i The combined effects of psychological conditions ...

i

The combined effects of psychological conditions contributing to the

outcome of employee engagement.

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Brenda E. Kraner, M.A.

Graduate Program in Education: Physical Activity and Education Services

The Ohio State University

2019

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. David Stein, Advisor

Dr. Ann O’Connell

Dr. Jeffrey Ford

ii

Copyright by

Brenda E. Kraner

2019

ii

Abstract

Organizations today are struggling to attract and retain an engaged workforce. Those

organizations who succeed experience an increase in job performance, productivity, customer

satisfaction, and employee retention. There is a growing interest in identifying the key factors

that contribute to a work environment that is conducive to employee engagement.

This study was designed to examine the relative importance of the psychological

conditions necessary for employee engagement: a sense of meaningfulness, psychological safety

and psychological availability. This study examined engagement in the context of the job itself,

the relationships in the work environment, and what the individual brings to the job. The specific

predictors of employee engagement examined were: sense of meaningfulness, psychological

capital, co-worker relationships and transformational leadership. A 56-item survey was

distributed to staff members of a mid-sized four year institution located in the Midwest. While

all four factors were positive and significantly correlated to the outcome of engagement, a sense

of meaningfulness was the strongest predictor of employee engagement. Psychological capital

was the second strongest predictor, followed by positive co-worker relationships and

transformational leadership.

The findings in this study contribute to what we know about the predictors of employee

engagement and provide both scholars and practitioners with a greater understanding of key

factors that contribute to the outcome of employee engagement. Implications and directions for

future research and practical applications for practitioners is discussed.

iii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother and my father who were relentless

supporters, encouragers, and champions of my academic, professional, and person aspirations.

iv

Acknowledgments

In addition to my late parents there were a number of people who have encouraged and

supported me along this journey. From my friends and family who have asked me about my

progress, nudged me along the way, and continued believing in me to my colleagues who have

listened, offered feedback, resources, and much needed advice. I am extremely grateful for

Michael Bottomley, Senior Statistical Consultant at Wright State University, whose brilliance,

patience, and availability were priceless in making the statistics associated with this study

understandable. Thanks too to my previous boss, Jill Lindsey, who encouraged me to reach for

this dream and has supported me along the way.

Thanks to my kids who have spent years and years watching me juggle work and school

while attempting to not miss any sporting or school events.

To my advisor, Dr. Stein, who never gave up on me and demonstrated patience and belief

as my life struggles slowed my progress and to my other committee members, Dr. O’Connell and

Dr. Ford, who have remained committed to seeing this through to the end, thank you.

v

Vita

EDUCATION

1994…………………………..M.A. – Applied Behavioral Sciences, Wright State University

1991…………………………..B.A. – Psychology, Otterbein University

EXPERIENCE

2008-present………………….Learn Grow Lead, LLC, Leadership Consultant

2016-present………………….Program Director, Organizational Leadership Program, Wright

State University

2014-2016…………………….Assistant to the Chair, Leadership Studies, Wright State

University

2012-present………………….Director of Internships, Organizational Leadership Program,

Wright State University

2008-present………………….Lecturer, Organizational Leadership Program, Wright State

University

COMMUNITY

2016…………………………..Top 25 Women to Watch in the Miami Valley, Women In

Business Networking

2015…………………………..Participated in the Women’s Institute for Leadership

Development Program, Higher Education Collaborative of

Greater Cincinnati

2014…………………………..Organizational Effectiveness Lecture Series Committee Member,

WSU and Community

2012-2017…………………….The International Leadership Association, Member

2012-2017…………………….The Academy for Human Resource Development, National

Member

1994-present…………………..Association for Talent Development

RESEARCH, PUBLICATIONS, & CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

• Kraner, B. E. & Han, S.-H. (accepted). College internship and effective processes for career

success. In A. T. Amayah (ed.), Proceedings of the 2016 Academy of Human Resource

Development in the America. Jacksonville, Florida.

• The Role Mentoring Plays in the Career Advancement of Women, 1994

• Conference Paper Presentation, September 2013, The Research to Practice Conference in

Adult and Higher Education: The Use of Synchronous Chats in Academic Discourse: A

Review of the Literature, St. Louis.

• Conference Paper Presentation, February 2013, Research Roundtable Discussion at the

Academy of Human Resource Development Conference: The Impact of Virtual vs. Face-to-

Face Coaching on the Transfer of Leadership Skills, Washington D.C.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education: Physical Activity and Education Services

Concentration: Human Resource Development

Cognates: Distance Learning, Adult Learning, Leadership and Change

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv

Vita ...................................................................................................................................................v

List of tables ................................................................................................................................. viii

List of figures ................................................................................................................................. ix

Chapter 1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

Background of the problem .........................................................................................................4

Statement of the problem .............................................................................................................5

Purpose of the study ...................................................................................................................13

Research questions .....................................................................................................................13

Theoretical framework ...............................................................................................................14

Definitions and terms .................................................................................................................17

Assumptions and limitations ......................................................................................................20

Chapter 2 – Literature Review .......................................................................................................21

Employee engagement ...............................................................................................................22

Sense of meaningfulness ............................................................................................................24

Psychological capital .................................................................................................................26

Job Demands-Resources Model .................................................................................................28

Co-worker relationships .........................................................................................................29

Transformational leadership ..................................................................................................30

Kahn’s three psychological conditions ......................................................................................37

Chapter 3 - Methodology ...............................................................................................................38

Research design .........................................................................................................................39

Sample........................................................................................................................................39

Sample size justification ............................................................................................................40

Measurement/Instrumentation ...................................................................................................41

Procedures ..................................................................................................................................45

Data analysis ..............................................................................................................................46

Chapter 4 - Results .........................................................................................................................48

Method .......................................................................................................................................49

vii

Measures ....................................................................................................................................49

Preliminary data analysis ...........................................................................................................51

Principal components analysis (PCA) .......................................................................................51

Dominance analysis ...................................................................................................................56

Summary of results ....................................................................................................................61

Chapter 5 - Discussion ...................................................................................................................63

Summary of the findings ............................................................................................................64

Discussion and interpretation of findings ..................................................................................65

Significance of the study ............................................................................................................68

Implications................................................................................................................................68

Limitations .................................................................................................................................70

Recommendations for future research .......................................................................................71

Summary and conclusion ...........................................................................................................73

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................74

Appendix A – Employee Engagement Survey ..............................................................................98

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Sample size based on desired power and results .............................................................40

Table 2. Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................................51

Table 3. Pearson correlation matrix ...............................................................................................53

Table 4. Regression table ...............................................................................................................55

Table 5. Dominance analysis for four predictors to the outcome of employee engagement .........58

Table 6. Average contribution to R2 across model size (number of variables in the model) ........59

Table 7. Dominance summary table ..............................................................................................60

Table 8. Dominance relationships among all pairs of predictors...................................................61

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1. Kahn’s Model of Employee Engagement .......................................................................7

Figure 2. Hypothesized Model of Employee Engagement ............................................................9

1

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

The past two decades have brought heightened interest in how to get the most effort from

employees in an organization. In a day and age where organizations are competing for strong

and relevant talent while working with limited resources, being able to get the most positive

effort from employees can make or break the bottom line of an organization. Since technology is

becoming more readily available to all organizations and transforming the way work gets done,

there is increased attention being paid to human capital as a competitive advantage (Larson &

Luthans, 2006). The layoffs in the past fifteen years have led to a reduction in resources, forcing

organizations to do more with less. The rate of change in organizations today is causing

organizations to optimize the performance of employees and with over fifty percent of

employees in the U.S. searching for a new job, attraction and retention are critical (Gallup,

2017). Add those factors to the lack of long-term commitment companies have to their

employees along with employees’ lack of commitment to longevity within an organization we, as

a nation, have a workforce challenge on our hands (Macey et al., 2009).

One of the factors receiving greater and greater attention is employee engagement. A

significant amount of empirical literature supports the value of employee engagement to an

organization’s profitability. The concept of employee engagement has become more of an

interest because of its predictive value for job performance (Bakker, 2009; Schaufeli &

Salanova, 2007). A meta-analysis on employee engagement has provided support for the

positive associations of employee engagement with employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction,

2

productivity, turnover, safety, and profitability (Harter et al., 2002). Harter (2002) furthermore

concludes that engagement is “related to meaningful business outcomes at a magnitude that is

important to many organizations” (Harter et al., 2002, p. 276). Employee engagement also

contributes to extra-role performance, leading employees to take initiative and go above and

beyond the basic expectations of their job (Schaufeli et al., 2006) and is positively correlated

with innovative behavior in the workplace (Chang, et al., 2013). Organizations that want to stay

competitive need to get the most from their resources and ensure innovation is at the forefront of

their business strategy.

According to a handful of studies reviewed by Shuck (2011, 2014), engaged employees

are customer focused, productive, less likely to leave, and demonstrate high levels of affective

commitment and discretionary effort, ultimately, generating greater revenue than employees who

are not engaged (Shuck, 2011, 2014; Salanova et al, 2005; Koyuncu et al., 2006; Xanthopoulou

et al., 2009). From a competitive business standpoint, the phenomenon of employee engagement

gets attention due to the fact that engaged employees mean bottom line business results. Because

of that reality, scholars and practitioners alike, have a vested interest in understanding under

what conditions employee engagement happens. Is the outcome of employee engagement a

result of the individual employee, the employee’s supervisor, or the organizational environment?

A number of empirical studies have sought to examine the effect various factors have on

the outcome of employee engagement. Evidence suggests the factors of psychological capital

(Luthans et al., 2007; Sihag & Sarikwal, 2014; Avey et al., 2008; Rostiana, 2013), job resources

(Bakker et al., 2003; Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker et al., 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001;

Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Sarti, 2014; Mauno et

al., 2007; Debraine & Roodt, 2011), and transformational leadership (Zhu et al., 2009; Tims et

3

al., 2011; Sarah, 2009; Song et al., 2012), individually, contribute to the outcome of employee

engagement. No research, however, has examined the relative importance of the three factors

listed above, on the outcome of employee engagement.

The lack of engaged employees is costing companies in the U.S. an estimated 450 billion

dollars, annually (Gallup, 2017). In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, maximizing

the potential of employees is essential for organizations wanting to stay in business. Knowledge

of the specific factors contributing to the outcome of employee engagement will allow

practitioners to help organizations enhance their workforce in an effort to remain competitive

and researchers to continue honing in on discovering the most powerful elements that contribute

to the outcome of employee engagement.

4

Background of the Problem

Funding for public institutions of higher education has continued to decrease and as the

drive for strategic hiring initiatives and mission driven allocation increase, maximizing the level

of engagement among staff, becomes even more critical. According to the 2015 Higher

Education Report (Ohio Education Report), higher education in Ohio is encountering two major

challenges: (1) the decreasing subsidies from the state and (2) the money that colleges and

universities do receive is being pulled from instruction and research to other aspects of operating

the school. State imposed regulation of funding and oversight has been progressing and more is

on the horizon. Over the last ten years, in Ohio alone, there has been a 25% increase in

administration and their associated staff, not to mention, administrative spending has increased

by 33%. The legislature in Oregon has already created staff/faculty rations and other states are

demanding greater transparency in budgets so there is no question where the money is going. To

add fuel to the fire, the disproportional inflation of college costs to other costs of living is

bringing the funding of public institutions of higher education into scrutiny (Ohio Education

Report). Mortenson (2012) stated that Ohio has already begun reducing their state fiscal

investment and based on the rate of retrenchment since 2000, state funding will reach zero in

2039. All that being said, the amount spent on administrative and staff costs is definitely going

to come under fire. Sanyal & Johnstone (2011), suggest giving public universities and colleges

more managerial autonomy to achieve greater efficiencies. This notion, however, goes against

what is typically desired of politicians, faculty, staff, and students. Even though the primary

mission of a public institution of higher education is to teach and conduct research, other

resources are necessary to ensure the mission is accomplished. Recruiting the best people to fill

staff positions, keeping them, and maximizing their potential is essential to minimize costs and

5

function effectively with decreasing financial resources and expectations for affordable

education. Institutions of higher education must understand the degree to which they can create

an environment that is conducive to employee engagement.

The employee engagement literature does not examine institutions of higher education.

By examining the relative importance of an individual experiencing a sense of meaningfulness in

their job, psychological capital, co-worker relationships, and supervisor behaviors consistent

with transformational leadership on the outcome of employee engagement, institutions of higher

education can explore how they develop their workforce in an effort to maximize the individual

potential of staff members.

Statement of the Problem

Employee engagement is a human resource development concept that gained momentum

by practitioners in the early nineties due to the paradigm shift of organizations. This shift had to

do with constant change, companies doing more with less, working smarter not harder, less

hierarchy, and precarious employment. All of these factors required more than just physical

labor from human capital within the workforce but a level of psychological involvement as well.

Around the turn of the century as the academic community began exploring the concept of

positive psychology, a strong connection between a positive work environment and getting

business results in turbulent times began to evolve, leading to a surge in interest surrounding

employee engagement.

Kahn (1990), who coined the term employee engagement, defines engagement as “the

harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ

and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”

(694). Later, Schaufeli et al., (2002) built on Kahn’s description of employees expressing

6

themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally by defining engagement as “a positive,

fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”

(74). Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience, paralleling the physical aspect

of Kahn’s definition of engagement. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work

and parallels the emotional aspect of Kahn’s definition, whereas, absorption, which is described

as being fully concentrated and engrossed in work, relates to the cognitive component of Kahn’s

engagement definition. Kahn’s definition of employee engagement represents a

multidimensional motivational construct that involves investing yourself into the performance of

a given role (Rich et al., 2010).

In Kahn’s (1990) research, he proposes that three psychological conditions must be met

in order for an employee to be engaged. The three psychological conditions include: a sense of

meaningfulness, psychological safety and psychological availability (See Figure 1). A sense of

meaningfulness refers to an individual feeling a return on his or her investment in role

performance and is influenced by work elements that create motivations for or against their

investment in their job. Psychological safety refers to an individual feeling comfortable being

themselves at work without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career.

Influences of psychological safety lie in the elements of an individual’s social system that are

more or less predictable, consistent, and nonthreatening. Psychological availability refers to an

individual possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary for

investing self in role performance and is influenced by personal distractions that are more or less

preoccupying in role performance situations. May et al. (2004) and Olivier and Rothmann

(2007) confirmed the correlation between the psychological conditions identified by Kahn

(1990) and the outcome of engagement. Kahn’s theory posits, if the job is meaningful, the work

7

environment perceived as safe, and personal resources are available, an individual will be

engaged at work.

Figure 1. Kahn’s Model of Employee Engagement

A second perspective on the source of employee engagement is the Job-Demands

Resources model (JD-R). The JD-R Model “explores the interaction between the demands of a

job, the availability of resources to compete that job, and the resulting state of engagement”

(Shuck & Rose, 2013, p. 343). Job demands refer to demands of the job that include physical,

psychological, social, or organizational demands. These demands can include unreasonable

customers, unrealistic deadlines, etc. Job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or

organizational aspects of the job that help get the job done, reduce the job demands, or spur

growth and development. According to JD-R theory, job resources, such as organizational and

supervisor support, and personal resources, such as self-efficacy, optimism, and emotional

Sense of

Meaningfulness

Psychological

Safety

Psychological

Availability

Employee

Engagement

8

stability have motivational potential. The availability of job and personal resources increases the

engagement of employees, which in turn fosters positive employee outcomes.

The resources identified in the JD-R model support the three psychological conditions of

employee engagement identified by Kahn (1990). However, the JD-R model (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2007) separates job resources and personal resources and adds additional constructs

for each type of resource. There have been a few studies examining two job resources in

particular, leadership behaviors consistent with transformational leadership theory (Hyati et al.,

2014; Giallonardo et al., 2010) and positive co-worker relationships (Simpson, 2009; Othman &

Nasurdin, 2013).

The meaningfulness an individual attributes to a specific job is consistent with Kahn’s

psychological condition of sense of meaningfulness. The social support provided by co-workers

and an individual’s direct supervisor is consistent with Kahn’s psychological condition of

psychological safety. The personal resources an individual brings to the job is consistent with

Kahn’s psychological availability. Considering both Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement and

Schaufeli’s et al., (2002) definitions of engagement, engagement is a function of what the

individual brings to the job, the relationships within the work environment, and the job itself.

From the models described above, what an individual brings to the job, the job itself, and the

relationships within the work environment are common factors we would expect to be related to

employee engagement (See Figure 2).

9

Figure 2. Hypothesized Model of Engagement

May et al. (2004) conducted a study that provided evidence that supported Kahn’s theory

that a sense of meaningfulness, psychological availability and psychological safety significantly

related to engagement. In addition, job enrichment and role fit were positive predictors of

meaningfulness and rewarding co-worker support and supportive supervisor relations were

positive predictors of safety. Furthermore, resources available were positively related to

psychological availability. Olivier and Rothmann (2007) conducted a study examining Kahn’s

three psychological conditions for employee engagement and discovered similar results to May

et al. (2004) in that all three contribute to employee engagement, with a sense of meaningfulness

appearing to be the strongest.

Sense of

Meaningfulness

Psychological

Safety

Co-worker

Relationships

Transformational

Leadership

Psychological

Availability

Psychological

Capital

Employee

Engagement

10

Saks (2006) proposes a model of employee engagement building on Kahn’s

psychological condition of safety. Saks (2006) denotes job characteristics, perceived

organizational support, perceived supervisor support, rewards and recognition, procedural justice

and distributive justice are antecedents to employee engagement. This study did not measure co-

worker support and supervisor support separately, but rather included co-worker support with

perceived organizational support. Kahn (1990) stated work relationships that were supportive,

trusting and open promoted a sense of psychological safety that lead to engagement.

Kahn’s (1990) initial study identified that supportive, resilient and clarifying

management styles heightened psychological safety. Everything from allowing employees to

experiment and take risks to giving them control over how they get the job done. Behaviors

consistent with transformational leadership theory reflect those identified by Kahn and have

demonstrated a direct relationship to work engagement (Ghadi et al., 2013). Kahn’s research and

the research of others’ have cited supervisor support as a key factor contributing to the outcome

of engagement. Employees who have direct supervisors who demonstrate behaviors consistent

with transformational leadership theory are likely to be energetic, dedicated and absorbed in

work (Zhu et al., 2009; Tims et al., 2011; Salanova et al., 2011). The relationship an employee

has with his or her supervisor contributes to the psychological safety an individual feels within

the work environment. Behaviors consistent with transformational leadership theory offer a

constructive way to measure the perceived support of a supervisor as it may contribute to


Kahn’s psychological condition of availability is met when an individual has confidence

in his or her ability to do the job and the emotional energy to rebound when setbacks occur,

inside and outside of work, while continuing to perform a job well. Psychological capital

11

encompasses the constructs of hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy, all of which reflect

psychological availability as defined by Kahn (Luthans et al., 2007). Numerous studies have

provided evidence supporting individuals with high psychological capital are more likely to be

engaged than those who are low in psychological capital (Karatepe & Karadas, 2015; Thompson

et. al., 2015).

If there is an order in which engagement in an organization is built, gaining clarity on the

relative importance of Kahn’s (1990) three psychological states contributing to the outcome of

engagement would be valuable. Examining this relationship would provide greater insight into

what the primary contributors to engagement may be rather than simply a list of antecedents

explored in numerous research studies. The results would provide practitioners with a focus on

where development initiatives should be focused in an effort to positively influence the outcome

of engagement in organizations. Researchers would be able to hone their research to further test

the findings.

In the majority of empirically based studies, the psychological conditions predicting

employee engagement, as articulated by Kahn’s (1990) theory of employee engagement,

continue to be examined individually or in combination with other proposed antecedents (May et

al., 2004; Vera et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2013; Hakanen et al., 2006; Bakker et al., 2007;

Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; Sarti, 2014). Kahn’s theory of employee engagement is the

conceptual framework for which this current study is being based because not only do many

studies examine, individually, one or more of Kahn’s psychological conditions of engagement,

but few, if any, examine the relative importance of the three conditions.

Kahn’s initial research suggests that people tacitly deal with multiple sources of

influence. This study is examining the relative importance and possible significant interactions

12

of the individual, relationships in the work environment, and the job itself to the outcome of

employee engagement, as it supports Kahn’s (1990) theory of employee engagement.

This study is important for a few reasons. First, it will attempt to examine two separate

predictors of engagement as they relate to Kahn’s psychological condition of psychological

safety: co-worker and supervisor relations, which will provide greater insight into the

psychological condition. The role a leader plays is significant to the engagement of an employee

as is the support employees experience from co-workers. Secondly, it will attempt to determine

which of the three psychological conditions are most important to the outcome of engagement:

sense of meaningfulness, psychological availability or psychological safety. While we know all

three contribute to employee engagement we are not aware of which of the three, if any, are a

greater predictor. Finally, it will attempt to determine if there are any significant interactions

among the psychological conditions predictive of employee engagement. This will provide

insight into how the various combinations of all three predictors work together to create greater

levels of employee engagement.

Evidence supporting which of the three psychological conditions contributes the most to

employee engagement, gives the human resource development professional the opportunity to

critically focus on the specific the skills, knowledge, and abilities to be developed within the

workforce.

13

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative importance of the psychological

conditions necessary for employee engagement.

Research Questions

1. What is the relationship between a sense of meaningfulness and employee engagement

among staff at a four-year public institution of higher education?

2. What is the relationship between psychological capital and employee engagement among

staff at a four-year public institution of higher education?

3. What is the relationship between co-worker relationships and employee engagement among


4. What is the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and employee

engagement among staff at a four-year public institution of higher education?

5. What is the relative importance of a sense of meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-

worker relationships, and behaviors associated with transformational leadership on the

outcome of employee engagement among staff at a four-year public institution of higher

education?

14

Theoretical Framework

The concept of employee engagement has received recent attention from practitioners

and mixed reviews from the academic community. Human resource development consulting

firms such as the Gallup Organization (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) have sung the praises of

employee engagement since the turn of the century. The popularity of the concept has led those

in the academic community to want to further define and study employee engagement as a

unique phenomenon (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). There is, however, limited consistency

surrounding a common definition and conceptualization of employee engagement in the

literature (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Markos and Sridevi, 2010; Vance, 2006).

In the academic literature the most frequently referenced definitions of employee

engagement are the definitions by Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli and Bakker (2004). They both

reference engagement as being a combination of cognitive – absorption, emotional – dedication,

and physical – vigor. This study is designed to draw from Kahn’s theory of engagement (1990)

and measure the level of employee engagement using Schaufeli and Bakker’s instrument (2004).

Kahn (1990) was one of the first to coin the term employee engagement and offer a

definition. He stated, “personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of a

person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,

personal presence, (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active, full role performances” (p.

700). In engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and

emotionally during role performances (Kahn, 1990). Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, &

Bakker (2002, p. 74) define work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of

mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” These two definitions

15

complement each other in that vigor is physical, dedication is emotional, and absorption is

considered cognitive.

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) operationalize engagement as a positive, affective-

motivational work-related state that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor

refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to a sense

of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Finally, absorption is characterized

by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly

and one has difficulties with detaching from work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; 2010). This

definition encapsulates the concepts' state nature, meaning that engagement is not just a trait-like

factor, but may vary even within the same person over time (Sonnentag, 2003; Sonnentag,

Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010).

While Sweetman and Luthans (2010) conceptualized the relationship between

psychological capital and employee engagement, fairly recent articles have provided empirical

evidence to support their proposal. Psychological capital is positively related to employee

engagement (Sihag & Sarikwal, 2014; Rostiana, 2013) and in one specific study, considered a

predictor of employee engagement (Paek et al., 2015). In addition, Thompson et al., (2015)

provides five qualitatively case-based examples of psychological capital predicting the outcome

of engagement.

Previous studies have shown that job resources are important antecedents of work

engagement (Bakker, 2009; Bakker, 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Mauno et al., 2007; DeBraine and

Roodt, 2011; Freeney and Fellenz, 2013) and significantly influence employee engagement

(Sarti, 2014).

16

Schaufeli & Salanova (2008) state the role of leadership is critical in promoting

engagement of those they lead, especially task and support leadership behaviors. Tims et al.,

(2011) and Zhu et al., (2009) have provided support for the contribution of the use of

transformational leadership to the employee engagement levels of followers. Furthermore, Zhu

et al. (2009), discovered for followers with positive characteristics, transformational leadership

predicted follower work engagement. This finding creates a certain level of conversation

surrounding the relationship between psychological capital and transformational leadership on

the outcome of employee engagement. However, in comparison to the attention paid to

psychological capital and job resources, the role of the leader in fostering employee engagement

has received limited research attention (Tims et al., 2011).

Employee engagement does not occur in isolation. While engagement is a personal

experience of an individual employee, engagement goes beyond the individual, taking into

consideration the social dynamics as well as the organization’s culture (Leiter & Bakker, 2010).

The psychological capital theory addresses what an individual brings to the job, the Job

Resources model addresses the social and organizational dynamic of employee engagement, and

transformational leadership theory addresses the role of the direct supervisor in the outcome of

employee engagement. Previous research has provided support for each of these factors

influencing the outcome of employee engagement. What we don't know is how the combined

effects of these three factors affect the outcome of engagement. The purpose of my study is to

explore how the relationship among the three factors of sense of meaningfulness, psychological

capital, and certain specific job resources, affect the outcome of employee engagement. This

study could contribute to the growing literature associated with employee engagement and the

models informing the phenomenon, ultimately benefitting researchers and practitioners alike.

17

Definition of Terms

Employee Engagement - Personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression

of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,

personal presence, (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active, full role performances (Kahn,

1990, p. 700).

Employee Engagement – Employee engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related

state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness

to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence in the face of difficulties.

Dedication refers to a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and

challenge.

Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s

work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from

work.

Psychological Capital - Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio (2007) define Psychological Capital

(PsyCap) as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by:

(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at

challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the

future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in

order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back

and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (p.3).

18

Job Resources – Job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects

of the job that help get the job done, reduce the job demands, or spur growth and development

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Transformational Leadership Theory – Transformational leadership theory posits that through

the act of leading by example, articulating a compelling vision and establishing challenging

goals, others can move to a higher level of motivation and morale (Burns, 1978). Bass (1985)

expanded on the theory with the four behavioral components described below:

Idealized Influence (II) - the leader serves as an ideal role model for followers; the

leader "walks the talk," and is admired for this.

Inspirational Motivation (IM) - Transformational leaders have the ability to inspire and

motivate followers. Combined these first two I's are what constitute the transformational

leader's charisma.

Individualized Consideration (IC) - Transformational leaders demonstrate genuine

concern for the needs and feelings of followers. This personal attention to each follower

is a key element in bringing out their very best efforts.

Intellectual Stimulation (IS) - the leader challenges followers to be innovative and

creative. A common misunderstanding is that transformational leaders are "soft," but the

truth is that they constantly challenge followers to higher levels of performance.

For the purposes of this study, the behaviors associated with transformational leadership include

the following, as described by Carless et al. (2000): (1) communicating a clear and positive

vision of the future, (2) treating others and individuals and supporting and encouraging their

development, (3) providing encouragement and recognition to others, (4) fostering trust,

involvement, and cooperation among team members, (5) encouraging thinking about problems in

19

new ways and questioning assumptions, (6) being clear about values and practices and practicing

what is preached, and (7) instilling pride and respect in others and inspiring competence.

20

Assumptions and Limitations

1. The study population consisted of employees at a medium-sized public four-year institution

of higher education in the Midwest, all who agreed to compete the online survey instrument.

This created a study population consisting of an accessible population that was not randomly

assigned. Therefore, the results of this study will not be generalizable to staff beyond the

population.

2. Subjects were asked to self-report on the instruments and that may have a potential for bias in

the data results.

3. Due to previous empirical studies, the assumption is that there is a positive correlation

between each of the independent variables on the outcome of the dependent variable.

4. The population surveyed at the time was experiencing financial stress, downsizing, and low

morale, which may have skewed the data.

5. An assumption was made that measuring co-worker relationships and transformational

leadership was sufficient for accounting for the existence of psychological safety.

21

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

According to Gallup (2017) only one-third of the workforce is engaged in their work and

workplace. Only twenty percent of employees surveyed by Gallup feel their performance is

managed in a way that motivates them to do outstanding work. In a 2015 study conducted by

Deloitte, employee engagement was cited as being one to top issues challenging business leaders

worldwide (Bersin et al., 2015).

As the use of social media and the internet continues to intensify so does the search for

skilled and talented workers. Organizations promoting an environment conducive to employee

engagement will be the ones attracting and retaining the talent that will keep them competitive in

their industry. Employees who are considered engaged have higher job satisfaction,

organizational commitment and work performance (Shuck, 2011; Robertson et al, 2012; Bakker

& Demerouti, 2014; Sorenson, 2013). They also have lower turnover intentions than employees

scoring lower on employee engagement (Shuck et al., 2010; Shuck, 2014; Schaufeli and Bakker,

2004; Salanova et al., 2005). Engaged employees have also been attributed to positively

impacting customer satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002), organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008),

profitability (Czarnowsky, 2008), and innovation and business growth (Lockwood, 2007).

22

Employee Engagement

Empirical studies have provided evidence to support Kahn’s theory of employee

engagement, connecting the psychological conditions he posits in his original research, to be

necessary for the outcome of employee engagement (Young & Steelman, 2016; May et al., 2004;

Rich et al., 2010). The definitions of employee engagement most cited in the academic literature

are that of Kahn (1990) and Schaufeil and Bakker (2004). It’s no surprise they are cited

frequently as their definitions share common elements. Schaufeli and Bakker’s (2004) definition

of engagement and Kahn’s (1990) definition of engagement share aspects of cognition, emotion,

and behavior.

Kahn (1990) was one of the first to coin the term employee engagement and offer a

definition. He stated, “personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of a

person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,

personal presence, (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active, full role performances” (p.

700). In engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and

emotionally during role performances (Kahn, 1990). Kahn’s (1990) work identified three

psychological states that influence an individual’s internal work motivations, i.e., antecedents of

employee engagement. Those states are: meaningfulness, safety, and availability.

Kahn (1990) argued that employees are engaged when their “preferred self” is manifested

in the workplace. People who feel they make a difference at work, are worthwhile, useful and

valuable and not taken for granted, experience a sense of meaningfulness. Task characteristics

(challenging, clearly identified work, with an element of autonomy), role characteristics (formal

positions with status and attractive self-image), and work interactions (interpersonal interactions

of dignity, respect, value, and inclusion) influence a sense of meaningfulness.

23

Psychological safety is defined as ‘feeling able to show and employ one’s self without

fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career’ (Kahn, 1990, p. 708). Individuals

who experience psychological safety at work feel they can employ themselves at work without

fear of negative consequences. Positive and encouraging interpersonal relationships, group and

intergroup dynamics, management style, and organizational norms influence a sense of

psychological safety.

Psychological availability is defined as an individual’s belief that s/he has the physical,

emotional or cognitive resources to engage the self at work (Kahn, 1990). Employees who

experience a sense of psychological availability believe they have the physical, emotional, and

psychological resources to engage in their job. This state focuses on demands placed on them

inside and outside of the workplace. Physical and emotional energy, confidence in personal

skills, knowledge, and abilities, and outside life pressures influence an employee’s sense of

availability.

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), define work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-

related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 295). Vigor

refers to an employee’s ability to invest effort in one’s work despite obstacles encountered and is

recognized by high levels of energy and mental resilience. Dedication refers to one’s sense of

significance and challenge, level of enthusiasm, and feeling of inspiration and pride. Absorption

refers to one’s ability to be so fully concentrated and engrossed in work that time flies by and

detaching from work becomes difficult. (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Saks (2006) was one of the first scholars to examine the antecedents and consequences of

employee engagement. Since then many antecedents to employee engagement have been

identified in the literature. Some referenced antecedents to employee engagement include:

24

positive co-worker relationships (Demerouti et al., 2001; Salanova et al., 2001; Krishnaveni and

Monica, 2016; Saks, 2006; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Cattermole et al., 2013) and behaviors

consistent with transformational leadership (Monesson, 2013; Shuck et al., 2011). Both of these

resources support Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions for psychological safety. Consistent

with Kahn’s (1990) theory of employee engagement, a sense of meaningfulness has been

referenced as an antecedent to employee engagement (May et al., 2004; Grant, 2008; Van

Wingerden & Van der Stoep, 2017; Holbeche & Springett, 2004; Oliver & Rothmann, 2007).

Psychological capital, which supports Kahn’s (1990) third psychological condition for employee

engagement, that of psychological capability, has been supported empirically as an antecedent to

employee engagement (Herbert, 2011; Simons & Buitendach, 2013; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).

There is considerable disagreement among scholars regarding the antecedents of engagement and

the degree to which they affect or mediate the outcome of engagement, in isolation or combined

with other antecedents.

Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement is the primary framework for this study, suggesting

that individual and environmental factors combine to affect the outcome of employee

engagement through Kahn’s three critical psychological states: meaningfulness, psychological

safety, and psychological availability.

Sense of Meaningfulness

According to Kahn (1990) a sense of meaningfulness is one of the psychological

conditions that must be met in order for an individual to experience engagement. Meaningfulness

can be defined as the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in relation to an individual’s own

ideals or standards (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; May, 2004; Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). Fairlie

(2010) defines meaningful work as a job and other workplace characteristics that facilitate the

25

attainment or maintenance of one or more dimensions of meaning (Fairlie, 2010). Kahn (1992)

states that psychological meaningfulness involves a sense of return on investments of the self-in-

role performances and can be achieved through task characteristics that provide challenging

work, work variety, use of different skills, decision making freedom, and contributions to

something of importance. Kahn (1990, 1992) also states the congruence between the behaviors

expected by the organization and the behaviors that an employee values as part of their self-

image must be congruent if a sense of meaningfulness is to emerge (Rich et al., 2010).

A growing number of researchers have studied the concept of meaningful work within

the context of engagement (e.g., Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009; Stringer, 2008). A study conducted

by Fairlie (2011) found meaningful work characteristics had the strongest relationships with

engagement and most other employee outcomes, relative to other work characteristics. May,

Gilson, and Harter (2004) cited a correlation of .63 between Kahn’s sense of meaningfulness and

engagement. They found that positive psychological states are considered important antecedents

of engagement. Building on previous research (Stringer, 2008), meaningful work was the

strongest unique predictor of engagement.

Yung and Yoon (2016) found that meaningful work had a significant positive effect on

employee engagement among hospitality industry employees. This finding aligns with the

findings of previous studies in different industries (Chen et al., 2011; Albrecht, 2013).

Employees who saw their work as meaningful had high employee engagement scores. The same

results were evidenced in other empirical studies (Woods & Sofat, 2013; Janik & Rothmann,

2015; May et al., 2004; Richardson & Watt, 2006; Whittington et al., 2017). When employees

perceive their work as purposeful and significant they experience a sense of meaningfulness

(Pratt & Ashworth, 2003; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Employees perceiving their

26

work as meaningful are more engaged than those employees who don’t consider their work

meaningful (Holbeche & Springett, 2004; May et al., 2004; Olivier & Rothmann, 2007). More

and more scholars are beginning to suggest a sense of meaningfulness is a primary driver of

employee engagement (Albrecht, 2013; Shuck & Rose, 2013; Bersin 2015).

Psychological Availability - Psychological Capital

Psychological Capital has received a good amount of attention in the management

literature. The factors associated with psychological capital have a close resemblance to how

Kahn (1990) defines psychological availability. Psychological capital refers to the personal

resources an individual brings to the job and they include: hope, optimism, resilience, and self-

efficacy.

Psychological capital grew out of the positive psychology movement, specifically,

positive organizational behavior. Positive organizational behavior can be defined as, “the study

and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that

can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s

workplace (Luthans, 2002, p. 59). “Psychological capital is an individual’s positive

psychological state of development” (Luthans et al., 2007, pg. 3).

Psychological capital is characterized by the following personal resources: self-efficacy,

optimism, hope, and resilience (Luthans et al., 2007). Self-efficacy refers to the motivation one

has based on the belief he or she will be successful in goal achievement. Optimism refers to

one’s ability to have positive attributions toward success now and in the future. In other words,

an individual who has optimism expects positive and desirable events in the future. Hope refers

to one’s ability to persevere toward goals and when faced with challenges, find an alternative

pathway toward the achievement of the goals. Resiliency refers to one’s ability to bounce back

27

when beset with problems, failure, adversity, or positive events such as progress and increased

responsibilities, and ultimately attain success (Luthans et al., 2007).

There are a number of studies over the past decade that provide evidence supporting that

psychological capital is significantly related to employee engagement. Herbert (2011)

discovered that developing psychological capital increases engagement due to an employee’s

ability to evaluate available job resources and use them effectively. Simons and Buitendach

(2013) found evidence to support the combined value of an employee’s psychological capital

score had more influence on the outcome of engagement, than the four components, separately.

Psychological capital has been shown to be a significant predictor of increased work engagement

(Bakker and Leiter, 2010; Laschinger and Grau, 2012). Developing psychological capital in an

individual can lead to greater levels of engagement (Sweetman and Luthans, 2010). A study of

graduate nurses revealed psychological capital played a significant role the nurses’ perceptions

of engagement (Boamah & Laschinger, 2015). A longitudinal study of white collar workers in

Italy revealed respondents high in psychological capital had positive and significant correlations

to engagement and ultimately job performance (Alessandri et al., 2018).

A number of studies over the past decade have indicated psychological capital is a significant

contributor to employee engagement (Hicks & Knies, 2015; Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013;

Hodges, 2010; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Bakker et al., 2008; Paek et al., 2015; Sihag &

Sarikwal, 2014; Van Wingerden et al., 2017; Kotze, 2018).

28

Psychological Safety - Job Demands-Resources Model

The job resources factors associated with the Job Demands-Resources Model have a

close resemblance to how Kahn (1990) defines psychological safety. Job resources are the

environmental aspects of the work environment that help get the job done.

The Job-Demands-Resources Model (JD-R) has been used as a framework to further

explore the concept of employee engagement. The JD-R Model “explores the interaction

between the demands of a job, the availability of resources to compete that job, and the resulting

state of engagement” (Shuck & Rose, 2013, p. 343). Job demands refer to demands of the job

that refer to physical, psychological, social, or organizational demands. These demands can

include unreasonable customers, unrealistic deadlines, etc. Job resources are the physical,

psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that help get the job done, reduce the

job demands, or spur growth and development (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). They help with job

demands but have value on their own (Bakker, 2011). According to JD-R theory, job resources,

such as organizational and supervisor support, have motivational potential; their availability

increases the engagement of employees, which in turn fosters positive employee outcomes.

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker,

2004; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) states that the well-being of an employee can be attributed to

characteristics with the work environment. Evidence suggests that job demands such as:

workload, emotional demands, emotional dissonance, and organizational changes can predict

negative job strain. Whereas, job resources, such as: autonomy, social support, supervisory

coaching, and opportunities for professional development are one of the most important

predictors of work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2006; Hakanen et al., 2008; Xanthopoulou et al.,

Bakker, 2009; Sarti, 2014).

29

Recent studies have shown that personal resources mediate the relationship between job

resources and work engagement (Llorens et al., 2006; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Based on

existing empirical studies we can assume a positive relationship exists between the presence of

job resources and employee engagement. Recent studies have suggested that job resources are

related to work engagement through a process of work motivation (Bakker et al., 2003;

Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The JD-R Model attempts to define

antecedents of employee engagement. If employees view their work environment positively, feel

acknowledged and recognized, and have worthy relationships with co-workers and their

supervisor, they are more likely to feel psychologically safe and ultimately be more committed,

motivated and engaged with their work (Hanif et al., 2015).

An employee’s positive relationship with his or her co-workers and supervisor

contributes to favorable perceptions of job resources, resulting in an engaged employee. The

co-worker relationship and concept of transformational leadership are expanded upon below as

two key factors contributing to Kahn’s condition of psychological safety as a function of job

resources.

Co-worker relationships

Interpersonal relationships among employees that are supportive and trusting foster

psychological safety (Kahn, 1990) and May et al., (2004) asserts that a supportive co-worker

relationships are positively associated with an individual’s perception of psychological safety.

Positive co-worker relationships have been shown to positively affect an employee’s experience

of meaningfulness in the workplace though the process of social identification (Kahn & Heaphy,

2014). In a study among school teachers, Fouche et al. (2017) discovered both good co-worker

relationships and meaningful work predicted work engagement. May et al. (2004) posit

30

individuals who have rewarding interpersonal interactions with their co-workers should also

experience greater meaning in work.

Some research proposes that personal resources, which include: hope, optimism,

resilience, and self-efficacy and job resources, which include co-worker relationships and

supervisor support, strengthen each other and contribute to work engagement (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2014; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Additionally, support from colleagues has been

found to predict engagement (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker 2004).

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is defined as leadership behavior that transforms the norms

and values of the employees, whereby the leader motivates the workers to perform beyond their

own expectations (Yukl, 1989). This transformational leadership focuses on the enhancement of

the followers' involvement with the goals of their organization (Bass, 1985). A central aspect of

this transformational leadership is the inspiring vision of the supervisor (den Hartog et al., 1997).

In 1978, James MacGregor Burns introduced transformational leadership into the

scholarly community. A transformational leadership approach goes above and beyond a give

and take relationship in the workplace to a relationship where the leader’s personality, traits and

ability are at the forefront of creating significant change in the lives of people and organizations.

Through the act of leading by example, articulating a compelling vision and establishing

challenging goals, a transformational leader helps others move to a higher level of motivation

and morale (Burns, 1978). Bass (1985) expanded on Burns’ transformational leadership theory

with the addition of how transformational leadership could be measured and the impact of

transformational leadership behaviors on the motivation and performance of individuals.

31

Bass identifies four elements associated with transformational leadership: (1)

individualized consideration; (2) intellectual stimulation; (3) inspirational motivation; and (4)

idealized influence (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Chemers, 2000; den Hartog et al.,1997).

Individualized consideration refers to a leader’s ability to keep lines of communication open

with followers, empathize, and provide the feedback, growth and development opportunities

based on the needs of the followers (Bass, 1985; den Hartog et al., 1997). Intellectual

stimulation involves the leader encouraging followers to question assumptions, view problems

from different perspectives, and offer creative and innovative solutions (Frank et al., 2004).

Inspirational motivation requires a leader to demonstrate optimism and communicate an

appealing and inspirational vision of the future, offering purpose for the roles followers play in

achieving desired goals (Frank et al., 2004). Idealized influence insists a leader acts with high

ethical behavior, focuses on what is most important, and earns respect and trust from followers

through appropriate actions and behaviors (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1990;

Chemers, 2000; den Hartog et al., 1997; Bono & Judge, 2004; Avio & Bass, 1995).

For the purposes of this study, the behaviors associated with transformational leadership

include the following, as described by Carless et al. (2000): (1) communicating a clear and

positive vision of the future, (2) treating others and individuals and supporting and encouraging

their development, (3) providing encouragement and recognition to others, (4) fostering trust,

involvement, and cooperation among team members, (5) encouraging thinking about problems in

new ways and questioning assumptions, (6) being clear about values and practices and practicing

what is preached, and (7) instilling pride and respect in others and inspiring competence.

32

Variables, such as leadership style, specifically transformational leadership, have been

considered to be positively related to engagement (Strom et al., 2014; Kovjanic et al., 2013;

Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Tims et al., 2011; Zhu, et al., 2009; Kopperud, et al.,

2014; Lewis & Cunningham, 2015; Burch & Guarana, 2015; Badawy & Bassiouny, 2014;

Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2009). Transformational Leadership theory offers examples of

specific behaviors that align with concepts of engagement, yet limited empirical evidence

supports that notion. Macy and Schneider (2008) hypothesize that the presence of a

transformational leader would affect engagement. A survey of employees in a variety of

industries in Australia revealed a direct link to a supervisor demonstrating transformational

leadership behaviors and employee engagement, even moreso when other job resources were

available (Hawkes, et al., 2017). Transformational Leadership theory has been proven to play a

role in creating an environment that creates a sense of meaningfulness, safety, and availability

(Arnold et al., 2007; Burch & Guarana, 2014).

Zhu et al. (2009) discovered that transformational leadership has a more positive effect

on follower employee engagement when the characteristics of that employee are more positive.

The quality of leadership has been suggested as one of the single biggest factors contributing to

work force engagement (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). In a study conducted with service

sector firms in Pakistan, Raja (2012) found supporting evidence that transformational leadership

practices lead to high levels of employee engagement. Transformation leadership has been

theorized to play a critical role in development engagement (Schmitt et al., 2016).

A number of studies have implied an employee’s direct manager has the opportunity to

influence a culture conducive to engagement (Harter et al., 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008;

Saks, 2006; Schaufeil, 2015; Salanova et al., 2011; Raja, 2012; Breevaart et al., 2014; 2016).

33

Partially due to the fact they can address the issues of meaningfulness, safety, and availability,

elements deemed essential for an employee to be engaged (Kahn, 1990; Shuck, Rocco, &

Albornoz, 2010). Meyer (2013) links employee empowerment, work design, and leadership to

one or more elements of psychological engagement, labeling them as drivers of engagement and

Bates (2004) considers the role of a direct supervisor to be a significant driver of engagement.

Bates argues that the previous “paternalism” of working in organizations has been replaced with

“partnerships” between leaders and followers and transformational leadership practices embody

the values of shared vision, challenging goals, caring and respect.

The results from a survey of call center associates indicated a highly statistically

significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee engagement

(El Badawy & Bassiouny, 2014) and a work engagement study of employees in China saw a

significant path from transformational leadership behaviors to work engagement (Aryee et al.,

2012).

A study of over 400 retail sales assistants in Australia provided evidence for a positive

association with transformational leadership style, primarily visionary practices, on the outcome

of employee engagement (Zhang & Avery et al., 2014). In a study conducted of nurses,

transformational leadership had a significant positive predictive relationship with work

engagement (Enwereuzor et al., 2018). Li et al. (2018) discovered both transformational and

transactional leadership styles contributed to work engagement but the contribution of

transformational leadership behaviors was greater. These findings are consistent with the work

of Breevaart et al. (2014). Through intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation,

transformational leaders encourage followers to take risks, bounce back in the face of setbacks,

and provide a clear vision, all demonstrate leadership behaviors that, according to Kahn (1990),

34

lead to increased psychological safety. Outcomes of an employee working for a leader

demonstrating transformational behaviors are often tied to the employee’s reactions.

Engagement levels can be determined based on the associated reactions (Barrick et al., 2015).

“There has been relatively little research examining the role of follower characteristics in

determining the effects of transformational leadership on follower work attitudes and behaviors.

Past leadership theory and research have focused ‘almost exclusively on the impact of leader

traits and behaviors on follower work attitudes and behaviors” (Howell & Shamir, 2005, p.96).

“The follower remains an un explored source of variance in understanding leadership processes”

(Lord et al., 1999, p.167). Furthermore, in the work on transformational research, there has been

relatively little attention placed on examining potential links between transformational leadership

and positive psychology. (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Seligman et al., 2005), and

positive organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002). This provides motivation to further explore

the combined effects of psychological capital and transformational leadership on the outcome of


Leadership is one of the most important drivers of meaningfulness and engagement

(Bersin, 2015) and first line supervisors are believed to be important to employee engagement

(Bates, 2004; Frank et al., 2004). Scholars and practitioners alike are interested in the role a

leader plays in engaging employees. To what degree can a leader increase an employee’s

cognitive, emotional, and behavioral investment in his or her job (Kahn, 1990; Luthans &

Peterson, 2001; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010)?

Leaders have an opportunity to create positive work environments where employees can

flourish while experiencing a sense of meaningfulness in their work (Schein, 2010; Cameron,

2012). Transformational leaders tend to stimulate employees through the creation of meaning

35

and importance in the work of their employees and they communicate a clear vision, share goals

and support their employees, all of which contribute to employee engagement (Breevaart et al.,

2014; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Kovjanic et al., 2013).

Supervisors challenging employees in a manner they view positively may foster

employee engagement (Crawford et al., 2010; Van Den Broeck et al., 2010) and the empirical

support for the link between transformational leadership behaviors and engagement definitely

exists (Kopperud et al., 2014; Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Tims et al., 2011; Zhu et

al., 2009). Rewarding co-worker relationships and supportive supervisor relationships were both

positive predictors of psychological safety as defined by Kahn (1990) (May et al., 2004). The

relationship with one’s immediate manager can have a dramatic impact on an individual’s

perceptions of the safety of a work environment (May et al., 2004). An important amount of

psychological safety comes from the care and support an employee perceives he or she receives

from their direct supervisor (Kahn, 1990). Supportive and trusting interpersonal relationships at

work contribute to an employee’s perceptions of safety (Kahn, 1990).

Based on existing empirical studies we can state that a transformational leadership style

positively relates to employee engagement (Strom et al., 2014; Raja, 2012; Breevaart et al.,

2014; Kovjanic et al., 2013; Kopperud et al., 2014; Lewis & Cunningham, 2015).

Li et al. (2018) discovered behaviors consistent with transformation leadership predicted

an employee’s psychological capital. Breevaart et al. (2014) proposed the interaction between

transformational leaders and their followers determines how effective the transformational

leadership style is, meanings the leader’s effectiveness may be dependent on certain follower

characteristics, and might followers high on psychological capital respond more positively to the

transformational leadership style? A survey study conducted with Australian nurses, a positive

36

relationship between supervisor support and employee engagement emerged (Holland et al.,

2017).

Vera et al., (2016) discovered in a study of nurses examining co-worker relationship and

supervisor support, while both had a positive relationship with work engagement, supervisor

support created a stronger relationship to engagement than did co-worker support. Supporting

those findings, another study of the power of co-worker and supervisor support to the outcome of

engagement, co-worker and supervisor support were both significantly associated with work

engagement (Sarti, 2014; Selander, 2015; Poulsen et al., 2016). On the opposite end of the

spectrum, in a study among nurses in Malaysia, supervisor support was positively related to

engagement but co-worker support had no effect (Othman & Nasurdin, 2013). However, in a

study examining passionate workers, Ho & Astakhova (2018) discovered that when passionate

employees trust both their co-workers and supervisors, simultaneously, they experience greater

levels of engagement and psychological safety. This may be due to the fact that co-worker

support offers informal rewards and supervisor support offers more formal rewards and the

combination of the two are necessary for a significant effect on employee engagement is to be

experienced. A conceptual paper written by Krishnaveni and Monica (2016) the authors identify

supervisor and co-worker relationships as two of the major antecedents of engagement. They

use the argument supporting Kahn’s (1990) psychological safety condition, that employees can

only see a workplace situation where employees feel free to express themselves if there are no

negative consequences from supervisors or co-workers. A psychologically safe workplace is

often shaped by the social aspect of the environment, which consists largely of co-workers and

supervisors (Cattermole et al., 2013).

37

Kahn’s three psychological conditions

This study is designed with the intention to build on Kahn’s employee engagement theory

using four independent variables: sense of meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-worker

relationships, and transformational leadership.

A sense of meaningfulness, positive co-worker relationships, behaviors associated with

transformational leadership, and psychological capital are each, positively related to employee

engagement. While the effect each variable has on the outcome of employee engagement has

been studied individually, and in some cases two of the four together, the combined effects of all

four has not been studied nor has the value one antecedent may or may not have over the other.

A sense of meaningfulness is one of the psychological conditions Kahn believes needs to

exist in order for employee engagement to occur. Transformational leadership and positive co-

worker relationships are reflective of psychological safety, which is the second psychological

condition Kahn believes needs to exist in order for employee engagement to occur. Finally,

psychological capital is reflective of the third psychological condition Kahn believes needs to

exist in order for engagement to occur and that is psychological availability (Kahn, 1990).

This study proposes to explore is one of the factors more important than the other and if

so, which one? Or, are the combined effects of all four significant to the outcome of employee

engagement? While trends affecting employee engagement are beginning to be recognized, the

need for more clarification of the combination of employee engagement predictors and the

context in which they are provided needs developed (Kunte & Rungruang, 2017).

38

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methods used to conduct the research study. The purpose of this study

was to examine the relative importance of the psychological conditions necessary for employee

engagement.

Research Questions












education?

39

Research Design

This study combined a number of items from five different survey instruments. An

exploratory principal components analysis was conducted to examine the psychometric

properties of the surveys (Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino, 2013; and Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001)

and a Pearson’s correlation was conducted. A dominance analysis was used to exam the relative

importance of the four predictors on the outcome of employee engagement (Azen and Budescu,

2003: Budescu, 1993; Budescu and Azen, 2004). A dominance analysis was chosen to analyze

the data because the use of multiple regression would simply represent how the coefficients

predicted variance, individually. If the four predictors of engagement are correlated, regression

coefficients would not adequately represent how well one predictor does when compared to all

combinations of the other predictors. A dominance analysis is able to show how much variance

is accounted for as compared to all combinations of the predictors in the model. The

independent variables for this study were: sense of meaningfulness, co-worker relationships,

psychological capital, and transformational leadership.

Sample

2,025 classified and unclassified staff at a mid-sized four-year institution of higher

education were requested to participate in the study via email. The human resources department

at the university worked with legal counsel to secure the most up to date list of staff email

addresses. Of those solicited to participate, 272 individuals submitted a survey. Of the

participants, 58 were hourly staff, 210 were salaried staff, and four didn’t define their

relationship with the university. Participants were recruited for the study through emails sent

once a week for three weeks. Participants in the study understood that their responses were

40

anonymous and that they could choose to terminate their participation at any time without any

consequence.

Sample Size Justification

The quantitative method of this study allowed the researcher to interpret the data based

on the statistics presented in the output.

Since the primary analysis for this study was based on understanding the relative

importance of each predictor, the sample size was based on a conservative set of criteria (α = .05,

power ≥ .80) with a small expected effect size for R2. This conservative approach will yield a

sample size sufficient to detect an overall R2 ≥ .06 or 6%. Thus, there is sufficient power to

assure that dominance can be adequately assess with n = 204, see Table 1. (Faul et al., 2007).

Power has not been sufficiently studied for dominance analysis (Azen, 2013). In order to ensure

more than adequate power for the design of this study, allowing for incomplete surveys and rate

of refusal to participate, a sample size was targeted at 304, see Table 1. The number of

participants responding to the survey associated with this study were 272. When accounting for

missing data values in one or more of the factors, the lowest response rate was 253. The survey

response numbers provided more than adequate power for the design of this study.

Table 1. Sample size based on desired power and effect.

Power = R2 Effect = f2 Sample = N

.15 .17 76

.10 .111 113

.06 .06 204

41

Measurement/Instrumentation

The survey instrumentation was comprised of existing surveys that measured

psychological capital, meaningfulness of work, co-worker support, behaviors associated with

transformational leadership, and employee engagement.

Employee Engagement (9 items)

The outcome of employee engagement was measured by the 9-item Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES-9). This measure of employee engagement was developed based on

the definition of employee engagement that includes vigor, dedication, and absorption. The

UWES-9 measurement scale was validated in terms of construct validity and item internal

consistency (Schaufeli et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, et al., 2002; Schaufeli

et al., 2007) and contains the three highly correlated scales of vigor, dedication, and absorption.

While other instruments measuring employee engagement exist, this three-factor scale has been

widely used in empirical studies worldwide (Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010;

Shuck, 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Several studies have demonstrated the (cross-national)

validity, reliability, and stability of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (e.g., Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques-Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli,

Salanova, et al., 2002; Storm & Rothman, 2003). This study, in particular, reported a Cronbach’s

alpha of .873 for employee engagement.

When measuring the concept of engagement, rather than in its constituting parts, the total

score (of the shortened version) may be used. Since the three scales of the UWES are so strongly

correlated, they should not be entered simultaneously in multivariate regression analyses in order

to avoid problems with multi-collinearity. In which case, the use of the total score is preferred

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Other studies have used the combined score to measure the concept

42

of employee engagement rather than examining the three scales inherent in the instrument,

separately (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007; Chang et al., 2013; Malinowski & Lim, 2015; Sarti,

2014). Sample items include: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy.” “I am enthusiastic

about my job” “I am immersed in my work.” The response format is a seven-point Likert scale

ranging from “1 = Never” to “7 = Always”. (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The UWES-9 has reported

an alpha coefficient as high as .97 (Mills et al., 2012) for the combined scales.

Sense of Meaningfulness (6 items)

Meaningfulness can be defined as the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in

relationship to an individual’s own ideas or standards (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; May et al.,

2004; Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). Experienced meaningfulness of work was measured with a

6-item scale taken from May et al. (2003) and Spreitzer (1995). Response options included a

Likert scale format ranging from “1=Strongly Disagree” to “5=Strongly Agree”. Sample items

included: “The work I do on this job is very important to me.” “My job activities are personally

meaningful to me.” “ The work I do on this job is worthwhile.”

Reliability estimates from previous research ranged from a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 to .97

(May et al., 2004). This study reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .903 for sense of meaningfulness.

Psychological Capital (24 items)

Psychological Capital was measured by the 24-item PsyCap questionnaire (Luthans, et

al., 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007; Luthans

& Youssef, 2004). The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) is widely recognized as the

standard scale measuring psychological capital. It was developed as a compound measure

consisting of (modified) items from published scales for hope, optimism, resilience, and self-

efficacy.

43

This approach defines psychological capital as “an individual’s positive psychological

state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and

put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution

(optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when

necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems

and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success”

(Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007, p. 3).

Psychological Capital was measured with the PCQ- 24. The PCQ-24 comprises four

subscales with equal weight: (1) hope, (2) optimism, (3) self-efficacy and (4) resilience. Each of

the four subscales was drawn from established scales previously published, tested and used in

recent workplace studies. More specifically, the hope items were adapted from Snyder et al.’s

(1996) State Hope Scale, the optimism items from Scheier and Carver’s (1985) Measure of

Optimism, the self-efficacy items from Parker’s (1998) measure of self-efficacy in the workplace

and resilience from Wagnild and Young’s (1993) Resilience Scale.

The responses to the items range from “1 =strongly disagree” to “6 = strongly agree”.

Studies using this instrument to measure psychological capital have reported a combined score

rather than individual scores reflecting the four subscales in the instrument (Karatepe & Karadas,

2015; Laschinger et al., 2012). Cronbach’s alpha has been reported as .85 for the combined

PsyCap score (Gorgens-Ekermans and Herbert, 2013). This study reported a Cronbach’s alpha of

.911 for psychological capital.

Each measure is based on constructs that are shown to be valid within populations similar

to the population proposed in this study. The exploratory principal components analysis

44

examined the unidimensional factor structure as being reasonable for measuring employee

engagement and psychological capital.

Co-worker Relationships (10 items)

Ten items from May’s (2003) rewarding co-worker relations scale was used to measure

co-worker support. Response options included a Likert scale format ranging from “1=Strongly

Disagree” to “5=Strongly Agree”. Sample items such as: “My interactions with my co-workers

are rewarding.” “My co-workers value my input.” and “My co-workers listen to what I have to

say” are examples of three items on the scale. Cronbach’s alpha has been reported as .92 in

previous studies (May, 2003; May, 2004). A Cronbach’s alpha has also been reported as .95

(Olivier and Rothmann, 2007) and .86 (Chikoko et al., 2014).

This study reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .934 for co-worker relationships.

Transformational Leadership (TL) (7 items)

To measure transformational leadership, the Global Transformational Leadership Scale

was used (Carless et al., 2000). It is a short scale with seven total items. Initial evidence

indicates that it has satisfactory reliability and construct validity. The reported high correlations

between the GTL and other measures of transformational leadership (i.e., MLQ) suggest that the

GTL is an alternative short measure of transformational leadership with a broad range of

potential. Carless et al., (2000) validated the MLQ in terms of its factor convergence with other

types of transformational leadership measures, such as the Global Transformational Leadership

scale (GTL) and the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI). Results showed the three different

forms of transformational measures showed acceptable convergent validity. The correlation

between the GTL the MLQ and LPI ranged from 0.76 to 0.88. The MLQ is frequently used in

research but for the purposes of this study, the GTL instrument was used to measure

45

transformational leadership. Response formats were on a five-point scale ranging from

“1=Rarely to never” to “5=Frequently, if not always”. Sample statements included: “My direct

supervisor communicates and clear and positive vision of the future.” “My direct supervisor

treats me as an individual, supports and encourages my development.” “My direct supervisor

gives me encouragement and recognition to me.” Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as .93

(Carless et al., 2000). This study reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .946 for transformational

leadership.

Procedures

The population surveyed were staff at a public four-year institution of higher education

located in the Midwest. The survey was created using Qualtrics (online survey administration

software). The private research software company collected the data and the data was exported

from the software and analyzed using SPSS and R. R was used to conduct the dominance

analysis. The data was exported from Qualtrics into an Excel spreadsheet. The researcher had

no ability to track the responses back to a specific person, email address, or URL. The data

collected will be kept in the OSU Qualtrics account for three years following the completion of

the study.

After going through the institution’s IRB process and receiving a letter of support from

the director of human resources at the designated institution of research, legal counsel of the

institution emailed the researcher all of the email addresses for staff. All staff at the educational

institution received an email from the researcher with an opportunity to complete the survey

anonymously, once a week for three weeks.

The researcher is a Lecturer in the designated institution where participants were

surveyed but holds no authority over any staff within the institution.

46

Each participant received a survey via email that could be completed on a personal

computer or mobile device. According to Mavletova & Couper (2016) a growing percentage of

web-based survey respondents are completing surveys on smartphones. The survey link to the

questionnaire was smartphone compatible.

The link for the survey was emailed a total of three times every seven days to all potential

participants. A study conducted among physicians by Cunningham et al. (2015), showed

evidence of an increase in response rate following two follow up reminders. All subjects

receiving an email had access to a computer or smartphone for the purposes of responding to the

survey. A deadline for completing the survey was sent seven days following the third email.

The second and third email participants received asked that they disregard the email if they had

already completed the survey. This was done in an attempt to instill a sense of anonymity, as it

would appear the researcher had no knowledge as to whether or not they have responded to the

survey.

The beginning of the survey stated the following:

“This is a dissertation study being conducted by a graduate student at the Ohio State

University. You are being asked to participate in this research survey examining employee

engagement because you are an employee of an institution of higher education. Your

participation in this survey is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time without

penalty or loss of benefits. The following survey consist of 56 opinion questions that will take

less than 10 minutes to complete. Your responses will be anonymous and gathered through

Qualtrics. We are not collecting identifying information such as your name, email address or IP

address. The study will be used for scholarly purpose only. For questions about your rights as a

participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone

who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of

Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251. Continuing on with the completion of the

survey indicates you consent to participate in the research survey.”

Data Analysis

47

Data from survey respondents was captured in Qualtrics and exported to an Excel

spreadsheet. The missing data was determined using the count feature in Excel. Subjects missing

10% or more responses were eliminated. The final data set was uploaded into SPSS. Variables

were computed for employee engagement, sense of meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-

worker relationships, and transformational leadership. SPSS ran the descriptive statistics for

each variable.

An exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted to establish which

linear components existed within the data and how a particular variable might contribute to that

component and a Cronbach’s was calculated. A Pearson correlation was run to assess the

relationship between a sense of meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-worker relationships,

and transformational leadership to the outcome of employee engagement. This addressed the

first three research questions within this study. Additionally, a regression was run to numerically

predict employee engagement from the four variables included in this study. Finally, a

dominance analysis was conducted to rank order, by importance, the predictors of employee

engagement.

Summary

This chapter described the methods used to conduct the research in this study. The

survey instruments combined to build the survey were discussed and the research design and data

analysis methods were described.

48

Chapter 4: RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter discussed the findings of this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the

relative importance of the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement.

Research Questions












education?

49

Method

Participants

2,025 classified and unclassified staff at a mid-sized four-year institution of higher

education were requested to participate in the study via email. The human resources department

at the university worked with legal counsel to secure the most up to date list of staff email

addresses. Of those solicited to participate, 272 individuals submitted a survey. Of the

participants, 58 were hourly staff, 210 were salaried staff, and four didn’t define their

relationship with the university. Participants were recruited for the study through emails sent

once a week for three weeks. Participants in the study understood that their responses were

anonymous and that they could choose to terminate their participation at any time without any

consequence.

Measures

Employee engagement (EE)

The outcome of employee engagement was measured by the 9-item Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES-9). This measure of employee engagement was developed based on

the definition of employee engagement that includes vigor, dedication, and absorption. The

UWES-9 measurement scale was validated in terms of construct validity and item internal

consistency (Schaufeli et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, et al., 2002; Schaufeli

et al., 2007) and contains the three highly correlated scales of vigor, dedication, and absorption.

Sense of meaningfulness (SoM)

Meaningfulness can be defined as the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in

relationship to an individual’s own ideas or standards (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; May, 2003;

50

Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). Experienced meaningfulness of work was measured with a 6-item

scale taken from May et al. (2003) and Spreitzer (1995).

Psychological capital (PsyCap)

Psychological Capital was measured by the 24-item PsyCap questionnaire (Luthans,

Avolio et al., 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,

2007; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) is widely

recognized as the standard scale measuring PsyCap. It was developed as a compound measure

consisting of (modified) items from published scales for hope, optimism, resilience, and self-

efficacy.

Co-worker relationships (CoW)

Ten items from May’s (2003) rewarding co-worker relations scale was used to measure

co-worker support.

Transformational leadership (TL)

To measure transformational leadership, the Global Transformational Leadership Scale

was used (Carless et al., 2000). It is a short scale with seven total items. Initial evidence

indicates that it has satisfactory reliability and construct validity. The reported high correlations

between the GTL and other measures of transformational leadership suggest that the GTL is an

alternative short measure of transformational leadership with a broad range of potential.

Procedure

A 56-item survey, designed using Qualtrics software, was emailed to all classified and

unclassified staff at a mid-sized four year higher education institution located in the Midwest.

51

Results

Preliminary data analysis

Preliminary analysis of the data recognized there were some missing values. Using the

count feature in Excel each subject with missing data was evaluated to determine if more than

10% of their responses were missing. If the missing observations were greater than 10%, the

subject was deleted (Bennett, 1999). For observations missing that were less than 10%, a listwise

deletion method was used to account for missing values.

Table 2 states the descriptive statistics for each of the variables included in this study.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Mode Std. Dev.

EE 266 1.1 7.0 4.82 4.778 4.78 .943

SoM 266 1.0 5.0 4.103 4.0 4.0 .732

PsyCap 253 2.71 6.0 4.719 4.792 4.79 .587

CoW 265 1.20 5.0 3.684 3.8 4.0 .758

TL 267 1.0 5.0 3.715 4.0 5.0 1.156

Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

The primary aim of this current study was to identify the importance of four predictors to

the outcome of employee engagement. An exploratory analysis utilizing a principal components

extraction method and varimax factor rotation was run on a 56-question survey that measured

employee engagement, sense of meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-worker relationships,

and transformational leadership.

52

Employee Engagement

The principal components analysis for employee engagement had a Cronbach’s of

.873. All nine items were summed and averaged to construct the variable of employee

engagement.

Sense of Meaningfulness

The principal components factoring for a sense of meaningfulness had a Cronbach’s of

.903. All six items were summed and averaged to construct the variable of sense of

meaningfulness.

Psychological Capital

The principal components analysis for psychological capital had a Cronbach’s of .911.

All 24 items loaded onto the four factors of hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy. The

PCA revealed four components that had eigenvalues greater than one which explained 8.66%,

2.63%, 1.64%, and 1.37%. All of the 24 items were summed and averaged to construct the

variable of psychological capital.

Co-Worker Relationships

The principal components analysis for co-worker relationships had a Cronbach’s of

.934. All ten items were summed and averaged to construct the variable of co-worker

relationships.

Transformational Leadership

The principal components analysis for transformational leadership had a Cronbach’s of

.946. All seven items were summed and averaged to construct the variable of transformational

leadership.

53

All Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures were between .873 and .947 and Bartlett’s

Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (p<.0001) for all measures.

A Pearson correlation was run to assess the relationship between sense of

meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-worker relationships, and transformational leadership

to the outcome of employee engagement. Table 3 reports the correlation among all study

variables. As shown in the table, the study variables all possess a strong degree of internal

consistency reliability.

Table 3. Pearson correlation matrix

Factors 1

2 3 4 5

1. EE

(.87)

2. SoM

.685* (.90)

3. CoW

.452* .379 (.93)

4. PsyCap

.550* .428 .362 (.91)

5. TL

.411* .305 .446 .281 (.95)

*Coefficient alpha reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses, p<.001

Research Question #1: What is the relationship between a sense of meaningfulness and

employee engagement among staff at a four-year public institution of higher

education?

A Pearson’s correlation was run to explore the relationship between sense of

meaningfulness and employee engagement. There was a statistically significant, strong positive

correlation between sense of meaningfulness and employee engagement, r (266) = .68, p < .001.

54

Follow up analysis shows sense of meaningfulness explained 46% of the variability in employee

engagement.

Research Question #2: What is the relationship between psychological capital and employee


A Pearson’s correlation was run to explain the relationship between psychological capital

and employee engagement. There was a statistically significant, strong correlation between

PsyCap and employee engagement, r (250) = .55, p < .001. Follow up analysis shows PsyCap

explained 30% of the variability in employee engagement.

Research Question #3: What is the relationship between co-worker relationships and employee


A Pearson’s correlation was run to explain the relationship between co-worker relations

and employee engagement. There was a statistically significant, moderate correlation between

co-worker relationships and employee engagement, r (263) = .45, p < .001. Further analysis

revealed co-worker relationships explained 20% of the variability in employee engagement.

Research Question #4: What is the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors

and employee engagement among staff at a four-year public institution of higher education?

A Pearson’s correlation was run to explain the relationship between transformational

leadership and employee engagement. There was a statistically significant, moderate correlation

between transformational leadership and employee engagement, r (264) = .41, p < .001.

Transformational leadership explained 17% of the variability in employee engagement.

Individuals reported they were more likely to experience employee engagement when

they reported, at a minimum, one of the following conditions: a sense of meaningfulness in their

55

job, psychological capital positive co-worker relations, and a supervisor demonstrating behaviors

consistent with transformational leadership.

In regards to tolerance, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was <4, indicating minimal

concerns. The variable inflation factor for sense of meaningfulness was 1.382, 1.314 for

psychological capital, 1.432 for co-worker relationships, and 1.296 for transformational

leadership.

A regression was run (see Table 4) to numerically predict employee engagement from the

four variables included in this study.

Table 4. Regression Table

Source

B SE B t p

Sense of

Meaningfulness

.881 .058 .685 15.174 >.001

Psychological

Capital

.891 .086 .549 10.33 >.001

Co-worker

Relationships

.562 .069 .450 8.19 >.001

Transformational

Leadership

.336 .046 .411 7.31 >.001

Research Question #5: What is the relative importance of a sense of meaningfulness,

psychological capital, co-worker relationships, and behaviors associated with transformational

leadership on the outcome of employee engagement among staff at a four-year public institution

of higher education?

56

Dominance analysis (DA)

The most significant part of this study was the dominance analysis. A dominance

analysis was conducted to rank order, by importance, the predictors of employee engagement. A

dominance analysis is appropriate when the researcher is interested in the relative importance of

the predictors of an outcome (Azen & Budescu, 2003; Budescu, 1993; Budescu and Azen, 2004).

Because the predictors are assumed to be correlated, regression coefficients alone will not

adequately reflect how well one predictor does when compared to the combinations of the other

predictors. A dominance analysis calculates how much variance is accounted for in comparison

to all combinations of the other predictors presented (Kath et al., 2013). Dominance analysis

relies on estimating an R2 value for all possible comparisons of predictors as they relate to a

criterion (i.e., sense of meaningfulness, co-worker relationships, etc.) (Azen & Budescu, 2003;

Budescu, 1993). Table 5 presents relative predictive weights from the dominance analysis.

Table 5 presents the subset models of possible combinations of predictors to the outcome

of employee engagement. The first column, labeled subset models, contains all 15 subset models

and delineates which predictor(s) are entered into each subset model. The second column,

labeled R2 presents the total R2 accounted for by each subset model. The subsequent columns

report the unique R2 contributions of specific predictors, both alone and in the presence of all

other predictors. For example, the first row in Table 5 demonstrates that the subset model of

sense of meaningfulness accounts for approximately 47% of the variance in employee

engagement. Continuing along the row to the unique predictor contributions, psychological

capital accounts for approximately 8% of the variance above and beyond the 47% accounted for

by sense of meaningfulness; co-worker relationships account for an additional 3.6%; and

57

transformational leadership behaviors contribute an additional 4.1% of variance to employee

engagement.

Total R2 values listed in Table 5 rows that contain subset models with two or more

predictors are interpreted as joint variance accounted for in the criterion (employee engagement).

For example, in the subset model of sense of meaningfulness-psychological capital, both

predictors jointly accounted for approximately 55% of the variance of employee engagement.

Additionally, co-worker relationships added a unique 1.8% variance and transformational

leadership added 2.6% variance after controlling for sense of meaningfulness and psychological

capital. The subset model including all four predictors indicated that these predictors accounted

for approximately 58% of the variance in employee engagement.

Table 5 contains average estimates of individual predictors by subset models with one

predictor subset models with two predictors, and subset models with three predictors. These

rows represent the average unique contribution of an individual predictor to employee

engagement averaging across all subset models with only one additional predictor, subset models

with a combination of any two predictors and a predictor’s unique contribution after controlling

for the other three predictors. For example, sense of meaningfulness contributes roughly 29%

unique variance to employee engagement averaging across all subset models with only one

predictor; approximately 19% unique variance averaging across all subset models with

combinations of two predictors; and 16% unique variance (controlling for the variance accounted

for by all other three predictors).

58

Table 5. Dominance analysis for four predictors to the outcome of employee engagement

Additional contribution of

_________________________________________________

Subset model R2 SoM PsyCap CoW TL

Null (no predictors) .4663 .3153 .2063 .1637

Models with 1 predictor

SoM .4663 - .079 .0365 .0412

PsyCap .3153 .23 - .0735 .068

CoW .2063 .3012 .1825 - .0497

TL .1637 .3438 .2196 .0973 -

1 Predictor Average .29 .16 .07 .05

Models with 2 predictors

SoM, PsyCap .5453 - .0182 .0259

SoM, CoW .5028 - .0607 - .02

SoM, TL .5075 - .0637 .0153 -

PsyCap, CoW .3888 .1747 - - .0279

PsyCap, TL .3833 .1395 - .0334 -

CoW, TL .256 .2668 .1607 - -

2 Predictor Average .19 .1 .02 .02

Models with 3 predictors

SoM, PsyCap, CoW .5635 - - - .0146

SoM, PsyCap, TL .5228 - - .0069 -

SoM, CoW, TL .5712 - .0553 - -

PsyCap, CoW, TL .4167 .1614 - .0069 -

Unique Contribution .16 .0553 .0069 .0146

Model with all 4 predictors

- - - - -

SoM, PsyCap, CoW, TL .5781 - - - -

Dominance analysis yields weights that can be used to determine dominance. Dominance

is explained based on which predictors explain the most variance, even when other predictors

explain some of same variance. Dominance analysis calculates weights on three levels within a

given number of predictors: complete dominance, conditional dominance, and general

59

dominance (Budescu,1993; Azen and Budescu, 2003). The three levels of dominance (complete,

conditional, and general) are related to each other in a hierarchical fashion: complete dominance

implies conditional dominance, which, in turn, implies general dominance. General dominance

does not imply conditional dominance and conditional dominance does not necessarily imply

complete dominance.

Complete dominance happens when a predictor has a greater dominance weight, or

average additional R2 in every possible combination of comparisons. Conditional dominance is

the middle level of dominance and is determined by examining the additional contribution to R2

and averaging them within predictors. General dominance averages the overall additional

contributions of R2.

The statistical software R was used to run the dominance analysis to determine complete,

conditional and general dominance of the four predictors of employee engagement. R generated

results that identified the level of dominance based on the predictor combinations.

The numbers presented in table 6 represent the average change in R2 of the focal

predictor when added to regression equations with different subsets of the other predictors.

Table 6. Average Contribution to R2 Across Model Size (number of variables in the model)

SoM PsyCap CoW TL

Model with 0 predictors .4663 .3153 .2063 .1637

Model with 1 predictor .2917 .1604 .0674 .0530



Overall Average .2738 .1565 .0757 .0640

Note: sample size for analyses varies from 251 to 266.

60

Table 7 shows that sense of meaningfulness had complete dominance over psychological

capital, co-worker relations, and transformational leadership. Psychological capital had complete

dominance over co-worker relations and transformational leadership. Co-worker relations had

general dominance over transformational leadership.

Table 7. Dominance summary table

Summary Table

Complete

Dominance

Conditional

Dominance

General

Dominance

SoM>PsyCap 1 1 1

SoM>CoW 1 1 1

SoM>TL 1 1 1

PsyCap>TL 1 1 1

PsyCap>CoW 1 1 1

CoW>TL 0 0 1

Table 8 summarizes all of the comparisons for each pair of predictors. A value of 1

means dominance has been established. A value of 0 means dominance has not been established.

An “1” in the column means the first predictor in the column contributes more than the second

predictor in the column. A “-1” means the second predictor in the column contributes more than

the first predictor in the column. The column on the far left introduces a predictor to the model

and may or may not change the level of dominance. For example, when co-worker relations and

global transformation leadership were compared, co-worker relations had complete dominance

over global transformational leadership and when psychological capital, alone, were introduced

to the model, co-worker relations continued to have complete dominance over global

transformational leadership. However, when the predictor of a sense of meaningful was

introduced into the model, global transformational leadership had complete dominance over co-

61

worker relations and when psychological capital was additionally added to the model, global

transformational leadership continued to have complete dominance over co-worker relations.

Regardless of additional combinations, a sense of meaningfulness had complete

dominance over the other predictors, alone or when one or more additional predictors were

introduced.

Table 8. Dominance relationships among all pairs of predictors

Complete Dominance Table

SoM,

PsyCap

SoM,

CoW

SoM, TL PsyCap,

CoW

PsyCap,

TL

CoW,

TL

No predictors 1 1 1 1 1 1

SoM 1 1 -1

PsyCap 1 1 1

CoW 1 1 1

TL 1 1 1

SoM, PsyCap -1

SoM, CoW 1

SoM, TL 1

PsyCap, CoW 1

PsyCap, TL 1

CoW, TL 1

Average 1 1 1 1 1 0

Summary of results

Sense of meaningfulness has complete dominance over the other three predictors, making

it the strongest predictor of employee engagement when taking into consideration psychological

capital, co-worker relations, or transformational leadership. Psychological capital has complete

dominance over the other two predictors, making it the second strongest predictor of employee

engagement when taking into consideration co-worker relations and transformational leadership.

Finally, co-worker relationships had general dominance over transformational leadership,

62

making it the third strongest predictor of employee engagement leaving transformational

leadership as the weakest predictor of employee engagement. However, co-worker relationships

and transformational leadership are extremely close because when a sense of meaningfulness and

psychological capital are introduced into the model transformational leadership becomes a

stronger predictor of employee engagement than co-worker relationships.

A sense of meaningfulness was the strongest predictor of employee engagement,

followed by psychological capital, co-worker relationships, and transformational leadership. In

respect to Kahn’s model of employee engagement, sense of meaningfulness was the strongest

predictor of engagement followed by psychological availability and finally, psychological safety.

This chapter explained the results of the research proposed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.

Chapter 5 will discuss the implications associated with the findings of this study and future

research recommendations.

63

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION

Introduction

In today’s highly competitive business environment filled with rapidly advancing

technologies, constant change, and demand for talent, organizations are seeking strategies for

attracting and retaining employees who bring the best of themselves to the workplace. The

phenomenon of employee engagement has gained a considerable amount of attention in recent

years as studies have shown it to be a crucial predictor of job and organizational performance.

Engaged employees bring their head, heart, and feet to the workplace. They approach their job

with vigor, feel a sense of value and worth to what they do, and demonstrate optimism and

resiliency, resulting in better job performance.

This study was grounded in Kahn’s (1990) theory of employee engagement. Kahn

(1990) states that there are three psychological conditions that must be met in order for

engagement to exist. The first condition is a sense of meaningfulness, where an employee feels

worthwhile, useful, and valuable. The second condition Kahn references is psychological safety

where an employee is able to be themselves without fear of negative consequences. The final

condition Kahn refers to is that of psychological availability where an employee feels they the

personal resources to complete the tasks associated with their job.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative importance of the psychological

conditions necessary for employee engagement. This study examined engagement in the context

of the job itself (sense of meaningfulness), the relationships in the work environment

64

(psychological safety), and what the individual brings to the job (psychological availability). A

quantitative study was conducted on staff in an institution of higher education located in the

Midwest. A dominance analysis was conducted in order to determine the relative importance of

the psychological conditions critical to employee engagement. The factors of a sense of

meaningfulness, psychological capital, co-worker relationships, and transformational leadership

were the units of analysis used in the study. In this chapter, a summary of the research is

presented and findings of the study are discussed and interpreted. The significance of this

research is further discussed, limitations are presented, and recommendations for future research

are suggested.

Summary of Findings

The initial findings of this study support the current literature that states a sense of

meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability are statistically significant

predictors of employee engagement. To reiterate, psychological safety was measured by taking

into consideration an individual’s relationship with co-workers and the leadership style,

specifically, transformational leadership, of his or her direct supervisor. Psychological

availability was measured by examining an individual’s level of psychological capital. The

valuable contribution this research makes to Kahn’s theory of engagement is that it denotes the

relative importance of each psychological condition on the outcome of engagement. So, rather

than simply knowing all three psychological conditions contribute to employee engagement, this

study provided evidence stating that a sense of meaningfulness is the strongest contributor to

employee engagement followed by psychological availability and finally by psychological

safety. However, the order of the strength associated with the transformational leadership and

co-worker relationships predictors changed when the factors of sense of meaningfulness and

65

psychological capital were included in the model. Statistically speaking, transformational

leadership is the weakest predictor of engagement, considering the other three factors in this

study, but there are situations where the co-worker relationships was weaker.

Discussion and Interpretation of Findings

The results of this study confirmed and expanded upon Kahn’s theory of employee

engagement by concluding the relative importance of his three psychological conditions of

engagement.

This study concluded that when employees feel a sense of meaningfulness in their job,

they are more likely to be engaged. Kahn’s employee engagement theory states that a sense of

meaningfulness is one of the psychological conditions that must exist in order for employee

engagement to occur (Kahn, 1990). Employees experience a sense of meaningfulness when they

perceive their work to be purposeful, significant, and valuable. This study reported a sense of

meaningfulness explained a considerable amount of variability (46%) in employee engagement.

This study concluded that when employees have psychological capital, they are more

likely to be engaged. Psychological capital significantly contributes to employee engagement.

Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement proposes that psychological availability is one of the

psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement to occur. Factors associated with

psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2007) bear a close resemblance to Kahn’s (1990) definition

of psychological availability. Individuals possessing psychological capital have confidence in

themselves to do their job and put forth the necessary effort to accomplish challenging tasks.

When faced with adversity they bounce back and achieve success. Other observations of

individuals high in psychological capital include positively attributing success to themselves and

66

demonstrating perseverance toward goals in order to succeed. This study reported that 30% of

the variability in employee engagement was explained by psychological capital.

Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement proposes that psychological safety is one of the

psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement to occur. Psychological safety

refers to the safety an individual has to be who they are without fear of negative consequences.

Positive co-worker relationships and supervisors demonstrating transformational leadership

behaviors contribute to the psychological safety an individual experiences in the workplace.

This study concluded that when employees experience positive co-worker relationships,

they are more likely to be engaged. Positive co-worker relationships significantly contribute to

employee engagement. Positive co-worker relationships and supervisory behaviors consistent

with transformational leadership both contribute to an employee’s sense of psychological safety.

A positive relationship with co-workers tends to exist when interactions are rewarding, respect is

mutual, and appreciation is shared. Furthermore, when co-workers listen to and value the

contribution of others and know what each other brings to the work environment, positive

relationships are likely to ensue. This study reported 20% of the variability in employee

engagement was explained by positive co-worker relationships.

This study concluded that when employees have supervisors who demonstrate behaviors

associated with transformational leadership, they are more likely to be engaged.

Transformational leadership significantly contributes to employee engagement. Supervisors who

demonstrate behaviors consistent with transformational leadership contribute to an employee’s

sense of psychological safety. Transformational leadership behaviors include communicating a

clear and positive vision of the future. Supervisory behaviors supporting transformational

leadership theory can be recognized by treating others as individuals and encouraging their

67

development while and recognizing them for job performance. They foster trust and create a

cooperative environment among those they supervise. They encourage problem solving by

looking at problems from various perspectives and questioning assumptions. This study reported

17% of the variability in employee engagement was explained by supervisors demonstrating

behaviors consistent with transformational leadership theory.

Based on the results from the dominance analysis the most important predictor of

employee engagement, considering all predictors included in this study, is a sense of

meaningfulness. These findings support recent studies suggesting that a sense of meaningfulness

may be the most important factor associated with the level of engagement experienced by an

employee (Albrecht, 2013; Shuck & Rose, 2013; Bersin, 2015; Farlie, 2011; Johnson and Jiang,

2016; Stringer, 2008). Psychological availability, measured by psychological capital, was the

second strongest predictor and psychological safety, measured by positive co-worker

relationships and transformational leadership, was the weakest predictor when taking into

consideration the other two factors.

One of the, shall I say, more interesting aspects of this study, was the minimal role

leadership played as a predictor of engagement. We can conclude from these findings that even

if a supervisor does not demonstrate transformational leadership behaviors, an employee will still

be engaged if he or she views their job as meaningful, especially if they have the virtues of hope,

optimism, resilience and self-efficacy. A positive attitude toward a job you deem to be valuable

and worthwhile may be all you need to be engaged. From the opposite perspective, a positive

relationship with co-workers, where an employee works directly for a supervisor who displays

behaviors associated with transformational leadership may not be enough to experience

engagement in a job.

68

Significance of the Study

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on employee engagement as it relates to

the importance of the predictors of engagement. The results of this study emphasize the

importance of a sense of meaningfulness an employee experiences to levels of engagement. The

greater the sense of meaningfulness an employee experiences, the greater the likelihood of

engagement, regardless of their level of psychological safety or psychological availability.

Human resource professionals are often tasked with the job of assessing engagement

levels within an organization and designing and implementing learning and development

programs or processes created for improving current engagement scores. Organizations familiar

with the concept of engagement have indicated frustration with the lack of solutions to move the

needle of engagement higher (Bersin, 2015). As organizations struggle to identify the key

contributors to employee engagement and ultimately, organizational performance, this study not

only examined known predictors of engagement, but identified, of the predictors, which one(s)

carried the greatest weight. Many organizations have limited resources, including people, time,

and money, so being aware of the best investment that would generate the greatest impact can

only strengthen organizations.

Implications

Knowing that a sense of meaningfulness is the strongest predictor of engagement,

organizations should make it a priority to focus their resources on developing policies, practices,

and procedures that increase the sense of meaningfulness an employee feels about his or her job.

Since a sense of meaningfulness is a reflection on how an employee views the job itself, gaining

an understanding of what an employee values and the contribution they believe their job makes

to the mission of the organization can’t be minimized. That may involve an innovative

69

onboarding process or educating people in the organization on job crafting and job design.

Creating leadership development programs that help leaders learn how to create an environment

that encourages employees to experience a sense of meaningfulness in their job or creating

programs that help employees discover where their strengths lie and how to put job crafting into

their own hands may both prove to be beneficial.

Psychological availability, as measured by psychological capital, was the second

strongest predictor of engagement and encompasses what an individual brings to the job. An

employee who embraces the characteristics of hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy is

more likely to experience work engagement that someone who doesn’t. If organizations start

focusing on ways to develop psychological capital in current employees, employee engagement

has the potential to increase. Research studies have concluded that psychological capital can be

developed through micro training modules (Luthans et al., 2006). Engaging in learning sessions

that have the potential to increase an individual’s belief they have in their ability to achieve a

goal, their ability to make positive attributions to their future success, their ability to persevere

toward goals, and their ability to bounce back from adversity, can lead to an increase an

individual’s psychological capital, and ultimately, their level of employee engagement. The

previous implication address what organizations can do with existing employees, but what about

potential candidates for hire? Knowing psychological capital, a factor associated with

psychological availability, is something an individual brings with them to the job, organizations

may want to consider how their employee selection process can screen job candidates for

psychological capital before hiring them. This may give organizations a leg up on hiring

employees with greater potential to be engaged.

70

In order to gain a better understanding of how to enhance psychological safety, creating

an environment conducive to positive co-worker relationships should be a priority. Imparting a

significant amount of socialization during an organization’s onboarding process can increase the

importance of building positive collaborative relationships in the workplace. Benchmarking

what other organizations do to encourage positive co-worker relationships may shed light on

possible practices to implement. Training and development initiatives geared toward building

trust in the workplace followed by organizational leaders who demonstrate those same practices

can go a long way to create an environment that supports positive co-worker relationships.

Practitioners focusing on a way to build positive connections and encourage recognition and

reciprocal support from co-workers would help to build a psychologically safe work environment

conducive to employee engagement.

While transformational leadership was the least predictive of employee engagement next

to the other predictors in this study, alone, transformational leadership was still a significant

predictor of engagement. Creating learning and development initiatives as well as performance

management systems that assess, educate, recognize, and reward transformational leadership

behaviors demonstrated by people in positions of authority encourages and works to create an

environment ripe for engagement.

Limitations

Results from this study cannot support inferences regarding the causal relationship

between the examined variables because the research design was cross-sectional in nature. The

culture of the university where the staff population was surveyed was under considerable

financial stress with impending cuts on the horizon and low levels of morale. The negative

culture at the time of survey completion may have had an influence on the results. The influence

71

may have positive or negatively influenced the results. Possibly only those who were engaged

chose to respond to the survey, influencing the results. Another limitation of this study relates to

the generalizability of the findings beyond the staff at the same university. Since the only

population participating in the survey were from the same university, generalizing to other

similar universities is not acceptable. The results did not differentiate salaried versus hourly staff

members, not accounting for any inherent differences. The assumption was made that measuring

co-worker relationships and transformational leadership was sufficient for psychological safety,

whereas other factors may have been missing. Self-reporting on survey instruments may have

the potential for bias in the data results and finally, the instruments used to measure the three

psychological conditions of engagement are not the only and may not be the best instruments to

measure those predictors.

Recommendations for Future Research

From a scholarly perspective, examining the predictors to a sense of meaningfulness

would create clearer connections to what, specifically, creates a sense of meaningfulness in one’s

job. A qualitative study may add additional insight into what leads an individual to feel a sense

of meaningfulness in their job. In addition, to what degree might the level of psychological

capital an individual brings to the job play a role in the sense of meaningfulness they experience?

To what extent, if any, might the leadership style of their direct supervisor have an influential

role in the sense of meaningfulness experienced and what about the relationship they have with

co-workers? While transformational leadership was one of the lowest predictors of engagement

in this study, as it related to the other predictors, it still had a significantly positive relationship to

employee engagement, so it isn’t irrelevant. Examining various leadership styles and their

relationship to employee engagement would add greater insight into how leadership contributes

72

to employee engagement. Additional research examining to what degree might an engaged

employee influence a sense of meaningfulness, co-worker relationships, and other variables

evidenced to influence the outcome of engagement would increase what we know about the

predictors of engagement.

Additional insights regarding what factors contribute to a sense of meaningfulness an

employee feels with his or her job will provide practitioners with an understanding as to where to

apply resources to improve engagement within their organization. Since this psychological

condition is the strongest predictor of engagement, it would be advantageous for researchers to

start there with engagement initiatives.

When considering future research as it relates to psychological availability, findings from

an experimental study of learning and development initiatives designed to increase psychological

capital would provide practitioners with the tools they need to increase engagement scores within

their organization. A study examining the predictors of psychological capital could further

inform strategies for increasing an individual’s psychological capital. In what ways might

transformational leadership contribute to an increase in psychological capital? In what ways

does an employee’s sense of meaningfulness they feel in their job contribute to psychological

capital?

This study focused on co-worker relationships and transformational leadership to create

the psychological condition of psychological safety. Further research could examine the

predictors and the environmental conditions that contribute to positive co-worker relationships.

These predictors could include the factors from this study. Further understanding of those

concepts would allow practitioners to know where to focus initiatives. Future research could be

used to determine what transformational leadership behaviors contribute the most to the sense of

73

meaningfulness an employee feels with his or her job, psychological capital, and positive co-

worker relationships. Exploring possible reciprocal relationships between the predictors from

this study and employee engagement may prove to add additional insight into the phenonmenon

of employee engagement. Evidence exists to support the notion that employees become more

engaged when their supervisor is able to boost their optimism by behaving in a manner that is

supportive of transformational leadership (Hayati et al., 2014).

Finally, this study only allowed for a discussion related to the relationships among

predictors and employee engagement. A time series study including the variables from this

study would provide a more thorough examination of possible causal relationships.

Summary and conclusion

This study was built on the belief that employee engagement leads to improved job and

organizational performance and that the psychological conditions of a sense of meaningfulness,

psychological safety, and psychological availability must be present in order for employee

engagement to be experienced. The exploration of the relative importance of the three

conditions, using four selected predictors, was the main purpose of this study in an attempt to

provide scholars and practitioners with a greater understanding of the strongest predictor of

employee engagement. It was no surprise that all four predictors of engagement showed a

significant positive relationship to the outcome of employee engagement as much of the

literature reviewed in chapter two supported that notion. The most important predictor of

engagement was a sense of meaningfulness, followed by psychological capital, co-worker

relationships, and behaviors consistent with transformational leadership theory.

Keeping in mind this study examined engagement in the context of the job itself, the

relationships in the work environment, and what the individual brings to the job, all three were

74

found to be significant predictors of employee engagement but a sense of meaningfulness had the

greatest weight. Therefore, organizations should value the individual employee and recognize

that co-worker and supervisory relationships in the work environment are important but a focus

on instilling a sense of meaningfulness in an employee’s job and creating an environment

conducive to doing just that, should be the top priority. This priority would allow organizations

to realize a greater increase in employee engagement and ideally, job and organizational

performance, than if initiatives were diverted elsewhere.

75

References

Agarwal, U. A., Blake‐Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work

behaviour and turnover intentions. Career Development International, 17(3), 208-230.

doi:10.1108/13620431211241063

Albrecht, S. L. (2013). Work engagement and the positive power of meaningful work In A.B.

Bakker (Ed.), Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, (Vol.1, pp. 237-260).

doi:10.1108/s2046-410x(2013)0000001013

Alessandri, G., Consiglio, C., Luthans, F., & Borgogni, L. (2018). Testing a dynamic model of

the impact of psychological capital on work engagement and job performance. Career

Development International, 23(1), 33-47. doi:10.1108/cdi-11-2016-0210

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).

Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of

meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193-203.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership,

innovative behavior and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes.

Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.

Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: The

relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee

engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1542-1556. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.92.6.1542

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive

organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant

attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70.

doi:10.1177/0021886307311470

Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA:

Mind Garden.

Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors

in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129-148.

76

Azen, R. (2013). Using dominance analysis to estimate predictor importance in multiple

regression. In Petscher, Schatschneider, & Compton (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis

in education and the social sciences (pp. 34-64). Oxford, England: Routledge.

Babcock-Robertson, M.E., and Strickland, O.J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic

leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Psychology, 144, 313-26.

Bakker, A.B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R.J. Burke & C.L. Cooper

(Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 50-72). Oxford, England: Routledge.

Bakker, A. B. (2015). Towards a multilevel approach of employee wellbeing. European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 839 – 843.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1071423

Bakker, A.B. (2014). The job demands-resources questionnaire. Rotterdam: Erasmus University

Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement: An overview and current

directions. European Psychologist, 19, 227–236. http://dx .doi.org/10.1027/1016-

9040/a000160

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In P.Y. Chen & C.L.

Cooper (Eds.), Work and Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Vol. III, (pp. 37-64).

Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.

Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 1-9),

Hove [England]; New York: Psychology Press.

Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. doi:10.1177/0963721411414534

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. (2003). A

multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations.

International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 16-38. doi:10.1037/1072-

5245.10.1.16

77

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‐Resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost

work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99(2), 274-284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274

Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The

role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 24(14), 2760-2779. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.751438

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands–Resources theory. In C. Cooper & P.

Chen (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (pp. 37– 64). Chichester, UK:

Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118539415.wbwell019

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands resources model to

predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83-104.

Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An

emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.

doi: 10.1080/02678370802393649

Bal, P. M., Kooij, D. T., & 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.

doi:10.1111/joms.12028

Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective

organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation,

and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 111-135.

doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0227

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. PsycTESTS Dataset.

doi:10.1037/t03624-000

78

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9 –32.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410

Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond,

Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 7-21.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 19-31. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S

Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44-51.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.

doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497

Bennett, D. A. (1999). How can I deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(5), 464-469.

Bersin, J. (2015). Becoming irresistible: A new model for employee engagement. Deloitte

Review, 16, 146-163.

Bersin, J., Argawal, D., Peltser, B., & Schwartz, J. (2015). Global human capital trends 2015.

Retrieved from http://d2mtr37y39tpbu.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/

2015/08/DUP_GlobalHumanCapitalTrends2015.pdf

Boamah, S., & Laschinger, H. (2015). Engaging new nurses: the role of psychological capital

and workplace empowerment. Journal of Research in Nursing, 20(4), 265-277.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the

motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46,

554–571. doi:10.2307/30040649

79

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Derks, D. (2016). Who takes the lead? A

multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 309-325. doi:10.1002/job.2041

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014).

Daily transactional and transformational leadership Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 87, 138 –157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12041

Broeck, V. D., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing

autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of

the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational & Organizational

Psychology, 83(4), 981-1002.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all of the rules: What the world’s greatest

managers do differently.. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Budescu, D. V., & Azen, R. (2004). Beyond global measures of relative importance: Some

insights from dominance analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(3), 341-350.

Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative

importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.

Burch, T. C., & Guarana, C. L. (2014). The comparative influences of transformational

leadership and leader-member exchange on follower engagement. Journal of Leadership

Studies, 8(3), 6-25.

Burns, J. M. (Ed.), (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Cameron, K. S. (2012). Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary performance.. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational

scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 731-739.

doi:10.1177/0002764203260207

80

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing

research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review,

14(1), 38-63. doi:10.1177/1534484314560406

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational

leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389-405.

doi:10.1023/a:1022991115523

Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining

employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review,

16(2), 199-208. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.012

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 1, 245-276.

Cattermole, G., Johnson, J., & Roberts, K. (2013). Employee engagement welcomes the dawn of

an empowerment culture. Strategic HR Review, 12(5), 250-254. doi:10.1108/shr-04-

2013-0039

Chalofsky, N. & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The

intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, Volume II, (2), 189-203. doi: 10.1177/1523422309333147

Chang, H., Hsu, H., Liou, J., & Tsai, C. (2013). Psychological contracts and innovative behavior:

A moderated path analysis of work engagement and job resources. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 43(10), 2120-2135. doi:10.1111/jasp.12165

Chaurasis, S., & Shukla, A. (2014). Psychological capital, LMX, employee engagement & work

role performance. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(2), 342-356.

Chen, Z., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the underlying processes between conflict

and knowledge sharing: A work-engagement perspective. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 41(5), 1005-1033. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00745.x

81

Chikoko, G. L., Buitendach, J. H.k & Kanengoni, H. (2014). The psychological conditions that

predict work engagement among tertiary education employees. Journal of Psychology in

Africa, 24(6), 469-474.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Psychology Press.

Conrad, S. (2012). The new rules of employee engagement. Human Resources Magazine,

Human Resources Institute of New Zealand, 28-29.

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. doi:10.1037/a0019364

Cunningham, C. T., Quan, H., Hemmelgarn, B., Noseworthy, T., Beck, C. A., Dixon, E.,

Samuel, S., Ghali, W. A., Sykes, L. L., Jette, N. (2015). Exploring physician specialist

response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15, 32.

Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study.

Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.

Danyal, B.C. & Johnstone, D.B. (2011). International trends in public and private financing of

higher education. Prospects, 41(1), 157-175. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9180-z

DeBraine, R., & Roodt, G. (2011). The job demands-resources model as predictor of work

identity and work engagement: A comparative analysis. SA Journal of Industrial

Psychology, 37(2), 11 pages.

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. doi:

10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499

82

Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2006), “Employee well-being and job performance: where we

stand and where we should go”, in Houdmont, J. and McIntyre, S. (Eds), Occupational

Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research, Education and Practice, Vol. 1,

ISMAI Publications, Maia.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future

research. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1-9.

El Badawy, T. A., & Bassiouny, M. (2014). Employee engagement as a mediator between

transformational leadership and intention to quit. International Journal of Contemporary

Management, 13(2), 37-50.

Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic leadership and executive innovation

influence: An international multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Management

Journal, 26(7), 665-682. doi:10.1002/smj.469

Enwereuzor, I. K., Ugwu, L. I., & Eze, O. A. (2018). How transformational leadership influences

work engagement among nurses: Does person–job fit matter? Western Journal of Nursing

Research, 40(3), 346-366. doi:10.1177/0193945916682449

Fairlie, P. (2010). Meaningful work inventory: Development and initial validation. PsycEXTRA

Dataset. doi:10.1037/e628642010-001

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power

analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research

Methods, 39(2), 175-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146

Fouché, E., Rothmann, S., & Van der Vyver, C. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of

meaningful work among school teachers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43.

doi:10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1398

Fox, A. (2010). Raising engagement. HR Magazine, 55(5), 34-40.

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and

engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25.

83

Freeney, Y. & Fellenz, M.R. (2013). Work engagement, job design and the role of the social

context at work: Exploring antecedents from a relational perspective. Human Relations,

66(11), 1427-1445. doi:10.1177/0018726713478245

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Gallup Inc. (2017) State of the American Workplace [White paper] Retrieved September 1, 2018

from Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/reports/199961/7.aspx

Ghadi, M.Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work

engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, (6), 532. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.libraries.wright.edu/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110

Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of preceptors:

Predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of

Nursing Management, 18(8), 993-1003. doi:10.1111/J.1365-2834.2010.01126.X

Görgens-Ekermans, G., & Herbert, M. (2013). Psychological capital: Internal and external

validity of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) on a South African

sample. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA, 39(2), 1-12.

Grant, A.M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relationship

mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108-124.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108

Hackman, R. & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among

teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

https://news.gallup.com/reports/199961/7.aspx

84

Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work:

From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit

innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 78-91.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003

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), Hove [England];

New York: Psychology Press.

Hanif, F., Naqvi, S. R., & Hussain, K. (2015). The role of employee engagement in work-related

outcomes. Advances in Economics and Business, 3(6), 204-214.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268

Hartog, D.N.D., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus

transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational &

Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.

Hawkes, A.J., Biggs, A., & Hegerty E. (2017), Work engagement: Investigating the role of

transformational leadership, job resources, and recovery. The Journal of Psychology,

151(6), 509-531. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2017.1372339.

Hayati, D., Charkhabi, M., & Naami, A.Z. (2014). The relationship between transformational

leadership and work engagement in governmental hospitals nurses: A survey study.

SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1-7. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-25

Herbert, M. (2011). An exploration of the relationships between psychological capital (hope,

optimism, self-efficacy, resilience), occupational stress, burnout and employee

engagement. Masters thesis: Industrial Psychology.

Heyns, M., & Rothmann, S. (2017). Volitional trust, autonomy satisfaction, and engagement at

work. Psychological Reports, 121(1), 112-134. doi:10.1177/0033294117718555

85

Hicks, R., & Knies, E. (2015). Psychological capital, adaptability, coping with change, and

employee engagement in a multinational company. Journal of International Business

Disciplines, 10(2), 36-51.

Hodges, T.D. (2010). An experimental study of the impact of psychological capital on

performance, engagement and the contagion effect (Doctoral thesis) Retrieved from

Dissertations and Theses from the College of Business Administration, University of

Nebraska-Lincoln.

Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2004). In search of meaning at work. Roffey Park Institute,

Horsham.

Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and

engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 915-929.

doi:10.1002/hrm.21809

Ho, V. T., & Astakhova, M. N. (2018). Disentangling passion and engagement: An examination

of how and when passionate employees become engaged ones. Human Relations, 71(7),

973-1000. doi:10.1177/0018726717731505

Hoon Song, J., Kolb, J. A., Hee Lee, U., & Kyoung Kim, H. (2012). Role of transformational

leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of

employees' work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 65-101.

doi:10.1002/hrdq.21120

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:

relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.15281435

Imperatori B (2017), Engagement and disengagement : Drivers and organizational practices to

sustain employee passion and performance. Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51886-

2

James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age-

diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173-196.

doi:10.1002/job.681

86

Janik, M., & Rothmann, S. (2015). Meaningful work and secondary school teachers’ intention to

leave. South African Journal of Education, 35(1008), 1–13.

doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n2a1008.

Jeung, C. (2011). The concept of employee engagement: A comprehensive review from a

positive organizational behavior perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly,

24(2), 49-69. doi:10.1002/piq.20110

Jones, J. R., & Harter, J. K. (2005). Race effects on the employee engagement-turnover intention

relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), 78-88.

doi:10.1177/107179190501100208

Jung, H., & Yoon, H. (2016). What does work meaning to hospitality employees? The effects of

meaningful work on employees' organizational commitment: The mediating role of job

engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 59-68.

doi:10.1016/J.IJHM.2015.12.004

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4),

321-349. doi:10.1177/001872679204500402

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. doi:10.5465/256287

Kahn, W. A. & Heaphy, E. D. (2014). Relational context of personal engagement at work. In C.

Truss, R. Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Soane, K. (Eds.), Employee engagement

in theory and practice (pp. 82-96). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaiser, H. G. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational

and Psychology Measurement, 20, 141-151.

Kaiser, H. G. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 32-36.

Kapoor, S., & Meachem, A. (2012). Employee engagement – a bond between employee and

organization. Amity Global Business Review, 7, 14-21.

87

Karatepe, O. M., & Karadas, G. (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster

frontline employees’ satisfaction? A study in hotel industry. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1254-1278. doi:10.1108/ijchm-01-2014-

0028

Keane, D. (2013). Employee engagement 2.0. Human Resources Magazine, 18(3), 22–23.

Kompaso, S. M., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving

performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96.

doi:10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89

Kopperud, K. H., Martinsen, O., & Humborstad, S. I. (2014). Engaging leaders in the eyes of the

beholder: On the relationship between transformational leadership, work engagement,

service climate, and self-other agreement. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 21(1), 29-42. doi:10.1177/1548051813475666

Korunka, C., Kubicek, B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hoonakker, P. (2009). Work engagement and

burnout: Testing the robustness of the job demands-resources model. The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 4(3), 243-255. doi:10.1080/17439760902879976

Kotzé, M. (2018). The influence of psychological capital, self-leadership, and mindfulness on

work engagement. South African Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 279-292.

doi:10.1177/0081246317705812

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance:

An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and

work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 543-

555. doi:10.1111/joop.12022

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R. J., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work engagement among women

managers and professionals in a Turkish bank. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4),

299-310. doi:10.1108/02610150610706276

Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence strategies.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 58-72.

doi:10.1108/01437730410512778

88

Krishnaveni, R., & Monica, R. (2016). Identifying factors for developing a compatible culture to

sustain employee engagement. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 7-15.

Kuman, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of

Marketing Research, 53(4), 497-514. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.libraries.wright.edu/10.1509/jmr.15.0044

Kunte, M., & Rungruang, P. (2017). Timeline of engagement research and future research

directions. Management Research Review, 41(4), 433-452. doi:10.1108/mrr-04-2017-

0123

Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models

(5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). Burnout and work

engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual

Differences, 40(3), 521-532. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009

Larson, M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting

work attitudes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 45-62.

doi:10.1177/10717919070130010701

Laschinger, H. K.S., Grau, A. L., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2012). Predictors of new graduate

nurses’ workplace well-being: Testing the job demands-resources model. Journal of

Health Care Management, 37(2), 175-186. doi:10.1097/hmr.0b013e31822aa456

Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. In A. B. Bakker & M.P.

Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp.102-

117), Hove [England]; New York: Psychology Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational

conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,

38(2), 112-129. doi:10.1108/09578230010320064

89

Lewis, H. S., & Cunningham, C. J. L. (2016). Linking nurse leadership and work characteristics

to nurse burnout and engagement. Nursing Research, 65(1), 13-23.

doi:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000130

Li, Y., Castano, G., & Li, Y. (2018). Linking leadership styles to work engagement: The role of

psychological capital among Chinese knowledge workers. Chinese Management Studies

12(2). 433-452.

Liaw, Y., Chi, N., & Chuang, A. (2009). Examining the mechanisms linking transformational

leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: The mediating roles

of perceived supervisor and coworker support. Journal of Business and Psychology,

25(3), 477-492. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9145-x

Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W., and Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the

job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378-91.

Lockwood, N. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s

strategic role, HR Magazine, 52(3), 1-11.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freilberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership:

The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167-203.

Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological

strengths. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 15-72.

doi:10.5465/ame.2002.6640181

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the

human competitive edge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital

Management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics,

33(2), 143-160.

90

Luthans, F., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2017). Psychological capital: An evidence-based

positive approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior, 4(1), 339-366. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self‐ efficacy, Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 376-387.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weixing, L. (2005). The psychological capital

of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and

Organization Review, 1(2), 249-271.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1(01), 3-30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.; Young, S. (2009). Employee Engagement: Tools for

analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Chichester, England: Blackwell.

Mäkikangas, A., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2013). Does personality matter? A

review of individual differences in occupational well-being. Advances in Positive

Organizational Psychology, 1, 107-143. doi:10.1108/s2046-410x(2013)0000001008

Malinowski, P., & Lim, H. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Positive affect, hope, and optimism

mediate the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement, and well-

being. Mindfulness, 6(6), 1250-1262. doi:10.1007/s12671-015-0388-5

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance.

International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of

fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 209-237.

doi:10.1080/13594320500146649

91

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruoolainen, M. (2007). Job level, demands, and resources as

antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

70, 149-171.

Mavletova, A., & Couper, M. P., (2016). Grouping of items in mobile web questionnaires. Field

Methods, 28(2), 170-193.

May, D. R. (2003). Fostering the human spirit at work: Toward an understanding of the

influences on employees’ experienced meaningfulness at work. Unpublished manuscript.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.

doi:10.1348/096317904322915892

Meyer, J. P. (2013). The science–practice gap and employee engagement: It’s a matter of

principle. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 54(4), 235-245.

doi:10.1037/a0034521

Meyer, J. P., & Gagnè, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory

perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(01), 60-62. doi:10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2007.00010.x

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research. Los Angeles,

CAA: Sage.

Mills, M., Culbertson, S., & Fullagar, C. Conceptualizing and measuring engagement: An

analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3),

519-545.

Monesson, E.P. (2013). Employee engagement drives client engagement. CPA Practice

Management Forum, 9(11), 18-21.

http://ezproxy.libraries.wright.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir

ect=true&db=bth&AN=91622030&site=eds-live

92

Mortenson, T.G. (2012). State Funding: A race to the bottom. The Presidency, Winter, 26-29.

Myers, J. L., Well, A. D., & Lorch, R. F. Jr. (2010). Research design and statistical analysis (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C.R. Snyder & S. J.

Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology, (pp. 89-105). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ninawati Lihardja, R. (2013). The influence of psychological capital to work engagement and

organizational citizenship behavior. International Conference on Entrepreneurship and

Business Management, 161-171

Ohio Education Report. (2015) The real problems deserve real solutions. Columbus, OH: Ohio

Conference AAUP

Olivier, A., & Rothmann, S. (2007). Antecedents of work engagement in a multinational oil

company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(3), 49-56. doi:10.4102/sajip.v33i3.396

Othman, N., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2013). Social support and work engagement: A study of

Malaysian nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(8), 1083-1090.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01448.x

Paek, S., Schuckert, M., Kim, T. T., & Lee, G. (2015). Why is hospitality employees’

psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work

engagement and employee morale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50,

9-26. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.001

Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leadership's impact on employee engagement:

Differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs, Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 30(4), 365-385, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.6.835

https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685

93

Poulsen, M. G., Khan, A., Poulsen, E. E., Khan, S. R., & Poulsen, A. A. (2016). Work

engagement in cancer care: The power of co-worker and supervisor support. European

Journal of Oncology Nursing, 21, 134-138. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2015.09.003

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K.

S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:

Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 309-327). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Raja, M.W. (2012). Does transformational leadership lead to higher employee work engagement:

A study of Pakistani service sector firms. www.hrmars.com/journals, 2(1), 160-166.

Renn, R. W. & Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepresented

psychological state: Job characteristics model research. Journal of Management, 21(22),

279-303.

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.

doi:10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

Richardson, P.W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling

characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal

of Teacher Education, 34, 27-56. doi/10.1080/13598660500480290

Robertson, I. T., Birch, A. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Job and work attitudes, engagement and

employee performance: Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 33(3), 224-232. doi:10.1108/01437731211216443

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical

integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91-127.

doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Rostiana, N.L. (2013). The influence of psychological capital to work engagement and

organizational citizenship behavior. International Conference on Entrepreneurship and

Business Management. Sanur, Bali, November 21-22.

http://www.hrmars.com/journals

94

Rothmann, S. & Rothmann, S. Jr. (2010). Factors associated with employee engagement in

South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-12. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.libraries.wright.edu/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.925

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169

Saks, A. M. (2008). The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the

water?. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 40-43.

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. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.90.6.1217

Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational

leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: The mediating role of self-efficacy and

work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10), 2256-2266. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2648.2011.05652.x

Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). A cross national study of work engagement as a

mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116-131.

Sanyal, B., & Johnstone, D. (2011). International trends in the public and private financing of

higher education. Prospects (00331538) 41(1), 157-175. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.libraries,wright.edu/10.1007/s11125-011-9180-z

Sarah, H.L. (2009). Transformational leadership and “flow”: The mediating effects of

psychological climate (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://krex.k-

state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/1376.

Sarti, D. (2014). Job resources as antecedents of engagement at work: Evidence from a long-term

care setting. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 213-237.

doi:10.1002/hrdq.21189

https://doi-org.ezproxy.libraries,wright.edu/10.1007/s11125-011-9180-z

https://doi-org.ezproxy.libraries,wright.edu/10.1007/s11125-011-9180-z

http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/1376

http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/1376

95

Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career

Development International, 20(5), 446-463. doi:10.1108/cdi-02-2015-0025

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship

with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. doi:10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement

of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 3(1), 71-92. doi:10.1023/a:1015630930326

Schaufeli, W.B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Enhancing work engagement through the management

of human resources. In K. Naswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverks (Eds.), The individual in the

changing working life (pp. 380-402). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. & Bakker, A.B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: On the

differences between work engagement and workaholism. In R.J. Burke (Ed.), Research

companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 193-252). Northampton: Edward

Elgar.

Schaufeil, W.B. & Bakker, A.B. (2010). The conceptualization and measurement of employee

engagement. In A.B. Bakker and M.P. Leiter (Eds.) Work engagement: A handbook of

essential theory and research (pp. 10-24), Hove [England]; New York: Psychology

Press.

Schaufeli, W. B., SAlanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement

of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.

Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova M. & Bakker, A. B. (2002).

Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and

implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219-247.

doi:10.1037//0278-6133.4.3.219

96

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &

Sons.

Schmitt, A., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2016). Transformational leadership and

proactive work behaviour: A moderated mediation model including work engagement

and job strain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 588-610.

doi:10.1111/joop.12143

Seijts, G., & Crim, D. (2006). What engages employees the most, or, the ten C’s of employee

engagement. Ivey Business Journal, 70 (4), 1-5.

Selander, K. (2015). Work engagement in the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of

Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1391-1411. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-

9465-y

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress:

Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

SHRM (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring,

and increasing engagement in your organization. [White paper] Retrieved from SHRM:

https://shrm.org/foundation/ourwork/initiatives/resources-from-past-initiatives

Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature

review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304-328.

doi:10.1177/1534484311410840

Shuck, B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from the

employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training,

35(4), 300-325. doi:10.1108/03090591111128306

Shuck, B., & Rose, K. (2013). Reframing employee engagement within the context of meaning

and purpose: Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4),

341-355. doi:10.1177/1523422313503235

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

97

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the

foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.

doi:10.1177/1534484309353560

Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2014). Employee Engagement and Well-Being. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21 (1), 43-58. doi:10.1177/1548051813494240

Sihag, P., & Sarikwal, L. (2014). Impact of psychological capital on employee engagement: A

study of IT professionals in Indian context. Management Studies and Economic Systems,

1(2), 127-139. doi:10.12816/0006211

Simons, J.C., & Buitendach, J.H. (2013). Psychological capital, work engagement and

organisational commitment amongst call centre employees in South Africa. SA Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1-12.

Simpson, M. R. (2009). Predictors of Work Engagement Among Medical-Surgical Registered

Nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31(1), 44-65.

doi:10.1177/0193945908319993

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L.

(1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70(2), 321-335. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.321

Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H., & Kim, H.K. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in

effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees’

work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 65-101.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the

interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(3), 518-528.

Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The

concept of state work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work

engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 25-38). New York, NY:

Psychology Press.

98

Sorenson, S. (2013). How employee engagement drives growth. Gallup Business Journal.

http://ezproxy.libraries.wright.edu/login!url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire

ct=true&db=bth&AN=88843243&site=eds-live

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions, measurement,

and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

Storm, K., & Rothmann, S. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement

Scale in the South African police service. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4).

Stringer, C. (2008). The relationship between strategic alignment, meaningful work, and

employee engagement. Dissertation abstracts international section A: Humanities and

social sciences, 68, 3034.

Strom, D. L., Sears, K. L., & Kelly, K. M. (2014). Work engagement: The roles of

organizational justice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1). 71-82.

Swathi, S. (2013). Effective employee engagement factors. International Journal of Scientific

and Research Publications, 3(8), 1-3.

Sweetman, D., Luthans, F. (2010). The power of positive psychology: Psychological capital and

work engagement. In: Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P. (Eds.), Work Engagement: A

Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, (pp. 54-58). New York, NY: Psychology

Press.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S., (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston:

Pearson/Ally & Bacon.

Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2015). Challenge versus hindrance job demands

and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 702-725. doi:10.1111/joop.12094

Terkel, S. (1972). Working. New York: Avon Books.

99

Thompson, K. R., Lemmon, G., & Walter, T. J. (2015). Employee engagement and positive

psychological capital. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 185-195.

doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.004

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their

followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121–131.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12 .011

Van Wingerden, J., & Van der Stoep, J. (2018). The motivational potential of meaningful work:

Relationships with strengths use, work engagement, and performance. PLoS ONE 13(6):

e0197599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

Vera, M., Martínez, I. M., Lorente, L., & Chambel, M. J. (2016). The role of co-worker and

supervisor support in the relationship between job autonomy and work engagement

among Portuguese nurses: A multilevel study. Social Indicators Research, 126(3), 1143-

1156. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0931-8

Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the

resiliency scale. Journal of Nursing Management, 1, 165–178.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its

influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs.

Personnel Psychology, 6(4), 793-825.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Psychological

processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,

21(5), 901-914.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-

member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,

40(1), 82-111. doi:10.5465/257021

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal

100

Whittington, J.L., & Galpin, T. J. (2010). The engagement factor: Building a high‐commitment

organization in a low‐commitment world. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(5), 14-24.

doi:10.1108/02756661011076282

Whittington, J. L., Meskelis, S., Asare, E., & Beldona, S. (2017). Enhancing employee

engagement : An evidence-based approach.. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to Employee Engagement. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 429-446. doi:10.1177/1523422311431220

Woods, S. A., & Sofat, J. A. (2013). Personality and engagement at work: The mediating role of

psychological meaningfulness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2203-2210.

doi:10.1111/jasp.12171

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, 12, 121-141.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal

relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235-244. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003

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.

doi:10.1348/096317908x285633

Young, S. F., & Steelman, L. A. (2016). Marrying personality and job resources and their effect

on engagement via critical psychological states. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 28(6), 797-824. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1138501

Yulk, G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of

Management, 15(2), 251-289.

101

Zhang, T., C. Avery, G., Bergsteiner, H., & More, E. (2014). The relationship between

leadership paradigms and employee engagement. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1),

4-21. doi:10.1108/jgr-02-2014-0006

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics

with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization

Management, 34(5), 590-619. doi:10.1177/1059601108331242

102

Appendix – Survey

Q1 This is a dissertation study being conducted by a graduate student at the Ohio State

University. You are being asked to participate in this research survey examining employee

engagement because you are an employee of an institution of higher education. Your

participation in this survey is completely voluntary and you may skip any questions you do not

wish to answer or withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.

The following survey consist of 56 opinion questions that will take less than 10 minutes to

complete. Your responses will be anonymous and gathered through Qualtrics. No identifying

information such as your name, email address or IP address will be collected. The study will be

used for scholarly purpose only.

If you have questions for the researcher, contact Brenda Kraner,

[email protected]. For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or

to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the

research team, you may contact the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-

6251.

Q2 Which category best represents your employment status?

o unclassified staff (1)

o classified staff (2)

Q3

Work & Well-being Survey (UWES) ©

The following 9 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement carefully

and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling, select

"never". If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you feel it by selecting one of the other

six statements that best describe how frequently you feel that way.

© Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale is free for use for non-

103

commercial scientific research. Commercial and/or non-scientific use is prohibited, unless

previous written permission is granted by the authors.

104

Never (1) Almost

Never (2) Rarely (3)

Sometimes

(4) Often (5)

Very

Often (6)

Always

(7)

1. At my

work, I feel

like

bursting

with

energy. (1)

o o o o o o o

2. At my

job, I feel

strong and

vigorous.

(2)

o o o o o o o

3. I am

enthusiastic

about my

job. (3) o o o o o o o

4. My job

inspires

me. (4) o o o o o o o 5. When I

get up in

the

morning, I

feel like

going to

work. (5)

o o o o o o o

6. I feel

happy

when I am

working

intensely.

(6)

o o o o o o o

7. I am

proud of

the work

that I do.

(7)

o o o o o o o

8. I am

immersed

in my

work. (8) o o o o o o o

105

9. I get

carried

away when

I'm

working.

(9)

o o o o o o o

Q4 The following statements are about your job. Using the scale provided, indicate the degree to

which you agree with each statement.

Strongly

disagree (1) Disagree (2)

Neither agree

nor disagree

(3)

Agree (4) Strongly agree

(5)

1. The work I

do on this job

is very

important to

me (1)

o o o o o

2. My job

activities are

personally

meaningful to

me. (2)

o o o o o

3. The work I

do on this job

is worthwhile.

(3) o o o o o

4. My job

activities are

significant to

me. (4) o o o o o

5. The work I

do on this job

is meaningful

to me. (5) o o o o o

6. I feel that

the work I do

on my job is

valuable. (6) o o o o o

106

Q5 These following statements are about your co-workers. Using the scale provided, indicate

the degree to which you agree with each statement.

107

Strongly


Neither agree

nor disagree

(3)

Agree (4) Strongly agree

(5)

1. My

interactions

with my co-

workers are

rewarding. (1)

o o o o o

2. My co-

workers value

my input. (2) o o o o o 3. My co-

workers listen

to what I have

to say. (3) o o o o o

4. My co-

workers really

know who I

am. (4) o o o o o

5. I believe

that my co-

workers

appreciate who

I am. (5)

o o o o o

6. I sense a

real

connection

with my co-

workers. (6)

o o o o o

7. My co-

workers and I

have mutual

respect for one

another. (7)

o o o o o

8. I feel a real

'kinship' with

my co-

workers. (8) o o o o o

9. I feel

worthwhile

when I am

around my co-

workers. (9)

o o o o o

108

10. I trust my

co-workers.

(10) o o o o o

109

Q6 PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ)

Below are statements that describe how you may think about yourself right now. Use the

following scales to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement.

110

Strongly

disagree (1)

Disagree

(2)

Somewhat

disagree (3)

Somewhat

agree (4) Agree (5)

Strongly

agree (6)

1.I feel

confident

analyzing a

long-term

problem to

find a

solution. (1)

o o o o o o

2. I feel

confident in

representing

my work in

meetings

with

management.

(2)

o o o o o o

3. I feel

confident

contributing

to

discussions

about our

organization's

strategy. (3)

o o o o o o

4. I feel

confident

helping to set

targets/goals

in my work

area. (4)

o o o o o o

5. I feel

confident

contacting

people

outside of my

organization

(e.g.,

suppliers,

customers) to

discuss

problems. (5)

o o o o o o

111

6. I feel

confident

presenting

information

to a group of

colleagues.

(6)

o o o o o o

7. If I should

find myself

in a jam at

work, I could

think of

many ways to

get out of it. (7)

o o o o o o

8. At the

present time,

I am

energetically

pursuing my

work goals.

(8)

o o o o o o

9. There are

lots of ways

around any

problem. (9) o o o o o o

10. Right

now I see

myself as

being pretty

successful at

work. (10)

o o o o o o

11. I can

think of

many ways to

reach my

current work

goals. (11)

o o o o o o

12. At this

time, I am

meeting the

work goals

that I have

set for

myself. (12)

o o o o o o

112

13. I usually

manage

difficulties

one way or

another at

work. (14)

o o o o o o

14. I can be

"on my own,"

so to speak,

at work if I

have to. (15)

o o o o o o

15. I usually

take stressful

things at

work in

stride. (16)

o o o o o o

16. I can get

through

difficult

times at work

because I've

experienced

difficulty

before. (17)

o o o o o o

17. I feel I

can handle

many things

at a time at

this job. (18)

o o o o o o

18. When

things are

uncertain for

me at work, I

usually

expect the

best. (19)

o o o o o o

19. I always

look on the

bright side of

things

regarding my

job. (21)

o o o o o o

113

20. I am

optimistic

about what

will happen

to me in the

future as it

pertains to

work. (22)

o o o o o o

21. I

approach this

job as if

"every cloud

has a silver

lining." (24)

o o o o o o

114

Q8 PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ)

Below are statements that describe how you may think about yourself right now. Use the

following scales to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Strongly


Somewhat

disagree (3)

Somewhat

agree (4) Agree (5)

Strongly

agree (6)

1. When I

have a

setback at

work, I have

trouble

recovering

from it,

moving on.

(4)

o o o o o o

2. If

something

can go

wrong for

me work-

wise, it will.

(7)

o o o o o o

3. In this

job, things

never work

out the way

I want them

to. (6)

o o o o o o

Q7 Global Transformational Leadership Scale

For the following statements rate your direct supervisor in terms of how frequently he or she

engages in the behavior described. Be realistic and answer in terms of how your supervisor

115

typically behaves.

116

Rarely or

Never (1)

Once in a

while (2) Sometimes (3)

Fairly often

(4)

Very

frequently, if

not always (5)

1. My

supervisor

communicates

a clear and

positive vision

of the future.

(1)

o o o o o

2. My

supervisor

treats others as

individuals,

supports and

encourages

their

development.

(2)

o o o o o

3. My

supervisor

gives

encouragement

and

recognition to

staff. (3)

o o o o o

4. My

supervisor

fosters trust,

involvement

and

cooperation

among team

members. (4)

o o o o o

5. My

supervisor

encourages

thinking about

problems in

new ways and

questions

assumptions.

(5)

o o o o o

117

6. My

supervisor is

clear about

his/her values

and practices

what he/she

preaches. (6)

o o o o o

7. My

supervisor

instills pride

and respect in

others and

inspires me by

being highly competent. (7)

o o o o o

i The combined effects of psychological conditions ...

Documents

Transcript of i The combined effects of psychological conditions ...