Leadership role in employee engagement

In order to have full access of this Article, please email us on thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk

4.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter reveals the results from the data collected primarily as described in the methodology chapter of this research study. This research focused on employees and the results were gotten from an online survey questionnaire which was based on employee’s perception of the leadership role in employee engagement with the specific focus on leadership style(s) that contributes to engagement.

4.1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS
4.1.2 RESPONDENTS: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The total number of respondents was 16 which represented 20.8% of the expected number of 77. Respondents characteristics collected included: Age, gender, company sector, profit or non-profit, length of service with the company, full time or part time, and flexible working. Table 1.0 below shows the representation of respondents from the survey questionnaire.

NO ITEM NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE IN SAMPLE
1 AGE
• 21-30
• 31-40
• 41-50
8
6
2
50.0%
37.5%
12.5%
2 GENDER
• Male
• Female
2
14
12.5%
87.5%
3 COMPANY SECTOR
• Public
• Private

6
10
37.5%
62.5%

4 PROFIT OR NON PROFIT
• Profit
• Non Profit

13
3

81.2%
18.8%

5 LENGTH OF SERVICE
• Less than a year
• 1-5 Years
• 6-10 Years
• 10 Years and above

2

8
3
3

12.5%

50.0%
18.8%
18.8%
6 PART TIME / FULL TIME
• Full Time
• Part Time

14
2

87.5%
12.5%
7 FLEXIBLE WORKING
• Yes
• No

9
7

56.2%
43.8%

Table 1.0 Frequency table of respondent profile

Out of a total of 77 expected participants that were informed of the online survey and its purpose, only 16 participants responded out of which only 2 males participated and an average age of 21-30 were represented by 50% of the total sample that took part in the entire study. The question then becomes is there a significant reason why only 2 males participated out of 16 respondents and do it have an impact on the study? In order to understand significant relationships between participant’s response and their demographics, the table 2.0 below was created to show individual participant demographics.
Participant Age Gender Company Sector Profit / Non-profit Length of service Full time/Part time Flexible working Q01-Q12 MEAN
1 21-30 F Private P 0-1 F.T YES 4.58
2 31-40 F Private NP 6-10 P.T YES 4
3 21-30 F Public P 1-5 F.T YES 3.41
4 31-40 F Public P 10+ F.T NO 4.16
5 41-50 F Private P 6-10 F.T YES 4
6 21-30 F Private P 1-5 F.T NO 3.66
7 31-40 F Public P 10+ F.T YES 3.75
8 21-30 M Private P 1-5 F.T YES 4.08
9 41-50 F Public NP 10+ F.T YES 4
10 21-30 F Private P 1-5 F.T NO 4.08
11 31-40 M Public P 6-10 P.T NO 3.25
12 31-40 F Private P 1-5 F.T NO 3.5
13 21-30 F Private P 1-5 F.T YES 3.5
14 21-30 F Public NP 0-1 F.T NO 3.83
15 31-40 F Private P 1-5 F.T NO 3.83
16 21-30 F Private P 1-5 F.T YES 4.16

Table 2.0 frequency table of individual respondent profile

From the table, the 2 male(M) participants have different demographic information whereby participant 8 which is represented by the first male participant is between the ages of 21-30 while participant 11 represented by the second male participant is between the ages of 31-40. Participant 8 works with a private sector organisation while participant 11 is with a public sector company, both organisations are profit (P) oriented but aside from that all other demographic factors are different which makes it difficult to understand their impact on the study. Could it be that males generally seldom engage themselves in voluntary studies or age gap has to do with their response rate? But then again two different age groups were represented in this study even when it’s a case of just 1 from each age group.
The last column shows the individual participant’s Q12 mean which determines the engagement level of respondent’s in their respective workplaces (Harter et al. 2006) (see section 3.9 for further discussion). Out of 7participants who don’t have the option of flexible working at their organisations, only 2 show high levels of engagement (above 4) which leads the researchers to infer that flexible working has an impact on employee engagement.
4.1.3 QUESTION 1: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 6.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency
Majority of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ representing 68.8% of the total sample. This suggests that most of the organisations that were represented in this research study were sufficiently familiar with the concept of engagement and it’s performance outcomes as reviewed in the literature chapter of this study (see chapter 2.1.3). However, some of the responses respondents gave to explain their reasons for their choices may suggest varying use and understanding of engagement in these organisations just as stated by Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina (2002) (see section 2.1.4 for further discussion). For example, one respondent said
“All managers have development plans we have recognition schemes we do Employee surveys to measure engagement”- P2
This suggests the organisation utilizes both development plans and recognition schemes to engage employees. On the other hand, another respondent said
“We use the Gallup Q12 survey and there is a huge emphasis on these figures”- P15
Which raises the issue of when employees are well aware of the emphasis the organisation places on these figures; does it not affect or influence an employee’s response/answers to their engagement questions? This suggests such an organisation may not be getting the right results from such surveys.
Another view was:
“With activities we deliver”- P16
Thus engagement in this organisation is tied to delivery outcomes of employees. However, respondents who answered ‘No’ gave reasons such as
“Employees are expected to do their job without a great deal of recognition and sometimes under undue pressure”, “no opportunity to progress”- P4 & P10
Both of which suggest these employees link employee engagement to recognition and development opportunities which they don’t see as evident in their respective organisations.

4.1.4 QUESTION 2: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 7.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency
Majority of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ representing 75% of the total sample.
This result suggests that 75% of the respondents are engaged at their respective organisations according to ADP Research Institute (2012) definition of engagement “Engagement, on the other hand, refers to employees’ commitment and connection to work as measured by the amount of discretionary effort they are willing to expend on behalf of their employer” (see section 2.1.4.2 for further discussion). Some of the open ended responses to support answers however showed varying reasons. For example this participant said:
“Flexible, effort is rewarded”- P3

This suggests that extra effort is put in because such efforts bring about a reward and not necessarily because such employee wants to help the organisation or he/she is engaged. Comparing that employee to those that gave reasons such as:
“i enjoy working there” “More than happy to work for successful organisation”. “My team is great”, “Often work late / extra hours to get the job done because I love the brand”- P5, P11 and P14
Such responses suggest more of discretionary effort such employees put in to help their organisation which supports Vance (2006) compiled review of organisational definitions of engagement (see section 2.1.4). However, this results shows that respondents seem to have varying understanding of what is termed ‘extra effort’ as well as varying engagement levels.
4.1.4 QUESTION 3: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 8.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency

Majority of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ representing 75% of the total sample. This result suggests that these respondents possess a level of pride in their respective organisations to be willing to bring in their friends to join. This result further shows the level of commitment of employees to their organizations which when combined with the result of the last question further suggests an engaged workforce just as reviewed in the literature (see section 2.1.4 for further discussion). However, some of the open ended responses to support answers show varying views. For example, considering these statements:
“It pays very well for not too much effort” “They expect a lot for their money” “The pay is good” – P9, P10 and P13
These reasons are pay related and as such do not really indicate such employees are engaged to such organisations as pay is the basis for such recommendation and not emotional ties as suggested by literature (see section 2.1.2 for further discussion). Comparing such responses to other respondents that gave reasons such as:
“Because it is a great working environment with plenty of opportunities for development”, “yes – it is a good, stable company”, “Good atmosphere and generally strong teamwork”- P1, P15 and P4
All of which show emotional and cognitive connections to their organisations and as such suggests a deeper level of connection to their respective organisations. In contrast, other respondents that answered ‘No’ to the question gave reasons that suggests emotional and cognitive connections are not present in their organisations and as such the basis for not advising a friend to join in;
“Employees aren’t valued as I believe they should be”- P3

4.1.5 QUESTION 4: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 9.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency
According to Harter et al. (2006), this is the first item on the Q12 instrument and it measures overall satisfaction with one’s own company. The other 12 questions of the instrument tend to explain why people are satisfied as well as why they become engaged.
Majority of respondents rated satisfaction levels as ‘3’ and ‘4’ representing 37.5% of total respondents respectively. However, ‘3’ is considered the average thus percentages of participants that answered rating from ‘3’ and above are 37.5%, 37.5% and 12.5% respectively. This adds up to 87.5% of respondents being satisfied with their current jobs in their respective organisations. Although a general rule of thumb states that most people tend to go for the median figure as a safe ground which in this case is ‘3’, however, ‘4’ also appears to have equal number of respondents which suggests and could be argued that such respondents including those that rated ‘5’ are quite affirmative and have strong satisfaction levels at their respective organisations.

4.1.6 QUESTION 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 10.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency

While 43.8% of respondents affirmatively chose the ‘Yes’ option, 12.5% appear to be standing in between thereby choosing the ‘I think so’ option. The results suggest at least 56.3% of total participant somewhat look up to their leaders at work for direction although the extent may vary with individual participant which was revealed in some of the reasons they gave to support their answers. For example:
“Although not always sometimes dependent on what I am working on”, “I look up to some leaders, however others inhabit characteristics which I do not feel are appropriate for a leader”. – P1 and P6
This suggests these employees and perhaps some employees let their senses guide them in deciding what or when to seek their leader’s direction as well as what leader is more preferred. Others that were more affirmative however gave reasons such as:
“Communication is essential”, “Direction is needed to know what to be done”, “they are more experienced than me”, “My line manager is a good HR Director and well respected so I do look up to her”. – P2, P3, P13 and P9
All of which suggests a leader-follower relationship whereby the followers believe the leader knows better and as such should be looked up to for direction as suggested by Bass (1990) (see section 2.2.2 for further discussion). A more interesting side of these responses were from those who answered ‘No’ giving reasons such as:
“They don’t understand the business or processes so are clueless”, “I believe they don’t necessarily know better but their guidance is occasionally needed”, “Some leaders are not my idea of a good leader, but jobs for the boys has put them where they are”.- P14, P5, P12
If employees perceive their leaders who according to leading leadership theorists are regarded as the pace setters and support systems for employees (see section 2.2.1 for further discussion) does it mean that they don’t have a role in the development of such employees or these employees engage themselves without the direction of their leaders?

4.1.7 QUESTION 6: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 11.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency

Despite the last question where only 43.8% of the respondents affirmatively chose ‘Yes’ for looking up to their leaders for direction at work, when asked if they trust their line manager, a staggering 75% affirmatively chose the ‘Yes’ option suggesting that even while some employees don’t necessarily look up to their leaders for direction, the trust aspect is not a factor in deciding whether or not to. Some of the respondents gave reasons such as:

“Good relationship”, “Has always been honest with me”, “My line manager cares about my wellbeing and supports my development”,” he beliefs in me”, “Very open relationship”. – P3, P5, P9, P6 and P15
All of which suggests the emotional support gotten from these leaders is what fosters trust with their subordinates (see section 2.1.2.7 for drivers of employee engagement). However, responses from those that did not agree with the statement gave reasons such as:
“Everything is about pay so most people just don’t put so much honesty to the work they do”, “not sure as there’s been some lack of communication in the past”. – P2 and P11
Both of which indicates the lack of emotional support, communication and openness to create room for trust; direct opposite of drivers of engagement.

4.1.8 QUESTION 7: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 12.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency
While only 25% of respondents answered to ‘Yes’, a staggering 68.8% however chose ‘No’ giving reasons such as:
“It is a case of as long as you’re at work and you get the work done nothing else matters”, “my line managers does not talk to me about any progress”, “She has not specifically discussed my personal engagement with me”. – P5, P6 and P10
However, the more interesting views were:
“No need, I demonstrate being engaged”, “We do not have discussions on my engagement. My manager knows that I am engaged”. – P8 and P14
Both views suggest engagement as being demonstrated and as such their line manager should know when they are engaged and not necessarily have to discuss it with them. On the other hand, another participant that had chosen ‘Yes’ said:
“Yes – but what does this mean? Let’s see”. – P16
Open-ended responses to this question suggests that employee perception of engagement vary and while some employees link engagement to progress in the workplace, others view it as a demonstrated concept which does not necessarily have to be discussed and then there are those who do not even fully understand the concept enough to understand why it is being discussed by their line manager.

4.1.9 QUESTION 8: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 13.0 Illustrative model of participant response frequency
68.8% of the total respondents chose ‘Yes’ giving reasons for their choice as:
“She talks about my future development, my career aspirations and how to get there”, “He sees my progress and development as essential”, “5 year plan and short term goals”, “he seems to see potential in me to be an essential contributor to the organization”. – P12, P6, P1 and P5
All of which suggests a supportive leader who seems to care about the progress of individual employees considering that the future these leaders talk about does not only involve the future of their respective organisations but with the help of these employees thus giving the employees a feeling of belongingness. These characteristics are closely associated with transformational leaders (see section 2.2.3.3 for further discussion). However, those participants that chose ‘No’ gave reasons such as:
“He is a in the moment kind of person. What needs to be done right now is more of concern”, “She is also looking to leave the business”, “My line manager does not inform me about future developments and plans, therefore does not speak optimistically about the future, does not speak about the future at all”. – P4, P10 and P8
All of which clearly contradicts the types of managers that were previously described by the participants that had answered ‘Yes’ thus clarification to what the preferred management style is for employees was asked.
4.1.10 QUESTION 9: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
WHAT TYPE OF LINE MANAGER DO YOU PREFER TO WORK WITH?
KEY-WORD IN CONTEXT INTERPRETATION
SUPPORTIVE
‘support in personal issues’ ‘ challenging, supportive fun’ ‘supportive, caring’ A SUPPORTIVE LINE MANAGER
HONEST
‘honest, relaxed’ ‘open, honest, knowledgeable’ AN HONEST LINE MANAGER
COMMUNICATES
‘who communicates well’ ‘clearly communicates what is expected of me’ ‘ A LINE MANAGER WITH CLEAR COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS
FLEXIBILITY
‘flexible to some extent’ ‘flexibility too’ A FLEXIBLE LINE MANAGER
CARING
‘cares about their employees’ ‘caring and clearly communicates’ A CARING LINE MANAGER
LISTENS
‘listening skills’ ‘who listens to their staff’ ‘a manager who listens’ A LINE MANAGER WITH GOOD LISTENING SKILLS
DEVELOPMENT
‘my development’ ‘undertaking development activities’ A DEVELOPMENT ORIENTED LINE MANAGER

Table 3.0 frequency table of respondent’s KWIC
The table above shows managerial qualities respondents listed as their preferred choice to work with. Most of these characteristics are intrinsic and appeals to psychological needs of employees. According to literature, a transformational leader poses four fundamental characteristics out of which two are well represented in this table; Inspirational motivation- the ability of the leader to clearly communicate while inspiring the followers, Individualized consideration- the ability of the leader to create a supportive atmosphere for followers (see section 2.2.3.3.2 for further discussion). According to Riggio (2006) “the popularity of transformational leadership might be as a result of its emphasis on intrinsic motivation, development of followers as well as the emotional care in the workplace” (see section 2.2.3.3 for further discussion).
However, literature also showed that transactional leaders’ poses clear communicative skills although it is often for the purpose of negotiation of agreements with their followers (see section 2.2.3.2 for further discussion).
4.1.11 QUESTION 10: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
WHAT BEHAVIOURS DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR LEADER SHOULD EXHIBIT TO PROMOTE ENGAGEMENT?
KEY-WORD IN CONTEXT INTERPRETATION
CHARISMATIC
‘charismatic’ ‘lead by example, charismatic’ A CHARISMATIC LEADER
SUPPORTIVE
‘supportive’ ‘charismatic, supportive’ ‘support in every situation’ A SUPPORTIVE LEADER
FUTURE ORIENTED
‘future oriented, clear communicator’ ‘future oriented, supportive’ ‘forward thinking’ ‘probably future oriented’ A FUTURE ORIENTED LEADER
FEEDBACK
‘provides feedback’ ‘continuous feedback motivator’ A LEADER THAT PROVIDES FEEDBACK
HARDWORKING
‘hardworking and flexibility’ ‘flexible, hardworking’ A HARDWORKING LEADER

Table 4.0 frequency table of respondent’s KWIC
Table 4.0 above shows respondents perceived leadership behaviours that promote engagement. From the table, the listed leadership behaviours are closely linked to transformational leaders from literature especially ‘future oriented’ which was the most listed variable and a clear distinction between transformational and transactional leaders (Bass and Riggio 2010; Northhouse 2010) (see section 2.2.3.3 for further discussion).

4.2 CHAPTER SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The study aimed to identify managerial/leadership behaviours and styles that enhance employee engagement from the employee’s perspective. The main findings are summarized below:
• There is varying use and understanding of engagement across organisations.
• Employee perception of engagement varies; while some view it as ‘getting the job done’ others, however, see it as a demonstrated concept and some others don’t seem to fully understand the concept.
• This qualitative study, with the use of Key-word in context analysis, identified 11 preferred management/leadership behavioural factors from the employee’s perspective: support, honesty, communication, flexibility, care for employee well-being, listening skills, employee development, charisma, future orientation, feedback and hardworking.
• Behavioural characteristics described by respondents were linked to the transformational form of leadership which was supported by the literature reviewed in chapter two of this research study.
• While most employees display high levels of engagement at their respective organisations due to factors such as support, trust and development opportunities provided by their line managers, others that showed lower zeal/motivation for their current employers appear not to have support mechanisms in place to keep them cognitively and emotionally engaged to their organisations.
• Out of 7 employees without flexible working options in their respective organisations, only 2 showed high levels of engagement (above 4 in Q1-Q12 mean) which led the researchers to infer working patterns have an impact on employee engagement. Flexible working patterns appear to be positively linked to high engagement.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESEARCH QUESTIONS JUSTIFIED BY:
• To examine the overall relationship between leadership, leadership styles and employee engagement. What is the perceived relationship between leadership and employee engagement?
This was justified by the literature review carried out in chapter two.
• To examine what leadership behaviours enhance employee engagement from the employee’s perspective What leadership behaviours encourage engagement from the employee’s perspective?
This was justified by section 4.1.11 in chapter four.
• To examine what leadership style(s) contributes to employee engagement from the employee’s perspective. What leadership style contributes to engagement from the employee’s perspective?
This was justified by section 4.1.10 and 4.1.11 in chapter four
• To recommend best practices for improving employee engagement in organisations from findings.
This was justified by the conclusion and recommendations done in chapter five….