cambridge

Journal of Management & Organization
http://journals.cambridge.org/JMO
Additional services for Journal of Management &
Organization:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Leadership theories and the concept of work engagement:
Creating a conceptual framework for management
implications and research
Robert J. Blomme, Bas Kodden and Annamaria Beasley-Suffolk
Journal of Management & Organization / Volume 21 / Issue 02 / March 2015, pp 125 - 144
DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2014.71, Published online: 14 January 2015
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1833367214000716
How to cite this article:
Robert J. Blomme, Bas Kodden and Annamaria Beasley-Suffolk (2015). Leadership theories and
the concept of work engagement: Creating a conceptual framework for management implications
and research. Journal of Management & Organization, 21, pp 125-144 doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.71
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JMO, IP address: 39.44.48.174 on 26 Feb 2015

Journal of Management & Organization, 21:2 (2015), pp. 125–144
© 2015 Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management
doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.71
Leadership theories and the concept of work engagement: Creating a conceptual
framework for management implications and research
ROBERT J. BLOMME, BAS KODDEN AND ANNAMARIA BEASLEY-SUFFOLK
Abstract
During the past decade, a great deal of research has been carried out on the importance of
employee engagement. In various studies, engagement is viewed as a positive state of mind of
overwhelming satisfaction, which is characterized by feelings of vigour, dedication and absorption.
In this article, ‘vigour’ refers to a state of mind in which individuals feel energetic, fit, strong and
indefatigable. ‘Dedication’ refers to a state of mind in which individuals feel highly engaged by
their work, which inspires them, and makes them feel proud and enthusiastic. ‘Absorption’ refers
to a pleasant state of mind in which individuals are fully immersed in their work. This article
provides an overview of a number of perspectives on leadership and discusses which leadership
factors are likely to be the most effective in ensuring that employees remain engaged and
productive. It also provides a conceptual model for further research on the relationship between
leadership styles and work engagement.
Keywords: work engagement, leadership, organizational culture, work-related resources,
organizational performance
Received 22 January 2013. Accepted 7 August 2014
INTRODUCTION
During the past decade, the concept of work engagement has become an important topic in
explaining the levels of motivation in members of an organization (Halbesleben, 2010; Rich,
Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2011). Many studies have demonstrated a
link between work engagement and organizational performance (e.g., Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005;
Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008a; Van Schalkwyk, Du Toit, Bothma, &
Rothmann, 2010).
Work engagement does not only affect organizational performance. It is a much broader concept
that concerns what allows individuals to decide when and where to translate their cognitive, affective
and physical energy into activities (Kahn, 1990; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). These perceived
opportunities for choice are displayed by individual levels of self-efficacy, which can be defined as one’s
beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments (e.g., Bandura, 1997, 1999). Several studies have shown that engaged employees show
high levels of self-efficacy in terms of directing their own career and investing energy in it (Bakker &
Schaufeli, 2008; Bakker, 2009; Halbesleben, 2010). When engaged employees do not feel sufficiently
Centre for Leadership and Management Development, Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, The Netherlands
Corresponding author: r.blomme@nyenrode.nl
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 125

challenged in their jobs, for example, they tend to change employers more easily, thus creating their
own positive feedback by means of a positive attitude and a wide radius of action. In addition,
longitudinal research has indicated that individuals who ultimately become engaged will remain
engaged (Bakker, 2009; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009), a very valuable
conclusion for those who wish to develop a positive state of mind. Although work engagement may
seem to be specifically (and perhaps uniquely) related to single individuals, various studies show that
personal and work-related resources have a positive influence on work engagement per se (Schaufeli &
Salanova, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008a; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010).
Available studies show that certain work-related resources – the social support of colleagues and
managers, development opportunities and work variation – are positively related to work engagement
(e.g., Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2008b). A study conducted among Finnish dentists (Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti,
2005), for example, concluded that there is a positive relationship between work-related resources –
creative and varied work, positive feedback from patients or task identity – and work engagement.
Other studies report a strong positive relationship between the social support offered by direct
superiors and the work engagement of employees (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Haq et al.,
2010; Wiley, 2010). For example, a study conducted by Xanthopoulou et al. (2009) shows that there is
a direct positive relationship between daily coaching (energy source) and the daily engagement of
employees. The provision of these work-related resources may stimulate employees to deal with time
pressure, a high workload and high levels of job responsibility and to regard these as challenging
(Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). Meeting these challenges will result in higher
levels of engagement (Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010).
Studies on engagement from a psychological contract perspective also demonstrate that higher levels
of employer contract fulfilment, including expected work-related resources, lead to higher levels of
engagement (Chambel & Oliveira-Cruz, 2010; Bal, De Cooman, & Mol, 2013; Bal, Kooij, & De
Jong, 2013). Furthermore, studies suggest that the relationship between employer contract fulfilment
and engagement may differ, not only in terms of gender (Blomme, Van Rheede, & Tromp, 2010), but
also among age categories (Bal, De Lange, Ybema, & Van Der Velde, 2011) and generations (Lub,
Blomme, & Bal, 2011; Lub, Bijvank, Bal, Blomme, & Schalk, 2012), which demonstrates that the
ways in which high levels of engagement are reached may differ among these three employee categories.
In addition, a study conducted by Bal, De Cooman, and Mol (2013) indicates that people with high
levels of engagement are able to negotiate a better psychological contract with their employer, which
brings about better work-related resources and, in turn, gives rise to even higher levels of engagement.
As such, psychological contract theory contributes to our understanding that the relationship between
work-related resources and engagement may differ among different employee categories and to our
understanding of the mechanism through which engaged people will remain engaged.
Conversely, Crawford, Lepine, and Rich (2010) found support for the notion that work-related
resources that are lacking or that hinder employees in developing and attaining their goals may be
viewed as hindrances, and thus become negatively associated with engagement. It is reasonable to
suggest that managers, as formal leaders in an organization, play an important role in the provision of
work-related resources, which produce higher levels of engagement. After all, it is managers who are
chiefly responsible for the level of autonomy an employee is granted. It is managers who give their
employees feedback on the work done and who have a say in determining how much social support an
employee receives. It could, therefore, be argued that managers play an important role in securing high
levels of work engagement, particularly by providing work-related resources such as autonomy, social
support and feedback (e.g., Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008a).
Although certain facets of leadership affecting work engagement have already been explored (e.g.,
Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008; Wiley, 2010; Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou,
Robert J Blomme, Bas Kodden and Annamaria Beasley-Suffolk
126 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

2011; Wefald, Reichard, & Serrano, 2011), the literature is scarce when it comes to answering the
question regarding how specific aspects of leadership styles impact work engagement. Therefore, the
question arises as to how leadership stimulates or impedes work engagement. In this article, therefore,
no distinction is made between managers and leaders, because managers can be regarded as the formal
or administrative leaders in an organization (French & Raven, 1959; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, &
Harms, 2008; Blomme, 2012). Below, we shall examine the link between leadership and the concept
of work engagement, and we shall explain how particular aspects of leadership influence work
engagement. We shall also discuss the specific function of organizational culture and personal char-
acteristics in the relationship between leadership and work engagement. The outcomes are expected to
yield a conceptual framework that can be used for managers who wish to become more effective in
stimulating work engagement among their employees. In addition to elaborating upon the potential
practical value of the outcome, we shall also discuss implications for further research.
WORK ENGAGEMENT
In 2001, Demerouti and her colleagues argued that there should be a new and more positive approach
to human behaviour for use in labour and organizational psychology (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner,
& Schaufeli, 2001). Although previous research studies focused mainly on explaining negative
phenomena such as burnout syndrome and depression (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Maslach &
Leiter, 2008) as opposites of work engagement (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Halbesleben,
2010), it was the research done by Demerouti and her colleagues that prompted a new generation of
researchers to pay greater attention to positive emotions. Demerouti and her colleagues argued that
being happy and optimistic can be learned, and 10 years of thorough study has indeed shown that
work engagement can in fact be developed. Employees who are mostly optimistic and who believe that
life has a positive meaning for them often create more opportunities and are better equipped to seize
them. These employees tend to be extremely enthusiastic and happy about the things they do, they
take decisive action as soon as they notice that they are operating less effectively and they take pride in
their jobs. In sum, their work is what makes them content. Following Kahn’s (1990) definition of
engagement, Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (2010) argue that work engagement is an important
motivational concept that is not only restricted to job performance per se, but also offers a wider
perspective concerning the employee himself1
. This wider perspective paints a picture of individuals
who are able to make their own decisions concerning the tasks and activities in which they wish to
invest their physical, cognitive and affective energy. As such, engagement is a concept that describes
how employees harness themselves in their organizational roles by converting their energy into
affective, cognitive and physical labours (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010: 619). Schaufeli and his
colleagues also add that it is precisely this process that can promote behaviours that will ultimately
result in a persistent, positive affective-motivational state of fulfilment (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-
Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Because of their positive attitude and their high levels of activity, engaged
employees create their own positive feedback in the form of appreciation, credit and success. Engaged
employees also prove to be very active outside their jobs (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker, 2009). They
are enthusiastic and positive, not only about their work but also about what they do in their leisure
time, and they communicate their engagement to others.
Proponents of this recent and more positive psychological approach do not claim to have discovered
anything new, but simply underline the importance of further research on these positive employee
characteristics (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). The reason why there has been a sharp increase in the
number of studies on work engagement over the past few years is not uniquely related to today’s
1
Masculine forms have been used here for stylistic purposes only.
Leadership theories and the concept of work engagement

increased interest in positive psychology – that is, the scientific study of human strength and optimal
functioning. The increase in the number of studies on the positive phenomena of intrinsic work
motivation is mainly due to the frequently demonstrated relationship between work engagement and
organizational performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Cole et al., 2011). A growing number
of studies demonstrate the link between levels of work engagement and the level of service orientation
(Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008a), how engaged employees are assessed
(Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004), the level of organizational commitment (Hallberg &
Schaufeli, 2006; Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2006), and finally the link between levels of
work engagement and the organization’s sales (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).
Work engagement is characterized by vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002;
González-Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006). Vigour can be described as high levels of energy
and mental resilience shown during work, the willingness to invest effort in work and the degree of
persistence when work is difficult. Absorption refers to the state in which an individual is highly
focused on and positively engrossed in work. When absorbed, people feel that time passes quickly and
that it is difficult to stop working. Dedication refers to the state that people are in when they have a
sense of their own significance and are feeling inspired, challenged and enthusiastic. Dedication is
related to a strong sense of commitment to and engagement with work: work is perceived as inspiring
and evokes feelings of pride and enthusiasm (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). Bakker (2009) formulated
four reasons why engaged employees perform better than non-engaged individuals. Engaged employees
(1) frequently experience positive emotions such as happiness, pleasure and enthusiasm; (2) tend to
have better health; (3) communicate their engagement to others and they also (4) take responsibility
and the initiative for creating their own work-related and personal resources. It is especially the level of
dedication, as a feature of their work engagement, which may be a highly important predictor of
individual and organizational performance (Kodden, 2011).
Although personal and work-related resources may initially be created by engaged employees
themselves in specific situations, they are also important conditions for the maintenance of engagement
(Bakker, 2009; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Halbesleben, 2010). Personal and work-related resources
consist of permanent personal sources and work sources that protect employees against the negative
effects of labour, such as burnout syndrome for instance. As indicated by Bakker (2009), these sources
give individuals access to a wide range of physical, social and personal resources, which are particularly
useful and effective in times of hardship and adversity. In addition, they contribute to the realization of
work goals as well as the promotion of personal growth and development (Demerouti et al., 2001).
The term ‘personal resources’ in this case refers to personality traits such as an individual’s degree of
optimism, self-esteem, stress-resistance and self-efficacy. The more effectively individuals can access
such personal resources, the more they will increase their control over certain situations, which will
enable them to deal with demanding circumstances more easily (Hannah et al., 2008). This, in turn,
reduces feelings of stress and increases the degree of engagement they experience. A study carried out in
South Africa (Storm & Rothmann, 2003) demonstrated that engagement is also related in part to
personality traits such as extraversion and emotional stability. A Dutch study (Mostert & Rothmann,
2006), moreover, indicated that the strong relationship between engagement and personality traits can
also be seen in terms of a low degree of neuroticism, a high degree of extraversion and a high degree of
‘agility’ (the ability to complete a large number of consecutive tasks). It might, therefore, be possible
here to speak of an ‘engaged personality type’ and argue that it is the employees themselves in particular
who are responsible for their own engagement and job satisfaction – by making use of a larger number
of personal resources.
In addition to personal resources, work-related resources are an important condition for the
development of work engagement because they increase the potential work autonomy of individuals to
take control over their own decisions and the organization of feedback, leading to higher levels of

engagement. This notion is supported by a number of research studies, which show that work-related
resources such as the social support provided by colleagues and superiors, growth opportunities
and a varied use of competencies correlate positively with engagement (Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007; Cole et al., 2011; Kodden, 2011). The possibility to create work-
related resources and the availability of these are often an outcome of organizational culture
(Wilderom, 2011), organizational policies (Kossek, Markel, & McHugh, 2003) and leadership style
(Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011; Wilderom, van den Berg, & Wiersma, 2012). However, many
studies also emphasize the importance of the provision of work resources, but ample studies have been
conducted regarding the effects of leaders on employee engagement (Blomme, 2012). The effects of
leadership styles on the level of engagement and the presence of resources would seem to be obvious, as
it is managers who carry the main responsibility for the degree of autonomy that employees are
granted. It is the managers who are responsible for performance feedback and who, in co-operation
with others, determine the amount of social support that employees are offered in their work. In the
following sections, we shall discuss in greater detail how leadership styles affect the number of work-
related and personal resources that employees have at their disposal, all of which determine the extent
to which individual engagement increases or declines. We will use Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995)
taxonomy of leadership, which categorizes leadership theories based on their primary focus. Graen and
Uhl-Bien introduced the following three perspectives on leadership: the leader-centred, the follower-
centred and the relationship-centred approach.
THE LEADER-CENTRED APPROACH IN RELATION TO ENGAGEMENT
Although as yet little is known about the precise effects of leadership styles on engagement, the
effectiveness of leadership behaviour has been researched for many decades (Blomme, 2012). In the
leader-centred approach, the traditional concept of leadership can be defined as ‘mutual influencing’
(Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2007). Yukl (1989) defines leadership as the way in which individuals (leaders)
purposefully influence other individuals to obtain defined outcomes. However, mutual influence is not
necessarily related to the concept of leadership (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Influence is an important
feature of a relationship of co-operation. For instance, if an employee asks a colleague for a favour and
the colleague agrees, he may agree to the request either because he simply likes this particular colleague
or because he is afraid of him. In this case, compliance is stimulated by an appeal to either sympathy or
respect. The person asking for the favour can also appeal to an existing implicit or explicit company
standard, which tolerates the granting of favours. In this case, an appeal is made to an obligation to
comply with the norm (Turner, 1991). Yet, in both cases, what happens is not a question of leadership
(cf. Chemers, 2001). Only when the person making the request actually manages to persuade the other
of the necessity of co-operation and only when both actors agree on a standard set of values can we
speak of leadership. Leadership is involved when one or more individuals play an important role in
defining collective norms and values, and in this context leadership is viewed as a group-oriented rather
than a mutual process (cf. Hogg, 2001). Leadership behaviour may be termed effective when a leader
succeeds in developing a collective set of norms and in setting goals to meet these norms.
A contrast frequently cited in leadership literature is the contrast between transactional and trans-
formational leadership (Yukl, 1989; Bass, 1997). With regard to our current perspective of engage-
ment, Lord (2008) points to a possible contrast between these two types of leadership as seen in
leadership theories. In transactional leadership, the focus is on influencing followers by submitting
them to rules, by presenting extrinsic incentives, by closely monitoring results and by granting rewards
if the outcome of follower behaviour is in line with the goals of the organization. Transactional
leadership involves the definition of follower interests in terms of successful transactions with the
(work) environment, and it is here that we can see a limitation: a limitation concerning control over

contractual obligations. This means that a manager is predominantly concerned with defining targets
and steering employees within existing frameworks. This is what Den Hartog calls ‘maintenance
management’ (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997), in which a manager’s guidance and
leadership are characterized by ‘steering’ when performance deviates from the accepted standards. The
basis of transactional leadership lies in social interaction (Hollander, 1995). Both the manager and the
employee build psychological credit through the process of social interaction. Psychological credit is
closely related to the advantages to be obtained in engaging in exchanges and co-operation.
Followers tend to follow leaders when co-operation yields sufficient benefits. An important condi-
tion for followers is not only that they reap the benefits but also that the leader is seen to be fair when
distributing them (Cropanzano, 1993; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Colquitt, 2001; Folger &
Cropanzano, 2001). Followers need to see the rewards to be gained as justified in relation to the
amount of effort that needs to be spent on reaping these rewards (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011).
If followers consider the benefits to be unreasonable in relation to the level of investment needed to
achieve them, they will experience psychological stress and anxiety (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001).
Followers are motivated to reduce these tensions, either by reducing investments (i.e., doing less), or by
trying to increase the number of benefits (in co-operation with the manager), or by ultimately ending
the partnership (leaving the organization) (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). Perceived fairness
not only depends on perceived costs and benefits but also on the perceived performance and posi-
tioning of leaders themselves. If followers are under the impression that managers are dragging their
feet or that they are being paid excessively high salaries, this will influence their sense of fairness in a
number of ways (Bruins, Platow, & Ng, 1995). Effective transactional leadership in a business
environment is thus aimed at obtaining psychological credit and maintaining a fair balance between
costs and benefits as perceived by employees. If these work-related resources are not provided in the
exchange process between leaders and followers, employees may consider this to be unfair and a
hindrance, impeding not only the attainment of their goals but also personal growth and learning.
Research shows that hindrances in obtaining work-related resources have a negative effect on levels of
engagement (Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010). This leads us to our first proposition:
Proposition 1: Lower levels of transactional leadership are related to lower levels of engagement.
Compared with transactional leadership, transformational leadership is not so much focused on the
balance between costs and benefits but focused on the initiation and management of change.
Transformational leadership has four components as follows (Bass, 1997; Bass & Riggio, 2006):
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration.
The first component of transformational leadership, idealized influence, deals with the importance of
charismatic and inspirational leadership: to maintain their motivation, the leader must convince his
followers of the need for change and explain why change is necessary. Furthermore, this charismatic
aspect instils pride, faith and respect, as well as promotes an articulated sense of mission, which leads to
a follower’s dependence on the charismatic acts of a leader (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
The second component, inspirational motivation, concerns how leaders articulate a mission and a
vision that appeals to and inspires followers. The supposition behind this leadership aspect is that
followers are motivated to act when they have a strong sense of purpose. This vision, which encom-
passes high standards, optimism about future goals and the provision of meaning for the followers’
individual tasks, generates this strong sense of purpose. Inspirational motivation requires clear com-
munication on the part of the leader in order to make a vision understandable, precise and engaging.
The third component, intellectual stimulation, concerns the need to challenge followers intellectually,
which includes providing feedback and challenging tasks in order to promote and develop problem-
solving abilities. In terms of content, positive feedback can assist the employee in exploring various
elements of the work at hand, which may lead not only to the improvement of quality but also to the

stimulation of creativity and problem-solving skills. Finally, individualized consideration concerns the way
in which the leader addresses the specific needs, competencies and ambitions of the followers in order to
support them in their endeavours to meet their own needs, to develop their individual competencies and to
achieve their ambitions. In this respect, transformational leaders can offer their employees their appreciation
and support by focusing on personal needs. Positive feedback from a relational perspective may reinforce
this sense of support, because this places a special emphasis not only on the appreciation for the employee
but also on the acknowledgement of the degree of his investment.
Thus, transformational leadership emphasizes the ability of leaders to challenge and inspire their
followers in such a way that they become willing to help the organization achieve its goals and that they
identify themselves with its mission and vision. This element of transformational leadership may
generate a positive attitude among employees and produce the energy that is needed to complete the
various organizational tasks. Accordingly, the four elements of transformational leadership listed above
offer employees access to resources such as support, specific feedback and energy in order to develop
engagement. These work-related resources are an important condition to be able to cope with stressful
demands and to label these as challenging stressors in pursuing personal mastery, learning and future
gains (Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010). We, therefore, propose the following:
Proposition 2: Higher levels of transformational leadership are related to higher levels of
engagement.
Reduced engagement, reduced emotional commitment and mental stress may be caused by har-
assment and the deprivation of autonomy on the part of the employee. These phenomena can also
result from a downward shift (to employees) of task-related responsibilities that should in actual fact
reside with the manager (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2009). Various studies (Einarsen,
Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009; Hoel et al., 2009) have shown that harassment is associated with autocratic
leadership. A number of authors (Block, 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1988) maintain that autocratic
leadership concerns behaviour that is aimed at broadening and enhancing a manager’s position of
power and at increasing dependency on the part of employees. Tourish (2011) claims that when
transformational aspects of leadership are solely used by a leader to establish and expand the position of
power, resulting in increasing follower dependency, transformational leadership turns into what he
terms ‘cultic’ leadership, which has features similar to those seen in autocratic leadership. For example,
when leaders consider themselves to be the sole source of key ideas and vision and when dissent
expressed by followers is punished, or when agreement with these key ideas is crucial for group
membership and rewards, transformational leadership may turn into autocratic leadership (Tourish &
Pinnington, 2002; Tourish, 2011). In this process, followers may perceive autocratic managers as
micromanagers or superiors who offer little to no social support and who are merely focused on the
execution of certain tasks and the subsequent attainment of business goals. The act of shifting
responsibilities is in line with Den Hartog’s definition of passive leadership (Den Hartog, Van Muijen,
& Koopman, 1997). This failure on the part of the manager to take responsibility leads to reduced
involvement on the part of employees and to the latter’s perceived lack or absence of support in the
execution of their business tasks. Moreover, it is not only the lack of work-related resources that
hinders employees in pursuing their goals and that leads to lower levels of engagement. One important
relationship that can be distinguished here is the negative relationship between anxiety and engage-
ment. Feelings of stress may manifest themselves in the form of psychological tension, and subse-
quently in the form of reduced cognitive functioning and depressed mood (Gross, 1970). Reduced
levels of engagement and emotional commitment, as well as strain-induced stress, may be caused by the
style of leadership a manager adopts towards his employees (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004; Tepper,
Moss, & Duffy, 2011). More in particular, it is especially autocratic leadership styles that directly lead
to strain-induced stress among employees, hindering them in developing mastery and personal growth

(Stetz, Stetz, & Bliese, 2006; Bloisi & Hoel, 2008; Hoel et al., 2009), and as such hindering them in
becoming engaged. Hence, we propose the following:
Proposition 3: Autocratic leadership is negatively related to employee engagement.
Besides transactional, transformational and autocratic leadership, a fourth approach can be dis-
tinguished: laissez-faire leadership. This particular style is characterized by a passive attitude: managers
remain inactive or uninvolved and do not take responsibility when it is desirable or when they are
required to do so. Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (1997) call this style of leadership ‘passive’
as opposed to transactional and transformational leadership, which they term ‘active’. Laissez-faire
leadership would seem to be incompatible with the outcomes of earlier research on engagement and the
proven prerequisite of providing followers with sufficient coaching assistance, feedback and social
support. This leads us to the following proposition:
Proposition 4: A passive attitude on the part of managers is negatively related to employee
engagement.
Available literature on transactional and transformational leadership states that leadership is concerned
with relationships of social exchange, but it fails to indicate in which situations followers actually engage in
such relationships or in which situations managers are considered to be charismatic or transformational.
In situations where managers merely assume that employees are loyal to the organization’s goals and
in situations where radical change is taking place, this particular style of leadership can produce negative
emotions and feelings of stress among followers (cf. Carey, 1992; Terry, 2003), thus resulting in low
engagement (Jetten, O’Brien, & Trindall, 2002). Furthermore, Kerr and Jermier (1978, in Vecchio, 1987)
argue that different situational factors including the cohesion of work groups (Den Hartog & Koopman,
2005), clarity of tasks and relating goals as provided by the organization (Howell & Dorfman, 1981), as
well as a strong inter-dependence between members of a work group (Villa, Howell, Daniel, & Dorfman,
2003), may enhance, neutralize or become a substitute for leader behaviours as followers become less
dependent on leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005; Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2009). Furthermore, Erdogan, Kraimer, and Liden (2004) argue that employees demon-
strating high work value congruence do not require a leader or other types of social support to achieve job
and career satisfaction. As such, this suggests that the organizational context plays an important role in
determining whether leadership styles have a positive or negative effect on employee engagement. For
example, when the organizational context provides a work context that neutralizes and substitutes leader
behaviours, a passive attitude on the part of managers may have a positive effect on followers’ engagement.
THE FOLLOWER-CENTRED APPROACH IN RELATION TO ENGAGEMENT
Besides the moderating effect of the organizational context on the relationship between leadership style
and employee engagement, it can also be argued that followers tend to regard managers as less effective
when they remain distant and fail to act as members of the team and the community of followers. In
sum, in order to define the conditions that allow leadership to become effective from the follower’s
point of view, we should study it from a follower’s perspective, commonly addressed as the follower-
centred approach. In our attempts, we shall distinguish two perspectives as follows: one provided by
implicit leadership theory (ILT) and one provided by social identity theory.
An important perspective in the study of leadership and the role of related stereotypes, and one that
does in fact consider the position of followers, is ILT. This theory was initially developed by Meindl
and colleagues in the 1990s as ‘an alternative for theories and perspectives that place great weight on
leaders and on the substantive significance of their actions and activities’ (Meindl, 1995: 330). Lord
and Maher (1990: 132) define implicit leadership as ‘the process of being perceived as a leader by

others’. ILT proponents claim that the follower’s process of attribution is characterized by the category
of leadership in which a leader is placed by the follower – leaders should fit an ideal stereotype accorded
to them by followers and which adheres to certain domain specifications (Van Knippenberg, Van
Knippenberg, & Giessner, 2006; Giessner, Van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009). This goes beyond the
question of how followers perceive their leaders as seen in the leader-centred perspective; ILT considers
how followers view their own roles and behaviours when engaging with their leaders and how leaders’
behaviour is aligned with these (cf. Meindl, 1995; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005;Van Knippenberg,
Van Knippenberg, & Giessner, 2006; Schyns, 2007). The more the leader’s attitudes and behaviour
are aligned with prototype attitudes and behaviour that correspond with a follower’s leader stereotypes,
the more the follower feels trusted by, attached to and connected with the leader (Keller, 2003).
As such, a follower will be able to demonstrate knowledge and competence to develop autonomous roles
and show active participation in decision-making processes, and finally to act as effective members of the
team and the community of followers (Howell & Mendez, 2008). As a consequence, followers will be able
to develop higher levels of engagement. These considerations led us to postulate the following:
Proposition 5: A high level of congruence between leader prototype and perceived leader char-
acteristics is positively related to employee engagement.
An extension of the ILT perspective and leader–follower prototypicality to predict followers’ per-
ceptions of leadership effectiveness is leadership approached from social identity theory (Giessner, Van
Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009). Social identity theory puts forward the idea that followers wish to be
part of a group (inclusion) in order to develop their social identity. Having a social identity means that
people feel a sense of belonging. Being part of a social system gives meaning to an individual’s activities
as these are then related to a wider framework, something that will, in turn, lead to a more positive self-
image (Hogg, 2001). This social system is embedded in the direct social network of a participant and is
frequently described as the ‘in-crowd’ (Hogg, 2001). Many researchers claim that this explains why
people want to become part of a group or an organization (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel, 1982;
Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007; Jetten, Haslam, Iyer, & Haslam, 2009). Being a member of a
certain group allows the development of a social identity by searching for common features among group
members and by contrasting these with characteristics shared by other groups (Tajfel, 1982; Hogg, 2001).
This differentiation process aims to demonstrate that in-crowd features are deemed more positive than those
of others. Being accepted by fellow in-crowd members and the development of a social identity based on
shared characteristics are important needs that take priority over the execution of certain tasks (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Chemers, 2001). In this sense, the primary concern of individuals is to seek inclusion in a
group, after which they can proceed to build their social identity through shared co-operation and inter-
action. Thus, the actions of an employee are primarily aimed at developing a social identity, and if it is not
clear whether or not an individual is included in the group, it is the leader who will be held responsible
first (Hollander, 1985). A common identity shared by all group members creates social cohesion and
co-operation. This, in turn, may bring about a sense of engagement among the team members, and it can
in fact be argued that particularly social cohesion and co-operation give rise to a sense of social support and
autonomy, which makes constructive feedback possible. We propose the following:
Proposition 6: The presence of a leader who has been accepted by the group as a team member is
positively related to employee engagement.
THE RELATIONSHIP-CENTRED APPROACH IN RELATION TO ENGAGEMENT
The third perspective on how leadership might influence work engagement is that of the relationship
between a leader and his subordinates. An important theory that concerns these relationships is

leadership–membership exchange (LMX). This approach differs from the aforementioned leader-
centred approaches, both of which presume that the relationships that leaders maintain with their
subordinates are similar.
LMX, originally coined by Dansereau and colleagues as vertical dyadic linkage, is a leadership theory
that provides arguments why leaders differentiate between subordinates and why they create in-groups
and out-groups. It follows their assumption that the time and resources needed to increase productivity
are limited (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Graen and Uhl-Bien argue that in-group members
have high-quality exchanges, leading to high levels of trust and obligation, whereas out-group members
have low-quality exchanges, leading to lower levels of trust, respect and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). Research studies on LMX demonstrate that individual in-group members show higher objective
performance in their work, high levels of commitment, high levels of job satisfaction, strong feelings of
empowerment and are less likely to leave the company (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Gerstner & Day,
1997; Cogliser, Schriesheim, & Castro, 1999). Dienesch and Liden (1986) describe the process of
LMX as the initial interaction between leader and subordinate followed by leader delegation and
starting with a first assignment or a set of tasks (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Precisely how the
subordinate responds with respect to task fulfilment determines how a leader’s attributions are shaped
in relation to this subordinate. These attributions will produce certain leader responses, which in turn
will develop the subordinate’s attributes and subsequently produce certain responses to the leader.
Thus, these steps can be characterized as a social exchange process (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
This social interaction is characterized and influenced by dimensions including the perceived con-
tribution made by the leader and the subordinate to serve explicit and implicit mutual goals, mutual
loyalty and affection (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), and finally mutual professional respect as developed in
the relationship (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
Although LMX seems similar to transformational leadership, the difference is that LMX theory
describes how the goals of a leader and a follower are merged (Krishnan, 2004). In this respect, LMX
contributes to the aforementioned follower-centred approach, which describes how follower attributes
determine whether leaders are accepted and included in in-groups in terms of helping them to develop
a social identity. A strong presence of these dimensions will result in high-quality levels of LMX. With
high levels of LMX, members will receive social support and feedback, as well as work-related
resources, which will result in high levels of engagement. Therefore, we propose the following:
Proposition 7: High levels of LMX are positively related to high levels of employee engagement.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AS A MODERATOR
During the last decade, studies on organizational theory and practice have paid considerable attention
to organizational culture. In this respect, Schein defines organizational culture as the body of common
beliefs, assumptions and values that are shared by members of an organization (Schein, 1983, 1993).
Schein (1996) maintains that the deeper layer of organizational culture is shaped by norms and values,
the underlying drivers of behaviour. It is precisely the importance of shared values determining
organizational culture that makes them an extremely interesting variable where leadership styles are
concerned (Frankel, Leonard, & Denham, 2006; Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006; Asree, Zain, &
Razalli, 2010; Wilderom, van den Berg, & Wiersma, 2012). Some authors assume that the effec-
tiveness of leadership styles depends in part on the organizational culture within which business
processes take place (Erez, 1994; Bass & Avolio, 1997). Contextual factors may enhance or weaken the
effectiveness of a certain leadership style, as manifestations of organizational culture may vary from
business to business and as the ways in which leadership traits are perceived by employees may differ,
depending on the business climate concerned. In this respect, differences in business culture between

regions and countries, among individual firms and even within one single company can be dis-
tinguished. It is safe to say that an individual organization does not have one single company culture:
within a firm, various groups of individuals are separated by departments, for instance, or simply by
hierarchy (leaders and followers) (Smircich, 1983; Schein, 1993, 1996). There is often a set of group
and department cultures that may show considerable variation. Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and
Koopman (1997) also state that culture has certain moderating effects, because different types of
culture influence the effectiveness of the leader. In this light, we formulate the following proposition:
Proposition 8: Organizational culture acts as a moderator in the relationship between leadership
characteristics and employee engagement.
DISCUSSION
The question we have set ourselves is how leadership affects work engagement. In the preceding
paragraphs, our main emphasis was on the importance of employee engagement for organizations.
We referred to the positive outcomes of employee engagement as indicated by earlier research and named a
number of conditions for the development of engagement, including work-related resources such as
autonomy, feedback and social support, as well as personal resources such as optimism, self-efficacy and self-
esteem. We also argued that managers play a vital role in increasing employee engagement because they
exert a major influence on the availability of these work-related issues. Finally, we identified organizational
culture as an important moderator in the relationship between leadership styles and engagement. In
Appendix, we have listed a conceptual model with all the propositions.
The question remains which leadership styles contribute the most to high levels of engagement and
which leadership styles impede engagement and increase stress. If we consider the propositions as stated
in the preceding paragraphs, we can group the first six propositions into three distinctive classes of
leadership that impact the levels of engagement.
The first class of leadership, comprising Propositions 1 and 2, and which relate transactional and
transformational leadership to engagement, will be characterized as rich leadership. Kelloway, Siva-
nathan, Francis, and Barling (2005) coined this term to denote a leadership style that features
transactional as well as transformational elements, and which may result in reduced levels of stress and
subsequently lead to higher levels of engagement. Transactional leadership focuses on influencing
followers by submitting them to rules, by presenting extrinsic incentives, by closely monitoring results
and by granting rewards if the outcome of follower behaviour is in line with organizational goals (Den
Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). This exchange process aims at obtaining psychological
credit and maintaining a fair balance between the costs and benefits as perceived by employees.
Maintaining feelings of fairness among employees makes it possible for employees to perceive and
label stressful situations such as high job demands as positive challenge stressors instead of negative
hindrance stressors (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010). Seen in this light,
transactional leadership does not contribute to higher levels of work engagement as such but presents a
condition for transformational leadership to become effective, which is in line with the thoughts
expressed by leading scholars (cf. Bass, 1985, 1997; Waldman & Bass, 1990).
As was discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the focus of transactional leadership is on the
stimulation of the needs, competencies and ambitions of the followers, on challenging followers
intellectually and on charismatic and inspiring leadership, through which followers can be stimulated
energetically. Transformational leadership provides followers with challenge stressors by which
employees are stimulated to attain goals, perfect their personal skills and achieve mastery, even under
conditions of high time pressure, high workloads and high levels of job responsibility (e.g., Crawford,
Lepine, & Rich, 2010).

The second class of leadership, comprising Propositions 3 and 4, can be characterized as a set of
leadership styles that contribute to increased stress levels among employees. In contrast to rich lea-
dership, this class of leadership style – autocratic and passive – sees high levels of stress and the
impediment of engagement. Yet, it cannot be stated that low levels of this type of leadership contribute
to higher levels of engagement. In the literature, this style of leadership is often qualified as ‘poor
leadership’ (Kelloway et al., 2005). Poor leadership is frequently associated with harassment and
depriving employees of their autonomy or with transferring to the employees’ specific job-related tasks
and responsibilities that actually belong to the leader (Hoel et al., 2009). Poor leadership leads to an
increase in stress and reduced engagement among employees, as well as to a perceived lack or total
absence of work-related resources in the execution of their business tasks. In sum, poor leadership as
demonstrated by an autocratic and passive leadership style leads to reduced engagement.
The third class of leadership, comprising Propositions 5, 6 and 7, sets the basic condition for the link
between leadership and engagement. If followers do not identify with their leaders or do not accept
their managers as their legitimate leaders, then the leader–follower exchange processes will not
take place. If this is the case, the level of engagement will not be directly influenced by leadership
behaviour. By definition, we can only speak of a ‘manager effect’ on employee engagement levels if a
leader–follower relationship has been established. A leadership style aimed at the establishment of
a leader–follower exchange should, therefore, contain elements that correspond with implicit ideas held
by employees concerning the prototype of the ideal leader, as a result of which leaders are accepted by
their followers. An active contribution by the leader to the development of an employee’s social
identity will create a social climate in which autonomy, social support and the exchange of feedback is
facilitated, and it is this type of climate that will promote employee engagement. However, from an
organization’s perspective, a common identity that leads to high value congruence and that shuts down
dialogue and debate will possibly lead to a lack of innovation and creativity (Erdogan, Kraimer, &
Liden, 2004) and subsequently to a deterioration in organizational performance, innovation and
adaptability to change when needed (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Schneider cited in Erdogan, Kraimer,
& Liden, 2004), despite high levels of employee engagement. Therefore, in the social exchange process
leading to high LMX, and thus to high employee engagement, leaders should take into account that in
building high value congruence, diversity in social identities among their followers should be nourished
and explored. We will label this class of leadership style as inclusive leadership.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
With our translation of the first seven propositions into three classes of leadership, we can ask ourselves
what the most important lessons would be for managers who act as formal leaders and who wish to
create high levels of engagement among their employees. The practical implications of our proposed
research model are important for everyday business practice. In the initial sections of this paper, we
described the link between performance and work engagement. We postulated that a leader plays an
important role in promoting engagement on the part of followers and that aspects of leadership are
related to the level of engagement. Our proposed research model is expected to yield new knowledge
for managers to improve the effectiveness of their leadership behaviour. We wish to stress that the
classes of leadership styles defined above are features of actual leadership behaviour demonstrated by
managers, which impact the engagement levels of their employees.
Before we present concrete management implications, we wish to mention two other significant
implications. The first is that the level of work engagement may well be indicative of the effectiveness
of a manager’s leadership style. In this light, we wish to stress that from a leader-centred leadership
perspective, a manager’s effectiveness depends on the degree to which work-related resources pro-
moting engagement are made available. Managers may be convinced that they are providing an

abundance of such resources, but if these are not appreciated – or even recognized – by employees, as
discussed in the follower-centred and relation-centred leadership perspectives, this will not result in
higher levels of engagement. The second implication we wish to emphasize is that the relationship
between leadership styles and work engagement may be influenced by culture. Following the first
implication mentioned above, we can argue that expectations regarding effective leadership styles
and expectations regarding the availability of resources may well depend on organizational culture.
If we consider Quinn and Cameron’s concept of organizational culture (cf. Igo & Skitmore, 2006),
appreciation and support may, in terms of resources, be more significant for the development of
engagement in a clan culture than they are in a goal-oriented culture, in which specific feedback and
concrete aims would form more obvious conditions for work engagement.
If we translate the outcomes of our investigations into managerial implications, we can formulate a
number of important conclusions and suggestions for managers as well as formal leaders in business
practice. These are as follows:
∙ Various studies have shown that engaged employees are more productive and more successful than
less-engaged or non-engaged employees.
∙ Engagement may be attained by tapping into personal as well as work-related resources.
∙ Personal resources concern traits such as optimism, positive self-esteem, stress-resistance and self-
efficacy. It is the employees themselves who are responsible for applying these resources.
∙ Work-related resources concern issues such as autonomy, social support, effective and appropriate
coaching and finally job feedback. It is the leader who is responsible for providing these resources.
∙ Leadership styles affect the way in which employees perceive the availability of work-related resources.
∙ A leadership style must contain inclusive elements for establishing a leader–follower exchange
relationship between managers and employees as a condition for engagement.
∙ We assume that inclusive and rich styles of leadership have a positive effect on employee engagement.
Poor leadership styles are assumed to have a negative influence on employee engagement.
∙ In order to be effective, leaders should be able to adapt their own leadership style and convert it into
a style that offers their workers more and better resources, thus generating increased engagement.
In this perspective, we can also conclude that organizational culture has a direct influence on the
relationship between leadership, work engagement and performance.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
In the past decade, considerable academic evidence has been found concerning the value of work
engagement for achieving organizational goals (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2004,
2007; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007; Blomme, 2012). Yet, relatively little is known about how different
leadership styles influence work engagement. However, the available literature does provide strong
evidence that there is a relationship between different aspects of leadership and work engagement. We
have found support for the idea that organizational culture acts as a moderator variable in this relation.
A study of the literature reveals that effective leaders must use a combination of inclusive and rich
leadership styles to effectively promote engagement.
Our suggestion for further research on the effectiveness of leadership in terms of work engagement
would be to study specific aspects of leadership and leadership styles together and to take organizational
culture and personal character traits into account as moderator variables. This conceptual framework
may then be used to conduct further empirical research in order to test whether the propositions
formulated in the preceding paragraphs can in fact be accepted, and to assess whether perceived
organizational culture and the character traits of employees truly act as moderators in the relationship
between leadership characteristics and work engagement. By reconsidering and incorporating within the

framework the outcomes of engagement such as improved levels of personal and group performance, as
indicated by earlier studies, current research on work engagement can be expanded and enhanced.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we examined the possible links between work engagement and leadership styles. We
considered the literature on engagement, and with the help of the literature on leadership we defined
propositions leading to a conceptual framework. We discussed potential contributions to the literature,
and we also elaborated upon the consequences for managers acting as the formal leaders in an
organization. We saw in earlier studies that engaged professionals were more willing to put extra effort
into their work than their less-engaged colleagues, and we saw that that engaged employees were less
eager to change jobs and move to another firm. In addition, we found that work engagement levels
correlated positively with work quality and the employees’ ability to communicate to clients the unique
selling points of their companies.
Available resources were also mentioned. Personal resources include being optimistic and stress-
resistant and having positive self-esteem. Work-related resources refer to the physical, social or orga-
nizational aspects of work. They are intrinsically motivating when basic needs are met, such as the
need for autonomy, the need for appropriate as well as effective feedback and the need for social
support. Following our elaboration of work engagement, we developed a conceptual framework with
eight propositions elaborating the relationship between leadership styles and engagement with orga-
nizational culture as a moderator variable. We discussed how the different leadership styles influence
engagement, and defined three classes of leadership styles as follows: inclusive, poor and rich. We stated
that a rich leadership style will lead to higher levels of engagement, but we also argued that an inclusive
leadership style is a sine qua non in terms of establishing a leadership–follower exchange process.
The integration of poor leadership style elements will lead to deterioration in engagement and an
increase in perceived stress.
In sum, with this paper, we hope to have contributed to a better understanding of the ways in
which leadership influences engagement. As such, we conclude that our research model, containing
eight propositions in combination with empirical research where these have been applied, may offer
significant added value to today’s business practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank associate editor Yuka Fujimoto and two anonymous reviewers for constructive
comments on previous versions of this article.
References
Asree, S., Zain, M., & Razalli, M. R. (2010). Influence of leadership competency and organizational culture on
responsiveness and performance of firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 500–516.
Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., Weber, T. J., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2004). Using the job demands & resources model to predict burnout and performance.
Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83–104.
Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. Oxon: Routledge.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and
performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83–104.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22, 309–328.

Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing orga-
nizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 154(2), 147–154.
Bal, P. M., De Cooman, R., & Mol, S. T. (2013). Dynamics of psychological contracts with work engagement and
turnover intention: The influence of organizational tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
22, 107–122.
Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Ybema, J. F., & Van Der Velde, M. E. G. (2011). Age and trust as moderators
in the relation between procedural justice and turnover: A large-scale longitudinal study. Applied Psychology, 60(1),
66–86.
Bal, P. M., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & De Jong, S. B. (2013). How do developmental and accommodative HRM enhance
employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract and SOC strategies. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(4), 545–572.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Personnel Psychology, 50, 604.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic Albert Bandura. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national
boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Chapter 1: Introduction. In B. M. Bernard & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), Transfor-
mational leadership (2nd ed.), Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloisi, W., & Hoel, H. (2008). Abusive work practices and bullying among chefs: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4), 649–656.
Blomme, R. J. (2012). Leadership, complex adaptive systems, and equivocality: The role of managers in
emergent change. Organization Management Journal, 9, 4–19.
Blomme, R. J., Van Rheede, A., & Tromp, D. M. (2010). The use of the psychological contract to explain turnover
intentions in the hospitality industry: A research study on the impact of gender on the turnover intentions of highly
educated employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 144–162.
Bruins, J., Platow, M. J., & Ng, S. H. (1995). Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup
situations: Issues, solutions, and extensions. Social Justice Research, 8(1), 103–121. Retrieved from http://www.
springerlink.com/index/45617L2781821H77.pdf.
Carey, M. (1992). Transformational management and the fundamental option for self-transcedence. Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 217–231.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-
reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. Retrieved from http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10740957.
Chambel, M. J., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. (2010). Breach of psychological contract and the development of burnout and
engagement: A longitudinal study among soldiers on a peacekeeping mission. Military Psychology, 22(2), 110.
Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376–399). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In
D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–192). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2011). Job burnout and employee engagement:
A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1550–1581.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of
applied psychology, 86(3), 386.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 471–483.
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity and corporate
identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products. British Journal of Management,
18(S1), S1–S16.

Crawford, E. R., Lepine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and
burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. Retrieved
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20836586.
Cropanzano, R. (1993). Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management.
In E. A. Fleishman (Ed.), Personnel psychology (vol. 47, pp. 201–205). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Limited.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9411113195&site=ehost-live.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 317–372.
Dansereau Jr F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human perfor-
mance, 13(1), 46–78.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of
burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. Retrieved from http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?
doi=10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Implicit theories of leadership at different hierarchical levels. In
B. Schyns & J. R. Meindl (Eds.), Implicit leadership theories: Essays and explorations (pp. 135–158). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership:
An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19–34. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&ampuid=1997-03981-002.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work:
Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work & Stress, 23
(1), 24–44.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory
roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 305–332.
Erez, M. (1994). Work motivation from a cross-cultural perspective. In A.-M. Bouvy & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.),
Journeys into cross-cultural psychology (pp. 386–403). Leiden: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg, R. Cropanzano,
J. E. Greenberg, & R. E. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organization justice (pp. 1–55). Redwood City, CA: Stanford
University Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login?URL=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2001-06428-001&site=ehost-live.
Frankel, A. S., Leonard, M. W., & Denham, C. R. (2006). Fair and just culture, team behavior, and leadership
engagement: The tools to achieve high reliability. Health services research, 41(4p2), 1690–1709.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power
(pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844.
Giessner, S. R., Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2009). License to fail? How leader group prototypicality
moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,
20(3), 434–451.
González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent
factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 165–174.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Gross, E. (1970). Work, organization, and stress. In S. Levine & N. A. Scotch (Eds.), Social stress (pp. 54–110).
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged:
The moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 113(6), 479–487. Retrieved from http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18942852&site=ehost-live.

Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources,
and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
research (pp. 102–117). Oxon, UK: Psychology Press.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). ‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from
job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119–127.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692.
Haq, I. U., Ali, A., Azeem, M. U., Hijazi, S. T., Qurashi, T. M., & Quyyum, A. (2010). Mediation role of employee
engagement in creative work process on the relationship of transformational leadership and employee creativity.
European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 25(1), 94–101.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange,
differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(6), 1208–1219.
Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not
necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 367–387.
Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported
and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management, 21, 453–468.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.
Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. The handbook of social psychology, 2, 485–537.
Hollander, E. H. (1995). Organizational leadership and followership. In P. Collet & A. Furnham (Eds.), Social
psychology at work (pp. 69–87). London: Routledge.
Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (1981). Substitutes for leadership: Test of a construct. Academy of Management
Journal, 24(4), 714–728.
Howell, J. P., & Mendez, M. J. (2008). Three perspectives on leadership. In Ronald E. Riggio et al. (Ed.), The art of
followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 25–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Igo, T., & Skitmore, M. (2006). Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy using
the competing values framework. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 6(2), 121–139.
Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A., Iyer, A., & Haslam, C. (2009). Turning to others in times of change: Social identity and
coping with stress. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup
relations, and helping (pp. 139–156). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing identity: Predicting adjustment to organizational restructure as
a function of subgroup and superordinate identification. British Journal of Management, 41, 281–297.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on
organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management, 17(S1),
S81–S103.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(2), 141–160.
Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, &
M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89–112). London: Sage.
Kodden, B. (2011). Dedication. Breukelen: Nyenrode Business Universiteit.
Kossek, E. E., Markel, K. S., & McHugh, P. P. (2003). Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16(3), 328–352.
Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence strategies. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 58–72.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment.
Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.
Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the job demands –
resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(3), 378–391.

Lord, R. G. (2008). Beyond transactional and transformational leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.),
Complexity leadership, part 1: Conceptual foundations (pp. 155–184). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Perceptions of leadership and their implications in organizations. In J. S. Carroll
(Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 129–1545). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and trans-
actional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385– 415.
Lub, X. D., Bijvank, M. N., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R., & Schalk, R. (2012). Different or alike?: Exploring the
psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality workers. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(4), 553–573.
Lub, X. D., Blomme, R. J., & Bal, P. M. (2011). Psychological contract and organizational citizen behavior: A new deal
for new generations? Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 7(2011), 109–130.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3),
321–349.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(3), 498–512. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457483.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148311.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research.
Journal of Management, 3, 351–389.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach.
The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329– 341.
Mostert, K., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work-related well-being in the South African Police Service. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 34, 479–491.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee
performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1217–1227. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16316275.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications
for organizations. In S. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Managing social and ethical issues in
organizations (pp. 135–177). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and
burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Schein, E. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40–51.
Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–29.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review,
38(1), 9–20.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research:
A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1),
63–113.
Schyns, B. (2007). Follower-centered perspectives on leadership. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 6(4), 180–181.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 339–358.
Stetz, T. A., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the moderating effects of social
support on stressor–strain relationships. Work & Stress, 20(1), 49–59.
Storm, K., & Rothmann, S. (2003). The relationship between personality dimensions, coping and burnout of
pharmacists in a corporate pharmacy group. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 62–70.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.),
The social psychology of intergroup relations (vol. 33, pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of
deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. The Academy of Management Journal,
54(2), 279–294. Retrieved from http://aom.metapress.com/index/A475447073772760.pdf.

Terry, D. J. (2003). A social identity perspective on organizational mergers: The role of group status, permeability, and
similarity. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work:
Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 223–240). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work
engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 121–131.
Tourish, D. (2011). Leadership and cults. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 215–229). London, UK: Sage.
Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm:
An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147–172.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2007). Paradigmatic influence and leadership: The perspectives of complexity theory and
bureaucracy theory. In J. K. Hazy, J. A. Goldstein, & B. B. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Complex systems leadership theory
(pp. 143–162). Mansfield: ICSE Publishing.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Giessner, S. R. (2006). Extending the follower-centred perspective on
leadership: Leadership as an outcome of shared social identity. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien
(Eds.), Follower-centred perspectives on leadership (pp. 51–70). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Van Schalkwyk, S., Du Toit, D. H., Bothma, A. S., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Job insecurity, leadership empowerment
behaviour, employee engagement and intention to leave in a petrochemical laboratory: original research. SA Journal
of Human Resource Management, 8(1), 1–7.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(3), 444.
Villa, J. R., Howell, J. P., Daniel, D. L., & Dorfman, P. W. (2003). Problems with detecting moderators in leadership
research using moderated multiple regression. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 3–23.
Waldman, D. A., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behaviour. Group and Organization Management,
15(4), 381–395.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.
Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R. J., & Serrano, S. A. (2011). Fitting engagement into a nomological network:
The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4),
522–537.
Wilderom, C. P. M. (2011). Towards positive work cultures and climates. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, &
M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate (pp. 79–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilderom, C. P. M., van den Berg, P. T., & Wiersma, U. J. (2012). A longitudinal study of the effects of charismatic
leadership and organizational culture on objective and perceived corporate performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(5), 835–848.
Wiley, J. W. (2010). The impact of effective leadership on employee engagement. Employment Relations Today, 37(2),
47–53.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job
demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Working in the sky: A diary
study on work engagement among cabin attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 345–356.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns:
A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1),
183–200.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008a). Working in the sky: A diary
study on work engagement among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 345–356.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251–289.

APPENDIX
+/+
P1: Transformational
Leadership
P2: Transactional Leadership
P3: Autocratic Leadership
P4: Laissez Faire Leadership
P6: Acceptance of a leader as
team member
P5: Congruence between leader
prototype and perceived leader
P7: Leader-Membership Exchange
characteristics
P8: Organizational Culture
+/+
+/+
-/-
-/-
+/+
+/+
Engagement
FIGURE A1. CONCEPTUAL MODEL LEADERSHIP STYLES AS A PREDICTOR FOR ENGAGEMENT

cambridge

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to cambridge

Similar to cambridge (20)

cambridge