Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Workplace Engagement
Ähnlich wie Workplace Engagement (20)
Mehr von dstrom.isac
Mehr von dstrom.isac (11)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Workplace Engagement
- 1. Workplace Engagement:The Roles of Transformational Leadership and Interactional Justice in Producing Engaged Employees A Thesis Defense Diana L. Strom Western Illinois University
- 2. Delineating Engagement Lockwood, (2007)
- 3. Engagement in the Workplace Employee Engagement An intrinsic state of being with emotional and cognitive components, exhibited through engagement-fueled behaviors(Macey & Schneider, 2008). Ex. – higher levels of productivity, job dedication, organizational commitment, etc. A persistent, pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).
- 4. The Burnout-EngagementContinuum (Maslach, 1982, Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)
- 5. The Burnout-Engagement Continuum (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)
- 6. The Burnout-Engagement Continuum (Maslach, 1982;Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006)
- 7. Theoretical Bases for Engagement
- 8. Theoretical Bases for Engagement Kahn’s Theory of Leadership (1990) Meaningfulness In one’s work role PsychologicalSafety Feelings of security in expressing oneself Availability Of personal resources necessary for engagement May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) Found Kahn’s three dimensions all significantly related to engagement
- 9. Theoretical Bases for Engagement Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) Work environment enables/disables events from occurring These events can cause a positive/negative affective reaction from the employee Affective reactions influence work attitudes and behaviors, such as engagement Example: Bledow? Paterson & Cary?
- 10. Theoretical Bases for Engagement Focuses on reciprocal obligations between employee and employer (i.e. pay for completion of job expectations) Explains varying degrees of engagement between employees Employees receive various forms of organizational input, therefore give various, but reciprocally equal, forms of output Empirical support as employee output increases (or decreases) with organizational input Ex. Saks? Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
- 11. Theoretical Bases for Engagement Illustrate the influence of: Psychological Needs Environmental Variables Inputs on Outputs Multiple theories address multiple constructs of engagement Psychological Emotional Behavioral
- 12. Transformational Leadership Leader creates organizational “followers”: Embrace goals and ideals of the organization Align values and beliefs with those of the organization (DeCremer, 2006) Leader seeks to fulfill employee needs, support development (Burns, 1978) Leader provokes higher level of thought, commitment, and effort (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)
- 13. Transformational Leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)
- 14. Transformational Leadership Achieve greater employee performance, organizational citizenship behavior, trust, effort, commitment, motivation, satisfaction, effectiveness, and productivity Reduces intention to quit and work stress Cite specific examples
- 15. The Third Variable:Organizational Justice Transformational leaders create trust (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006) Engagement requires trust and security (Kahn, 1990) Employee perceptions of fairness (specifically procedural justice) may be important to building trust (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999) Wu, Neubert, & Yi (2007) Found that interactional justice mediated relationship between transformational leadership and cynicism regarding organizational change. De Cremer (2006) Found interaction effect for procedural justice and transformational leadership on employee’s self-esteem.
- 16. Organizational Justice Focus on due process in the work environment Real and perceived justice Justice signifies value and security to the employee (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007) Effects are well-established in literature Cite
- 17. Organizational Justice Bies (2001); Cropanzano et al. (2007)
- 18. Interactional Justice Must convey proper motives Can undermine perceptions of organizational fairness Bies (2001); Greenberg (1993)
- 19. Interactional Justice Focuses on interpersonal relationship with authority Most likely management Utilizes the agent-system model Interactional justice more specifically addresses managerial-related outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001) Identifying the source of justice may better predict agent-related variables
- 20. Connecting Justiceto Engagement Burnout related factors (Maslach et al., 2001) Job resources Social support (Interpersonal) Information sharing (Informational) Control within the work environment (Procedural) Involvement in decision-making (Procedural) Organizational factors Violation of expectations related to fairness and equity (Organizational Justice) Organizational values shape emotional/cognitive relationship with work
- 21. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Interactional justice will serve as a moderator by strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement. Transformational Leadership Employee Engagement Interactional Justice Transformational Leadership X Interactional Justice
- 22. Expected Results:Interactional Justice High Employee Engagement Low Employee Engagement Low Transformational Leadership High Transformational Leadership
- 23. Hypotheses 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. Transformational Leadership Employee Engagement Procedural Justice Transformational Leadership X Interactional Justice
- 24. Expected Results:Procedural Justice High Employee Engagement Low Employee Engagement Low Transformational Leadership High Transformational Leadership
- 25. Hypotheses 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. Transformational Leadership Employee Engagement Distributive Justice Transformational Leadership X Interactional Justice
- 26. Expected Results:Distributive Justice High Employee Engagement Low Employee Engagement Low Transformational Leadership High Transformational Leadership
- 27. Expected ModerationComparison Hypothesis 1 Interactional Justice Hypothesis 2 Procedural Justice Hypothesis 3 Distributive Justice Expected that the moderating effects weaken across hypotheses
- 28. Methods Recruitment Internet Service Provider (ISP) Recruitment emails containing link to online survey Participants (n=348) Male = 225 Female = 120 Ages 18-65 years Currently employed within the United States
- 29. Frequencies 76%
- 30. Frequencies
- 31. Measures:Employee Engagement Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) Vigor (6 items) “At my work, I feel bursting with energy.” Dedication (5 items) “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.” Absorption (6 items) “Time flies when I am working.” Scale of 0 (Never) to 6 (Always, Everyday) Items have been shown to correlate negatively with dimensions of burnout Reliability (α = .80-.90) (Schaufeli et al., 2006)
- 35. Reliability (α = .90)Scales of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
- 37. Idealized Influence (8 items)
- 38. “Talks optimistically about the future.”
- 39. Inspirational Motivation (4 items)
- 40. “Talks optimistically about the future.”
- 41. Intellectual Stimulation (4 items)
- 42. “Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.”
- 43. Individualized Consideration (4 items)
- 45. Table 2
- 47. TL, IJ, and the product of TL x IJ were entered simultaneously
- 48. Significant regression weight for the interaction term (TL x IJ) indicates moderation
- 49. Comparison - distributive and procedural justice
- 52. Main effect
- 55. Main effects
- 59. Main effects
- 63. Main effects
- 67. Main effect
- 71. Main effects
- 74. Exploratory analyses Additional examination of the data to determine potential confounding variables Employment status Part-time = Less than 35-40 hours/week (Thorsteinson, 2003) Part-Time (PT) Full-Time (FT)
- 75. Employment Status Part-time workers More favorable job attitudes (Martin & Sinclair, 2007) Little difference involving job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to leave Lower levels of job involvement (Thorsteinson, 2003) Participants (N = 256) Full-Time = 210 Part-Time = 46
- 76. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses Transformational Leadership Full-Time (FT) Table 5
- 77. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses Transformational Leadership Part-Time (PT) Table 6
- 78. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses Transactional Leadership Full-Time (FT) Table 7
- 79. Figure 3. Interaction betweenTransactional Leadership and Procedural Justice Full-Time (FT)
- 80. Figure 4. Interaction betweenTransactional Leadership and Distributive Justice Full-Time (FT)
- 81. Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses Transactional Leadership Part-Time (PT) Table 8
- 82. Discussion All variables were positively associated with employee engagement. Under relatively low conditions of procedural and distributive justice, transactional leadership was positively related to employee engagement. Under conditions of high procedural and distributive justice, engagement was uniformly high regardless of level of transactional leadership. Results replicated for full-time employees
- 83. Discussion All variables were positively associated with employee engagement. Under relatively low conditions of procedural and distributive justice, transactional leadership was positively related to employee engagement. Under conditions of high procedural and distributive justice, engagement was uniformly high regardless of level of transactional leadership. Results replicated for full-time employees
- 84. Discussion Why not interactional justice as predicted? Hours per week spent with supervisor Limited interaction, limited opportunity Interactional Justice Transformational Leadership Employee perceptions Affected primarily by interactional justice (De Cremer et al., 2007) When absent, employees rely on other forms of justice Leadership and trust Trust as a pathway to engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008) Trust related primarily to procedural and distributive justice (Colquitt et al., 2001)
- 85. Discussion Limitations Self-report measures are often limited in their accuracy Full anonymity Measure employee perceptions Currently employed participants Exploratory analyses Hours per week spend with supervisor Differences in full-time/part-time populations Coverage bias neglects individuals who do not have access to the survey (i.e. no Internet) Exploratory analyses
- 86. Discussion Future Research Employee engagement as a multidimensional construct Further delineate cognitive, emotional, behavioral engagement Organizational engagement Job engagement Trait engagement Antecedents and consequences The affect of third variables on the effectiveness of leadership Employment status
- 87. Conclusion No statistical support for the hypothesized moderating effects of interactional justice Support for the individual benefits of: Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Organizational justice (interactional, procedural, distributive) Procedural, distributive justice moderated the transactional leadership – engagement relationship Higher the level of justice, the lesser effect of transactional leadership
Hinweis der Redaktion
- The measure that we will be using identifies three main factors of engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption. These factors address engagement as an affective-cognitive state defined by Schaufeli et al.
- Predict that transformational leadership will not only result in employee engagement, but that it will be enhanced by the employee’s perception of interactional justice.
- Predict that procedural justice will have a weaker moderating effect because it is an organizationally-based construct.
- Predict that distributive justice will have a weaker moderating effect because it is both an organizationally-based and transactional construct.
- Each form of justice follows a similar pattern of results, but to each to a different extent. Interactional justice has the greatest fanning of results, indicating it has the greatest influence. Procedural justice follows second, with distributive justice having the weakest overall moderating effect.
- Power analysis?Effect size?
- Large = Medium =Small =
- Focuses on engagement as a psychological state and is measured by employee self-report.Based on Maslach’s construct of burnout; dimensions have been shown to have negative correlations.Reliability exceeds standard accepted alpha value of .70.Higher scores indicate higher levels of employee engagement.
- All measured as employee perceptions of justice in the workplace.Interactional Justice - Higher scores indicate higher levels of interactional justice. Reliability level exceeds standard acceptance.Procedural Justice – Higher scores indicate higher levels of procedural justice. Alpha level exceeds standard of .70.Distributive Justice -
- Prior to regression, the predictor/moderator were centered by subracting each value from its respective mean to reducemulticollinearity and achieve a better estimate of the interaction term as suggested by Aiken & West (1991).Significant regression weight for the interaction term (TL x IJ) indicates moderation
- Hypothesis 1 not supported
- Hypothesis 2 not supportedBoth TF and PJ individually accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance in engagement scores and played important independent roles in producing engagement employees.
- Hypothesis 2 not supportedBoth TF and PJ individually accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance in engagement scores and played important independent roles in producing engagement employees.
- Hypothesis 2 not supportedBoth TF and PJ individually accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance in engagement scores and played important independent roles in producing engagement employees.
- Hypothesis 2 not supportedBoth TF and PJ individually accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance in engagement scores and played important independent roles in producing engagement employees.
- To interpret the nature of the interaction, the simple slope of employee engagement regressed on transactional leadership was then calculated and plotted at varying levels of procedural justice (high, medium, low) in accordance with the procedures of Aiken and West (1991). These various levels of justice and their regression equations were then used to plot three regression lines, creating an interaction graph. Low and medium levels of procedural justice most notably moderated the effect transactional leadership has on employee engagement (indicated by steeper slopes). There was not a strong relationship between high transactional leadership and engagement under conditions of high procedural justice (indicated by horizontal slope). Suggests transactional leaderships’ relation to engagement is qualified by the level of justice in the work environment (specifically, related to higher engagement, but only under relatively lower levels of procedural justice).
- Hypothesis 2 not supportedBoth TF and PJ individually accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance in engagement scores and played important independent roles in producing engagement employees.
- Again, the simple slope of employee engagement regressed on transactional leadership was calculated and plotted at varying levels of distributive justice, creating an interaction graph. Results showed that the relationship between transactional leadership and employee engagement was moderated by the level of distributive justice. Similar to the role of procedural justice, graph indicates that the relation between transactional leadership and engagement is strongest under relatively lower levels of distributive justice (steeper slopes).
- Simple slope of employee engagement regressed on transactional leadership was calculated and plotted at varying levels of procedural justice, creating an interaction graph. Graph indicates that low and medium levels of procedural justice had positive slopes, while the high level of procedural justice had a negative slope. Suggests that transactional leadership’s positive relation to engagement in not only qualified under relatively lower levels of justice, but that high levels of procedural justice may decrease the effectiveness of transactional leadership regarding FT employees.Explanation: Remember, transactional and transformational leadership are not polar opposites; they lie somewhat on a continuum of leadership characteristics, traits, behaviors…so when one’s supervisor is highly transactional (basic, based on exchange relationship to meet self-interests and work needs) and they operate in an environment high in procedural justice (perceived fairness of the procedures and decision-making processes), there is potentially little room for engagement to grow. A work-environment that embraces a strict set of rules and procedures is in a sense either conforming to or individually exhibits those “managerial ideals” of compliance and correction, of doing only what is necessary/expected, which engagement seems to transcend.Similar to TF/TA leader comparison; TA worker versus EE. Explanation doesn’t explain other interactions.
- Simple slope of employee engagement regressed on transactional leadership was calculated and plotted at varying levels of distributive justice. Results show the moderating effects of distributive justice, indicating relationship between transactional leadership and engagement is strongest under relatively lower levels of distributive justice.
- Robust findings: the relationships between transformational/transactional leadership and engagement, and the relationships between all three forms of justice and engagement. Further demonstrate the contributing effects of managerial style/perceived fairness on engagement.Unexpected results related to transactional leadership and their interactions. These patterns suggest that when there are lower levels of procedural/distributive justice in the workplace, the transactional leader has more influence on the development of employee engagement. However, as the level of procedural/distributive justice grows, the transactional leaders is less influential in the development of engagement (pattern repeated for FT employees in exploratory analyses).
- Robust findings: the relationships between transformational/transactional leadership and engagement, and the relationships between all three forms of justice and engagement. Further demonstrate the contributing effects of managerial style/perceived fairness on engagement.Unexpected results related to transactional leadership and their interactions. These patterns suggest that when there are lower levels of procedural/distributive justice in the workplace, the transactional leader has more influence on the development of employee engagement. However, as the level of procedural/distributive justice grows, the transactional leaders is less influential in the development of engagement (pattern repeated for FT employees in exploratory analyses).
- Agent-system modelOver half of the sample reported spending five or less hours per week working with their supervisor. Interactional justice emphasizes one-on-one interactions (social justice), and is often sought by employees from their supervisor (Cropanzano et al., 2007). No exposure would likely lead to little or no sense of interactional justice, good or bad. Unlikely therefore that interactional justice would play an influential or moderating role in the relationship between leadership and engagement. Additionally, the socioemotional behaviors of transformational leadership are interactional in nature – role modeling, coaching, challenging, motivating. Without a constant stream of interaction, transformational leadership has little opportunity to influence the level of engagement.Another possible explanation of these results could be the relationship between leadership and trust in producing outcomes. Trust is a proposed pathway through which a leader may produce employee behavioral engagement. Trust has been shown to be primarily related to procedural/distributive justice. Therefore, it may be that procedural and distributive justice are the two forms of justice through which a relationship between leadership and engagement occurs, while interactional justice instead works as a social medium only.
- While some forms of leadership are praised for their abilities, it is important to understand the third variables that may affect the ability to obtain those results. Some recommended areas of focus are trust, psychological empowerment, individual self-concept, and contextual influences such as organizational culture and receptivity.Employment status (FT vs. PT) but also differences within those groups, specifically, part-time employee typologies and the nature of PT employments (moonlighters, seasonal workers, motivations for working PT). Also, perhaps our categorizations