Individual Research Proposal (IRP) - University of Tilburg [PDF]

Leadership behaviors and Employee Engagement: The moderating effect of Job Insecurity

Tilburg University Master Human Resource Studies Master Thesis 2009-2010

Author:

Laura van Kesteren Schubertlaan 67B 5653 EB, Eindhoven [email protected]

ANR:

574752

Project Theme:

Engagement

Supervisor:

René Schalk

Second Reader:

Marc van Veldhoven

MTO Professor:

Marcel Croon

Index

Page Abstract

3

1. Introduction

4

2. Theoretical Framework

7

2.1 Engagement

7

2.2 Leadership behaviors

8

2.2.1 Transactional Leadership

9

2.2.2 Transformational Leadership

11

2.2.3 Transactional versus Transformational Leadership

14

2.3 Perceived Job Insecurity

15

2.3.1 The moderating effect of Job Insecurity

16

2.3.2 Transactional leadership, Job Insecurity and Engagement

16

2.3.3 Transformational leadership, Job Insecurity and Engagement

17

2.4 Conceptual Model

19

2.5 Control Variables

19

3. Method

22

3.1 Research set-up

22

3.2 Procedure

22

3.3 Respondents

22

3.4 Instruments

24

3.5 Statistical analysis

27

4. Results

29

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

29

4.2 Leadership Behaviors and Engagement

31

4.3 Job Insecurity and Engagement

33

4.4 The moderating effect of Job Insecurity

34

1

5. Conclusion

35

6. Discussion

36

6.1 Limitations and suggestions for future Research

39

6.2 Practical implications

42

6.3 Final remark

43

Literature

44

Appendices

51

Appendix A. Questionnaire

52

Appendix B. Factor Analyses

55

Appendix C. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Vigor, Dedication and Absorption

58

Appendix D. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Transformational Leadership Behaviors

61

2

Abstract Employee engagement is a concept that is increasingly gaining attention from researchers, employers and employees. This study aims to provide insight in leadership behaviors that engage employees in insecure work situations.

Based on the existing literature four hypotheses on the relationship between engagement, leadership and job insecurity are developed. Both transformational and transactional leadership are assumed to have a direct, positive effect on employee engagement. Job insecurity is as considered as a moderator, with an impact on the relationship between leadership and engagement.

Questionnaire data were collected from 300 respondents. Multiple regression analysis shows that transformational leadership has a significant, positive effect on employee engagement. Against expectations, no relationship between transactional leadership and engagement was found. In addition hypotheses about the moderating effect of job insecurity were rejected.

Based on the limitations of this study, suggestions for future research are offered. The findings suggest that leaders who focus on long-term purposes and higher order intrinsic needs by developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring followers, are able to enhance employee engagement.

Keywords:

Engagement, Job Insecurity, Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership.

3

1. Introduction ‘While positioning themselves to maintain competitive in the marketplace, companies must also manage their employee engagement if they expect to receive their best efforts on the job’ (Timmerman, 2008, p. 1).

During the last two decades organizations increasingly used downsizing as a way to handle the intense competition caused by globalization (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). On top of that, the current financial crisis forces organizations to reduce their headcount in order to save costs. For numerous employees these recent developments cause feelings of insecurity concerning the future existence of their jobs (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002).

Growing perceptions of job insecurity have consequences for employee attitudes, such as employee engagement (Rosenblatt, Talmud & Ruvio, 1999; Sverke, Hellgren & Naswall, 2002). Employees who feel engaged experience high levels of involvement and enjoyment (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen, 2008). The positive state of mind is not the only reason for modern organizations to attempt to improve employee engagement. High levels of employee engagement have a positive effect on business outcomes, like customer satisfaction, productivity and profitability (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002).

Organizational leaders can boost work engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008). Especially first-line supervisors are believed to be important for building employee engagement (Saks, 2006). Papalexandris and Galanaki (2008) found that some leadership behaviors have a strong positive effect on employee engagement while other behaviors have no significant effect. In this study the effects of transactional and transformational leadership behaviors on employee engagement will be examined.

Modern Leadership research is based on the premise that effective leadership behavior depends on situational aspects. ‘The types of leader traits or behaviors that will be effective in one situation may not be effective in other situations, thus suggesting that situational variables moderate the relationships between leader behaviors and subordinate responses’ (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover & Huber, 1984, p. 22). Zhu, Avolio and Walumbwa (2009) conclude that to a

4

certain degree the effectiveness of leadership depends on the characteristics of followers. One of the follower’s characteristics that might play an important role is perceived job insecurity. Considering the growing feelings of job insecurity among today’s employees and the focus on employee engagement, for organizational leaders the answer to the following question seems to be more relevant than ever: How to engage employees during times of job insecurity?

In order to provide an answer to this question, this study does not only investigate the relationship between leadership behaviors and employee engagement. On top of that, hypotheses about the moderating effect of perceived job insecurity on this relationship will be tested.

This study aims to examine to what extent leadership behaviors have a positive effect on engagement taking into account the moderating effect of perceived job insecurity, in order to provide insight in the leadership behaviors that are needed to engage (insecure) employees. To reach this goal an answer to following research questions will be provided: To what extent do transactional and transformational leadership behaviors have a positive impact on engagement? To what extent does perceived job insecurity have a moderating effect on the relationship between leadership behaviors on engagement?

In the last decade academic researchers have taken a more positive perspective by focussing on the optimal functioning and positive experiences at work (Van den Broek et al., 2008). Employee engagement, as a positive concept is also popular with organizations (employees and management) and consultants (Wefald & Downey, 2009). Although the term engagement is widely used, Macey and Schneider (2008, p. 3) state that ‘the relationships among potential antecedents and consequences as well as the components of engagement have not been rigorously conceptualized, much less studied’. Since the present study will provide insight in the relationship between leadership and engagement, it will further expand our knowledge about potential antecedents of engagement.

A considerable amount of literature about job insecurity and its consequences has been written in the last decade (Sora et al., 2008). Fried et al. (2003) note that there is a scarcity of 5

research examining the moderating role of job insecurity, especially in view of the significant growth of importance of job insecurity for many employees. By focusing on job insecurity as a moderator between leadership and engagement, this study adds to the existing literature on job insecurity.

The conclusions will not only expand our scientific knowledge about the relationships between engagement, leadership and job insecurity. Organizations can also profit from the derived insights. This study will provide useful leads for organizational leaders that aspire to improve employee engagement during times of job uncertainty. High levels of employee engagement have a positive effect on business outcomes (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). As engaged employees enjoy their work, engagement is a desirable state of mind (Schaufeli et al., 2002) for employees.

In the next chapter the theoretical framework will be presented. The method and results will be discussed in chapter 3 and 4. Subsequently the conclusions are highlighted in chapter 5. Finally, the last chapter deals with the limitations of this study and related recommendations for future research, practical implications and closes with a final remark.

6

2. Theoretical Framework In this chapter the theoretical concepts Engagement (2.1), Leadership Behaviors (2.2) and Job insecurity (2.3) will be outlined. Furthermore hypotheses about the relationships between the theoretical concepts are formulated. Finally the conceptual model will be presented (2.4).

2.1 Engagement Employee engagement is a relatively new term that is widely used in the management literature and popular press (Little & Little, 2006). An extensive research among different kinds of organizations around the globe, shows that engaging employees is the fourth most important management challenge behind reducing costs, managing mergers and alliances and creating customer loyalty (Wah, 1999).

As in economic life, employee engagement is increasingly recognized as an important psychological construct in the academic community (Wefald, & Downey, 2009). According to Avery, Wilson and McKay (2007, p. 1543) ‘a number of authors have demonstrated engagement to be an important variable of interest to organizations’. In a meta analysis, Harter et al. (2002) conclude that engagement has a positive impact on customer satisfaction, productivity and profit. Engagement is negatively related to employee turnover, absenteeism and shrinkage (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Asplund, 2006).

Engagement, as a concept, was first introduced by Kahn in 1990. Kahn (1990, p. 694) defines personal engagement as ‘the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances.’ On the contrary people who are not able to express their selves in their work role, tend to be disengaged and withhold effort.

In the last decade scholars in the field of work and organizational psychology increasingly paid attention to work engagement (van den Broek et al., 2008). They consider engagement to be the positive antipode of burnout (González-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker & Lloret, 2006). A well-known definition is the one of Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Roma and Bakker (2002, p. 74) who state that ‘engagement is a positive, fulfilling state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption’.

7

Engagement refers to a persistent affective-motivational state. As a result engagement is not related to a particular event (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). The first dimension vigor ‘is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest efforts in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties’ (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008, p.118). Dedication, the second dimension, refers to a strong identification with a job and ‘is characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge’. Finally absorption ‘is characterized by being fully concentrated and engrossed in one’s job, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work’.

The definition of Schaufeli et al. (2002) is adopted in this research. The primary reason is the split into three dimensions which permits a more accurate detection of the effects on work engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008). Moreover the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), a psychometrically valid questionnaire, can be used to measure the three dimensions of engagement. Papalexandris and Galanaki (2008) believe that engagement as defined by Schaufeli et al. (2002) portrays the composite state of commitment, effectiveness, motivation and satisfaction. According to Macey and Schneider (2008) those aspects of the concepts job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement that are connoting affect and feelings of energy are relevant for engagement. Although scientific research has proven there is some overlap between engagement and the concepts of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement, there is still discussion about the extent to which they are related (Wefald and Downey, 2009). 2.2 Leadership behaviors Leadership is a concept that has been studied extensively in the last century. Jago (1982, p. 315) defined the process of leadership as ‘the use of no coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of members of an organized group towards the accomplishment of group objectives’. Recent literature is dominated by a distinction between transformational and transactional leadership styles (Pelgrim, 2008).

The concepts of transactional and transformational leadership were first introduced by Burns in 1978. In 1985, founded on the ideas of Burns, Bass defined his famous theory of

8

transformational leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Ever since this relatively new focus on leadership draw the attention of a large number of scientific researchers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996).

2.2.1 Transactional Leadership According to Burns (1978) transactional leaders focus on the proper exchange of resources. In accordance with Burns, Bass (1999) refers to transactional leadership as the exchange relationship between a leader and followers to meet self interests. ‘Transactional leaders are considered to be those who focus on the motivation of followers through reward or discipline, clarifying for their followers the kinds of rewards that should be expected for various behaviors’ (Goodwin, Wofford & Whittington, 2001, p.759).

Transactional leadership can take three forms (Bass, 1999). Transactional leadership can take the form of contingent reward. ‘Contingent reward is the degree to which the leader sets up constructive transactions or exchanges with followers: The leader clarifies expectations and establishes the rewards for meeting these expectations’ (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Second, it can take the form of active management by exception, in which ‘the leader monitors the followers’ performance and takes corrective actions if the follower fails to meet standards’ (Bass, 1999). At last, it can take the form of passive leadership. In this case the leader only takes corrective actions when problems arise or avoids to take action at all. Transactional leaders tend to use reward and recognition as a control mechanism. ‘Reward and recognition are provided contingent on followers successfully carrying out their roles and assignments’ (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p.208). Brun and Dugas (2008) noticed that although recognition is seen as an important management tool, no clear definition of the concept was present. By reviewing the existing literature, Brun and Dugas (2008, p. 727) came up with the following definition: ‘Recognition is first and foremost a constructive response; it is also a judgment made about a person’s contribution, reflecting not just work performance but also personal dedication and engagement. Lastly recognition is engaged in on a regular or ad hoc basis, and expressed formally or informally, individually or collectively, privately or publicly and monetarily or non-monetarily’.

9

Graen, Liden and Hoel (1982) distinguish two kinds of transactions: low quality transactions and high quality transactions. ‘Low quality transactions are based on the exchange of goods and rights whereas high quality transactions are augmented by an interpersonal bond between leaders and followers’ (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).

Transactional Leadership and Engagement A review of existing literature has demonstrated that transactional leadership is an interesting variable since it has many positive outcomes. Transactional leadership is positively related to followers’ commitment, satisfaction and performance (Bass, Jung, Avolio & Berson, 2003) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Goodwin, Wofford & Whittington, 2001). Surprisingly no studies were found that examined the effect of transactional leadership on engagement. Still a hypothesis about the effect of transactional leadership on engagement can be formulated based on research that focuses on reward and recognition. In his qualitative research Kahn (1990, p. 702) focused on ‘how people’s experiences of themselves and their work contexts influenced moments of personal engagement and disengagement’. Kahn emphasizes the importance of role status. Employees who receive appropriate recognition, perceive their role as more important, which in turn makes them feel more engaged. Employees who do not receive proper recognition, may feel that their role is unimportant. Due to these feelings of unimportance, the sense of meaningfulness decreases which leads to personal disengagement. Saks (2006) also investigates the relationship between (reward and) recognition and employee engagement. Saks expects reward and recognition to be positively related to both job and organization engagement. The Social Exchange Theory (SET) is used to explain this prediction; the higher the amount of recognition that employees receive from their organization, the more they will feel obliged to respond with higher levels of engagement. Against expectations, multiple regression analyses show that ‘reward and recognition’ is not a significant predictor of job or organization engagement.

Concerning the engagement of highly educated women in a Turkish bank, Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum (2006) found that ´reward and recognition´ is an important antecedent of vigor, dedication and absorption. In a study among teachers in Finland appreciation turned out

10

to be the most important predictor of vigor, dedication and absorption (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti & Xanthopoulou, 2007). Although the results are mixed, most studies provide significant evidence for a positive effect of reward and recognition on employee engagement. Providing followers with reward and recognition is typical behavior for a transactional leader, therefore the following hypothesis is formulated: H1. Transactional leadership has a positive effect on employee engagement. 2.2.2 Transformational Leadership According to Burns, transformational leaders focus on long-term purposes and higher order intrinsic needs. Bass (1985) states that transformational leadership goes beyond exchanging inducements for desired performance by developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring followers who transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or vision. Transformational leaders ‘concentrate their efforts on longer term goals; place value and emphasis on developing a vision and inspiring followers to pursue the vision; change or align systems to accommodate their vision rather than work within existing systems; and coach followers to take on greater responsibility for their own development, as well as the development of others’ (Howell & Avolio, 1993, p. 891).

A literature review by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) indicates that at least six key behaviors are associated with transformational leadership: Identifying and articulating a vision. Leadership behavior aimed at identifying new opportunities for the organization and developing, articulating and inspiring others with this vision of the future (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Transformational or charismatic ‘leaders differ from other leaders by their ability to formulate and articulate an inspirational vision and by behaviors and actions that foster an impression that they and their mission are extraordinary’ (Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000, p. 748). Providing an appropriate model. Leadership behavior ‘that sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with both the values the leader espouses and the goals of the organization’ (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Rich, 2001, p. 119). Transformational leaders engage

11

in exemplary actions that are perceived to involve personal risk and self-sacrifice. Furthermore they deploy innovative and unconventional means for achieving their visions (Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000).

Fostering the acceptance of group goals. A transformational leader promotes cooperation among followers and gets them to work together towards a common goal even at the expense of their personal goals and aspirations (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The transformational leader needs to align the followers self-interests in their own development with the interests of the group, organization or society (Bass, 1999). High performance expectations. ‘Behavior that demonstrates the leaders expectations for excellence, quality and/or high performance on part of the followers’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990). According to Bass (1999) transformational leaders train individuals and teams to focus on quality, service, cost-effectiveness and quantity of output of production.

Individualized support. Leadership behavior that shows respect and concern about personal feelings and needs of followers (Podsakoff et al., 1990). ‘Transformational leaders pay attention to each individual’s needs for achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor’ (Bass, Jung, Avolio & Berson, 2003, p. 208).

Intellectual stimulation. Leadership behavior that challenges followers to re-examine their assumptions about work (Podsakoff et al., 1990). ‘Transformational leaders stimulate their followers effort to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways’ (Bass, Jung, Avolio & Berson, 2003, p. 208).

According to MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich (2001) the transformational leadership behaviors described above differ from transactional leadership behaviors in several ways. The forms of transformational leadership involve more than the administration of rewards and punishments. They tend to be more proactive whereas transactional leadership behaviors tend to be reactive. ‘Transformational leadership involves fundamentally changing the values, goals and aspirations of followers’ (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Rich, 2001, p. 118).

12

Transformational Leadership and Engagement ‘Over the past twenty years, transformational leadership has been studied extensively by leadership researchers and has been found to be positively associated with a number of important organizational outcomes in many different types of organizations and situations, across different levels of analyses and across cultures’ (Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang & Lawler, 2005).

Recently Zhu, Avolio and Walumbwa (2009) stated that there is no empirical evidence that shows a direct relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. They expect that transformational leadership will have a positive relationship with followers engagement for two reasons. Transformational leaders focus on broadening individual responsibilities for taking on greater work challenges. Moreover transformational leadership has been positively related to higher levels of followers’ psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety and psychological availability. Data collected from a range of industries in South Africa show that transformational leadership has a positive effect on engagement.

At least one more study examines the relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. In 2008, Papalexandris and Galanaki found that two leadership behaviors have a large impact on employee engagement, namely management/mentoring skills and articulating vision. Management/mentoring skills assembles characteristics that are often related with good management practices, such as performance orientation, role clarification and intellectually stimulation. Articulating a vision is related to setting the base for further success, team orientation and inspiration.

Research by work and organizational psychologists can also be used to draw conclusions about the relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. In most studies the Job Demands-Resources model is used to explain differences in levels of engagement. Since job resources have a positive effect on employee health and motivation, engagement, a positive state of mind, is likely to occur (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). According to Schaufeli, Bakker & van Rhenen (2009, p. 897) ‘it has been consistently found that job resources (not job demands) are positively related to work engagement’. To an important extent, job resources are provided by (transformational) leaders.

13

Supervisory support is one of the job resources that has been found to be positively related in multiple studies. On top of that a lack of supervisory support has been found to have a direct positive link with burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) investigated the effect of supervisory coaching on employee engagement. In four different organizations supervisory coaching turned out to have a significant positive effect on vigor, dedication and absorption.

Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli (2009) investigated how daily fluctuations in job resources (autonomy, coaching and team climate) are related to employees’ levels of work engagement. They conclude that particularly supervisory coaching can create engaged employees. ‘Supervisors should set clear performance goals that employees need to achieve; they should inform about and provide to employees all means that are necessary for achieving their tasks, and they should promote a performance orientation in the team’ (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2009, p.198).

Bakker, van Emmerik and Euwema (2006) conclude that organizations that want to improve employee engagement should pay attention to opportunities for development and individual support structures provided by supervisors and peers.

Based on the results of the research described above, the following hypothesis is formulated: H2. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee engagement. 2.2.3 Transactional versus Transformational Leadership Whereas transactional leaders cater to their followers’ immediate self interests, transformational leaders uplift the morale and motivation of their followers (Bass, 1999). Transformational leadership behaviors are believed to augment the impact of transactional forms of leadership behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996). According to Bass transformational leadership and transactional leadership are distinct concepts, that do not represent opposite ends of a single continuum.

Bass (1985) even claims that the best leaders are both transactional and transformational. ‘Transactional leadership can be reasonably satisfying and effective but transformational leadership adds substantially to the impact of transactional leadership’ (Bass, 1999, p.12).

14

Therefore the prediction that both transactional leadership and transformational leadership have a positive impact on employee engagement seems to be valid. ‘When supervisors communicate to their subordinates how well they perform on their assigned tasks, and suggest better ways of doing so, employees’ optimism is boosted, and consequently they are more engaged’(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2009, p.196). 2.3 Perceived Job insecurity In the last two decades many employees have experienced feelings of job insecurity due to a significant increase in mergers and acquisitions along with the downsizing and delayering of many organizations (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). As a result a large amount of literature about job insecurity and its consequences has been developed (Sora, Caballer, Peiro & de Witte, 2008).

Although there is not one generally accepted definition of job insecurity, many researcher use the definition of Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984, p. 438) define job insecurity as ‘perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation’. Like many other researchers, Davy, Kinicki and Scheck (1997) state that this definition goes beyond the concern over continuation of employment, and includes concern over desirable job characteristics, like promotion opportunities and current work conditions. In turn Hui and Lee (2000) conclude that job insecurity derives from uncertainty in someone’s job situation as well as from a lack of control over the destiny of one’s job situation. According to De Witte (2005, p. 1.) ‘the topic of job insecurity is situated between employment and unemployment, because it refers to employed employees who feel threatened by unemployment’. Since job insecurity does not necessarily lead to unemployment, the amount of employees experiencing feelings of job insecurity is believed to be considerably larger than the number of employees who actually lose their job.

Research on job insecurity does not focus on employees that deliberately choose an uncertain job status. Since job insecurity implies feelings of powerlessness to preserve the desired job continuation, insecure employees experience a discrepancy between the preferred and perceived level of job insecurity (De Witte, 2005). 15

2.3.1 The moderating effect of Job Insecurity Job insecurity is believed to be an important variable that moderates the relation between key job characteristics and work-related outcomes (Fried et al., 2003). Fried et al. (2003) note that they are surprised that there is a scarcity of research examining the moderating role of job insecurity, especially in view of the significant growth of importance of job insecurity for many employees.

Podsakoff et al. (1984) state that most contemporary models of leadership share the common proposition that situational variables moderate the relationship between leadership behaviors and followers work attitudes. Zhu Avolio and Walumbwa (2009, p.610) conclude that ‘the effectiveness of leadership to a certain extent may vary depending on the qualities, attributes and characteristics of followers’. However there has been relatively little research that examines the role of follower’s characteristics in determining the effects of leadership on followers work attitudes (Zhu, Avolio & Walumbwa, 2009). Perceived job insecurity is assumed to be an important followers’ characteristic, that has a moderating effect on the effect of leadership on employee engagement. ‘Job insecurity affects employee reactions by magnifying the positive or negative effects of job-related factors’ (Fried et al., 2003, p. 789). Since job insecurity can prompt affective responses (Mone, 1997), the needs, expectations and desires with regard to leadership behavior may differ for employees who feel insecure about the future existence of their job compared to employees who are confident they can keep their current job.

2.3.2 Transactional Leadership, Job Insecurity and Engagement ‘Most employees express a need to be recognized by their supervisors, co-workers and clients, regardless of their job status or type’ (Brun & Dugas, 2008, p. 717). Brun and Dugas (2008) stress the importance of recognition in a fast changing organizational context. In this context the adaptation of new HR practices like recognition, that acknowledge the contribution of employees, is needed to retain and engage employees. ‘In most contemporary countries a job holds the key to social integration, social participation and recognition’ (De Witte. 2005, p. 3). Therefore the belief that there is a realistic chance that an employee will soon lose his/her job, might trigger an extra need for recognition.

16

Baruch and Hind (1999) use the new psychological contract to explain which management processes are needed to deal with the negative consequences of job insecurity. Under this new deal employees tolerate change and ambiguity in exchange for higher pay and reward for performance. According to Hiltrop (1995) in the new psychological contract, there is no job security. In return, employees receive pay that reflects their contribution.

De Witte (2005) argues that the negative consequences from job insecurity result from an imbalance between efforts and reward in the work situation. The Effort-Reward Imbalance Model (Siegrist, 1996) indicates that this lack of balance can be restored by increasing rewards or reducing efforts. In this model rewards can take three forms: money (e.g. adequate salary), esteem (e.g. respect and support) and career opportunities. According to De Witte (2005, p. 5) ‘the presence of job insecurity could be compensated by increasing other rewards such as pay or status’.

In line with this reasoning Bakker, Kilmer, Siegrist and Schaufeli (2000) found that employees who experience an effort-reward imbalance, report higher on emotional exhaustion (opposite of vigor) and depersonalization (opposite of dedication). To restore this balance, management should increase employees’ rewards. One of their recommendations is to learn managers how to give appropriate feedback about job performance.

To counteract the negative consequence of feelings of job insecurity, organizations can offer higher levels of reward and recognition. Since transactional leaders tend to use reward and recognition as control mechanisms, the following hypothesis is formulated: H3. The effect of transactional leadership on engagement is stronger for people who feel insecure about their job situation than for people who feel secure about their job situation. 2.3.3 Transformational Leadership, Job Insecurity and Engagement Articulating a vision is one of the six key behaviors of the transformational leader. According to De Witte (2005) job insecurity is stimulated by a lack of communication about future events. Scientific research has shown that explicit and open communication is effective in reducing feelings of job insecurity, since it increases predictability / controllability and perceptions of respect.

17

Bakker et al. (2000) suggest that by training leaders to adopt a coaching leadership style, an imbalance between rewards (like support and job security) and efforts can be restored. Leaders who provide instrumental and emotional support, prevent or reduce burnout among employees.

In an attempt to identify the factors that may reduce the negative outcomes of job insecurity, Lim (1996; 1997) focused on work-based social support. In both studies supervisory support was found to be significantly helpful in buffering the individual against the effects of job insecurity, which are particularly work-related outcomes such as job dissatisfaction, job search and noncompliant job behaviors. Social support from supervisors can create an encouraging work atmosphere which diminishes feelings of disengagement. Furthermore social support can prevent disengagement by helping the employee to experience the work situation as more manageable and less threatening (Lim, 1997).

One aspect of transformational leadership is the fostering of group goals. Since the fostering of group goals may create team spirit and collaboration, the level of support by peers is expected to go up. Support from work colleagues helps to buffer against the effects of job insecurity as well (Lim, 1996).

Higher pay and reward for performance are not the only incentives in the new psychological contract that the employer can offer in exchange for tolerance with regard to changes and insecurity. In most new psychological contracts the organization provides training and development, which enables the employee to develop a ‘portable portfolio of skills’. This portfolio raises the chance for employees to find alternative employment when their services are not needed anymore (Baruch & Hind, 1999). In turn Kluytmans and Ott (1999) state that life-time employability can replace life-time employment. As job security has become a thing of the past, organizations can create a different base for security (employment security) by developing the employability of workers via sustaining and developing opportunities for work in the future.

Since transformational leaders provide a vision of the future, individualized support, group goals and opportunities for development, the following hypothesis is formulated: H4. The effect of transformational leadership on engagement is stronger for people who feel insecure about their job situation than for people who feel secure about their job situation. 18

In line with the hypotheses about the moderating effect of job insecurity, Fried et al. (2003) state that job insecurity influences employee reactions by intensifying the positive or negative effects of job-related factors, like leadership behavior.

2.4 Conceptual Model The research model is displayed in figure 1. Transformational and transactional leadership behaviors are expected to have a positive effect on engagement (Hypotheses 1 and 2). To acquire the same level of engagement, employees who feel insecure about the future of their job, need a leader who scores higher on transactional and transformational leader behaviors than employees who feel confident about the future of their job (Hypotheses 3 and 4). Perceived Job Insecurity H3 + H4 + Transactional leadership H1 + Transformational Leadership Vision Role Model Goal acceptance High Performance Expectations Individualized support Intellectual stimulation

Employee Engagement Vigor Dediction Absorption

H2 +

Figure 1. Research model

2.5 Control Variables In this study the following control variables (personal characteristics of the respondents) will be taken into account: gender, educational level, age, working hours and organizational tenure. Furthermore attention is needed for control variables related to the respondent’s organization: sector, size and downsizing. Gender. ‘Prior evidence has indicated women to be more engaged than men’ (Avery, McKay & Wilson, 2007, p. 1548). Women tend to find more fulfilment in their work and consequently are more engaged in their jobs (Johnson, 2005). While testing a shorter version of their Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in an international context, Schaufeli, Bakker and

19

Salanova (2006, p. 711) found that ‘’relationships between engagement and gender were weak but equivocal’.

Educational level. According to Kular et al. (2008) differences in skills and abilities are expected to influence employee engagement. Employees with a high educational level are assumed to obtain an employment role they consider more psychologically meaningful. As a result they will be more engaged than employees with a low educational level (Avery, McKay and Wilson, 2007).

Age. While testing the UWES for the first time, Bakker and Schaufeli (2003) found a weak, positive correlation between age and the three dimensions of engagement. Although the difference is quite small, older employees feel significantly more engaged than their younger co-workers.

Working Hours. Thorsteinson (2003) compared job attitudes of full-time and part-time workers. He found that employees who work full-time are more involved with their job and the organization, than employees that work part-time. Engagement is linked to involvement (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen, 2008), consequently full-time workers are expected to be more engaged than part-time workers.

Organizational Tenure. Reichers (1986) states that organizational tenure is positively related to organizational commitment. Over time employees take on various acts that bind them to the organization, which in turn leads to increased organizational commitment and engagement. As a result organizational tenure is expected to have a positively effect on employee engagement.

Sector (Profit / Non-Profit). Mirvis and Hackett (1983) found that employees who work in the non-profit sector invest more energy in their job. Since vigor, one of the dimensions of engagement is characterized by high levels of energy, it is reasonable to assume that nonprofit workers are more engaged. In line with this argumentation, employees who work in the non-profit find more intrinsic rewards in their job (Mirvis & Hackett, 1983). Therefore they might score higher on the dedication dimension, which refers to a strong identification with the job.

20

Organizational Size. Employees working in smaller organizations report more loyalty to their employers and less burnout (MacDermid, Hertzog, Kensinger & Zipp, 1994). Because engagement is considered to be the positive antipode of burnout, there might be a negative correlation between organizational size and engagement. Assuming that loyalty stems from a strong identification with the job, it can be argued that employees who work for a small organization are more dedicated to their job and thus more engaged.

Downsizing. Many researchers assume that feelings of job insecurity increase in organizations were layoffs have occurred (Sora, Caballer, Peiro & De Witte, 2008). Downsizing alters the work environment for the survivors, those employees that remain members of the organization (Knudsen, Johnson, Martin & Roman, 2003). Downsizing is found to have a negative impact on survivors’ work attitudes and mental health (Kim, 2003). Since downsizing comes with affective responses, there is a reasonable possibility that it will have an impact on employee engagement.

21

3. Method 3.1 Research set-up In this deductive study hypotheses about the relationship between employee engagement, transactional and transformational leadership behaviors and job insecurity are tested. Survey research in the form of a questionnaire was conducted. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was spread among individual employees, indicating that individuals are the unit of analysis in this study. The study had a cross-sectional design, which means that the opinions of the employees were assessed at a single point in time.

3.2 Procedure An invitation to participate in the study was sent by mail to working individuals. Snowball sampling was used to expand the pool of respondents. In a first round acquaintances of the researcher were approached and they were asked to further distribute the mail to other working people. On top of that paper surveys were used to collect additional data.

Most respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire through a web application that automatically created a database in SPSS. In addition, paper surveys were distributed in two small organizations in the Netherlands, a profit organization in the meat industry and a primary school. Approximately 90 employees were asked to fill the paper questionnaire. An accompanying letter was used to invite people to take the digital or paper survey. In the accompanying letter basic information about the research purpose and subject was provided. Furthermore anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed.

3.3 Respondents Initially the digital survey provided measures of engagement, leadership behaviors and job insecurity of 282 employees. Data from 240 respondents are used for the multiple regression analyses, as data from incomplete questionnaires are not taken into account. The response rate for the digital survey is unknown, since it is not possible to determine how many potential respondents received the invitation per mail. In total 72 employees filled the paper survey. As 60 respondents provided useful data, the response rate for the paper survey is 66%. The dataset that was used for the multiple regression analyses contains data from 300 respondents.

The sample comprises Dutch speaking individuals who were employed while taking the questionnaire. There were no restrictions with regard to the working hours per week or type of organization. There was only one condition, employees needed to have a direct supervisor to be able to complete the questionnaire.

In the tables below, information about the characteristics of the respondents (table 1) and the respondents’ organizations (table 2) is displayed. The percentage of male participants (55.7%) is somewhat higher than the percentage of female participants (45.3%). Most of the respondents completed a HBO or WO study (56.4%) which indicates that the educational level in the sample is high. In the age category < 25, the number of respondents is relatively high; in contrast the number of respondents who are older than 59 years is relatively low. The majority works fulltime (61.7%) and works for the current organization for more than 5 years (48.3%). Figures of the Central Bureau of Statistics show that the sample is representative for the Dutch labor force, except for the educational level which is relatively high.

Table 1. Characteristics Respondents Respondents

Gender

Educational level

Age (in years)

Working hours

1

1

N

%

Male

167

55.7%

Female

133

45.3%

Primary School

3

1.0%

V(M)BO, LBO, LHNO

24

8.0%

MAVO / MULO

9

3.0%

HAVO / VWO

31

10.3%

MBO

64

21.3%

HBO

107

35.7%

WO

62

20.7%

< 25

57

19.0%

≥ 25, < 40

111

37.0%

≥ 40, < 60

122

40.7%

≥60

10

3.3%

0 – 12

29

9.7%

≥ 12, < 36

86

28.7%

≥ 36

185

61.7%

The categorization of the variable ‘Educational level’ is based on the Dutch educational system.

23

Respondents

Organizational tenure (in years)

N

%

250

143

47.7%

Profit

193

64.3%

Non-Profit

107

35.7%

Yes

97

32.3%

No

203

67.7%

3.4 Instruments This paragraph contains information about the instruments used to measure the relevant survey dimensions and their constituting scales. Previous research has proven that the instruments that are used in this research are valid and reliable. In order to make sure, several tests are conducted. First, a confirmatory factor analysis is conducted to test whether the items load on the components as expected. For every construct the items that have a factor loading above .3 are used in the scale. In case items load on different components, the item is allocated to the component on which it loads most strongly. Second, reliability tests are conducted in order to check the reliability of the scales (Pallant, 2005). A scale is considered reliable if the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is above .7.

24

Engagement. The short version of the UWES (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) is used to measure engagement and its three dimensions: vigor, dedication and absorption. The scale consists of nine items, three for every dimension. Example items are ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’ (vigor), ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’ (dedication) and ‘’I am immersed in my work’ (absorption).

A confirmatory Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is used to test the three dimensional structure of the set of items. The dataset is assumed to be appropriate for factor analysis based on the size of the sample and the strength of the relationship among the variables (see table 4 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations). Measures generated by SPSS confirm the factorability of the data, since Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant (p = .000) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index is .905. Based on previous research the number of factors used to represent the interrelations among the set of variables is 3. The items load on the different components/ constructs as expected (see Appendix B). It should be noted that there was only one factor with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more (Kaiser’s criterion). In table 3 the results of the reliability analyses are presented. The total scale (Engagement Total) and the three subscales (Engagement - Vigor, Engagement - Dedication and Engagement - Absorption) are reliable since the Cronbach’s Alpha is above .70.

Table 3. Reliability Engagement N of items

Cronbach’s Alpha

9

.91

Engagement – Vigor

3

.84

Engagement – Dedication

3

.89

Engagement – Absorption

3

.74

Engagement Total

Job insecurity. To measure Job insecurity, items developed by De Witte (2000) are used. The scale consists of four items, like ‘Chances are, I will soon lose my job’. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the Job Insecurity scale is .88.

Transactional leadership. Four items from the Contingent Reward Behavior Scale (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover & Huber, 1984) are used to measure transactional leadership. According to Podsakoff et al., 1990, p. 113) ‘contingent reward behavior captures the exchange notions fundamental to transactional leadership behavior and is the principal

25

behavior identified by Bass’. ‘My Manager gives me positive feedback when I perform well’ is one of the items that is used to measure transactional leadership. Reliability analysis confirms the transactional leadership scale is reliable, as the Cronbach’s Alpha is .89.

Transformational leadership. In this research the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory - TLI (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990) is used to assess transformational leadership. This scale is designed to measure the previous mentioned key dimensions of transformational leadership: articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Example items are ‘My manager paints an interesting picture of the future for our group’ (vision), ‘My manager provides a good model to follow’ (role model) and ‘My manager gets the group to work together on the same goal’ (goal acceptance). To test the six dimensional structure of the set of items, a confirmatory PCA is used. The factorability of the data is confirmed, since Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant (p = .000) and the KMO index is .925. Based on the previous research the number of factors used to represent the interrelations among the set of variables is 6. The items load on the different components/ constructs as expected (see Appendix B). It should be noted that there were only four factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more (Kaiser’s criterion). In table 4 the results of the reliability analyses are presented. The total scale (Transformational Leadership -Total) and the six subscales are reliable since the Cronbach’s Alpha is above .70.

Table 4. Reliability Transformational leadership N of items

Cronbach’s Alpha

20

.93

Transformational Leadership – Vision

4

.87

Transformational Leadership – Role model

3

.79

Transformational Leadership – Goal acceptance

4

.89

Transformational Leadership – Performance Expectations

3

.77

Transformational Leadership – Individualized Support

3

.85

Transformational Leadership – Intellectual Stimulation

3

.83

Transformational Leadership Total

26

Five point Likert scales ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5) were utilized to assess all constructs in the conceptual model. To measure the control variables, for each variable one close-ended question, with a number of defined response choices, was used.

To be able to control for personal characteristics, respondents were asked to provide information about themselves. To detect gender, respondents were asked to indicate whether they are male or female. To determine educational level, respondents were asked to mark the highest educational level they completed (Lager Onderwijs, V(M)BO/ LBO/ LHNO, MAVO/ MULO, HAVO/ VWO, MBO, HBO or WO). Four categories (< 25 years, ≥ 25, < 40 years , ≥ 40, < 60 years , ≥ 60 years) were used to measure age. To get more insight in their working hours, respondents indicated whether they worked < 12 hours per week, ≥ 12, < 36 hours per week or ≥ 36 hours per week. Five categories (< 1 year, ≥ 1 year, < 3 years, ≥ 3 years, < 5 years, ≥ 5 years) were used to make a distinction based on organizational tenure.

In order to control for organizational characteristics, respondents were asked to provide information about their current organization. Four categories were used to establish organizational size: micro organizations (< 10 employee), small organizations (≥ 10 employees, < 50 employees), medium organizations (≥ 50 employees, < 250 employees) and large organizations (≥ 250 employees). The organizational sector was determined by asking respondents to indicate whether are working for an organization in the profit or non-profit sector. To discover whether respondents recently witnessed a downsizing process, respondents were asked whether involuntary dismissals occurred in their organization recently (yes or no).

3.5 Statistical analysis First, a standard multiple regression analysis is conducted to determine the effects of the control variables on employee engagement. Second hierarchical standard multiple regression is used to test the direct effects of transactional and transformational leadership on employee engagement (hypotheses 1 and 2). Therefore the independent variables (transactional and transformational leadership) and job insecurity are included in model/block 2. A second hierarchical regression analysis is done to determine which transformational leadership behaviors have the largest impact on engagement.

27

Finally the moderating effect of job insecurity on the relationships between engagement and leadership behaviors is tested with a third hierarchical multiple regression analysis (hypotheses 3 and 4). In SPSS two product variables are created, by multiplying each (standardized) predictor with the (standardized) moderating variable job insecurity. If there is a significant effect of the product variables on employee engagement, the hypotheses are confirmed. Before confirmation the direction of the effect (positive or negative) needs to be checked.

28

4. Results 4.1 Descriptive Statistics The means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations (r) of the research and control variables are presented in Table 4. Correlation analysis can be used to describe the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables (Pallant, 2005).

Looking at the correlations between the control variables, it seems that compared to male respondents, females work less hours per week (r = -.40, p < .01). Furthermore age is related to organizational tenure. The older the employee, the longer he or she is working for the current organization (r = .44, p < .01). Positive correlations are also found between organizational size and educational level (r = .31, p < .01) and organizational size and age (r = .32, p < .01). Following Cohen’s guidelines (1988), it shows that there are large positive correlations between the three dimensions of engagement (vigor, dedication and absorption). This is in line with Schaufeli and Bakker’s (2003) conclusion that work engagement as assessed by the UWES might be considered as a one-dimensional as well as a three dimensional construct.

As expected large and medium positive correlations are also found between the six dimensions of transformational leadership. Furthermore there is a large positive correlation between transformational and transactional leadership (r = .69, p < .05). The relatively low correlations between performance expectations and the other leadership behaviors are remarkable.

Medium correlations are found between engagement and transformational leadership (r = .46, p < .05) and engagement and transactional leadership (r = .31, p < .05). Small correlations are found between employee engagement and the following control variables: age (r = .22, p < .01), working hours (r = .17, p < .01), organizational size (r = .13, p < .05) and recent layoffs (r = .13, p < .051). There is a medium, negative correlation between job insecurity and engagement (r = -.34, p < .05). Small negative correlations are found between job insecurity and transformational (r = -.27, p < .05) and transactional leadership (r = -.25, p < .05). 29

Table. 5 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Gender 1 .44 .50 1 2. Educational Level 2 4.33 1.48 -.06 1 3. Age3 1.28 .81 -.18* .08 1 4 4. Working Hours 1.52 .67 -.40** .21** .30** 1 5. Organizational Tenure 5 1.88 1.20 -.15* .04 .44** .14* 1 6. Organizational Size 6 2.19 .92 -0.2 .31** .32** .27** .14* 1 7 7. Sector .36 .48 .16** .22** .24** -.06 .11 .28** 1 8. Downsizing 8 .68 .47 .13* -.20** -.02 .21** -.13* -.16** .25** 1 9. Engagement (Total) 3.75 .64 -.05 .01 .22** .17** .00 .13* .10 .13* 1 10. Engagement - Vigor 3.67 .68 -.01 .01 .21** .11* .03 .15** .04 .11 .88** 1 11. Engagement - Dedication 3.82 .82 -.09 .04 .19** .17** .03 .09 .16** .15** .91** .69** 1 12. Engagement - Absorption 3.76 .67 -.02 -.02 .19** .17** -.05 .10 .06 .08 .87** .67** .68** 1 13. Job Insecurity 2.20 .86 -.04 -.01 -.01 .10 -.12* .00 -.16** -.25** -.34**-.28**. -.38** -.23** 1 14. Transformational Leadership 3.36 .60 .00 -.13* .02 .04 -.04 -.01 -.11 .04 .46** .39** .46** .39** -.27** 15. TFL – Vision 3.36 .77 .01 -.15* -.02 .06 -.02 -.04 -.05 .06 .38** .33** .38** .30** -.27** 16. TFL - Role Model 3.18 .79 -.01 -.12* .05 .03 -.02 -.03 -.14* .03 .40** .34** .38** .35** -.20** 17. TFL - Goal Acceptance 3.37 .80 .08 -18** .06 .10 -.04 -.04 -.06 .10 .40** .33** .39** .32** -.24** 18. TFL - Performance Expectations 3.42 .73 -.14* -.11 .04 -.08 .00 .05 -.19** -.08 .23** .22** .19** .20** -.05 19. TFL - Individualized Support 3.45 .84 .07 -.03 -.03 .07 -.05 -.06 -.02 .07 .31** .22** .33** .25** -.26** 20. TFL - Intellectual Stimulation 3.37 .76 -.07 .03 -.02 -.04 -.06 .11 -.07 -.04 .40** .31** .39** .35** -.18** 21. Transactional Leadership 3.33 .83 .07 .04 -.02 .00 -.01 -.01 -.08 .00 .31** .26** .30** .25** -.25** * Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

14

15

16

1 .88** .84** .84** .52** .71** .75** .69**

1 .72** .70** .34** .56** .57** .61**

1 .67** .32** .56** .54** .62**

17

18

19

20

21

1 .30** 1 .52** .12* 1 .49** .46** .43** 1 .56** .29** .59** .46**

1

1

Male = 0, Female = 1 Lager Onderwijs = 0, V(M)BO, LBO, LHNO =1, MAVO /MULO = 2, HAVO /VWO = 3, MBO = 4, HBO = 5, WO =6 3 < 25 years = 0, ≥ 25, < 40 years = 1, ≥ 40, < 60 years = 2, ≥ 60 years = 3 4 < 12 hours per week = 0, ≥ 12, < 36 hours per week = 1, ≥ 36 hours per week = 2 5 < 1 year = 0 , ≥ 1 year, < 3 years = 1, ≥ 3 years, < 5 years = 2, ≥ 5 years = 3 6 < 10 employees = 0, ≥ 10 employees, < 50 employees = 1, ≥ 50 employees, < 250 employees = 2, ≥ 250 employees = 3 7 Profit sector = 0, Non-profit sector = 1 8 Yes = 0, No = 1 2

30

Noteworthy is the non-significant correlation between performance expectations and job insecurity, since performance expectations is the only leadership behavior that has no link with job insecurity. There is a negative correlation between organizational tenure and job insecurity. Employees who recently witnessed involuntary dismissals, feel more insecure about their current job. Employees who are working in the profit sector feel less confident about the continuance of their job.

4. 2 Leadership Behaviors and Engagement In table 6 the results of the hierarchical multiple regression, that is used to test hypotheses 1 and 2, are presented. The control variables are included in model 1. In model 2 job insecurity and the independent variables transactional leadership and transformational leadership are entered. Both model 1 (F = 3.877, p < .01) and model 2 (F = 13.719, p < .01) are significant. However it is found that compared to model 1 (9.6%), model 2 (34,4%) explains significantly more of the variance in engagement, which indicates that it is relevant to take leadership behaviors into account. The control variables, age (β = .198, p < .01), working hours (β = .118, p < .01) and organizational tenure (β = -.118, p < .05) have a significant effect on engagement. As a result, it can be concluded that the level of engagement of older employees is higher. Furthermore employees who work full-time are more engaged than employees who work part-time. The longer employees are working for an organization, the less engaged employees are. The effect of recent layoffs (β = .152, p < .05) on engagement in model 1 disappears when taking job insecurity and leadership behaviors into account (β = .069, p = n.s.).

Based on the results of the regression analysis, hypothesis 1 which states that transactional leadership has a positive effect on engagement is rejected. The effect of transactional leadership on engagement (β = -.031, p = n.s.) is not significant. In accordance there is no significant effect of transactional leadership on vigor (β = -.019, p = n.s.), dedication (β = -.036, p = n.s.) and absorption (β = -.026, p = n.s.). The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the three dimensions can be found in Appendix C.

31

Table 6. Results Hierarchical Regression Analysis Leadership behaviors and engagement. Engagement Model

1

3

β

B

SE B

β

.07

-.003

-.003

.07

-.002

.009

.02

.020

.010

.02

.023

.195**

.157

.05

.198**

.158

.05

.198**

.06

.147*

.114

.06

.118*

.110

.06

.114*

-.051

.03

-.094

-.063

.03

-.118*

-.059

.03

-.110

Organizational Size

.046

.05

.065

.032

.04

.045

.032

.04

.046

Profit / Non-Profit

.029

.09

.021

.056

.08

.042

.053

.08

.040

Recent Layoffs

.209

.09

.152*

.094

.08

.069

.101

.08

.074

Job insecurity

-.179

.04

-.240**

-.165

.04

-.222**

Transactional Leadership

-.024

.05

-.031

-.018

.05

-.024

.438

.08

.408**

.430

.08

.401**

-.012

.04

-.021

.040

.04

.073

B

SE B

3.221

.19

.010

.08

-.011

Age Working Hours

(Constant) Gender Educational Level

Organizational Tenure

β

2 B

SE B

2.311

.29

.008

-.004

.03

-.024

.155

.05

.141

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership * Job Insecurity Transformational Leadership * Job Insecurity

R²

.096

.344

.347

R² Change

.096

.248

.003

3.877**

13.719**

11.695**

F-value * Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

32

In contrast transformational leadership (β = .408, p < .01) has a positive, significant effect on employee engagement. Consequently hypothesis 2 is confirmed. In line with this confirmation, transformational leadership is found to have a positive effect on vigor (β = .328, p < .01), dedication (β = .410, p < .01) and absorption (β = .338, p < .01).

The results of the second hierarchical regression analysis, used to assess the individual effects of the key transformational leadership behaviors on employee engagement can be found in table 7. Although all six key transformational leadership behaviors contribute to the explanation of engagement, intellectual stimulation (β = .154, p < .05) makes the strongest unique contribution. Therefore intellectual stimulation is the most important predictor of engagement.

Table 7. Results Hierarchical Regression Analysis Transformational Leadership behaviors and engagement. Model

2 B

SE B

β

TFL – Vision

.023

.07

.028

TFL - Role Model

.144

.06

.141

TFL - Goal Acceptance

.083

.06

.103

TFL – Performance Expectations

.055

.05

.063

TFL – Individualized Support

.026

.05

.034

TFL - Intellectual Stimulation

.131

.06

.154*

R²

.350

R² Change

.254

F-value

9.522**

* Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

These findings indicate that transformational leadership is more important than transactional leadership for employee engagement. It should be noted that transactional leadership has a positive, significant effect (β = .240, p < .01) on engagement when transformational leadership is not included in the model.

33

4.3 Job Insecurity and Engagement This study is designed to provide insights on leadership behaviors that are needed to engage (insecure) employees. ‘Job insecurity, in and of itself, does not lead to relatively more depressed workers attitudes towards the workplace’ (Pearce, 1998). Based on this statement and the focus on leadership behaviors, no hypothesis about the direct effect of job insecurity on engagement was formulated.

Nevertheless the results of the regression analysis show that there is a direct, negative effect of job insecurity on employee engagement (β = -.240, p < .01). This indicates that employees who feel insecure about the future of their job are less engaged than employees who are confident about the future of their job. In accordance job insecurity has a significant effect on vigor (β =.-197, p < .01), dedication (β = -.263, p < .01) and absorption (β = -.168, p < .01).

4.4 The moderating effect of Job Insecurity To check whether there is a moderating effect of job insecurity on the relationship between leadership behaviors and engagement, two product variables (transactional leadership * job insecurity and transformational leadership * job insecurity) were entered in Model 3. Although model 3 is significant (F = 11.695, p < .01), it does not explain considerably more variance than model 2. This suggests that it is not relevant to focus on the moderating effect of job insecurity.

In line with this last conclusion, table 6 shows that both hypothesis 3 and 4 are rejected. The effect of transformational and transactional leadership on engagement is not significantly stronger for people who feel insecure about their job situation than for people who feel secure about their job situation.

34

5. Conclusion Nowadays, improving the level of employee engagement is an important topic on the management agenda of many organizations. Organizational leaders are important for building employee engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008; Saks, 2006).

In this study, based on empirical evidence, two hypotheses about a positive effect of transformational and transactional leadership on employee engagement are formulated. Hierarchical multiple regression is used to test these hypotheses. Against expectations, the results of the initial multiple regression analyses provide no evidence for a positive effect of transactional leadership on engagement. As expected transformational leadership has been found to have a positive effect on employee engagement. From the six key transformational leadership behaviors, intellectual stimulation is the most important predictor of engagement.

Contemporary workers are coping with growing feelings of job insecurity. Since job insecurity can prompt affective responses (Mone, 1997), the needs, expectations and desires with regard to leadership behavior may differ for employees who feel insecure about their job situation compared to people who feel secure about their job situation. In this study, there is no significant moderating effect of job insecurity on the relationship between leadership and engagement. To achieve the same level of engagement, employees who feel insecure about the future of their job, do not seem to need a leader who scores higher on transactional and transformational leader behaviors than employees who feel confident about the future of their job.

Three control variables, that are not related to leadership, have an impact on employee engagement. The results show that age and working hours are positively related to employee engagement, while organizational tenure is negatively related to employee engagement. Despite the fact that no hypothesis about this effect is formulated, the direct, negative effect of job insecurity on employee engagement should be noted. In general, employees who feel insecure about their job situation are less engaged.

35

6. Discussion First, the possibility to use an overall model, that might explain why transactional leadership, transformational leadership and job insecurity are predictors of engagement will be discussed. A discussion about the direct effects of transactional leadership, transformational leadership and job insecurity on engagement will follow. Finally the moderating effect of job insecurity will be discussed.

Overall Model of work engagement The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model can be used to explain negative as well as positive aspects of well-being (Schaufeli, Bakker & van Rhenen, 2009). Although evidence from studies that use the JD-R model is used to formulate a hypothesis about the effect of transformational leadership on engagement, the JD-R model could have been used as an overall model in this study. Job resources refer to ‘those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that not only potentially reduce the negative effects of job demands and help to achieve work goals but may also stimulate personal growth, learning and development’ (Hakanen, Perhoniemi & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008, p.79). In this study, job security (the opposite of job insecurity) is a job resource. Furthermore both transactional leaders and transformational leaders provide job resources (e.g. recognition, coaching).

Based on findings of previous studies, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) present the JD-R model of work engagement. They assume that job resources start a motivational process that leads to work engagement. Job resources may play an intrinsic motivational role because they foster growth, learning and development or an extrinsic motivational role because they are instrumental in achieving work goals (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Results from cross-sectional (e.g. Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Hakanen, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2006) and longitudinal studies (e.g. Schaufeli, Bakker & van Rhenen, 2009; Mauno, Kinnunen & Ruokolainen, 2007) support the existence of a motivational process as proposed by the JD-R model.

36

Transactional Leadership and Engagement Results from a quantitative study of Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum (2006) and a qualitative study of Kahn (1990) demonstrate a positive effect from reward and recognition on employee engagement. However the findings from this study correspond with the findings from Saks. Against expectations, results from multiple regression analyses provide no evidence for an effect of reward and recognition on engagement (Saks, 2006).

Multicollinearity might explain why the initial multiple regression analyses provide no evidence for a positive effect of transactional leadership on engagement. Multicollinearity exists when the independent variables in a multiple regression model are highly correlated (Pallant, 2005). Calculations regarding individual predictors, but not the predictive power or reliability of the model as a whole, might be affected by multicollinearity.

Due to the large positive correlation between transformational and transactional leadership (r = .69, p < .05), it is not infallible to conclude that transactional leadership does not affect employee engagement. In fact, transactional leadership has a positive, significant effect (β = .240, p < .01) on engagement when transformational leadership is excluded from the model.

Saks (2006) does not provide an explanation for the unexpected finding of his study in his article. As in this study, multicollinearity might explain why there is no significant effect from reward and recognition on engagement, since three variables in the research model (perceived organizational support, supervisor support and reward and recognition) are highly correlated.

Bass (1985) claims that the best leaders are both transactional and transformational. When taking multicollinearity into account, it is reasonable to assume that both transactional and transformational leadership have an positive effect on engagement. The relatively large contribution of transformational leadership might explain the non-significant effect of transactional leadership in model 2.

As stated before the JD-R model can be used to explain a positive effect from transactional leadership on employee engagement. According to Burns (1978), transactional leaders focus on the proper exchange of resources (reward and recognition). These job resources foster employee engagement and affect behavioral work outcomes (Koyuncu, Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2006). 37

Nevertheless, compared to transformational leadership, transactional leadership has a relatively small contribution to engagement. A possible explanation is provided by Howell and Avolio (1993, p. 899), who state ‘contingent reward behavior might be seen as an attempt to control follower’s behavior rather than to reward it’. Among others, negative consequences of decrease in personal control are stress and depression (Greenberger, Strasser & Lee, 1988). If employees link transactional leadership behavior to increased control, it might have a negative impact on their engagement (opposite of stress and depression). ‘In an environment in which change is occurring, a pure transactional leadership style might be maladaptive and counterproductive’(Howell & Avolio, 1993). In times of rapid changes, a proactive leadership style, as opposed to a reactive leadership style, might be perceived as more appropriate. Followers might be more at ease when organizational leaders use a long term perspective and do not merely focus on meeting goals and achieving results (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Future research that further examines the relationship between transactional leadership and engagement is required.

Transformational Leadership and Engagement In line with previous studies (Zhu, Avolio & Walumbwa, 2009; Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2008), this study shows a direct relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. Studies of work and organizational psychologists who apply the Job DemandsResources (JD-R) model can be used to explain this positive effect. Transformational leaders provide job resources (e.g. supervisory support, coaching, opportunities for development), that have a positive effect on employee health, motivation and engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Job Insecurity and Engagement Job insecurity turns out to have a direct effect on employee engagement. Pearce (1990) claims that job insecurity does not lead to relatively more depressed workers attitudes towards the workplace. In contrast several other researchers support the results of this study and acknowledge the negative effect of job insecurity on work attitudes. De Witte (2005, p.4) uses the psychological contract to explain this negative effect. ‘When less security is offered, the employee may attempt to restore the resulting imbalance by showing less involvement’.

38

Another explanation is provided by Greenhalgh (1979: in Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995) who introduced the ‘disinvolvement syndrome’. To anticipate on an expected job loss, insecure employees may psychologically withdraw from their job / organization on forehand. Future research that focuses on the direct effect of job insecurity on engagement is desirable.

Leadership, Job Insecurity and Engagement The results of this study reveal no moderating effect of job insecurity on the relationship between leadership and engagement. In other words, job insecurity does not intensify the positive impact of leadership on employee engagement. ‘Despite the prevalent recognition and application of moderated multiple regression in management, psychology, education and other disciplines, the efforts devoted to the detection of moderating effects are often futile because of insufficient statistical power’ (Shieh, 2009). Since only 300 respondents participated in this study, the chance to find a significant interaction effect is relatively low (Keith, 2006).

Job insecurity evokes the non-rational response to resist change (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Since insecure employees prefer a stable work environment, they might not root for changes in the behavior of their leader. Hence their desires with regard to leadership behavior do not change because of increased feelings of uncertainty.

6.1 Limitations and suggestions for future Research Like all other studies, this study has certain limitations that need to be mentioned. The limitations can be subscribed to the following themes: overall model of work engagement, research design, sample, engagement, leadership and job insecurity.

Research design A cross-sectional research design is used to assess the relationship between leadership, job insecurity and engagement. Since measurements are performed only once, it is not possible to draw conclusions on causality. While it is likely that transformational leadership boosts engagement, engagement might as well reinforce transformational leadership. It is not beyond belief that leaders adjust their behavior to the level of engagement of their followers. Longitudinal research with measurements at different points in time is desired to assure that transformational leadership leads to engagement and not vice versa. 39

Common method variance can have serious effects on research findings and is a potential problem in behavioral research (Podskoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2008). The measures of all variables (dependent and independent) are obtained from the same rater. Moreover one single medium, a questionnaire, was used to measure all variables. Since these are both potential sources of common method variance, common method variance might be a factor of interest. Future research in which multiple mediums are used to assess different raters is recommended.

Sample Although 300 respondents participated in this study, the sample is not representative for the total Dutch workforce. The sample consists of employees that are working for multiple organizations in multiple industries. Given the relatively small sample size, it is not possible to make a comparison based on industries. To improve the generalizability of the results, it is recommended to repeat this research with a larger sample. In case of a larger sample, it will be possible to take other control variables like industry into account.

The sample was not an accurate reflection of the Dutch workforce since it consists of relatively high-educated employees. Future research with a more representative sample, in terms of educational level, is desirable.

There is a small, significant correlation between educational level and transformational leadership. This indicates that highly-educated employees rate their managers lower on the transformational leadership scale. A possible explanation might be that highly-educated employees have other / higher expectations concerning leadership (behaviors). Future research that further examines the relationship between educational level and transformational leadership ratings is recommended.

Engagement In the present study the definition of Schaufeli et al. (2002) is used to define and measure engagement. Although the three dimensional structure of the engagement scale is valid (see confirmatory factor analysis in Appendix B), strong, significant correlations between vigor, dedication and absorption are found. As there was only one factor with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more, the necessity to extract three factors is questionable.

40

According to Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) there is a need to develop measures of engagement that map more precisely onto Kahn’s (1990) conceptualization. ‘The most popular measure of engagement is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES: Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003); however it includes items that confound engagement with the antecedent conditions suggested by Kahn’(Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010, p. 623). It is desirable to use other measures that fully reflect Kahn’s conceptualization of engagement in future research.

Although the UWES is used frequently by academic researchers, it differs from the measures that are used in organizations. An important difference between the academic and business approach is the level of measurement (Wefald & Downey, 2009). While most organizations refer to engagement as a group level phenomenon, in the academic community engagement is seen as an individual level phenomenon. ‘The question is, is employee engagement a group level phenomenon, an individual level phenomenon or both?’ (Little & Little, 2006, p. 115). Future research that uses both individual and group measures might help to answer the question raised above.

Several academic researchers have expressed their doubts about the three dimensional structure of engagement. They argue that vigor and dedication are the core dimensions of engagement, because these dimensions are direct opposites of the two dimensions of burnout, exhaustion and cynicism. ‘Mounting evidence suggests that absorption should be considered as a consequence of work engagement, rather than one of its components’ (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Since both the reliability analysis and the factor analysis do not provide evidence for a two dimensional structure, absorption has been acknowledged as a dimension of engagement.

Leadership Even though the six dimensional structure of the transformational leadership scale is valid (see confirmatory factor analysis in Appendix B), other clusters of items should be considered. The correlation matrix shows strong, significant correlations between all seven leadership behaviors (transformational and transactional). Following Kaiser’s criterion while analyzing exploratory factor analysis results, four factors should be extracted. Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) identified four components of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Future research that further explores the transformational leadership concept and its 41

components would contribute to a better understanding of transformational leadership behaviors and their impact on engagement.

Although leaders are believed to be important for building employee engagement (Saks, 2006), scientific research has proven that several other variables also have an impact on engagement. Variables like satisfaction with co-workers (Avery, Wilson & McKay, 2007) and procedural justice (Saks, 2006) are positively correlated with employee engagement. Moreover results from a research of Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli (2008) suggest that personal resources (self efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem and optimism) have a positive effect on engagement. To determine the most effective way to enhance employee engagement, future research that includes more variables is required.

Job insecurity The scale that is used to measure job insecurity contains four items. Four items to measure a job insecurity is not a lot, however in most studies job insecurity is measured with only one item (Sverke, Hellgren & Naswell, 2002). Scales that are short in length might reduce potential bias that is caused by fatigue and carelessness (Hinkin, 1995). In contrast, other forms of bias might be present since the chance that responses to current items might be influenced by responses to previous items is relatively high (Harrison, McLaughlin & Coalter, 1996). Future research, that uses other scales to assess job insecurity, should be considered.

6.2 Practical Implications Organizations that aim to improve employee engagement, should attract / develop transformational leaders. Organizational leaders should learn to apply the following six transformational leadership behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 1990): identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, individualized support and intellectual stimulation.

Especially intellectual stimulation is important. To engage employees, leaders should ‘stimulate their followers effort to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways’ (Bass, Jung, Avolio & Berson, 2003, p. 208).

42

In view of the fact that the workforce is aging, engaging older employees may be key to competitive advantage (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Although older employees seem to be more engaged than younger employees, organizational tenure is negatively correlated with engagement. Promotions and job rotations might help to engage employees with a long service record.

De Witte (2005) provides three ways to avoid or mitigate the negative consequences of job insecurity. Organizations can reduce uncontrollability and unpredictability through communication, participation in decision making and procedural justice. First, organizational leaders should communicate open, honest and early about future events. Second, to increase feelings of control, organizations should allow employees to participate in decision making processes. Finally it is important to follow the correct procedures, since this improves the predictability of organizational (change) processes.

6.3 Final remark Regardless the consequences of job insecurity, transformational leadership is an important antecedent for employee engagement. Leaders that learn to focus on long-term purposes and higher order intrinsic needs by developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring followers (Bass, 1985), are able to enhance employee engagement. This is both a noble and profitable aim for organizations.

43

7. Literature Avery, D.R., McKay, P.F., & Wilson, D.C. (2007). Engaging the Aging Workforce: The Relationship Between Perceived Age Similarity, Satisfaction With Coworkers, and Employee Engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1542-1556. Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209-223. Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274-284. Bakker, A.B., Killmer, C.H., Siegrist, J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2000). Effort-reward imbalance and burnout among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(4), 884-891. Bakker, A.B., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M.C. (2006). Crossover of Burnout and Engagement in Work Teams. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 464-489. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-217. Baruch, Y., & Hind, P. (1999). Perceptual motion in organizations : effective management and the impact of the new psychological contracts on 'Survivor syndrome'. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 295-306. Brun, J.P., & Dugas, N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. International journal of human resource management, 19(4), 716730. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199-208. Chughtai, A.A., & Buckley, F. (2008). Work engagement and its relationship with state and trait trust: a conceptual analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(1), 47-71. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., & Menon, S.T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower 44

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767. Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A Test of Job Security's Direct and Mediated Effects on Withdrawal Cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 323-350. Dekker, S.W.A., & Schaufeli, W.B. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 57-63. De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De Witte & T. Tallieu (Eds.) Van groep naar gemeenschap. Liber Amicorum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou (pp. 325-350). Leuven: Garant. De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 1-6. Fried, Y., Slowik, L.H., Shperling, Z., Franz, C., Ben-David, H.A.; Avital, N., & Yeverechyahu, U. (2003). The Moderating Effect of Job Security on the Relation between Role Clarity and Job Performance: A Longitudinal Field Study. Human Relations, 56(7), 787-806. González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165-174. Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Whittington, J.L. (2001). A Theoretical and Empirical Extension to the Transformational Leadership Construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 759-774 Graen, G.B., Liden, R.C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of Leadership in the Employee Withdrawal Process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 868-872. Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S. & Lee, S. (1988). Personal Control As A Mediator Between Perceptions Of Super. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 405-417. Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438-448. Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513. Hakanen, J.J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 78-91. 45

Harrison, D.A., McLaughlin, M.E. & Coalter, T.M. (1996). Context, Cognition, and Common Method Variance: Psychometric and Verbal Protocol Evidence. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 68(3), 246-261. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Killham, E.A., & Asplund, J.W. (2006). Q12 meta-analysis. Ohama, NE: Gallup Organization. Hiltrop, J.M. (1995). The changing psychological contract: the human resource challenge of the 1990s. European Management Journal, 13(3), 286-294. Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of management, 21(5), 967-988. Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2003). Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Locus of Control, and Support for Innovation: Key Predictors of ConsolidatedBusiness-Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902. Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management, 26, 215-232. Jago, A.J. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research. Management Science, 28, 315-336. Johnson, G. (2005). Gallup Study Reveals Workplace Disengagement in Thailand. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved June 6, 2009 from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/ 16306/3/Gallup-Study-Reveals-Workplace-Disengagement-in.aspx#1. Judge T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A MetaAnalytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755767. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. Keith, T.Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Pearson. Kim, W.B. (2003). Economic crisis, downsizing and ‘layoff survivor’s syndrome’. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 33(4), 449-464. Kluytmans, F., & Ott, M. (1999). Management of employability in The Netherlands. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 261-272. Knudsen, H.K., Aaron Johnson, J., Martin, J.K., & Roman, P.M. (2003). Downsizing 46

Survival: The Experience of Work and Organizational Commitment. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2), 265-283. Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 299-310. Kuhnert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648657. Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Kingston University, Working Paper Series No 19. Lim, V.K.G. (1996). Job Insecurity and Its Outcomes: Moderating Effects of Work-Based and Nonwork-Based Social Support. Human Relations, 49(2), 171-194. Lim, V.K.G. (1997). Moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. Work & Stress, 11(3), 251-266. Little, B., & Little, P. (2006). Employee engagement: Conceptual issues. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 10(1), 111-120. MacDermid, S.M., Hertzog, J.L., Kensinger, K.B., & Zipp, J.F. (2001). The Role of Organizational Size and Industry in Job Quality and Work-Family Relationships. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2), 191-216. Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizatonal Psychology, 1, 3-30. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Rich, G.A. (2001). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Salesperson Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115-134. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), 149-171. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. Mirvis, P.H., & Hackett, E.J. (1983). Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit sector. Monthly Labor Review, 106(4), 3-12. Mone. M.A. (1997). How We Got Along After The Downsizing: Post-Downsizing As A Double-Edged Sword. Public Administration Quarterly, 21(3), 309-336. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual. Berkshire, UK: Open University press. 47

Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leadership’s impact on employee engagement: Differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 365-385. Pearce, J.L. (1998). Job Insecurity is Important, but Not for the Reasons You Might Think: The Example of Contingent Workers. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 5, 31-46. Pelgrim, R.J.G. (2008). Leadership and organizational commitment. Master Thesis, Tilburg, The Netherlands: University of Tilburg. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, J.S., & Bommer, W.H. (1996). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of management, 22(2), 259-298. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organization citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Podsakoff, P.M.., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A. & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational Moderators of Leader Reward and Punishment Behaviors: Fact or Fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(1), 21-63. Reichers, A. E. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 501-514. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., & Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job Engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender based framework of the experience of job insecurity and its effects on work attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 197-217. Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116-131. Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: preliminary manual. Utrecht: Occupational Health Psychology Unit Utrecht University. 48

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 295-315. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66( 4), 701-716. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893-918. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: an international review, 57(2), 173-203. Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. Shieh, G. (2009). Detecting Interaction Effects in Moderated Multiple Regression With Continuous Variables Power and Sample Size Considerations. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 510-528. Siegrist, I. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41. Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiro, J., & de Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity climate's influence on employees' job attitudes: Evidence from two European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 125-147. Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brick of a new century. Applied Psychology: An internartional review, 51(1), 23-42. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Naswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(7), 242-264. Timmerman, P. (2008). Engaging employees during difficult times. Kenexa HR Thought Leadership Articles Series. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from http://pww.philips.com/ Thorsteinson, T.J. (2003). Job attitudes of part-time vs. full-time workers: A meta-analytic Review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Ppsychology, 76(2), 151-178. Van den Broek, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the 49

relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277-294. Wah, L. (1999). Engaging employees a big challenge. Management Review, 88(9), 10. Walumbwa, F.O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J.J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 235-256. Wefald, A.J., & Downey, R.G. (2009). Job engagement in organizations: Fad, fashion, or folderol? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 141-145. Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200. Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2009). Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics With Transformational Leadership and Follower Work Engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 590-619.

50

Appendix A Questionnaire Eindhoven, 17 juni 2009 Betreft:

Vragenlijst Bevlogenheid werknemers Afstudeeronderzoek Personeelwetenschappen

Beste lezer,

In het kader van mijn opleiding Personeelwetenschappen aan de Universiteit van Tilburg doe ik een afstudeeronderzoek naar de invloed van diverse factoren op de bevlogenheid van werknemers. Bij deze wil ik u uitnodigen om deel te nemen aan het onderzoek. De vragenlijst bestaat uit 47 meerkeuzevragen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt 5 tot 10 minuten. U wordt verzocht de vragen zelf, dus zonder overleg met anderen, in te vullen. Sta niet te lang stil bij vragen, maar kruis het antwoord aan dat het eerst in u opkomt. Sommige vragen worden nogmaals op een andere manier gesteld om de betrouwbaarheid van de vragenlijst te verhogen. Onderaan de vragenlijst is ruimte voor op-of aanmerkingen. Bij eventuele onduidelijkheden kunt u altijd telefonisch of via de mail contact met me opnemen. Uw antwoorden worden anoniem verwerkt. De gegevens worden vertrouwelijk behandeld. Zij worden niet beschikbaar gesteld voor andere doeleinden. Het onderzoek zal gepubliceerd worden op de website van de universiteit van Tilburg. Mocht u interesse hebben in de resultaten, dan ben ik natuurlijk bereid deze persoonlijk aan u toe te sturen. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw medewerking aan het onderzoek!

Vriendelijke groeten, Laura van Kesteren Contactgegevens Mailadres: [email protected] Telefoonnummer: 06-12650810

51

Kruis het hokje aan dat op u van toepassing is… 1.

Bent u man of vrouw?

Man Vrouw

2.

Wat is de hoogste opleiding die u heeft afgerond?

Lager onderwijs V(M)BO, LBO, LNHO MAVO/MULO HAVO/VWO MBO HBO WO Andere opleiding, namelijk …………….

3.

Wat is uw leeftijd?

Jonger dan 25 jaar Ouder dan 24 jaar, jonger dan 40 jaar Ouder dan 39 jaar, jonger dan 60 jaar Ouder dan 59 jaar

4.

Werkt u voor een organisatie in de profit of non-profit sector?

Profit sector Non-profit sector

5.

Hoeveel werknemers telt de organisatie waarvoor u werkt?

Minder dan 10 werknemers Tussen de 10 en 50 werknemers Tussen de 50 en 250 werknemers Meer dan 250 werknemers

6.

Hoe lang bent u al werkzaam bij deze organisatie?

Minder dan 1 jaar Meer dan 1 jaar, minder dan 3 jaar Meer dan 3 jaar, minder dan 5 jaar Meer dan 5 jaar

7.

Hoeveel uur in de week werkt u gemiddeld voor deze organisatie?

0 tot 12 uur 12 tot 36 uur 36 uur of meer

8.

Zijn er onlangs gedwongen ontslagen gevallen in uw organisatie?

Ja Nee

52

Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen… Helemaal oneens 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9

Oneens

Neutraal

Eens

Helemaal eens

Eens

Helemaal eens

Eens

Helemaal eens

Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie. Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk. Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan. Mijn werk inspireert mij. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk. Als ik aan het werk ben dan vliegt de tijd voorbij.

Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen… Helemaal oneens 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

Oneens

Neutraal

Ik geloof dat ik snel een andere baan zou vinden, als ik er een zou zoeken. Het is mogelijk dat ik op korte termijn mijn baan kwijt raak. Ik ben er zeker van dat ik mijn baan kan houden. Ik voel me onzeker over de toekomst van mijn baan. Ik denk dat ik in de nabije toekomst mijn baan verlies. Ik heb er vertrouwen in dat ik snel een soortgelijke baan zou kunnen vinden.

Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen, die betrekking hebben op uw directe leidinggevende. Helemaal oneens 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9

Oneens

Neutraal

Mijn leidinggevende heeft duidelijk inzicht in de toekomst. Mijn leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie. Mijn leidinggevende inspireert anderen met zijn/haar plannen voor de toekomst. Mijn leidinggevende kan anderen betrekken bij zijn/haar droom. Mijn leidinggevende leidt door ‘te doen’ in plaats van ‘te zeggen’. Mijn leidinggevende is een goed rolmodel voor mij. Mijn leidinggevende is een typisch voorbeeld van een goede werknemer. Mijn leidinggevende zorgt voor samenwerking tussen groepen. Mijn leidinggevende moedigt werknemers aan om zich te gedragen als teamspelers.

53

Geef aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen, die betrekking hebben op uw directe leidinggevende. Helemaal oneens 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24

Oneens

Neutraal

Eens

Helemaal eens

Mijn leidinggevende zorgt dat de groep samen aan hetzelfde doel werkt. Mijn leidinggevende ontwikkelt een teamgevoel en teamgeest onder werknemers. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij veel van ons verwacht. Mijn leidinggevende dringt aan op alleen de beste prestaties. Mijn leidinggevende neemt geen genoegen met een tweede plaats. Mijn leidinggevende acteert zonder rekening te houden met mijn gevoelens. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij mijn persoonlijke gevoelens respecteert. Mijn leidinggevende houdt in zijn/haar gedrag rekening met mijn persoonlijke behoeften. Mijn leidinggevende daagt me uit na te denken over oude problemen op een nieuwe manier. Mijn leidinggevende stelt vragen die me aan het denken zetten. Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert mij om na te denken over de manier waarop ik dingen aanpak. Mijn leidinggevende complimenteert mij persoonlijk als ik mijn werk uitstekend doe. Mijn leidinggevende erkent mijn goede prestaties vaak niet. Mijn leidinggevende geeft me speciale waardering als mijn werk goed is. Mijn leidinggevende geeft me altijd positieve feedback als ik mijn werk goed doe.

In het onderstaande vak is ruimte voor op-of aanmerkingen, die betrekking hebben op de bovenstaande vragenlijst.

54

Appendix B. Factor Analyses

Engagement: Oblimin Rotation Table 8. Pattern Matrix

7.1 Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie. 7.2 Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk. 7.3 Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan. 7.4 Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan. 7.5 Mijn werk inspireert mij. 7.6 Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe. 7.7 Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig. 7.8 Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk. 7.9 Als ik aan het werk ben dan vliegt de tijd voorbij.

Component 1 Vigor .698 .842 .593

Component 2 Dedication

Component 3 Absorption

.537 .841 .817 .853 .696 .798 .614

Table 9. Structure Matrix

7.1 Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie. 7.2 Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk. 7.3 Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan. 7.4 Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan. 7.5 Mijn werk inspireert mij. 7.6 Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe. 7.7 Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig. 7.8 Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk. 7.9 Als ik aan het werk ben dan vliegt de tijd voorbij.

Component 1 Vigor .865 .895 .767 .536 .498 .376 .419 .385 .523

Component 2 Dedication .609 .456 .717 .907 .893 .883 .483 .551 .489

Component 3 Absorption .604 .549 .312 .520 .555 .581 .770 .798 .614

Job Insecurity: Varimax Rotation Table 10. Component Matrix

8.2 Het is mogelijk dat ik op korte termijn mijn baan kwijt raak. 8.3 Ik ben er zeker van dat ik mijn baan kan houden. 8.4 Ik voel me onzeker over de toekomst van mijn baan. 8.5 Ik denk dat ik in de nabije toekomst mijn baan verlies.

Component 1 Job Insecurity .878 .873 .841 .828

Transactional Leadership: Varimax Rotation Table 11. Component Matrix

9.21 Mijn leidinggevende complimenteert mij persoonlijk als ik mijn werk uitstekend doe. 9.22 Mijn leidinggevende erkent mijn goede prestaties vaak niet. 9.23 Mijn leidinggevende geeft me speciale waardering als mijn werk goed is. 9.24 Mijn leidinggevende geeft me altijd positieve feedback als ik mijn werk goed doe.

Component 1 Transactional Leadership .886 .833 .854 .879

55

Transformational Leadership: Oblimin Rotation Table. 12. Pattern Matrix

9.1 Mijn leidinggevende heeft duidelijk inzicht in de toekomst. 9.2 Mijn leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie. 9.3 Mijn leidinggevende inspireert anderen met zijn/haar plannen voor de toekomst. 9.4 Mijn leidinggevende kan anderen betrekken bij zijn/haar droom. 9.5 Mijn leidinggevende leidt door ‘te doen’ in plaats van ‘te zeggen’. 9.6 Mijn leidinggevende is een goed rolmodel voor mij. 9.7 Mijn leidinggevende is een typisch voorbeeld van een goede werknemer. 9.8 Mijn leidinggevende zorgt voor samenwerking tussen groepen. 9.9 Mijn leidinggevende moedigt werknemers aan om zich te gedragen als teamspelers. 9.10 Mijn leidinggevende zorgt dat de groep samen aan hetzelfde doel werkt. 9.11 Mijn leidinggevende ontwikkelt een teamgevoel en teamgeest onder werknemers. 9.12 Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij veel van ons verwacht. 9.13 Mijn leidinggevende dringt aan op alleen de beste prestaties. 9.14 Mijn leidinggevende neemt geen genoegen met een tweede plaats. 9.15 Mijn leidinggevende acteert zonder rekening te houden met mijn gevoelens (R). 9.16 Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij mijn persoonlijke gevoelens respecteert. 9.17 Mijn leidinggevende houdt in zijn/haar gedrag rekening met mijn persoonlijke behoeften. 9.18 Mijn leidinggevende daagt me uit na te denken over oude problemen op een nieuwe manier. 9.19 Mijn leidinggevende stelt vragen die me aan het denken zetten. 9.20 Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert mij om na te denken over de manier waarop ik dingen aanpak.

Component 1 Vision -.703 -.844

Component 2 Role Model

Component 3 Group goals

Component 4 Perf. Expect.

Component 5 Ind. Support

Component 6 Intellect. Stim.

-.637 -.542 .901 .482 .467 .661 .797 .804 .765 .620 .883 .826 .783 .906 .879 -.845 -.826 -.813

53

Table 13. Structure Matrix

9.1 Mijn leidinggevende heeft duidelijk inzicht in de toekomst. 9.2 Mijn leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie. 9.3 Mijn leidinggevende inspireert anderen met zijn/haar plannen voor de toekomst. 9.4 Mijn leidinggevende kan anderen betrekken bij zijn/haar droom. 9.5 Mijn leidinggevende leidt door ‘te doen’ in plaats van ‘te zeggen’. 9.6 Mijn leidinggevende is een goed rolmodel voor mij. 9.7 Mijn leidinggevende is een typisch voorbeeld van een goede werknemer. 9.8 Mijn leidinggevende zorgt voor samenwerking tussen groepen. 9.9 Mijn leidinggevende moedigt werknemers aan om zich te gedragen als teamspelers. 9.10 Mijn leidinggevende zorgt dat de groep samen aan hetzelfde doel werkt. 9.11 Mijn leidinggevende ontwikkelt een teamgevoel en teamgeest onder werknemers. 9.12 Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij veel van ons verwacht. 9.13 Mijn leidinggevende dringt aan op alleen de beste prestaties. 9.14 Mijn leidinggevende neemt geen genoegen met een tweede plaats. 9.15 Mijn leidinggevende acteert zonder rekening te houden met mijn gevoelens (R). 9.16 Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij mijn persoonlijke gevoelens respecteert. 9.17 Mijn leidinggevende houdt in zijn/haar gedrag rekening met mijn persoonlijke behoeften. 9.18 Mijn leidinggevende daagt me uit na te denken over oude problemen op een nieuwe manier. 9.19 Mijn leidinggevende stelt vragen die me aan het denken zetten. 9.20 Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert mij om na te denken over de manier waarop ik dingen aanpak.

Component 1 Vision -.800 -.877

Component 2 Role Model .437 .342

Component 3 Group goals .431 .483

-.844 -.760

.507 .482 .899 .738 .703 .489 .416 .351 .455

.573 .587 .368 .556 .547 .809 .866 .850 .886 .417

-.635 -.538 -.522 -.448 -.512 -.563 -.309

-.475 -.453

.369 .325 .311

-.453 -.368 -.396

.371 .301

Component 5 Ind. Support .467 .402

Component 6 Intellect. Stim. -.348 -.447

.493 .467 .305 .521 .582 .434 .476 .361 .470

-.542 -.512 -.392 -.591 -.434 -.455 -.394 -.347 -.426 -.467 -.333

.381 .377 .389

.811 .918 .886

-.330 -.383 -.351

.310

.364

-.847

.344 .353

-.864 -.864

.330 .426

Component 4 Perf. Expect.

.710 .899 .832

.384 .342

54

Appendix C. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Vigor, Dedication and Absorption Table 14. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Vigor Engagement – Vigor Model

1

2

3

B

SE B

SE B

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

.053

.09

.039

.040

.08

.029

.033

.08

.025

-.004

.03

-.009

.012

.03

.026

.012

.03

.026

Age

.167

.06

.199**

.169

.05

.202**

.170

.05

.203**

Working Hours

.074

.07

.073

.051

.06

.050

.048

.06

.047

-.031

.04

-.056

-.042

.03

-.075

-.043

.03

-.076

Organizational Size

.092

.05

.125

.080

.04

.109

.084

.05

.113

Profit / Non-Profit

-.110

.09

-.078

-.086

.09

-.061

-.086

.09

-.061

.227

.09

.157*

.127

.08

.088

.128

.09

.089

Job Insecurity

-.155

.05

-.197**

-.151

.05

-.193**

Transactional Leadership

-.016

.06

-.019

-.013

.06

-.016

.371

.09

.328**

.369

.09

.326**

-.023

.05

-.039

.011

.05

.020

(Constant) Gender Educational Level

Organizational Tenure

Recent Layoffs

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership * Job Insecurity Transformational Leadership * Job Insecurity

R²

.081

.246

.247

R² Change

.081

.165

.001

3.207**

8.547**

7.212**

F-value * Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

55

Table 15. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Dedication Engagement – Dedication Model

1

2

3

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

-.082

.10

-.050

-.099

.09

-.060

-.092

.09

-.056

Educational Level

.002

.03

.004

.027

.03

.048

.029

.03

.052

Age

.130

.07

.128

.135

.06

.132**

.134

.06

.132*

Working Hours

.185

.08

.150*

.151

.07

.123*

.146

.07

.118*

-.035

.04

-.051

-.054

.04

-.079

-.046

.04

-.067

Organizational Size

.013

.06

.014

-.006

.05

-.006

-.008

.05

-.009

Profit / Non-Profit

.177

.11

.104

.208

.10

.122*

.203

.10

.119*

Recent Layoffs

.284

.11

.162**

.127

.09

.072

.140

.09

.080

Job Insecurity

-.250

.05

-.263**

-.226

.05

-.238**

Transactional Leadership

-.035

.07

-.036

-.027

.07

-.027

.562

.10

.410**

.550

.10

.401**

-.005

.05

-.007

.070

.05

.100

(Constant) Gender

Organizational Tenure

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership * Job Insecurity Transformational Leadership * Job Insecurity

R²

.094

.356

.364

R² Change

.094

.262

.008

3.757**

14.442**

12.585

F-value * Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

56

Table 16. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Absorption Engagement – Absorption Model

1

2

3

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

Β

.060

.09

.044

.047

.08

.035

.049

.08

.036

-.030

.03

-.066

-.013

.03

-.028

-.011

.03

-.025

Age

.168

.06

.202**

.168

.05

.202**

.168

.05

.202**

Working Hours

.165

.07

.163*

.139

.06

.138*

.135

.06

.134*

-.085

.04

-.152*

-.093

.03

-.165**

-.089

.03

-.158**

Organizational Size

.032

.05

.043

.020

.04

.027

.020

.04

.027

Profit / Non-Profit

.018

.09

.013

.046

.09

.033

.043

.09

.031

Recent Layoffs

.116

.09

.081

.028

.08

.019

.035

.09

.024

Job Insecurity

-.131

.05

-.168**

-.118

.05

-.151*

Transactional Leadership

-.021

.06

-.026

-.016

.06

-.019

.379

.09

.338**

.372

.09

.332**

-.008

.05

-.014

.039

.05

.068

(Constant) Gender Educational Level

Organizational Tenure

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership * Job Insecurity Transformational Leadership * Job Insecurity

R²

.084

.238

.242

R² Change

.084

.154

.003

3.354**

8.200**

7.012**

F-value * Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

57

Appendix D. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Transformational Leadership Behaviors Table 17. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Transformational Leadership Behaviors Engagement - Total Model

1 B

SE B

B

SE B

3.221

.19

2.362

.30

.010

.08

.008

-.005

.07

-.011

.03

-.024

.006

Age

.155

.05

.195**

Working Hours

.141

.06

-.051

Organizational Size

β

3 β

B

SE B

2.338

.31

-.004

.010

.07

.008

.02

.014

.011

.02

.025

.159

.05

.200**

.169

.05

.212**

.147*

.094

.06

.098

.095

.06

.098

.03

-.094

-.061

.03

-.114*

-.057

.03

-.107

.046

.05

.065

.025

.04

.036

.023

.04

.033

Profit / Non-Profit

.029

.09

.021

.068

.08

.051

.032

.08

.024

Recent Layoffs

.209

.09

.152*

.093

.08

.068

.107

.08

.078

(Constant) Gender Educational Level

Organizational Tenure

SE B

2

Job Insecurity

-.182

.04 -.244**

-.170

.04

-.228*

Transactional Leadership

-.015

.06

-.020

-.028

.06

-.036

TFL – Vision

.023

.07

.028

.046

.07

.055

TFL - Role Model

.144

.06

.141

.109

.07

.134

TFL - Goal Acceptance

.083

.06

.103

.065

.06

.080

TFL - Performance Expectations

.055

.05

.063

.060

.05

.067

TFL – Individualized Support

.026

.05

.034

.043

.05

.056

TFL - Intellectual Stimulation

.131

.06

,154*

.111

.06

.131

.000

.04

-.002

-.093

.05

-.166

TFL - Role Model * Job Insecurity

.016

.05

.027

TFL - Goal Acceptance * Job Insecurity

.088

.05

.161

TFL - Performance Expectations * Job Insecurity

.011

.04

.017

TFL – Individualized Support * Job Insecurity

-.013

.04

-.025

TFL - Intellectual Stimulation* Job Insecurity

-.042

.04

.070

TAL * Job Insecurity TFL – Vision * Job Insecurity

R²

.096

.350

.368

R² Change

.096

.254

.018

3.877**

9.522**

6.998**

F-value * Correlation is significant at .05 (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 (2-tailed)

58