Leadership and employee outcomes mediating effects of job resources and employee engagement

Running head: EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Abstract
Leadership and Employee Outcomes: Mediating Effects of Job Resources and Employee
Engagement
by
Maria E. Gallego-Pace
Dissertation Committee
Cong Liu, Ph.D., Sponsor
Maura Mills, Ph.D.
Comila Shahani-Denning, Ph.D.
Rebecca Grossman, Ph.D., Orals Chair
Yi Xiao, Ph.D., Reader
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Hofstra University
Hempstead, N.Y. 11549
December 2017

EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Engagement
Abstract
Employee engagement is a construct with multiple conceptualizations in the academic literature
and practitioner domain. In this paper employee engagement is defined as a long-term affective
motivational state reflected in how employees think and feel about and act toward the
organization. To date, literature on the relationship between effective leadership and employee
engagement is scarce. One major focus of this study was to examine the relationship between
effective leadership and employee engagement. This study proposed an overall framework in
which perceived effective leadership and job resources (performance feedback and social
support) influence employee engagement which in turn affect employee outcomes consisting of
job satisfaction, innovation and turnover intention. Several relationships were hypothesized to
exist. First, effective leadership was expected to predict employee engagement. Effective
leadership was also posited to predict job resources of performance feedback and social support.
Next, job resources were proposed to predict employee engagement. This relationship was
expected to exist reciprocally across time as well as a gain spiral over time. For example, as job
resources increase, employee engagement was expected to not only increase but to influence
future job resources as well. Employee engagement was also expected to predict employee
outcomes of job satisfaction, innovation, and turnover intention. Mediated relationships include
job resources as a mediator between effective leadership and employee engagement. Employee
engagement was also expected to act as a mediator between job resources and employee
outcomes. Furthermore, a double mediation was tested to investigate if job resources and

employee engagement act in conjunction or independently of one another in their roles as
mediators between effective leadership and employee outcomes. The proposed model was
investigated over four years of archival longitudinal organizational data. The aim of this research
was three-fold. First to identify the underlying mechanisms driving the proposed model of
effective leadership, job resources, employee engagement, and employee outcomes. Second to
supplement the sparse literature focused on effective leadership as an antecedent of employee
engagement. Finally, this study contributes as the only four-wave longitudinal study with one-
year time lags on effective leadership, job resources, employee engagement, and employee
outcomes. Results supported the majority of the relationships hypothesized with the exception of
the relationship between effective leadership and employee engagement, the spiral relationship
between job resources and employee engagement, and only partially supported the reciprocal
relationship between job resources and employee engagement. Theoretical and practical
implications, limitations and future research are discussed.

Running head: EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Engagement
by
Dissertation Committee
Cong Liu, Ph.D., Sponsor
Maura Mills, Ph.D.
Comila Shahani-Denning, Ph.D.
Rebecca Grossman, Ph.D., Orals Chair
Yi Xiao, Ph.D., Reader
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Hofstra University
Hempstead, N.Y. 11549
December 2017

ProQuest Number:
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest
Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
10689656
10689656
2017

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and grandmother, for their life long support and
encouragement.
Esta disertación está dedicada a mi madre y mi abuela, por su apoyo y aliento en mi vida.
¡Sigue adelante hija mía, que la batalla es nuestra!

Acknowledgements
To my advisor, Dr. Cong Liu, thank you so much for your support, guidance and patience
throughout this process.
To everyone on my committee, thank you for your time and input.
To Dawn Gallo, thank you for your conversation and encouragement.
To the Brooklyn Crew, thank you for the company on the extensive travel, always supporting
each other and making it through these challenging years together. We made it!
To my dear friend Brittany Roybal, a special thank you for the constant reminder to never lose
sight.
To my family, thank for being such a strong and consistent support system. A special thanks to
my wonderful husband for going through this process with me, to Choco for being such a
constant source of joy and happiness throughout my academic career, and to Rock n Roll baby
for your drumming and breakdancing to remind me that no matter how difficult things may seem
the future is bright.

i
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v
Chapter I: Introduction, Literature Review and Hypotheses .......................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Employee Engagement: Definitions and Theories...................................................................... 4
Practitioner Approaches of Employee Engagement................................................................ 6
Academic Frameworks of Employee Engagement ................................................................. 7
Discriminant Validity of Employee Engagement and Other Related Constructs ................... 9
Antecedents of Employee Engagement..................................................................................... 14
Predictors of Employee Engagement .................................................................................... 15
Effective Leadership, Job Resources, and Employee Engagement .......................................... 17
The Relationship between Effective Leadership and Job Resources .................................... 27
The Relationship between Job Resources and Employee Engagement ................................ 30
The Mediating Role of Job Resources on the Relationship between Effective Leadership and
Employee Engagement.......................................................................................................... 39
Employee Engagement and Employee Outcomes .................................................................... 41
The Relationship between Employee Engagement and Outcomes of Job Satisfaction,
Innovation, and Turnover Intention....................................................................................... 42
The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement on the Relationship between with Job
Resources and Employee Outcomes...................................................................................... 45
The Double Mediations among Effective Leadership, Job Resources, Employee Engagement,
and Employee Outcomes........................................................................................................... 47
Current Study: The Longitudinal Studies of Employee engagement........................................ 50
Chapter II: Methods ...................................................................................................................... 54
Main Study.................................................................................................................................... 54
Participants................................................................................................................................ 61
Procedure................................................................................................................................... 64
Measures.................................................................................................................................... 64
Validation Test: Validating the Applied Measures for Effective Leadership, Employee
Engagement, Innovation, Performance Feedback, Social Support, Job Satisfaction and Turnover
Intention ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Participants................................................................................................................................ 67
Procedure................................................................................................................................... 68

ii
Measures.................................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter III: Results....................................................................................................................... 72
Validation Study ........................................................................................................................... 72
Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 72
Results....................................................................................................................................... 72
Main Study.................................................................................................................................... 76
Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 76
Results....................................................................................................................................... 76
Chapter IV: Discussion................................................................................................................. 91
Theoretical Contributions.......................................................................................................... 92
Practical Contributions.............................................................................................................. 98
Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions...................................................................... 101
References................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix A: Employee Engagement Definitions, Theories and Measures ............................... 129
Appendix B: Variables Across Years ......................................................................................... 133
Appendix C: Pilot Study EFAs................................................................................................... 134
Appendix D: Archival Organizational Questionnaire Items....................................................... 142
Appendix E: Manipulation Fail Message ................................................................................... 143
Appendix F: Academic Scales Used in Measurement Validation.............................................. 144

iii
List of Tables
Table 1. Hypotheses...................................................................................................................... 53
Table 2. 20-Item Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Structure................................................... 58
Table 3. Main Study Confirmatory Factor Analysis..................................................................... 60
Table 4. 2013-2016 Organizational Participant Demographics.................................................... 63
Table 5. MTurk Participant Demographics .................................................................................. 68
Table 6. Validation Study Variable Descriptives and Correlations Among Demographics &
Major Variables ............................................................................................................................ 74
Table 7. MTurk Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................ 75
Table 8. Variable Descriptives and Correlations among 2013 Demographics & Major Variables
....................................................................................................................................................... 77
....................................................................................................................................................... 77
....................................................................................................................................................... 78
....................................................................................................................................................... 78
Table 12. Variable Descriptives and Correlations of Major Variables Across 2013-2016 .......... 79
Table 13. The Mediating Effect of Job Resources (Performance Feedback & Social Support)
(T2) on the Relationship Between Effective Leadership (T1) and Employee Engagement (T3),
While Controlling for Engagement (T1)....................................................................................... 80
Table 14. Model Results for Autoregressive and Cross Lagged Relationships between Social
Support and Employee Engagement at T2 and T3 ....................................................................... 82
Table 15. The Mediating Effect of Employee Engagement (T3) on the Relationship Between Job
Resources (Performance Feedback & Social Support) (T2) and Employee Outcomes (T4), While
Controlling for Employee Outcomes (T2).................................................................................... 85
Table 16. The Mediating Effect of Job Resources (T2) and Employee Engagement (T3) on the
Relationship Between Effective Leadership (T1) and Employee outcomes (T4), While
Controlling for Employee outcomes (T1)..................................................................................... 87
Table 17. Model Fit and Results for Longitudinal Major Variable Trend Analyses.................... 89
Table 18. Longitudinal Model Fit................................................................................................. 90

iv
Table 19. Longitudinal Results Across Full Models .................................................................... 91

v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Model of Effective Leadership, Job Resources, Employee Engagement, and Employee
Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2. Autoregressive and cross-lagged relationships between performance feedback and
employee engagement................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 3. Autoregressive and cross-lagged relationships between social support and employee
engagement ................................................................................................................................... 81

1
Chapter I: Introduction, Literature Review and Hypotheses
Background
In 2000, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi published an introduction to positive
psychology where they explained a scientific framework for empirical research to build upon this
area. The idea was to “create a field focused on human well-being and the conditions, strengths
and virtues that allow people to thrive” (Azar, 2011, p.32). Organizations as a whole and
employees in particular have benefited from this shift with many concepts being applied in the
workplace. One popular topic in positive psychology is employee engagement.
Employee engagement is an important construct to study because of the beneficial
outcomes. When employees are engaged, positive consequences result for individuals and
organizations (Gorgievski, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2010) as employees become more productive,
creative and go beyond what is required of them (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Research has
shown engaged employees have been linked to positive employee outcomes including increased
organizational commitment and performance (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008), increased
client satisfaction and customer ratings (Salanova, Agut, & Piero, 2005), increased financial
returns and profitability (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009a), increased
individual health outcomes (Christian & Slaughter, 2007), decreased absenteeism (Schaufeli,
Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009), decreased turnover intention (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), and
decreased turnover (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; DeLange, DeWitte, & Notelaers, 2008).
In organizations, employee engagement is driven by antecedents including leadership and
job resources (Aon Hewitt, 2015; Robinson, Perryman & Hayday, 2004; Sirota, 2016). While
there is a great deal of research investigating the role of job resources as predictors of employee
engagement (Halbesleben, 2010), there is a far less focusing on leadership. The limited research

2
involving employee engagement and leadership provide promising results for positive styles of
leadership as antecedents of employee engagement (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011; Zhu,
Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009). On the other hand, there is an abundance of studies supporting the
role of job resources as predictors of employee engagement. The results provide evidence for a
multitude of job resources across organizational, social, organization of work, and task resources.
These predictors of employee engagement are vital to understand because they determine aspects
of organizational life including the work environment, culture of organizations, level of stress
people experience, and work/life balance among others.
The proposed model investigated the mechanism behind effective leadership, job
resources (performance feedback and social support), employee engagement and employee
outcomes (job satisfaction, innovation, turnover intention) in a four-wave longitudinal archival
study over four years. Specifically, the model proposes the presence of effective leadership and
job resources increases employee engagement, which in turn leads to positive employee
outcomes (see Figure 1). First, direct relationships were postulated to exist from effective
leadership to employee engagement and job resources, from job resources to employee
engagement, and from employee engagement to job satisfaction, innovation and turnover
intention. I postulate effective leadership will predict resources; resources will predict
engagement; and engagement will predict employee outcomes of job satisfaction, innovation,
and turnover intention. Second, I tested the dynamic mediational relationships among effective
leadership, job resources, and employee engagement, as well as a dynamic mediational
relationship among resources, employee engagement, and employee outcomes. Third, I tested a
double mediational model in which effective leadership is related to employee outcomes through
both job resources and organizational engagement. In addition, I tested the reciprocal

3
relationship and gain spiral relationship between employee engagement and job resources
(performance feedback and social support). A spiral occurs when two or more variables
mutually reinforce one another over time.
There were three goals of this research project. The first goal was to supplement the
sparse literature focused on effective leadership as an antecedent of employee engagement. The
current state of the employee engagement literature is deficient, consisting of a handful of studies
with only one longitudinal study to date examining effective leadership styles and employee
engagement. The second goal was to identify the underlying mechanisms driving the proposed
model of employee engagement. To my knowledge, no studies have been published that look at
the combined relationships of effective leadership, job resources (specifically performance
feedback and social support), employee engagement and employee outcomes (specifically job
satisfaction, innovation, and turnover intentions). A broader comprehension of these
relationships, such as the proposed double mediation model, will contribute to the existing
effective leadership and employee engagement literature. Finally, due to the dynamic nature of
organizational life, it is critical to understand the trend in the major variables of effective
leadership, resources, engagement, and employee outcomes. Presently there are relatively few
longitudinal studies on employee engagement, with the majority consisting of two wave studies
and a dearth of three or more waves (Biggs, Brough, & Barbour, 2014). The longitudinal and
multi-wave field studies are lacking and a strong understanding of the changing relationships has
not been established. My study will use the four-wave archival organizational data to conduct a
trend analysis and test a model of change. A longitudinal study is particularly important because
it is possible to detect relationships among variables in various directions as well as spiraled
relationships which were proposed in the model.

4
Employee Engagement: Definitions and Theories
Employee engagement first became a hot topic in the practitioner domain and has grown
in popularity over the years. In the early 1990s, Gallup (2016) identified “the most important
factor in helping companies grow - employee engagement.” Currently there are a plethora of
consulting firms that offer insights and resolutions to employee engagement (Vance, 2006). In
the practitioner domain employee engagement is generally considered to be “more than job
satisfaction that describes an employee’s discretionary effort” (Aon Hewitt, 2015).
Employee engagement is a construct that emerged in professional practice before
crossing over into academia (Macey & Schneider, 2008). In the academic world, employee
engagement was introduced in a few articles in the 1990s, but it was not until the early 2000s
that a popular interest in employee engagement began to show by way of published articles
(Bakker, Albrecht & Leiter, 2011). It is important to note in the academic literature employee
engagement and work engagement can be used interchangeably (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). A
keyword search on employee engagement or work engagement in PsychInfo resulted in 64
results from 1990-1999, 581 results from 2000-2009, and 3382 results from 2010-2017. As
such, the literature on employee engagement is in its adolescence. Overall, the academic research
on employee engagement is based on one of two schools of thought. First is Kahn’s (1990,
1992) view of psychological presence at work as a transient psychological state. The other more
widely researched conceptualization of employee engagement stems from the burnout literature
(Bakker et al., 2011; Wefald, Mills, Smith, & Downey, 2012; Mills, Fleck, & Kozikowski, 2013;
Bailey, 2016). In this school of thought, employee engagement is defined as “a positive,
fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related wellbeing that can be seen as the antipode
of job burnout” (Leiter & Bakker, 2010, p. 1-2).

5
To add to the multiple models and conceptualizations, other definitions of employee
engagement include “the behavioral provision of time and energy into one’s work role”
(Newman & Harrison, 2008, p. 35), and “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional and
behavioral state directed toward desired employee outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 103).
Macey and Schneider (2008) noted in their review of the employee engagement literature that it
has been conceptualized as a psychological state, a psychological trait and a behavior construct,
defined attitudinally, cognitively and behaviorally, and postulated to be transitory as well as long
term. Attridge (2009) noted that regardless of how it is defined, ultimately employee
engagement has an influence on employee well-being and business outcomes.
Clearly there is a need for more unified and effective operationalization and measure of
employee engagement in academia and practice. As Wefald et al. (2012) aptly stated, “these
multiple and divergent approaches to engagement highlight a lack of focus and clarity around the
construct of engagement” (p. 68). Unfortunately, this has led to a scattered underpinning and
inadequate assessment of instruments to properly measure employee engagement (Mills et al.,
2013). This is especially important when one considers the organizational and personnel
resources wasted on unproductive engagement interventions. It is imperative to have a strong
foundation and a common direction to move forward in to create effective interventions and
solve unexplained issues around employee engagement (Bakker, et al., 2011). This will help
diminish the lacuna between scientific and practitioner conceptualizations and models, and to
move in a more unified direction that benefits both domains. Next, a review of general
practitioner approaches is presented. Appendix A provides an overview of the various
definitions, theories and measures discovered throughout the literature review.

6
Practitioner Approaches of Employee Engagement
The practitioner domain varies among the approaches to employee engagement. Many
practitioners do not offer a definition of employee engagement and simply point to positive
consequences of employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Others have developed
proprietary definitions, models and measures of employee engagement (Attridge, 2009; Vance,
2006). In general, these definitions tend to be broad in scope and aspiring while practitioner
models typically focus on interventions to attain high levels of engagement with an aim at
creating profit (Bailey, 2016). Despite the differences, a review of employee engagement
approaches identified overarching themes including pride, satisfaction, growth opportunities,
effort above role requirement, and employee retention (Vance, 2006). Employee engagement is
often defined in part as a combination of other constructs, for example, commitment, satisfaction
or motivation. This is because employee engagement is used as a parsimonious construct
describing the overall work experience. Academics have criticized these conceptualizations as
not being empirically distinct (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008).
However, research practitioners defend the position of a parsimonious employee engagement
construct through evidence of high corrected correlations (.92) between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Harter & Schmidt, 2008). Furthermore, they point out the
uniqueness of work attitudes are not evident to employees’ daily experiences. Therefore, the use
of the distinct academic constructs is not practical for organizational use (Harter, Hayes, &
Schmidt, 2002; Harter & Schmidt, 2008). The ultimate focus of practitioners is identifying and
implementing organizational interventions for clients that drive employee engagement and the
associated positive outcomes. Next, a well-known practitioner’s approach to employee
engagement is reviewed.

7
Mercer|Sirota (formerly Sirota) define employee engagement as “the extent to which
employees think, feel, and act in ways that represent high levels of commitment to their
organization” (Hogan Assessments & Sirota, 2015). This definition is supported by the three-
factor model of employee engagement. Essentially, the Sirota (2016) model suggests employee
engagement can be displayed and experienced in three ways: intellectually, emotionally, and
behaviorally. Intellectually engaged employees offer creative, new ideas and usually hold
positive views of their company and their relationship with their company. Emotionally engaged
employees are proud and passionate about their work and organization. Behaviorally engaged
employees are willing to exert extra effort and go beyond what is expected, advocate about the
organization, and remain loyal. This practitioner model posits when employees’ needs
(achievement, camaraderie and equity) are met, employees will become engaged intellectually,
emotionally and behaviorally. This will result in positive outcomes for the organization
including increased retention, innovation, customer satisfaction and financial performance
(Sirota, 2016). Next is a review of the academic approaches that also encompass behavioral,
cognitive and emotional aspects to employee engagement.
Academic Frameworks of Employee Engagement
Unlike the practitioner approach to employee engagement, the academic approach is
comprised of specific definitions and models with an aim at incremental advancement through
research (Bailey, 2016). Similar to the practitioner approach, there are various definitions of
employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Bakker et al., 2011; Wefald et al., 2012; Mills
et al., 2013; Bailey, 2016). In the ensuing sections two major schools of employee engagement
are briefly reviewed.

8
Kahn’s approach.
The first school of thought in the academic literature is based on Kahn’s (1990) seminal
work on employee engagement. Kahn conceptualized employee engagement as a continuum
with the end points of engagement and disengagement. He defined engagement as “the
harnessing of organization members’ selves into their work roles…people employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” and
disengagement as “the uncoupling of selves from work roles…people withdraw and defend
themselves physically, cognitively or emotionally during role performances” (p. 694).
Essentially, a person is engaged at work when they can express their authentic self in the role by
being present cognitively, emotionally and physically. On the contrary, a person is disengaged
when they suppress their authentic self in the role.
Burnout approach.
Employee engagement as the antipode to burnout. The other major conceptualization of
employee engagement in the academic literature arises from the field of burnout. Maslach,
Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) explained burnout was made up of exhaustion, cynicism and
reduced professional efficacy. Specifically, exhaustion occurs from work overload and drives
people to distance themselves cognitively and emotionally; cynicism relates to depersonalization
of oneself at work; and reduced professional efficacy is seen as a decrease in accomplishments.
Given this, Maslach and Leiter (1997) postulated employee engagement was the antipode to
burnout and was made up of the three opposing dimension of burnout – energy, involvement and
efficacy. According to this conceptualization, employee engagement is the converse of burnout.
Employee engagement as a separate construct of burnout. In the same article, Schaufeli
(Maslach et al., 2001) took a slightly different approach to employee engagement. He also

9
hypothesized employee engagement was the converse of burnout, however the dimensions were
different, and hence employee engagement could not be measured as the opposite end score of
burnout. Schaufeli (Maslach et al., 2001) defined employee engagement as “a persistent,
positive affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees that is characterized by vigor,
dedication and absorption” (p. 417). This view of employee engagement dominates the
employee engagement field (Bakker et al., 2011; Wefald et al., 2012; Mills et al., 2013).
The dimension of vigor was defined as “high levels of energy and resilience, the
willingness to invest effort in one’s job, the ability to not be easily fatigued, and persistent in the
face of difficulties.” Dedication was defined as “a strong involvement in one’s work,
accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm and significance, and by a sense of pride and
inspiration.” And absorption was defined as “a pleasant state of total immersion in one’s work,
which is characterized by time passing quickly and being unable to detach oneself from the job”
(p. 417).
This is a brief review of the more popular approaches to employee engagement. Across
the academic and practitioner approaches to employee engagement, there are countless more.
Because of this, there is overlap between employee engagement and other constructs. Next is a
look at how employee engagement relates to these constructs.
Discriminant Validity of Employee Engagement and Other Related Constructs
A construct must be exclusive with a distinct definition and not a “cocktail of related
constructs” (Saks, 2008) in order to be measurable and useful to researchers, practitioners,
organizations and employees alike (Macey & Schneider, 2008). To address the space of
employee engagement in the nomological network, varying relationships between employee
engagement with job satisfaction (Alacron & Lyons, 2011; Christian et al., 2011), organizational

10
commitment, job involvement (Christian et al., 2011; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), job
embeddedness (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008) and workaholism (Schaufeli, Taris & Bakker,
2006; Schaufeli, Taris & Van Rhenen, 2008) are discussed next.
Employee engagement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job
involvement. Job satisfaction is defined as a “pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (Locke,
1969, p. 316). Alarcon & Lyons (2011) proposed job satisfaction and employee engagement
where unique but related constructs. Data from 1061 participants was collected and split into
two samples. Hierarchical regression and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results supported
this hypothesis. Moreover, when controlling for job satisfaction, employee engagement
significantly accounted for unique variance in workload, control, reward, community and values.
Similarly, a meta-analysis conducted by Christian et al. (2011) found evidence of
discriminant validity between employee engagement and job attitudes, including job satisfaction,
organizational commitment (an individual’s attachment & attitude with the organization, Saks,
2006) and job involvement (“the degree to which a person’s total work situation is an important
part of his [or her] life,” Lawler & Hall, 1970, p. 310). Furthermore, employee engagement
resulted in incremental validity over job attitudes in predicting task and contextual performance.
Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) conducted research on the differences between job
involvement, organizational commitment, and employee engagement which all relate to work
attachment. Finding discriminant validity for these three constructs is particularly important
because two of the dimensions that make up employee engagement, dedication and absorption,
have been linked to involvement and commitment. Swedish employees (N=186) at an
international consulting company completed an employee health and motivation survey. The

11
results indicated, as expected, employee engagement shared a low variance with job involvement
and organizational commitment. Furthermore, measures of fit showed the three-factor model
was superior to the one factor model of work attachment. Moreover, the authors found
correlations between employee engagement and health complaints, intent to turnover, as well as
job and personal characteristics above those of organizational commitment and job involvement
that provide further evidence of the inimitability of the construct.
Employee engagement and job embeddedness. Halbesleben and Wheeler (2008)
examined the relationship between employee engagement and job embeddedness (the collective
forces involved in voluntary employee retention, Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez,
2001). Both constructs were developed in part with the conservation of resources theory (COR)
(Hobfoll, 1989) and result from attaining additional resources. However, the resource bases
these constructs pull from differ. Employee engagement is based on work related resources
such as autonomy, access to information and physical resources to complete work while job
embeddedness is based on position related resources including the employee’s links and fit with
the organization and community as well as the sacrifices involved in voluntary turnover.
Surveys were completed by 573 participants in the US at two time points two months apart.
Results showed a low level of shared variance indicating a relationship between employee
engagement and job embeddedness but not overlap between the constructs. Moreover, a CFA
also resulted in support for two unique but related constructs. As predicted the results indicate
the constructs are related but distinct.
Employee engagement and workaholism. A final construct that has been compared to
employee engagement is workaholism (“the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work
incessantly,” Oates, 1971, p. 11). Schaufeli et al. (2006b) point out employee engagement is

12
similar to “good” workaholism. Like employee engagement, workaholism is made up of three
factors: drive (compulsion to work), work involvement (highly committed and temporally
invested), and work enjoyment (find work pleasant and fulfilling) (Spence & Robbins, 1992).
These different combinations lead to three types of workaholics. Enthusiastic workaholics are
high across all dimensions, non-enthusiastic workaholics are low on enjoyment, and work
enthusiasts are low on drive and considered comparable to engaged employees. Schaufeli et al.
(2006b) noted the main distinction for engaged employees is that drive stems from liking work
and not an inner compulsion to work. With a focus on the negative aspects of workaholism,
Schaufeli, et al. (2006b) compared the Working Excessively and Working Compulsively
measures of workaholism to the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Data from an online
survey completed by 2000 Dutch employees resulted in support for the distinct constructs of
employee engagement and workaholism. Employee engagement was positively related to
happiness, health, and decreased sickness related absenteeism while workaholism was negatively
related to each. Furthermore, the results indicate varying positive relationships between job
performance and workaholism and employee engagement, with employee engagement
accounting for a higher percentage of variance across all three performance indicators.
Specifically, subjects that work excessively and compulsively show increased extra-role
performance, those that work excessively also show increased innovativeness, and engaged
employees show increased innovativeness, in-role and extra-role performance. In addition,
Schaufeli et al (2008) studied workaholism (working excessively and compulsively), employee
engagement and burnout. The authors predicted all three were unique but correlated constructs.
A survey was given to 854 managers/executives at a Dutch company which included measures of
workaholism, employee engagement, and burnout, as well as excess working time, job

13
characteristics, work outcomes, quality of social relationships, and perceived health. The results
supported the predictions that the three-factor model of workaholism, employee engagement and
burnout provided the best fit, indicating they were distinct but related constructs. Burnout
related negatively with employee engagement and positively with workaholism. Further analysis
provided evidence of external validity. With respect to excess working time, job characteristics,
work outcomes, quality of social relationships, and perceived health, multiple regression analysis
resulted in comparable profiles but in opposing directions for employee engagement and
burnout, with a more positive profile (worked long hours, high resources, good social
functioning, good health) for employee engagement and a more negative profile (did not work
long hours, had demanding jobs, low resources, impaired social functioning and poor health) for
burnout. The workaholic profile had similar negative aspects to burnout but also reflected the
long working hours which was seen in engaged participants.
Thus far we have explored major conceptualizations of employee engagement and the
uniqueness of employee engagement compared to constructs in the nomological network. As
this review illustrates, several approaches agree employee engagement include cognitive,
emotional and behavioral components (Attridge, 2009; Demerouti & Bakker, 2008; Kahn, 1990,
1992; Shirom, 2003; Wefald et al., 2012). In an approach that takes into account the academic
and practitioner conceptualizations covered thus far, in this dissertation employee engagement is
considered a higher order unidimensional construct that is based on how employees’ express
themselves in role performance. This is appropriate because of the archival data used in this
study. Therefore, employee engagement is defined as a long-term affective-motivational state
reflected in how employees think and feel about and act toward the organization. For example,
an engaged employee would have confidence in the organization, have a feeling of personal

14
accomplishment from their work, and express to others their pride in their organization. The
model proposed in this study is supported by practitioner models including Sirota (see Appendix
A for additional models). The Sirota model of employee engagement is one in which employee
needs are met through leadership and job resources which lead to employee engagement and
result in positive organizational outcomes.
Next the review continues into the current state of employee engagement predictors.
These relationships are imperative to comprehend, for without the knowledge of what drives
employee engagement there is no direction for how to create or influence employee engagement
in organizations.
Antecedents of Employee Engagement
Regardless of which school of employee engagement one follows or is investigated,
resources are necessary for employees to become engaged. COR (Hobfoll, 1989) provides a
sound framework for understanding antecedents of employee engagement. In this model
individuals are motivated to obtain and accumulate resources and are threatened by resource loss.
Therefore, people invest their resources to maintain, accumulate and recover resources and also
to avoid negative outcomes such as loss of resources. According to Hobfoll (2001), resource
accumulation leads to a positive gain spiral and in turn to positive states, such as employee
engagement. Researchers have examined the antecedents of employee engagement at both the
individual and work levels. This research indicates that because of the motivational potential of
work resources, it makes work resources important predictors of employee engagement (Tims et
al., 2011).

15
Predictors of Employee Engagement
Work resources as predictors of employee engagement. Work related predictors of
employee engagement have been studied extensively. The job demands-resources model (JD-R)
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) is specifically
focused on job demands and resources as predictors of employee engagement. Basically, job
resources are positively related to employee engagement because they help alleviate job demands
and reduce burnout. Similarly, job demands are negatively related to employee engagement and
are associated with increased burnout. There is ample research supporting the roles of job
demands and resources as predictors of employee engagement. In general, job demands consists
of “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained
physical and/or psychological effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological
and/or psychological costs,” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010, p. 296). Research on job demands as
predictors of employee engagement have resulted in support for quantitative demands,
specifically time demands (Mauno, Kinnunen & Ruokolainen, 2007) and work pace (Schaufeli et
al., 2008). Interestingly, a meta-analysis by Crawford, LePine, & Rich (2010) found demands
that were viewed as challenges by participants were positively related to employee engagement.
These challenge demands included job responsibility, time urgency, and workloads.
Contrary to job demands, job resources consist of “physical, psychological, social, or
organizational aspects of the job that either/or (1) reduce job demands and the associated
physiological and psychological costs; (2) are functional in achieving work goals; (3) stimulate
personal growth, learning and development” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p.296). Job resources
can be separated into four levels: organizational, social/interpersonal, organization of work, and
task level (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). Job resources have been studied profoundly

16
in the employee engagement literature. Specifically, organizational resources that predict
employee engagement include opportunities for development (Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009b; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Crawford et al., 2010), appreciation
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Brauchli, Schaufeli, Jenny, Füllemann, & Bauer, 2013), work-
family facilitation (Timms et al., 2015), access to information (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;
Crawford et al., 2010), organizational climate (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Halbesleben, 2010),
and participation in decision making, positive work climate, recovery time, rewards &
recognition, and work role fit (Crawford et al., 2010). Social/interpersonal resources that predict
employee engagement include social support (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Crawford
et al., 2010; Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Vogt, Hakanen, Jenny & Bauer,
2016), supervisor support (Bakker et al., 2005; Gan & Gan, 2014), coworker support (Crawford
et al., 2010; Gan & Gan, 2014), and exchange with supervisors (Bakker & Bal, 2010). Work-
related resources that predict employee engagement include job autonomy (Bakker & Bal, 2010,
Crawford et al., 2010; Halbesleben, 2010; Hallberg, Johansson, & Schaufeli, 2007;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2009b), and job control (Brauchli et al., 2013; Crawford et al., 2010).
Finally, task-related resources that serve as predictors of employee engagement include task
variety (Crawford et al., 2010), performance feedback (Bakker et al., 2005; Crawford et al.,
2010; Gan & Gan, 2014; Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al.,
2009b), work innovativeness (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), task significance and justice
(Brauchli, et al. 2013).
A key role that could drive or promote most if not all the above resources is leadership.
As Buckingham and Coffman noted, leadership is a major factor influencing employee
perceptions of the workplace and employee engagement (1999). A good leader could facilitate

17
organizational resources such as development opportunities (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti,
Sleebos, & Maduro, 2014; Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008), social/interpersonal
resources such as supervisor support (Holstad, Korek, Rigotti & Mohr, 2014), work resources
such as job autonomy (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, et al., 2014; Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland,
Demerouti, Olsen & Espevik, 2014; Fernet, Trépanier, Austin, Gagné, & Forest, 2015), and task
resources such as performance feedback (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, et al., 2014). One
resource that has received limited attention until recently in the employee engagement literature
is leadership. Currently there is a dearth of research on relationship between leadership as a
predictor of employee engagement. It is important to study leadership as a predictor of employee
engagement because as Christian et al. (2011) fittingly stated, “leaders are critical elements of
the work context that can influence how individuals view their work” (p.99). An important role
of leaders is to engage their people. Furthermore, leaders are often directly responsible for the
availability of job resources to employees. Therefore, understanding the relationship between
leadership and employee engagement is essential to comprehend the broader mechanism of
employee engagement.
Effective Leadership, Job Resources, and Employee Engagement
As defined in this dissertation, employee engagement is a long-term affective-
motivational state reflected in how employees think and feel about and act toward the
organization. Leaders are essentially representatives of the overall organization to the
employees. Employees’ perceptions of the organization are reflected in part through the
behaviors of their leaders. Leaders directly influence employees’ perceptions and motivate them.
Similarly, Buckingham and Coffman noted (1999) leadership is a major factor influencing
employee perceptions of the workplace and employee engagement.

18
The relationship between effective leadership and employee engagement.
The relationship between leadership and employee engagement is important to study as
leadership has enormous implications at all levels of organizations. In a global economy with
everchanging dynamics, leaders need to be effective in motivating their followers to keep up
with demands and remain in business. It is vital to understand the relationship between
leadership and employee engagement, yet compared to other antecedents of employee
engagement, there is a paucity of published research focused on leadership and employee
engagement.
Similar to employee engagement, leadership existed in the mainstream before being
studied academically (Janda, 1960; Yukl, 2010). As such, there are a multitude of leadership
definitions which focus on a variety of aspects including traits, behaviors, skills and situations.
Across most of the leadership definitions there is a reoccurring theme – influence (Cicero, Pierro,
& van Knippenberg, 2010; Gilley, Dixon, & Gilley, 2008; Yukl 2010).
Of particular interest to this study is leadership effectiveness. Effective leadership relates
to a leader’s ability to influence and motivate others (Chemers, 2001; Yukl, 2010). Contingency
theories on leadership explain in order for leaders to be effective there is not one particular set of
behaviors, skills, traits, etc., a leader must exhibit to succeed. Instead, effective leaders adapt
appropriately to different situations (Fielding & Hogg, 1997; Thomas & Tartell 1991; Yukl,
1989, 2010).
There are several leadership theories that take this contingency approach (Yukl, 2010).
For example, Fiedler’s contingency model (1971) theorizes different leadership styles are
effective in different situations. Leadership styles include some mix of task oriented and
relationship oriented behaviors. The path-goal theory of leadership (House, 1971) posits leader

19
behaviors influence their followers’ performance and satisfaction. Essentially a leader motivates
followers by providing a clear path for goal attainment, reducing obstacles, increasing
opportunities, and rewarding task completion. The leader behaviors include supportive
leadership (consideration and concern for subordinates, cultivating a supportive climate) and
directive leadership (expectations, guidance, and task focused). Another example is situational
leadership theory (SLT) (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977) which postulates to be effective a leader
will use an appropriate style that takes into account a follower’s willingness and ability to
perform a task. A strong compatibility between leadership style and follower maturity will lead
to increased follower performance and satisfaction. A final example is the four-factor theory
(Bowers & Seashore, 1966). There are four types of leadership behavior and the situation
determines which behaviors are crucial. The leadership behaviors include support (others feel
important), interaction facilitation (relationship building in the group), goal emphasis (motivating
goal attainment), and work facilitation (providing structure, direction and resources).
An overarching theme across these theories is the focus on leadership approaches in
different situations. In general, these behaviors are supportive or relationship oriented and task
oriented. Leadership programs of studies also support these two groups of behaviors as effective
leadership including the Ohio State and University of Michigan leadership studies (Yukl, 2010).
In the 1950s, the Ohio State leadership program of research resulted in followers perceiving
effective leadership in two classes, consideration and initiating. Consideration behavior
encompasses supportive behaviors like communication with and concern for others. Initiating
behavior involves task related behaviors including meeting deadlines, setting a path and
criticizing performance. At the same time, the University of Michigan conducted a program of
research to investigate what differentiates effective and ineffective managers. Two general

20
behaviors were identified in effective leaders. Supervisory functions included task oriented
behaviors like providing structure, timelines/agendas, coordinating resources, providing
assistance and monitoring progress. Human relations functions involved supportive oriented
behaviors such as being considerate and supportive, demonstrating confidence in staff,
understanding followers’ issues and developing followers. Recent studies also support effective
leadership as demonstrated and perceived through task and supportive oriented behaviors (Gilley
et al., 2011; Luthans, 1988; Muchiri, Cooksey, di Milia, & Walumbwa, 2011).
In each of these theories and studies, effective leadership is determined by the mix of task
and relationship oriented behaviors the leaders use. Therefore, it is not surprising that many
leadership styles are considered to be effective leadership including transactional and
transformational leadership (TFL) (Xu & Cooper-Thomas, 2011), empowering leadership
(Amundsen & Oyvind, 2014), participative leadership (Yukl, 2010), authentic (Wong,
Laschinger, & Cummings, 2010) and ethical leadership (Muchiri et al., 2011). This seems
logical since each of these leadership styles contain various degrees of supportive and task
oriented behavior and evidence indicates these styles are effective in different situations.
Studies also support the theoretical link between effective leadership and employee
engagement in establishing support for the relationship between effective leadership as an
antecedent of employee engagement (Atwater & Brett, 2006; Xu & Cooper-Thomas, 2011).
Although limited, further studies provide evidence for the relationship with specific styles of
effective leadership and employee engagement including TFL (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, et
al., 2014; Espinoza-Parra, Molero, & Fuster-Ruizdeapodaca, 2015; Guglielmi, Simbula,
Mazzetti, Tabanelli, & Bonfiglioli, 2013; Kopperud, Martinsen, & Humborstad, 2014; Mencl,
Wefald & Ittersum, 2016; Zhu et al., 2009), charismatic (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010)

21
transactional (Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland, et al., 2014), and leader member exchange (LMX)
(Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard, & Bhargave, 2012; Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & van den
Heuvel, 2015; Burch & Guarana, 2014).
Given this evidence, it logically follows that effective leadership could serve as a key
source of employee engagement. Effective leaders influence and motivate followers through
different supportive and task related behaviors. By demonstrating these behaviors leaders
engage employees by providing them with the resources and environment they need to be
successful, for example communications, clarity, structure, feedback, development,
understanding and confidence. Again, these aspects relate to employee engagement in the sense
of providing resources such as social support, opportunities for development, fostering a
supportive environment, and motivating employees. Thus, effective leadership is important to
study as an antecedent of employee engagement.
Several theories provide support to the predictor role of effective leadership. Consistent
with the job demand-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001), effective leadership is
useful to study as a predictor of employee engagement because the components lend themselves
to increased job resources (e.g., social support, guidance, and consideration) and decreased job
demands (e.g., less psychological cost through providing structure, feedback, and timelines).
The expectancy theory of motivation (Vroom, 1964) posits motivation is determined
through an individual’s perception of the degree of effort they apply and the resulting
performance from their effort. This relationship is illustrated through expectancy (expending
effort leads to performance), instrumentality (performance leads to outcomes) and valence
(resulting outcomes are valued). Motivation occurs when individuals believe their efforts will
lead to desired outcomes. Expectancy theory also supports that effective leadership could serve

22
as an essential predictor of employee engagement. In terms of the expectancy theory, when a
leader exhibits support and confidence in the ability of their employees, the leader’s actions
influence and validate the employee’s belief that their effort will lead to performance
(expectancy) and in turn a desired outcome (instrumentality). Effective leadership facilitates this
process in creating meaningfulness in the behaviors and performance of the employees.
Effective leaders communicate what is important to the employee, or influence the employee in a
way to accept these outcomes as important to them (valence). Through this supportive and
motivating role, leaders drive employee engagement. Examples of effective leadership behaviors
that influence employee engagement include providing support and understanding, providing
agendas and direction for goal attainment, having confidence in employees’ ability to perform
and to attain the desired outcomes of team success. Based on this rationale effective leadership
will positively influence employee engagement.
Social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) provides another layer of support. SET posits
interactions between at least two parties produces obligations in the shared relationship. In the
relationship between a leader and a subordinate, the leader can establish a setting of safety,
support and trust through effective leadership behaviors. For example, displaying supportive
behaviors like consideration will provide supervisor support, coaching and performance
feedback, thereby instilling a sense of purpose and direction in the employee’s role. Task
oriented behaviors like performance correction and path setting will remove obstacles and
provide an environment for the employee to thrive in. In response to the supportive setting and
resources provided by the leader, the employee will reciprocate through employee engagement.
In other words, as supportive and task oriented behaviors match the varying situations in the

23
workplace, the employee will reciprocate through employee engagement as witnessed through
employees’ actions, thoughts and feelings.
Finally, the broaden and build model of positive emotions (BAB) (Fredrickson, 2000)
postulates positive emotions broaden individual’s thinking and build resources for them as well
as those around them. With respect to effective leadership, leaders can promote positive
emotions in their direct reports through supportive and task related behaviors. This in turn
fosters an environment of support and positivity which allows employees thoughts to broaden
and become more engaged in their work. For example, supportive behavior such as
developmental meetings with direct reports can build their confidence and pride in their work,
leading to direct reports becoming more engaged in their everyday tasks.
Empirical studies on effective leadership and employees’ engagement have provided
support to the positive relationships between the two constructs. This relationship is not
surprising given that related constructs in the nomological network of employee engagement are
also consequences of effective leadership. In research using multisource feedback, Atwater and
Brett (2006) factored out three important behaviors of leaders – two supportive behaviors include
consideration and development, and one task oriented behavior of performance orientation. The
results indicate as leadership ratings from direct reports increased so did employee engagement.
Similarly, Xu and Cooper-Thomas (2011) investigated the relationship between the
effective leadership and employee engagement. A total of 178 employees at a company in New
Zealand completed managerial ratings for their direct manager and three months later an
employee engagement measure. Two supportive and one task oriented behaviors factored out
into three dimensions – supports team (e.g., helping development, promoting pride,
encouragement), displays integrity (e.g., honest, ethical, interpersonal skills), and performs

24
effectively (e.g., problem solving, time management, prioritizing), respectively. Statistical
results provide evidence for the link between effective leadership and employee engagement.
Specifically, the authors found statistically significant correlation between supports team and
engagement which accounted for 77% of the variance. Leader integrity and effective
performance were also positively related to employee engagement.
After an exhaustive search of the literature, a longitudinal study was found on two styles
of effective leadership and employee engagement (Burch & Guarana, 2014), providing indirect
support for the larger umbrella term of effective leadership. In a two-wave study on the
relationships of different leaderships (TFL and LMX) and employee engagement, 280 full time
employees of a multinational technology firm in Brazil completed surveys one month apart.
Both TFL and LMX at time 1 positively predicted employee engagement measured at time 2.
Longitudinal studies are necessary to explore the strength and direction of the
relationship over time between variables (Angelo & Chambel 2015), therefore it is important that
effective leadership and employee engagement be examined longitudinally. Although Burch and
Guarana (2014) conducted a longitudinal study involving effective leadership styles and
employee engagement, the study was limited in that it was only two waves with measures only
one month apart. The study in this dissertation goes beyond the current literature and contributes
by testing the long-term relationship of effective leadership and employee engagement through
four-waves with one year between each time point.
These studies illustrate support for the relationship between effective leadership as an
antecedent of employee engagement. With the positive relationship between effective leadership
and employee engagement established, it seems logical that increases in effective leadership will
lead to increases in employee engagement. Increases in effective leadership behaviors at an

25
initial time point can result in increased job resources and decreased job demands as well as
increased belief in employees’ attainment of desired outcomes which align with those of the
organization. This in turn can lead to employee reciprocity through increased employee
engagement which would be evidenced at a later point in time. Taking into account the theories
and research to date, the following is expected (See Figure 1).
Hypothesis 1: An increase in effective leadership will predict an increase in employee
engagement.

26
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Figure 1. Model of Effective Leadership, Job Resources, Employee Engagement, and Employee Outcomes
Effective
Leadership
Employee
Engagement
Job
Satisfaction
Innovation
Turnover
Intention
H2a
H1
H3a1
H4 (Mediation)
H5b
H5a
H5c
H6a-c (Mediation)
H7a-c (Double Mediation)
Performance
Feedback
Social Support
H2b
H3b (Reciprocal)
H3c (Spiral Gain)
H3a2

27
The Relationship between Effective Leadership and Job Resources
The relationship between leadership and employee engagement has been established in
the existing literature, however the relationship between effective leadership and engagement has
far less research investigating it and the mechanism driving this relationship is not clear. As
previously stated, one important reason that effective leadership enables employee engagement is
through providing supportive and task related resources.
Job resources include any “physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the
job that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce job
demands at the associated physiological and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth
development” (Demerouti, et al., 2001, p. 501). Resources can be broken down into four levels
from most distal to proximal: organizational (e.g., career opportunities and job security),
interpersonal/social (e.g., supervisor and coworker support), organization of work (e.g., role
clarity), and task level (e.g., job characteristics) (Bakker et al., 2004). Effective leadership has
potential to influence all levels of job resources. Research supporting the relationship between
types of effective leadership and job resources includes autonomy and performance feedback
(Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, et al., 2014), development opportunities (Breevaart, Bakker,
Demerouti, et al., 2014; Nielsen et al., 2008), role clarity (Alacron, Lyons & Tartaglia, 2010;
Nielsen et al., 2008), meaningful work (Nielsen et al., 2008) access to information, autonomy
and social support (Fernet et al., 2015), and supervisor support (Holstad et al., 2014).
Both task related resources (Bakker et al., 2005; Brauchli et al., 2013; Crawford et al.,
2010; Gan & Gan, 2014; Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al.,
2009b) and supportive resources (Bakker et al., 2005; Crawford et al., 2010; Halbesleben, 2010;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Vogt, Hakanen, Jenny, et al., 2016) are important antecedents of

28
employee engagement and should be studied in relation to effective leadership. Because of this
and the archival data set used in this dissertation, resources specific to this study include
performance feedback and social support. Performance feedback is an important resource to
study because it encompasses key information for effective performance as well as
communication between superior and subordinate (Bakker et al., 2005). Social support at the
workplace refers to “overall levels of helpful social interactions available on the job from both
co-workers and supervisors” (Karasek & Theorell, 1990, p. 69).
Broaden and build (BAB) model (Fredrickson, 2000) considers how positive emotions
can broaden thought and build resources. Task oriented behaviors like realigning an employee
when they begin to veer off course helps the employees understand how to adjust their efforts
and work toward goal attainment with performance feedback. With appropriate guidance
employees will feel better about their ability, broaden how they think about work, and perceive
available resources like performance feedback for the employee. Through supportive behaviors
such as one on one communication, leaders can increase an employee’s confidence in
themselves, creating a sense of support from the leader as well as leading to more helpful
behaviors among employees. As this helpful culture is fostered and grows, perceptions of social
support also grow for the employees. Moreover, not only can a leader’s positive emotions be
passed along to others in the organization, this contagion can spread throughout the leader’s
team, department, and beyond in a ripple effect.
According to Piccolo and Colquitt (2006), “leaders define and shape the “reality” in
which followers’ work” (p. 327). Leadership can impact employee’s perceptions of job resource
availability. As effective leaders appropriately adapt to different situations, they influence the
perceptions of their employees. Through supportive behaviors such as building trust and

29
confidence in individual members and the team, providing socioemotional support, and
communication, employees will perceive social support from their supervisor and team
members. Task oriented behaviors such as providing structure, timelines, and performance
critique will help with follower course correction and goal attainment, which in turn will be
perceived as performance feedback from the follower’s superior.
For example, perceptions of social support can be influenced by the degree of supportive
behavior one’s superior exhibits. According to SLT (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977), maturity level
varies from employee to employee and depends on a follower’s ability and willingness to reach
goals. For followers with lower levels of maturity, task oriented behaviors are used to a higher
degree to ensure employees are properly informed and guided to attain the goals set forth. In
these situations, effective leaders would provide a more detailed structure and timeline to make
sure low maturity level employees are on track. Conversely, when dealing with employees with
high levels of maturity, more supportive behaviors will be used. Logically it follows that an
appropriate increase in supportive or task related behavior from the leader will increase
employees’ perceptions of job resources.
Research on effective managers found leadership effectiveness was predicted by
communication and human resource activities (Luthans, 1988). As leaders exhibit the task and
supportive behaviors, not only will they be viewed as effective leaders, but employees will
perceive job resources such as performance feedback and social support. This notion is
supported by research indicating supportive behaviors from leaders were perceived as
supervisory support (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004).
While the studies on effective leadership and job resources is sparse, there is more
indirect evidence centered around types of effective leadership and job resources. Specifically,

30
TFL behaviors have been linked to increases in performance feedback (Breevaart, Bakker,
Demerouti et al., 2014) and social support (Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland et al., 2014; Fernet et al.,
2015).
Taking all of this into account, the following hypotheses are proposed (see Figure 1).
Hypothesis 2a: An increase in effective leadership will predict an increase in job
resources of performance feedback.
Hypothesis 2b. An increase in effective leadership will predict an increase in job
resources of social support.
The Relationship between Job Resources and Employee Engagement
As previously reviewed, the positive relationships between job resources and employee
engagement are well established in in a myriad of studies. Several theories have shaped much of
the landscape of the job resources and employee engagement literature. According to the
conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), people are motivated to accumulate
resources and are threatened by the loss of resources. The underlying assumptions are that
investing resources prevents negative outcomes and resource investment is necessary to protect
from resource loss, to recover resources and amass more resources. Job resources aid individuals
at work by assuaging job demands, saving energy and increasing resources. Performance
feedback provides important information to the employee including how they are doing in their
role, and what behaviors if any need to be stopped, started or adjusted to maintain and/or
improve performance. This information helps employees protect, recover and/or gain resources,
for example time spent on a task, and will increase employee engagement. Social support
provides resources in that employees can receive help from supervisors and/or coworkers. These

31
resources help employees protect, recover and/or gain resources, for example increased
psychological safety, and thus increase employee engagement.
Another major theory that supports the positive linkage between job resources and
employee engagement is the JD-R model (Demerouti, et al., 2001). In essence the JD-R model
theorizes job demands and job resources positively relate to burnout and employee engagement,
respectively. In other words, perceptions of demands and resources affect an individual’s energy
and motivation, impacting employee engagement. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007),
in the motivational process of JD-R (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) job resources can act as intrinsic
(via facilitating employee growth) or extrinsic (via goal attainment) motivators for employees
and thereby facilitate employee engagement. For example, social support can act as an intrinsic
motivator by fulfilling a need for affiliation or as an extrinsic motivator through help
accomplishing a work goal. Similarly, performance feedback can act as an intrinsic motivator
through satisfying the need for competence or extrinsic motivator by setting work goals for the
employee to reach. Regardless of the type of motivation job resources enable within individuals,
both performance feedback and support can facilitate employee engagement through the
motivational role they play.
Likewise, job characteristics model (JCM) (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) has been used to
study the relationship between job resources and employee engagement with core job dimensions
impacting employee engagement levels. Similar to the motivational role of job resources in the
motivational process of JD-R, job dimensions also motivate employees to expend effort at work
through five core job dimensions: variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback. The
core dimension in JCM relating to the present study is feedback. Performance feedback can

32
influence employee engagement by fulfilling a need for competence or providing direction to
achieve a goal.
Along with the direct effects social support has on employee outcomes, the job resource
of social support can also act as a buffer for job demands and lead to employee engagement.
Cohen and Willis (1985) introduced the stress buffering hypothesis that states social support
protects employees from stressful experiences (e.g., burnout) and therefore leads to increases in
employee engagement. In the links between potential stressful events and illness and/or illness
behavior, there are two places where social support can provide a buffer. The hypothesized
relationship posits (1) potential stressful events directly link to the (2) appraisal process, which in
turn causes (3) event(s) appraised as stressful, which causes (4) emotionally linked physiological
response or behavioral adaptation, and finally results in (5) illness and/or illness behaviors. At
the appraisal process (2), social support can stop an individual from considering the event as
stressful. If the individual moves past this point social support can also help the emotionally
linked physiological response or behavior adaption (4) and either lead to a reappraisal, stop the
maladjusted response, or enable a better response. When this occurs illness and/or illness
behavior is avoided. In other words, social support provides a cushion against job demands
which can lead to strain. As a job resource, social support plays this role when a supervisor
and/or coworker aids an employee. This support enables the reappraisal of the situation as not
stressful or changes the response to the situation (e.g., decreasing perceptions of demands). In
their review of the literature, Cohen and Willis (1985) note support for the buffering hypothesis
is provided in studies when interpersonal resources exist to deal with stressful events. Therefore,
social support will alleviate job demands in the workplace and facilitate employee engagement.

33
As previously mentioned, there is an overabundance of research on the relationship
between job resources and employee engagement. Meta-analyses provide further evidence of
this relationship, including social support, autonomy, feedback, positive organizational climate
and self-efficacy (Halbesleben, 2010), autonomy, feedback, social support and innovativeness
(Christian & Slaughter, 2007), job control and autonomy; recovery time; rewards and
recognition; social, coworker, supervisor and organizational support; feedback and access to
information; opportunities for development; positive workplace climate, job variety, and work
role fit (Crawford et al., 2010), and colleague interaction (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009) as
antecedents of employee engagement.
As job resources increase, logically so will employee engagement. This stands to reason
as increases in resources lead to maintenance of current resources and attainment of additional
resources, which will increase employee engagement. Furthermore, through their motivational
role, an increase in job resources will increase employee engagement as well. This rationale
extends to increases in performance feedback and social support. As performance feedback
increases, employees will have more communication on their performance and understand what
to stop doing (hindering resource loss), what to keep doing (maintaining resources) and what to
start doing (gaining resources), which also functions as motivation to further create more
resources and employ themselves at work, all of which increases employee engagement. As
social support increases, supervisor/coworkers provide additional resources for employees and
facilitate employee engagement. There is also longitudinal support for the relationship between
increased job resources leading to increased employee engagement. Schaufeli et al. (2009)
found increases in job resources (social support, autonomy, learning opportunities and feedback)

34
predicted employee engagement one year later even when controlling for initial employee
engagement. Given this evidence, the following hypothesis is proposed (see Figure 1).
Hypothesis 3a: An increase in job resources (1) performance feedback and 2) social
support) will predict an increase in employee engagement.
Job resources help employees by alleviating job demands, maintaining energy and
accruing future resources. In turn, this amassing of resources can lead to a gain which in part
results in positive states like employee engagement. As engagement increases, employees can
become more aware of available resources as well as cultivate more resources in the work
environment. It is important to note the difference between reciprocal relationships and gain
spirals. Take for example the relationship between job resources and employee engagement. In
reciprocal relationships job resources at Time 1 would affect employee engagement at Time 2.
Furthermore, employee engagement at Time 1 would also influence job resources at Time 2,
hence the reciprocal relationship. Gain spirals are similar in that the two constructs influence
each other across time, however they go beyond this reciprocal relationship in that this
relationship involves a strengthening, or gain. For example, a gain spiral between job resources
and employee engagement would result when job resources at Time 1 increases employee
engagement at Time 2, which in turn further increases job resources at Time 3.
Schaufeli et al. (2009) conducted a two-wave longitudinal study over one year on a
model of JD-R. Managers and executives of a telecom company responded to two similar
surveys one year apart. Results found evidence of a reciprocal relationship indicative of a gain
spiral between job resources (social support, autonomy, opportunities for development,
performance feedback) and employee engagement. Specifically, employee engagement at Time
1 predicted increased job resources from Time 1 to Time 2 which in turn increased employee

35
engagement at Time 2. Limitations of this study include only a two-wave design was used, three
or more waves are needed to examine the broader relationships in the study.
Xanthopoulou et al. (2009b) conducted a two-wave longitudinal study over 18 months
with 163 employees to examine the relationships between job resources (autonomy, social
support, supervisory coaching, performance feedback, and opportunities for professional
development) and employee engagement. Results indicated that job resources at Time 1 related
positively to employee engagement at Time 2. Moreover, employee engagement at Time 1 was
positively related to job resources at Time 2, indicating a reciprocal relationship. The authors
note the two-wave study is limited in that more than two waves of data collection are necessary
to detect gain spirals. Furthermore, the duration between the two measures varied among
participants with a range from 13 to 19 months. These varied durations could potentially be
influenced by seasonal effects as well.
Research involving a two-wave three-year panel longitudinal design also examined
reciprocal relationships among job resources and employee engagement (Hakanen, Perhoniemi,
& Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). Over 2000 Finnish dentists responded to a questionnaire at Time 1
and again three years later at Time 2. Small positive and reciprocal relationships were found
between job resources (craftsmanship, results and pride in profession) and employee engagement
from Time 1 to Time 2. Specifically, job resources at Time 1 influenced employee engagement
at Time 2, and employee engagement at Time 1 influenced job resources at Time 2. The authors
note a limitation of the study is the two-wave study design and that a four-wave study is required
in order to fully investigate the panel design. Another limitation is the three-year time lag in the
design. Although employee engagement is considered a stable construct over time, three years

36
could be too long and have resulted in small effects. A shorter time lag, for example one year,
could provide a more accurate measure of the impact of the variables across time.
Biggs et al. (2014) examined the reciprocal relationship between employee engagement
and employees’ perceptions of work culture support, the extent to which employees perceive that
the organization is “concerned with their well-being, committed to continuous improvement, and
facilitates a positive and supportive work environment consistent with the organization’s
espoused philosophy” (p. 237). Data was collected at Time 1, 18 months later (Time 2), and
again 12 months later (Time 3). Surveys were given to police personnel and included items
measuring supervisor and coworker support, work culture support and employee engagement.
They found employees’ perceptions of work culture support predicted employee engagement at
12 and 18 months after the initial measure. Furthermore, employee engagement and work
culture support had a reciprocal relationship over the two time lags as well as indirectly.
Interestingly, unlike previous studies, supervisor and coworker support were not found to
influence employee engagement over time, however work culture support predicted both
supervisor and coworker relationship over time. One limitation of this study is that
organizational strategies were taking place to improve conditions in the workplace, which could
have influenced the outcomes. Another limitation relates to the moderate response rate. The
authors note those participants who only completed the survey at Time 1 had lower supervisor
support than those who completed the series of surveys. Finally, the participants in this study
worked in the police service and as such limits the generalizability of the results.
As reviewed above, there is support for the reciprocal relationship between employee
engagement and the job resources of performance feedback and social support. It is important to
detect reciprocal relationships because they highlight underlying mechanisms of employee

37
engagement and practically can inform solutions in the workplace. Therefore, the following
hypotheses are posited.
Hypothesis 3b: Job resources (1) performance feedback and 2) social support) and
employee engagement will have a reciprocal relationship, with job resources and
employee engagement at Time 2 positively relating to employee engagement and job
resources (respectively) at Time 3.
COR (Hobfoll, 1989) essentially posits people are motivated to acquire and accumulate
resources which include objects (e.g., physical resources), conditions (e.g., tenure or marital
status), personal characteristics (e.g., professional skills), and energies (e.g., time or knowledge)
and are also threatened by loss of resources. COR has two basic assumptions: (a) resources are
invested to prevent negative outcomes and (b) resources must be invested to protect from
resource loss, recover resources and accumulate more resources. According to Hobfoll and
Freedy (1993), employees’ ability to accumulate resources can be hindered by job demands and
result in a loss spiral which in turn can lead to burnout. A loss spiral occurs when there are not
enough resources to prevent loss (Hobfoll, 1989). Conversely, Hobfoll (2001) noted an
accumulation of resources can lead to a gain spiral which in turn can lead to positive states, such
as employee engagement. A resource spiral occurs when two or more resources mutually
reinforce one another, and a resource caravan can exist when one resource type increases other
resources in a “chain-like process” (Hakanen, Perhoniemi et al., 2008).
A loss in resources becomes apparent when employees no longer have the necessary
cognitive, physical or emotional resources to deal with situations at work. This is reflected in an
employee state of burnout. Contrarily, retention and increases in resources provide employees
with the needed cognitive, physical or emotional resources to function well and employ

38
themselves in their work role. This state is considered employee engagement. Accordingly,
when job resources like performance feedback and social support are perceived by employees,
resources will be accumulated and lead to engaged employees. Moreover, BAB (Fredrickson,
2000) postulates that positive emotions broaden individuals’ thinking and set them up to build
resources. Therefore, the increased engagement employees experience from the job resources
available will lead to accumulation of further job resources. Rationally it follows that a spiral
gain will exist among job resources at a beginning time point, followed by employee engagement
at the next time point, which in turn will further influence job resources at a third time point.
Contrariwise, a loss spiral would exist if resources were diminished over time, which in turn
would diminish engagement and later on job resources. A spiral gain or loss can be critical for
organizations to understand because of the long-term impact.
Bakker et al. (2011) pointed out that engaged employees play an active role in shaping
their work environment through full use of available job resources, as well as creating their own
resources. Therefore, a gain spiral relationship between resources and engagement could be
expected. These reciprocal gain spirals between job resources and employee engagement have
been supported by longitudinal research. For example, in a longitudinal study conducted over
two years, Finish health care professionals responded to identical surveys two years apart. The
study resulted in a relationship between job resources (job control and organization-based self-
esteem) at Time 1 and employee engagement at Time 2 (Mauno et al., 2007). Furthermore,
reciprocal relationships indicative of a gain spiral between job resources and employee
engagement were found by Schaufeli et al. (2009) in the previously mentioned two-wave
telecom company study. This study goes one step further by testing for a spiral gain over four
time points. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

39
Hypothesis 3c: Job resources (1) performance feedback and 2) social support) and
employee engagement will have a positive gain spiral relationship with an increase in job
resources from Time 1 to Time 2 leading to an increase in employee engagement from
Time 2 to Time 3, which in turn will lead to an increase in job resources from Time 3 to
Time 4.
The Mediating Role of Job Resources on the Relationship between Effective Leadership
and Employee Engagement
One important mechanism through which effective leadership increases employee
engagement is through task and supportive behaviors. Effective leaders provide more job
resources for their employees in terms of job information-related resources and social support. In
line with social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), interactions between a leader and followers
should create obligations that result in a reciprocal relationship between the parties. When
leaders provide job resources, for example performance feedback and social support, the
obligation to reciprocate is created on the employee’s behalf. Employees can reciprocate by
becoming engaged in their work with the help of the job resources provided by the leader. In
conjunction with the motivational process of JD-R (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), it stands to
reason that perceptions of effective leadership behaviors will result in increased perceptions of
job resources for employees, which in turn, will lead to increased motivation and energy on the
employee’s behalf and the employee can reciprocate via employee engagement. Stated another
way, effective leadership integrates behaviors that increase job resources and thereby decrease
job demands which in turn fosters employee engagement. Similarly, with BAB (Fredrickson,
2000), as effective leadership behaviors elicit positive emotions in employees, they will build job
resources as well as perceive more resources, which in turn will lead to engaged employees.

40
This line of research is in its infancy and as a result there is a paucity of studies on the
matter. However, the published articles consist of promising results, specifically that supportive
and task related behaviors of effective leaders will influence employee engagement through job
resources. A study by May et al., (2004) indicates that supportive behaviors from leaders are
perceived as supervisory support. In turn supervisor support which provided psychological
safety for employees was positively related to employee engagement. Other research supports
this link between supervisor support and employee engagement (Saks, 2006; Bakker, Hakanen,
Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). With this evidence in mind, it follows that effective leaders
which exhibit supportive behaviors and provide job resources would have higher levels of
engagement than ineffective leaders.
Again, the literature on effective leadership is scant, nevertheless indirect support exists
on the mediated relationship with respect to styles of effective leadership and employee
engagement through jobs resources. Specifically, the relationships between transformational
leadership (TFL) and employee engagement has been shown to be mediated by job resources
including performance feedback (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti et al., 2014), and social support
(Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland et al., 2014).
Based on this evidence presented, it stands to reason that job resources will mediate the
relationship between effective leadership and employee engagement. It is therefore proposed
(see Figure 1):
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between effective leadership and employee engagement
will be mediated by job resources (a) performance feedback and b) social support) such
that effective leadership will predict employee engagement through job resources.

41
Employee Engagement and Employee Outcomes
Employee engagement has been associated with positive employee outcomes. According
to the COR (Hobfoll, 2001) gains in resources can lead to positive states, such as employee
engagement. Engaged employees will be motivated to invest their resources (e.g. effort, time
and energy) into creating other resources and reaching role, departmental and organizational
goals. This investment of resources will not only assist the organization, but also foster a work
environment that is richer in job resources. Similarly, and in line with the SET (Blau, 1964),
when the organization provides a motivating and engaging environment, employees will
reciprocate in directing efforts to advance employee outcomes. Furthermore, JD-R (Demerouti
et al., 2001) has been extended to include a motivational process wherein employee engagement
leads to positive outcomes (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
There is a great deal of support for the relationship between employee engagement and
positive consequences for organizations and employees. Consequences of employee engagement
at the organizational level include positive relationships with client satisfaction and customer
ratings (Salanova et al., 2005), financial returns and profitability (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009a),
and service climate (Salanova et al., 2005). Positive relationships with employee outcomes at
the individual level include cooperation and trust (Weigl et al., 2010) overall performance
(Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Lin et al., 2016; Rich, LePine, &
Crawford, 2010), in-role performance and extra-role performance (Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Heuven, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2008), and organizational commitment (Christian & Slaughter,
2007; Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Halbesleben,
2010). Positive individual outcomes of employee engagement include pursuit of learning
(Sonnentag, 2003), individual health outcomes (Christian & Slaughter, 2007; Demerouti, Mostert

42
& Bakker, 2010), work-family facilitation (Culbertson, Mills, & Fullagar, 2012), and subjective
well-being (Matthews, Mills, Trout, & English, 2014),
Conversely, consequences with a negative relationship to employee engagement include
turnover intentions and turnover (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; De Lange, et al., 2008; Saks, 2006),
absenteeism (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Schaufeli, et al., 2009), and hospital mortality rates
(Bargagliotti, 2012). The proposed study contributes to the literature by focusing on the
longitudinal relationships of job satisfaction, innovation and turnover intention with employee
engagement. As far as the literature review found, to date, no study has examined these
consequences of employee engagement over four years. Furthermore, in a world that is changing
faster than ever before, it is important to understand how employee engagement facilitates job
attitudes like job satisfaction, new ways of dealing with work, and employee retention.
The Relationship between Employee Engagement and Outcomes of Job Satisfaction,
Innovation, and Turnover Intention
According to Saks (2006), employees will exhibit positive attitudes, behaviors and
intentions at work when they are engaged. Specific to the current study, three outcomes will be
focused upon: job satisfaction, innovation and turnover intention. Job satisfaction is considered
a job attitude which Locke (1969) defined as a “pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (p. 316).
Not only is job satisfaction important to study in order to learn about employees’ attitudes, there
are also existing relationships with job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001;
Rich et al., 2010), organizational commitment and job stress (Choi & Kim, 2016), and positive
experiences (Sonnentag, Mojza, Binnewies, & Scholl, 2008).

Leadership and employee outcomes mediating effects of job resources and employee engagement

Leadership and employee outcomes mediating effects of job resources and employee engagement

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Leadership and employee outcomes mediating effects of job resources and employee engagement

Similar to Leadership and employee outcomes mediating effects of job resources and employee engagement (20)

More from Norhidayah Badrul Hisham

More from Norhidayah Badrul Hisham (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Leadership and employee outcomes mediating effects of job resources and employee engagement