Work engagement

In 2001, Demerouti and her colleagues argued that there should be a new and more positive approach to human behaviour for use in labour and organizational psychology (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001). Although previous research studies focused mainly on explaining negative phenomena such as burnout syndrome and depression (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, Reference Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter2001; Maslach & Leiter, Reference Maslach and Leiter2008) as opposites of work engagement (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, Reference Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter2001; Halbesleben, Reference Halbesleben2010), it was the research done by Demerouti and her colleagues that prompted a new generation of researchers to pay greater attention to positive emotions. Demerouti and her colleagues argued that being happy and optimistic can be learned, and 10 years of thorough study has indeed shown that work engagement can in fact be developed. Employees who are mostly optimistic and who believe that life has a positive meaning for them often create more opportunities and are better equipped to seize them. These employees tend to be extremely enthusiastic and happy about the things they do, they take decisive action as soon as they notice that they are operating less effectively and they take pride in their jobs. In sum, their work is what makes them content. Following Kahn’s (Reference Kahn1990) definition of engagement, Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010) argue that work engagement is an important motivational concept that is not only restricted to job performance per se, but also offers a wider perspective concerning the employee himselfFootnote ¹. This wider perspective paints a picture of individuals who are able to make their own decisions concerning the tasks and activities in which they wish to invest their physical, cognitive and affective energy. As such, engagement is a concept that describes how employees harness themselves in their organizational roles by converting their energy into affective, cognitive and physical labours (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010: 619). Schaufeli and his colleagues also add that it is precisely this process that can promote behaviours that will ultimately result in a persistent, positive affective-motivational state of fulfilment (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker2002). Because of their positive attitude and their high levels of activity, engaged employees create their own positive feedback in the form of appreciation, credit and success. Engaged employees also prove to be very active outside their jobs (Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001; Bakker, Reference Bakker2009). They are enthusiastic and positive, not only about their work but also about what they do in their leisure time, and they communicate their engagement to others.

Proponents of this recent and more positive psychological approach do not claim to have discovered anything new, but simply underline the importance of further research on these positive employee characteristics (Luthans & Youssef, Reference Luthans and Youssef2007). The reason why there has been a sharp increase in the number of studies on work engagement over the past few years is not uniquely related to today’s increased interest in positive psychology – that is, the scientific study of human strength and optimal functioning. The increase in the number of studies on the positive phenomena of intrinsic work motivation is mainly due to the frequently demonstrated relationship between work engagement and organizational performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, Reference Rich, Lepine and Crawford2010; Cole et al., Reference Cole, Walter, Bedeian and O’Boyle2011). A growing number of studies demonstrate the link between levels of work engagement and the level of service orientation (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, Reference Salanova, Agut and Peiró2005; Xanthopoulou et al., Reference Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti and Schaufeli2008a), how engaged employees are assessed (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, Reference Bakker, Demerouti and Verbeke2004), the level of organizational commitment (Hallberg & Schaufeli, Reference Hallberg and Schaufeli2006; Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Salanova, Reference Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli and Salanova2006), and finally the link between levels of work engagement and the organization’s sales (Xanthopoulou et al., Reference Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli2009).

Work engagement is characterized by vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker2002; González-Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, Reference González-Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker and Lloret2006). Vigour can be described as high levels of energy and mental resilience shown during work, the willingness to invest effort in work and the degree of persistence when work is difficult. Absorption refers to the state in which an individual is highly focused on and positively engrossed in work. When absorbed, people feel that time passes quickly and that it is difficult to stop working. Dedication refers to the state that people are in when they have a sense of their own significance and are feeling inspired, challenged and enthusiastic. Dedication is related to a strong sense of commitment to and engagement with work: work is perceived as inspiring and evokes feelings of pride and enthusiasm (Bakker & Schaufeli, Reference Bakker and Schaufeli2008). Bakker (Reference Bakker2009) formulated four reasons why engaged employees perform better than non-engaged individuals. Engaged employees (1) frequently experience positive emotions such as happiness, pleasure and enthusiasm; (2) tend to have better health; (3) communicate their engagement to others and they also (4) take responsibility and the initiative for creating their own work-related and personal resources. It is especially the level of dedication, as a feature of their work engagement, which may be a highly important predictor of individual and organizational performance (Kodden, Reference Kodden2011).

Although personal and work-related resources may initially be created by engaged employees themselves in specific situations, they are also important conditions for the maintenance of engagement (Bakker, Reference Bakker2009; Xanthopoulou et al., Reference Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli2009; Halbesleben, Reference Halbesleben2010). Personal and work-related resources consist of permanent personal sources and work sources that protect employees against the negative effects of labour, such as burnout syndrome for instance. As indicated by Bakker (Reference Bakker2009), these sources give individuals access to a wide range of physical, social and personal resources, which are particularly useful and effective in times of hardship and adversity. In addition, they contribute to the realization of work goals as well as the promotion of personal growth and development (Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001). The term ‘personal resources’ in this case refers to personality traits such as an individual’s degree of optimism, self-esteem, stress-resistance and self-efficacy. The more effectively individuals can access such personal resources, the more they will increase their control over certain situations, which will enable them to deal with demanding circumstances more easily (Hannah et al., Reference Hannah, Avolio, Luthans and Harms2008). This, in turn, reduces feelings of stress and increases the degree of engagement they experience. A study carried out in South Africa (Storm & Rothmann, Reference Storm and Rothmann2003) demonstrated that engagement is also related in part to personality traits such as extraversion and emotional stability. A Dutch study (Mostert & Rothmann, Reference Mostert and Rothmann2006), moreover, indicated that the strong relationship between engagement and personality traits can also be seen in terms of a low degree of neuroticism, a high degree of extraversion and a high degree of ‘agility’ (the ability to complete a large number of consecutive tasks). It might, therefore, be possible here to speak of an ‘engaged personality type’ and argue that it is the employees themselves in particular who are responsible for their own engagement and job satisfaction – by making use of a larger number of personal resources.

In addition to personal resources, work-related resources are an important condition for the development of work engagement because they increase the potential work autonomy of individuals to take control over their own decisions and the organization of feedback, leading to higher levels of engagement. This notion is supported by a number of research studies, which show that work-related resources such as the social support provided by colleagues and superiors, growth opportunities and a varied use of competencies correlate positively with engagement (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, Reference Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli2007; Cole et al., Reference Cole, Walter, Bedeian and O’Boyle2011; Kodden, Reference Kodden2011). The possibility to create work-related resources and the availability of these are often an outcome of organizational culture (Wilderom, Reference Wilderom2011), organizational policies (Kossek, Markel, & McHugh, Reference Kossek, Markel and McHugh2003) and leadership style (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, Reference Tims, Bakker and Xanthopoulou2011; Wilderom, van den Berg, & Wiersma, Reference Wilderom, van den Berg and Wiersma2012). However, many studies also emphasize the importance of the provision of work resources, but ample studies have been conducted regarding the effects of leaders on employee engagement (Blomme, Reference Blomme2012). The effects of leadership styles on the level of engagement and the presence of resources would seem to be obvious, as it is managers who carry the main responsibility for the degree of autonomy that employees are granted. It is the managers who are responsible for performance feedback and who, in co-operation with others, determine the amount of social support that employees are offered in their work. In the following sections, we shall discuss in greater detail how leadership styles affect the number of work-related and personal resources that employees have at their disposal, all of which determine the extent to which individual engagement increases or declines. We will use Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995) taxonomy of leadership, which categorizes leadership theories based on their primary focus. Graen and Uhl-Bien introduced the following three perspectives on leadership: the leader-centred, the follower-centred and the relationship-centred approach.

The leader-centred approach in relation to engagement

Although as yet little is known about the precise effects of leadership styles on engagement, the effectiveness of leadership behaviour has been researched for many decades (Blomme, Reference Blomme2012). In the leader-centred approach, the traditional concept of leadership can be defined as ‘mutual influencing’ (Uhl-Bien & Marion, Reference Uhl-Bien and Marion2007). Yukl (Reference Yukl1989) defines leadership as the way in which individuals (leaders) purposefully influence other individuals to obtain defined outcomes. However, mutual influence is not necessarily related to the concept of leadership (Cialdini & Trost, Reference Cialdini and Trost1998). Influence is an important feature of a relationship of co-operation. For instance, if an employee asks a colleague for a favour and the colleague agrees, he may agree to the request either because he simply likes this particular colleague or because he is afraid of him. In this case, compliance is stimulated by an appeal to either sympathy or respect. The person asking for the favour can also appeal to an existing implicit or explicit company standard, which tolerates the granting of favours. In this case, an appeal is made to an obligation to comply with the norm (Turner, Reference Turner1991). Yet, in both cases, what happens is not a question of leadership (cf. Chemers, Reference Chemers2001). Only when the person making the request actually manages to persuade the other of the necessity of co-operation and only when both actors agree on a standard set of values can we speak of leadership. Leadership is involved when one or more individuals play an important role in defining collective norms and values, and in this context leadership is viewed as a group-oriented rather than a mutual process (cf. Hogg, Reference Hogg2001). Leadership behaviour may be termed effective when a leader succeeds in developing a collective set of norms and in setting goals to meet these norms.

A contrast frequently cited in leadership literature is the contrast between transactional and transformational leadership (Yukl, Reference Yukl1989; Bass, Reference Bass1997). With regard to our current perspective of engagement, Lord (Reference Lord2008) points to a possible contrast between these two types of leadership as seen in leadership theories. In transactional leadership, the focus is on influencing followers by submitting them to rules, by presenting extrinsic incentives, by closely monitoring results and by granting rewards if the outcome of follower behaviour is in line with the goals of the organization. Transactional leadership involves the definition of follower interests in terms of successful transactions with the (work) environment, and it is here that we can see a limitation: a limitation concerning control over contractual obligations. This means that a manager is predominantly concerned with defining targets and steering employees within existing frameworks. This is what Den Hartog calls ‘maintenance management’ (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, Reference Den Hartog, Van Muijen and Koopman1997), in which a manager’s guidance and leadership are characterized by ‘steering’ when performance deviates from the accepted standards. The basis of transactional leadership lies in social interaction (Hollander, Reference Hollander1995). Both the manager and the employee build psychological credit through the process of social interaction. Psychological credit is closely related to the advantages to be obtained in engaging in exchanges and co-operation.

Followers tend to follow leaders when co-operation yields sufficient benefits. An important condition for followers is not only that they reap the benefits but also that the leader is seen to be fair when distributing them (Cropanzano, Reference Cropanzano1993; Cropanzano & Greenberg, Reference Cropanzano and Greenberg1997; Colquitt, Reference Colquitt2001; Folger & Cropanzano, Reference Folger and Cropanzano2001). Followers need to see the rewards to be gained as justified in relation to the amount of effort that needs to be spent on reaping these rewards (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, Reference Haslam, Reicher and Platow2011). If followers consider the benefits to be unreasonable in relation to the level of investment needed to achieve them, they will experience psychological stress and anxiety (Folger & Cropanzano, Reference Folger and Cropanzano2001). Followers are motivated to reduce these tensions, either by reducing investments (i.e., doing less), or by trying to increase the number of benefits (in co-operation with the manager), or by ultimately ending the partnership (leaving the organization) (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, Reference Walster, Berscheid and Walster1973). Perceived fairness not only depends on perceived costs and benefits but also on the perceived performance and positioning of leaders themselves. If followers are under the impression that managers are dragging their feet or that they are being paid excessively high salaries, this will influence their sense of fairness in a number of ways (Bruins, Platow, & Ng, Reference Bruins, Platow and Ng1995). Effective transactional leadership in a business environment is thus aimed at obtaining psychological credit and maintaining a fair balance between costs and benefits as perceived by employees. If these work-related resources are not provided in the exchange process between leaders and followers, employees may consider this to be unfair and a hindrance, impeding not only the attainment of their goals but also personal growth and learning. Research shows that hindrances in obtaining work-related resources have a negative effect on levels of engagement (Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, Reference Crawford, Lepine and Rich2010). This leads us to our first proposition:

Compared with transactional leadership, transformational leadership is not so much focused on the balance between costs and benefits but focused on the initiation and management of change. Transformational leadership has four components as follows (Bass, Reference Bass1997; Bass & Riggio, Reference Bass and Riggio2006): idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration.

The first component of transformational leadership, idealized influence, deals with the importance of charismatic and inspirational leadership: to maintain their motivation, the leader must convince his followers of the need for change and explain why change is necessary. Furthermore, this charismatic aspect instils pride, faith and respect, as well as promotes an articulated sense of mission, which leads to a follower’s dependence on the charismatic acts of a leader (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, Reference Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam1996). The second component, inspirational motivation, concerns how leaders articulate a mission and a vision that appeals to and inspires followers. The supposition behind this leadership aspect is that followers are motivated to act when they have a strong sense of purpose. This vision, which encompasses high standards, optimism about future goals and the provision of meaning for the followers’ individual tasks, generates this strong sense of purpose. Inspirational motivation requires clear communication on the part of the leader in order to make a vision understandable, precise and engaging. The third component, intellectual stimulation, concerns the need to challenge followers intellectually, which includes providing feedback and challenging tasks in order to promote and develop problem-solving abilities. In terms of content, positive feedback can assist the employee in exploring various elements of the work at hand, which may lead not only to the improvement of quality but also to the stimulation of creativity and problem-solving skills. Finally, individualized consideration concerns the way in which the leader addresses the specific needs, competencies and ambitions of the followers in order to support them in their endeavours to meet their own needs, to develop their individual competencies and to achieve their ambitions. In this respect, transformational leaders can offer their employees their appreciation and support by focusing on personal needs. Positive feedback from a relational perspective may reinforce this sense of support, because this places a special emphasis not only on the appreciation for the employee but also on the acknowledgement of the degree of his investment.

Thus, transformational leadership emphasizes the ability of leaders to challenge and inspire their followers in such a way that they become willing to help the organization achieve its goals and that they identify themselves with its mission and vision. This element of transformational leadership may generate a positive attitude among employees and produce the energy that is needed to complete the various organizational tasks. Accordingly, the four elements of transformational leadership listed above offer employees access to resources such as support, specific feedback and energy in order to develop engagement. These work-related resources are an important condition to be able to cope with stressful demands and to label these as challenging stressors in pursuing personal mastery, learning and future gains (Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, Reference Crawford, Lepine and Rich2010). We, therefore, propose the following:

Reduced engagement, reduced emotional commitment and mental stress may be caused by harassment and the deprivation of autonomy on the part of the employee. These phenomena can also result from a downward shift (to employees) of task-related responsibilities that should in actual fact reside with the manager (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, Reference Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper and Einarsen2009). Various studies (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, Reference Einarsen, Hoel and Notelaers2009; Hoel et al., Reference Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper and Einarsen2009) have shown that harassment is associated with autocratic leadership. A number of authors (Block, Reference Block1987; Conger & Kanungo, Reference Conger and Kanungo1988) maintain that autocratic leadership concerns behaviour that is aimed at broadening and enhancing a manager’s position of power and at increasing dependency on the part of employees. Tourish (Reference Tourish2011) claims that when transformational aspects of leadership are solely used by a leader to establish and expand the position of power, resulting in increasing follower dependency, transformational leadership turns into what he terms ‘cultic’ leadership, which has features similar to those seen in autocratic leadership. For example, when leaders consider themselves to be the sole source of key ideas and vision and when dissent expressed by followers is punished, or when agreement with these key ideas is crucial for group membership and rewards, transformational leadership may turn into autocratic leadership (Tourish & Pinnington, Reference Tourish and Pinnington2002; Tourish, Reference Tourish2011). In this process, followers may perceive autocratic managers as micromanagers or superiors who offer little to no social support and who are merely focused on the execution of certain tasks and the subsequent attainment of business goals. The act of shifting responsibilities is in line with Den Hartog’s definition of passive leadership (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, Reference Den Hartog, Van Muijen and Koopman1997). This failure on the part of the manager to take responsibility leads to reduced involvement on the part of employees and to the latter’s perceived lack or absence of support in the execution of their business tasks. Moreover, it is not only the lack of work-related resources that hinders employees in pursuing their goals and that leads to lower levels of engagement. One important relationship that can be distinguished here is the negative relationship between anxiety and engagement. Feelings of stress may manifest themselves in the form of psychological tension, and subsequently in the form of reduced cognitive functioning and depressed mood (Gross, Reference Gross1970). Reduced levels of engagement and emotional commitment, as well as strain-induced stress, may be caused by the style of leadership a manager adopts towards his employees (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, Reference Hoel, Faragher and Cooper2004; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, Reference Tepper, Moss and Duffy2011). More in particular, it is especially autocratic leadership styles that directly lead to strain-induced stress among employees, hindering them in developing mastery and personal growth (Stetz, Stetz, & Bliese, Reference Stetz, Stetz and Bliese2006; Bloisi & Hoel, Reference Bloisi and Hoel2008; Hoel et al., Reference Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper and Einarsen2009), and as such hindering them in becoming engaged. Hence, we propose the following:

Besides transactional, transformational and autocratic leadership, a fourth approach can be distinguished: laissez-faire leadership. This particular style is characterized by a passive attitude: managers remain inactive or uninvolved and do not take responsibility when it is desirable or when they are required to do so. Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (Reference Den Hartog, Van Muijen and Koopman1997) call this style of leadership ‘passive’ as opposed to transactional and transformational leadership, which they term ‘active’. Laissez-faire leadership would seem to be incompatible with the outcomes of earlier research on engagement and the proven prerequisite of providing followers with sufficient coaching assistance, feedback and social support. This leads us to the following proposition:

Available literature on transactional and transformational leadership states that leadership is concerned with relationships of social exchange, but it fails to indicate in which situations followers actually engage in such relationships or in which situations managers are considered to be charismatic or transformational. In situations where managers merely assume that employees are loyal to the organization’s goals and in situations where radical change is taking place, this particular style of leadership can produce negative emotions and feelings of stress among followers (cf. Carey, Reference Carey1992; Terry, Reference Terry2003), thus resulting in low engagement (Jetten, O’Brien, & Trindall, Reference Jetten, O’Brien and Trindall2002). Furthermore, Kerr and Jermier (1978, in Vecchio, Reference Vecchio1987) argue that different situational factors including the cohesion of work groups (Den Hartog & Koopman, Reference Den Hartog and Koopman2005), clarity of tasks and relating goals as provided by the organization (Howell & Dorfman, Reference Howell and Dorfman1981), as well as a strong inter-dependence between members of a work group (Villa, Howell, Daniel, & Dorfman, Reference Villa, Howell, Daniel and Dorfman2003), may enhance, neutralize or become a substitute for leader behaviours as followers become less dependent on leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, Reference Den Hartog and Koopman2005; Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, Avolio, & Walumbwa, Reference Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, Avolio and Walumbwa2009). Furthermore, Erdogan, Kraimer, and Liden (Reference Erdogan, Kraimer and Liden2004) argue that employees demonstrating high work value congruence do not require a leader or other types of social support to achieve job and career satisfaction. As such, this suggests that the organizational context plays an important role in determining whether leadership styles have a positive or negative effect on employee engagement. For example, when the organizational context provides a work context that neutralizes and substitutes leader behaviours, a passive attitude on the part of managers may have a positive effect on followers’ engagement.

The follower-centred approach in relation to engagement

Besides the moderating effect of the organizational context on the relationship between leadership style and employee engagement, it can also be argued that followers tend to regard managers as less effective when they remain distant and fail to act as members of the team and the community of followers. In sum, in order to define the conditions that allow leadership to become effective from the follower’s point of view, we should study it from a follower’s perspective, commonly addressed as the follower-centred approach. In our attempts, we shall distinguish two perspectives as follows: one provided by implicit leadership theory (ILT) and one provided by social identity theory.

An important perspective in the study of leadership and the role of related stereotypes, and one that does in fact consider the position of followers, is ILT. This theory was initially developed by Meindl and colleagues in the 1990s as ‘an alternative for theories and perspectives that place great weight on leaders and on the substantive significance of their actions and activities’ (Meindl, Reference Meindl1995: 330). Lord and Maher (Reference Lord and Maher1990: 132) define implicit leadership as ‘the process of being perceived as a leader by others’. ILT proponents claim that the follower’s process of attribution is characterized by the category of leadership in which a leader is placed by the follower – leaders should fit an ideal stereotype accorded to them by followers and which adheres to certain domain specifications (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, & Giessner, Reference Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg and Giessner2006; Giessner, Van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, Reference Giessner, Van Knippenberg and Sleebos2009). This goes beyond the question of how followers perceive their leaders as seen in the leader-centred perspective; ILT considers how followers view their own roles and behaviours when engaging with their leaders and how leaders’ behaviour is aligned with these (cf. Meindl, Reference Meindl1995; Den Hartog & Koopman, Reference Den Hartog and Koopman2005;Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, & Giessner, Reference Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg and Giessner2006; Schyns, Reference Schyns2007). The more the leader’s attitudes and behaviour are aligned with prototype attitudes and behaviour that correspond with a follower’s leader stereotypes, the more the follower feels trusted by, attached to and connected with the leader (Keller, Reference Keller2003). As such, a follower will be able to demonstrate knowledge and competence to develop autonomous roles and show active participation in decision-making processes, and finally to act as effective members of the team and the community of followers (Howell & Mendez, Reference Howell and Mendez2008). As a consequence, followers will be able to develop higher levels of engagement. These considerations led us to postulate the following:

An extension of the ILT perspective and leader–follower prototypicality to predict followers’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness is leadership approached from social identity theory (Giessner, Van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, Reference Giessner, Van Knippenberg and Sleebos2009). Social identity theory puts forward the idea that followers wish to be part of a group (inclusion) in order to develop their social identity. Having a social identity means that people feel a sense of belonging. Being part of a social system gives meaning to an individual’s activities as these are then related to a wider framework, something that will, in turn, lead to a more positive self-image (Hogg, Reference Hogg2001). This social system is embedded in the direct social network of a participant and is frequently described as the ‘in-crowd’ (Hogg, Reference Hogg2001). Many researchers claim that this explains why people want to become part of a group or an organization (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel and Turner1979; Tajfel, Reference Tajfel1982; Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, Reference Cornelissen, Haslam and Balmer2007; Jetten, Haslam, Iyer, & Haslam, Reference Jetten, Haslam, Iyer and Haslam2009). Being a member of a certain group allows the development of a social identity by searching for common features among group members and by contrasting these with characteristics shared by other groups (Tajfel, Reference Tajfel1982; Hogg, Reference Hogg2001). This differentiation process aims to demonstrate that in-crowd features are deemed more positive than those of others. Being accepted by fellow in-crowd members and the development of a social identity based on shared characteristics are important needs that take priority over the execution of certain tasks (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel and Turner1979; Chemers, Reference Chemers2001). In this sense, the primary concern of individuals is to seek inclusion in a group, after which they can proceed to build their social identity through shared co-operation and interaction. Thus, the actions of an employee are primarily aimed at developing a social identity, and if it is not clear whether or not an individual is included in the group, it is the leader who will be held responsible first (Hollander, 1985). A common identity shared by all group members creates social cohesion and co-operation. This, in turn, may bring about a sense of engagement among the team members, and it can in fact be argued that particularly social cohesion and co-operation give rise to a sense of social support and autonomy, which makes constructive feedback possible. We propose the following:

The relationship-centred approach in relation to engagement

The third perspective on how leadership might influence work engagement is that of the relationship between a leader and his subordinates. An important theory that concerns these relationships is leadership–membership exchange (LMX). This approach differs from the aforementioned leader-centred approaches, both of which presume that the relationships that leaders maintain with their subordinates are similar.

LMX, originally coined by Dansereau and colleagues as vertical dyadic linkage, is a leadership theory that provides arguments why leaders differentiate between subordinates and why they create in-groups and out-groups. It follows their assumption that the time and resources needed to increase productivity are limited (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Graen and Uhl-Bien argue that in-group members have high-quality exchanges, leading to high levels of trust and obligation, whereas out-group members have low-quality exchanges, leading to lower levels of trust, respect and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995). Research studies on LMX demonstrate that individual in-group members show higher objective performance in their work, high levels of commitment, high levels of job satisfaction, strong feelings of empowerment and are less likely to leave the company (Graen & Uhl-Bien, Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995; Gerstner & Day, Reference Gerstner and Day1997; Cogliser, Schriesheim, & Castro, 1999). Dienesch and Liden (Reference Dienesch and Liden1986) describe the process of LMX as the initial interaction between leader and subordinate followed by leader delegation and starting with a first assignment or a set of tasks (Graen & Uhl-Bien, Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995). Precisely how the subordinate responds with respect to task fulfilment determines how a leader’s attributions are shaped in relation to this subordinate. These attributions will produce certain leader responses, which in turn will develop the subordinate’s attributes and subsequently produce certain responses to the leader. Thus, these steps can be characterized as a social exchange process (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995). This social interaction is characterized and influenced by dimensions including the perceived contribution made by the leader and the subordinate to serve explicit and implicit mutual goals, mutual loyalty and affection (Dienesch & Liden, Reference Dienesch and Liden1986), and finally mutual professional respect as developed in the relationship (Liden & Maslyn, Reference Liden and Maslyn1998).

Although LMX seems similar to transformational leadership, the difference is that LMX theory describes how the goals of a leader and a follower are merged (Krishnan, Reference Krishnan2004). In this respect, LMX contributes to the aforementioned follower-centred approach, which describes how follower attributes determine whether leaders are accepted and included in in-groups in terms of helping them to develop a social identity. A strong presence of these dimensions will result in high-quality levels of LMX. With high levels of LMX, members will receive social support and feedback, as well as work-related resources, which will result in high levels of engagement. Therefore, we propose the following:

Organizational culture as a moderator

During the last decade, studies on organizational theory and practice have paid considerable attention to organizational culture. In this respect, Schein defines organizational culture as the body of common beliefs, assumptions and values that are shared by members of an organization (Schein, Reference Schein1983, Reference Schein1993). Schein (Reference Schein1996) maintains that the deeper layer of organizational culture is shaped by norms and values, the underlying drivers of behaviour. It is precisely the importance of shared values determining organizational culture that makes them an extremely interesting variable where leadership styles are concerned (Frankel, Leonard, & Denham, Reference Frankel, Leonard and Denham2006; Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, Reference Kavanagh and Ashkanasy2006; Asree, Zain, & Razalli, Reference Asree, Zain and Razalli2010; Wilderom, van den Berg, & Wiersma, Reference Wilderom, van den Berg and Wiersma2012). Some authors assume that the effectiveness of leadership styles depends in part on the organizational culture within which business processes take place (Erez, Reference Erez1994; Bass & Avolio, Reference Bass and Avolio1997). Contextual factors may enhance or weaken the effectiveness of a certain leadership style, as manifestations of organizational culture may vary from business to business and as the ways in which leadership traits are perceived by employees may differ, depending on the business climate concerned. In this respect, differences in business culture between regions and countries, among individual firms and even within one single company can be distinguished. It is safe to say that an individual organization does not have one single company culture: within a firm, various groups of individuals are separated by departments, for instance, or simply by hierarchy (leaders and followers) (Smircich, Reference Smircich1983; Schein, Reference Schein1993, Reference Schein1996). There is often a set of group and department cultures that may show considerable variation. Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (Reference Den Hartog, Van Muijen and Koopman1997) also state that culture has certain moderating effects, because different types of culture influence the effectiveness of the leader. In this light, we formulate the following proposition:

Managerial implications

With our translation of the first seven propositions into three classes of leadership, we can ask ourselves what the most important lessons would be for managers who act as formal leaders and who wish to create high levels of engagement among their employees. The practical implications of our proposed research model are important for everyday business practice. In the initial sections of this paper, we described the link between performance and work engagement. We postulated that a leader plays an important role in promoting engagement on the part of followers and that aspects of leadership are related to the level of engagement. Our proposed research model is expected to yield new knowledge for managers to improve the effectiveness of their leadership behaviour. We wish to stress that the classes of leadership styles defined above are features of actual leadership behaviour demonstrated by managers, which impact the engagement levels of their employees.

Before we present concrete management implications, we wish to mention two other significant implications. The first is that the level of work engagement may well be indicative of the effectiveness of a manager’s leadership style. In this light, we wish to stress that from a leader-centred leadership perspective, a manager’s effectiveness depends on the degree to which work-related resources promoting engagement are made available. Managers may be convinced that they are providing an abundance of such resources, but if these are not appreciated – or even recognized – by employees, as discussed in the follower-centred and relation-centred leadership perspectives, this will not result in higher levels of engagement. The second implication we wish to emphasize is that the relationship between leadership styles and work engagement may be influenced by culture. Following the first implication mentioned above, we can argue that expectations regarding effective leadership styles and expectations regarding the availability of resources may well depend on organizational culture. If we consider Quinn and Cameron’s concept of organizational culture (cf. Igo & Skitmore, Reference Igo and Skitmore2006), appreciation and support may, in terms of resources, be more significant for the development of engagement in a clan culture than they are in a goal-oriented culture, in which specific feedback and concrete aims would form more obvious conditions for work engagement.

If we translate the outcomes of our investigations into managerial implications, we can formulate a number of important conclusions and suggestions for managers as well as formal leaders in business practice. These are as follows:

• ∙ Various studies have shown that engaged employees are more productive and more successful than less-engaged or non-engaged employees.

• ∙ Engagement may be attained by tapping into personal as well as work-related resources.

• ∙ Personal resources concern traits such as optimism, positive self-esteem, stress-resistance and self-efficacy. It is the employees themselves who are responsible for applying these resources.

• ∙ Work-related resources concern issues such as autonomy, social support, effective and appropriate coaching and finally job feedback. It is the leader who is responsible for providing these resources.

• ∙ Leadership styles affect the way in which employees perceive the availability of work-related resources.

• ∙ A leadership style must contain inclusive elements for establishing a leader–follower exchange relationship between managers and employees as a condition for engagement.

• ∙ We assume that inclusive and rich styles of leadership have a positive effect on employee engagement. Poor leadership styles are assumed to have a negative influence on employee engagement.

• ∙ In order to be effective, leaders should be able to adapt their own leadership style and convert it into a style that offers their workers more and better resources, thus generating increased engagement.

In this perspective, we can also conclude that organizational culture has a direct influence on the relationship between leadership, work engagement and performance.

Implications for further research

In the past decade, considerable academic evidence has been found concerning the value of work engagement for achieving organizational goals (Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001; Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2004, 2007; Schaufeli & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli and Salanova2007; Blomme, Reference Blomme2012). Yet, relatively little is known about how different leadership styles influence work engagement. However, the available literature does provide strong evidence that there is a relationship between different aspects of leadership and work engagement. We have found support for the idea that organizational culture acts as a moderator variable in this relation. A study of the literature reveals that effective leaders must use a combination of inclusive and rich leadership styles to effectively promote engagement.

Our suggestion for further research on the effectiveness of leadership in terms of work engagement would be to study specific aspects of leadership and leadership styles together and to take organizational culture and personal character traits into account as moderator variables. This conceptual framework may then be used to conduct further empirical research in order to test whether the propositions formulated in the preceding paragraphs can in fact be accepted, and to assess whether perceived organizational culture and the character traits of employees truly act as moderators in the relationship between leadership characteristics and work engagement. By reconsidering and incorporating within the framework the outcomes of engagement such as improved levels of personal and group performance, as indicated by earlier studies, current research on work engagement can be expanded and enhanced.