Workplace Engagement:The Roles of Transformational Leadership and Interactional Justice in Producing Engaged Employees<br ...
Delineating Engagement<br />Lockwood, (2007)<br />
Engagement in the Workplace<br />Employee Engagement<br />An intrinsic state of being with emotional and cognitive compone...
The Burnout-EngagementContinuum <br />(Maslach, 1982, Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001;<br />Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salano...
The Burnout-Engagement Continuum <br />(Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)<br />
The Burnout-Engagement Continuum<br />(Maslach, 1982;Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)<br />
Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />
Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Kahn’s Theory of Leadership (1990)<br />Meaningfulness<br />In one’s work role<br />...
Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Affective Events Theory<br />(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)<br />Work environment enable...
Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Focuses on reciprocal obligations between employee and employer (i.e. pay for comple...
Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Illustrate the influence of:<br />Psychological Needs<br />Environmental Variables<b...
Transformational Leadership<br />Leader creates organizational “followers”:<br />Embrace goals and ideals of the organizat...
Transformational Leadership<br />(Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)<br />
Transformational Leadership<br />Achieve greater employee performance, organizational citizenship behavior, trust, effort,...
The Third Variable:Organizational Justice<br />Transformational leaders create trust (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)<br />Engag...
Organizational Justice<br />Focus on due process in the work environment<br />Real and perceived justice<br />Justice sign...
Organizational Justice<br />Bies (2001); Cropanzano et al. (2007)<br />
Interactional Justice<br />Must convey proper motives<br />Can undermine perceptions of organizational fairness<br />Bies ...
Interactional Justice<br />Focuses on interpersonal relationship with authority<br />Most likely management<br />Utilizes ...
Connecting Justiceto Engagement<br />Burnout related factors (Maslach et al., 2001)<br />Job resources<br />Social support...
Hypotheses<br />Hypothesis 1: Interactional justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between tr...
Expected Results:Interactional Justice<br />High<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br /...
Hypotheses<br />Hypothesis 2: Procedural justice will serve as a moderator of the relationship between transformational le...
Expected Results:Procedural Justice<br />High<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Lo...
Hypotheses<br />Hypothesis 3: Distributive justice will serve as a moderator of the relationship between transformational ...
Expected Results:Distributive Justice<br />High<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />...
Expected ModerationComparison<br />Hypothesis 1<br />Interactional<br />Justice<br />Hypothesis 2<br />Procedural<br />Jus...
Methods<br />Recruitment<br />Internet Service Provider (ISP)<br />Recruitment emails containing link to online survey<br ...
Frequencies<br />76%<br />
Frequencies<br />
Measures:Employee Engagement<br />Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)<br />Vigor (6 items)<br />“At my work, I feel burst...
Measures:Organizational Justice<br />Interactional Justice (4 items) (Kausto, Elo, Lipponen, & Elovainio, 2005)<br /><ul><...
Reliability (α =.90)</li></ul>Procedural Justice (4 items) (Kausto et al., 2005)<br /><ul><li>“Procedures are designed to ...
Reliability (α = .82)</li></ul>Distributive Justice (5 items) (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993)<br /><ul><li>“Overall, the rewar...
Reliability (α = .90)</li></ul>Scales of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)<br />
Measures:Transformational Leadership<br />Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990)<br /><ul><li>Tra...
Idealized Influence (8 items)
“Talks optimistically about the future.”
Inspirational Motivation (4 items)
“Talks optimistically about the future.”
Intellectual Stimulation (4 items)
“Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.”
Individualized Consideration (4 items)
“Spends time teaching and coaching.”</li></li></ul><li>Measures:Transformational Leadership<br />Multidimensional Leadersh...
Table 2<br />
Analysis<br />Moderated Regression Analysis<br /><ul><li>Centered predictor and moderator variables
TL, IJ, and the product of TL x IJ were entered simultaneously
Significant regression weight for the interaction term (TL x IJ) indicates moderation
Comparison - distributive and procedural justice
Post hoc comparison – Transactional Leadership</li></li></ul><li>Results – Hypothesis 1<br />Interactional justice will se...
No supported interaction
Main effect
Transformational Leadership</li></li></ul><li>Results – Hypothesis 2<br />Procedural justice will serve as a moderator by ...
No supported interaction
Main effects
Transformational Leadership
Procedural Justice</li></li></ul><li>Results – Hypothesis 3<br />Distributive justice will serve as a moderator by strengt...
No supported interaction
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Workplace Engagement

3,975 views

Published on

For anyone who\'s interested in seeing what a master\'s thesis defense presentation looks like...

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Workplace Engagement

  1. 1. Workplace Engagement:The Roles of Transformational Leadership and Interactional Justice in Producing Engaged Employees<br />A Thesis Defense<br />Diana L. Strom<br />Western Illinois University<br />
  2. 2. Delineating Engagement<br />Lockwood, (2007)<br />
  3. 3. Engagement in the Workplace<br />Employee Engagement<br />An intrinsic state of being with emotional and cognitive components, exhibited through engagement-fueled behaviors(Macey & Schneider, 2008).<br />Ex. – higher levels of productivity, job dedication, organizational commitment, etc.<br />A persistent, pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).<br />
  4. 4. The Burnout-EngagementContinuum <br />(Maslach, 1982, Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001;<br />Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)<br />
  5. 5. The Burnout-Engagement Continuum <br />(Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)<br />
  6. 6. The Burnout-Engagement Continuum<br />(Maslach, 1982;Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)<br />
  7. 7. Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />
  8. 8. Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Kahn’s Theory of Leadership (1990)<br />Meaningfulness<br />In one’s work role<br />PsychologicalSafety<br />Feelings of security in expressing oneself <br />Availability<br />Of personal resources necessary for engagement<br />May, Gilson, and Harter (2004)<br />Found Kahn’s three dimensions all significantly related to engagement<br />
  9. 9. Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Affective Events Theory<br />(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)<br />Work environment enables/disables events from occurring<br />These events can cause a positive/negative affective reaction from the employee<br />Affective reactions influence work attitudes and behaviors, such as engagement<br />Example: Bledow? Paterson & Cary?<br />
  10. 10. Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Focuses on reciprocal obligations between employee and employer (i.e. pay for completion of job expectations)<br />Explains varying degrees of engagement between employees<br />Employees receive various forms of organizational input, therefore give various, but reciprocally equal, forms of output<br />Empirical support as employee output increases (or decreases) with organizational input<br />Ex. Saks?<br />Social Exchange Theory<br />(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)<br />
  11. 11. Theoretical Bases for Engagement<br />Illustrate the influence of:<br />Psychological Needs<br />Environmental Variables<br />Inputs on Outputs <br />Multiple theories address multiple constructs of engagement<br />Psychological<br />Emotional<br />Behavioral<br />
  12. 12. Transformational Leadership<br />Leader creates organizational “followers”:<br />Embrace goals and ideals of the organization<br />Align values and beliefs with those of the organization (DeCremer, 2006)<br />Leader seeks to fulfill employee needs, support development (Burns, 1978)<br />Leader provokes higher level of thought, commitment, and effort (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)<br />
  13. 13. Transformational Leadership<br />(Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)<br />
  14. 14. Transformational Leadership<br />Achieve greater employee performance, organizational citizenship behavior, trust, effort, commitment, motivation, satisfaction, effectiveness, and productivity<br />Reduces intention to quit and work stress<br />Cite specific examples<br />
  15. 15. The Third Variable:Organizational Justice<br />Transformational leaders create trust (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)<br />Engagement requires trust and security (Kahn, 1990)<br />Employee perceptions of fairness (specifically procedural justice) may be important to building trust (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999)<br />Wu, Neubert, & Yi (2007)<br />Found that interactional justice mediated relationship between transformational leadership and cynicism regarding organizational change.<br />De Cremer (2006)<br />Found interaction effect for procedural justice and transformational leadership on employee’s self-esteem.<br />
  16. 16. Organizational Justice<br />Focus on due process in the work environment<br />Real and perceived justice<br />Justice signifies value and security to the employee (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007) <br />Effects are well-established in literature<br />Cite<br />
  17. 17. Organizational Justice<br />Bies (2001); Cropanzano et al. (2007)<br />
  18. 18. Interactional Justice<br />Must convey proper motives<br />Can undermine perceptions of organizational fairness<br />Bies (2001); Greenberg (1993)<br />
  19. 19. Interactional Justice<br />Focuses on interpersonal relationship with authority<br />Most likely management<br />Utilizes the agent-system model<br />Interactional justice more specifically addresses managerial-related outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001)<br />Identifying the source of justice may better predict agent-related variables<br />
  20. 20. Connecting Justiceto Engagement<br />Burnout related factors (Maslach et al., 2001)<br />Job resources<br />Social support (Interpersonal)<br />Information sharing (Informational)<br />Control within the work environment (Procedural)<br />Involvement in decision-making (Procedural)<br />Organizational factors<br />Violation of expectations related to fairness and equity (Organizational Justice)<br />Organizational values shape emotional/cognitive relationship with work<br />
  21. 21. Hypotheses<br />Hypothesis 1: Interactional justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Interactional Justice<br />Transformational Leadership<br />X<br />Interactional Justice<br />
  22. 22. Expected Results:Interactional Justice<br />High<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />High<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />
  23. 23. Hypotheses<br />Hypothesis 2: Procedural justice will serve as a moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement, but to a lesser extent in comparison to interactional justice.<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Procedural Justice<br />Transformational Leadership<br />X<br />Interactional Justice<br />
  24. 24. Expected Results:Procedural Justice<br />High<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />High<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />
  25. 25. Hypotheses<br />Hypothesis 3: Distributive justice will serve as a moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement, but to a lesser extent in comparison to procedural justice.<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Distributive Justice<br />Transformational Leadership<br />X<br />Interactional Justice<br />
  26. 26. Expected Results:Distributive Justice<br />High<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Employee<br />Engagement<br />Low<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />High<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />
  27. 27. Expected ModerationComparison<br />Hypothesis 1<br />Interactional<br />Justice<br />Hypothesis 2<br />Procedural<br />Justice<br />Hypothesis 3<br />Distributive<br />Justice<br />Expected that the moderating effects<br />weaken across hypotheses<br />
  28. 28. Methods<br />Recruitment<br />Internet Service Provider (ISP)<br />Recruitment emails containing link to online survey<br />Participants (n=348)<br />Male = 225<br />Female = 120<br />Ages 18-65 years<br />Currently employed within the United States<br />
  29. 29. Frequencies<br />76%<br />
  30. 30. Frequencies<br />
  31. 31. Measures:Employee Engagement<br />Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)<br />Vigor (6 items)<br />“At my work, I feel bursting with energy.”<br />Dedication (5 items)<br />“I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.”<br />Absorption (6 items)<br />“Time flies when I am working.”<br />Scale of 0 (Never) to 6 (Always, Everyday)<br />Items have been shown to correlate negatively with dimensions of burnout <br />Reliability (α = .80-.90)<br />(Schaufeli et al., 2006)<br />
  32. 32. Measures:Organizational Justice<br />Interactional Justice (4 items) (Kausto, Elo, Lipponen, & Elovainio, 2005)<br /><ul><li>“My supervisor considers my viewpoint.”
  33. 33. Reliability (α =.90)</li></ul>Procedural Justice (4 items) (Kausto et al., 2005)<br /><ul><li>“Procedures are designed to generate standards so that decisions can be made with consistency.”
  34. 34. Reliability (α = .82)</li></ul>Distributive Justice (5 items) (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993)<br /><ul><li>“Overall, the rewards I receive are quite fair.”
  35. 35. Reliability (α = .90)</li></ul>Scales of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)<br />
  36. 36. Measures:Transformational Leadership<br />Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990)<br /><ul><li>Transformational Leadership
  37. 37. Idealized Influence (8 items)
  38. 38. “Talks optimistically about the future.”
  39. 39. Inspirational Motivation (4 items)
  40. 40. “Talks optimistically about the future.”
  41. 41. Intellectual Stimulation (4 items)
  42. 42. “Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.”
  43. 43. Individualized Consideration (4 items)
  44. 44. “Spends time teaching and coaching.”</li></li></ul><li>Measures:Transformational Leadership<br />Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990)<br />Transactional Leadership<br />Contingent Reward (4 items)<br />“Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts.”<br />Management by Exception – Active (4 items)<br />“Keeps track of my mistakes.”<br />Reliability (α = .89)<br />
  45. 45. Table 2<br />
  46. 46. Analysis<br />Moderated Regression Analysis<br /><ul><li>Centered predictor and moderator variables
  47. 47. TL, IJ, and the product of TL x IJ were entered simultaneously
  48. 48. Significant regression weight for the interaction term (TL x IJ) indicates moderation
  49. 49. Comparison - distributive and procedural justice
  50. 50. Post hoc comparison – Transactional Leadership</li></li></ul><li>Results – Hypothesis 1<br />Interactional justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.<br /><ul><li>Overall regression significant
  51. 51. No supported interaction
  52. 52. Main effect
  53. 53. Transformational Leadership</li></li></ul><li>Results – Hypothesis 2<br />Procedural justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.<br /><ul><li>Overall regression significant
  54. 54. No supported interaction
  55. 55. Main effects
  56. 56. Transformational Leadership
  57. 57. Procedural Justice</li></li></ul><li>Results – Hypothesis 3<br />Distributive justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.<br /><ul><li>Overall regression significant
  58. 58. No supported interaction
  59. 59. Main effects
  60. 60. Transformational Leadership
  61. 61. Distributive Justice</li></li></ul><li>Post Hoc Results <br />Interactional justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transactional leadership and employee engagement.<br /><ul><li>Overall regression significant
  62. 62. No supported interaction
  63. 63. Main effects
  64. 64. Transactional Leadership
  65. 65. Interactional Justice</li></li></ul><li>Post Hoc Results <br />Procedural justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transactional leadership and employee engagement.<br /><ul><li>Overall regression significant
  66. 66. Significant interaction term
  67. 67. Main effect
  68. 68. Procedural Justice</li></li></ul><li>Figure 1. Interaction betweenTransactional Leadership andProcedural Justice<br />
  69. 69. Post Hoc Results <br />Distributive justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transactional leadership and employee engagement.<br /><ul><li>Overall regression significant
  70. 70. Significant interaction term
  71. 71. Main effects
  72. 72. Transformational Leadership
  73. 73. Distributive Justice</li></li></ul><li>Figure 2. Interaction betweenTransactional Leadership andDistributive Justice<br />
  74. 74. Exploratory analyses<br />Additional examination of the data to determine potential confounding variables<br />Employment status<br />Part-time = Less than 35-40 hours/week (Thorsteinson, 2003)<br />Part-Time<br />(PT)<br />Full-Time<br />(FT)<br />
  75. 75. Employment Status<br />Part-time workers<br />More favorable job attitudes (Martin & Sinclair, 2007)<br />Little difference involving job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to leave<br />Lower levels of job involvement (Thorsteinson, 2003)<br />Participants (N = 256)<br />Full-Time = 210<br />Part-Time = 46<br />
  76. 76. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />Full-Time (FT)<br />Table 5<br />
  77. 77. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses<br />Transformational<br />Leadership<br />Part-Time (PT)<br />Table 6<br />
  78. 78. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses<br />Transactional<br />Leadership<br />Full-Time (FT)<br />Table 7<br />
  79. 79. Figure 3. Interaction betweenTransactional Leadership and Procedural Justice<br />Full-Time (FT)<br />
  80. 80. Figure 4. Interaction betweenTransactional Leadership and Distributive Justice<br />Full-Time (FT)<br />
  81. 81. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses<br />Transactional<br />Leadership<br />Part-Time (PT)<br />Table 8<br />
  82. 82. Discussion<br />All variables were positively associated with employee engagement.<br />Under relatively low conditions of procedural and distributive justice, transactional leadership was positively related to employee engagement.<br />Under conditions of high procedural and distributive justice, engagement was uniformly high regardless of level of transactional leadership.<br />Results replicated for full-time employees<br />
  83. 83. Discussion<br />All variables were positively associated with employee engagement.<br />Under relatively low conditions of procedural and distributive justice, transactional leadership was positively related to employee engagement.<br />Under conditions of high procedural and distributive justice, engagement was uniformly high regardless of level of transactional leadership.<br />Results replicated for full-time employees<br />
  84. 84. Discussion<br />Why not interactional justice as predicted?<br />Hours per week spent with supervisor<br />Limited interaction, limited opportunity<br />Interactional Justice<br />Transformational Leadership<br />Employee perceptions<br />Affected primarily by interactional justice (De Cremer et al., 2007)<br />When absent, employees rely on other forms of justice<br />Leadership and trust<br />Trust as a pathway to engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008)<br />Trust related primarily to procedural and distributive justice (Colquitt et al., 2001)<br />
  85. 85. Discussion<br />Limitations<br />Self-report measures are often limited in their accuracy<br />Full anonymity<br />Measure employee perceptions<br />Currently employed participants<br />Exploratory analyses<br />Hours per week spend with supervisor<br />Differences in full-time/part-time populations<br />Coverage bias neglects individuals who do not have access to the survey (i.e. no Internet)<br />Exploratory analyses<br />
  86. 86. Discussion<br />Future Research<br />Employee engagement as a multidimensional construct<br />Further delineate cognitive, emotional, behavioral engagement<br />Organizational engagement<br />Job engagement<br />Trait engagement<br />Antecedents and consequences<br />The affect of third variables on the effectiveness of leadership<br />Employment status<br />
  87. 87. Conclusion<br />No statistical support for the hypothesized moderating effects of interactional justice<br />Support for the individual benefits of:<br />Transformational leadership<br />Transactional leadership<br />Organizational justice (interactional, procedural, distributive)<br />Procedural, distributive justice moderated the transactional leadership – engagement relationship<br />Higher the level of justice, the lesser effect of transactional leadership<br />

×