team leadership research paper

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning, KU Leuven, Belgium, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

• Greta Mazzetti, 
• Wilmar B. Schaufeli

• Published: June 29, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
• Reader Comments

Most research on the effect of leadership behavior on employees’ well-being and organizational outcomes is based on leadership frameworks that are not rooted in sound psychological theories of motivation and are limited to either an individual or organizational levels of analysis. The current paper investigates whether individual and team resources explain the impact of engaging leadership on work engagement and team effectiveness, respectively. Data were collected at two time points on N = 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. The Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling results revealed that personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) partially mediated the impact of T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership on T2 work engagement. Furthermore, joint perceptions of engaging leadership among team members at T1 resulted in greater team effectiveness at T2. This association was fully mediated by team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making). Moreover, team resources had a significant cross-level effect on individual levels of engagement. In practical terms, training and supporting leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their subordinates could significantly improve employees’ motivation and involvement and enable teams to pursue their common goals successfully.

Citation: Mazzetti G, Schaufeli WB (2022) The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433

Editor: Ender Senel, Mugla Sitki Kocman University: Mugla Sitki Kocman Universitesi, TURKEY

Received: December 29, 2021; Accepted: May 23, 2022; Published: June 29, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Mazzetti, Schaufeli. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on Open Science Framework (OSF) website at the following link: https://osf.io/yfwgt/?view_only=c838730fd7694a0ba32882c666e9f973 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YFWGT .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Multiple studies suggest that work engagement, which is defined as a positive, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 1 ], is related to extremely positive outcomes, particularly in terms of employees’ well-being and job performance (for a narrative overview see [ 2 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 3 ]).

Therefore, when work engagement is arguably beneficial for employees and organizations alike, the million-dollar question (quite literally, by the way) is: how can work engagement be increased? Schaufeli [ 4 ] has argued that operational leadership is critical for enhancing follower’s work engagement. Based on the logic of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model [ 5 ], he reasoned that team leaders may (or may not) monitor, manage, and allocate job demands and resources to increase their follower’s levels of work engagement. In doing so, team leaders boost the motivational process that is postulated in the JD-R model. This process assumes that job resources and challenging job demands are inherently motivating and will lead to a positive, affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees known as work engagement.

The current study focuses on a specific leadership style, dubbed engaging leadership and rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [ 6 ]. Engaging leaders inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. In line with the motivational process of the JD-R model, cross-sectional evidence suggests that engaging leaders increase job resources [ 7 ] and personal resources [ 8 ], which, in their turn, are positively associated with work engagement. So far, the evidence for this mediation is exclusively based on cross-sectional studies. Hence, the first objective of our paper is to confirm the mediation effect of resources using a longitudinal design.

Scholars have emphasized that “the study of leadership is inherently multilevel in nature” (p. 4) [ 9 ]. This statement implies that, in addition to the individual level, the team level of analysis should also be included when investigating the impact of engaging leadership.

The current study makes two notable contributions to the literature. First, it investigates the impact, over time, of a novel, specific leadership style (i.e., engaging leadership) on team- and individual outcomes (i.e., team effectiveness and work engagement). Second, it investigates the mediating role of team resources and personal resources in an attempt to explain the impact of leadership on these outcomes. The research model, which is described in greater detail below, is displayed in Fig 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g001

Leadership and work engagement

Leadership is defined as the way in which particular individuals–leaders–purposefully influence other individuals–their followers–to obtain defined outcomes [ 10 ].

A systematic narrative review identified twenty articles on leadership and work engagement [ 11 ] and showed that work engagement is positively associated with various person-centered leadership styles. The most pervasively used framework was transformational leadership, whereas authentic, ethical, and charismatic leadership was used much less. The authors conclude that "most of the reviewed studies were consistent in arguing that leadership is significantly correlated with and is affecting employee’s work engagement directly or via mediation” (p. 18) [ 11 ]. Moreover, they also conclude that research findings and inferences on leadership and engagement remain narrowly focused and inconclusive due to the lack of longitudinal designs addressing this issue. A recent meta-analysis [ 12 ] identified 69 studies and found substantial positive relationships of work engagement with ethical (k = 9; ρ = .58), transformational (k = 36; ρ = .46) and servant leadership (k = 3; ρ = .43), and somewhat less strong associations with authentic (k = 17; ρ = .38) and empowering leadership (k = 4; ρ = .35). Besides, job resources (e.g., job autonomy, social support), organizational resources (e.g., organizational identification, trust), and personal resources (self-efficacy, creativity) mediated the effect of leadership on work engagement. Although transformational leadership is arguably the most popular leadership concept of the last decades [ 13 ], the validity of its conceptual definition has been heavily criticized, even to the extent that some authors suggest getting “back to the drawing board” [ 14 ]. It should be noted that three main criticisms are voiced: (1) the theoretical definition of the transformational leadership dimensions is meager (i.e., how are the four dimensions selected and how do they combine?); (2) no causal model is specified (i.e., how is each dimension related to mediating processes and outcomes?); (3) the most frequently used measurement tools are invalid (i.e., they fail to reproduce the dimensional structure and do not show empirical distinctiveness from other leadership concepts). Hence, it could be argued that the transformational leadership framework is not very well suited for exploring the impact of leadership on work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] introduced the concept of engaging leadership , which is firmly rooted in Self-Determination Theory. According to Deci and Ryan [ 6 ], three innate psychological needs are essential ‘nutrients’ for individuals to function optimally, also at the workplace: the needs for autonomy (i.e., feeling in control), competence (i.e., feeling effective), and relatedness (i.e., feeling loved and cared for). Moreover, SDT posits that employees are likely to be engaged (i.e., internalize their tasks and show high degrees of energy, concentration, and persistence) to the degree that their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied [ 15 ]. This is in line with Bormann and Rowold [ 16 ]. Based on a systematic review on construct proliferation in leadership research, these authors recommended that leadership concepts should use SDT because this motivational theory allows a more parsimonious description of the mechanisms underlying leadership behaviors. These authors posited that the core of "narrow" leadership constructs "bases on a single pillar" (p. 163), and therefore predict narrow outcomes. In contrast to broad leadership constructs, the concept of engaging leadership is narrow because it focuses on leadership behaviors to explicitly promote work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] reasoned that leaders, who are instrumental in satisfying their followers’ basic needs, are likely to increase their engagement levels. More specifically, engaging leaders are supposed to: (1) inspire (e.g., by enthusing their followers for their vision and plans, and by making them feel that they contribute to something important); (2) strengthen (e.g., by granting their followers freedom and responsibility, and by delegating tasks); and (3) connect (e.g., by encouraging collaboration and by promoting a high team spirit among their followers). Hence, by inspiring, strengthening, and connecting their followers, leaders stimulate the fulfillment of their follower’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively, which, in turn, will foster work engagement.

The underlying mechanisms of the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement are a major focus of research, as the construct of engaging leadership was built upon the identification of the leadership behaviors that are capable of stimulating positive outcomes by satisfying needs. The literature on engaging leadership provides empirical evidence for its indirect impact on followers’ engagement by fulfilling followers’ basic needs. This finding is consistent across occupational sectors and cultural contexts [ 17 – 19 ]. Further, the observation of a partial mediation effect for need satisfaction suggests the presence of a direct relationship between engaging leadership and engagement [ 20 , 21 ]. In their behaviors, engaging leaders are likely to improve their job characteristics to the point of stimulating greater engagement among their employees. This assumption has been corroborated by a recent longitudinal study that delved deeper into the association between engaging leadership and needs satisfaction [ 22 ]. That study found that the relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction is mediated by enhanced levels of job resources (among them were improved feedback and skill use and better person-job fit). The fulfilment of those needs, in turn, resulted in higher levels of work engagement. Therefore, perceived job resources seem to play a crucial role in the causal relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction. This evidence found support in a later two-wave full panel design with a 1-year time lag, where engaging leadership promoted employees’ perception of autonomy and social support from colleagues [ 23 ]. In addition, a recent study by Van Tuin and colleagues [ 24 ] revealed that engaging leadership is associated with increased perceptions of intrinsic organizational values (e.g., providing a contribution to organizational and personal development) and satisfaction of the need for autonomy which, in turn, may boost employees’ level of engagement.

A recent study investigated the ways in which engaging leadership could boost the effects of human resource (HR) practices for promoting employees’ psychological, physical, and social well-being over time [ 25 ]. Teams led by an engaging leader reported higher levels of happiness at work and trust in leadership, combined with lower levels of burnout than their colleagues who were led by poorly engaging leaders. Happiness and trust played a key role in improving team member performance. These findings indicate that engaged leaders provide a thoughtful implementation of HR practices focused on promoting employee well-being, being constantly driven by their employees’ flourishing.

Another line of studies may reveal the causality between engaging leadership and work-related outcomes. A multilevel longitudinal study provided cross-level and team-level effects of engaging leadership [ 26 ]. Engaging leadership at T1 explained team learning, innovation, and individual performance through increased teamwork engagement at T2. Interventions targeting engaging leadership created positive work outcomes for leaders (e.g., autonomy satisfaction and intrinsic motivation) and decreased employee absenteeism [ 27 ]. However, cross-lagged longitudinal analyses indicate that employees’ current level of work engagement predicts their leaders’ level of engaging leadership rather than the other way around [ 23 ]. These findings imply that the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement cannot be narrowed to a simple unidirectional causal relationship but rather exhibits a dynamic nature, where engaging leadership and work engagement mutually influence each other. The dynamic nature of engaging leadership has also been investigated through a diary study. The results suggest that employees enacted job crafting strategies more frequently on days when leaders were more successful in satisfying their need for connectivity [ 28 ]. Hence, leaders who satisfy the need for connectedness among their followers will not only encourage higher levels of engagement among their followers but also an increased ability to proactively adapt tasks to their interests and preferences.

Since transformational leadership is currently the most frequently studied leadership style, a summary of the similarities and differences in the proposed new conceptualization of leadership proposed (i.e., engaging leadership) must be provided.

A key difference between transformational and engaging leadership originates from their foundation. Whereas transformational leadership is primarily a change-oriented style, engaging leadership encourages employees’ well-being through the promotion of supportive relationships and is defined as a relationship-oriented leadership style [ 29 ].

Further similarities entail the combination of behaviors meant to foster employees’ well-being and growth. Transformational leaders act as role models admired and emulated by followers (idealized influence), encourage a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions and work practices to promote stronger innovation (intellectual stimulation), identify and build on the unique characteristics and strengths of each follower (individualized consideration), and provides a stimulating view of the future and meaning of their work (inspirational motivation) [ 30 ]. A considerable resemblance involves the dimensions of inspirational motivation and inspiring, which are, respectively, included in transformational and engaging leadership. They both entail recognizing the leader as a guiding light to a specific mission and vision, where individual inputs are credited as essential ingredients in achieving the shared goal. Thus, they both fulfill the individual need for meaningfulness. In a similar vein, transformational and engaged leaders are both committed to promote followers’ growth in terms of innovation and creativity. In other words, the intellectual stimulation offered by transformational leadership and the strengthening component of engaging leadership are both aimed at meeting the need for competence among followers.

Alternatively, it is also possible to detect decisive differences between the dimensions underlying these leadership styles. Transformational leadership entails the provision of personal mentorship (i.e., individualized consideration), while engaging leadership is primarily focused on enhancing the interdependence and cohesion among team members (i.e., team consideration). Furthermore, engaging leadership disregards the notion of idealized influence covered by transformational leadership: an engaging leader is not merely identified as a model whose behavior is admired and mirrored, but rather proactively meets followers’ need for autonomy through the allocation of tasks and responsibilities.

Empirical results lent further support to the distinctiveness between transformational and engaging leadership. The analysis of the factor structure of both constructs revealed that measures of engaging and transformational leadership load on separate dimensions instead of being explained by a single latent factor [ 31 ]. More recently, additional research findings pointed out that engaging and transformational leadership independently account for comparable portions of variance in work engagement [ 32 ]. However, this does not alter the fact that a certain overlap exists between both leadership concepts; thus, it is not surprising that a consistent, positive relationship is found between transformational leadership and work engagement [ 11 ].

In sum: a positive link appears to exist between person-centered leadership styles and work engagement. Moreover, this relationship seems to be mediated by (job and personal) resources. However, virtually all studies used cross-sectional designs, and the causal direction remains unclear. We followed the call to go back to the drawing board by choosing an alternative, deductive approach by introducing the theory-grounded concept of engaging leadership and investigate its impact on individual and team outcomes (see Fig 1 ).

Engaging leadership, personal resources, and employee engagement (individual level)

Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who posit that leaders may pursue four pathways to increase their follower’s work engagement: (1) design meaningful and motivating work; (2) support and coach their employees; (3 ) facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations, and (4) enhancing personal resources. In the present study, we focus on the fourth pathway. Accordingly, a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling [ 8 ] showed that psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) fully mediated the relationship between perceived engaging leadership and follower’s work engagement. Consistent with findings on job resources, this study indicated that personal resources also mediate the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement. In a nutshel, when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to their colleagues, their own personal resources benefit, and this fuels their level of engagement.

In the current study, we use the same conceptualization of psychological capital (PsyCap) as Schaufeli [ 7 , 8 ], which slightly differs from the original concept. Originally, PsyCap was defined as a higher-order construct that is based on the shared commonalities of four first-order personal resources: “(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (p. 10) [ 34 ]. Instead of hope, flexibility is included; that is, the capability of employees to adapt to new, different, and changing requirements at work. Previous research showed a high correlation ( r > .70) between hope and optimism, thus increasing the risk of multicollinearity [ 35 ]. This strong relationship points at conceptual overlap: hope is defined as the perception that goals can be set and achieved, whereas optimism is the belief that one will experience good outcomes. Hence, trust in achieving goals (hope) implies optimism. Additionally, hope includes "when necessary, redirecting paths to goals", which refers to flexibility. Finally, in organizational practice, the flexibility of employees is considered an essential resource because organizations are continuously changing, which requires permanent adaption and hence employee flexibility. In short, there are psychometric, conceptual, and pragmatic arguments for replacing hope by flexibility.

According to Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], PsyCap is a state-like resource representing an employee’s motivational propensity and perseverance towards goals. PsyCap is malleable and open to development, thus it can be enhanced through positive leadership [ 37 ]. Indeed, it was found that transformational leadership enhances PsyCap, which, in turn, increases in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior [ 38 ]. In a similar vein, PsyCap mediates the relationships between authentic leadership and employee’s creative behavior [ 39 ].

We argue that engaging leadership may promote PsyCap as well. After all, by inspiring followers with a clear, powerful and compelling vision, engaging leaders: (1) create the belief in their ability to perform tasks that tie in with that vision successfully, thereby fostering follower’s self-efficacy ; (2) generate a positive appraisal of the future, thereby fostering follower’s optimism ; (3) trigger the ability to bounce back from adversity because a favorable future is within reach, thereby fostering follower’s resiliency ; (4) set goals and induce the belief that these can be achieved, if necessary by redirecting paths to those goals, thereby fostering follower’s flexibility [ 38 ].

Furthermore, engaging leaders strengthen their followers and unleash their potential by setting challenging goals. This helps to build followers’ confidence in task-specific skills, thereby increasing their self-efficacy levels, mainly via mastery experiences that occur after challenging goals have been achieved [ 40 ]. Setting high-performance expectations also elevates follower’s sense of self-worth, thereby leading to a positive appraisal of their current and future circumstances (i.e., optimism ). Moreover, a strengthening leader acts as a powerful contextual resource that augments followers’ self-confidence and, hence, increases their ability to bounce back from adversity (i.e., resiliency ) and adapt to changing requirements at work (i.e., flexibility ).

Finally, by connecting their followers, engaging leaders promote good interpersonal relationships and build a supportive team climate characterized by collaboration and psychological safety. Connecting leaders also foster commitment to team goals by inducing a sense of purpose, which energizes team members to contribute toward the same, shared goal. This means that in tightly knit, supportive and collaborative teams, followers: (1) experience positive emotions when team goals are met, which, in turn, fosters their level of self-efficacy [ 40 ]; (2) feel valued and acknowledged by others, which increases their self-worth and promotes a positive and optimistic outlook; (3) can draw upon their colleagues for help and support, which enables to face problems and adversities with resiliency ; (4) can use the abilities, skills, and knowledge of their teammates to adapt to changing job and team requirements (i.e., flexibility ).

In sum, when perceived as such by followers, engaging leadership acts as a sturdy contextual condition that enhances their PsyCap. We continue to argue that, in its turn, high levels of PsyCap are predictive for work engagement; or in other words, PsyCap mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement.

How to explain the relationship between PsyCap and work engagement? Sweetman and Luthans [ 41 ] presented a conceptual model, which relates PsyCap to work engagement through positive emotions. They argue that all four elements of PsyCap may have a direct and state-like relationship with each of the three dimensions of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Furthermore, an upward spiral of PsyCap and work engagement may be a source of positive emotion and subsequently broaden an employee’s growth mindset, leading to higher energy and engagement [ 42 , 43 ]. In short, PsyCap prompts and maintains a motivational process that leads to higher work engagement and may ultimately result in positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment [ 44 ].

Psychological capital is a valuable resource to individuals [ 45 ] that fosters work engagement, as demonstrated in past research [ 46 ]. Hence, following the reasoning above, we formulate the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1: Psychological capital (self-efficacy , optimism , resiliency , and flexibility) mediates the relationship between T1 employee’s perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 work engagement .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work team effectiveness (team level)

So far, we focused on individual-level mediation, but an equivalent mediation process is expected at the aggregated team level as well. We assume that leaders display a comparable leadership style toward the entire team, resulting in a similar relationship with each of the team members. This model of leader-follower interactions is known as the average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]. This means that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers may differ between teams. The relationships between leadership and team effectiveness might be based on an analogous, team-based ALS-approach as well [ 48 ]. Following this lead, we posit that team members share their perceptions of engaging leadership, while this shared perception differs across teams. Moreover, we assume that these shared perceptions are positively related to team effectiveness.

An essential role for leaders is to build team resources, which motivate team members and enable them to perform. Indeed, the influence of leader behaviors on team mediators and outcomes has been extensively documented [ 49 , 50 ].

Most studies use the heuristic input-process-output (IPO) framework [ 51 ] to explain the relationship between leadership (input) and team effectiveness (output), whereby the intermediate processes describe how team inputs are transformed into outputs. It is widely acknowledged that two types of team processes play a significant role: “taskwork” (i.e., functions that team members must perform to achieve the team’s task) and “teamwork” (i.e., the interaction between team members, necessary to achieve the team’s task). Taskwork is encouraged by task-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on task accomplishment. In contrast, teamwork is encouraged by person-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on developing team members and promoting interactions between them [ 49 ]. The current paper focuses on teamwork and person-oriented (i.e., engaging) leadership.

Collectively, team resources such as performance feedback, trust in management, communication between team members, and participation in decision-making constitute a supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development, and hence fosters team effectiveness, as well as individual work engagement. This also meshes with Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who argue that for employees to flourish, leaders should design meaningful and motivating work (e.g., through feedback and participation in decision making) and facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations (e.g., through communication and trust in management).

To date, engaging leadership has not been studied at the team level and concerning team resources and team effectiveness. How should the association between engaging leadership and team resources be conceived? By strengthening, engaging leaders provide their team members with performance feedback; by inspiring, they grant their team members participate in decision making; and by connecting, they foster communication between team members and install trust. Please note that team resources refer to shared, individual perceptions of team members, which are indicated by within-team consensus. Therefore, taken as a whole, the team-level resources that are included in the present study constitute a supportive team climate that is characterized by receiving feedback, trust in management, communication amongst team members, and participating in decision-making. We have seen above that engaging leaders foster team resources, but how are these resources, in their turn, related to team effectiveness?

The multi-goal, multi-level model of feedback effects of DeShon and colleagues [ 52 ] posits that individual and team regulatory processes govern the allocation of effort invested in achieving individual and team goals, resulting in individual and team effectiveness. We posit that the shared experience of receiving the team leader’s feedback prompts team members to invest efforts in achieving team tasks, presumably through team regulatory processes, as postulated in the multi-goal, multi-level model.

Trust has been defined as: “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712) [ 53 ]. Using a multilevel mediation model, Braun and colleagues [ 54 ] showed that trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and performance at the team level. They reasoned that transformational leaders take into account a team member’s needs, goals, and interests, making them more willing to be vulnerable to their supervisor. This would apply even more for engaging leaders, which is defined in terms of satisfying basic follower’s needs. It is plausible that a team’s shared trust in its leader enhances the trust of team members in each other. That means that team members interact and communicate trustfully and rely on each other’s abilities, which, in turn, is conducive for team effectiveness [ 55 ].

Communication is a crucial element of effective teamwork [ 56 ]. Team members must exchange information to ascertain other members’ competence and intentions, and they must engage in communication to develop a strategy and plan their work. Several studies have shown that effectively gathering and exchanging information is essential for team effectiveness [ 57 , 58 ]. Furthermore, participation in decision-making is defined as joint decision-making [ 59 ] and involves sharing influence between team leaders and team members. By participating in decision-making, team members create work situations that are more favorable to their effectiveness. Team members utilize participating in decision-making for achieving what they desire for themselves and their team. Generally speaking, shared mental models are defined as organized knowledge structures that allow employees to interact successfully with their environment, and therefore lead to superior team performance [ 60 ]. That is, team members with a shared mental model about decision-making are ‘in sync’ and will easily coordinate their actions, whereas the absence of a shared mental model will result in process loss and ineffective team processes.

Taken together and based on the previous reasoning, we formulate the second hypothesis as follows:

• Hypothesis 2: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between T1 team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 team effectiveness .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work engagement (cross-level)

Engaging leaders build team resources (see above). Or put differently, the team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership are positively related to team resources. Besides, we also assume that these team resources positively impact work engagement at the individual level. A plethora of research has shown that various job resources are positively related to work engagement, including feedback, trust, communication, and participation in decision- making (for a narrative overview see [ 61 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 62 , 63 ]). Most research that found this positive relationship between job resources and work engagement used the Job-Demands Resources model [ 5 ] that assumes that job resources are inherently motivating because they enhance personal growth and development and are instrumental in achieving work goals. Typically, these resources are assessed as perceived by the individual employee. Yet, as we have seen above, perceptions of resources might also be shared amongst team members. It is plausible that these shared resources, which collectively constitute a supportive, collaborative team climate, positively impact employee’s individual work engagement. Teams that receive feedback, have trust in management, whose members amply interact and communicate, and participate in decision-making are likely to produce work engagement. This reasoning agrees with Schaufeli [ 64 ], who showed that organizational growth climate is positively associated with work engagement, also after controlling for personality. When employee growth is deemed relevant by the organization this is likely to translate, via engaging leaders, into a supportive team environment, which provides feedback, trust, communication, and participative decision-making. Hence, we formulate:

• Hypothesis 3: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between team shared perceptions of engaging leadership at T1 and individual team member’s work engagement at T2 .

Sample and procedure

In collaboration with the HR department, data were collected among all employees of a business unit of a large Dutch public service agency. This agency is responsible for the administration of unemployment benefits and work incapacitation claims, as well as for the rehabilitation and return to work of unemployed and incapacitated employees. A one-year time-lagged design was applied to minimize the likelihood of common method variance effects and to explore causal relationships among the study variables [ 65 ]. The questionnaire included a cover letter reporting the aims and contents of the study. The letter also stated that participation in the study was completely voluntary, and that one can withdraw from the study at any time without having to give explanations and without this involving any disadvantage or prejudice. Participants’ consent was concluded by conduct, through ticking the consent checkbox as a prerequisite to access the questionnaire. This research was conducted in 2015, thus before the publication of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and complied with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Thus, ethics approval was not compulsory, as per applicable institutional and national Dutch guidelines. Additionally, the current study did not involve any treatment, medical diagnostics, or procedures generating psychological or social discomfort among participants.

In the first survey at Time 1 ( N = 2,304; response rate 63%), employees were asked about their socio-demographic background, engaging leadership, team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), team effectiveness, personal resources (i.e., resiliency, optimism, and flexibility), and work engagement. At Time 2 ( N = 2,183; response rate 51%), participants filled out the same survey, which included an additional self-efficacy scale. At both measurement points, participants received an email from the HR department containing a link that allowed them to fill out the online survey. This introductory email provided background information about the study’s general aim and guaranteed that participants’ responses would be treated confidentiality. A sample of N = 1,048 employees filled out the questionnaire twice, with an interval of one year between T1 and T2.

The estimation of multilevel models with at least 50 teams of at least 5 members per group is strongly recommended to avoid underestimating standard errors and variances for random effects [ 66 , 67 ]. Therefore, participants being part of teams with less than 5 employees were excluded from the analyses. Accordingly, the data of 1,048 participants, who completed both questionnaires, could be linked and constitute the current study sample. Employees were nested within 90 work teams, with an average of 13.7 ( SD = 5.72) employees per team. Slightly more women (51.8%) as men were included (48.2%), the average age of the sample was 49.70 years ( SD = 7.46), and the mean organization tenure was 12.02 years ( SD = 9.56).

All measures described below were rated using five-point scales that either ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), or from never (1) to always (5). The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) of the measures are displayed on the diagonal of Table 2 .

Engaging Leadership was measured using a scale developed by Schaufeli [ 64 ] including nine items. This questionnaire contains three subscales of three items each: Inspiring, Strengthening, and Connecting. Sample items are: “My supervisor is able to enthuse others for his/her plans” (inspiring); “My supervisor delegates tasks and responsibilities” (strengthening); and “My supervisor encourages team members to cooperate” (connecting).

Individual-level measures.

Optimism was measured with three items from the Optimism scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire developed by Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], which is aimed at assessing employees’ expectations about future success at work because of a positive view of their job. A sample item is: “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job”.

Resiliency was assessed using three items from the Resiliency scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire [ 36 ]. These items refer to employees’ beliefs about their ability to recover from uncertainty and failure and to react successfully to setbacks that can occur at work. A sample item is: "I usually take stressful things at work in stride”.

Self-efficacy referred to the perceived capability to efficiently plan and implement courses of action required to attain a specific work goal and was measured using three items from Mazzetti, Schaufeli, and Guglielmi [ 68 ]. A sample item is: "At work, I reach my goal even when unexpected situations arise".

Flexibility refers to the individual ability to adapt to changes in the workplace and to modify one’s schedules and plans to meet job requirements. It was assessed by using three items: "If the job requires, I am willing to change my schedule”; “I do not have problems changing the way I work” and “I adapt easily to changes at work”.

Work engagement was assessed using a three-item scale developed by Schaufeli and colleagues [ 69 ]. This ultra-short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has similar psychometric properties as the nine-item version. A sample item is: "At my work, I feel bursting with energy”.

Team-level measures.

Performance feedback was assessed by the three-item scale from the Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW) [ 70 ]. A sample item is: “Do you get enough information about the result of your work?”.

Trust in Management of team members was assessed using two items from Schaufeli [ 7 ]: “I trust the way my organization is managed”, and “I have confidence in my immediate supervisor”. Following the recommendations from Eisinga and colleagues [ 71 ] we computed the Spearman-Brown coefficient, since it represents the most appropriate reliability coefficient for a two-item scale ( r s = .43, p < .001).

Communication , meaning the perception of an efficient and prompt circulation of information at the team level was measured using the three-item Communication scale taken from the QEEW [ 70 ]. A sample item is: "I am sufficiently informed about the developments within my team”.

Participation in decision-making was measured by a single item (i.e., “Can you participate in decision making about work-related issues?”) from the QEEW [ 70 ].

Team effectiveness . The team-level criterion variable was assessed with a three-item scale [ 8 ]. A sample item is: “Do you cooperate effectively with others in your team?”.

In order to check for systematic dropout, the social-demographic background, as well as the scores on the study variables were compared of those employees in the panel who filled out the questionnaire twice at T1 and T2 ( N = 1,142) and those who dropped out and filled out the questionnaire only once at T1 ( N = 1,161). It appeared that compared to the group who dropped out, the panel group was slightly younger (t (2301) = -2.21; p < .05) and had less organizational tenure (t (2301) = -4.05; p < .001). No gender differences were observed between both groups (χ 2 = .88; n . s .). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) that included all study variables revealed a significant between-groups effect: F (12,2291) = 3.54, p < .001. Subsequent univariate tests showed that compared to the dropouts, the panel group scored higher on inspiring (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .001), strengthening (F (1,2302) = 9.39, p < .01), and connecting leadership (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .05), as well as on optimism (F (1,2302) = 5.59, p < .05), flexibility (F (1,2302) = 12.56, p < .001), work engagement (F (1,2302) = 9.16, p < .05), performance feedback (F (1,2302) = 11.68, p < .01), and participation in decision making (F (1,2302) = 8.83, p < .05). No significant differences were found for resiliency, trust in management, communication, and team effectiveness.

It seems that, taken together, the panel group is slightly younger and less tenured, and scores more favorable than the dropouts on most study variables. However, the differences between both groups are relatively small and vary between 0 and .13 on a 5-point scale. Therefore, it is not likely that systematic dropout has influenced the results of the current study.

Control variables.

At the individual level, we controlled for the potential confounding effects of gender, age, and tenure by including these variables as covariates in our analyses. More specifically, the impact of age was controlled for because previous research suggested that older employees report higher levels of personal resources [ 72 ] and work engagement [ 73 ]. Gender was also included as a control variable because previous research suggested that compared to women, men score lower on work engagement [ 74 ] and higher on personal resources, such as optimism and self-efficacy [ 75 ]. Finally, previous investigations also revealed that job tenure may affect employees’ level and stability of work engagement, with tenured employees reporting higher and more stable levels of work engagement compared to newcomers [ 76 ]. Besides, Barbier and colleagues [ 77 ] suggested that job tenure might affect employees’ personal resources (i.e., self-esteem and optimism). Considering this empirical evidence, job tenure was also included as a covariate in our model.

Data aggregation.

Our research model includes the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring, strengthening, and connecting) three team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication and participation in decision-making), and one outcome (i.e., team effectiveness) at the team level of analysis. To check the reliability and validity of aggregated scores at the team level, four indices were computed [ 78 ]: (1) ICC [1] , which indicates the proportion of variance in ratings due to team membership; (2) ICC [2] , representing the reliability of between-groups differences; (3) r wg(j) , that measures the level of agreement within work teams; (4) deff , that measures the effect of independence violations on the estimation of standard errors through the formula 1+(average cluster size-1)*ICC [ 79 ]. Generally speaking, values greater than .05 for ICC [1] [ 80 ] and .40 for ICC [2] [ 81 ] an r wg(j) higher than .70, and a deff- index exceeding 2 are considered a prerequisite for aggregating data [ 78 ]. Moreover, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to explore whether participants’ scores on the Level 2 constructs differed significantly among work teams. The results of the aggregation tests are displayed in Table 1 . Taken together, these results justify the aggregation of the team-level variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t001

Strategy of analysis

To test our hypotheses, a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) was tested using the Mplus 7 statistical modeling software [ 82 ]. The application of this procedure allows the inclusion of latent variables that take measurement errors into account and permits the simultaneous estimation of mediation effects at the individual and team levels; therefore, it is superior to stepwise approaches [ 83 ]. As suggested by Zhang and colleagues [ 84 ], predictors at the individual level (i.e., engaging leadership dimensions and personal resources) were team-mean centered using a centering within context – CWC approach [ 85 ]. This procedure was aimed at preventing the confounding effect of mediation within and between work teams. In other words, predictors at the individual level for subject i were centered around the mean of the cluster j to which case i belongs (i.e., predictor ij —M predictor j ). Accordingly, the latent engaging leadership factor at within-level was indicated by the CWC means of the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring cwc , strengthening cwc , and connecting cwc ) at T1. In a similar vein, personal resources were included as a latent variable indicated by the observed levels of optimism cwc , reisliency cwc , self-efficacy cwc , and flexibility cwc at T2. Finally, T2 work engagement was included as an observed variable equal to the mean score of the corresponding scale. As previously stated, gender, age, and organizational tenure were included as covariates at the individual level of the MSEM model.

At the team level, the latent measure of engaging leadership at T1 was assessed through the observed scores on the three dimensions of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership. T2 team resources were modeled as a single latent factor indicated by the observed scores on performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. The observed mean score on T2 team effectiveness was modeled as the team level criterion variable.

At the individual level, the mediation was tested by considering path a , from T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership (X) to T2 personal resources (M) and path b , from T2 personal resources to T2 work engagement (Y), controlling for X → Y. At the team level, the same procedure was applied considering path c , linking team perceptions of T1 engaging leadership (X) and T2 team resources (M) and path d , from T2 team resources to T2 team effectiveness (Y).

The individual and team-level perceptions of engaging leadership were assessed at T1. In contrast, the mediating variables (i.e., psychological capital and team resources), and the outcomes (i.e., work engagement and team effectiveness) were measured at T2.

Preliminary analysis

Before testing our hypotheses, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the maximum likelihood method of estimation using the software package AMOS 21.0 [ 86 ]. This preliminary analysis was aimed at assessing redundancy between the constructs under investigation. For the team level, engaging leadership was included as a latent factor indicated by the observed team levels of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership dimensions. The measured performance feedback levels indicated the latent team resources factor, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. Team effectiveness, assessed as a criterion variable at the team level, was indicated by a single corresponding item. At the individual level, the group-mean centered scores on inspiring, strengthening, and connecting dimensions were considered indicators of the latent engaging leadership factor. Besides, optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility were included as indicators for the single personal resources latent factor; the observed average score on work engagement was used for assessing the corresponding latent variable. The model fit was assessed by considering the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 [ 87 , 88 ]. According to these criteria, the hypothesized measurement model showed a good fit to the data, with χ 2 (91) = 465.09, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .03. Moreover, all indicators showed significant factor loadings on their respective latent factors ( p < .001) with λ values ranging from .51 to .95, thus exceeding the commonly accepted criterion of .50 [ 89 ]. Hence, these results support the assumption that the study variables were non-redundant and adequately distinct from each other.

Model testing

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies for all study variables are displayed in Table 2 . As expected, the constructs under investigation showed significant relationships in the hypothesized direction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t002

The hypothesized MSEM showed a good fit to data: χ 2 (60) = 155.38, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = 0.03 (within teams) and .08 (between teams). As displayed in Fig 2 , at the individual level the three indicators of engaging leadership loaded significantly on their intended latent factor, with λ = .83 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.79, .87]) for inspiring, λ = .77 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.73, .81]) for strengthening, and λ = .81 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .85]) for connecting. Similarly, the standardized factor loadings for the indicators of personal resources were all significant as well: λ = .74 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.68, .79]) for optimism, λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.63, .72]) for resiliency λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.62, .74]) for self-efficacy, and λ = .64 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.59, .69]) for flexibility.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g002

The direct relationship between T1 engaging leadership and T2 work engagement was significant β = .16 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.10, .22]). Moreover, results indicated that engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on personal resources at T2: γ = .27 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.18, .37]). T2 personal resources, in turn, were positively associated with T2 work engagement: β = .55 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.49, .62]). The estimated indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 work engagement via personal resources (i.e., a*b) was statistically significant: B (SE) = .19 (.04), p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .27]. Hence, personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) at T2 partially mediated the impact of T1 engaging leadership on employees’ engagement within work teams at T2. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 1 . Among the covariates included at the individual level, only gender and age showed a significant association with work engagement, with γ = -.10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [-.15, -.05]) and γ = .10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.04, .16]), respectively.

At the team level, all factor loadings for the three indicators of engaging leadership on their corresponding latent variable were significant: λ = .95 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.93, .99]) for inspiring, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.80, .91]) for strengthening, and λ = .94 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.90, .97]) for connecting. Additionally, the observed measure of each team resource loaded significantly on its intended latent variable: λ = .69 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.56, .82]) for performance feedback, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .94]) for trust in management, λ = .89 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.81, .97]) for communication, and λ = .71 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.60, .82]) for participation in decision-making. Moreover, engaging leadership at T1 had a nonsignificant direct impact on team effectiveness at T2, with β = -.06 ( p = .641, 95% CI = [-.30, .19]). In contrast, team perception of engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on team resources at T2: γ = .59 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.42, .75]). Team resources at T2 were, in turn, positively related to T2 team effectiveness, β = .38 ( p = .003, 95% CI = [.13, .62]). These results suggest full mediation and were supported by the estimation of the indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness via team resources at T2 (i.e., c*d): B (SE) = .18 (.07), p = .013, 95% CI [.04, .32]. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.

Hence, in the current study team resources at T2 (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making) fully mediated the effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness across different work teams. Moreover, T2 team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, team communication, and participation in decision-making) showed a significant cross-level effect on T2 individual team member’s level of engagement: β = .57 (p < .001, 195% CI = [.27, .87]). This result provided evidence for Hypothesis 3 .

The current study aimed to explore the role of individual and collective perceptions of engaging leadership in predicting team effectivity and work engagement. To this purpose, we developed a two-level research model using a two time-point design.

Main results

At the individual level, the obtained results suggest that psychological capital (i.e., the combination of self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) partly mediated the longitudinal relationship between employees’ perceptions of engaging leadership and their levels of work engagement. In other words, team leaders perceived as inspiring, strengthening, and connecting could enhance their followers’ engagement directly and indirectly through an increase in psychological capital. Thus, engaging leaders could make their followers feel more optimistic, resilient, self-efficacious, and flexible. At the team level, a shared perception of engaging leadership was associated with a greater pool of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), which contribute to define an open and supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development. In their turn, these collective resources were positively related to the perceived effectiveness of work teams.

Hence, team resources at the team level fully mediated the relationship between engaging leadership and team effectiveness. That means that teams in which the leader is considered to be inspiring, strengthening, and connecting can draw upon more team resources, and could feel, in turn, more effective. Simultaneously, a significant cross-level mediation effect was found for team resources, meaning that they mediate the relationship between engaging leadership at team level and individual level work engagement. In other words, teams with engaging leaders are not only more effective at the team level, but they also report higher levels of work engagement among their members. These leaders create a team climate that fosters employee growth and development by providing performance feedback, installing trust, and stimulating communication and participation in decision-making.

Three different contributions.

Thus, three major conclusions can be drawn for the current study, which signifies its contribution to the literature. First, engaging leadership can be considered an individual-level construct (i.e., the perception of particular leadership behaviors by individual followers) and a collective, team-level construct (i.e., the shared perception of specific leadership behaviors among team members). As far as the latter is concerned, our results support the notion of an average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]; namely, that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers differ between teams.

Secondly, Individual-level engaging leadership predicts individual work engagement through increasing follower’s PsyCap. Previous research suggested a positive relationship between person-focused leadership styles and follower’s work engagement, albeit that virtually all studies were cross-sectional in nature (for an overview see [ 11 , 33 ]). Our study added longitudinal evidence for that relationship and hinted at an underlying psychological process by suggesting that psychological capital might play a mediating role. As such, the current study corroborates and extends a previous cross-sectional study that obtained similar results [ 8 ]. However, it should be noted that the present study used a slightly different operationalization of PsyCap as is usually employed [ 36 ]. In addition to the three core elements of optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy, flexibility instead of hope was used as a constituting fourth element of PsyCap. The reason was that hope and optimism overlap both theoretically as well as empirically [ 35 ] and that flexibility–defined as the ability to readapt, divert from unsuccessful paths, and tackle unpredictable conditions that hinder employees’ goal attainment [ 8 ]–was deemed particularly relevant for public service agencies that are plagued by red tape. Our results indicate that engaging leaders strengthen followers’ sense of proficiency when developing a task-specific skill to reach challenging objectives (i.e., self-efficacy). They also encourage a favorable appraisal of the prevailing conditions and future goal achievement (i.e., optimism).

Furthermore, they enhance subordinates’ abilities to recover from failures and move beyond setbacks effectively (i.e., resiliency) through supporting an increased aptitude for adaption to unfamiliar work circumstances (i.e., flexibility). These results corroborate the assumption that leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers provide a stimulating work environment that enhances employees’ personal resources. In their turn, elevated levels of PsyCap mobilize employees’ energy and intrinsic motivation to perform, expressed by a high level of work engagement. This result concurs with previous evidence that PsyCap can be framed as a critical component of the motivational process of the JD-R model, namely as a mediator of the relationship between contextual resources (i.e., engaging leadership) and work engagement [ 46 ]. However, this mediation was only partial because a direct effect of engaging leadership on follower’s work engagement was also observed in the current study. This evidence is not surprising since previous research showed that other mediating factors (which were not included in the present study) played a role in explaining the relationship between leadership and work engagement. Among them, innovative work behaviors, meaningful work, role clarity, positive emotions, identification with the organization, and psychological ownership [ 11 ]. Thus, increasing their follower’s PsyCap is not the whole story as far as the impact of engaging leadership is concerned. It is likely that engaging leaders also impact these alternative mediating factors. If this is the case, this might explain why the additional variance in follower’s work engagement is explained by engaging leadership, as indicated by the direct effect.

Thirdly, team-level engaging leadership predicts work engagement of individual team members and team effectiveness through increasing team resources. An earlier cross-sectional study found that engaging leadership, as perceived by their followers, showed an indirect, positive effect on their work engagement level through an increase in job resources [ 7 ]. However, in that study, engaging leadership and job resources, including performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making, were assessed at the individual and not at the aggregated team level. This means that the current study corroborates previous findings at the aggregated team level, using a longitudinal design. It is important to note that employees’ level of work engagement not only depends on individual-level processes (through the increase in PsyCap) but also on collective processes (trough the rise in team resources). Finally, our findings concur with research on team climate, showing that leaders who endorse supportive relations between team members and create an open, empowering team climate enable employees to succeed [ 33 ]. Simultaneously, a team climate like that is also likely to foster personal growth and development, which, in turn, translates into greater work engagement [ 63 ].

Practical implications

Our study shows that engaging leadership matters, and therefore organizations are well-advised to stimulate their managers to lead by the principles of engaging leadership. To that end, organizations may implement leadership development programs [ 90 ], leadership coaching [ 91 ], or leadership workshops [ 92 ]. Previous research has shown that leadership behaviors are malleable and subject to change using professional training [ 93 – 95 ]. Furthermore, leaders may want to establish and promote an open and trusting team climate in which employees feel free to express their needs and preferences [ 96 , 97 ].

Accordingly, our study shows that this climate is conducive not only for work engagement but also for team effectiveness. Finally, our results also suggest that psychological capital is positively associated with work engagement, so that it would make sense to increase this personal resource, mainly because PsyCap is state-like and open to development through instructional programs [ 45 ]. For instance, a short PsyCap Intervention (PCI) has been developed by Luthans and colleagues, which is also available as a web-based version for employees [ 98 ]. PCI focuses on: (a) acquiring and modifying self–efficacy beliefs; (b) developing realistic, constructive, and accurate beliefs; (c) designing goals, pathway generation, and strategies for overcoming obstacles; and (d) identifying risk factors, and positively influencing processes.

Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research

A significant strength of the current study is its design that combines a multilevel investigation of engaging leadership with mediating processes at the individual and team levels. This is in line with the claim that leadership research suffers from a lack of theoretical and empirical differentiation between levels of analysis [ 99 ]. However, leadership is an inherently multilevel construct in nature [ 9 ]. Although the current findings shed light on the role of the emergent construct of engaging leadership, both regarding individuals and teams, an exciting venue for future research involves exploring its predictive validity in comparison with traditional leadership models. This concurrent validation would adhere to the recommendations accompanying the introduction of new leadership constructs in the face of the risk of construct proliferation [ 16 ].

A further strength of the current study is its large sample size, including 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. Moreover, data were collected at two time points with a one-year time lag that was considered long enough for the effects of engaging leadership to occur. In contrast with widespread cross-sectional studies that sometimes draw unjustified conclusions on the corollaries of leadership [ 100 ], the current research relied on a longitudinal design to better understand the consequences of engaging leadership at the individual and team level of analysis. According to our results, engaging leadership indeed shows a positive effect across time on outcomes at the individual (i.e., work engagement) and team level (i.e., team effectiveness).

Along with its strengths, the current study also has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The main weakness of the current study lies in the homogeneity of the sample, which consisted of employees working in a Dutch public service agency. This specific work setting prevents us from generalizing the findings of our research with other occupational groups. However, focusing on an organization where most activities are conducted in teams permits independent but simultaneous assessment of the impact of (engaging) leadership on the perceived pool of resources among teams and workers, as suggested by current trends in leadership literature [ 101 , 102 ].

Furthermore, the collection of data at different time points overcomes the inherent weakness of a cross-sectional design, yet a design including at least three data waves would have provided superior support for the hypothesized mediated relationships. Based on within-group diary studies [ 103 , 104 ], it can, on the one hand, be argued that leadership might impact the team and personal resources within a much shorter time frame. On the other hand, work engagement represents a persistent psychological state that is not susceptible to sudden changes in the short term [ 1 ]. Thus, the chosen one-year time lag can be considered reasonable for a between-group study to detect the impact of engaging leadership accurately. This impact needs some time to unfold. An additional limitation of this study entails measuring individual and team resources with only a few items. Nevertheless, all scales had an internal consistency value that met the threshold of .65 [ 105 ] with an average Cronbach’s alpha value equal to .81.

Concluding remark

Despite the novelty of the construct, the emerging research on engaging leadership suggests the potential value of a theoretically sound leadership model that could foster followers’ engagement. While earlier findings showed that engaging leadership is positively associated with the employee’s level of engagement [ 7 , 8 ], the current study suggested that engaging leadership could predict work engagement and team effectiveness. More specifically, being exposed to a leader who inspires, strengthens and connects team members may foster a shared perception of greater availability of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), as well as greater psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and flexibility). Hence, engaging leadership could play a significant role in the processes leading to work engagement at both the team and the individual levels.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 13. Antonakis J., Day D.V. Leadership: Past present and future. In, Antonakis J. & Day D.V.(Eds.), The nature of leadership (3rd. Ed.) London: Sage. 2017; 3–28.
• 15. Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. Self-determination theory. In Van Lange P.A.M., Kruglanski A.W., & Higgins E.T.(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage. 2012; 416–436. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21 .
• 17. Erasmus, A. (2018). Investigating the relationships between engaging leadership, need satisfaction, work engagement and workplace boredom within the South African mining industry (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University).
• 21. Robijn, W. (2021). “Taking care of the team member is taking care of the team: a team conflict perspective on engaging leadership,” in: Leadership and Work Engagement: A Conflict Management Perspective, ed W. Robijn (Unpublished PhD) (Belgium: KU Leuven), 79–107.
• 30. Bass B.M., Riggio R.E. Transformational leadership. In Transformational leadership . 2nd ed. Psychology Press Ltd., 2006.
• 31. Smith, D.J. (2018). The Importance of Self-Determined Leadership in Building Respectful Workplace. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
• 34. Luthans F., Youssef C.M., Avolio B.J. Psychological capital: Investing and developing positive organizational behaviour. In Nelson D & Cooper C. L.(Eds.), Positive organizational behaviour. London: Sage. 2007; pp. 9–24.
• 40. Bandura A. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Locke E. (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000; pp. 120–136.
• 41. Sweetman D., Luthans F. The power of positive psychology: Psychological capital and work engagement. In Bakker A.B. & Leiter M. P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 44–68.
• 42. Fredrickson B.L. Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine P., & Plant A. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed., Vol. 47). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2013; pp. 1–54.
• 48. Bass B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press; 1985.
• 51. McGrath J.E. Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1964.
• 61. Schaufeli W.B. What is engagement? In Employee engagement in theory and practice. Routledge. London: Routledge. 2013; pp. 29–49.
• 66. Hox J.J. Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.
• 67. Hox J.J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
• 78. Bliese P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein K. J. & Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000, pp. 349–381.
• 79. Muthén B., Satorra A. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In Marsden P. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1995, pp. 264–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/271070
• 82. Muthén B.O., Muthén L.K. Mplus version 7 [Computer Programme]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
• 86. Arbuckle J.L. Amos (Version 21.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS; 2015.
• 87. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
• 89. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis. Uppersaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hal Hall; 2006.
• 92. Segers J., De Prins P., Brouwers S. Leadership and engagement: A brief review of the literature, a proposed model, and practical implications. In Albrecht S. L. (Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010, pp. 149–158.
• 105. DeVellis R.F. Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage publications; 2016.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(4); 2020 Apr

Leadership styles, work engagement and outcomes among information and communications technology professionals: A cross-national study

Habtamu kebu gemeda.

a Adama Science & Technology University, School of Humanity & Social Sciences, Ethiopia

b Pusan National University, Keumjeong-Gu, Jangjeon-Dong, San 30, Busan, 609-735, South Korea

The present study examined relationships among leadership styles, work engagement and work outcomes designated by task performance and innovative work behavior among information and communication technology professionals in two countries: Ethiopia and South Korea. In total, 147 participants from Ethiopia and 291 from South Korea were made to fill in the self-reporting questionnaire intended to assess leadership styles, work engagement, task performance, and innovative work behavior. To test the proposed hypotheses, multiple linear regression analysis was utilized. The results showed that transformational leadership style had a significant positive relationship with employees' work engagement and innovative work behavior, while transactional leadership style had a significant positive relationship with employees' task performance. However, laissez-faire leadership style had a significant negative relationship with task performance. Work engagement had significant positive relationships with the indicators of work outcomes. Besides, work engagement partially mediated the relationship between leadership styles and work outcomes. The observed associations and mediation were consistent across the two national samples considered, indicating the soundness of the assumptions across countries. The findings provide insights into how leadership styles correspond with employees’ work outcomes.

Leadership; Workplace; innovation; Performance; industry; Organization; Human Resources; work engagement; transformation; transaction, Technology Management; Organizational Theory; Human Resource Management; Behavioral Psychology; Organizational Psychology

1. Introduction

Leadership is crucial for effective functioning of any organization. The fundamental of leadership is its persuading power on human resources, organizations' source of competitive advantage, and the resultant outcomes. In swaying followers and harnessing organization member's selves to their work roles, leaders must enhance employees' motivation as having engaged employees is critical for organization to achieve its goal ( Batista-Taran et al., 2009 ). Studies, (e.g., Bakker and Bal, 2010 ; Harter et al., 2002 ; Xathopoulou et al., 2009 ) recorded the noteworthiness of employees' work engagement for organizational achievement measured in terms of monetary returns, productivity, client satisfaction, and a number of individual-level alluring employees' characteristics such as taking initiative and being proactive.

Literature (e.g. Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Kim, 2014 ; Park et al., 2013 ; Saks, 2006 ; Salanova et al., 2011 ; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008 ; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ; Song et al., 2012 ; Xathopoulo et al., 2007 ) studied employee engagement within the framework of its antecedents and consequences using mainly the job demand-resources model, social exchange theory, social cognitive theory, and leadership theory. In the plethora of studies examining the correlates of employee engagement, particularly in Western and some Asian contexts, the most discussed antecedents included job resources, personal resources, perceived supports, learning organizations, and transformational leadership, while the personal-level outcomes considered were performance, turnover intention, organizational citizenship behavior, health, proactive behavior, innovative behavior, and knowledge creation practices. In spite of significant empirical studies on associates of work engagement, little research have been found that explored the potential link between leadership behaviors and employee engagement in the wider human resources literature ( Carasco-Saul et al., 2015 ).

Thus, the current study focused on examining relationships among leadership styles, employee work engagement and work outcomes. Leadership was targeted because previous research (e.g. Xu and Thomas, 2011 ; Carasco-Saul et al., 2015 ) also elucidated scarcity of findings that connect leadership styles and employees work engagement. Further, the dominant capacity of leadership over other work variables and its vulnerability to modifications were taken into consideration in its selection as correlates of work engagement and outcomes. For workoutcomes, employees' job performance and innovative work behavior were considered because of their pertinence to organizational existence and progress. Job performance is the term that academics and practitioners use most commonly and widely. Nonetheless, an aggregate definition of success across jobs and roles is very difficult to conceptualize since employees are engaged in a large number of tasks including even those not listed out in their formal job description ( Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010 ). On the basis of review of previous studies, Kim (2014) outlined various ways of conceptualizing job performance ranging from overall performance to organizational citizenship behaviour. In the present study, as indicator of employees' job performance, in-role performance is conceptualized as accomplishment of core tasks and activities specified in employee contract document connected to officially defined organizational outcomes (( Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010 ). In addition to performing main tasks officially listed out, considering the current competitive work environment, employees are pressed to go extra mile beyond those formally recognized in their job description such as being innovative in their workplace. As Ramoorthy et al. (2005) suggested, to succeed organizations are pressuring employees to innovate their methods and operations. Janssen (2000) was of the view that to have a continuous flow of innovation and to achieve goals, individual employees need to be skilled to innovate. What is more, employees’ innovative work behavior is comprehended as a specific form of extra-role performance related to discretionary employee actions in connection to generating idea, promoting, and realizing it.

In spite of evidences on the relationship between styles of leadership and work outcomes such as job performance and innovative work behavior (e.g., Khan et al., 2012 ; Solomon, 2016 ), studies explored the meditational role of work engagement in the link between leadership and work outcomes were insignificant. In connection to work engagement mediation between leadership behaviour and work outcomes, findings of the study are directing to quality of leader-subordinate relationships ( Agarwal et al., 2012 ), transformational leadership ( Salanova et al., 2011 ) and employees affective commitment to their immediate supervisor ( Chughtai, 2013 ) as antecedent factors.

Thus, specifically, in the present study the researchers proposed and tested a model in which work engagement partly mediates relationship between leadership styles (focusing on the pattern of behavior of leaders’ exhibited) and work outcomes labelled by task performance and innovative work behavior. Hence, the conceptual model used in the study is depicted in Figure 1 .

Research model.

Besides, the study also examined the associations among variables of the study and the mediation of work engagement in link between leaders’ style and work outcomes in two independent samples of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) professionals from Ethiopia and South Korea to test for soundness of suggested assumptions across the nations.

2. An overview of the study context

The participants of the study were professional ICT staffs working for for-profit companies engaged in ICT businesses in the two countries: Ethiopia and South Korea. Ethiopia is situated in the Horn of Africa; it has the second biggest populace in the continent, with more than 102 million occupants; however it has the most minimal per capita income ( Ethiopia, 2018 ). Be that as it may, Ethiopia's economy has developed at a remarkable rate over the previous decade. As the International Monetary Fund (2016) revealed, the nation has had a great record of achievement of development and poverty decrease lately and it is portrayed as one of the fastest developing economies on the planet.

With respect to Ethiopia's work culture, on the continuum of Hofstede's dimensions of culture—power distance, collectivism vs. individualism, femininity vs. masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance—it is characterized by a large power distance, tight social ties and collective action, masculine characteristics, and high uncertainty avoidance ( Beyene et al., 2016 ). Thus, in Ethiopian work culture, it appeared that power centralization is prevalent. Subordinates inclined to be told what to do and managers are expected to be influential and powerful. However, as Wasbeek (2004) indicated, individualism, masculinity, and a long-term orientation have been budding, specifically among the young and educated employees in Ethiopia.

South Korea, on the other hand, is an East Asian country on the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula and is home to more than 51 million people. South Korea is the fourth biggest economy in Asia and the eleventh biggest on the planet ( South Korea, 2018 ).

When South Korean culture is examined, regarding power distance, it is a slightly hierarchical society with a collectivist nature and feminine as South Koreans are low on masculine/feminine dimension. Regarding uncertainty avoidance, South Korea might be taken as one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries, where people show a convincing enthusiastic prerequisite for rules, value time, and have an internal tendency to be involved and buckle down. Besides, South Korea's score on long-term orientation is at 100, showing that it is a highly pragmatic and long-term-oriented society ( Compare Countries—Hofstede Insights, n.d. ).

Nevertheless, as Yim (2002) indicated, Korean customary culture has in slight change, and to some level giving way to Western influx. Rapid socioeconomic transformation and the apparently indiscriminate inflow of Western culture were accounted for the change.

3. Previous research and hypotheses

3.1. leadership styles and work-related outcomes.

Leadership is the most commonly discussed topic in the organizational sciences. Lines of research may be delineated along three major approaches: trait, behavioral and inspirational. Trait theorists seek to identify a set of universal leadership traits whereas behaviorists focused on behaviors exhibited by specific leaders. Inspirational approach deliberated on leader as one who moves adherents through their words, thoughts and conduct ( Robbins et al., 2009 ). As Carasco-Saul et al. (2015) suggested in the 1970s and 1980s, the charismatic leadership concept emerged, emphasizing that a charisma leader, a leader who inspires, attracts and influences followers by their personal qualities are considered effective. A typical characteristic of charismatic leadership is that it has the ability to motivate subordinates to concede to goals by imparting a vision, displaying charming behavior, and being a powerful model.

As part of neo-charismatic movement, full range leadership theory, which is also referred to as the Full Range Leadership Theory of Bass and Avolio's distinguished three groups of leaders in behaviors/styles: transformational, transactional and laissez-faire ( Avolio et al., 1999 ; Bass and Riggio, 2006 ; Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Solomon, 2016 ). The theory defines a complete range of influencing styles from influential transformational leadership to laissez-faire style.

Based on a review of various studies, Vincent-Hoper et al. (2012) portrayed transformational leaders as managers who advance and propel their followers by anticipating and communicating appealing visions, common goals, and shared values, as well as by setting an illustration of the requested behavior. Facets of transformational leadership are: idealized influence (idealized attribution and idealized behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration ( Bass and Avolio, 1994 ; Bass and Riggo, 2006 ).

Transactional leadership contains among other things, an exchange process (between leader & follower) that results in adherent compliance to leader demands, but it is not expected to create zeal and commitment to an errand objective ( Trottier et al., 2008 ). The transactional leadership style constituted a constructive style labeled “contingent reward” and a corrective style labeled “management-by-exception.”

The last style is laissez-faire, which is characterized by non-involvement, showing indifference, being absent when needed, overlooking achievements and problems as well. It is a style of leadership in which leaders offer very little direction and allow group members to make decisions on their own ( Bass and Riggio, 2006 ; Koech & Namusonge, 2012 ; Solomon, 2016 ).

Several studies (e.g., Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Pourbarkhordari et al., 2016 ; Solomon, 2016 ) examined the influence of leadership styles on a number of employee work outcomes critical to an organization's productivity and effectiveness, such as job satisfaction, commitment, performance, and motivation. Judge and Piccolo (2004) carried out a comprehensive meta-analytic review of studies that employed a complete range of leadership from influential transformational to influential laissez-faire style to test their relative validity in predicting a number of leadership criteria: follower job satisfaction, follower satisfaction with the leader, follower motivation, leader job performance, group or organizational performance, and leader effectiveness. The researchers found out an overall positive relationship for transformational leadership and transactional leadership (contingent rewards), but a negative overall relationship between laissez-faire style and the criteria considered.

Other researches in broad leadership literature (e.g, Bass and Avolio, 1994 ; Hayward et al., 2003 ; Kotter, 1988 ; Meyer and Botha, 2000 ) elucidated that transformational leadership style is the most successful in enhancing employee performance and other characteristics. In the studies, transformational leadership is positively related with a range of workplace desirable behaviour such as individual employee's performance, satisfaction and organizational performance. For instance, in South African pharmaceutical industry, Hayward et al., 2003 ) found a significant positive linear relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance but not for transactional leadership and employee performance. In Ethiopian education sector, Solomon (2016) reported positive association of both transformational and transactional styles of leadership with employees' performance while the relations of laissez-fair style with employees' performance failed to reach significance level. Khan et al. (2012) examined leadership styles (transformational, transactional & laissez-fair) assessed with Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, as indicator variables in predicting innovative work behaviour and found out that both transformational and transactional leadership styles had positive relationship while laissez-faire had negative relationship with innovative work behaviour.

In general, it appears that transformational leadership style seems prominent in enhancing employees' work performance and other characteristics such as innovative behavior. The qualities of transformational leaders such as providing intellectual stimulation, inspiring followers through setting appealing vision and setting higher expectations maintains it effectiveness in organizational settings. Moreover, the motivational aspect and the fact that leaders serve as role model make this style to have profound influence on employees’ work outcomes. Because of the goal oriented nature of Transactional leaders focusing on expectations and recognizing achievement characteristics may positively initiate workers to exert higher levels of effort and performance Ejere and Abasilim (2013) ; Bass and Riggio (2006) . Based on the above discussion, the followings were hypothesized:

Transformational leadership style is positively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Transactional leadership style is positively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Laissez-faire style of leadership is negatively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Transformational leadership style is positively related to work engagement.

Transactional leadership style is positively related to work engagement.

Laissez-faire leadership style is negatively related to work engagement.

3.2. Mediating role of work engagement

Kahn (1990) presented an early interpretation of engagement, which conceptualized it as personal involvement in the workplace reflecting a condition in which workers "bring in" their personal selves during job performance, expend personal energy and feel an emotional connection to their jobs. According to Kahn, engaged employees dedicate themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances, while disengaged ones withdraw and guard themselves in all aspects (physically, cognitively & emotionally)in the course of role performances.

Based on Kahn's work, researchers—particularly those from the occupational health psychology fields further illuminate the concept of engagement. Early works based themselves on burnout model to clarify the concept of employee engagement ( Maslach and Leiter, 1997 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). To Maslach and Leiter, for instance, elements of engagement are energy, involvement, and efficacy, which are in stark contrast to the three burnout dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and lack of accomplishment, respectively. In the same burnout framework, an alternative view that considered work engagement as a unique concept stands by its own and negatively related to burnout appeared. As a concept by its own right work engagement, consequently, defined as a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption ( Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker, 2002 ). Here, Vigor refers to a high amount of drive and mental toughness while working, a willingness to invest effort in one's work, and sustain the determination even in the face of challenges. Dedication refers to a robust engagement in one's work and experiencing a sense of purpose and being enthusiastic, and absorption refers to fully and happily absorbed in one's work, such that time passes without notice while on work.

Despite some criticisms on confounding nature of some sub-constructs, the Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b model is hailed as a representative conceptualization of engagement and has been widely used in many fields ( Jeung, 2011 ).

The distinctive essence of work engagement was described in various works using constructs, such as employee engagement, job engagement, and role engagement in line with Kahn's conceptualization ( Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010 ; Rothbard, 2001 ; Saks, 2006 ). Among the different terms for engagement, work engagement and employee engagement are frequently and sometimes interchangeably used in literature. However the two terms vary in range in that work engagement focuses on the relationship between an individual employee and his or her work, while employee engagement applies to the relationships between the employee and the work and between the employee and the organization ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010 ). In the current study, since the focus was on the specific relationship between an individual employee and his her work, the term “work engagement” and conceptualization of Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b which connotes work engagement as ‘ a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption ’ was utilized.

Regarding the links among leadership styles, work engagement, and employee outcome behaviors, a closer look at the related literature showed that the quality of leader–subordinate relationships (LMX), empowering leadership, and transformational leadership behavior were the most frequently discussed topics ( Agarwal et al., 2012 ; Park et al., 2013 ; Zhang and Bartol, 2010 ). For instance, Agarwal et al. (2012) pointed out that the excellence of leader-member exchange influences engagement, and work engagement in turn correlates positively with innovative work behavior and negatively with intention to quit. The researchers asserted the meditational role of work engagement in the relationship between LMX as predictor and innovative work behavior and intention to quit as outcomes.

Park et al. (2013) also investigated the mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between learning organizations and innovative behavior in the Korean context. The researchers found that a culture of learning organizations characterized by a positive learning environment, specific learning processes and procedures, and premeditated leadership behaviors through work engagement had direct and indirect impacts on the innovative work behaviors of employees.

In connection to transformational leadership and its link with various individual/organizational outcome behaviors, the mediating role of work engagement has been documented in various studies. Work engagement was found to mediate the link between transformational leadership and employees’ subjective occupational success designated by career satisfaction, social and career successes ( Vincent-Höper et al., 2012 ), staff nurse extra-role performance ( Salanova et al., 2011 ), organizational performance ( Evelyn and Hazel, 2015 ), and organizational knowledge creation practices ( Song et al., 2012 ). Thus, the researchers hypothesized:

Work engagement is positively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Work engagement partly mediates the relationship between leadership styles and work outcomes (task performance & innovative work behavior).

3.3. Cross-national aspects of leadership styles and work engagement

Despite some authors' claims that leadership styles are common across cultures, results are inconsistent with the degree to which leadership styles reign and their impact across cultures on followers. Shahin and Wright (2004) investigated the appropriateness of Bass and Avolio's leadership model in non-western country such as Egypt. They found that only certain factors that were considered as ideal leadership styles corresponded with U.S. factors, suggesting the influence of culture in labeling best leadership. Contrary to this finding, Walumbwa et al. (2007) made comparison based on data from China, India, Kenya, and the U.S. and found a robust manifestation of transformational and/or transactional leadership in these countries.

Ardichvili and Kuchinke (2002) carried out a comparative study on leadership styles and cultural values of managerial and non-managerial employees across culture by taking into account 10 business organizations in Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Germany, and the U.S., countries that differ widely in socio-economic and political orientation. The researchers elucidated that cross-cultural human resource development matters cannot be seen in terms of simplified dichotomies of East and West or developed versus developing economies.

In terms of the influences of leadership styles on work outcomes, it appeared that transformational-related behavior of leaders had a universally positive impact on followers’ behaviors ( Dorfman et al., 1997 ; Walumbwa et al., 2005 ). For instance, Walumbwa et al. (2005) examined influence of transformational leadership on two work-related attitudes: organizational commitment and job satisfaction based on data from Kenya and the U.S. and obtained its strong positive effect on both indicators and in both countries. Dunn et al. (2012) also reported similar results on the association of transformational leadership with organizational commitment based on data collected from two countries: the U.S. and Israel.

With regard to work engagement as a psychological construct, cross-cultural investigations are scant. However, existing evidence reveals invariance in the construct—at least, in Western countries. For instance, Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b observed the invariance of the UWES, consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption, on a sample of students from three countries: Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) also reported the mediation model of work engagement in the link between job resources and managers’ proactive behavior at work in two independent samples drawn from Spain and the Netherland reflecting the consistence of the assertion across culture. In the current study, hence it was hypothesized that:

The proposed relationships among study variables and thus the interceding of work engagement between leadership styles and work outcomes are consistent for the two national samples.

4. Materials and method

The study partly used a cross-sectional method of online survey research. As pointed out by Nasbary (2000) , using an electronic format for a survey study does not pose any threat to the validity or reliability of the survey results, but rather has advantages such as low cost and rapid delivery.

4.1. Participants’ selection procedure

The target population for the study comprised of full-time professional ICT staff (with at least a college education) from for-profit companies engaged in ICT-related activities in Ethiopia and South Korea. Professionals in the ICT field were chosen mainly because of their crucial role in modern economic development in the least developed and advanced countries. Furthermore, the online survey was easily accessible due to their frequent contact to the internet. Additionally, selecting single industry enabled researchers to minimize errors emanating from industry-type. To collect data, Amharic (for Ethiopians) and Korean (for Koreans) versions of questionnaires were utilized for the study. In South Koreaa a survey company administered the questionnaire using random sampling approach in March–April, 2018. Using the company database, the questionnaire was sent to 500 staff, of which 300 replied. In Ethiopia, however, considering network quality and poor habit of using web, a hard-copy questionnaire was administered to 200 professionals selected by availability sampling in which 151 usable data were obtained. During data screening, nine extreme outliers (below or above 1.5 interquartile ranges of Q 1 & Q 3 respectively . ) from South Korea and four from Ethiopia were removed. Thus, the analyses were based on 291 (Males = 229 [78.7%], Females = 62 [21.3%]) participants from South Korea and 147 (Males = 98 [66.7%], Females = 49 [33.3%]) from Ethiopia.

The School Scientific Committee for Research and Publication (School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Adama Science & Technology University) approved the proposal of the study. The purpose of the research was also clearly explained for the participants to obtain their consent for participation.

For the South Korean participants, the average age was 37 years, with 58 being the highest age and 24 the lowest. The average tenure was seven years. Qualification wise, 16 (5.5%) had a diploma, 226 (77.7%) a bachelor’ degree, 43 (14.8%) a master's degree, and six (2.1%) were PhD holders. With respect to work position, 182 (62.5%) worked as staff, while 95 (32.6%) and 14 (4.8%) South Korean participants worked as team leaders and department heads respectively. A total of 176 (59.5%) worked for companies engaged in software development, followed by 86 (29.1%) who worked in telecom services. For the Ethiopian participants, the average age was 32, with 21 being the lowest age and 55 the highest. Average work experience was 5.6 years. In terms of educational qualifications, four (2.1%) had a diploma, 110 (74.8%) a first degree, 31 (21.1%) a second degree, and 2 (1.4%) of them were third degree holders. With regard to their work position, 129 (87.8%) worked as staff, while 12 (8.2%) and 6 (4.8%) of the Ethiopian participants worked as team leaders and department heads respectively. Most of (80%) the Ethiopian participants work for a telecom service company.

4.2. Measures

The study variables were measured using extensively used and validated instruments.

4.2.1. Leadership style

To measure the three leadership styles, participants ' impressions of the leadership behavior of their immediate supervisor were retrieved using the short form of the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X), a measure built based on the full range leadership model of Avolio and Bass ( Avolio et al., 1999 ) and commonly used and evaluated in different cultures ( Trottier et al., 2008 ; Solomon, 2016 ). The short form of the MLQ 5X consists of 36 items measuring nine outcomes of leadership: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavioral), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, contingent rewards, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive), and laissez-faire. The response are rated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 “not at all” to 4 “frequently, if not always.”

4.2.2. Work engagement

The UWES which was initially designed by Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b and subsequently reviewed by Schaufeli et al. (2006) , has been used to measure the level of work engagement of the individual employees The scale was validated in many studies ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010 ) and utilized in non-Western countries such as South Korea ( Kim, 2014 ; Song et al., 2012 ). The short form of UWES is called the UWES-9; it has nine items, three for each dimension: vigor, dedication, and absorption. It is a self-report scale. All items of the UWES-9 were presented with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“always”). Through analyzing data from various countries via CFA and test-retest reliability, Schaufeli et al. (2006) reported that the Cronbach's alpha for the UWES-9 ranged between 0 .85 and 0.92. Besides, other studies also confirmed its acceptable applicability in terms of the items' homogeneity and the construct factor structure (e.g., Park et al., 2013 ; Seppala et al., 2009 ).

4.2.3. Innovative work behavior

Innovative work behavior was measured using Janssen (2000) 9-item test with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “never” to (7) “always.” The instrument measures three aspects of innovative work behavior: breeding a new idea, gaining support from others for its implementation, and turning an idea into an application. The respondents were asked how often creative tasks relevant to these three fields were performed. To create measure of innovative work behavior, scores of the three aspects were summed up. With respect to its internal consistency, Agarwal et al. (2012) , reported Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92.

4.2.4. Task performance

In order to assess in-role task performance, a three-item self-report scale which is utilized widely in recent studies (e.g., Kim, 2014 ), has been used. Responses were recorded on seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree.” Drawing on review of different studies that had employed the scale, Kim (2014) reported its reliability ranging from 0.77 to 0.87.

All the scales that became part of the questionnaire used in this analysis were in English. Hence, to suit the current study, forward-then-backward translation procedures (English to Amharic and English to Korean) were performed on all instruments by independent bilingual professionals. This procedure ensures linguistic equivalence between the original language of the instrument and the language used for its administration ( McGorry, 2000 ).

4.3. Data analysis

In order to examine the data, descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Pearson's product momentum correlation, and linear multiple regression analysis were employed. To assess the amount of variability explained by the predictors, coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) and to determine the magnitude of the path effects, standardized path coefficient estimates were considered. For the sake of comparison, analyses were made for the two national samples separately.

Prior to the analyses, basic assumptions of multivariate data analysis such as normality, linearity, and multicollinearity were tested. Data from the two national samples showed approximately normal distributions. The assumption of linearity was also met. With respect to multicollinearity, the high bivariate correlation between transformational leadership style and transactional leadership style, particularly for South Korean participants, resulted in a relatively high variance inflation factor (VIF) of 5.33 for the variable transactional leadership worrisome as per the suggestion by Hair et al. (2010) .

5.1. Descriptive analyses

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the variables included in the study are presented in Table 1 . The bivariate correlations are indicated by a Pearson's product momentum correlation coefficient ( r) . Among the background factors, weak negative correlations between sex and work engagement ( r = - 0.18, p < 0.01) and sex and task performance ( r = -0.17, p < 0.01) were obtained for the South Korean sample, while for Ethiopia they failed to reach significance. Work position was weakly negatively correlated with work engagement ( r = -0.22, p < 0.01 for South Korea and r = -0.16, p < 0.05 for Ethiopia) and innovative work behavior ( r = -0.19, p < 0.01 for South Korea and r = -0 .24, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia). Transformational and transactional leadership styles were positively correlated with work engagement and indicators of work outcomes in both countries, with the exception of the relationship between the transactional leadership style and work engagement in Ethiopia, which failed to reach significance. Laissez-faire leadership was weakly positively correlated with work engagement ( r = 0.13, p < 0.05) and innovative work behavior ( r = 0.17, p < 0.01) in South Korea, while in Ethiopia it was negatively correlated with work engagement ( r = -0.21, p < 0.05) and innovative work behavior ( r = -0.16, p < 0.05). Its correlation with task performance failed to reach the significance level in both countries. Work engagement was moderately positively related with measures of outcome indicators —innovative work behavior ( r = 0.57, p < 0.01, and r = 0.66, p < 0.01) and task performance ( r = 0.46 , p < 0.01, and r = 0.54, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and South Korea, respectively. With respect to internal consistency, all measures for both samples demonstrated traditionally acceptable internal reliability levels ( α ranged from 0.77 to 0.95).

Table 1

Bivariate correlation, mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and internal consistencies (Cronbach'sα) of the study variables for the South Korean (n = 291) and Ethiopian (n = 147) samples.

Notes: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01 (two tailed).

The coding scheme was as follows: Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Education: 1 = diploma, 2 = BSc, 3 = MSc, 4 = PhD; work position: 1 = director/division head/assistant head, 2 = team leader, 3 = staff.

TRF - transformational, TRA - transactional, LAF - laissez-faire, WE - work engagement, IWB - innovative work behavior, TP - task performance.

Values below the diagonals are correlation coefficients for the South Korean sample, while those above the diagonals are values for the Ethiopian sample, along with internal consistency measures (Cronbach's alpha values).

5.2. Influence of leadership styles on work-related behaviors

To ascertain the proposed hypotheses related to the relationships between leadership styles and the measures of work outcomes and work engagement, a series of multiple linear regression analyses was performed, in which each indicator of work outcomes and work engagement was regressed on styles of leadership consecutively for the two countries separately. In the analyses, the background variables of the participants were controlled to remove their effects. As shown in Table 2 , the outputs indicated that the three leadership styles taken together explained a significant amount of the variability in innovative work behavior (Δ R 2 = 0.26, F (8,138) = 8.82 , p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.48, F (8,182) = 47.1, p < 0.01 for South Korea), task performance (Δ R 2 = 0.20, F (8,138) = 5.55, p < .0.05 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.21, F (8,182) = 10.46, p < 0.01 for South Korea), and work engagement (Δ R 2 = 0.24, F (8,138) = 8.82, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.32, F (8,182) = 23.2, p < 0.01 for South Korea). However, when the path coefficient estimates were taken into account, the path effects of the transformational leadership style on innovative work behavior ( β = 0.47, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; β = 0. 54, p < 0. 01 for South Korea) and work engagement ( β = 0.52, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; β = 0.45, p < 0.01 for South Korea) were significant, while its effect on task performance failed to reach the significance level in both countries. The effect of the transactional leadership style was significant only for task performance ( β = 0.29, p < 0. 01 for Ethiopia; β = 0.35, p < 0.01 for South Korea), not for innovative work behavior. Similarly, laissez-faire leadership's negative effect also reached significance level for task performance only ( β = -0.19, p < 0.05 for Ethiopia; β = - 0.17, p < 0.01 for South Korea).

Table 2

Regression results for predicting innovative work behavior, task performance, and work engagement from leadership styles.

Notes: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01 (two tailed). ETH - Ethiopia, KOR - South Korea.

The results in Table 2 provided support for H1 (a), H2 (b), H3 (b), and H4 but not for H5 and H6 .

To test the hypothesis related to the relationship between work engagement and the measures of work outcomes: innovative work behavior and task performance were regressed on work engagement consecutively and separately for the two countries. The results in Table 3 showed that a significant proportion of the variance in innovative work behavior (Δ R 2 = 0.28, F (6,140) = 13.10, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.38, F (6,140) = 38.04, p < 0.01 for South Korea) and task performance (Δ R 2 = 0.18, F (6,140) = 6.74, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0. 29, F (6,284) = 21.95, p < 0 .01 for South Korea) were explained by work engagement. The standardized path coefficients of work engagement on innovative work behavior ( β = 0.56, p < 0.01 and β = 0.64, p < 0.01) and on task performance ( β = 0. 45, p < 0.01 and β = 0.56, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and South Korea, respectively, indicated positive and significant relationships of work engagement with innovative work behavior and task performance and thus provided support for H7 .

Table 3

Regression results for predicting innovative work behavior and task performance from work engagement.

Note: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01 (two tailed).

5.3. Mediational role of work engagement

In testing the hypothesis related to the partial mediational role of work engagement in the link between leadership styles and indicators of outcome behavior, as per Baron and Kenny's (1986) suggestion, certain conditions need to be met for mediation establishment. First, the predictor variable(s) had to be related to the mediator variable. Second, the mediator had to be related to the predicted variable(s). Third, a significant relationship between the predictor variable(s) and predicted variable(s) was to be reduced for partial mediation to operate when controlling for the mediator variable. As described earlier, the first two conditions were partly met. Thus, for the mediation test, the two indicators of work outcomes were regressed over leadership styles consecutively while controlling for background factors and work engagement. As the results in Table 4 showed, the amount of variance in innovative work behavior explained by leadership styles was reduced from 26% to 9% ( Δ R 2 = 0. 09, F (9,137) = 12.56, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and from 48% to 16% (Δ R 2 = 0.16, F (9,281) = 48.62, p < 0.01) for South Korea, while for task performance reduction was from 20% to 10% (Δ R 2 = .10, F (9,137) = 7.63, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and from 21% to 4% (Δ R 2 = 0.04, F (9,281) = 17.44, p < 0.01) for South Korea. Thus, H8 is supported.

Table 4

Regression results for predicting work outcomes (innovative work behavior and task performance) from leadership styles while controlling work engagement.

With respect to hypothesis 9, (nature of relationships & mediation model across the two national samples), the separately presented results elucidated that the relationships among styles of leadership, work engagement and work outcomes were more or less consistent across Ethiopia and South Korea samples. Work engagement also partly mediated the relationship between leadership styles and work outcomes in both samples. Hence, H9 is supported.

6. Discussion

The present study investigated relationships among leadership styles, employee work engagement and some indicators of work outcomes and tested a mediation model of work engagement in the link between styles of leadership and work outcomes among ICT professionals. The model viewed leadership styles (the behavior of leaders varying from powerful transformation to "non-leadership") as antecedent to work engagement and innovative work behavior and task performance were taken as work outcomes. It also investigated the nature of relationships among variables and cross-national validity of the proposed model in two independent samples from Ethiopia and South Korea, countries that differ in their social, cultural, economic, and technological levels. The obtained results were as follows:

First, the transformational leadership style had significant positive relationships with employees' work engagement and innovative work behavior, while the transactional leadership style had a significant positive relationship with employee task performance. Laissez-faire leadership had a significant negative relationship with task performance. These associations were consistent across the two national samples. The assumed positive links of transformational leadership style with task performance and transactional leadership style with employees’ innovative work behavior, and the negative relationship of the laissez-faire style with innovative behavior were not supported in both national samples. The relationships obtained have shown that leaders who stimulate and inspire followers by articulating visions, goals, and shared values and engaged in building capacity via coaching and challenging employees promote innovative behavior, while leaders who emphasize compliance of followers through supervision may have influence on task performance.

Second, as expected, work engagement had significant positive relationships with the indicators of work outcomes (innovative work behavior and task performance) among ICT professionals in both countries. This suggests that, employees who psychologically identify with their work or “bring in” their personal selves to work, devoting and experiencing an emotional connection to their work, appear to be innovative and put discretionary effort into performance of tasks.

Third, work engagement partially mediated the relationships between leadership styles and indicators of outcomes. Specifically, the relationship between transformational leadership and professionals’ innovative work behavior was partially mediated by work engagement in both countries. This implies that transformational leaders influence innovative behavior of staff directly and indirectly through influencing their level of work engagement.

Work outcomes such as task performance and innovative work behavior are influenced by a number of factors of which leadership is an important one. Consistent to current study results, previous studies (e.g. Khan et al., 2012 ; Ejere and Abasilim, 2013 ; Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Solomon, 2016 ) underscored the significant contributions of transactional and transformational styles of leadership for employees’ performance.

Specifically, the association of transformational leadership style with innovative work behavior and transactional leadership style with task performance observed in the current study may be explained in terms of peculiar characteristics of these styles. With respect to innovative work behaviour, transformational leadership style is considered as a suitable style of leadership as in this style followers are encouraged to commence new ideas and challenge old ways of doing things ( Bass and Avolio, 2000 ). For innovative behaviour transformational leaders' behaviour such as being role model by engaging in needed change, stimulating followers to challenge the status quo and be inspirational while leading others are all vital qualities. In addition, transformative leadership style demanding alignment of the needs and desires of followers with the organization's one ( Bass, 1999 ), may encourage employees to go additional mile necessary for creative behaviour. On the other hand, transactional leadership can be argued to be significant for task performance of employees' as it is focused more on immediate outcomes, monitor performance and correct mistakes. Additionally, transactional leaders make clear expectations and give feedback about meeting expectations may push employees to focus on tasks listed in job description.

The findings related to linkages among leadership styles, work engagement and work outcomes obtained in the current study are also consistent with some earlier studies (e.g., Bakker and Bal, 2010 ; Salanova et al., 2011 ; Song et al., 2012 ). Bakker and Bal (2010) reported on weekly work engagement as a predictor of performance among starting teachers. With respect to leadership styles, Song et al. (2012) affirmed the significant impact of transformational leadership on employee work engagement and organizational knowledge creation practices, and partial mediation of employee work engagement in the link between those two constructs. Salanova et al. (2011) also reported a relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement where, contrary to the findings of the current study, work engagement fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and nurses’ extra-role performance.

The observed mediation of work engagement across independent samples found in the current study is also consistent with some previous studies ( Dorfman et al., 1997 ; Walumbwa et al., 2005 ; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008 ). While the consistency of the mediation model observed here across the two independent national samples does not justify either its utility or its contribution, it may add confidence in the generalizability of the findings.

6.1. Implications

The results of this study have some theoretical and practical implications in HR-related fields for researchers and practitioners. The study provides insights into the ongoing investigations of correlates of employees' work engagement. In particular, the study may shed light on the nature of associations among leadership styles, work engagement, and critical work outcomes such as task performance and innovative work behavior among ICT professionals. It may also disentangle the role of transformational leadership, particularly when it comes to employees personally committing themselves to role performance and innovation efforts. Besides, the study elucidated the cross-national aspect of the relationships among the variables it considered. Despite a number of background differences, it appeared that styles of leadership had more or less similar links with work engagement and outcome behaviors among participants from Ethiopia and South Korea. Specifically, the invariance in the mediating role of work engagement in the link between transformational leadership and employees’ discretionary actions with respect to idea generation, promotion, and realization among ICT professionals working in different countries solidify the existing understanding of the importance of this leadership style.

Practically, the results of the study highlight the need to improve leadership by applying a transformational style, as it is essential for organizations to have ICT workforces that perform their roles and are willing to demonstrate discretionary efforts. Thus, practitioners in the field should develop strategies and training programs targeting transformational leadership skills such as being supportive and intellectually stimulating, and conveying a vision to employees so that leaders can influence their staff. In particular, to strengthen the ICT sector's human resources in Ethiopia so that it can contribute significantly to the development of the country, more attention should be given to leadership development.

Furthermore, practitioners could closely scrutinize employees' work engagement by assessing it using well-established scales such as the UWES or a locally developed one. For ICT companies to be competitive, collecting information on the work engagement level of staff should be part of employees' opinion surveys, and identifying practices and policies that promote their staff's work engagement behavior is imperative.

6.2. Limitations and future research

Notwithstanding its important theoretical and practical contributions, there are some drawbacks to this study. The cross-sectional research design used primarily did not allow researchers to establish causality among variables. This means that the suggested associations among the variables should not be interpreted as causal relationships, but as associations that suggest causal ordering, which needs to be confirmed by longitudinal research. Secondly, the data for the study were gathered using a self-report questionnaire with its own inherent pros and cons, particularly when it comes to the participants’ assessments of their immediate supervisor. Thirdly, as antecedent variables, the study limited to full range of leadership model consists of transformational, transactional and laissez fair styles. That is, there are also other potential aspects of leadership nature that might be relevant that are not included in the current study. Finally, the relatively high VIF of the transactional leadership style could undermine the role of this variable in the web. Thus, for future research, the researchers suggest a longitudinal research design and outcomes measured through methods other than self-reports.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Habtamu Kebu Gemeda, Jaesik Lee: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

• Agarwal U.A., Datta S., Blake-Beard S., Bhargava S. Linking LMX, innovative work behavior and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2012; 17 (3):208–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ardichvili A., Kuchinke K.P. Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2002; 5 (1):99–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B.J., Bass B.M., Jung D.I. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1999; 72 :441–462. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A.B., Bal P.M. Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010; 83 (1):189–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A.B., Demerouti E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2008; 13 (3):209–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986; 51 :1173–1182. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 1999; 8 :9–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M., Avolio B.J. Sage Publications Inc; Thousand Oaks: 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness: through Transformational Leadership. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M., Avolio B.J. second ed. Mind Garden; Redwood City, CA: 2000. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M., Riggio R.E. second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; London: 2006. Transformational Leadership. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batista-Taran L.C., Shuck M.B., Gutierrez C.C., Baralt S. The role of leadership style in employee engagement. In: Plakhotnik M.S., Nielsen S.M., Pane D.M., editors. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference. Florida International University; Miami: 2009. pp. 15–20. http://coeweb.fiu.edu/research_conference/ Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beyene K.T., Shi C.S., Wu W.W. Linking culture, organizational learning orientation and product innovation performance: the case of Ethiopian manufacturing firms. Afr J. Ind. Eng. 2016; 27 (2):88–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carasco-Saul M., Kim W., Kim T. Leadership and employee engagement proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2015; 14 (1):38–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chughtai A.A. Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 2013; 28 (6):606–627. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compare Countries-Hofstede Insights https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/ n.d., Wikipedia.
• Demerouti E., Cropanzano R. From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance. In: Bakker A.B., Leiter M.P., editors. Vol. 65. 2010. pp. 147–163. (Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research). [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorfman P.W., Howell J.P., Hibino S., Lee J.K., Tate U., Bautista A. Leadership in Western and Asian countries: communalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leader. Q. 1997; 8 (3):233–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn M.W., Dastoor B., Sims R.L. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: a cross-cultural perspective. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2012; 4 (1):45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ejere E.I., Abasilim U.D. Impact of transactional and transformational leadership styles on organizational Performance: empirical Evidence from Nigeria. J. Commer. 2013; 1 (5):30–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ethiopia. 2018. Retrieved on 5th March, 2018, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia . [ Google Scholar ]
• Evelyn D., Hazel G. Effects of transformational leadership on employee engagement: the mediating role of employee engagement. Int. J. Manag. 2015; 6 (2):1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. seventh ed. Pearson; New York: 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter J.K., Schmidt F.L., Hayes T.L. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002; 87 (2):268–279. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayward B.A., Davidson A.J., Pascoe J.B., Tasker M.L., Amos T.L., Pearse N.J. Paper Presented at the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology 6th Annual Conference, 25-27 June 2003, Sandton, Johannesburg. 2003. The relationship between leadership and employee performance in a South African pharmaceutical company. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Monitory Fund . 2016. Country Report, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16322 Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janssen O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000; 73 :287–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeung C.W. The concept of employee engagement: a comprehensive review from a positive organizational behavior perspective. Perform. Improv. Q. 2011; 24 :49–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge T.A., Piccolo R.F. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004; 89 (5):755–768. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahn W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990; 33 (4):692–724. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan M.J., Aslam N., Riaz M.N. Leadership styles as predictors of innovative work behavior. Pak. J. Clin. Psychol. 2012; 9 (2):17–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim W. The Pennsylvania State University; 2014. An Examination of Work Engagement in Selected Major Organizations in Korea: its Role as a Mediator between Antecedents and Consequences. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/9386 Dissertation. Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koech P.M., Namusonge G.S. The effect of leadership styles on organizational performance at state corporations in Kenya. Int. J. Bus. Commer. 2012; 2 (1):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kotter J.P. The Free Press; New York: 1988. The Leadership Factor. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach C., Leitier M.P. first ed. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco, CA: 1997. The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and what to Do about it. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach C., Schaufeli W.B., Leiter M.P. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001; 52 (1):397–422. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGorry S.Y. Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues. Qual. Market Res. 2000; 3 (2):74–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer M., Botha E. Butterworths; Durban: 2000. Organizational Development & Transformation in South Africa. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasbary D.K. Allyn& Bacon; Boston: 2000. Survey Research and the World Wide Web. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park Y.K., Song J.H., Yoon S.W., Kim J. Learning organization and innovative behavior: the mediating effect of work engagement. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2013; 38 :75–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pourbarkhordari1 A., Zhou E.H., Pourkarimi J. How Individual-focused transformational leadership enhances its influence on job performance through employee work engagement. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016; 11 (2):249–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramoorthy N., Flood J., Slattery T.F., Sardessai R. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2005; 19 :959–971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rich B.L., Lepine J.A., Crawford E.R. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2010; 53 (3):617–635. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robbins S.P., Judge T.A., Sanghi S. Dorling Kindersley pvt.Ltd; New Delhi: 2009. Organizational Behavior (13 ed ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbard N.P. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Adm. Sci. Q. 2001; 46 (4):655–684. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006; 21 (7):600–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salanova M., Lorente L., Chambel M.T., Martinez I.M. Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011; 67 (10):2256–2266. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salanova M., Schaufeli W.B. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008; 19 (1):116–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Bakker A.B. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 2004; 25 (3):293–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Bakker A.B. Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarity to the concept. In: Bakker A.B., Leiter M.P., editors. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Psychology Press; New York, NY: 2010. pp. 10–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Bakker A.B., Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006; 66 (1):701–716. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Martínez I., Marques-Pinto A., Salanova M., Bakker A.B. Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2002; 33 :464–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., Bakker A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002; 3 (1):71–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon S. Addis Ababa University; 2016. The Relationship between Leadership Styles and Employees’ Performance in Selected Sub-city Education Offices of Addis Ababa City Administration. Unpublished master thesis submitted to. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seppala P., Mauno S., Feldt T., Hakanen J., Kinnunen U., Tolvanen A., Schaufeli W. The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: multi sample and longitudinal evidence. J. Happiness Stud. 2009; 10 (4):459–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahin A.I., Wright P.L. Leadership in the context of culture: an Egyptian perspective. Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 2004; 25 (6):499–511. [ Google Scholar ]
• Song J.,H., Kolb J.A., Lee U.H., Kim H.K. Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work engagement. Human Dev. Q. 2012; 23 (1):65–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• South Korea. 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea Retrieved on 5th March, 2018, from Wikipedia: [ Google Scholar ]
• Trottier T., Van Wart M., Wang X. Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Publ. Adm. Rev. 2008; 68 (2):319–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent-Höper S., Muser C., Janneck M. Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Dev. Int. 2012; 17 :663–682. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walumbwa F.O., Lawler J.L., Avolio B.J. Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: a cross-culture investigation. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2007; 56 (2):212–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walumbwa F.O., Orwa B., Wang P., Lawler J.J. Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2005; 16 (2):235–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasbeek D.J. Dissertation; Robert Kennedy College: 2004. Human Resource Management Practices in Selected Private Companies: A Study to Increase Employee Productivity in Ethiopia. www.bookpump.com/dps/pdf-b/1122446b.pdf Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xanthopoulou D., Bakker A.B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W.B. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007; 14 (2):121–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xanthopoulou D., Bakker A.B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W.B. Work engagement and financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009; 82 (1):183–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Thomas H. How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 2011; 32 :399–416. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yim H. Cultural identity and cultural policy in South Korea. Int. J. Cult. Pol. 2002; 8 (1):37–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang X.M., Bartol K.M. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 2010; 53 :107–128. [ Google Scholar ]