is inspiring and challenging, sense of responsibility,

committed, customer customer satisfaction,
satisfaction, completion of completion of goals.
goals.

Antecedents/ factors Bonuses, opportunity for Bonuses and promotions,

promoting Work growth, cooperative coworkers supportive and friendly
Engagement coworkers

Antecedents/ factors Rigid timings, personal life Rigid timings, personal

deterring Work Engagement affected, unable to achieve set life affected, unable to
targets, customer achieve set targets,
dissatisfaction customer dissatisfaction

Consequences of Work Wont switch jobs even if Prefer to switch jobs if

Engagement given better perks. given better perks and
benefits

Leader behaviour Cooperative and friendly, vital Cooperative, easily

role in resolving conflicts, approachable, less
easily approachable, allowed considerate, not allowed
to show disapproval to show disapproval,
sometimes, setting small goals, transactional and passive
motivates to excel, avoidant
transactional.

Impact of leadership Committed, more engaged, Less enthusiastic about

behaviour on engagement loves his job. Would want to work, moderately
stay here all his life, immersed engaged, would prefer to
and enthusiastic about work. switch jobs.
Feels proud.
 31

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between leadership styles
and employees work engagement and also how these variables manifested differently in the
public and private banking sector. The data was collected from organizations in the banking
sector in India. Each researcher collected data from two participants, both male and female.
The individual data was then pooled in for all researchers and total sample of the study was
90.

The researcher collected data from The ICICI bank limited (The Industrial Credit and
Investment Corporation of India Limited) which is a private sector bank. The environment of
the bank is very customer friendly as reflected in its tag line Khayal Aapka or Pehle Aap
(First your care). As of 2015, it is the second largest bank in India in terms of assets and third
in terms of market capitalisation. They exhibit rigidity in terms of well laid systems and
processes. The timings are very rigid i.e. 8:00 am 8:00 pm but the employees are sometimes
forced to stay till 9pm. Moreover, there are no breaks given during lunch time unlike other
private banks. The employees can only take a 15 minute break in the entire day. They have a
customer-centric approach and believe in working hard. The promotion process has been
designed on the principles of openness and transparency. Career progression is based on
performance of employees being above an acceptable level with emphasis on those with high
business drive and potential. A high level of performance is rewarded by a system of
performance bonus. The ratio of variable bonus to fixed salary is fairly high to attract and
retain the best talent. They have ESOPs (Employment stock ownership plan) which is a type
of employee benefit plan intended to encourage employees to acquire stocks or ownership in
the company. Along with this, financial assistance and family health insurance are given. The
leaders create weekly goals and engage the employees in decision making process. They also
provide professional as well as personal help to its employees if needed. Hence, their
employee satisfaction is growing day by day and currently it was reported to be 69%.
(Indiatimes, 2015). The work environment seemed pleasant and the employees were seated in
separate cubicles which allowed easy interaction with each other. The branch manager was
easily approachable and helpful in letting the researcher collect data. Each researcher
conducted the MLQ and UWES questionnaire on two participants, one male and one female.

Participant 1 was a male and was 26 years old. He is a postgraduate and is the
assistant manager in the bank. He is married and has been working in the bank for the past
 32

two years. He seemed very enthusiastic and interested about the interview and filled the
questionnaire dutifully. In MLQ, which measures the perceived leadership styles, his scores
on the subscales of transformational leadership style were as follows. For IA and IB, the
scores were 3 and 2.75 with a PR (percentile rank) of 50 (average) and 30 (low) respectively.
For IM, IS and IC, the scores were 3.5, 3 and 2.25 with a PR of 80 (high), 60 (average) and
20 (low) respectively. The scores on the subscales of transactional leadership i.e. CR and
MBEA was 3 and 2.5 with a PR of 50 (average) and 70 (high) respectively. The subscales of
passive-avoidant leadership, MBEP and LF had a score of 1 and 0 with a PR of 50 (average)
and 5 (very low) respectively. The scores on the subscales of outcomes of leadership i.e. EE,
EFF and SAT was 3.66, 3.75 and 3.5 with a PR of 90 (very high), 80 (high) and 60 (high)
respectively. The scores on the dimensions of work engagement i.e. vigour, dedication and
absorption measured by UWES were 5.33 (high), 5.8 (very high) and 5.33 (high)
respectively. The total score on WE was 5.47 which is high.

Participant 2 is a 27 years old female. She is a postgraduate and has been working in
that bank for the past 3 years. She was very tired and not very interested as it was a busy day
at the bank but was cooperative in giving responses. In MLQ, which measures the perceived
leadership styles, her scores on the subscales of transformational leadership style were as
follows. In IA and IB, the score was 2.75 with a PR (percentile rank) of 30 which is low. For
IM, IS and IC, the scores were 3.25, 2.25 and 1.75 with a PR of 70 (high), 20 (low) and 10
(very low) respectively. The scores on the subscales of transactional leadership i.e. CR and
MBEA was 2.5 for both with a PR of 20 (low) and 70 (high) respectively. The subscales of
passive-avoidant leadership, MBEP and LF had a score of 1 and 0.25 with a PR of 50
(average) and 30 (low) respectively. The scores on the subscales of outcomes of leadership
i.e. EE, EFF and SAT was 2.66, 3.25 and 3 with a PR of 40 (average), 50 (average) and 30
(low) respectively. The scores on the dimensions of work engagement i.e. vigour, dedication
and absorption measured by UWES were 3.5 (average), 3.8 (average) and 3.33 (average)
respectively. The total score on WE was 3.53 which is average.

The purpose of the study was to examine the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively correlated with work engagement

and other outcome variables.

According to Table 5, Pearsons correlation between TF leadership and WE was

0.125 (p>0.05) which means the results were not significant. However, Pearsons correlation
 33

between vigour and TF was 0.230 with a level of significance at 0.029 (p<0.05) and between
dedication and TF was 0.209 with a level of significance at 0.048 (p<0.05). This indicates
that the results were significant and TF was significantly correlated with vigour and
dedication. The correlation between TF and Absorption was 0.108 with a level of
significance at 0.311 (p>0.05) which means that the results were not significant. Further,
Pearsons correlation between transformational leadership and outcomes of leadership (OL)
was 0.540 with a level of significance at 0.00 (p<0.01) indicating that the results were highly
significant and that TF is significantly correlated with OL. Since transformational leaders are
high on factors such as idealized influence, individual consideration, motivation as well as
stimulation, they tend to create employees who are more engaged in their work and thus
improve their performance. Dale Carnegie Training Indias Employee Engagement Study
(2014) revealed that the three key drivers of employee engagement were relationship with
immediate manager, belief in senior leadership and pride in the organization. A considerate,
supportive manager is the most important influencer of employee motivation.

Hence, the hypothesis was confirmed as TF was found to be positively correlated with
vigour, dedication and outcomes of leadership.

Previous reserch studies have found a positive relationship between transformational

leadeship and wor engagement. For example, Zhu et al. (2009) found that transformational
leadership predicted followers work engagement, especially for individuals with positive
characteristics (e.g., active learning). In an online experiment, Kovjanic, Schuh, and Jonas
(2013) found that individuals who imagined their leader to be transformational by reading a
vignette were more engaged because it fulfilled their need for relatedness and need for
competence. Trott and Windsor (1999) provided findings that indicate that staff nurses are
more satisfied with transformational leaders, and that their level of satisfaction increases as
the leader uses a more participative style. Furthermore, Hater and Bass (1988) found
transformational leadership to be positively correlated with how effective subordinates
perceive leaders, how much effort they say they will expend for the leader, how satisfied they
are with the leader, and how well subordinates perform as rated by the leader.

Hypothesis 2: Transactional leadership is positively correlated with work engagement

and other outcome variables, though not as strongly as transformational leadership.

According to Table 5, the Pearson correlation between transactional leadership (TS) and
WE was 0.181 with a level of significance at 0.181 (p>0.05) which indicates that the results
 34

were not significant. The correlation coefficient between TS and vigour was 0.171 with the
level of significance at 0.106 (p>0.05) and that between TS and absorption was 0.154 with a
level of significance at 0.146 (p>0.05) indicating the results were not significant. However,
the correlation coefficient between TS and dedication was 0.216 with a level of significance
at 0.041 (p<0.05) which indicates that the results were significant and TS is positively
correlated with dedication. Therefore, TS was positively correlated with WE but not as
strongly as TF. Further, Pearsons correlation between TS and OL was 0.593 with a level of
significance at 0.00 (p<0.01). This indicates that the results were highly significant and TS is
significantly correlated with OL. Hence, hypothesis 2 was confirmed as transactional
leadership was found to be positively correlated with WE (dedication) and outcomes of
leadership.

A transformational leader differs from the transactional one by attempting to develop

their associates needs from lower to higher levels of maturity. Since the transactional
leadership is similar to a give and take relationship; it would not be as effective as
transformational leadership which aims at the growth of the employees and turning them into
subsequent leaders. Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) found that both transactional and
transformational leadership are related to increased unit performance; transactional leaders
were needed to set structure whereas transformational leaders built on the structure that was
already there and developed a more cohesive unit better prepared to face the challenges of a
turbulent global market.

According to Batista-Taran, Shuck, Gutierrez and Baralt (2009), employees can do little
to improve their job meaningfulness and job satisfaction under transactional leadership,
which uses conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from followers.
Transactional leadership, which is based on an exchange process, motivates subordinates by
appealing to their personal desires, based on instrumental economic transactions (Men &
Stacks, 2013). Achua and Lussier, (2013) stated that transactional leaders seek to maintain
stability within an organization through regular economic and social exchanges that achieve
specific goals for both leaders and their followers. Transactional leadership style limits a
leader to using reward based behaviours in order to achieve higher performance from
employees, which only have short-term effects (Batista-Taran et al., 2009). Therefore, as
concluded by May, Gilson and Harter (2004), managers should attempt to foster
meaningfulness through other channels such as effective design of jobs, selecting the proper
employees for particular work and finally through learning more about the personal
 35

aspirations and desires of employees in order to fit them to roles that will allow them to better
express themselves.

Hypothesis 3: Passive avoidant leadership is negatively correlated with work

engagement and other outcome variables.

According to Table 5, Pearsons correlation between passive avoidant leadership (PA)

and WE was -0.200 which indicates a negative correlation between the two. The level of
significance was at 0.058 (p>0.05) indicating that the results were not significant. bullying at
work. The PA leadership style was also correlated with the three dimensions of WE. The
correlation coefficient between PA and vigour was -0.233 with a level of significance at
0.027 (p<0.05) which indicates that the results were significant with a negative correlation
between the two. The correlation coefficient between PA and absorption was -0.090 with a
level of significance at 0.400 (p>0.05) and that with dedication was -0.189 with a level of
significance at 0.074 (p>0.05). This indicates that the results were not significant. Further,
Pearsons correlation between PA and OL was -0.137 with a level of significance at 0.198
(p>0.05) indicating that the results were not significant. Hence, hypothesis 3 was partially
confirmed as passive avoidant leadership was negatively correlated with WE (vigour) but not
significantly correlated with outcomes of leadership.

Since passive avoidant leaders are not present and show negligible interest in the
employee, they negatively affect the level of work engagement of the employees. Several
studies provide evidence for the destructiveness of the laissez-faire leadership style.
Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007) found that this leaderless
leadership style was positively associated with job stressors such as role ambiguity, role
conflict and conflict with co-workers, while Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen (2007) supported
its positive relationship with

It is interesting to note that none of the leadership styles has a significant correlation
with absorption. Hence, we can say that absorption depends more on the characteristics of the
individual than on the leadership style of the leader. Absorption is a state in which people are
so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter. When a person is fully absorbed
with his work he works in a flow. The idea of flow is identical to the feeling of being in the
zone or in the groove. The flow state is an optimal state of intrinsic motivation, where the
person is fully immersed in what he is doing. This is a feeling everyone has at times,
characterized by a feeling of great absorption, engagement, fulfilment, and skilland during
 36

which temporal concerns (time, food, ego-self, etc.) are typically ignored (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975).

Hypothesis 4: Leadership styles differ across public and private sectors.

According to Table 6, the mean and standard deviation of TF for public sector bank
were 2.542 and 0.6394 and that for private sector were 2.762 and 0.615 respectively. The
level of significance of difference between the two sectors was 0.103 (p>0.05) which
indicates that the results were not significant. Therefore, there was no significant difference
between the public and private sector banks in terms of transformational leadership.

The mean and standard deviation of TS for public sector bank were 2.483 and 0.809
that for private sector were 2.815 and 0.599 respectively. The level of significance of
difference between the two sectors was 0.028 (p<0.05) which indicates that the results were
significant. On comparing the means, it was found that private sector banks are high on
transactional leadership style as compared to public sector banks.

The mean and standard deviation of PA for public sector bank were 1.244 and 0.811
that for private sector were 0.947 and 0.606 respectively. The level of significance of
difference between the two sectors was 0.050 (p<0.05) which indicates that the results were
significant. On comparing the means, it was found that public sector banks are high on
passive-avoidant leadership style as compared to private sector banks.

Therefore, transactional leadership style was high in private sector banks whereas
public sector banks were high on passive-avoidant leadership style. This is because in private
sector banks career progression is based on performance of employees being above an
acceptable level with emphasis on those with high business drive and potential. A high level
of performance is rewarded by a system of performance bonus. On the other hand in public
sector banks, promotions are given on the basis of experience or tenure. People who are
senior are the ones who are promoted. Career progression is not based on the performance of
the employees, hence they have a passive-avoidant style of leadership.

Hence, hypothesis 4 was confirmed as leadership styles was found to differ across
public and private sector banks.

Hypothesis 5: Employees work engagement differs across public and private sectors.
 37

According to Table 6, the mean and standard deviation of WE for public sector banks
were 4.239 and 0.838 and that for private sector were 4.322 and 0.851 respectively. The level
of significance of difference between the two sectors was 0.646 (p>0.05) which indicates that
the results were not significant. Therefore, there was no significant difference between the
public and private sector banks in terms of work engagement.

The two sectors were also compared on the three dimensions of WE. The means and
standard deviations of vigour, dedication and absorption for public sector banks were 4.03
and 0.863; 4.51 and 0.954; 4.23 and 0.953 respectively and that for private sector banks were
4.17 and 0.832; 4.56 and 1.037; 4.14 and 0.964 respectively. The level of significance of
difference between the two sectors in terms of vigour, dedication and absorption were 0.417
(p>0.05), 0.816 (p>0.05) and 0.673 (p>0.05). This indicates that results were not significant
and that the dimensions of WE do not differ across sectors.

This maybe because work engagement depends upon the characteristics of the
individual rather than on the type of organisation. The more competent and self-efficient an
individual is and if he carries out tasks with meaningfulness or mindfulness, the more
engaged he will be in his work.
Kinjal Bhatt (2012), while conducting a case study at GNFC on Employee
engagement noted that employee engagement in an organization can definitely enhance
organizations performance, productivity, pride and prestige. Employee Engagement depends
on ones professional knowledge, concern for job and motivation from superiors. In GNFC,
she found good working environment, sharing and openness to share views, training and
development, good pay structure and perks, etc. which was responsible for high ratio of
employee engagement, and with the help of employee engagement, it becomes easy to find
out the performance of an employee and his participation in an organization.

Hence, hypothesis 5 was not conformed as WE was not found to differ across public
and private sector banks.

The data obtained from semi-structured interview underwent directed content analysis
and were qualitatively interpreted by each researcher on two participants.

According to Table 7, participant 1 is enthusiastic about his job and has no problem working
for long hours. He believes to have the considerable skills to do his work and feels his work
has meaning and purpose. He said, I love my job. It is very inspiring and challenging. There
 38

is a lot of competition outside. When Im able to satisfy my customers and achieve the desired
goals, I feel satisfied. So he is very engaged with his work. The completion of goals and
customer satisfaction makes him feel committed and engaged with his work.
The antecedents or factors that affect work engagement according to him are
promotions and bonuses. He is also provided with the opportunities for personal and
professional growth. Also, he feels his coworkers are very friendly and cooperative. This is
evident from the statement, Weekly targets are set and when the process of achieving it
makes me gain more experience and it helps me grow as a person. My coworkers also help
me if I need it and all of them are very friendly. So the organisation helps in promoting his
work engagement.
The most important deterrent to work engagement is the rigid timings which is 8am-
8pm which is very tiring. This affects his personal life as well as he is not able to spend
enough time with his family. He said, Sometimes I also have stay till 9pm. Well not
sometimes, its almost always. I cant spend much time with my family. Also, he said, I get
irritated when Im able to achieve the set goals or targets and if Im not able to satisfy my
customers. So, unsatisfied customers and not being able to achieve targets are also some of
the deterrents to work engagement.
The participant is very engaged with his work as is also evident from his WE score
(5.33) which is high. As a result, he doesnt want to switch his job even if he is provided with
better perks and benefits. Money isnt everything. I love working here and wouldnt prefer
to change my job even if I get better perks somewhere else. I can do anything for the
organisation and Im willing to do extra work if the organisation needs it. So he is willing
to go beyond his job role and loves to work here. He is also able to satisfy his customers and
achieve the desired goals quite often.
The participant feels his leader/supervisor is very supportive, caring and easily
approachable. He plays a vital role in resolving conflicts and suggests new ways of dealing
with problems. He sets daily or weekly goals which are easily achievable and motivates him
to excel which is also evident from his score on IM (PR: 80) which was high. He is allowed
to show his disapproval in certain situations and sometimes involves him in the decision
making process. He rewards him for his efforts but at the same times punishes people if the
work doesnt get done on time. This is evident from the statement, My supervisor is very
friendly and cooperative. You can go to him for any problems you have in life. At the same
time he even punishes those who are not working properly. He does his best and helps me
realize my potential. He is very effective as a leader. His score on EE (PR: 90) and EEF
 39

(PR: 80) was also very high. So his supervisor is perceived to be an effective leader who puts
in extra effort and he is quite satisfied with him.
The leadership behaviour has a positive impact on the participants work engagement.
He is very committed to his work and enjoys it a lot. He works hard and completes his targets
on time. He feels he is rewarded for his efforts and is also willing to go beyond his job role if
the organisation needs him. He finds his supervisor to be friendly and cooperative and who
helps him realize his potential. He said, I wouldnt want to switch my job even if I get better
perks. I love my job. I can stay here all my life. My supervisor also motivates me to excel
Therefore, he is quite satisfied and immersed in his job.

Participant 2 is not that enthusiastic about her job. She believes to have the necessary
skills to do her work. She does her work with a sense of responsibility and loyalty. The
achievement of goals and when the customers are satisfied makes her feel good but she is not
very satisfied. She said, I like my job but I dont find it very inspiring. It is challenging at
times and I am satisfied. But Im not quite enthusiastic about it. So, she is not quite engaged
with her work as is also evident from her WE score (3.53) which is average.
The antecedents or factors that affect work engagement according to her are promotions and
bonuses. She feels the organisation somewhat provides her with the opportunities for
personal and professional growth. Also, he feels his coworkers are very friendly and
cooperative and that is what keeps her motivated and engaged in her work. This is evident
from the statement, My coworkers help me if I need it and all of them are very friendly and
supportive. They keep me motivated So the organisation and most importantly her
coworkers help in promoting her work engagement.
The most important deterrent to work engagement is the rigid timings which is 8am-
8pm which is very tiring. This affects her personal life as well as she is married and is not
able to spend enough time with his family. She said, The timings are very strict. I return
home late every day. So I am not able to spend time with my husband and children. Also,
unsatisfied customers and not being able to achieve targets are some of the deterrents to work
engagement.
The participant is not that engaged with her work. As a result, she would switch her
job if provided with better perks and benefits. She said, I am willing to change my job if Im
provided with a better alternative She will not to go beyond her job role for the sake of the
organisation. Although she is also able to satisfy her customers and achieve the desired goals
quite often.
 40

The participant feels her leader/supervisor is supportive, caring and easily

approachable. He motivates her to excel sets daily or weekly goals which are easily
achievable. Although, she feels he is not that considerate towards her as is also evident from
her score on IC (PR: 10) which is quite low. She is not allowed to show her disapproval in
certain situations, but he sometimes involves her in the decision making process. He rewards
her for her efforts but at the same times punishes people if the work doesnt get done on time.
This is evident from the statement, My supervisor is cooperative, but I feel he doesnt really
care about certain situations. He is not always there when needed, but helps us out whenever
he is present. She thinks this kind of leadership style is effective but not quite satisfactory. It
is also evident from her score on one of the dimensions of OL i.e. SAT (PR: 30) which is
low. So her supervisor is perceived to have transactional and passive-avoidant kind of
leadership style according to her.
The leadership behaviour doesnt have much of an impact on the participants work
engagement. She is committed and has a sense of responsibility towards her work. She works
hard and completes his targets on time and feels she is rewarded for her efforts. She finds her
supervisor to be cooperative and supportive but not always available when needed. Also, she
doesnt feel he gives her much attention. She said, I would prefer to switch my job if I get
better alternatives. I love my job. I can stay here all my life. Therefore, she is not that
satisfied with her leader and is moderately engaged with her work.
Unfortunately, women do experience a strong gender bias when being evaluated for
promotions on both their level of performance as well as their potential impact. Research
within professional groups show that women have to significantly work harder to be
perceived as equally competent as men (Lyness & Heilman, 2006). Moreover, unfortunate
assumptions are sometimes made about womens ambitions and abilities. Research by DDI
(Development Dimensions International, 2009) shows that women do not excel sufficiently in
their career due to assumptions on womens ambitions such as women having less ambition
and a lesser company commitment due to family responsibility. Yet, women and men hardly
differ in their ambitions. Catalyst shows that there is hardly a difference between senior men
and women when aspiring for the highest roles in the company (Catalyst, 2004).
On comparing both the participants, it was found participant 1 is more engaged with
his work. He is more enthusiastic and loves his job a lot. He is willing to go beyond his job
role and make sacrifices if the organisation needs him to and is quite dedicated to his work.
He does his work with all his energy and works in a flow. Whereas participant 2 is not that
engaged with her work. She is not as enthusiastic about her job as compared to participant 1
 41

and is willing to switch her job if given better alternatives unlike participant 1 who would
want to stay in this organisation all his life. The antecedents that promote work engagement
for participant 1 are bonuses, opportunity for growth, cooperative coworkers and for
participant 2 is the cohesive and friendly coworkers. She perceives her supervisors
leadership style to be more transactional and passive-avoidant whereas participant 1
perceives it be transformational and transactional.
Swatee et al. (2012), in their paper identified key dimensions of organizational culture
and communication which can shape employee engagement in bank. Whereas Pradeep et. al.
(2011), suggested that people seek more meaning in their day-to-day work than they do in
their personal lives. This implies employers should be seeking to make work meaningful by
finding out what matters to their employees especially since evidence suggests that
meaningfulness impacts not only on the individual, but also on the bottom line. They also
suggested a connection between employee engagement and business result, the effect of
individual differences on work performance, perception and personality, emotional factor,
personal relational ship and demographic factors. Ram and Prabhakar (2011) state that when
employees receive rewards and recognition from their organization, they will feel obliged to
exercise a fair exchange, by responding with higher levels of engagement. According to the
research conducted by Saks (2006), employees who perceive higher organizational support
are more likely to reciprocate with greater levels of engagement in their job and in the
organization. May et al. (2004) observe that supportive supervisor relations are positively
related to psychological safety. Cartwright and Holmes (2006) also found that leaders who
focus on relationship building and trust development increase engagement levels. May et al.,
(2004) concluded that managers should also work to establish employee perceptions of safety
by developing supportive, trustworthy relations with their employees and counsel employees
high in self-consciousness into appropriate roles or help them receive counseling in order to
change their perception.

There were a few limitations of the study. There is a probability that the participants
might have given socially desirable answers. Also, the research was done by different
researchers and each researcher has its own way of dealing with the participants and
conducting the interview. This might have caused disparity in results.

The sample size can be increased to make the data more generalizable and
representative. The current research added to the current knowledge about work engagement
and perceived leadership styles and their relationship as there is a lack of existing researches
 42

in the Indian context. Future researchers could study the relation between different
dimensions of each leadership style with work engagement.

Conclusion

The objective of the study was to study the concepts of work engagement and
leadership in the Indian context and the aim was to determine a relationship between the two
and also how these variables manifested differently in the public and private banking sector.
In todays competitive work environment, it is time for organizations to move beyond just
motivating their employees and towards creating an environment of engagement. The total
sample of the study was 90 participants. Each researcher conducted the study on one male
and one female participant ranging between 25-55 years. The measures used were the MLQ
and UWES and a semi-structured interview schedule. The results showed that work
engagement is positively correlated with transformational and transactional leadership styles
and outcomes of leadership and negatively correlated with passive-avoidant leadership style.
Also, public sector banks were high on passive avoidant leadership style whereas as private
sector banks were high on transactional leadership styles. Hence, hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4
were confirmed, but hypothesis 5 was not confirmed.
 43

References

Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W. & Luthans, B.C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond
human and social capital. Business Horizons 47(1), 45-50.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Transformational leadership development: Manual for
the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Academic
Press.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leadermember exchange and transformational leadership:
An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leadermember dyads. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of
vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 43-54.

Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.Occupational Health
Psychology Unit: Utrecht University.

Alamahamid S, McAdam AC, Kalaldeh T (2010). The Relationship among Organizational

Knowledge Sharing Practices, Employees Learning Commitments, Employees Adaptability
and Employees Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation of the Listed Manufacturing
Companies 5(2), 327-355.

Panchanatham, N., Rajendran, K. & Karuppiah K. K. (1993). AStudy of Executive

Leadership Styles and Problem Solving Behaviour. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
29(1), 101-108.

Syed Vazith Hussain (2002). Leadership Styles in Small Scale Industries. The Indian Journal
of Commerce, 55(3), 45-54
44