See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235277321

The engagement factor: Building a high-commitment organization in a low-

commitment world

Article in Journal of Business Strategy · September 2010

DOI: 10.1108/02756661011076282

CITATIONS READS

64 3,642

2 authors:

J.Lee Whittington Timothy Galpin

University of Dallas University of Oxford
68 PUBLICATIONS 1,544 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 1,033 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oxford Innovation Insights Project View project

Enhancing Employee Engagement: An Evidence-Based Approach (Book) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J.Lee Whittington on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The engagement factor: building
a high-commitment organization in a
low-commitment world
J. Lee Whittington and Timothy J. Galpin
J. Lee Whittington is a
Professor of Management
and Timothy J. Galpin is an
Associate Professor of
Management, both at the
College of Business,
University of Dallas, Irving,
Texas, USA.
PAGE 14 j JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
s we continue to work our way through this most recent economic downturn, most of
A those who are still employed are grateful. However, they may be grateful, but not
really committed to their current employer for the long haul. In fact, when the
economy heats up and opportunities become more abundant, many employees will leave
for what they perceive to be greener pastures. Managers need to be aware of this and work
to build employee commitment now in order to avoid the costs of high turnover when the
economy returns to a healthier state.
A recent article in Business Week described the fact that in the midst of urgent economic
reality, many managers have overlooked some critical but elementary tasks in terms of their
employees. Yet the need to engage employees is particularly crucial during a recession,
when mantras such as ‘‘do more with less’’ seem to replace happy talk about the value of
human resources. Often, employees are required to take on extra duties after their
colleagues are laid off. But, with no financial incentive for doing so, affective commitment to
the organization begins to wear thin.
It is imperative that organizations focus on their employees now. Waiting to implement these
suggestions when people begin to leave will be too late. In this paper, we provide some
specific prescriptions for managers who seek to attract and retain a quality workforce. These
prescriptions are based on solid empirical research presented in an integrative model. The
purpose of this paper is to provide a bridge between solid academic research and the needs
of practicing managers. Therefore, rather than offering research propositions, we offer a
series of evidence-based engagement practices that provide a prescriptive framework for
managers seeking to enhance their employees’ commitment to the organization.
Creating a committed workforce requires organizational practices that emanate from both
macro and micro levels of the organization. However, macro-level human resource policies
alone will not create a high level of employee engagement. Thus, we present a model that
integrates elements of both macro and micro-level practices which lead to high levels of
employee engagement. As shown in Figure 1, we view engagement as the central construct
in this multi-level model. According to this model, engagement occurs within a context of
macro-level organizational practices we refer to as the HR value chain. Then moving to a
micro level we see leader behavior, job characteristics, and challenging goals as the
antecedents to employee engagement. When employees experience engagement, there
will be positive in-role and extra-role performance. Finally, we see trust as an important
enhancer of these relationships.
The need for an emphasis on engagement
The dramatic globalization of economic activity during the last 20 years has exacerbated the
need to attract and keep high-performing employees. Given this new reality, people may be
the only remaining source of competitive advantage. Organizations must create work
j VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010, pp. 14-24, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0275-6668 DOI 10.1108/02756661011076282
Figure 1 Integrative model of employee engagement

Organizational Strategy
(e.g. service excellence, innovation, low-cost provider)

Macro-Level
Recruitment, Selection,
Orientation and Socialization
HR Value Chain
Performance Planning and Employee Separation
Evaluation, Pay and Rewards,
Training and Development,
Career Development

Full-Range
Leadership
Micro-Level

Performance
Enriched ENGAGEMENT • In-Role
Jobs • Extra-Role
(OCB)

Goal
Setting
Trust

environments that provide a sense of challenge and meaningfulness for employees. Pfeffer
(1998) advocates the creation of new organizations that emphasize seven characteristics:
employment security, selective hiring of new personnel, self-managed teams and
decentralized decision-making as the basic principles of organizational design,
comparatively high compensation contingent on organizational performance, extensive
training, reduced status distinctions and barriers, and extensive sharing of financial and
performance information throughout the organization.
Many of the practices suggested by Pfeffer (1998) are macro-level practices. While these
have been associated with organizational success, these practices may lose their impact if
they are not supported by a complimentary set of micro level practices. Indeed, as Griffin
(1982, p. 153) observed: ‘‘the task that a person performs and the person to whom the
individual is responsible are probably the two most basic points of contact that employees
have in the organization.’’ The manner in which an employee perceives and responds to
these factors may ultimately determine the impact of the organization’s macro-level
practices. The best-intentioned macro-level high-performance practices may be
undermined by the actions of first line managers.
The need to focus on employee engagement was emphasized recently in the popular
business press. BusinessWeek (Holly and Clifton, 2009) cited work done by the Gallup
organization on levels of employee engagement:
Based on extensive, long-term research, Gallup has determined that less than 30% of the
corporate workforce is truly engaged in its work. That’s less than 30% of employees who work with
passion and feel a profound connection to their companies. Yet employee engagement leads to
increased customer engagement, which leads to real revenues and, eventually, more job
opportunities for others.

We address this need in the balance of this paper. First, we define employee engagement.
Then we provide an overview of the HR value chain. Within the overall context provided by

j j
VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY PAGE 15
 ‘‘ It is imperative that organizations focus on their employees
now. Waiting to implement these suggestions when people
begin to leave will be too late. ’’

the HR value chain we then turn to a discussion of the leader behaviors and job
characteristics that have significant positive relationships with critical employee and
organizational outcomes.

Defining employee engagement

The term ‘‘employee engagement’’ has become a common phrase used in both academic
and popular business literature. Employee engagement has a positive relationship with
productivity, profitability, employee retention, safety, and customer satisfaction (Buckingham
and Coffman, 1999). Employee engagement refers to ‘‘the individual’s involvement and
satisfaction with, as well as enthusiasm for, work’’ (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269).

The context for engagement: the HR value chain

As strategic value evolves, so too must management’s approach to human capital. The rapid
transformation to a global economy based on information and knowledge requires a
recognition that the chief source of competitive advantage is a workforce which is
knowledgeable, flexible, and engaged requires a fundamental shift in the concept of value
management within a corporation (Pfeffer, 2005).
In order to build a competitive workforce, successful organizations must establish human
resource management practices which support their desired strategy and core values. If a
company’s overarching strategy and values are focused on customer service they must
employ HR practices that support superior service. Likewise, if a firm’s strategy is based on
innovation they should create HR practices that promote innovation. The organization’s
strategy and values not only provides a base from which to build human resource practices,
strategic intent and core values, but also provides a foundation for management to work
from when making day-to-day people management decisions such as hiring and firing, job
design, training, promotions, communicating, and coaching.
The HR value chain is an integrated set of human resource management practices – from
the sourcing and hiring of talent, through workforce development and engagement, to
employee separation – which engages people in a committed pursuit of a chosen
strategy and set of core values. Once the company’s strategy and values are clearly
articulated, the first stage of the HR value chain involves finding and hiring people who fit
the desired strategy. Dessler (1999) suggests companies use value-based hiring
practices that screen potential new hires for a commitment to a set of chosen values and
reject a large portion of prospective employees. He states, ‘‘In many firms the process of
linking employees to ideology begins before the worker is even hired’’ (Dessler, 1999,
p. 23). Likewise, Pfeffer (2005) advocates selective hiring practices to find employees
who ‘‘fit’’ the organization:
Besides getting the right people through the door, recruiting has an important symbolic aspect. If
someone goes through a rigorous selection process, the person feels that he or she is joining an
elite organization. High expectations for performance are created and the message is sent that
people matter (Pfeffer, 2005, p. 98).

For example, to gain employee commitment early, Proctor and Gamble has an established
college intern program as part of their new-hire process that assigns interns to work on high
profile projects visible by the CEO and other senior management (Ready and Conger, 2007).
While an extensive intern program can drain management resources (e.g. managers’ time

j j
PAGE 16 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010
 spent monitoring, mentoring, and coaching interns), Proctor and Gamble feels this is time
well spent because the company converts a much higher-than-industry-average of interns
into full-time employees who are productive from day one.
Once new hires are brought on board, a process of continuous employee development
begins. Pfeffer (2005) suggests that organizations which are excellent in this realm employ
a range of activities, including incentive pay, employee ownership, information sharing,
participation and empowerment, self-managed teams, training and skill development,
cross-utilization and cross-training, and promotion from within. The global financial services
firm HSBC reinforces its strategy of being the ‘‘world’s local bank’’ by developing local
talent while maintaining global standards including potential new-hire assessment,
recruiting, performance and career management, 360-degree feedback, and leadership
development. The firm also maintains a global talent pool of high-potentials who are given
assignments that cross geographic and organizational boundaries (Ready and Conger,
2007).
The last stage of the HR value chain addresses the exiting of talent from the organization.
How employees are let go from an organization can have as much, if not more, impact on
workforce engagement than either of the first two stages. Whether the choice for separation
is the company’s (employees being let go for integrity violations, non-performance, or
layoffs due to economic conditions) or is the employee’s choice (to pursue a new job,
retirement, or other aspirations), more than just the exiting employee is attentive to how the
process of separation is being handled. The people remaining in the organization also view
the way separations are addressed as a clear indicator of the value a firm places on its
workforce. It is important for employees who leave and those who stay to perceive that
termination process are conducted fairly. Welch (2005, p. 121) emphasizes the need for
companies to be fair and honest during all instances of employee separation. He stresses
that layoffs due to economic conditions should not be a surprise, ‘‘every employee, not just
the senior people, should know how a company is doing’’. Moreover, he contends that
separations for non-performance should be done with candor and with minimal humiliation.
When employee separations are conducted in a manner that demonstrates both respect
for the individual and the integrity of the organization, people leave with a sense of fairness.
This also helps foster a sense of engagement and commitment among those employees
who remain in the organization because they view the separation process as being fair
(a summary of the key engagement principles is displayed in Table I):
Key engagement principle 1. Employee engagement will be positively impacted when the
organization has an integrated HR value chain.

Building engagement at the micro level

The macro-level organizational practices that make up the HR value chain provide the
context in which an engaged workforce can develop. However, if these organizational
practices are not reinforced at the micro-level, employee engagement may still be lacking.
Bedeian and Armenakis (1998, p. 59) state that ‘‘As assuredly as Gresham’s Law states that
bad money drives out good money, incompetent managers, wherever situated, inevitably
drive away good employees.’’ This is reinforced by Buckingham and Coffman (1999) who
observed that ‘‘employees don’t quit companies, they quit managers.’’ Thus, the micro-level

‘‘ In order to build a competitive workforce, successful

organizations must establish human resource management
practices which support their desired strategy and core
values. ’’

j j
VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY PAGE 17
 Table I Summary of key engagement principles
Key engagement principle 1
Key engagement principle 2
Key engagement principle 3
Key engagement principle 4
Key engagement principle 5
Key engagement principle 6
Key engagement principle 7
Employee engagement will be positively impacted when the
organization has an integrated HR value chain
When managers engage in a full-range of leader behaviors that
incorporate contingent reward and transformational behaviors,
employee engagement will be positively impacted
The level of employee engagement will increase when
employees work in jobs that are enriched by providing variety,
significance, and task identity
When employees are working to achieve challenging and
specific performance goals, their level of engagement will
increase
Engaged employees are high performers
Engaged employees go beyond the minimum requirements
specified in job descriptions and performance evaluations. They
are outstanding organizational citizens who engage in a wide
variety of extra-role performance behaviors
When employees have a high level of trust in their leader the
amount of engagement increases

practices may be even more important than the macro practices. In the next section we
discuss several proven strategies operating at the micro-level that have implications for
creating a high commitment organization.

Full-range leadership
During the past three decades, academic research and the popular press have been
dominated by the transformational paradigm. And for good reason – the outcomes
associated with transformational leadership are impressive. Transformational leadership has
consistently been linked to high levels of in-role performance (Whittington et al., 2004),
satisfaction with the leader (Podsakoff et al., 1990), employees’ affective commitment to the
organization (Whittington et al., 2004), and trust in the leader (Podsakoff et al., 1990).
Further, Whittington et al. (2004) find that transformational leadership is positively related to a
variety of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Lowe et al. (1996) provide additional
support for the strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and work
unit effectiveness.

The development of the transformational leadership paradigm is based on the work of

political scientist James MacGregor Burns (1978). In his seminal work, Leadership, he
identifies two forms of leadership: transactional and transforming. Transactional leadership
occurs when a person initiates contact with another person for the purpose of creating a
mutually beneficial exchange of economic, political or psychological objects of value. While
this exchange may provide immediate benefits, it does not necessarily lead to the
development of an enduring relationship. In contrast with this exchange-based relationship,
transforming leadership occurs when individuals engage with each other in such a way that
the leader and follower raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. A
relationship is formed that provides an ongoing level of mutual support.
Burns’ concept of transactional and transforming leadership has evolved into the full-range
model of leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass and Riggio, 2005). According to the full-range view,
transformational leadership may be used either independently from or in conjunction with
transactional leadership (Wofford et al., 1998). The highest level of effectiveness is achieved
when leaders engage in a two-stage process in which transactional leadership provides the
basis for the subsequent development of transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999).Thus, it
is important to understand each set of leader behaviors in order to grasp the benefits of the
full-range model.

j j
PAGE 18 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010
 Transactional leadership
The essence of transactional leadership is the exchange of promises of reward for
performance. These exchanges are based on the leader identifying performance
requirements and clarifying the conditions under which rewards are available for meeting
these requirements. Transactional leadership is generally easily identifiable because the
behaviors involve concrete acts that are centered on key issues of employment such as
compensation, performance feedback, and rewards for performance such as promotions.
Transactional leaders address the self-interests of their followers by offering incentives for
the followers to achieve the goals identified by the leader (Avolio, 1999). These incentives
are structured in such a way that the leader can accomplish his or her goals and also satisfy
the interests of the followers. These transactions can take either of two forms: constructive
and corrective. Constructive transactions are those that are used to clarify expectations and
identify the linkages between performance and rewards. These transactions clarify the ‘‘line
of sight’’ between an employee’s performance and the rewards they can expect for meeting
those expectations. In contrast, corrective transactions focus on creating a desired change
in behavior, cooperation, or attitude. These transactions are somewhat negative in that they
clarify what must be done to avoid censorship, reproof, punishment, or other disciplinary
actions (Avolio, 1999).
Constructive and corrective transactions are both important to the effectiveness of
transactional leaders. When leaders honor the commitments associated with constructive
agreements and consistently apply corrective measures, these exchanges form a ‘‘compact
of expectations’’ (Avolio, 1999, p. 36). When these psychological contracts are kept,
followers develop positive judgments concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of the
leader.
Although transactional leadership is not enough to develop the full potential of followers, it is
a necessary transitional step in developing the trust between a leader and follower that is
required for transformational leadership to be implemented and become effective (Avolio,
1999). Transactional leadership behaviors provide a clear sense of the leader’s expectations
in terms of performance. When the leader consistently follows through with the rewards that
are promised in exchange for that performance, then trust and commitment are likely to
emerge. Mutual agreement on clear performance expectations also provides the basis for
the development of a high quality relationship between the leader and his or her followers.

Transformational leadership
Transformational leaders do more with their followers than simply develop conditional
exchanges and agreements. Their leadership style also includes one or more of the
following behaviors: idealized vision, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (Avolio, 1999; Bass and Riggio, 2005). These behaviors
transform followers and motivate them to transcend their self-interests for the good of the
organization.
Idealized vision refers to the role-modeling behavior of transformational leaders. These
leaders are admired, respected, and trusted. Consequently, their followers identify with and
attempt to emulate them (Bass and Avolio, 1994). To earn this credibility, transformational
leaders consider the needs of others over their own, share risk with their followers and
demonstrate high standards of moral conduct. These leaders engender faith in others by

‘‘ Transactional leaders address the self-interests of their

followers by offering incentives for the followers to achieve
the goals identified by the leader. ’’

j j
VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY PAGE 19
 ‘‘ [. . .] transformational leaders consider the needs of others
over their own, share risk with their followers and
demonstrate high standards of moral conduct. These leaders
engender faith in others by empowering followers and
creating a joint sense of mission. ’’

empowering followers and creating a joint sense of mission (Avolio, 1999). Inspirational
motivation occurs through envisioning and articulating an attractive future that provides
meaning and challenge for followers (Bass, 1985). Clear expectations are communicated
with a demonstrated commitment to goals and the shared vision. Intellectual stimulation is
created by the transformational leader’s questioning of assumptions, reframing of problems,
and approaching existing situations from a fresh perspective (Bass, 1985). This behavior
encourages innovation and creativity. Participation and creative risk-taking are encouraged
without the fear of public criticism or penalty for departure from the leader’s ideas (Heifetz,
1994). Individualized consideration refers to the transformational leader’s mentoring role.
Through this role, the leader pays special attention to each individual’s need for achievement
and personal growth (Bass, 1985). Delegation is used as a developmental tool to advance
followers to successively higher levels of potential. Learning opportunities are created within
the context of a supportive environment to further facilitate the development of followers.
Leaders who exhibit this full-range of behaviors can expect ‘‘performance beyond
expectations’’ (Bass, 1985), as well as a wide variety of other positive outcomes in
organizational settings. Direct supervisors and managers are one of the primary points of
contact between an employee and the organization, thus it is important for them to engage in
a full-range of leadership behaviors:
Key engagement principle 2. When managers engage in a full-range of leader behaviors,
employee engagement will be positively impacted.

Job enrichment
Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed a model of task design that identified five core job
dimensions:
1. task variety;
2. task identity;
3. task significance;
4. autonomy; and
5. feedback.
Jobs that have these dimensions are said to be enriched and have a high motivating
potential. According to their model, the presence of these core dimensions produces three
critical psychological states: a sense of meaningfulness in the work, a sense of responsibility
for the work, and knowledge of the results of one’s work (KOR). These critical psychological
states in turn produce a variety of positive individual and organizational outcomes. Among
these are high internal motivation, high quality of work performance, high satisfaction with
the work, and low levels of absenteeism and turnover.
Griffin (1991) examines the relationships between task design and job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and performance in a longitudinal field experiment. In his study,
Griffin combines five task characteristics (task variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and
feedback) into an overall motivating potential score (MPS). The MPS is significantly

j j
PAGE 20 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010
positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Thus, enriched jobs
appear to lead to a wide variety of positive outcomes, including employee job satisfaction,
commitment to the organization, and performance:
Key engagement principle 3. The level of employee engagement will increase when employees
work in jobs that are enriched by providing variety, significance, and task identity.

Goal setting
The impact of goal setting on employee performance has been documented on a wide
variety of tasks (Locke and Latham, 1990) The robustness of the relationship leads Mento
et al. (1987, p. 74) to conclude that:
[. . .] if there is ever to be a viable candidate from the organizational sciences for elevation to the
lofty status of a scientific law of nature, then the relationships between goal difficulty,
specificity/difficulty, and task performance are most worthy of serious consideration. Certainly, if
nothing else, the evidence from numerous studies indicates that these variables behave lawfully.

The ‘‘lawful’’ nature of the impact of goal setting has been described as the high
performance cycle (Locke and Latham, 1990). The process begins with a high level of
challenge in the form of specific, difficult goals. When employees are committed to these
goals, receive adequate feedback, possess high self-efficacy and suitable task strategies,
high performance will result. If high performance leads to desired intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards, employees will experience high levels of satisfaction. High job satisfaction is, in
turn, strongly related to commitment, and consequently high intentions to remain in an
organization. Employees who are satisfied and committed – in a word, engaged – are then
ready to accept additional challenges. Thus, the cycle repeats itself. The high performance
cycle may lead to performance beyond expectations, extra-role behaviors, and commitment
to the organization:
Key engagement principle 4. When employees are working to achieve challenging and specific
performance goals, their level of engagement will increase.

The outcomes of engagement: in-role and extra-role performance

Employee engagement, although important, is not an end in itself. As shown in Figure 1,
employee engagement leads to high levels of two dimensions of performance: in-role and
extra-role. Perhaps the most widely discussed dimension of an employee’s performance is
performance. While there are many dimensions to performance, it most commonly refers to
the accomplishment of assigned tasks in accordance with the organization’s expectations.
In-role performance refers to the achievement of those tasks explicitly identified in position
descriptions and evaluated in the performance appraisal process. As such, the assessment
of performance often includes both qualitative and quantitative dimensions:
Key engagement principle 5. Engaged employees are high performers.

While the formal aspects of performance in organizations are usually emphasized, an

important dimension of an employee’s contribution is the extra-role behaviors that exceed
the requirements of in-role expectations. These extra-role behaviors are best articulated by
the concept of OCB (Organ, 1988) Organizational citizenship behaviors are engaged in
spontaneously by employees who elect to go beyond in-role expectations. They are
voluntary activities engaged in by employees without regard to possible sanctions or
incentives. OCB also includes a quality of forbearance, the willingness to endure occasional
costs, inconveniences and the various frustrations associated with life in organizations:
Key engagement principle 6. Engaged employees go beyond the minimum requirements
specified in job descriptions and performance evaluations. They are outstanding organizational
citizens who engage in a wide variety of extra-role performance behaviors.

j j
VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY PAGE 21
 ‘‘ We agree with the observation that employees don’t quit
organizations, they quit bosses. Thus, it is important to
extend engagement efforts to the individual level of the
organization. ’’

Enhancing engagement: the role of trust

Trust is ‘‘a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon
positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another’’ (Rousseau et al., 1998,
p. 395). It is a key element of the relationship between an employee and his or her leader is
the level of trust that exists between them; and when this trust is broken, it can have severe
undesirable effects. When subordinates trust a leader, they are willing to be exposed to the
leader’s actions and followers who place trust in a leader are certain that their interests will
not be abused (Mayer et al., 1995). Clearly, trust in the leader has important implications for
the level of employee engagement (Kouzes and Posner, 2008):
Key engagement principle 7. When employees have a high level of trust in their leader the amount
of engagement increases.

Engage them or lose them

Critics of management education often cite a yawning gap between the work of academic
researchers and those who practice management as a profession. These critics see little
relevance in the empirical research published in academic journals and the challenges
faced in contemporary organizations. In this paper we have attempted to bridge that gap on
a critical issue facing managers: employee engagement. A comprehensive model of
employee engagement that incorporates both macro and micro antecedents to engagement
has been developed using evidence from a wide range of organizational research. The
purpose of this model is to translate these research findings into a prescriptive framework for
practicing managers seeking to address the level of employee engagement.
The model developed here extends previous work on engagement. First, it is not enough to
simply address the HR practices of the organization. These are certainly important because
they contribute significantly to the attraction and retention of high performers. However,
building employee engagement requires more than the practices identified in the HR value
chain. We agree with the observation that employees do not quit organizations, they quit
bosses. Thus, it is important to extend engagement efforts to the individual level of the
organization. Specifically, managers should be trained and developed on the full-range
model of leadership, with particular emphasis on transformational leadership behaviors.
Managers should also be trained to set challenging and specific performance goals that are
reinforced throughout the performance planning and appraisal processes. Finally, jobs need
to be examined and enhanced to provide the core job dimensions that lead to a sense of
meaningful contribution to the organization.
Perhaps the most important, and yet the most fleeting, dimension of our model is the role of
trust. Trust is difficult to establish, yet easy to lose. The difficulty of building trust is
exacerbated because it is not only explicit commitments that determine the level of trust that
a person extends to another, but also the implicit commitments that make up the
psychological contracts that permeate relationships in organizations (Robinson, 1996). The
effort required to build trust between a leader and his or her followers requires a leader to be
‘‘authentic.’’ Authentic leaders are characterized as hopeful, optimistic, resilient and
transparent. Authentic leaders build trust through a willingness to constantly confront the

j j
PAGE 22 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010
 gap between intended and perceived communication. They are willing to confront their own
hypocrisy (Quinn, 2004).
In contrast to these qualities, many leaders attempt to mask their inadequacies. These
pseudo-transformational leaders concentrate on cultivating an image or persona and close
themselves off from, rather than opening up to, others (Price, 2003). In the long run this
serves to foster mistrust and a sense of disconnection with followers and, ultimately, has a
negative impact on personal, team, and organizational outcomes.

The model presented here provides evidence-based prescriptions for increasing employee
engagement. As we have shown, engaged employees provide higher levels of
performance. There is a corollary implied by the model as well: failure to address these
factors will lead to low levels of engagement, low levels of performance, and could lead
potentially high performers to seek opportunities to flourish elsewhere. When the
engagement factor is ignored, the downward spiral of the cesspool syndrome (Bedeian
Keywords: and Armenakis, 1998) may be accelerated. Explicitly, disengaged employees may stay
Employee participation, during an economic slowdown; however, when opportunities begin to emerge as the
Leadership, economy bounces back those talented, but disengaged employees will be the first to leave.
Performance management, Investing the time, effort, and resources now to create an engaged workforce will ultimately
Trust reduce the cost of replacing those employees later.

References
Avolio, B. (1999), Full Leadership Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bass, B. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational

Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bass, B. and Riggio, R. (2005), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawerence Erlbaum and
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Bedeian, A. and Armenakis, A. (1998), ‘‘The cesspool syndrome: how dreck floats to the top of declining
organizations’’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 58-67.

Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. (1999), First, Break all the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers
do Differently, Simon & Shuster, New York, NY.

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Dessler, G. (1999), ‘‘How to earn your employees’ commitment’’, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 58-67.

Griffin, R. (1982), Task Design: An Integrative Approach, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

Griffin, R. (1991), ‘‘Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors:
a long-term investigation’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 425-35.

Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1976), ‘‘Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory’’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), ‘‘Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis’’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-79.

Heifetz, R. (1994), Leadership without Easy Answers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Holly, K. and Clifton, J. (2009), ‘‘It’s not the economy, stupid’’, BusinessWeek, August 20.

Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2008), The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in
Organizations, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Locke, E. and Latham, G. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

j j
VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY PAGE 23
 Lowe, K., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramamianiam, N. (1996), ‘‘Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review’’, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 7, pp. 385-425.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), ‘‘An integrative model of organizational trust’’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34.

Mento, A., Steel, R. and Karren, R. (1987), ‘‘A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task
performance: 1966-1984’’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39, pp. 52-83.

Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.

Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.

Pfeffer, J. (2005), ‘‘Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of
people’’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 95-106.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R. and Fetter, R. (1990), ‘‘Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors’’,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42.

Price, T. (2003), ‘‘The ethics of authentic transformational leadership’’, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14,
pp. 67-81.

Quinn, R. (2004), Building the Bridge as You Walk on It: A Guide for Leading Change, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.

Ready, D. and Conger, J. (2007), ‘‘Make your company a talent factory’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 68-77.

Robinson, S. (1996), ‘‘Trust and the breach of the psychological contract’’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 574-99.

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. and Camerer, C. (1998), ‘‘Not so different after all: a cross disciplinary
view of trust’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.

Welch, J. (2005), Winning, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Whittington, J.L., Goodwin, V.L. and Murray, B. (2004), ‘‘Transformational leadership, goal difficulty,
and task design: independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes’’, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 593-606.

Wofford, J.C., Goodwin, V. and Whittington, J. (1998), ‘‘A field study of a cognitive approach to
transformational and transactional leadership’’, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 55-84.

About the authors

J. Lee Whittington, a Professor at the University of Dallas’ Graduate School of Management,
has over 25 years of experience in manufacturing and distribution, including positions in
marketing and logistics. J. Lee Whittington is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: jlee@gsm.udallas.edu
Timothy J. Galpin, an Associate Professor at the University of Dallas’ Graduate School of
Management, has over 20 years of experience working with boards and senior management
on strategic planning and execution, merger and acquisition integration and other areas.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 24 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY VOL. 31 NO. 5 2010

View publication stats