Secondary Research:

One of the oldest issues in the management of the organization is absenteeism and the impact of
bad leadership on employee turnover. Leadership styles vary from person to person and most
importantly they rely on the nature and structure of the organization. The most common
leadership styles include transactional and transformational leadership and these styles have a
huge impact on the overall outcomes of the employees as well as the organization. Studies have
revealed that transactional leadership has poor outcomes because in this type of leadership style
the leader motivates the employees through short-term rewards and punishment not by teaching
and working with the employees to bring change and execute the plans (Mtimkulu, Naranjee, &
Karodia, 2014). Leaders who value their employees and play an active role to improve the
employee outcome tend to have healthier and better relations with their employees which in turn
improves the productivity of the organization.

For the past few decades, the researchers are investigating the phenomenon of absenteeism and
trying to look up for the determinants of lower productivity, absence from work and increased
rate of turnover. Increased absenteeism positively relates with the style of leadership because if
the leader does not play his role in motivating the employees and he does not provide them with
an environment where they can utilize and improve their skills then employees will be
discouraged and will not actively participate in individual as well as in teamwork. There is a
negative impact of absenteeism on the productivity of the company as it decreases the growth
rate and generates fewer revenue profits for the company in the long-run (Elshout, Scherp, & van
der Feltz-Cornelis, 2013). Absenteeism is a multifaceted phenomenon that is influenced by
numerous factors. It can be voluntary or involuntary depending on the nature of the situation.
Voluntary absences mean that the employees intentionally decide to leave their work and
involuntary absences mean that absenteeism decisions are not under the control of employees.

Leaders try to increase the productivity of the employees by decreasing the cost of absenteeism
challenges inside the organization. Some of the common causes of increased absenteeism include
the health-related issues of employees which have a great effect on their productivity and the
organizational behavior, structure, and culture. Other than that, leadership has a huge impact on
the loss and gain of employees’ morale and job satisfaction. Studies have revealed that
transformational leadership motivates the employees to perform their tasks beyond a certain level
of expectation. To reduce employee absenteeism, leaders not only monitor the performance of
employees or manage their rewards and bonuses but also seek to establish a clear vision of what
can be achieved by focusing on the organizational goals and mission (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
2013). Leadership has a significant relationship with the level of job satisfaction and
performance of employees as the leaders make great contributions towards achieving a goal and
setting an example for employees to follow. To study and understand the impact of leadership on
absenteeism, we need to consider the types of leadership styles and the effect of each on the
morale and performance of the employees. For this purpose, we will look into the following
leadership styles:

i. Transactional Leadership:

The significance of this style of leadership is represented by the word transactional where the
leader and employee focus on a transaction and resource exchange for achieving and
accomplishing the essential tasks. For performance measurement, rewards and punishments are
contingent. For example, poor performance leads to punishment and good performance leads to
rewards and bonuses. Such style of leadership is only helpful in the short-run because in the
long-run the employees lose their motivation to do work as they feel stressed about maintaining
and improving their work performance.

As mentioned above, the organizations which have a transactional style of leadership have less
motivated employees and their productivity level is lower as compared to those organizations in
which there is a transformational style of leadership. The word transaction itself manifests that
performance will be the key element in determining the behavior of a leader towards the
employee which can be quite discouraging for employees who do not perform well due to some
reasons. There are three dimensions of the transactional leadership and these include (Du Preez,
2012):

i. Contingent Reward:

A transaction occurs between the leader and the employee in a constructive way and leaders
make explicit expectations about the performance of the employee to reward them.

ii. Active Exception Management:

The responsibility for the corrective actions related to the leader-employee transaction is on the
leader. For instance, leaders tend to punish the employees who do not perform well, they actively
monitor the behavior and performance of employees to take corrective actions.

iii. Passive Exception Management:

In a passive management situation, the leader does not take any corrective decision until the real
problems occur and decide to reward or punish the employee according to the scenario.

ii. Laissez-faire Leadership:

Such a style of leadership lack transaction and offer a great deal of freedom to the employees
regarding how they want to manage and perform their day-to-day tasks. In laissez-faire
leadership style, the leader supports the employees in performing their tasks but they are mostly
uninvolved meaning they do not make many decisions and avoid to resolve the issues of his
employees. In this style of leadership, the leader is avoidant and does not maintain regular
contact with the employees and as a result, the employee has to take all the decisions by himself
and resolve his issues without any direct supervision (Halbesleben, Whitman, & Crawford,
2014). Such a leadership style can put the employee under stress and reduce his morale which
can lead to increased absenteeism from work and can eventually lead to employees exit from the
organization.

iii. Authoritarian Leadership:

In the authoritarian leadership style, the leader acts like an autocrat and commands or give direct
orders to the employees to perform specific tasks. It is also called a dissonant style of leadership
which depends on the leader’s position in the hierarchy of the organization and the power he
holds in the structure of the organization. Such leaders make the decisions on their own and do
not consult much to their employees which reduces their interests and participation in the
organizational decision making. Although authoritarian leadership does not provide a smooth
and flexible environment, the benefit of such a leadership style can be quick decision making and
its effective implementation. However, the employee does feel uninvolved and becomes
complacent to autocratic leaders which reduces their productivity and eventually leads to
increased absenteeism from the work (Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010).
 iv. Transformational Leadership:

In a transformational leadership style, the leader acts as a role model and inspires all the
employees to act in a certain way and follow his footsteps to achieve the organizational goals.
Employees put trust and confidence in the leader and try to adopt the traits of leaders to excel in
their careers. Transformational leaders are charismatic and they receive great respect from their
employees who remain motivated and confident to work hard and accomplish their tasks. There
are four dimensions of transformational leadership and these are described below (Cucchiella,
Gastaldi, & Ranieri, 2014):

a. Idealized Influence:

Leaders have strong values and beliefs which are consistent with the values of the organization
and they tend to act according to those values.

b. Inspirational Motivation:

A leader communicates clearly with their employees and delivers a vision of a path to be taken
by the employees and he tries to convince the employees to strive for enhancing the overall
outcome.

c. Intellectual Stimulation:

Transformational leaders encourage the employees to think in different ways and allow them to
use their intellect and engage in making better decisions which in turn builds the capacity of
employees to work therefore reducing their absenteeism from work.

d. Individual Consideration:

Leaders support each employee and help every individual to develop his potential which can
improve the outcome of his work.

Now that we have discussed the different styles of leadership and their general impacts on the
employee’s absenteeism and performance, we will further focus on the impact of these
leadership styles on the well-being of employees.

i. Employee Sickness and Absenteeism:

Among the most undesirable outcomes of a company includes the sickness and absenteeism of
the employees. Both these outcomes have a huge impact on the motivation, productivity and
stress management levels of the employees. Resultantly, they are a bad outcome for the
employees themselves working in the organization. Studies have shown that the level of support
provided by the leaders of the organization has a positive relation in the reduction of employee
turnover and absenteeism. The quality of support provided by the leader has a greater impact on
the morale of the employee because the quality of support is what matters than just providing a
certain level of support to the employees’ decisions (Caroline, 2015).

Quality of support from the leader is required in capacity building, job satisfaction and conflict
resolution which have a direct relation with the lower level of employee sickness absenteeism.
The organizations which practice relational leadership styles effectively reduce the issue of
absenteeism including employee sickness and turnover. The organizations which practice task-
oriented leadership style have more absenteeism problems and authoritarian leadership style
organizations are associated with more employees’ sick leaves, especially among men.
Transformational leadership has been studied by the researchers specifically and most of the
researches indicates higher levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee
empowerment which in turn leads to lower levels of employee absenteeism and turnover.

ii. Employee Stress and Exhaustion:

Multiple studies have been carried out to examine the impact of leadership on employee stress
management which can lead to chronic illnesses in the employees. Stress and exhaustion by
definition indicate that a cluster of psychological elements that are best represented by the
emotional collapse, depersonalization and decreased individual endeavors. The relational
leadership style (transformational) has a significant relation with reduced stress and exhaustion is
employees. Leaders who support their employees in their day-to-day activities are more active
and healthier than those employees who do not receive much support from their leaders.

Three dimensions of a transformational leader including the idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, and individual consideration have a negative relation with employee stress because
these three dimensions motivate the employees to work and improve their performance. The
fourth dimension, i.e. intellectual stimulation is not associated with the emotional collapse of the
employee but has a positive relationship with the individual’s achievements. Negative styles of
leadership including abusive control of leaders over the employees have a significant relation
with the increased levels of stress and emotional exhaustion of employees (Dasgupta, Suar, &
Singh, 2012).

Numerous factors increase the stress of employees and these include ambiguity of their roles,
increased workload and lack of autonomy to make decisions. The organizations which have a
transformational style of leadership tend to reduce the stress in employees and lead to high
productivity levels. Non-abusive and supportive leaders reduce the absenteeism in employees
and offer mental health advantages to the employees.

Some studies have revealed that employees who have more workload, less decision making
power and lower levels of sensitivity towards bonuses and rewards tend to have more heart
diseases. The stress of work can become chronic and several types of research have been done
cross-sectionally and longitudinally to study the negative outcomes of bad leadership including
increased levels of depression, anxiety and cardiovascular diseases among the employees.
Individual consideration and social support from the leader has a positive impact on the well-
being of the employee and effectively reduces stress.

iii. Employee Well-being:

One huge impact of bad leadership is on the well-being of the employees because it continuously
inculcates negative emotions in the employees. Transformational leadership can help the
employees in improving their well-being because it inculcates positive emotions in the
employees thereby increasing their morale for doing work and increased support from the leader
leads to healthier outcomes for both employees and the organization (Aucejo & Romano, 2016).
Higher levels of support are positively related to increased employee well-being and it also leads
to job satisfaction in employees. Job satisfaction is associated with both the mental and physical
health of the employees which can be improved if the leaders play an active role in supporting
their employees in their everyday tasks and maintain regular communication with them to avoid
any misunderstandings.

Different leadership styles have different impacts on the well-being of employees. For example,
in a laissez-faire leadership style, there is an increased risk of role conflict, uncertainty, and
mistreatment. Other than that, an abusive leader tends to inculcate feelings of anxiety and
depression in the employees. Destructive leadership styles including abuse of power,
mistreatment to employees and harassment are negatively related to the well-being of the
employee.

iv. Engagement of Employee in the Organization:

Employee engagement means the involvement of employees in their everyday tasks and their
level of satisfaction with their job. Researchers argue that organizational commitment and
employee engagement are two different things and they have different meanings. Organizational
commitment is the overall behavior of employees towards the organization whereas, employee
engagement is more related to employee involvement in carrying out his job duties. Positive
interaction of leader and employee reflects the greater engagement of employees in their work
because employees get involved in the decision-making process and have greater control of their
everyday work.

Researches have also revealed elements that are related to the more hostile behavior of
employees. Studies show that leadership styles that are autocratic, obstinate, and less
empowering lead to hostility and estrangement of the employees. Scholars argue that
transformational styles of leadership elude these issues by offering employees the more support
they require to manage multifaceted job demands more effectively. Additionally, researches have
also found that transformational leadership reduces the degree of job alienation, whereas
transactional leadership increases alienation among the employees (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).
The extent of centralized control of leader, more formal directions, classified practice and strict
authority all contribute to the degree of job alienation. Scholars suggest that uncompromising
bureaucratic practices lead to alienation by compelling employee independence and the degree to
which they control their work. It is important to improve the engagement of employees, provide
autonomy to the employees, empowering them, and providing them with progressive chances, be
consistent concerning expectations of employees, admiration and just treatment, provide pieces
of training, feedback and coaching to make sure that job is done effectively and efficiently.

v. Productivity:

Studies have examined that productivity is positively related to the transformational style of
leadership, therefore transformational leaders tend to be more productive, concerning their
performance as well as their employees’ performance. It does not matter much at which level the
performance is measured, it can be at the individual, department and organizational level.
Researchers have examined the tools by which the leaders may improve the performance of their
employees. Five distinct elements can describe some of the impacts of the transformational style
of leadership on performance.

The first element is called affective experience, a transformational leader can improve the
positive emotions of his employees and can contribute to improving their performance. The
second element is called motivation, which is related to the fact that transformational leadership
results in increasing confidence of employees and their excitement towards their jobs resulting in
better performance. The third factor is called a mechanism of identification and it describes the
effect of transformational leadership on employees where they identify the leadership traits of
their leader and follow them as a source of inspiration. The fourth element is known as social
exchange and the scholars suggest that transformational leadership improves the quality of social
exchanges between leaders and employees which means that the employees are motivated to
respond by performing their job to higher levels of expectations. The last element is known as
justice enhancement and scholars advocate employees that resources would be distributed
equitably, motivating the employees to put more effort into their jobs (Gangai16, 2014).

The quality of the relationship between a leader and employee can improve the performance.
Concerning better performance, many scholars comment that even among leaders, the
captivating, intellectual, and careful leaders perform better. In addition to this, scholars put
forward a critical argument that constant features including the style of leadership and the
personality of the leader, are not utilized in all situations. For instance, cooperative leadership
where decisions are jointly made is likely to be effective in normal circumstances but ineffective
in times of crisis. Scholars also propose few communally “dark” or objectionable characteristics
that sometimes can be essential and beneficial. Studies have specified that transformational
leadership positively associates with improved performance. Conditional incentives are also
associated with improved performance and transformational and conditional incentives are both
positively associated with each other. It is important to note that passive leadership and laissez-
faire leadership are associated with the decreased performance of employees.
Studies have associated the styles of leadership with numerous outcomes that are related to the
health, well-being, and productivity of the employees and these express a notable degree of
reliability (Johns & Miraglia, 2015). Relational and transformational leadership styles have more
advantages to both the leader and employees in terms of improved well-being, health, and
productivity together with reduced absenteeism and sickness absence. In comparison to this,
transactional leadership occasionally indicates benefits only for conditional bonuses and some
studies state that a positive correlation exists between conditional bonuses and transactional
leadership. However, it is worth observing that even for conditional bonuses the outcomes are
not always positive and management by exception whether active or passive demonstrates poor
outcomes. The outcomes for Laissez-faire and authoritarian leadership are easier to understand.
These have been associated constantly to poor outcomes in terms of less productivity and
workplace engagement together with negative impacts on health and wellbeing.

However, despite the regularities are described, a few critical points need to be raised at this
point. Firstly, the quality of the evidence, while improving has on the whole been limited, with
the vast majority of studies being correlational and associative making it impossible to make
causal inferences. Furthermore, we have focused on four widely accepted leadership types, these
are far from all of the suggested leadership styles and there is an ongoing debate regarding the
number of styles that exist. One critical issue within the literature is the fact that leadership style
is rarely objectively verified and mapped onto actual leader behavior, creating a dichotomy in the
literature between perceived leadership styles against objective leadership style (Grant &
Sonnentag, 2010). Therefore, although tempting, it is too early to suggest that only
transformational leadership leads to enhanced outcomes. What is clear is that work environments
have changed dramatically in the 21st Century and employees are now more educated and
intelligent than before. Some have argued these shifts mean it is now necessary for leaders to be
more collaborative and transformational to engage their employees. Towards this end, research
indicates that satisfaction with supervisors is related to the leaders’ perceived competence as an
effective communicator. Perhaps most important given the consistent association with improved
employee outcomes, there is good evidence that transformational leadership can be useful.

Broad Perspective
The style of leadership is dependent on the personality of a person. When we study the concept
of leadership in an organization, we also focus on several factors such as organizational culture,
structure, setting, the behavior of leaders towards employees’ and commitment of employees
towards achieving organizational goals. Social and economic circumstances also have an impact
on the leader-employee relationship. There are three pillars on which the effectiveness of
employee is measured and these are described below (Devonish, 2013):

i. Organizational Commitment:

Organizational commitment refers to the commitment of employees towards their work and
achieving organizational goals as well as their motivation towards doing their day-to-day tasks.

ii. Job Satisfaction:

Job satisfaction is a key element to measure the performance of an employee. If an employee is

satisfied with its job then he will perform well in his day-to-day activities and will get all the
work done on time.

iii. Leadership Style:

The style of leadership determines the effectiveness of employees because the leader-employee
relationship is what motivates the employee to work and support from the leader helps him to
make a better decision and help him in its capacity building. Therefore, we can say the style of
leadership is pivotal to the success of the organization.

So far the studies have revealed that the transformational style of leadership inspires the
employees more and support them in every decision and everyday tasks. It is more of a personal
style that involves personality characteristics such as charismatic, inspirational and intellectually
stimulating. Such a leader motivates employees to participate in the decision making process and
other processes for bringing change in the organization. One major issue with bad leadership is
that it does not encourage and promote the sense of collective identity and efficacy among the
employees. This can result in feelings of hostility and estrangement in employees and can also
lead to absenteeism and an increased turnover rate of employees. Bad leadership lacks the
empowerment of employees and does not give employees much authority, this, in turn, makes
leaders less responsible and accountable to their employees (Lim, Loo, & Lee, 2017).
Bad leadership lacks charisma which has always been seen as an important factor of leadership
along with that there is a lack of transparency and humility in bad leaders. Bad leadership leads
to an increased rate of absenteeism in the organization because employees develop more feelings
of estrangement and resentment towards the leader as they go through the episodes of a bad
relationship with their leaders. Absenteeism has been studied as one of the major issues in the
history of organizational management and some of the factors as discussed earlier include stress,
emotional exhaustion, bad health of employees and increased cardiovascular diseases because of
workload. When employees are not well mentally and physically and their leaders do not have a
supportive relationship with them, employees voluntarily miss their work and get absent from the
job. Other than that inhumane and mistreatment of leaders with employees can affect the health
of employees and they can develop chronic illnesses under-pressure. Researches have revealed
that abusive leadership and increased workload on employee results in increased heart diseases
and other issues such as depression and anxiety. Feelings of anxiety make the worker less
effective and it has a huge impact on his overall performance.

There exists a close relationship between employee job satisfaction and absenteeism, it can be
anticipated that there exists a relationship between leadership and absenteeism as well. Many
pieces of research have confirmed this relationship, and researchers have found that positive
leaders provoke higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in employees,
and reduces the chances of absenteeism intentions of employees. According to scholars, certain
human resource management practices can have an encouraging effect on the performance of
employees, their motivation to carry out their tasks, desire to learn new skills, enhanced abilities,
and abundant knowledge, therefore taking steps to reduce absenteeism in the organization. One
of the crucial elements in forming this outcome is the style of leadership. Studies by renowned
scholars have shown that style of leadership can decrease the rate of absenteeism. If an employee
gets much support from the leader, this can offer an atmosphere in which the employee is more
likely to be present in his job (Cascio & Boudreau, 2010). Getting enough support from a leader
is associated with both transactional and transformational styles of leadership, and it depends on
the nature and quality of the support as well. The reason for its linkage with the transactional
leadership style is that the leaders control and manage the employees more and tell them more
explicitly what activities to carry out. And, the reason for its linkage with the transformational
leadership style is that transformational leaders stimulate the employees to find things out on
their own, by still backing them up and guiding them towards the right track.

Researchers highly recommend a transformational style of leadership in organizations and the

studies suggest that giving employees flexible duties can reduce absenteeism and improve the
well-being of employees. The direct way in which leadership style can affect absenteeism is how
a leader handles the sickness absenteeism of employees. Studies have shown that employees who
are not much satisfied with their leader tend to be absent more and skip their office. Also, it has
been revealed that sick leave is frequently viewed as additional days off by the employees and
that it can be the only way for employees to ensure a day off to go to a special event on short
notice. Only a new percent of the employees working in the organizations believe that there is
another opportunity for them to get a day off for such purposes. Some studies test whether a
chance for employees to inform impromptu short term absence can decrease the overall rates of
sickness in the organization and it also confirmed. Such an approach towards employees, in
which they are allowed to inform their unscheduled absence instead of calling in sick, is an
attribute of the transformational style of leadership. The employees are answerable and have the
option to state their reason for absence in the short term if necessary. This approach if taken in
organizations can result in reduced absenteeism (Dana, 2014).

Impact of the problem on clients, innovation, and profit:

Absenteeism is a major problem in organizations and it can have bad impacts on the clients,
business innovation and revenues of the company. Bad leadership increases the rate of
absenteeism in the organization and absenteeism can lead to delays in delivery to the clients and
lowers standards of service provision which can further damage the reputation of the company in
the market. If the employees do not respond to the customers on time it can lower their customer
loyalty and clients will stop contacting the organization for services (Khan, 2010). It can create
problems for the company as their reputation would be on stake and clients will review the
company as bad in the market. Absenteeism has a direct effect on the profitability of the
company because it less productivity leads to less revenue generation and absenteeism lowers the
overall performance of the organization.
 Absenteeism can reduce revenue for the company in two ways. Firstly, the larger costs of
operations reduce revenues unless revenues are increased. For instance, if companies spend more
funds on overtime pay and contract employees, there involves a direct cost that goes high and
revenues are likely to reduce. Secondly, absenteeism can lower the profit margins if employees
with specific roles are not present in their jobs. Employees who sell services to customers or
manufacture and deliver a product such as employees working in manufacturing, software
engineering, consulting or sales can merely have less time to achieve their goals when absent
from the workplace , and that potentially lowers the profit margins. Other than that, absenteeism
has a bad impact on the innovation of company because when the employees are not present at
their jobs and are not motivated enough to work and meet the new demands of the market, it will
eventually lower the company’s innovation and it will not be able to deliver new products in the
market, thus lowering their revenues and productivity (Wiley, 2010). Absenteeism has a direct
effect on customer service, the company’s ability to introduce new products and its revenues.
References:

Aucejo, E. M., & Romano, T. F. (2016). Assessing the effect of school days and absences on test
score performance. Economics of Education Review, 55, 70-87.
Caroline, U. N. (2015). Absenteeism, favouritism, and tardiness as predictors of job deviance in
academia: the Nigeria experience. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(2), 75-81.
Cascio, W., & Boudreau, J. (2010). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource
initiatives: Ft Press.
Cucchiella, F., Gastaldi, M., & Ranieri, L. (2014). Managing absenteeism in the workplace: the
case of an Italian multiutility company. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 1157-
1166.
Dana, L. B. (2014). Relationships among job satisfaction, professional efficacy, student and
school performance, and teacher absenteeism.
Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2012). Impact of managerial communication styles on
employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Employee Relations, 35(2), 173-199.
Devonish, D. (2013). Job demands, health, and absenteeism: does bullying make things worse?
Employee Relations, 36(2), 165-181.
Du Preez, H. (2012). The impact of a corporate wellness programme on employee wellness,
motivation and absenteeism. University of Pretoria.
Elshout, R., Scherp, E., & van der Feltz-Cornelis, C. M. (2013). Understanding the link between
leadership style, employee satisfaction, and absenteeism: a mixed methods design study in a
mental health care institution. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 9, 823.
Gangai16, K. N. (2014). ABSENTEEISM AT WORKPLACE: WHAT ARE THE FACTORS
INFLUENCING TO IT?
Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact
compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 111(1), 13-22.
Halbesleben, J. R., Whitman, M. V., & Crawford, W. S. (2014). A dialectical theory of the
decision to go to work: Bringing together absenteeism and presenteeism. Human Resource
Management Review, 24(2), 177-192.
Johns, G., & Miraglia, M. (2015). The reliability, validity, and accuracy of self-reported
absenteeism from work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 1.
Khan, S. N. (2010). Impact of authentic leaders on organization performance. International
Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 167.
Lim, A., Loo, J., & Lee, P. (2017). The impact of leadership on turnover intention: The
mediating role of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Structural
Equation Modeling, 1(1), 27-41.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee—organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover: Academic press.
Mtimkulu, D. S., Naranjee, N., & Karodia, A. M. (2014). An evaluation of the leadership styles
of managers and their impact on human capital factors of motivation, performance and
absenteeism of employees at selected hospitals in Eastern Free State, South Africa. Oman
Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 34(2597), 1-30.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158.
Wiley, J. W. (2010). The impact of effective leadership on employee engagement. Employment
Relations Today, 37(2), 47-52.
Ybema, J. F., Smulders, P. G., & Bongers, P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of
employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 102-124.