leader’s communication and team values shape employee engagement

Download Leader’s Communication and Team Values Shape Employee Engagement

Post on 16-Jul-2015




6 download

Embed Size (px)



Leaders Communication and Team Values Shape Employee EngagementMasaki Matsunaga, Ph.D.College of Business, Rikkyo Univ.matsunaga@rikkyo.ac.jp

2Guiding QuestionLeaders Communication and Team Valueswhich is more important to engage employeesin Japan?3What is Engagement?Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). EngagementsatisfactioncommitmentexcitementidentityCompany/organization with highly engaged employees tend to 4Why do we care about Engagement?Company/organization with highly engaged employees tend to show superior performance, including but not limited toHigher customer satisfactionGreater profitability and innovation rateLower turnover rate and human capital costIn short, highly engaged employees add values to and reduce cost of business (e.g., Bates, 2004; Harter et al., 2002).

So, what influences employees engagement level?5Leaders communication matters.What influences Engagement?EngagementTransformationalLeadershipTransactionalLeadershipEnthusiasm/encouragementIntellectual stimulationSupportive communicationExchange-basedReward & PunishmentActive interventionTeam value matters.EngagementTrust towardLeadershipPower DistanceCollectivismOnline survey data were collected from full-time employees and their team leaders working at a large ICT company in Tokyo:638 employees nested w/in 68 work teams ( N = 638 / 68 )EmployeesM = 25.8 yrs, 48% female; LeadersM = 36.6 yrs, 21% female Average team size: 9.4 members per team/leader

LeaderMemberWork TeamMethod: Hierarchical data structure67Method: Instruments & ModelTRF & TRSLeadershipMLQ5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997)Trust towardLeadershipEngagementMcAllisters (1995) scaleVoice BehaviorTeam ValueEarley & Erezs (1997) scaleGallup Workplace Audit (Q12)Detert & Burriss (2007) scale8Method: Instruments & ModelMLQ5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997)McAllisters (1995) scaleVoice BehaviorTeam ValueEarley & Erezs (1997) scaleGallup Workplace Audit (Q12)Detert & Burriss (2007) scaleTRF & TRSLeadershipTrust towardLeadershipEngagementTRF is positively associated with trust;TRS is negatively associated with trust;Trust leads to engagement[TRF/TRS Trust Engagement]9Method: Instruments & ModelMLQ5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997)Trust towardLeadershipEngagementMcAllisters (1995) scaleVoice BehaviorEarley & Erezs (1997) scaleGallup Workplace Audit (Q12)Detert & Burriss (2007) scaleTRF & TRSLeadershipTeam ValuePower distance and collectivism moderate the associations between leadership and trust/engagement [Leadership x Team values Trust/Engagement]10Results: OverallTRF & TRSLeadershipTrust towardLeadershipEngagementVoice BehaviorTRF .30**TRS .22**TRF .10*TRS .16*** p < .05. ** p < .01.Team Value.28**.47**TRF x PD Trust .36*TRS x PD Trust .25*There were no consistent patterns found regarding interaction effects re: collectivism or engagement.Model fit the data adequately: RMSEA = .01-.03, CFI = .95-.99, SRMR = .01-.05When the team has low power distance (PD), transformational leadership showed little associations with trust/engagement.When the team has high PD, however, the stronger the transformational leadership,the greater trust and engagement.11Results: Decomposed re: transformational (TRF) leadershipTrustTransformational leadership4.5



1.5EngagementTransformational leadership4.5



1.5Low PDHigh PDLow PDHigh PDResults: Decomposed re: transactional (TRS) leadershipTrustTransactioional leadership4.5



1.5EngagementTransactional leadership4.5



1.5Low PDHigh PDLow PDHigh PDAs for transactional (TRS) leadershipWhen the team has low power distance, the less TRS leadership, the more trust (but not engagement).When the team has high power distance, TRS leadership had little impact on trust/engagement.1213Discussion: So what?If you want to engage employees, transformational leadership is the way to go.TRF enhances trust and engagement, while TRS can harm them.There is a time and place, however, to exercise transformational leadership.Team with low PDperhaps consisting of individualistsis not susceptible to the effects of TRF (and they tend to distrust a leader if s/he utilizes transactional leadership). 14Discussion: Why so? And now what?Leadership Trust/Engagement?High-PD members respect their leader and respond well tothe leaders support and inspirational approach, whereaslow-PD members are autonomous and unaffected by leaders.- OR - maybe members working style drives leadership?What is it about leadership?Need to unpack the effects of TRF/TRS leadership to identifyspecific communication behavior that drives the found patterns.What is it about engagement?Need to explore how engagement drives business outcomes.15Summary of overall resultsTRF & TRSLeadershipTrust towardLeadershipEngagementVoice BehaviorTeam ValueThe linkage of leadership between trust and engagement are moderated by team values (esp. power distance).TRF enhances trust, which, in turn, leads to engagement[TRF (+) Trust (+) Engagement].TRS is negatively associated with trust, and thereby associated with reduced engagement [TRS () Trust Engagement].

16References to the works cited in this presentationBass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range of leadership: Manual for the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Palto Alto, CA: Mind Garden. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44-51.Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive. NY: Oxford University Press.Gallup Organization. (1993-1998). Gallup workplace audit. Princeton, NJ: Author.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, 268-279.McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management Journal, 38, 24-59.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.


View more >