DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Examining Leadership Behaviors on Employee Engagement: A Quantitative Study of Lead with
Humility and Respect Every Individual
by
Laszlo A Magyar
A Dissertation Submitted to
School of Business and Management
at California Southern University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Business Administration
California Southern University
2021
Date of Defense: October 25, 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Copyright Declaration
Copyrighting a document offers its originator a set of literary, artistic, and/or expressive rights
including exclusive distribution privileges.
However, receipt of a submitted and approved dissertation shall result in the inclusion and
publication of the document by the University Library at California Southern University. As
such, each student grants the University a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to
reproduce the student's work, in whole or in part, in electronic form to be posted in the
University Library database and made available to the general public at no charge. This does not
imply ownership of the copyright by the university; rather, this practice occurs to support
accreditation efforts, research communities, enhance intellectual inquiries, and disseminate
insights and findings.
The School of Business and Management at California Southern University requires dissertations
to be copyrighted via ProQuest’s registration service. ProQuest provides an efficient dissertation
archiving system registering the document with the Library and Congress. Further, ProQuest
allows the originator to retain the copyright as described at https://about.proquest.com/productsservices/dissertations/submitting-dissertation-proquest.html.
Copyright
I consent to the following:

the inclusion and publication of the document by the University Library at California
Southern University, as stated;

submitting and archiving the dissertation using ProQuest; as stated above; and

acknowledge and understand my rights as a copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. §106
published at https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html.
Laszlo A Magyar
Date
© 2021
Laszlo A Magyar
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Approval Page
This applied dissertation was constructed and submitted by Laszlo A Magyar under the direction
of the committee listed below. It was submitted to the School of Business and Management at
California Southern University and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Business Administration at California Southern University.
10/30/2021
Walter J. Witham, Ph.D.
Date
Committee Chair/Dissertation Mentor
10/25/2021
Catherine A. Cameron, Ph.D.
Date
Committee Member
10/25/2021
Michael Morris, DBA
Date
Committee Member
10/25/2021
Steven Hess, Ph.D.
Reviewing Dean
Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Abstract
Disengagement at work is disruptive and costly. The low level of work engagement harms
business outcomes and impacts the social lives of millions of employees. This research explored
the impact of two foundational leadership behavior, leading with humility and respecting every
individual impact on employee engagement. This quantitative, survey-based, CausalComparative (ex-facto) design explores the relationships and potential impact of direct
supervisors' leading with humility and respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement. The literature review and expert panel feedback established the core construct of
leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior. Next, constructed,
pilot tested, and verified the validity of a purpose-built, hybrid research instrument. The
instrument includes the well-established Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), capturing
employee engagement as the study's dependent variable. A custom-built add-on questionnaire
supplements the UWES-9 to capture employees' feedback on direct supervisors' leadership
behaviors focusing on leading with humility and respecting every individual orientation as
independent variables of the study. The statistical results of the non-parametric testing suggest
that immediate supervisors both leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership
behavior strong association with employee engagement, and they both likely positively impact
employee engagement. Based on these findings, the study recommends leaders intentionally and
consistently put leading with humility in practice and demonstrate respecting every individual
purposely and routinely to nourish employee engagement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 7
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 8
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 8
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 9
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 13
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ....................................................... 14
Definitions of Key Terms .......................................................................................................... 15
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 19
Employee Engagement .............................................................................................................. 19
Research Framework ................................................................................................................. 19
Literature Search Strategy ......................................................................................................... 20
Servant Leadership .................................................................................................................... 21
Level 5 Leadership .................................................................................................................... 24
Humble Leadership ................................................................................................................... 27
Leadership Behaviors ................................................................................................................ 32
Independent Variables of The Study: Leading With Humility And Respecting
Every Individual................................................................................................................ 34
Dependent Variable of The Study: Employee Engagement ...................................................... 43
Impact of Employee Engagement ............................................................................................. 56
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 61
Research Method ....................................................................................................................... 61
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 63
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 64
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 65
Variables.................................................................................................................................... 65
Instrumentation.......................................................................................................................... 66
Pilot Tests .................................................................................................................................. 69
Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 73
Informed Consent Process and Ethical Concerns ..................................................................... 74
Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................................... 76
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................ 82
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 84
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 85
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Instrument validation................................................................................................................. 85
Instrument Validation Results ................................................................................................... 93
Study Results ............................................................................................................................. 93
General Description of Study Participants ................................................................................ 94
Unit of Analysis and Measurement ........................................................................................... 95
Sample Size ............................................................................................................................... 96
Pilot Testing .............................................................................................................................. 96
Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 97
Results of Hypothesis Tests ...................................................................................................... 99
Outliers .................................................................................................................................... 107
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 107
Chapter 5: Concluding the Study ................................................................................................ 108
Summary of the Study ............................................................................................................. 108
Ethical Dimensions ................................................................................................................. 109
Overview of the Population and Sampling Method ................................................................ 109
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 110
Findings ................................................................................................................................... 111
Reflection ................................................................................................................................ 113
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 114
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................. 115
Concluding the Study .............................................................................................................. 116
References ................................................................................................................................... 118
Appendix A: Tables .................................................................................................................... 143
Appendix B: Figures ................................................................................................................... 157
Appendix C: UWES Instrument ................................................................................................. 186
Appendix D: Consent Form ........................................................................................................ 188
Appendix E: Letter of Invitation to Participate in Expert-Panel................................................. 191
Appendix F: IRB Approvals ....................................................................................................... 194
Appendix G: Instrument Validation Expert-Panel Questionnaire .............................................. 196
Appendix H: Launch Of Data Collection ................................................................................... 213
Appendix I: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................... 214
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
List of Tables
Table A1: Participant demographics ........................................................................................... 144
Table A2: Correlation between responders’ engagement and frequency of direct supervisor
engagement ................................................................................................................................. 145
Table A3: Descriptive statistics and test of normality for Employee Engagement by groups ... 146
Table A4: Descriptive statistics and test of normality for Employee Engagement Score .......... 147
Table A5: Test of normality results after natural logaritmic transformation .............................. 148
Table A6: Test of normality results after Box-Cox transformation ............................................ 149
Table A7: Test of normality results after outiers elimination ..................................................... 150
Table A8: Test of normality results for employee engagment by geographic region ................ 151
Table A9: Nonparametric, Mann-Whitney Test of Leading with humility between
Group 1 and 2.................................................................................................................. 152
Table A10: Nonparametric, Mann-Whitney Test of Respecting every individual between
Group 1 and 2.................................................................................................................. 153
Table A11: Chi-square test results for leading with humility and respecting every individual . 154
Table A12: Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation for benchmark leadership behaviors ............. 155
List of Figures
Figure B1: Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................... 158
Figure B2: Shingo Model and the Shingo Guiding Principles ................................................... 159
Figure B3: Initial Independent and Dependent Variables of the Study ...................................... 160
Figure B4: Collin’s Good to Great Framework .......................................................................... 161
Figure B5: Collin’s Level 1 to 5 Leadership Pyramid ................................................................ 162
Figure B6: Overview Assessment of Humility Measures........................................................... 163
Figure B7: Integrative Model of Leadership Behavior ............................................................... 164
Figure B8: The Multidimensional Construct of Respectful Inquiry ........................................... 165
Figure B9: The Global Employee Engagement Model............................................................... 166
Figure B10: Positive Leader Behavior and Employee Engagement Research Model................ 167
Figure B11: The Ten Most Significant Employee Engagement Measurement Instruments ...... 168
Figure B12: Approximation for Sample Characteristics ............................................................ 169
Figure B13: Sample size calculation for t-test ............................................................................ 170
Figure B14: Sample size calculation for Analysis of Variances ................................................. 171
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B15: Independent and Dependent Variables ................................................................... 172
Figure B16: Initial Survey Outline ............................................................................................. 173
Figure B17: Variables with Planned Groupings ......................................................................... 174
Figure B18: Data Matrix ............................................................................................................. 175
Figure B19: Instrument validation Expert-panel general description ......................................... 176
Figure B20: Instreument validation Expert-panel, domains’ esentality outcome....................... 177
Figure B21: Instreument validation Expert-panel, items’ relevancy outcome ........................... 178
Figure B22: Instrument validation Expert-panel, items’ clarity of wording feedback ............... 179
Figure B23: Content Validity Index for survey items ................................................................ 180
Figure B24: Enhanced survey instrument based on Expert-panel feedback............................... 181
Figure B25: Boxplot and histograms of Employee Engagement Score by groups..................... 182
Figure B26: Data matrix with actual survey data ....................................................................... 183
Figure B27: Actual data for dependent and independent variables ............................................ 184
Figure B28: Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation for benhcmark leadrship behaviors .............. 185
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Chapter 1: Introduction
The O.C. Tanner Institute’s 2018 Global Culture Report stated that engaged employees
perform better and deliver better business outcomes (Lovell, 2018). They also underlined that
leadership is a vital component of a meaningful employee experience and pivotal to employee
engagement. Building upon this foundation, the objective of this study was to identify the critical
characteristics of leadership behavior that can help nourish employee engagement. According to
Miller (2018), most organizational cultures are not built intentionally. Often, they emerge while
people are busy focusing on results. Researchers advocate that high-performing organizations are
those purposefully built and practice the things necessary to maintain an exemplary culture of
excellence (Rezaei et al., 2018). This study built upon the work of human-centered leadership
foundations, which have aimed to gain a deeper understanding of how leadership behaviors
create a more people-centered culture where both employees and leaders are fulfilled and can
deliver high-performance organizational results (Hougaard & Carter, 2018).
In this quantitative study I examined employee perceptions of organizational culture by
focusing on the influence of leadership behavior on employee engagement. The objective was to
identify the critical characteristics of leadership behavior that can help nourish employee
engagement and foster an organizational culture to achieve high-performance. This quantitative
study was driven by the following question: what leadership behaviors are likely to produce a
high-level of employee engagement? The independent variables of the study were leadership
behaviors embodying, leading with humility, and respect for every individual. The dependent
variable of the inquiry was employee engagement.
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Background
Value creation is the fundamental motive for individuals and organizations as well
(Cameronet al., 2006). Value is often attributed to financial results or business outcomes. Often
the key question in business is not only how to obtain superior outcomes but how to sustain and
get returns consistently (Miller, 2018). According to Miller (2018), superior organizational
performance requires repeated outstanding results over an extended period.
According to Baker and Rolfes (2015), organizations continuously monitor the
environment, adjust according to market trends, and maintain a competitive advantage to stay
dominant. While change is an essential part of business survival, research shows that
approximately 70% of all organizational change initiatives fail (Ewensteinet al., 2015).
According to Miller (2018), even successful organizations may decline in performance over
time, where often a vital component of the degradation of predominance is culturally related.
Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valleb (2015) studied the link between culture,
innovation and organizational performance and revealed that culture can foster as well as
obstruct both innovation and company performance contingent upon the values promoted by the
culture. Edgeman (2019) argued that leadership behaviors heavily influence organizational
culture. For sustainable transformations, it is essential to understand the relationship between
leadership behavior, organizational culture, and employee engagement (Edgeman, 2019).
Miller (2018) emphasized that leadership behavior and actions shape the organizational
culture. Wanget al. (2011) examined the relationship between executive leadership behavior and
organizational performance; however, their findings were inconsistent. In contrast, performance
and behaviors are related, according to Webers’ (2012) performance behavior model. Webers
(2012) also argued that the result of the behavior is directly linked to the predictability of the
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
behavior, the more certain the behavior, the more certain the result. Building a causal
relationship between behavior and performance is a complex challenge as the outcome is
influenced by many factors (Wang et al., 2011). The importance of this research is to contribute
to closing the knowledge gap between behavior and performance by discovering new insights
into the leadership behavior and employee engagement relationship. Hines (2019) emphasized
that creating high organizational performance with sustained results is all about culture, people,
and behavior. The critical challenge of the leadership objective is to engage people at every level
in the organization (Hines, 2019).
The S&P 500 Index, first compiled in March 1957 is the most broadly-used reference for
tracking the performance of large, U.S.-based stock (Siegel & Schwartz, 2004). Baker and
Rolfes’ (2015) study of the S&P 500 index found that since inception, close to a thousand new
companies were added to the list, and a similar number of firms were deleted from the list, while
only 65 companies of the original 500 survived their 57th anniversary of March 2014. Only 13%
of the original top 500 index companies sustained prominence and made the list of a half-century
later, which suggests that preserving excellence is challenging (Baker & Rolfes, 2015).
Excellence as a concept is complex intrinsically (Dahlgaard et al., 2013). According to
the European Foundation for Quality Management (2002), excellence is not a theory; it manifests
the real accomplishments of an organization in what it does, how it does it, the outcomes it gets,
and the certainty that these results will be sustained in the future. The definition of excellence
has evolved (Dahlgaardet al., 2013). Fan and Lu (2014) emphasized the importance of rebalancing the enterprise excellence from a pure profit dominant view to a balanced perspective
incorporating financial and non-financial, strategic and operational, short-term and long-term,
internal and external, and sustainability measures as well. Hertzet al. (2018) referenced
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
excellence as the composition of innovation, resilience, robustness, and sustainability. Innovation
enables companies to identify and serve evolving customer needs. Resilience facilitates
adaptability, constant capability building, and the improvement of overall organizational
effectiveness (Hertz et al., 2018). Robustness requires strength and power of resistance against
internal and external threats, while sustainability necessitates a balanced view meeting current
needs without compromising the future generations (Hertz et al., 2018).
Grosyberget et al. (2018) studied more than 230 companies' cultures. They analyzed the
impact of senior leaders on organizational performance along with their respected leadership
values and behaviors of more than 1,300 executives across a range of industries. Their study
confirmed that "when aligned with strategy and leadership, a strong culture drives positive
organizational outcome" (p.7). Gupta and Sharman (2016) found that employee engagement is a
forceful predictor of organizational performance.
Statement of the Problem
Many authors examined organizational behavior and the relationship between leadership
behavior, culture, and organizational performance (Grosyberg et al., 2018). As the aggregate of
people’s behaviors constitutes the organizational culture, shaping and guiding those behaviors
are crucial as a basis for fostering a high-performance culture with sustainable results (Edgeman,
2019). Miller (2018) emphasized that “what we value, drives our behavior” (p. 16). Miller (2018)
also underlined that leaders create a culture driven by organizational values that are manifested
by behavior and actions.
Therefore, building a culture of excellence requires leaders to intentionally align their
values and modeling behaviors as close as possible to the ideal state so as to produce the desired
outcome (Miller, 2018). Edgeman (2019) suggested that the accomplishment of high
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
performance requires leaders who can foster an organizational culture where certain types of
organizational behaviors are practiced consistently across the enterprise. The problem to be
studied is why leaders convey humility and what specific humility-oriented leader behavior
fosters a high level of employee engagement.
Employee Disengagement
Miskelis (2017) noted that despite the consensus about the significance of employee
engagement in organizations, there is still a lack of concurrence on the conceptualization of
engagement and on the definition of driving forces of engagement from the leadership behavioral
standpoint. Gallup’s (2013) study emphasized that about 70% of American employees are not
working to their full potential (Harter, 2018). According to Sorenson and Gaman (2013), the
estimated cost impact of employee disengagement for organizations is between $450 and $550
billion per year for the companies in the United States, which represents close to 3% of the Gross
Domestic Product of the U.S. Gallup’s 2018 follow-up study showed a rise in employee
engagement from a 30% engagement level in 2013 to a 35% engagement level in 2018 (Harter,
2018). While recent examination shows a positive trend in employee engagement, the data also
indicates that close to two-thirds of the American workforce is not entirely devoted to fully
harnessing their potential at work yet (Harter, 2018). Closing the engagement gap and unlocking
the full potential of employees is an economical and organizational imperative for practitioners
and researchers as well (Gebauer, Lowman, & Gordon, 2008).
While evidence for the relationship between leadership behavior and organizational
culture has been established by Grosyberg et al. (2018), there has been limited research on
specific observable leadership behavior that is perceived to promote high-level of employee
engagement and organizational performance. Miller (2018) underlined that practicing the two
5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
principles of respect for every individual and lead with humility-oriented leadership behavior is
foundational to leverage the full potential of every associate of the organization. Ou, Waldman,
and Peterson (2018) tested the relationship between Chief Executive Officers' humility to the
firm's outcome and found that humility has a strong association with the firm's processes and
overall outcome. Owens and Hekman (2016) developed a model for expressed humility in
organizations and validated the strength of leader expressed humility across multiple levels; (a)
strategic value creation to the firm, (b) legitimizing follower growth, (c) reinforcing employee
learning, (d) increasing job satisfaction, work engagement and performance.
While researchers emphasized the importance of humility in leadership, still not enough
is known about why leaders convey humility and what specific humility-oriented leader behavior
fosters a high level of employee engagement (Yang, Zhang & Chen, 2019). This study will build
upon Decuypere and Schaufeli's (2019) research model with five pathways affecting employee
engagement and further explore the direct behavior path through the lance of two fundamental
leadership behavior, leading with humility and respecting every individual. This investigation
assumes a measurable association between leadership behavior and work engagement. I aim to
identify the critical characteristics of leadership behavior that can help nourish employee
engagement and foster an organizational culture to achieve high-performance. The outcome of
the research may be able to arm business leaders with practicable behaviors that likely foster a
culture that supports high-performance in organizations.
Purpose of the Study
Two-third of Americans are not actively engaged at work and not living up to their full
potential (Harter, 2018). The low level of work engagement harms business outcomes and
impacts the social lives of millions of employees. While evidence for the relationship between
6
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
leadership behavior and organizational culture has been established by Grosyberg et al. (2018),
there has been limited research on specific observable leadership behavior perceived to promote
a high-level employee engagement organizational performance. There are two objectives of this
study; first to examine employee perceptions of the impact, if any, of two fundamental leadership
behavior; (a) leading with humility and (b) respecting every individual on employee engagement,
and second to explore the relative difference of impact leading with humility and respecting
every individual behavior on employee engagement. I seek to identify the critical characteristics
of leadership behavior that can help nourish employee engagement and foster an organizational
culture to achieve high-performance. I also pursue to discover additional insights into the
leadership behavior and employee engagement context to arm business leaders with exemplary
behaviors that likely will foster a culture that supports lasting high-performance.
Research Questions
As Maxwell (2019) stated, “people do what people see,” therefore, leaders must model
the behavior they want to see in their organization (p.1). The main question is what leadership
behavior is perceived by employees to help foster a high-level of employee engagement. This
quantitative study is driven by the following questions:
Research Question 1: What is the impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement?
Research Question 2: What is the impact of respecting every individual behavior on
employee engagement?
Research Question 3: Does leading with humility or respecting every individual have a
more beneficial impact on employee engagement?
7
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Hypotheses
The study tested the following hypotheses:
H01: There is no significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha1: There is a significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement.
H02: There is no significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha2: There is a significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
H03: There is no significant relative difference of impact between leading with humility
and respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Ha3: There is a significant difference of impact between leading with humility and
respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Methodology
The Causal-Comparative (ex post facto) quantitative primary research method was used
to analyze employee perceptions of organizational culture influenced by leadership behavior.
According to Bertush and Pahm (2012), a sound multivariate analysis is a viable methodological
and analytical path for cultural research. According to McLeod (2019), both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies can be productive in employee research; however, each has its
advantages used in specific areas. According to Queirós, Faria, and Almeida (2017), qualitative
research aims to interpret a convoluted reality and the implication of actions in the respective
context, while the quantitative methodology pursues to gather reliable and precise data that
8
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
permit statistical analysis. Qualitative research is advantageous in the case of a smaller group of
participants, analyzing the subject in great detail and when I attempt to grasp the root causes of
feelings and discover links between issues (McLeod, 2019). Quantitative research is
advantageous in the case of a large number of participants when there is a need for measurable
comparison and robust numerical data, and advanced statistical analytics of the results (McLeod,
2019). The mixed study combines the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative studies. I
want to test the relationship between multiple variables in a relatively large sample size across
the United States therefore, I opted to select a quantitative research methodology.
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Bennis (2009), a pioneer in leadership research, defined leadership as “the capacity to
translate vision into reality" (p.188). Maxwell (2018) underlined that the behavior impact of
leadership is essential; the “why you lead and the way you lead is important” (p. 158). He also
emphasizes that the way leaders lead eventually define their contribution. Marciano (2010)
argued that a critical success factor of leadership is to activate the hearts and minds of their
employees for long term organizational success. The focal point of the behavior approach of
leadership is what leaders do and how they act (Northouse, 2016). Humble leadership theories,
the employee engagement models, and the growing body of research in the leadership-employee
engagement contexts created the theoretical foundation of this study.
Bringing out the best in employees is a core function of leadership by enabling people to
feel driven and energized so they can bring their best selves to work. (Cable, 2019). Behrendt,
Matz, and Göritz (2017) concurred with prior researchers and revealed scientific evidence that an
organization's success depends upon its managers' leadership capabilities and investigated what
comprises effective leadership behaviors. Per Owens, Johnston, and Michell (2013), humility is a
9
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
critical component of effective leadership in modern organizations, where humble leaders engage
their teams and build learning-oriented teams. A humble mindset is strongly associated with
servant leadership, which aims to serve and develop others to achieve a higher purpose to
advance the organization, organizations, and societies as well (Coetzer, Bussin & Geldenhuys,
2017). Researchers referenced humble leadership as “leading from the ground” or “bottom-up
leadership” (Chen & Song, 2018; Rego et al., 2019). Schein and Schein (2018) argued the
humble leadership construct manifests the significance of relationships, building openness, and
trust while functioning through collaboration and humility.
Employee Engagement
Gutermannet al. (2017) defined employee engagement as a cultural state when employees
are involved in and energized by their work, eager to go the extra mile, feeling well while
maintaining a healthy work−life balance. According to Kulikowski (2017), employee
engagement is a work-related positive state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption where vigor is characterized by high-level of energy and perseverance, dedication is
manifested through commitment and enthusiasm, and absorption represented by the full presence
and wholly engrossed in one’s work. Owen et al.’s (2013) research concluded that leaderexpressed humility is positively related to job engagement. They characterized leader expressed
humility through the framework of: (a) willingness to view self accurately, (b) displaying
appreciation to others and (c) teachability. Yanget al. (2019) found that leader expressed
humility rely upon the followers’ capability, and conversely followers trust rely upon the motives
for the leader’s humility. Lavigna (2016) underlined that respect in the workplace is crucial to
creating a culture of employee engagement. Schwartz and Porath’s (2014) meta-analysis of 263
research studies across 192 companies found that engagement is positively correlated with
10
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
profitability. Examined organizations with most engaged employees were 22% more profitable
than those with the least engaged employees (Schwartz & Porath, 2014).
Humble Leadership Theoretical Model
Building upon Owens and Hekman's (2012) humble leadership theoretical model,
coupled with other research founding on the significance of respect to engagement (Schwartz &
Porath, 2014; Lavigna, 2016), this study explored how to cultivate foundational cultural enablers,
especially regarding leading with humility and respecting every individual oriented leadership
behavior in the organization and how does it relate to employee engagement. Summarizing the
above, this study proposed a conceptual framework (see Figure B1).
Enterprise Excellence
Enterprise excellence is an overarching business growth strategy representing an
organization-wide commitment for continual advancement towards a shared vision for the future
and pursuit of superiority with sustainable results (Edgeman, 2019). Business excellence is
fundamentally measured on how effectively the organization can create and sustain a competitive
advantage in the marketplace and how it is translated to value creation for customers and
stakeholders (Edgeman, 2019). According to Hussain, Edgeman, Eskildsen, Shoukry, and Gani,
(2018), enterprise excellence models create a structured approach to business improvements.
According to Dahlgaard et al. (2013), enterprise excellence or business excellence models have
two fundamental purposes; guiding the organization towards excellence and administering an
assessment to provide feedback along the way.
Enterprise Excellence Models
Dahlgaard et al. (2013), highlighted the most well-known, holistic enterprise excellence
models and recognitions are the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality (MBNQ) Award, the
11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Award, and the Shingo
Prize. While each framework has its uniqueness, fundamentally, each model attempts to
galvanize the critical set of enablers producing sustainable results. Rusev and Salonitis (2016)
studied and compared six operational excellence frameworks: (a) Shingo Model, (b) MBQN, (c)
EFQM, (d) Rapid Plant Assessment, (e) Kobayashi workplace improvement and (f) Lean
Enterprise Self-Assessment. Rusev and Salonitis (2016) found that only the Shingo Model
encompasses the entire spectrum of the enterprise excellence dimensions covering culture,
process improvement, enterprise alignment, and results.
Shingo Model
According to Bichenco and Holweg (2016), the Shingo Model is an all-encompassing
model for a cultural transformation that recognizes that a hugely successful enterprise excellence
conversion needs to go beyond the implementation of continuous improvement tools, supporting
the claim (see Figure B2). Tools need to be connected and reinforced by systems, and embedded
into the culture (Miller, 2018). A core concept of the Shingo Model has emerged from the
realization that sustainable enterprise excellence relies on the degree to which organizational
culture is aligned to distinct guiding principles rather than dependence upon continuous
improvement tools or initiatives (Baroncelli & Ballerio, 2016).
According to Hines and Butterworth (2019), the traditional deployment approaches for
enterprise excellence follows the tools (what), systems (how), and finally, culture (why) stages.
The Shingo Model emphasizes that sustainable transformation must be led by guiding principles
that need to be embedded into the culture at every level in the organization through the behavior
of all employees (Bichenco & Holweg, 2016).
12
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Organizational Culture
Culture manifests the cumulative set of behaviors of everyone in the organization. Thus,
to accomplish ideal results an organization needs to foster a culture in which each individual
behaves ideally in all situations (Baroncelli & Ballerio, 2016). In this research, I focused on the
two Cultural Enablers of enterprise excellence: (a) lead with humility and (b) respect every
individual. According to Plenert (2018), when respect for every individual principle put in
practice well, the organization values everyone as a person and committed to growing their
potential. Humility manifests through the way leaders interact with employees, approach
situations, solicit and appreciate others’ ideas (Plenert, 2018). Hines and Butterworth (2019)
emphasized that there are core supporting concepts that exhibit lead with humility and respect
every individual in practice; (a) assurance of a safe work environment, (b) development of
people, (c) empowerment and involvement or everyone.
Significance of the Study
While multiple studies had investigated humility-oriented behavior, still, not enough is
known about why leaders convey humility and what specific humility-oriented leader behavior
fosters a high level of work engagement (Yang, Zhang & Chen, 2019). This study attempted to
summarize the most significant leading with humility and respecting every individual oriented
leadership behavior and test their relationship to work engagement, which might be the first indepth research in that regard.
Study results may be beneficial to researchers, senior leaders, human resources, and
enterprise excellence professionals as well. Identifying the possible relationship between senior
leaders’ behavior and employee engagement may lead to leadership strategies that will support
productive, long-term, high-level organizational performance. Senior leaders, human resources,
13
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
and enterprise excellence professionals can use study results to refine, practice, and coach
leadership behaviors.
A deeper understanding of the relationship between leadership behavior and employee
engagement may lead to high-performance and heightened employee satisfaction in the
organization (Owens & Hekman, 2016). The study may also be useful to future researchers to
gain insights into understanding the impact of leadership behavior on organizational performance
(Winston & Fields, 2015).
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
According to Simons' (2011) dissertation and scholarly research guidelines, researchers
are critically restricted in many ways when conducting academic research. Assumptions,
limitations, and delimitations are clearly outlining the boundaries for the study. Besides
describing the frontier of the study, they also disclose the known flaws in the study.
Assumptions
Assumptions are conditions that are treated as true or at least plausible by the researcher
(Simon, 2011). In this study, some assumptions were made that were necessary to conduct the
research; however, they could not be proven. The first assumption was that the sample of
research participant organizations represented the broader context of a typical enterprise. The
second assumption for this research effort was that participants truthfully shared their
experiences via the survey instrument.
Limitations
Limitations are constraints that will be beyond the researcher’s control; however, these
constrains could influence the outcome of the study (Simon, 2011). Due to limitations with
14
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
publicly available secondary data sources, I conducted primary research with the development
and execution of a survey instrument for this study.
Delimitations
Delimitations are boundaries of the study that are within a researcher’s control and are
the distinctive points that designate and limit the frontiers of a study (Simon, 2011). The
delimitation of this study relates to the decision to narrow the scope of the study to focus on the
‘lead with humility’ and ‘respect for every individual’ oriented leadership behaviors as the
crucial cultural enablers of work engagement.
Definitions of Key Terms
Enterprise Excellence. As per Edgeman (2018), Enterprise Excellence is an overarching
business growth strategy representing an organization-wide commitment for continual
advancement towards a shared vision for the future and pursuit of long-term superiority.
Leadership. Kreitner and Kinicki (2013), noted that leadership is the act of leading to
influences others to achieve a common goal. Leadership behavior represents a set of actions,
carried out by individuals in a position of power and control, to prompt and cultivate others to
take actions (Jordan, 2016).
Leadership behavior. According to Behrendt, Matz, and Göritz (2016), leadership
entails influencing and guiding individual and cumulative efforts to accomplish shared goals;
therefore, leadership behavior fundamentally tasks and relationship oriented. According to
Plenert (2018), leadership behaviors manifest as the desirable actions to foster the right
organizational culture and create outcomes aligned to the strategic objectives of the organization.
Leading with humility. According to Prime and Salib (2014), the best leaders are
humble leaders, with the personal quality of being humble. Leading with humility is a leadership
15
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
eagerness that manifests itself by inquiring inputs from others, listening actively, admitting
vulnerability, putting others first, and learning continually (Plenert, 2018). Humble leaders create
an environment where everyone feels valued and captivated to give their very best every day.
Organizational behaviors. As per Webers (2012), an organizational behavior is the
aggregate of all noticeable and invisible acts of an individual, a group of people, or an entire
organization. Guiding principles are deeply rooted and guide the organization throughout its
existence in all circumstances regardless of changes in its goals, strategy, and leadership
(Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Values and principles are not directly visible, while behaviors can be
observed, described, and recorded (Plenert, 2018).
Organizational culture. According to Kreitner and Kinicki (2013), organizational
culture represents the shared values and beliefs that govern an organizational identity.
Organizational culture reveals itself in the behaviors of its leaders, managers and associates
(Plenert, 2018). Arditi, Nayac, and Damci (2017) referenced the organizational culture of a
group as a pattern and evolution of underlying mutual assumptions learned by a group as it
overcomes challenges through external adaptation and internal integration and taught to new
members to integrate and assimilate into the group to think and feel similarly concerning
situations. Cameron and Quinn (2011) underlined that the maturity of the organizational culture
is the primary distinguishing characteristic of successful organizations.
Organizational performance. Webers (2012) acknowledged that the term organizational
performance describes the combination of results both desired and not desired. These are the
results that were produced by all the efforts made by the organization. According to Schein, “the
only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture” (Miller, 2018, p.
8).
16
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Principles. According to Miller (2018), principles manifest universal truths. Hines and
Butterworth (2019) referenced principle as a foundational rule that has an undeniable
repercussion. Principles by nature are prevalent, eternal, self-evident and dictates consequences
regardless it is followed or not (Hines & Butterworth, 2019).
Organizational values. Kreitner and Kinicki (2013) defined values as “enduring belief in
a code of conduct or end-state” (p. 63). Jonsen et al. (2015) research linked espoused values to
organizational performance. Organizational values and beliefs influence the attitudes and
behavior of associates of the organization (Padhi, 2017).
Respect every individual. According to Plenert (2018), respecting every individual in an
organization exhibits genuine care and vale towards each member of the organization
recognizing every human represents values. Those organizations aim to foster a culture
nourishing the full potential of every member of their teams. Miller (2018) emphasized that there
is almost nothing a leader can do has a more positive effect on their teams than the
demonstration of respect for every single person of their team.
Summary
Chapter 1 introduced the background, scope, and purpose of this research to examine the
relationship between leadership behavior and enterprise excellence. While the relationship
between culture and organizational performance has been tested by prior investigations, still, not
enough is known about the cultural enablers of excellence (Grosyberg et al., 2018). Notably,
more to be discovered about the vital leadership behaviors which likely generate and sustain this
high-performing culture conclusively. I aim to identify the relationship of ‘lead with humility’
and ‘respect for every individual’ oriented leadership behavior with employee engagement to
arm business leaders with exemplary behaviors that likely will foster a culture that supports
17
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
lasting high-performance. To build a solid, academic foundation, the following chapter reviews
the most relevant literature in the context of positive leadership behavior, organizational culture,
work engagement, and organizational performance.
18
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 2 presents the literature on leadership behavior, organizational culture, work
engagement, and organizational performance. The literature review begins with a brief recap of
the research problem. The review continues with a critique of the most closely related leadership
models. The literature review concludes with an in-depth analysis of the construct of the
dependent and independent variables of the study.
Employee Engagement
Gallup’s (2013) study emphasized that about 70% of American employees are not
working to their full potential (Harter, 2018). While Gallup’s 2018 follow-up study showed a rise
in employee engagement from a 30% engagement level in 2013 to a 35% engagement level in
2018 (Harter, 2018), disengaged employees still cost about $350 billion annually to U.S.
corporations equivalent of close to 2% of the Gross Domestic Products of the U.S. (Osborn and
Hammound, 2017). While there is a consensus amongst scholars about the significance of
employee engagement as a critical factor of sustainable success in business (Miskelis, 2017),
there is still a lack of concurrence on the conceptualization of engagement and the definition of
driving forces of engagement from the leadership behavioral standpoint. Closing the engagement
gap and unlocking the full potential of employees is an economic and organizational imperative
for practitioners and researchers as well (Gebauer, Lowman, & Gordon, 2008). In particular,
there is limited empirical research examining the link between specific leadership behaviors and
employee engagement. (Zhou & Wu, 2018).
Research Framework
The purpose of this study was twofold; first to examine employee perceptions of the
impact, if any, of two fundamental leadership behavior: (a) leading with humility; and (b)
19
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
respecting every individual on employee engagement, and second to explore the relative
difference of impact leading with humility and respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement. Both humility and respecting every individual behavior stem from humble
leadership. I studied the drivers of employee engagement, especially the influence of the selected
leadership behaviors on workplace engagement. The literature review is organized, starting with
the review of most closely related leadership models such as servant leadership, truly human
leadership, level 5 leadership, humble leadership, and humility as a core conceptual framework
for the study followed by an in-depth analysis of the construct of the dependent and independent
variables of the study (see Figure B3) and closing with a synopsis discussion summarizing
critical points presented in Chapter 2. Finally, I aim to contribute to the body of research to
narrow the gaps in knowledge in leadership behavior and employee engagement relationship.
Literature Search Strategy
To solidify the most relevant journal articles essential to the study, I conducted advanced
searches for peer-reviewed articles via the California Southern University online library
ProQuest database and utilized open access articles via public online databases such as Google
Scholar and ResearchGate. An in-depth review of the reference list of the most relevant articles
further enhanced the literature base for the study. The following search terms were used to locate
articles specific to this study: humble leadership, humility, leadership behavior, servant
leadership, respect, and employee engagement. Variations of these terms were used to ensure
comprehensive search results shortlisting relevant scholarly articles since 2016 to comply with
the expected 85% source ratio on recent journal publications from the past five years.
20
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Servant Leadership
Blanch et al. (2016) described servant leadership as a form of positive leadership closely
associated with positive organizational psychology and philosophical roots in Christian
traditions. Greenleaf introduced the servant leadership approach in 1977 based on his
professional journey and self-reflection putting servicing and enabling others to grow and
succeed in the center of leadership (Blanch et. al, 2016). Sousa and Dierendonck (2017)
interpreted the servant leadership model as a moral virtue of humility in harmony with actionoriented behavior. Sousa and Dierendonck (2017) articulated the nature of servant leadership as a
balancing act between the humble demeanor of service and the outcome-oriented adequacy and
bias for action. Servant leaders are driven and forward-looking leadership as opposed to
reactionary, taking actions only when urgently necessary (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2017).
Greenleaf himself portrayed a servant-leader as a servant with strong ethical willpower unequal
to servitude; but rather a consciences initiator, who embraces risk and accepts responsibilities for
actions (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2017). They emphasized that the humble service side stems from
the selflessness attitude of servant leadership which places others' interests and growth first while
the action-oriented side represents the catalyst nature of leadership by setting direction and
stimulating actions. In alignment with other scholars (Asa-gau & Van Dierendock, 2011), Sousa
and Dierendonck (2017) discussed 5 servant leadership behaviors: (a) humility; and (b) standing
back representing the humble service-side; (c) empowerment; (d) stewardship; and (e)
accountability representing the action-orientation side of servant leadership dimensions.
According to Sousa and Dierendonck (2017) humility can be further dissected into three
crucial components: the capability to evaluate one’s achievements and talent in context;
accepting one’s imperfection and vulnerability; and grasping one’s mainstay and shortcomings.
21
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Standing back and giving room for others strengthens humility as the leader puts preference on
the interest and support of others as opposed to putting the spotlight on self. Scholars underlined
that while humility and modesty are closely forged they are not the same; humility is inward
while modesty is outward, most times humility translates into modesty while modesty not always
yields humility (Owens et al., 2013; Sousa & Dierendonck, 2017).
Sousa and Dierendonck (2017) underlined that empowerment is part of the actionoriented behaviors of servant leadership. Empowerment inspires independent decision-making,
providing coaching and guidance as needed while letting the individual chose the path forward.
Accountability is the second component or the action-driven orientation, which strengthens the
empowerment piece and connects it back to responsibility to outcome. The third segment of the
action-orientation of servant leadership is stewardship encompasses providing care, vision, and
meaning to work and a framework for consistency and long-term sustainment. They also
concluded from their quantitative empirical study that there is a relationship between humility
and leadership effectiveness; both the action-oriented side and the humble side of the servant
leadership appear to have a meaningful impact on follower engagement. The same study found
that combinations of humility and action-orientation most effectively generated engagement in
the higher ranks of organizational hierarchy which suggests that servant leadership is most
productive in senior executive and board-level positions (van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015).
Truly Human Leadership
Bob Chapman is the Chairman and CEO of the Barry-Wehmiller company and the
Chapman and Co. Institute (Van Dam & Rogers, 2018). Chapman’s companies are some of the
leading organizations behind the truly human leadership movement (Van Dam & Rogers, 2018).
They praised Chapman, who has grown his struggling, 20-million-dollar packaging machine
22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
company into a 12,000 strong, close to $3 billion global organization achieving more than 14%
compound annual return over three decades by developing and applying the principles of truly
human leadership. Chapman transformed himself from a conventional, controls, and
management by objectives-based leadership style into people-centered practices as a sustainable
business model. According to Van Dam and Rogers (2018), the cornerstones of Chapman’s
business model are to align and embrace a culture of people, purpose, and performance.
As opposed to traditional business measures, Chapman measures business success by the
impact on the lives of people where the organization is actively seeking to take care and support
everyone under their care, driving for human achievements and fulfillment (Van Dam & Rogers,
2018). According to Chapman (2015), one of the most profound enlightenments on this journey
was the development and deployment of the Guiding Principles of Leadership (GLP), which was
a result of a collaborative effort within the organization. Chapman advocated for three master
keys to the Barry-Wehmiller leadership culture; deep listening, authentic vulnerability when
leaders share not only their strengths but their challenges as well, and courageous patience being
patent with people (Van Dam & Rogers, 2018). They concurred with Chapman, who found that
the most potent thing a leader can do is truly and deeply listening by slowing down, hearing not
only the voice, but the emotions, fears, and underlining concerns as well. According to Minor
and Rovkin (2016), listening skills are a core attribute to truly human leadership.
The cornerstones of GLP include that the acknowledgment of success is measured by the
way we touch the lives of people, leadership based on trust and bringing out the best and
celebrating accomplishments, positive and insightful communication, commitment for personal
growth, and building a better world through business (Chapman & Sisodia, 2015). Another key
element of Chapman’s approach is the Living Legacy of Leadership (L3), where the company
23
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
concentrates its efforts eliminating frustration to free up its team members to accomplish more.
In the genuinely human leadership mode, people's growth and business growth are
complementary to each other in value creation as Chapman phrased it: “it is not people over
profit, its people in harmony with profit” (Van Dam & Rogers, 2018, p.206).
Minor and Rovkin (2016) studied Barry-Wehmiller’s company performance and its CEO
Bob Chapman’s approach which applies truly human leadership (THL) to drive value for
customers, employees, shareholders, and communities as well. They concluded that through the
THL movement, Chapman aims to build a better world through business by positively impacting
the lives of employees, their loved ones, and the broader community. They also found that truly
human leadership enables an organizational culture to provide an environment, where team
members are engaged and motivated. This in return, results in employees who respond and
engage with customers at a whole new level (Minor & Rovkin, 2016). Developing and applying
the truly human leadership approach coupled with a diligent acquisition strategy enabled
Chapman to grow Barry-Wehmiller from a 43 million dollar with a 23.4% Gross Profit margin in
1998 to 1,550 million dollars annual revenue with 30.8% Gross Profit margin business in 2013
(Minor & Rovkin, 2016).
Level 5 Leadership
According to Caldwell, Ichiho, and Anderson (2017), the Level 5 leadership concept was
introduced by Collins (2001) in his influential work Good to Great. Collins’ team conducted
comparative research where they selected and examined 11 great companies and compared them
against their competitors who failed to move from good to great. Their findings revealed the
distinct characteristics of leadership that Collins called level 5 leadership (L5L). Level 5 leaders
manifest relentless determination while exhibiting extraordinary humility. The humility
24
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
component of level 5 leadership includes freedom from arrogance, disclosing power, and being a
supportive resource for others. The constant determination component of level 5 leadership
entails discarding their egoistic self by getting rid of self-importance and channeling all those
energies into building something great, a great organization. Level 5 leaders’ primary desire is
the success of the organization they serve. Humility and enabling the success of others are
bedrock characteristics of level 5 leadership.
Referencing Collins’ perspective, Caldwell et al. (2017) emphasized that the human
standpoint of level 5 leaders is characterized by; first: decency about their successes, second:
quiet demeanor with perseverance rather than charisma, third: an organization focused ambitions
vs. self-ambitions, fourth: eagerness to accept self-responsibilities for failures, and fifth:
recognize and openly share contribution of others for success. Despite the low-key personality of
level 5 leadership, L5L leaders cast a clear vision, paint the path what to be done to accomplish
greatness, and relentlessly drive the organization to achieve the vision with utmost accountability
to business outcomes. While L5Ls drive high-level accountability in their organizations, they put
remarkably high standards for themselves, and they lead by example. Collins used the term
window and mirror, as L5Ls look into the mirror, taking responsibility when problems happen as
opposed to blaming circumstances, while promptly acknowledging credit to others when things
are going well. This humble behavior, with low self-focus and high self-awareness, builds trust
and credibility in the organization.
Caldwell et al. (2017) identified 12 dimensions of level 5 leadership as enablers for their
organizational success; (a) self-awareness with a demonstration of a high level of selfknowledge, (b) teachability openness to other inputs (c) admittance of personal limitation and
realization one does not know all, (d) commitment and thirst for continual learning, (e)
25
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
dedication to a vision or higher purpose, (f) accountability and admittance of personal
responsibilities, (g) eagerness to share credit with others for accomplishments, (h) obligation to
empower others, (i) recognition and appreciation of the big picture, (j) realization of serving
others, (k) readiness to authorize and enable others and (l) unwavering sense of ethical awareness
and integrity. In alignment with Collins’ findings, Caldwell et al. (2017) underlined that leaders
who showcase extreme humility with a relentless determination to the organization's success are
worthwhile of being trusted.
Pratikna and Gamayanto (2017) tested Collins's level 5 leadership approach applicability
in the Asian Economic Community, particularly in the non-profit University organizational
setting in Indonesia. Following Collins’ framework, they were studying the Good to Great
model’s three distinct character traits: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined
actions. They dissected the model and evaluated each component. Disciplined people focus on
who, in other words, people first then decide what actions need to be taken. Therefore,
organizations need to foster a superior leadership team first and only after the team in place cast
a vision and develop a path to achieve greatness. Disciplined thoughts involve a distinction
between fox and hedgehog; in other words, working on many small things like a fox or focusing
efforts on one main thing like a hedgehog, as most level 5 leaders do. Disciplined actions involve
a relentless focus on what matters the most, and following a fundamental discipline, stop doing
anything which does not fit firmly with the primary mission. Collins' Flywheel framework
interlocks disciplined people's concepts, disciplined thoughts, and disciplined actions, supporting
the claim (see Figure B4).
Pratikna and Gamayanto (2017) studied level 1 to 5 leadership as defined by Collins,
supporting the claim (see Figure B5). The first level of leadership entails highly capable
26
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
individuals who are devoted to the organization and perform well through their talent, skills, and
work habits. In Level 2, leadership evolves as a contributing team member and working
effectively with others to achieve the desired goals. In Level 3, leadership expands to managing
others as competent managers, effectively organizing a unit towards shared goals. In Level 4,
effective leadership manifests a clear vision and driving high standards for self and others to
elevate people and performance as well. In Level 5, leadership, the leader aspires to greatness,
coupling personal and professional drive for simplicity, relentless determination with
extraordinary humility (Pratikna & Gamayanto, 2017).
Humble Leadership
Bringing out the best in employees is a core function of leadership by enabling people to
feel driven and energized so they can bring their best selves to work. (Cable, 2019). Behrendt,
Matz, and Göritz (2017) concurred with prior researchers and found scientific evidence that an
organization's success significantly depends upon its managers' leadership capabilities. Thus,
directing scholars’ attention to grasp what comprises the most effective leadership behaviors. Per
Owens, Johnston, and Michell (2013), humility is a critical component of effective leadership in
modern organizations, where humble leaders engage their teams and build learning-oriented
teams. A humble mindset is strongly associated with servant leadership, which aims to serve and
develop others to achieve a higher purpose to advance the organization, organizations, and
societies as well (Coetzer, Bussin & Geldenhuys, 2017). Researchers referenced humble
leadership as “leading from the ground” or “bottom-up leadership” (Lu et al., 2018. p.140.; Rego
et al., 2019, p.1022).
Williams (2016) described the seven character traits of humble leaderships: first; humble
leaders are always learning, second; humble leaders serve others, third; humble leaders respect
27
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
the individual, fourth; humble leaders surround themselves with smart people, fifth; humble
leaders give up controls, sixth; humble leaders exhibit genuine care and empathy for their teams
and seventh; humble leaders create loyalty. Ou et al. (2018) suggest that top executives, such as
CEOs’ humility, have important implications for their organizations' prosperity and outcomes.
As humble leaders manifest humility, I will continue with the review of the general construct of
humility.
Humility
Von Tongeren et al. (2019) affirmed that research on humility has been increasing
considerably. From the etymological origin standpoint, the world humility originates from the
Latin world of humilis meaning of on the ground, which might be a descriptive term for someone
with a down-to-earth manner (Sousa & Direndonck, 2017). Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk (2016)
underlined that scholars theorized leader humility as a foundational element of organizational
learning. Sousa and Direndonck (2017), argued that humility appears to be a crucial element
keeping leadership in balance both from the accomplishments and strength standpoint while
putting the focus on others as opposed to praising self. Rego et al. (2019) concurred with other
leading experts that “humility might be the secret sauce in leadership” (p.2). As Confucius
stated, “humility is the solid foundation of all virtues” (Rego et. al, p.4).
Rego et al. (2019) studied organizations in Singapore, Portugal, and China and
empirically validated that leader humility fosters team strengths in the form of team
psychological capital, which impacts the team’s task allocation effectiveness and elevates team
performance. They found empirical evidence that a leader’s humility can nurture shared
character strengths in the teams they lead. The same study revealed that the effect of leader
humility on followers was similar in Singapore, China, and Portugal, which leads to believe that
28
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
leader humility effects across culture. Sowcik, Andenoro, and Council (2017) defined humility
as “a proper perspective of oneself, one’s relationship with others and one’s connection to the
larger environment” (p.170). Sousa and Direndonck (2017) emphasized that leaders’ humility
positively impacts the individual level, enhances leader-follower relationships, and affects the
systematic level by creating and advancing learning and adaptation in the organization.
In conjunction with others, Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk (2016) confirmed the theoretical
construct of humility as an interpersonal characteristic including the willingness to view self
accurately, conceding mistakes and admitting limitations, recognition of strengths and inputs of
others, and receptiveness for feedback and new ideas. Sousa and Dierendonck (2017) adopted
the definition of humility as an individual orientation based on the foundation of eagerness to
view self accurately and the inclination to position oneself in a contextual view. They also
emphasized that humility could enable leader efficacy from two viewpoints; first: it allows the
leader to cast, share, and implement a vision, and second: it can enable followers’ motivation and
eagerness to sacrifices (van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015).
Oc et al. (2019) found that demonstrating leader humility indirectly elevates follower
genuineness and transparency. The same study acknowledged that leader humility is intrinsically
interpersonal and other-oriented, which enables positive employee work-related outcomes.
According to Nielsen and Marrone (2018), humility is broadly considered as a human character
strength, which has had a deep connection in history within philosophy and religion. Zhou and
Wu (2018) emphasized that humility is an enduring human characteristic with an emphasis on its
other-heightening orientation and openness about the leader’s developmental process. Humility
also can create bonds and can be perceived as closer proximity between leader and follower,
where the leader is perceived as ‘one of us’ (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2017). They found that
29
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
humble leaders achieved the highest effect on followers’ engagement regardless of their
hierarchical position while the blend of humility and action-orientation appeared to be most
effective for senior executives. They also underlined other impacts of humility, such as raise in
trustworthiness, which increases the level of confidence amongst individuals enabling elevated
eagerness to act fairly, ethically, and transparently.
Davis et al. (2016) reviewed and discussed the commonalities and distinctions between
intellectual humility (IH) and general humility (GH). General humility encompasses an accurate
view of self, including strengths and weaknesses, as well as another orientation as opposed to
self-orientation, the capability to withstand egoism. Intellectual humility also includes selfawareness with insights of limitations and open-mindedness for new ideas as well as discussing
ideas in a fair, unbiased way. Davis et al. (2016) deepened the study by focusing on behavioral
tendencies specific to intellectual humility and applied factor analysis to test the distinction
between intellectual humility and general humility. Their findings showed evidence concluding
that IH and GH are different constructs and found proof that intellectual humility is a subdomain
of general humility.
Weidman, Cheng, and Tracy (2016) examined the psychological structure of humility.
Their study stemmed from the realization that understanding of humility progresses noticeably in
the past hundred years while still lacks sufficient consensus on standard definition about what
humility is and conceptualization also ranges considerably across reviews. Researchers
conducted a methodical investigation of the structure of humility through cluster analysis of
humility-related words, examined momentary and dispositional humility experiences, and
experimental induction of momentary humility experiences as well. The empirical examination
30
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
developed several stimulating hypotheses and revealed complementary findings to current
humility approaches.
Weidman et al. (2018) suggested that humility has two distinct forms: appreciative
humility and self-abusing humility. The already broadly conceptualized aspect of appreciative
humility stemming from personal accomplishments with orientation and celebration of others. In
contrast, self-abusing humility represents the dark side of humility emerging from personal
failures with negative self-view resulting in avoidance of others judgment. In scholarly literature,
humility is operationalized by seven subdomains: first: other orientation/unselfish, second:
openness/lack of superiority, third: interpersonal modesty, fourth: accurate view of self, fifth:
willing to admit mistakes/teachability, sixth: regulation of need for status and seventh:
spiritual/existential self. In contrast, the study suggests that there is a self-abasing side of
humility drawn out from personal failures, low self-opinion or even feeling shame, avoiding
others' evaluation, and attempt to disengage from social situations.
According to Sousa and Dierendonck, (2017) measuring humility can be difficult as
humble people often do not proclaim themselves humble. Therefore, self-reporting is challenging
and not be an accurate assessment of humility. Kruse, Chancellor, and Lyubomirsky (2017) also
substantiated that humility does not reveal itself well to measurement in a self-assessment
setting; instead, it has been assessed primarily using other-reports methodologies. They also
acknowledged that although the other-reports approach is beneficial to study humility, it presents
challenges that need to be understood and mitigated to get reliable results. Other-reports
challenges include dependency on participants’ abilities to judge humility accurately and the risk
of intermingling humility with related constructs such as modesty.
31
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
McElroy-Heltzel et al. (2019) critically reviewed 22 measurements of humility. They
scrutinized the growing literature of humility and the related humility measurement strategies.
This comprehensive examination identified eight subdomains for humility, reviewed definitions,
and built predictions for convergent validity for each. The analyses examined the 22 humility
measurements from a content domain standpoint through the lens of eight identified subdomains;
first: openness/lack of superiority, second: other orientation/unselfishness, third: admitting
mistakes/teachability, fourth: interpersonal modesty, fifth: accurate view of self, sixth: global
humility, seventh: spiritual humility and eight: regulate need for status. The study summarized
findings for each measurement and discussed recommendations for the primary use of three
measures of general humility: the Honesty-Humility subscale of the HEXACO-PI, the Expressed
Humility Scale, and the Rational Humility Scale. They also compiled an overview assessment of
humility measures (see Figure B6).
Leadership Behaviors
Behrend, Matz, and Gortz (2016) conducted a comprehensive taxonomic analysis of
effective leadership behaviors and identified four overarching behavioral categories for
leadership; task-oriented, relationship-oriented, change-oriented, and external behaviors. From
the theoretical standpoint, they adopted Yukl’s (2012) definition for leadership as “influencing
and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” therefore they
emphasized the two vital leadership behavior should be task orientation and relationship
orientation. Upon further study, they suggested three task-oriented leadership behavior elements;
enhancing understanding, strengthening motivation, and facilitating implementation.
Behrend, Matz, and Gortz (2016) advocated that those three primary behavioral
categories enable leaders to support their teams carry out the task effectively. They also
32
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
conceptualized three vital elements of relationship-oriented leadership behavior to improve
collective cooperation and individual engagement by: first: fostering coordination, second:
promoting cooperation and third: activating resources. By promoting coordination, leaders
enable group alignment and prevention of diverged activities. To continually fostering aligned
coordination, leaders need to address unwanted behaviors of their followers’ on-the-spot and
need to make sure this coordination is still intact event they are not present.
Behrend, Matz and Gortz (2016) emphasized that leaders often develop and deploy
standardized processes to consistently maintain coordinated behaviors and obtain consistent
outcome. Promoting coordination requires leaders to encourage individual contribution within
the group by understanding their team members’ unique capabilities and coordinating their
assignments to maximize group outcome. At the same time leaders need to keep a balance
between leader-led cooperation and grass-loot coordination by empowerment and allowing
autonomy for their teams to coordinate independently. Leaders activating resources behavior
encompass not only the direct resource mobilization actions but also fostering a culture with
positive reinforcement and enhancing self-efficacy.
Yulk (2012) integrated leaders’ task-oriented, relationship-oriented, change-oriented, and
external behaviors while emphasized the significance of the quality and timing of these effective
leadership behaviors and the impact of situational variables. Behrend, Matz, and Gortz (2016)
captured their conceptual model integrating task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership
behavior, supporting the claim (see Figure B7). The model captures the core element of each
behavior category. The task-oriented behaviors are conceptualized along the horizontal spectrum
of routine to change task while the relationship-oriented behaviors are represented along the
internal to external spectrum.
33
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Independent Variables of The Study: Leading With Humility And Respecting Every
Individual
Tischler et al. (2016) indicated that insights from positive leadership and organizational
culture predicate that coherent values and leadership behaviors impact culture which enhances
desirable outcomes for employees as well. Drawing from prior research, I constructed the
variables of the study based on a comprehensive review of relevant literature, contextualized
with two decades of multinational leadership personal experiences and self-reflection. A
common theme emerged from the review about two of the bedrock elements of effective
leadership—respect and humility which is supported by Frostenson’s (2016) statement that
leadership humility is evolving into a strategic measure to attain business success.
I formulated a construct to study both leading with humility and respecting every
individual from the leadership behavioral standpoint. Lead with humility has been established by
a sub-set of six behavioral dimensions in the study; first: seek out and value others' ideas,
second: admit vulnerability, third: empower and engage everyone, fourth: view self accurately,
fifth: put others first and sixth: inquire. Respecting every individual has been established by a
sub-set of six behavioral dimensions in the study: first: value each individual, second: nourish
employees to their full potential, third: assure a safe and healthy work environment, fourth: listen
actively, fifth: appreciate others and sixth: provide support to succeed.
Lead with Humility
Seek Out and Value Others’ Ideas
This behavioral dimension represents humbleness by admitting the leader does not know
all the answers. Servant leaders recognize their own limitations and for that reason, they
sincerely look for inputs and contributions from others to balance out their own shortcomings
34
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
(Sousa & Dierendonck, 2017). Larry Culp (2020), Chairman and CEO of General Electric, wrote
about leadership humility in his Moving Forward post: “our first leadership behavior is Act with
Humility. Humility begins by admitting none of us have all the answers” (p. 2). Frostenson
(2016) emphasized that humble leaders are aware of their own limits of knowledge and decisionmaking capabilities. Humble leaders realize they cannot be the best-rounded person in every
single situation. They actively engage in seeking out inputs from others to strengthen their
understanding of the situation, explore alternative options for resolution, and make the best
decision possible based on the collective knowledge supplemented by their knowledge.
Admit Vulnerability
Teachability, transparently share mistakes and learning. In conjunction with de Bruin
(2013), Frostenson (2016) emphasized that leader humility can be viewed as a cognitive virtue
that enables the person to be cognizant of their own fallibility. Meyer et al. (2017) described the
positive vulnerability as an eagerness, to be truthful, and open to learning by accepting our own
fallibility, facing ourselves as imperfect human beings of not knowing everything, and being
occasionally wrong. Lopez (2018) defined vulnerability as a readiness to be transparent and
emotionally uncovered in a relationship with another individual, with the likelihood of being
injured or attacked. Brown (2016) characterized vulnerability as a construct of uncertainty, risk,
and exposure and emphasized that vulnerability is a prerequisite to being real and authentic. She
argued that leaders’ willingness to own and share their vulnerability determines the depth of their
courage. According to her, vulnerability is all about embracing and admitting imperfection
together with the readiness to own and share mistakes and withstand criticism.
Meyer et al. (2017) argued that the thought of vulnerability governs a relationship of
trust. They emphasized that trust and trust-building behaviors are vital in all levels of society.
35
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
They distinguished three concepts with regards to trust; trustworthiness as a measure of
truthfulness from one person to another, trust propensity as an aptitude, and trust itself. They
defined trustworthiness as a judgment of another person's sincerity based on exhibited behaviors
and demonstrated integrity. They argued that trust propensity is the inclination of eagerness to
have confidence in someone and ultimately trust another person. They emphasized that trust is a
social state with honesty and openness that includes the construct of trust propensity and
trustworthiness together. They underlined vulnerability as part of the leaders’ emotional candor
to form a mutual understanding with their teams. They distinguished positive and negative
vulnerability, where positive vulnerability represents the eagerness to be honest and personal
learning by accepting perfection.
Empower and Engage Everyone
Empowerment represents a decentralized power distribution structure that manifests itself
in the delegation of decision-making to others. Choi et al. (2016) defined empowerment as a
strategic management choice that can stimulate employees to go above and beyond while
autonomously achieving assignments. Connecting and engaging others are vital elements of
leadership.
View Self Accurately
Willingness to self-awareness. Caldwell and Hayes (2016) referenced self-awareness as a
keystone for emotional intelligence, which enables leaders to choose the most appropriate way to
engage and interact with others. A heightened level of self-awareness requires regular selfreflection cadences to evaluate one’s behaviors, strengths, and weaknesses objectively. Sousa
and Dierendonck (2017) adopted the definition of humility as an individual orientation based on
36
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
the foundation of eagerness to view self accurately and the inclination to position oneself in a
contextual view.
Put Others First
Tischler et al. (2016) servant leadership embodies putting and serving others first. They
emphasized that servant leadership expands further than other leadership approaches by giving
priority to the advancement, growth, and well-being of others even beyond the narrow
professional needs instead of as a whole human being. They also underlined that diverse research
findings imply that servant leadership behavior provides desirable outcomes for employees, such
as employee creativity, unit performance, and customer service. Frostenson (2016) argued that
humble leaders are acting intentionally to enhance others rather than enhancing themselves.
Inquire
Morris (2017) articulated inquiry as a scientific method, with a clear line of questions
starting from grasping the problem, building hypothesis, through experimentation and
observation of results, all the way to concussions and interpreting the findings. Seek-tounderstand involves grasping the situation, gathering facts, understanding different viewpoints,
building, and validating hypotheses in a structured way as opposed to prematurely jumping to
conclusions. The inquiry dimension of leadership represents a learning approach, where the
leader does not come with answers instead seeks to understand while developing followers in
scientific thinking through the process. Van Quaquebeke and Felps (2018) referenced Peter
Drucker (2004), the visionary leadership scholar who stated, “The leader of the past was a person
who knew how to tell. The leader of the future will be a person who knows how to ask” (p.22).
Van Quaquebeke and Felps (2018) emphasized that respectful inquiry is a forceful leadership
37
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
technique, by exercising the daily habit of asking open-ended questions and attentively listening
to the feedback to those questions.
Consequently, Van Quaquebeke and Felps (2018) defined respectful inquiry as “the
multidimensional construct of asking questions openly and subsequently listening attentively” (p.
7). Building upon Schein’s (2013) finding of the power of inquiry, Van Quaquebeke and Felps
(2018) also underlined that respectful questioning creates more supportive work relationships.
They advocated for an increased necessity of a humble, inquisitive leadership style by exercising
the gentle art of asking questions as means to gain new insights, as opposed to giving answers
and instructions to followers. They also emphasized the multidimensional construct of respectful
inquiry characterized by the level of openness to feedback (high or low) and the level of listening
(high or low), supporting the claim (see Figure B8).
Questions are the Answers
Gregersen (2018), a leading scholar in the field of culture of inquiry, advocated for
quality questions. He argued that questions are the answer in his recent publication and
underlined that in inquiry, the question is the instrument to seek new information and get
answers. Studying innovative, successful companies, he uncovered similar patterns with inquiry
reach environment where more people are asking great, truth-seeking questions. Leaders in those
organizations systematically create conditions to drive inquires, ask questions, and reveal new
paths for improvement. In his view, great questions are used to grasp and solve problems by
challenging fundamental assumptions and provide energy to carry out something different.
Gregersen (2018) developed the Question Burst method to develop thoughtful, lightseeking questions. His three-step method starts with: setting the stage and selecting the challenge
for the inquiry (selecting topic and participant for the process); brainstorming questions (focused
38
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
effort to get at least 15 questions thinking deeply about the challenge at hand); and identifying
the most appropriate question and commit to it (by reviewing the questions, identifying new
pathways and committing a new path to follow and try out). He also quoted Peter Drucker, who
said: “the important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right
question, for there are few things as useless, if not dangerous, as the right answer to the wrong
question” (p. 70).
Respect Every Individual
Hitendra and Brown (2020), discussed the concept of the untapped potential of each
individual. They pointed out that we should be respecting every individual because every person
has untapped potential and inherent values; therefore, we should respect everyone. They
emphasized the importance of realizing untapped potential by shackling the limiting believes and
enabling individuals to discover their true potential.
Value Each Individual
Human-centered, servant leadership. According to McGuire and Palus (2018), from the
Center for Creative Leadership at its core, respect is a constant process of recognizing the merits
of every individual and actively listening to people. Cultivating the climate of respect in an
organization starts with fostering genuine interest and appreciation of every member of the
organization and values their contribution to the overall organizational outcome.
Balter (2020), a multi-start-up founder, CEO, and author of The Humility Imperative,
described a concept part of being humble is being a sponge while being a stone at the same time.
Humble leaders are sponges who value others, constantly seek information and ideas, and
adapting to new information. Humble leaders are also stones, who are persistent and confident in
their abilities to lead, and who keep up with the challenges around them. Balter and Brown
39
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
(2020) also discussed those humble leaders always balance being confident and being humble at
the same time.
Nourish Employees to Their Full Potential
According to Brown (2020), a primary function of leadership is to support and develop
followers to reach their full potential. The concept where managers deeply care about an
individual’s personal growth manifests in the organization’s commitment to growing its people.
Coetzee, van der Merwe and van Dyk (2016) researched Toyota’s Production System and the
Toyota Ways as the management philosophy of one of the most successful industrial companies.
They concluded that Toyota’s success is largely driven by long-term adherence to its two
cornerstone principles: continuous improvement and respect for people. They pointed out that
Toyota’s commitment to nourish their employees to their full potential is embodied in their core
philosophy, namely respect for people. The company’s commitment to growing its people is
reiterated by Fujio Cho, Toyota’s former Chairman’s statement: “First we build people, then we
build cars” (Liker, 2004, p. 80). Coetzee et al. (2016) emphasized that the development of people
can be promoted in different ways. They underlined that the most broadly used people
development methods successful organizations apply to enable their employee's full potential
includes providing challenging work assignments, training and carrier opportunities, and
personal mentoring.
Assure a Safe and Healthy Work Environment
Assuring a safe work environment demonstrates the organization's commitment to
putting the safety of its employees first. This commitment manifests itself in the safety always
mindset and actions. Charter Partners (2017) referenced Paul O’Neil as an exemplary leader who
put assuring safety and a healthy work environment into practice very successfully in a large-
40
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
scale manufacturing company. O’Neil took over the struggling aluminum processing giant,
Alcoa as CEO in 1987. O’Neil believed that human resources are the most critical assets of the
company and realized that providing a safe workplace is the highest level of obligation of all
leaders. He made safety risk reduction and the drive for an injury-free workplace as the primary
focus in his turnaround plan. His vision was to make Alcoa the safest manufacturing company in
America. O’Neil picked safety records as the fundamental indicators for all leaders to attribute
progress in Alcoa to change habits across the organization.
O’Neil also emphasized that safety is not a priority; it is a precondition for organizational
behavior (Charter Partners, 2017). In a broader organizational cultural context, O’Neil laid out
three critical success factors for organizations seeking true greatness; first: establishing a culture
where everyone is treated with dignity and respect in the organization, second: providing support
everything needed to succeed and giving meaning to the life of coworkers, third: building
systems to recognize progress and accomplishments towards shared goals. His relentless focus
on safety transformed Alcoa and its culture, which produced extraordinary results not only in
terms of safety records but also in financial terms as well. Staying true to his vision and
consistently driving the earlier discuss success factors, O'Neil executed a very successful
turnaround plan at Alcoa, resulting in a 5-fold increase in revenue. As a result, Alcoa's market
cap increased from $3 billion to $27 billion.
Listen Actively
Intentional, active listening means listening with undivided attention. According to
Chapman and Sisodia (2015), deep listening is not about drafting a response or assisting
someone in solving a problem; it is about attending with a focus on the desires of the other
individual. Van Quaquebeke and Felps (2018) referenced attentive listening as a core component
41
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
of respectful inquiry. They referenced active listening as a core leadership technique and
behavior to seek information and feedback from followers. According to Hitendra Wadhwa,
Researcher, and Professor at Columbia Business School, great leaders are great followers
because they are great listeners and great learners as well. He emphasized that great leaders listen
to their inner voice (instincts) and listen to the outer voice of others (seeking ideas from others)
as well (Brown, 2020).
Appreciate Others
Culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition. According to Frostenson (2016), humility
is strongly associated with gratitude, appreciation, and sharing accomplishments with others,
acknowledging, and thanking others for their contribution. Stocker et al. (2018) emphasized that
being showed appreciation at work impacts coworkers’ well-being and health and may safeguard
the effects of stressors that may endanger one’s feelings. They also underlined that appreciation
conveys regard, acknowledgment, or esteem, all of which positively impact experiences at work.
Giving appreciation boosts one’s self-confidence and strengthens professional identity. Drawing
on prior scholars’ contribution (Grover, 2014; Van Quaquebeke and Felps, 2018), Stocker et al.
(2018) defined appreciation as disclosing that one values someone else with the terms of: (a)
absolutely recognizing the person as an individual; or (b) endorsing his or her accomplishments,
behavior, or qualities. Their research found empirical evidence that appreciation by their
supervisor moderates the impact of work interruptions on employees’ well-being with respect to
four factors: job satisfaction, self-efficacy, job-related depressive mood, and sleep problems.
Provide Support to Succeed
As an outcome of researching the evolution of organizational support, Kurtessis et al.
(2017) concluded that there are numerous ways to let employees know that the organization
42
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
cares about their well-being, values their contributions, and is dedicated to supporting their
success. The organization’s commitment to providing support to its employees embodies itself in
the form of arranging tools, training, and resources to thrive. Haney et al. (2019) emphasized that
training provides the means to arm the team with skills for success. They also underlined that the
appreciation for investing in training sends a strong message to the organization. It emphasizes
that the company cares about its people, which in return, not only upscale skills but also build
trust as well.
Gallo (2011) concurred with Hill’s research that leaders need to establish supportive
autonomy that appreciates and supports employees at every level in the organization. Supportive
autonomy combines and balances two initiatives; taking care of employees by providing
resources to succeed while giving room and independence to flourish at their pace. They
emphasized that care and support need to focus on the whole person, not only the working
person. Training and growth opportunities impact and enrich employees’ professional and
personal life; it enables their professional growth and enhances the whole life experience.
Dependent Variable of The Study: Employee Engagement
Popli and Rizvi (2016) pointed out that in the present economic conditions with
broadening global competition and moderate growth outlook, elevating employee engagement is
seen as a vital strategy for long-term organizational prosperity. Researchers have presented
considerable evidence on organizational outcomes of employee engagement, including higher
levels of earnings, overall income generation, and growth (Popli & Rizvi, 2016). Alongside the
economic impact, empirical evidence implies that high-level work engagement advances
employee’s job satisfaction, productivity, organizational citizenship while positively impacts
43
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
customer service as well (Popli & Rizvi, 2016). Researchers also agreed on the multidimensional
nature of employee engagement influenced by several factors (Popli & Rizvi, 2016).
Commonly cited positive enablers of employee engagement include management
practices, relationship with supervisor, personal growth opportunities, rewards and recognition,
teamwork, and supportive environment and benefits (Hewitt, 2017). Popli and Rizvi (2016)
argued that a close analysis of employee engagement drivers reveals the significance of
leadership behaviors fostering employee engagement as one of the most critical individual
factors influencing work engagement. Hewitt’s (2017) trends in global employee engagement
study advocated the principle that leaders carried the key to employee engagement and
emphasized the importance of competent leadership in nurturing employee engagement.
According to Popli and Rizvi (2016), senior leadership actions impact a wide range of
drivers. These are drivers of engagement, including management practices, advancement
possibilities, rewards and recognition, teamwork, benefits, and overall work environment. They
concurred with earlier researchers' findings with evidence for a link between leadership
behaviors and employee engagement; leadership seems to be a critical enabler for engagement to
happen. They also advocated conducting further empirical research to examine the leadershipengagement relationship.
Jha and Kumar (2016) argued that employees’ productivity is crucial for business and
regarded employee engagement as a strategic tool to gain a competitive advantage and enhance
organizational performance. Employee engagement is considered a two-way exchange between
employees and the organization, where the level of engagement improves non-financial
outcomes such as customer service, employee retention, and the financial performance of the
organization. They also discussed four levels of employee engagement; highly or totally
44
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
engaged, moderately or almost engaged, passive, nearly engaged, also nearly disengaged, and
actively disengaged. Engagement happens on a social, intellectual, and emotional level in the
workplace, influenced by the work environment as well. They acknowledged that engagement
can produce exceptional outcomes and can propel the growth of the organization. Simply put, the
more satisfied and engaged the employees are, the better services they provide, which in return
increases customers’ satisfaction and prosperity of the organization.
Savas (2019) argued that an organizational culture that relies heavily on results with
much less attention to means risks the emergence of dysfunctional leadership behaviors. To
prevent those unintended leadership behaviors, Savas (2019) advised changing leadership
performance metrics from a solely financial-based scorecard to a combined financial and
behavioral-based scorecard, including the quality of interactions with coworkers and
stakeholders as well.
Gandolfi, Stone, and Deno (2017) reported that leaders have the ultimate responsibility to
transform people within the organization. Leaders are accountable for converting their teams
from being mission detractors or neutral to becoming promoters of the organization. Promoters
happily dedicate their time and talents, which in return advances the value of the organization.
Global Employee Engagement Model
Blank et al. (2017) underlined that while human beings are entirely engaged only on a
personal basis, organizations can embed the necessary fundamentals to enable an engaged
workforce. With the quest to accumulate the learning, they conducted extensive research of
academic and business literature on employee engagement. They enriched the literature review
with insights gained from crowd-sourcing feedback from working professionals from the front
line of employee engagement and supplemented with their own research experiences. Based on
45
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
this study, they proposed the creation of a Global Employee Engagement Model, supporting the
claim (see Figure B9).
Blank et al. (2017) underlined that the Global Engagement Model, the system of
employee engagement, is an interdependent framework, the benefits of the cohesive system are
greater than the sum of yields of each component. The Global Engagement Model has seven
dimensions, and each part needs to be in place to accomplish the most significant organizational
benefits. The purpose dimension of the model encompasses the fundamental purpose, why the
organization exists, and how this purpose drives engagement and energizes the employees. The
model emphasizes that deep employee commitment starts with a profound connection to the why
first. Customers do not buy the product, and employees do the work, not what the company
makes but why the company makes it (Sinek, 2015). The Great Place to Work Institution
surveyed 429 U.S. companies, collected 450,000 survey feedback, and analyzed the relationship
between employee engagement and organizational purpose (Gartenberg, Pret & Serafeim, 2016).
The outcome of this research suggested that organizations that cultivate a culture where
employees keep up a strong emotional connection to the meaning of their experience better
performance.
Blank et al.'s (2017) study suggested that organizations with a strong tie between
employees’ beliefs and organizational purpose with meaningful work, nurture better employee
engagement, and accomplish higher financial returns. The second dimension of the model is
work design, which represents how the work is architected and distributed throughout the
organization. Work design captures the structure, procedures, organization, and overall work
experience. Systematic, thoughtful job design, evenly distributed work positively impacts work
engagement (Blank et al., 2017). The social system represents the human network component
46
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
with connections and interactions. Schweyer and Williams (2015) found that the more inclusive
the organization involved and less segregated an employee, then the more likely they experience
a higher level of engagement at work.
According to Bank et al. (2017), the personal growth dimension of the Global Employee
Engagement Model captures the desire to realize potential. They underlined that companies need
to be intentionally embedding a growth mentality in the organization. Dweck (2016) emphasized
that when organizations pursue a growth mindset, their employees experience more
empowerment, which in return, elevates their commitment. In this environment, employees also
enjoy more significant support, which flourishes organizational collaboration and innovation. A
vital component of realizing a growth mindset is encouraging and rewarding not only results but
also learning and progress along the way while providing growth opportunities as well. The
contribution awareness segment of the model emphasizes the natural craving of human beings to
be appreciated.
The contribution awareness dimension of the model further accentuates the importance of
acknowledgment of achievements as well as efforts (Bank et al., 2017). Appreciation takes place
in different forms; it can be financial and tangible (non-monetary); however, to accomplish the
desired outcome it needs to be meaningful, personal, and memorable to the recipient. The
advocacy component of the model encourages transparency, trust-building, consistent
communication, and building connection to the higher purpose of the organization. Lastly, the
well-being dimension of the model stresses the need for being comfortable, healthy, and happy.
According to the World Happiness Report, wellbeing connects happiness, health, and quality of
life (Helliwell, et al, 2020). The study pointed out that the well-being of employees benefits not
only the individual but the company as well. Healthy, balanced employees are more loyal,
47
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
productive, and positively impact organizational performance. According to Bank et al. (2017),
the deeply-rooted presence of each of the seven dimensions of the model together makes the
most significant impact on employee engagement. They believe that the Global Employee
Engagement Model presents research-supported, behavioral-based evidence supported by infiled practices that can be widely applicable for organizations.
Antecedents of Employee Engagement
According to Kaur (2017), employee engagement is a complex construct, influenced by
many factors. He completed an extensive academic literature review for antecedents of employee
engagement and found limited empirical research on the subject. He acknowledged that while
scholars are continually exploring the construct of employee engagement, however, there is no
unquestionable alignment of antecedents of work engagement yet. Based on his review of 63
empirical research papers, he identified industry and country-specific factors engagement factors
and concluded that “employee engagement is an individual-level construct which appears to
manifest in three levels: (a) behavioral; (b) emotional; and (c) cognitive. His literature review
identified that the most frequently studied and cited antecedents of employee engagement were
organizational communication, rewards and recognition, corporate culture, and workplace
relationships.
Al-Tit and Hunitie (2015) studied the mediating effect of employee engagement between
its antecedents and consequences. Their review mentioned employee engagement as a potential
source of organizational competitive advantage. Through their critical review of literature, they
identified 12 antecedents of employee engagement and tested they are examined their mediating
effect on employee engagement. To test the mediating relationship between independent
variables (antecedents) and dependent variable (employee engagement), they established three
48
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
conditions to be met: (a) confirmed a direct relationship between the independent and dependent
variable, (b) demonstrated a direct relationship between the independent variable and the
mediating variable and (c) confirmed a direct relationship between the mediating variable and
the dependent variable. The identified and tested twelve potential antecedents were: employee
communication, clear growth opportunities, employee’s pride in the organization, managers’
trust and integrity, rewards and recognition, feedback and mentoring, work motivation,
psychological empowerment, internal corporate social responsibility practices, organizational
and supervisory support, organizational justice, and organizational culture. They found the three
highest correlation coefficients to employee engagement were: rewards and recognition,
employee communication, and organizational and supervisory support. Their model built with
the twelve potential antecedents as independent variables were able to explain 80% of the
variation (R square 0.802) where psychological empowerment showed the highest regression
coefficient predicting the most significant effect on employee engagement, closely followed by
rewards and recognition and managers’ trust and integrity as strongest contributors to overall
variation. Their study confirmed prior research finding that managers’ trust and integrity matter;
other world leadership behaviors are amongst the top drivers of employee engagement.
Wushe and Shenje (2019) concurred with other researchers and tied effective leadership
to employee engagement with and direct line of sight to organizational performance (Jiang &
Men, 2017; Krishnaveni & Monica, 2016; Carasco-Saul, Kim, & Kim, 2015). They concluded
that both effective leadership and training and career development were the most significant
antecedents of employee engagement. They argue that leadership behaviors significantly impact
employee engagement.
49
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Leadership and Work Engagement
Carasco-Saul, Kim, and Kim (2015) acknowledged that while leadership is amongst of
the most researched subjects in the organization sciences, and employee engagement is on the
rise in the past decade. However, the relationship between leadership and employee engagement
has not been broadly investigated. They recognized the extensively researched and publicized
impact of employee engagement and the general connection between leadership behaviors on
work engagement. Bersin (2015) argued that perhaps the most impactful component of a highly
engaged, irresistible organization is leadership. He emphasized that leadership elevates
engagement by clearly articulating the vision and sense of purpose for the organization, leading
transparently, continually investing in people, and inspiring followers to give their best. CarascoSaul, Kim, and Kim (2015) urged researchers to examine and holistically explore and
relationships and mechanisms between leadership and engagement to further grasp how best to
nourish positive results in followers. They joined this effort and conducted an extensive study on
theoretical and empirical research that investigated the relationship between leadership behaviors
and employee engagement. Based on the analysis, they concluded that the way leaders behave
and are perceived by followers, the extent they influence followers’ attitudes, through the quality
of the work environment they nurture can all affect the effectiveness of leadership and
augmentation of employee engagement.
Scholars argued that leaders can provide a competitive advantage to the organization by
positively impacting the productivity of their employees (Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2019). They
also argued that employee engagement might be a crucial factor in organizational success.
Following the most-accepted work engagement construct, they also formed the concept of
engagement along three dimensions: first: the behavioral-energetic element (vigor), second: the
50
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
emotional component (dedication), and third: cognitive element (absorption). Vigor displays
itself in high-energy levels and fortitude. Dedication encompasses enthusiasm and stimulus,
while absorption exhibits an utmost commitment to the work, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) called it
being in a flow state.
Decuypere and Schaufeli (2019) studied the positive leadership models and formed an
underlying model to conceptualize the relationship between positive leadership behavior and
employee work engagement. The positive leadership platform encompasses all related leadership
styles; transformational, servant, authentic, and ethical leadership. They recognized that each
style has a unique focus. However, they share a common underlying foundation that each
positively impacts employee outcomes. Upon a holistic review, they formed a viewpoint
suggesting that positive leadership styles have a common foundation that manifests in very much
the same behaviors in the workplace, similarly impacting employee work engagement. Cheema,
Akhram and Javed (2015) studied the impact of employee engagement and visionary leadership
(vision guiding, emotional commitment) on employee and customer satisfaction. They found a
significant relationship of employee engagement, vision guiding, and emotional commitment on
customer and employee satisfaction.
Based on conceptual and quantitative indications overlap, Decuypere and Schaufeli
(2019) argued that remarkably similar basic leadership behaviors are shared across all positive
leadership styles. They argued that fundamentally all positive leadership styles behave very
similarly in the workplace; leaders who have a high level of engagement resemble remarkably
similar behavioral patterns. Consequently, leaders’ behavioral impact on employee engagement
follows a similar general path. They advocated that leadership impacts employee engagement
51
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
through three primary avenues: emotional cognition (affective pathway), social exchange
(cognitive path), and role modeling (behavioral pathway), supporting the claim (see Figure B10).
According to Decuypere and Schaufeli (2019) research model, positive leader behavior
follows two direct and three indirect paths. The indirect route encapsulates a material and a
motivational track. The material way originates from the Job Demands-Resources Theory and
impacts employee engagement through job characteristics, including job requirements and job
resources. The spectrum of those job characteristics manifests in stress processes, potential
burnout, and motivational processes, all impacting level of engagement. The Job-DemandsResource (JD-R) Theory emphasizes the leadership role to balance demand and resource
equation to enable employees to carry out the work effectively. The motivational pathway
follows the interpersonal process built upon the Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The
interpersonal process and SDT emphasize the significance of the psychological need for
satisfaction, where the satisfaction of employees impacts the level of work engagement.
Shu (2015) emphasized that leaders who are directly involved with the employee's dayto-day activities have a significant impact on the level of employees’ engagement. Per
Decuypere and Schaufeli (2019), along the direct path between positive leadership behavior and
employee engagement lies the affective, behavioral, and cognitive trails. The affective trail
represents a straightforward process based on emotional contagion. They defined emotional
contagion as a propensity when someone unconsciously imitates another person’s facial
appearance, display of attitudes and expression, and subsequently mingle emotionally. In this
path, a positive leadership style directly impacts work engagement through positive interactions.
The direct cognitive way transmits through social exchange between leaders and followers based
on reciprocating support. The behavioral trail represents a direct path between leadership
52
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
behavior and employee engagement built upon the fundamentals of the Social Learning Theory.
Social learning encompasses role-modeling, where individuals observe social norms and
embrace or deny behaviors based on the relationship to the role model behavior. The closer the
match, the higher the likelihood of acceptance is. Role modeling behaviors are significant in the
social learning process, a crucial element of leadership influencing employee engagement.
Following Decuypere and Schaufeli's (2019) research, which emphasized the leaders can serve
as a role for employees positively impacting employee engagement when they exhibit their
vigor, absorption, and dedication. This study will attempt to test and condense the vital few
leadership behaviors likely to produce a high level of work engagement.
Measuring Employee Engagement
Farnadale et al. (2014) argued that employee engagement is an enticing organizational
aid given its impact potential on organizational performance. A handful of prominent
organizations pioneered the empirical quantification of the level of employee engagement.
Shrotryia & Dhanda (2019), recognized that while employee engagement stimulated immense
interest amongst researchers and practitioners, mainly due to the lack of a broadly accepted,
standardized definition and operationalization, there is no single unified measurement for
employee engagement. With the quest to explore what is the best measure of employee
engagement, they completed a literature review of the most significant instruments measuring
employee engagement. They selected and organized the ten most vital instruments in an easily
comparable, summary fashion capturing theoretical origin, definition, variables, reliability, and
research insights for each, supporting the claim (see Figure B11).
Shrotryia and Dhanda (2019) discussed the approaches and major insights from the ten
most significant employee engagement instruments under review. They noted that Gallup’s
53
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Workplace Audit approaches employee engagement from the practitioner’s standpoint, focusing
on overall satisfaction and engagement. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) centered
on vigor, dedication, and absorption. Schaufeli et al. (2006) tested and found a significant
negative relationship between burnout and engagement. They found Psychological Engagement
Measures discovered that psychological meaningfulness and safety are positively related to work
engagement. The Job Engagement and Organizational Scale uncovered that there is a substantial
difference between work and organizational engagement, higher level of value, anticipated
organizational support, and core self-evaluations are related to higher levels of employee
engagement.
The Employee Engagement Survey disclosed that engagement was positively associated
with other formulations such as supervisory support, recognition, and career development
(Shrotryia & Dhanda, 2019). The Global Engagement Survey constructed the relationship
between job satisfaction and engagement. Soane et al. (2012) published the Intellectual, Social,
Affective Engagement Scale (ISA ES) using a nine-question survey with a seven-point scale.
They defined intellectual engagement as the anticipated involvement of positive affect relating to
one's work role, affective engagement as a level of positive affect one’s work role, and social
engagement as the extent of social connectedness. The ISA Engagement Scale Higher revealed
that a higher level of employee engagement is associated with value congruence, organizational
support, and core self-evaluations. Employee Engagement Measure positively correlated with the
UWES. The Employee Engagement Scale underlined that employee engagement is a function of
cognitive, emotional, and social engagement.
54
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
According to Schaufeli et al. (2019), from the field application perspective, Gallup’s Q12
instrument is one of the most prominent measures of engagement used by hundreds of
organizations worldwide. Schneider et al. (2017) also underlined that the most broadly used
operationalization of engagement in academic research is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES) instrument. The UWES measures employee engagement around three dimensions:
vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor captures the level of energy, perseverance, and
eagerness to dedicate effort to one’s work. Dedication represents the awareness of significance,
passion, and self-esteem, and commitment to the challenge. Absorption characterizes the intense
concentration captivated by one’s work where time passes by quickly rapidly, and one has
challenges to disconnect oneself.
Evolution of UWES Instrument (UWES-17, UWES-9 and UWES-3)
Kulikovszky (2017) stated that UWES is the most broadly used engagement instrument
and is considered a standard measurement tool in work engagement studies. Schaufeli et al.
(2019) developed the original Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in 2002 on the premise of
attributing employee engagement levels. Originally the UWES was introduced as a 17 question,
self-report instrument capturing feedback on the three dimensions of engagement: vigor,
absorption, and dedication, as presented earlier. While UWES is the most universally used
engagement instrument, Kulikovszky (2017) also pointed out it does not exempt from flaws.
UWES’s validity is a concern amongst a group of researchers questioning the three-factor
construct (vigor, absorption, and dedication) and its superiority and reliability over a onefactorial model; however, this argument is not entirely conclusive yet.
55
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
According to Schaufeli et al. (2019), as employee engagement instruments gained
worldwide popularity, researchers felt growing pressure from organizations to optimize the
instrument to address time and resource-related concerns with the original 17 questions survey.
They argued that the motive of streamlining the survey instrument extended beyond responding
to the time dedication-related concerns of employers. Shortening the survey also reduced the
chances of participants’ survey fatigue as well. Mills, Culbertson, and Fullagar (2012) analyzed
UWES-17 and UWES-9 and concluded that while the latter is much shorter, it interprets about
80% of the variation in the UWES-17 and was found as favorable compared to the extended
version.
Schaufeli et al. (2019) developed the ultra-shortened, 3-item version of the UWES
instrument, where only three questions were selected to inquire and capture employee
engagement. One question represents each of the three dimensions. Vigor is represented by the
question of: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”. Dedication is represented by the question
of “I am enthusiastic about my job”. Lastly, absorption is represented by the question of “I am
immersed in my work”. They validated the UWES-3 relative to UWES-9 and found convincing
evidence that UWES-9 can be shortened meaningfully. They concluded that UWES-3 is a
reliable barometer for employee engagement with similar validity and reliability than the more
extended versions. The advantage of the ultra-short instrument includes the reduced time and
cost of survey taking and enabling the instrument in even broader use.
Impact of Employee Engagement
There is a consensus amongst scholars about the significance of employee engagement as
a critical factor of sustainable success in business (Miskelis, 2017). Griffin et al. (2015) argued
that employee engagement is vital to the longevity and success of organizations. Researchers
56
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
have presented considerable evidence on the impact of employee engagement on individual and
organizational outcomes (Popli & Rizvi, 2016).
Work Engagement and Employee Performance
Lisbona et al. (2018) studied the effect of work engagement and self-efficacy across 22
organizations and researched their impact on personal initiative and performance. Their study
revealed that work engagement results in higher self-efficacy, which consequently results in
higher performance. Cesario and Chambel (2017) researched the linkage between organizational
commitment and work engagement amongst Portuguese workers and their relationship to
employee performance. They found that work engagement has a strong association with an
effective commitment to the organization and a strong relationship to employee performance.
There is a broad consensus amongst scholars about the consequences of work engagement.
Employee engagement positively impacts job satisfaction, career satisfaction, wellbeing at work,
higher organizational commitment with a lower risk of leaving the organization (Cesario &
Chambel, 2017).
Work Engagement and Organizational Performance
Scholars concluded that increased work engagement elevates organizational productivity
and profitability (Griffin et al., 2015; Oswick, 2015). Staniškienė, Daunorienė, and Stankevičiūtė
(2018) identified a gap of knowledge understanding the impact of employee engagement relative
to the quality management system. Their study, conducted amongst national government
institutions located in Lithuania, found a robust correlation between employee’s work
engagement and the attitude to the quality management system and its efficiency. This data
suggests that highly engaged employees are actively engaged to improve their quality of work as
well.
57
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Juevesa, Juevesa, and Castino (2020) studied the context of employee engagement,
commitment, satisfaction, and organizational performance among the multigenerational
workforce in higher education institutions in the Philippines. Their study found that regardless of
employee generalization group, only employee engagement and job satisfaction were the two
predictors to improve organizational performance. Schneider et al. (2018) studied the
relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance amongst 102
publicly traded companies in North America. They established key performance indicators
around customer satisfaction as well as organizational financial outcome metrics such as Return
on Assets (ROA), which represents how profitable an organization relative to its total asset and
net margin, which indicates the profitability of the organization. Their study revealed that
workforce engagement is a significant predictor of ROA and Net Margin as companies with
highly engaged workforces produced better financial outcomes.
Summary
The literature review focused on grasping and synthesizing the most recent, relevant
scholarly literature and research findings for the context of leadership, leadership behaviors, and
employee engagement. This review went over and critiqued the most pertinent positive
leadership models, such as servant leadership, truly human leadership, level five leadership, and
humble leadership, followed by a discussion about the integrated model of leadership behaviors
to tie the generic leadership aspect to behavioral outcomes. The study established humility as an
overarching theme across the examined leadership models discussed the construct of humility
and introduced the most related foundational leadership behaviors, leading with humility and
respecting every individual. To build an academic foundation for the upcoming chapters, the
study continued by discussing the theoretical background of each independent variable and its
58
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
most likely behavioral constructs. The literature review concluded with the comprehension of
employee engagement, the most effective engagement measurement methods, and the impacts of
employee engagement. While the literature review was not all-encompassing, it provided a solid
theoretical foundation on leadership models, the behavioral aspect of leadership, and the
significance of employee engagement in organizational success. I synthetized the review
outcome into four significant insights: (a) employee engagement plays a significant role in
organizational outcomes—is broadly considered as a factor for organizational competitive
advantage; (b) employee engagement is a complex, not fully discovered construct where
amongst other factors leadership behaviors and support play an essential role; (c) while the
relationship between leadership behaviors and employee engagement is highly suspected, there is
limited academic research available to characterize this relationship; (d) there is very limited
research on specific leadership behaviors related to employee engagement, our knowledge is
minimal on what particular behaviors impact positively employee engagement.
Based on the review and insights, there is a good reason to believe that there is a
relationship between leadership behaviors and employee engagement. In the following research,
I examined the relationship between fundamental leadership behaviors leading with humility and
respecting every individual to employee engagement. Based on the extensive review of available
scholarly research, I solidified my independent variables of the study captured in Figure 3 and
decided to attribute and examine employee engagement in the upcoming research by the Short
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). The rationale of the survey tool selection for the
dependent variable includes its extensive use in academic research and the validated construct of
the UWES instrument. In addition, it is high-level of reliability, broad usability/generalizability,
and confirmed practicality with the shortened construct. Based on the firm foundation built upon
59
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
the scholarly literature review, I continue by discussing the study's methodology. Chapter 3
revisits the problem statement, reviews the research methodology, and discusses data analysis.
60
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Chapter 3: Methodology
There is limited empirical research on vital leadership behaviors’ impact on employee
engagement; a knowledge gap exists on what specific leadership behaviors foster a highly
engaged workforce (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2014; Popli & Rizvi, 2016; Xu &
Cooper-Thomas, 2011). The purpose of this quantitative study was twofold; first to examine
employee perceptions of the impact, if any, of two fundamental leadership behavior; (a) leading
with humility and (b) respecting every individual on employee engagement, and second to
explore the relative difference of impact leading with humility and respecting every individual
behavior on employee engagement. I sought to identify the critical characteristics of leadership
behavior that can help nourish employee engagement and foster an organizational culture to
achieve high-performance. I also pursued additional insights into the leadership behavior and
employee engagement context to arm business leaders with information on exemplary behaviors
that likely will foster a culture that supports lasting high-performance.
As Maxwell (2019) stated, “people do what people see,” therefore, leaders must model
the behavior they want to see in their organization (p.1). The main question is what leadership
behavior is perceived by employees to help foster a high-level of employee engagement. This
quantitative study was driven by the following question: what leadership behaviors are likely to
produce a high-level of employee engagement?
Research Method
Bloomfield and Fischer (2019) referred to quantitative research as a structured, datadriven, objective inquiry process to depict variables, probe relationships, and test cause and
effect association between them. Davies and Fisher (2018) underlined that quantitative research
aims to find the evidence-based answer by testing hypotheses applying an objective and unbiased
61
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
scientific process. The following is a description of the research methods that were considered
and not chosen for this study.
Stangor and Walinga (2019) discussed theories and research methods studying human
behavior and underlined three relevant and significant research designs, descriptive research,
correlational research, and experimental research. They emphasized that the descriptive research
design focused on giving a snapshot and description of events. At the same time, using a
correlational research design would examine the relationship between variables and enables the
extrapolation of future events from current learning. Curtis et al. (2016) indicated that
correlational research tested the relationships between two or more variables in the same
population or between the same variables in two populations. Stangor and Walinga (2019)
contrasted correlational research and experimental research design, which is considered the gold
standard of research by creating a strictly controlled study environment to test the causal impact
of one or more experimental interventions on a dependent variable. Appelbaum et al. (2018)
emphasized that nonexperimental research variables are not manipulated; those studies' purpose
is to observe, characterize, or examine a naturally occurring context between variables of
concern.
Based on an extensive review of possible quantitative design methods, I decided to
pursue the Causal-Comparative (ex post facto) research design as the most suitable path to
address the research questions. According to Probst (2019), while the Causal-Comparative
design cannot confirm a cause-effect relationship, this research method is suitable in research
where it is impossible or undesirable to manipulate the independent variables. The CausalComparative methodology falls within the category of correlational research. According to
O’Dwyer and Bernauer (2014), Causal-Comparative research specifically falls under non-
62
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
experimental design, which is often used for exploratory research. They also underlined that
Causal-Comparative research tests the magnitude of differences between groups. Salkind (2010)
argued that in Causal-Comparative research, the researcher's objective is to conclude whether the
independent variable had an impact on the outcome, or dependent variable, by comparing two or
more groups of individuals. He also underlined that Causal-Comparative studies test for a
potential causal relationship but would not prove causation. The rationale for this research design
selection is multi-faceted. First, as discussed in the literature review, there is a minimal empirical
study on leadership behaviors' impact on employee engagement. Therefore, this study aimed to
be an exploratory research to broader the general knowledge and create a foundation for further
empirical research. Second, the leadership behavior to employee engagement interaction is
already happening naturally in the environment. I wanted to study the phenomenon of
employees’ perception of leadership behaviors and conduct explanatory research to investigate
the potential causal relationship between leadership behaviors and employee engagement. Third,
it would be unethical and too difficult to manipulate the independent variables to conduct
experimental research, such as applying intervention on leadership behaviors to see their
potentially harmful impact on employee engagement.
Participants
Participants of the study are adult working professionals, and while not limited
geographically, most of the participants were expected to come from the United States.
Participation in the survey was voluntary, and participants were to remain anonymous. As the
focus of the study is examining the impact of leadership behaviors on employee engagement,
participant selection required actual work experience and exposure to some form of leadership.
Participants were not limited by gender, ethnicity, or their respective level in the organization.
63
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
As the study focuses on adult working professionals, participants under 21 and without working
experience were excluded from the analyses.
I approximated the sample size using Raosoft's sample size calculator based on the
population sample size of 5.6 million (approximate total number of companies in the U.S.), with
a 10% accepted margin of error, a 95% confidence level, and 50% response distribution. The
initial approximation came to 97 (see Figure B12). I confirmed the sample size statistics using
the power analyses of GPower (Erdfelder et al., 1996). The analysis compared the means of two
of the groups. Group 1 (moderately engaged) will be compared with Group 2 (highly engaged)
participants and test the potential impact of leadership behaviors on employee engagement (see
Figure B17). A t-test was selected to compare the means of the two independent samples.
Sample size calculations for a t-test using GPower came to 2x52, for a total of 104 samples (see
Figure B13). This calculation was slightly higher than the original sample size approximation of
97. Additionally, Two-way ANOVAs were planned to test how the interrelationship of the two
independent variables impacts the dependent variable. A second G-Power Sample size
calculation was completed for the Analyses of Variances. This G-Power calculation, comparing
only two groups came to 128, and comparing three groups came to 159 (see Figure B14).
Therefore, 159 was selected as the study's target sample size to satisfy the minimum sample size
requirements for t-test, Two-Way ANOVAs and Mann-Whitney U Test.
Research Questions
As Maxwell (2019) stated, “people do what people see,” therefore, leaders must model
the behavior they want to see in their organization (p.1). The main question is what leadership
behavior is perceived by employees to help foster a high-level of employee engagement. This
quantitative study is driven by the following questions:
64
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Research Question 1: What is the impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement?
Research Question 2: What is the impact of respecting every individual behavior on
employee engagement?
Research Question 3: Does leading with humility or respecting every individual have a
more beneficial impact on employee engagement?
Hypotheses
The study tested the following hypotheses:
H01: There is no significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha1: There is a significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement.
H02: There is no significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha2: There is a significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
H03: There is no significant relative difference of impact between leading with humility
and respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Ha3: There is a significant difference of impact between leading with humility and
respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Variables
The dependent variable consisted of employee engagement, while pre-defined behavioral
indicators representing leading with humility and respecting every individual oriented leadership
65
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
behavior served as independent variables. The study examined the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables to identify senior leadership behavior related to employee
engagement.
The independent variables of the study are leading with humility (X1) and respecting
every individual (X2) leadership behavior. The dependent variable of the study is employee
engagement (Y1). Leading with humility behavior (X1) is represented by six benchmark
leadership behaviors embodying leading with humility such as seek out and value others idea
(x11), admit vulnerability (x12), empower, and engage everyone (x13), view self accurately
(x14), put others first (x15) and inquire (x16). Respecting every individual behavior (X2) is
represented by six benchmark leadership behaviors embodying respecting every individual such
as value each individual (x21), nourish employees to their full potential (x22), assure a healthy
and safe work environment (x23), listen actively (x24), appreciate others (x25) and provide
support to succeed (x26), supporting the claim (see Figure B15). All independent and
independent variables are captured as ordinal data in the study on a Likert scale.
Instrumentation
I developed a hybrid survey instrument, a combination of the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES-9) supplemented by a self-designed questionnaire (see Figure B16). I collected
data from various organizations using an online survey wherein employees shared their direct
supervisor's perceived leadership behavior related to employee engagement. Participants
provided feedback on how strongly their direct supervisor’ leadership behavior influenced their
level of work engagement on a seven-point Likert’s scale (see Figure B16). A pilot study was
conducted to test the survey instrument, the data collection process, and survey validity in
advance of the full-scale research.
66
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Validity and Reliability
According to Taherdoost (2016), validity portrays how well the collected data articulates
the actual area of exploration; otherwise stated adopting Field’s (2018) definition, validity
“measures what is intended to be measured” (p28). O’Dwyer and Bernauer (2014) defined
external validity as the degree of generalizability of research findings. They also defined internal
validity as the degree to which unrelated variables are contained, and different potential
reasoning for the conclusions are minimized. In other words, internal validity presents how well
the study is administered, while external validity captures how relevant the findings are in the
real world (Cuncic, 2020).
Taherdoost (2016) emphasized that reliability is another important attribute to ensure the
instrument produces a stable and consistent measurement of the phenomenon. Taber (2018)
argued that Cronbach’s coefficient (α) calculation is a commonly used technique to assess the
reliability or internal consistency of a questionnaire. According to Srinivasan and Lohith (2017),
the generally accepted level of Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.7 as optimal in research, while a lower level of
α ≥ 0.6 is acceptable in exploratory research.
Content Validity
Content validity is a vital attribute of the research instrument validity (Koller, Levenson
& Gluck, 2017). Kumar and Mahal (2017) defined content validity as the unit of measurement of
how sufficiently the items in an instrument depict or “the universe of context for the concept
being measured” (p.19). O’Dwyer and Bernauer (2014) similarly argued that content validity
portrays whether the survey questions on the instrument illustrate that describe the attributes.
Taherdoost (2016) underlined that a generally accepted approach to determining content validity
contains literature reviews followed by an evaluation by a panel of experts.
67
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
In addition, according to Rodrigues et al. 2017, the Content Validity Index (CVI) is the
most universally used quantitative method to calculate content validity. Content Validity Index
can be computed on an item level (I-CVI), quantifying the validity of a single survey item, and in
a scale level (S-CVI) attributing the validity of the entire survey instrument. I-CVI is computed
by counting the number of experts giving quite relevant and highly relevant designation for the
survey item divided by the total number of experts assessing the instrument. Overall scale
validity (S-CVI Average) is calculated by the proportion of items of the instrument with quite
relevant and highly relevant assessment by the experts.
Construct Validity
Taherdoost (2016) also discussed that construct validity represents “how well the concept
or idea (construct) translated into a functioning or operating reality”, other worlds construct
validity attributes the operationalization translation of the instrument (p.31). O’Dwyer and
Bernauer (2014) underlined that construct validity demonstrates whether the survey yields the
researcher substantial information about the attributes under investigation. They emphasized that
factor analysis and correlational methods are generally used to test for construct validity.
Criterion Validity
Taherdoost (2016) defined criterion validity as the degree which the test linked to the
outcome. O’Dwyer and Bernauer (2014) discussed criterion validity as the magnitude which an
instrument is associated with the effect. They also discussed the two most relevant criterion
validity such as concurrent validity as an indication of relationship between results provided by
the instrument and some other survey conducted at the same time, and predictive validity as a
signal for relationship between the instrument and some other survey conducted some point in
the future. They underlined that evidence for criterion validity can be established by testing the
68
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
magnitude and direction of correlation coefficient (r) representing the relationship between the
result of the research instrument and scores on the other instrument.
Pilot Tests
The pilot study had two components; (a) an expert-panel getting professional feedback
about the instrument and establish its validity and (b) a potential convenience sampling to test
the questionnaire, gain user insights about its working conditions, and verify the feasibility of the
main study. Georgiou et al. (2020) found that expert-driven pilot validation is fruitful to validate
and strengthen research instruments. They found that the expert-driven pilot study is an effective
strategy to gain critical feedback on the validity and reliability of the instrument, discover
problems, and proactively resolve them before broader use of the survey instrument. According
to Hohmann and Cote (2018), two essential consensus methods solidify expert opinions: the
nominal group technique and the Delphi method. They underlined that the nominal approach
requires experts to be together in a face-to-face to deliberate and form consensus through open
discussion. In contrast to the nominal group technique, the Delphi method does not require panel
experts to be together for face-to-face discussion; instead, it is conducted remotely through a
sequence of rounds of questions and feedback.
Due to the exploratory nature of this research and the limitations of the current social
distancing mandates, a pilot study was conducted following the Delphi method to obtain expert
panel feedback on the purpose-built survey. The purpose-built questionnaire is a hybrid
instrument, including UWES-9, to capture employee engagement and a supplementary
questionnaire. Based on the literature review, I built the supplementary customized survey
instrument to capture employees' feedback on direct supervisors' leadership behaviors focusing
on leading with humility and respecting every individual orientation.
69
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Delphi Technique
According to Fernandez-Dominguez et al. (2018), the Delphi technique is a widely used
method to consensus regarding a judgment about a topic that is not well established. The
application of the Delphi method includes testing survey instruments. Per Avella (2016), the
Delphi Method is particularly applicable where there is insufficient preceding research, limited
evidence available, or when the extant evidence is non-conclusive. Sossa et al. (2019) argued
that the Delphi method essentially recommends a question and requests feedback from qualified
experts anonymously. They emphasized that the Delphi method is a globally used tool for getting
expert feedback on a specific topic or research question in a pilot study phase.
Pilot Study: Expert-panel feedback
An expert-panel pilot study was conducted to assess the validity (face and content,
validity) and consequently the reliability of the purpose-built instrument. The pilot study aimed
to discover potential flaws and proactively strengthen the instrument to address issues before the
actual data collection. Regarding the size of the expert panel, there is a lack of consensus on the
necessary sample size. According to Avella (2016), there is no standard for an expert panel’s
size. Shariff (2015) reasoned that the lack of clear guidelines for the number of expert
participants required to apply the Delphi Method is due to the individuality of each problem
being investigated. According to Ogbeifun et al. (2015) referencing Grisham (2009) and Mullen
(2003), the size of a Delphi panel may be as small as three participants and as large as 80
members. Hazzi and Maldaon (2015) adopted Baker’s (1994) generally accepted rule that 1020% of the primary sample size is adequate for conducting a pilot study in social science
research. Lastly, Campagne et al. (2017) referenced Jacobs et al. (2014) who determined that to
form a relevant sample of experts, they advocated for 15 experts as recommended panel size.
70
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Following Campagne et al.'s (2017) recommendations, I assembled an expert panel with
fifteen participants. The expert panel consisted of subject matter experts: college lecturers and
industry professionals with a terminal degree and relevant research experience. With 70% as the
minimum consensus criteria, practically eleven of the fifteen experts agreeing was required to
establish consensus. The panel was engaged through my LinkedIn social media professional
network. The pilot study was administered online via e-mail invite seeking feedback on the
current version of the survey instrument (see Figure B16). According to Skinner et al. (2015),
maintaining anonymity is crucial to withstand credible accusations of judgment bias and
potential dominance of a particular view over other ideas; therefore, experts were kept
anonymous throughout the pilot study. Avella (2016) underlined that the Delphi Method falls
under the category of group-based, consensus-building technique where panel participants seek
to form an agreement about a topic in review typically through multiple rounds of iterations.
Adopting Avella's (2016) guidance as the standard, 70% was used as the consensus criteria
amongst expert panel participants to achieve general agreement in this pilot study.
Actual Expert-Panel Feedback
The current version of the survey, which was based on the literature review, was
presented to the expert panel (see Figure B16). I obtained feedback on content relevance,
whether the listed benchmark behaviors are adequately characterizing, leading with humility, and
respecting every individual leadership behavior captured in the initial questionnaire. I also
collected feedback on essentiality of domains, whether each item was vital to defining leadership
behavior and requested input on potentially missing or currently not listed significant benchmark
behaviors that could be attributed to those two leadership behaviors in the survey. Expert
71
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
feedback was collected and analyzed, the level of consensus was evaluated, and feedback was
provided.
I collected feedback on whether the wording of statements appropriately captured the
intent of each benchmark behaviors and were clear and straightforward to understand. I also
collected feedback on the overall survey layout and the demographic characteristics, describing
the sample of participants in the study. Following Falzano and Zipp’s (2013) recommendations,
this process of review and reexamination persisted until the minimum 70% percentage of
agreement was achieved within the expert panel.
Pilot Study Step 2: Convenience Pilot Sampling
The instrument was pilot tested with a panel of fifteen experts selected via convenience
sampling. Etikan et al. (2016) defined convenience sampling as a type of nonrandom study
sampling where participant selection from the target population follows practical criteria such as
ease of accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to
participate. They underlined that affordability and ease of administration as primary advantages
of convenience sampling while cautioned researchers not to take convenience sampling results as
representative of the population unless evidence proved otherwise.
This pilot study aimed to collect feedback from users about their survey experience, gain
insights into the research instrument's working conditions, and verify the feasibility of the main
study. I collected feedback about the clarity of survey questions and ease of survey completion.
The instrument validation expert panel with fifteen participants served as a pilot study in this
research. Pilot study participants were contacted via e-mail and engaged through an online
survey instrument. Pilot study participants generally are not recommended to participate in the
72
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
main study; therefore, pre-test participants were excluded from the primary research (Malmqvist
et al., 2019).
Grouping of Participants in the Main Study
Following the Causal-Comparative research design, two or more groups of participants
were compared per the following. To explore the potential impact of leadership behaviors on
employee engagement, participants were segmented into mutually exclusive groups based on
their engagement score measured on the UWES-9 instrument; in the questionnaire, engagement
was attributed as ordinal data on a Likert scale of seven-points. I compared Group 1 (moderately
engaged) with Group 2 (highly engaged) participants on their perception regarding their direct
supervisors’ leadership behaviors variables to see the potential impact of leadership behaviors on
employee engagement, supporting the claim (see Figure B17).
Data Collection
The survey Web Link address (URL or QR code linking to the survey) was distributed
through various organizations and individuals via my professional network in LinkedIn and email invitations. Questionnaire completion required about 10 minutes from each participant to
read through, fill out, and submit their responses online. Participants were free to withdraw from
the survey at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. Responses were tracked
through the e-mail invitation collector function on Survey Monkey to keep track of how many
people opened the e-mail, how many people tracked through the survey to maximize
participation.
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale is free for use for non-commercial scientific
research. The original UWES-9 questionnaire with the permission of the copyright owner can be
found in Appendix C. The purpose-built survey is a combination of adopting UWES-9 short-
73
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
version survey attributing the dependent variable of the study (employee engagement) and
supplemented by a self-developed questionnaire to attribute the leadership behavioral
independent variables of the research (lead with humility and respecting every individual). While
the UWES portion of the survey instrument has a well-documented history, proven validity, and
more than a decade of use in research (Schaufeli et al., 2019). The added leadership behavioral
component of the survey was the portion of the instrument requiring testing for validity and
reliability.
Informed Consent Process and Ethical Concerns
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) provides research guidelines
and essential requirements for protecting human subjects involved in medical and behavioral
research. Specifically, Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, subpart A of 45 CFR
part 46 of the HHS regulations, informally known as the “Common Rule,” outlines unified
details about human subject protection (HSS website). Nijhawan et al. (2013) emphasized that
the notion of informed consent is “embedded in the principles of Nuremberg Code, The
Declaration of Helsinki and The Belmont Report” (p. 134).
Manti and Licari (2018) underlined the importance of the voluntary statement of consent
as a vital part of social science research. They emphasized that part of the informed consent
process requirements, the informed consent form must enable potential participants to
comprehend the most relevant information about the research without difficulty. The pertinent
information should include potential risk, discomfort, benefits, anonymity, and confidentiality,
and freely decide about participation in the study. All research involving people requires a
consent process. The process moderates the potential participant’s decision on whether to
participate.
74
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Informed Consent
This research was conducted using the following consent process for this study. All
participants will receive an informed consent form electronically. The use of a mandatory
acknowledgment of the built-in consent form as a pre-requisite to proceed to the survey is
removing the need for a separate consent form while ensuring each study corresponds to an
efficiently completed consent form. All participants obtained a proper e-mail address and phone
number, allowing them to ask questions during the survey process and review the inquiry results.
Participants were free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost.
Ethical Concerns
Ethical researchers protect the participants, stakeholders, and organizations participating
in the study. Yip et al. (2016) discussed the importance of legal and ethical issues in research and
underlined the vital elements of the partnership between subject and researcher. They
emphasized that human participants in the study provide an invaluable source of data to science.
Researchers, therefore, have the obligation and moral duty to safeguard “the life, life, health,
dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy and confidentiality of personal information
of research subjects” (p.686). They referenced the Belmont Report as a universally used
framework to embody three ethical principles in research; these ethical considerations are built
into this study as well such as (a) respect for participants, (b) beneficence with no harm,
minimize potential harms while maximizing possible benefits and (c) ensuring justice both on
the social and individual level. I used a self-administered online survey instrument to collect data
from participants. The survey responses do not jeopardize anonymity as they contain no
identifying marks related to the participant. This includes identifiers of institutions, participants,
or collaborative efforts. I also established a strict data access strategy with multi-level password
75
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
protection and encrypting to ensure protected information. In addition, I will store raw data for at
least five years after the doctoral thesis publication.
Data Collection and Analysis
As part of data preparation, the raw data gained via the online survey instrument was
organized into a data matrix via direct data export from Survey Monkey to IBM SPSS Statistics.
Wagner (2019) underlined IBM SPSS’s built-in, data import functionality which allows
researcher to import data from Survey Monkey directly, making data transport easy, avoiding
potential errors with manual data transfer. In the data matrix, rows represent the participants, and
columns represent the variables making sure the corresponding data are accurately captured.
Edits were made after importing the data, as needed, to clean up the labeling of variables and
correctly set up variable attributes in the variable view of Survey Monkey. Data was organized
into a cohesive data matrix (see Figure B18).
Demographic Data
Salkind (2010) and Conelly (2013) underlined that demographic data helps the researcher
to grasp and interpret the characteristics of the sample population. Salkind (2010) emphasized
that demographic characterization is required to determine whether the study sample is a fair
representation of the target population for generalization decision. I collected the following
demographic data from the study participants; age, gender, country of residence, level of
education, years of service with the organization, position in the organization, and the number of
years in the current role, frequency of direct engagement with direct supervisor. As the target
population of the study is adult, working professionals, therefore, participants below 21 years of
age and without working experience were excluded from the study. I collected the above
76
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
demographic data to describe the sample population, assess potential biases, and judge the
study's generalizability. Demographic data statistics were provided as part of the study results.
IBM SPSS Statistics, a computer-based statistical software package, was used to analyze
data. According to Gogoi (2020), SPSS is a powerful, commonly used software package for
statistical analysis in social science. He acknowledged that the SPSS package allows researchers
to achieve study analytics ranging from simple descriptive to complex analyses of multivariate
matrices alongside displaying the data in different forms such as histograms, scatter plots, and
other formats.
Hypothesis Testing
First, I ran descriptive statistics to test for distribution normality to see which causalcomparative tests I would run. Then, as the dependent variable was not normally distributed, I
explored alternative avenues to transform data to a normal distribution by logarithmic
transformation and Box-Box transformation without success. Next, I ran several relational
analyses to test the association and the strength of association between variables. Thus, I ran the
non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test to compare two independent and test hypotheses for
Research Question One and Two. Next, I ran the distribution-free Chi-square test of
independence to examine the relationship between leading with humility and employee
engagement and respecting every individual and employee engagement. Finally, I ran the
Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation test on the strength and direction of association between the
benchmark leadership behaviors and test hypothesis for the Third Research Question.
77
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
First Hypothesis Test
H01: There is no significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha1: There is a significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee
engagement.
The hypotheses for the first research question involved continuous variables, which was
tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. This test was chosen to test the significance
of the difference between the sample means for two independent groups (comparing the leading
with humility behavior between the group of moderately engaged and highly engaged
participants). Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine the shape of data distribution
first. As data distribution was confirmed as not normally distributed, the non-parametric MannWhitney test was used (MacFarland & Yates, 2016).
Second Hypothesis Test
H02: There is no significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha2: There is a significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
The hypotheses for the second research question involved continuous variables, which
was tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. This test was chosen to test the
significance of the difference between the sample means for two independent groups (comparing
the respecting every individual behavior between the group of moderately engaged and highly
engaged participants). Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine the shape of data
78
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
distribution first. As data distribution was confirmed as not normally distributed, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used (MacFarland & Yates, 2016).
Third Hypothesis Test
H03: There is no significant relative difference of impact between leading with humility
and respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Ha3: There is a significant difference of impact between leading with humility and
respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
The hypotheses for the third research question involved continuous variables, the Chisquare independence test was performed to see strength of association between variables. The
Chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between leading with
humility and employee engagement and respecting every individual and employee engagement.
According to McHugh (2013), the Chi-square test is a non-parametric, distribution-free test.
Descriptive Statistics
Allen (2017) underlined that descriptive statistics enables the researcher to quantify and
characterize the fundamental characteristics of the study’s data set. Descriptive statistics enabled
the researcher to determine the shape of data distribution and validate the assumption for
approximate normality for sample data. The sample distribution was tested for normality with the
help of the normality test function of SPSS through the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Following Salkind
and Frey's (2020) guidance, basic descriptive statistics were calculated and presented. Using
SPSS, I calculated and displayed descriptive statistics of the sample population of Mean,
Variance, and Standard Deviation. Box and Whisker plots were constructed to visualize and
detect outliers in the dependent variable.
79
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Normality
Gibbs et al. (2015) underlined that inferential statistics are essential to investigate sample
data. According to Salkind (2010), the three most commonly used tests for Casual-comparative
design are the Chi-square test, the paired sample and t-test, and Analyses of Variances
(ANOVA). Chi-square testing is a non-parametric statistical test method (Turhan, 2020). Based
on the large sample size, I anticipated that sample data would approximate normality. Test for
normality was performed as part of the descriptive analytics; as data tested not normal, I used
non-parametric inferential procedures. The survey results were used to test the research
hypothesis, examine the relationship, and statistically significant differences between variables,
draw conclusions, and ultimately answer the research questions.
Correlational Tests
Several relational analyses were performed to test and visualize the association and the
strength of association between variables. The Pearson (r) Correlational Coefficient was
calculated using SPSS to attribute the strength and direction of the relationship between
employee engagement score and frequency of direct engagement with direct supervisor (see
Table A2). Scatterplots were used to present correlational data visually; scatterplot is a
commonly used visual tool for paired numerical data to observe relationships, including strength
and direction between variables (O'Dwyer & Bernauer, 2014). The Chi-square test of
independence was performed to examine the relationship between leading with humility and
employee engagement and respecting every individual and employee engagement. The
Spearman's Rank-Order nonparametric correlation test was performed to test strength and
direction of association between the benchmark leadership behaviors.
80
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Equality of Means Tests
According to Brady et al. (2015), a t-test examines whether two groups' means are
different using t-distribution. They underlined that t-test is appropriate when the two samples are
statistically independent. O'Dwyer and Bernauer (2014) emphasized that researchers can choose
between three versions of t-tests: one-sample t-test, independent sample t-test, and paired
samples t-test. One sample t-test is used to assess the difference between a sample mean and
know population men. Per Xu et al. (2017), the independent samples t-test and the paired t-test
are presumably the most universally used statistical tests to compare mean values between two
samples. In contrast, the paired samples t-test is adequate when data are paired or matched pair
samples, often representing the same samples pre-and post-treatment in true experiments.
Per O'Dwyer and Bernauer (2014), Analyses of Variance is used to assess whether the
means of two or more groups are different using F-distribution. According to Ali and Bhaskar
(2016), F distribution is a probability density function associated with the f statistic. The F value
is used primarily in the Analysis of Variance for hypothesis testing. The simplified formula for
the F statistic divides the mean squares between the groups and the mean squares within groups.
One-way ANOVA is used for two or more groups with one independent and one dependent
variable. A factorial ANOVA is used to test the relationship between one dependent variable and
more than one independent variable. As I conducted exploratory research with independent
samples with assumptions of normal distribution, initially, I planned to follow the independent
samples t-test method to test the means of the two groups of each independent variable. Twoway ANOVAs were planned to test how the interrelationship of the two independent variables
impacts the dependent variable. As the distribution of the dependent variable did not test normal,
I used the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test to compare two independent groups
81
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
(MacFarland & Yates, 2016). To test the first and second hypothesis, Mann-Whitney U tests
were performed to compare participants’ direct supervisors’ leading with humility score and
respecting every individual score of Group 1, moderately engaged participants against Group 2,
highly engaged participants.
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations
According to Bakotica (2016), researchers are critically restricted in many ways when
conducting academic research. Assumptions, limitations, and delimitations mark the boundaries
of the study. Besides describing the confines of the study, they also disclose the known flaws in
the study.
Assumptions
Assumptions are treated as true or at least plausible by the researcher (Simon, 2011). In
this study, some assumptions were made that were necessary to conduct the research; however,
they could not be proven. The first assumption was that the participant organizations of the
research are representative of the broader context of a typical enterprise. The second assumption
for this research effort was that participants were truthfully share their experiences via the survey
instrument.
Limitations
Per Bakotica (2016), grasping research limitations and their potential impact on the
results and conclusions are the cornerstone of good research. Limitations are unintended
consequences beyond my control; however, these limitations could influence the study's
outcome. From the methodology standpoint, three possible limitations were identified. Firstly,
since there is limited empirical research in the leadership behavior and employee engagement
relationship, I conducted an exploratory, non-experimental study to strengthen the knowledge
82
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
base and create a foundation for further in-depth analysis. The second limitation of the study
related to the use of self-reported data, which might be a source of bias. The third limitation was
the lack of regular direct engagement with the supervisor for some participants, limiting their
ability to observe leadership behaviors and form empirically-based feedback on immediate
supervisors' behaviors.
Delimitations
Delimitations are the study's boundaries within the researcher's control (Lavigna, 2015).
Delimitations are choices made by the research to limit the scope of the investigation. Examples
of delimitations include study objectives, research questions, variables, theoretical objectives
adopted, and populations chosen made as targets to study. I narrowed the scope of the study to
leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership behaviors impact on employee
engagement. I implemented a restriction on participant selection with age criteria of 21 years and
older, targeting adult working professionals. I also established participation criteria for at least
one month of paid work experience. However, as an exploratory study, I did not restrict study
participation for a specific industry, organization, or geography, resulting in international,
geographically, and organizationally dispersed participants. Participant recruitment and data
collection were entirely online. I promoted study participation on LinkedIn within my
professional network and used Survey Monkey to collect data, resulting in self-selected study
participation. Finally, I developed and deployed the survey instrument only in English. Using a
single language for data collection was more practical; however, it limited the access to the study
for non-English speaking participants.
83
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Summary
This chapter provided a summary of the research design. This study follows a
quantitative, Casual-Comparative (ex post facto) research method. Participants’ details were
defined, including sample selection criteria and the required number of participants using power
analyses of GPower statistical software. I detailed the data collection method and discussed the
features of the survey instrument. The research survey is a hybrid instrument. It includes the
well-established UWES-9 questionnaire capturing employee engagement as the dependent
variable of the study, supplemented by a custom-built add-on questionnaire to attribute the
leadership behavioral components (leading with humility and respecting every individual) as
independent variables of the research. I outlined the methodology to establish instrument validity
and reliability through a pilot study for the custom-built add-on questionnaire. At the end of this
chapter, I summarized the techniques for data analysis and discussed the limitations and
delimitations of the study.
Chapter 4 contains the findings of the research study. The report includes the descriptive
statistics, statistical analyses, and a brief interpretation of findings. In Chapter 5, a more detailed
interpretation of the results, a discussion of generalizability, the significance of the findings and
finally, practical implications are presented.
84
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was twofold; first to examine employee perceptions of the
impact, if any, of two fundamental leadership behavior; (a) leading with humility and (b)
respecting every individual on employee engagement, and second to explore the relative
difference of impact leading with humility and respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement. Chapter four contains the findings of this exploration. The chapter starts with a
discussion about the instrument validation results, including the essentiality of survey domains,
relevance, and clarity of wording of the survey items. Afterward, the study results will be
presented, including a general description of study participants and demographics, an overview
of the unit of analyses and measurement, sample size, and details of data collection. Hypothesis
tests were performed, and test results were interpreted to answer the research questions.
Instrument validation
The research questionnaire is a purpose-built, hybrid instrument. It includes Schaufeli et
al.'s (2006) well-established Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), capturing employee
engagement as the study's dependent variable (see Appendix C) supplemented by a custom-built
add-on questionnaire. Based on the literature review, I built that customized portion of the
questionnaire to capture employees' feedback on direct supervisors' leadership behaviors
focusing on leading with humility and respecting every individual orientation as independent
variables of the study (see Figure B16).
As part of the pilot study phase, an expert panel was organized consisting of 15 experts
from North America and Europe. The experts provided detailed feedback on the custom-built
add-on portion of the questionnaire. In addition, the panel of experts assessed the instrument's
85
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
face and content validity and, subsequently, endorsed the purpose-built survey instrument's
reliability.
Instrument Validation Panel
The pilot study aimed to discover potential flaws and proactively strengthen the
instrument to address issues before the actual data collection. In addition, the pilot study
feedback assessed the validity and reliability of the custom-built add-on portion of the survey. I
followed Champagne et al. (2017) guidelines by initially reaching out to 50 experts via my
professional network, followed by e-mail inquiries. The Letter of Invitation to Participate in
Expert-Panel (see Appendix E) was presented to all fifteen responsive potential participants via
Survey Monkey. As a result of their responses, I electronically obtained their acceptance to
participate, including confirming that they met the expert-panel selection criteria. Based on the
feedback of interest and area of expertise, I selected 15 qualified expert participants for my
instrument validation panel. All of the selected expert-panel members had earned terminal
degrees; eleven participants with Doctor of Philosophy, one with a Doctor of Psychology, one
with a Doctor of Education, one with a Doctor of Engineering, one with a Doctor of Medicine
degree. The panel included subject matter experts with diverse experiences both in the research
and applied field, for Expert-panel demographics (see Figure B19). The panel was administered
online via Survey Monkey.
Consensus
According to Meshkat et al. (2013), the minimum consensus level is set before the study.
They proposed a 70% agreement level on individual items as a guideline. Per Avella (2016),
consensus levels typically range between 55 to 100%, with 70% considered the standard. I
86
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
adopted that 70% minimum level of consensus in my research. Panel members were kept
anonymous while were seeking feedback on the survey instrument amongst panelists.
Expert-panel feedback on Survey Instrument’s Face and Content Validity
Following Shrotryia and Dhanda’s (2019) instrument validation approach, I collected
feedback from experts on three attributes: firstly, on domains’ essentiality (whether each item
was vital to defining the leadership behavior), secondly, the relevance of individual questions,
and thirdly, clarity of wording for each question in the initial version of the instrument (see
Figure B16) via a focused experts’ questionnaire (see Appendix G). Domains are identified
benchmark behaviors representing the core universe of the leadership behavior. Relevant content
domains were identified as the outcome of the literature review to represent leading humility and
respecting every individual behavior (see Figure B15, x11-x16, x21-x26 input variables).
Applying Shrotryia and Dhanda’s (2019) approach, experts rated the essentiality of
content domains. Expert-panel provided feedback on how crucial the proposed domains are
presenting the leadership behavior under investigation on a 3-point Likert scale, where
3=Essential, 2=Useful but not essential, and 1=Non-essential. Each domain is represented by
three questions in the survey. Next, experts rated the relevance of each question in terms of its
pertinence to the domain on a 4-point Likert scale, where 4=Highly relevant, 3=Quite relevant,
2=Somewhat relevant, and 1=Not relevant. Finally, experts rated the clarity and
understandability to the general public of wording for each question on a 3-point Linkert scale,
where 3=Clearly stated, easy to understand as it is, 2=Understood can be improved, and
1=Confusing, more clarity needed. Participants were also requested to propose any essential but
not listed components of the behavior's core universe under review beyond the suggested
domains (see Figure B15).
87
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Domain and Survey Question Culling
15 out of 15 experts responded within the requested ten days turnaround time and
answered all questions. According to the predetermined agreement criteria: items with a higher
than 70% agreement, were deemed to have consensus reached. The experts accepted the item's
essentiality and relevance; thus, those domains and related questions remained on the survey.
There were ten domains or 71.4% of proposed domains that experts accepted on the first round
of reviews. With less than 50% agreement, the experts rejected the item's proposed essentiality;
therefore, I deleted two domains and subsequently six questions (three questions per domain)
from the survey. Lastly, one question was in the category that the expert panel somewhat
accepted the item's essentiality and relevance with an agreement level of at least 50% though not
exceeding 70%. I applied further consideration and determination to keep or delete these items
from the survey based on individual responses. In the final determination, I kept that question on
the survey, as none of the experts rated it non-essential, while the majority rated it essential.
Essentiality Of Domain Feedback
Domains are defined as the core pillars of the behavior, representing the core universe to
the study (Shrotryia & Dhanda, 2019). Here, I will summarize the expert panel’s feedback on a
domain’s essentiality and how necessary the expert panel found the proposed domains to
represent the study's behavior. I will also share the expert panel's feedback on potentially missing
core components of the leadership behavior under investigation.
Essentiality of domains representing leading with humility. Three out of seven
proposed domains, namely (a) seeking out and value others' ideas, (b) empowering, and (c)
inquiring, reached 70% or higher of expert consensus, confirming the essentiality of those
domains in the instrument (see Figure B20). The essentiality of two domains, namely (a) viewing
88
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
self accurately, (b) putting others first, was rejected therefore eliminated from the survey. Two
proposed domains, namely (a) admitting vulnerability, and (b) self-efficacy, were rated essential
by the majority of experts while they did not reach a 70% consensus level. As none of the
experts rated admitting vulnerability domain nor self-efficacy as non-essential, while most
experts rated them as essential, I decided to keep them on the survey instrument.
Comments on missing essential components for leading with humility. Ten of fifteen
experts left the comment field blank, indicating satisfaction with the listed essential domains,
while five experts proposed adding a domain component for leading with humility. One expert
mentioned empathy, while another expert advocated for emotional intelligence as a missing
component. One expert noted the consideration of the opposite of leading with humility and
measuring behavior from the opposite end. In comparison, one expert underlined the need for
willingness to admit when wrong or do not know the answer, linked to the admitting
vulnerability domain already listed in the instrument. Similarly, one expert emphasized the
importance of creating an emotionally safe environment which is a subcomponent of Assuring a
safe and healthy work environment. Another expert advocated for decentralizing decisionmaking, closely aligning with empowering. Based on the close alignment with the already listed
behaviors, willingness to admit when wrong or do not know the answers, i.e., admitting
vulnerability and decentralized decision-making, i.e., empowering, I consider these domains
already represented in the survey instrument.
Essentiality of domains representing respecting every individual. After Round 1,
seven out of seven proposed domains, namely (a) valuing each individual, (b) nourishing
employees to reach their full potential, (c) assuring a safe and healthy work environment, (d)
listening actively, (e) appreciating others, (f) providing support to succeed and (g) driving
89
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
accountability reached a 70% or higher expert consensus, confirming the essentiality of those
domains in the instrument (see Figure B20). There was no domain with less than 70%
agreement; therefore no need for reiteration of any proposed domain representing respecting
every individual behavior in the survey.
Comments for missing essential components for respecting every individual. Nine of
fifteen experts left the comment field blank, indicating satisfaction with the listed essential
domains, while five experts proposed adding domain components for respecting every
individual. One expert mentioned giving constructive feedback as a missing component, which
will be captured as a sub-component of nourishing employees to their full potential. One expert
advocated for empathy which will be captured as a sub-component of valuing each individual. In
comparison, one expert proposed to support the wider community, create a diverse and inclusive
organization, and support mental health as potentially missing essential components of
respecting every individual. Creating a diverse and inclusive workplace is covered mainly by
Valuing each individual and is marked as a sub-component. Similarly, supporting mental health
is primarily covered by assuring a safe and healthy work environment and will be considered a
sub-component. One expert argued that creating an opportunity to express ideas freely is missing
while acknowledging that might be a subcomponent of listening actively, which is an already
listed domain. All proposals are either already captured domains or sub-components of the
already listed domains; therefore, I will not seek additional domains for respecting every
individual.
Relevance of Survey Items Attributing Domains
I tested the relevance of each of the 42 survey questions. Based on the expert-panel's
feedback, 39 out of the 42 total survey questions reached at least 70% agreement with quite
90
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
relevant or highly relevant evaluation (see Figure B21). Only three out of the forty-two survey
questions scored lower than 70% agreement on the relevance of the survey item. Two of these
three questions were related to viewing self accurately and putting others first domains, which
essentiality was rejected; therefore, subsequently, I deleted these questions from the survey. Only
one question, namely my direct supervisor is willing to take calculated risk as a path to
increased chances for success, representing self-efficacy has not reached 70% consensus yet. The
expert panel provided multiple recommendations to improve the wording clarity of the question.
The lack of clarity likely contributed to the lower score on relevance. Therefore, I enhanced the
clarity of the wording of this item while keeping the question on the survey.
Clarity of Wording
The expert panel was comprised of 15 experts with diverse backgrounds and currently
living in geographically dispersed locations. The panel was almost equally balanced
linguistically; eight members use English as their first language, while seven of the fifteen
experts use English as a second language. The expert panel’s diverse background provided a
global perspective for the survey. In addition, it enabled the researcher to fine-tune survey
language and item clarity for international use with consideration of English as a second
language as the instrument is available only in English at this point.
Clarity of domain wording. The expert panel provided clarity enhancing suggestions
related to expressing domains in the questionnaire. The expert panel recommended a total of six
clarity-enhancing recommendations; (a) one expert emphasized the challenge in recognizing
behavior vs. intent, (b) one expert suggested using emotional intelligence instead of the phrase
viewing self accurately, (c) one expert recommended rephrasing from providing support to
succeed to providing resources to succeed, (d) two experts advocated avoiding academic terms
91
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
and replace self-efficacy with self-confidence, (e) two experts cautioned avoiding ‘double
barrel’ questions (for example, seek out and value others’ ideas), and (f) two experts underlined
correcting minor grammar mistakes. I have considered and edited these domains based on the
recommendations.
Clarity of wording of survey questions. The expert panel provided clarity-enhancing
suggestions related to the wording of survey questions. I organized the expert panel’s clarityenhancing feedback in a summary table (see Figure B22). Green cells indicate precise wording
with a score of 3, yellow cells indicate the general public should be able to understand it, while it
can be improved with a score of 2. Red cells indicate confusing language or lack of clarity, with
a score of 1. The clarity scores were calculated, averaging the 15-panel experts' feedback for
clarity on each item. This average score was used to determine clarity and lack of clarity to
provide accurate information on how to improve survey items' comprehension for the general
public.
I focused on enhancing the clarity of items with the lowest average clarity score. Out of
the total 43 survey item, two items' average clarity score came under 2, namely (I9) My direct
supervisor empowers me to make the right choices in my share of influence, and (D4) Viewing
self accurately, and additionally due to lack of evidence for essentiality, this domain was
eliminated from the survey. I enhanced the wording clarity of 9 items which scored higher than 2
yet less than 2.5. Besides the clarity score, experts provided multiple clarifications to express
survey items simpler for enhanced comprehension. These suggestions were implemented in the
enhanced survey instrument.
92
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Instrument Validation Results
Based on the expert panel feedback, the initial survey items were either accepted,
rejected, or modified based on their scores against the predetermined minimum consensus
criteria discussed in the prior section. In addition to the consensus criteria, I quantified the
instrument's content validity. Adopting Rodriguez et al. (2017) and Shrotryia and Dhanda's
(2019) approach, I calculated Content Validity Index (CVI) for relevance on the item (I-CVI)
and scale level (S-CVI).
Content Validity Index for Survey Items
The Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated on the item level (I-CVI), which
measured the content validity of individual items, and Scale-level (S-CVI), which measures the
content validity of the overall instrument scale (Rodrigues et al. 2017). The CVI was calculated
based on the expert panel's feedback on survey item relevance. For CVI calculation, the number
of experts giving 3 or 4 ratings was divided by the number of total experts who provided
feedback on relevance, supporting the claim (see Figure B23). Per Shrotryia and Dhanda's (2019)
recommendations, scale content validity should be a minimum of 0.8. The items Content
Validity Index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.67 to 1. The overall survey instrument's scale Average
Content Validity index (S-CVI/Ave.) came to 0.9, which indicates high content validity for the
instrument.
Study Results
Two hundred thirty-three individuals participate in the survey. Fifty-two participants
skipped or missed a survey item and left the survey incomplete. The elimination of partial
surveys resulted in 181 fully completed surveys as the final study population. Therefore, I
considered only fully completed surveys in the analyses.
93
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
General Description of Study Participants
The participants' demographics revealed that the sample was comprised of working
professionals from age 21 to the age of 70. Participants have many specializations, diverse
educational and organizational backgrounds. Survey participation was international across
various geographic regions globally (see Table A1).
Participants' demographics align with my LinkedIn network demographics with 75%
male and 25% female representation, geographically 52% US-based while 48% based outside of
the U.S. Out of the 181 fully completed participants, 78% were male (n=141), and 22% were
female (n=40). From a geographic standpoint, 50% of participants were from North America
(n=91), 40% from Europe (n=73), 4% from Asia (n=7), 3% from South America (n=5), 1% each
from Central America and the Middle East (n=2 in each) and .6% from Oceania or the Caribbean
(n=1). Age demographics were as follows, listed in order of decreasing prevalence: 45% of
participants were from the age group of 41-50 years old (n=81), 21% from the age group of 5160 years old (n=38), 20% from the age group from 31-40 years old (n=37), 7% from the age
group of 61-70 years old (n=13) and 7% from the age group of 21-30 years old. Age group
distribution was normal (see Table A1). Regarding education levels, 71% of participants have a
graduate-level degree (n=128), 22% with an undergraduate degree (n=40), and 7% with a high
school diploma (n=13) as their highest degree.
From the standpoint of position within the organization, 47% of participants are leaders
with director or above responsibility (n=85), 32% are managers (n=57), 14% associates (n=26)
and 7% front line supervisors (n=13). I recruited participants via open invites promoted through
my LinkedIn network. As my professional network is saturated with contacts in leadership
positions, disproportionate senior leadership participation was expected. From the years of
94
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
service at the current organization standpoint, 13% of participants have more than 20 years of
service with their current organization (n=24), 25% have 11-20 years of service (n=46), 16%
have 7-10 years (n=28), 12% have 4-6 years of service (n=21), 24% have 1-3 years of service
(n=44), and 10% of participants have less than one year of service at the current organization
(n=18). Study participants are relatively evenly distributed in terms of years of service at the
current organization.
From the years of service at current position standpoint, 5% of participants are more than
20 years in current position (n=9), 9% of participants are 11-20 years in current position
(n=16).13% of participants are 7-10 years in current position (n=23), 23% of participants are 4-6
years in current position (n=42), 39% of participants are 1-3 years in current position (n=70), and
12% of participants are less than a year in current position (n=21). Finally, from the frequency of
engagement with direct manager standpoint, 43% of participants reported daily engagement with
their direct supervisor (n=78), 43% reported weekly engagement (n=78), 7% of participants with
monthly engagement (n=12), 3% occasional engagement (n=6), 2% reported quarterly
engagement (n=4) and 2% of participants reported having no direct engagement with their direct
supervisor (n=3). Thus, most participants, a total of 93%, have regular, at least monthly direct
engagement with their direct supervisor. However, Parson's Correlation score of -.059 suggests a
minimal degree of association between employee engagement score and frequency of direct
engagement with direct supervisor, supporting the claim (see Table A2). Therefore, there is no
need for segregation of results.
Unit of Analysis and Measurement
The unit of measure of the survey instrument is ordinal data in a 7-point Likert scale
adapted from Schaufeli et al. (2006) (see Appendix C). The instrument scale is identical both for
95
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
the dependent and independent variables for all survey items, where 0= Never, 1=Almost
Never/A few times a year or less, 2=Rarely/Once a month or less, 3= Sometimes/A few times a
month, (4) Often/Once a week, 5= Very Often/A few times a week, and 6=Always/Every day.
As SPSS cannot handle calculations with zero values, it translated the 0-6 7-point Linkert scale
to a 1-7 Linkert scale for the statistical analyses.
Sample Size
In this study, participants were adult working professionals (age of 21 and older) with a
minimum of 1 month of paid work experience and a direct supervisor. Participation in the survey
was not limited geographically. However, the survey instrument was available only in English.
Therefore, survey participation required English comprehension. Participation in the survey was
voluntary and participants will remain anonymous. Participants were not limited by gender,
ethnicity, or their respective level in the organization.
The sample was drawn from the adult working professional’s population conducted
online using the social networking platform LinkedIn. Social media subject recruitment resulted
in self-selective, voluntary participation in the study. Participants were not offered incentives. A
total of 233 people participated in the self-administered online survey, which resulted in 181
fully completed and 52 partially complete survey questionnaires, with a 78% completion rate.
This 181 fully completed survey satisfies the required sample size of 159 established in Chapter
3 to ensure the desired statistical power and data saturation (see Figure B13 and Figure B14).
Pilot Testing
The instrument was pilot tested with a panel of fifteen experts (see results Figure B19,
20, 21, 22, and 23). The initial instrument was edited based on the expert panel’s feedback. This
resulted in the elimination of six survey questions due to unsatisfactory evidence for essentiality
96
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
and relevance, as well as improved the clarity of wording of the survey questions (see Figure
B24).
Data Collection
After obtaining IRB approval (see Appendix F), data collection commenced,
subsequently completing the instrument validation (see Figure B23) and receiving written
permission from Committee Chair to start data collection on April 29, 2021. Data collection
began on April 31, 2021, by posting the web link and QR code to the research survey and
requesting participation on LinkedIn (see Appendix H and Appendix I). Data collection was
performed via Survey Monkey’s web collector function and was closed on May 7, 2021,
consisting of 233 participants.
In addition to the ordinarily expected fall-out rate, it is possible that not prequalifying
participants as having a direct supervisor requirement reduced the completion rate as participants
were asked about their work engagement and behaviors they observed from their direct manager
within the survey and not before. Top-level managers and business owners often do not have a
direct manager; therefore, they were not able to complete the direct managers-related behavioral
questions and exited the survey after completing the engagement section. Thus, besides the
established participant selection criteria (age of 21 and above with a minimum of 1 month paid
work experience), requirements for a direct manager should have been defined as selection
criteria.
Data preparation for analytics
The collected survey data was exported to SPSS using Survey Monkey's built-in data
direct export functionality. This functionality made data transport easy, avoiding any potential
errors with a manual data transfer (Gogoi, 2020). The columns of the findings data matrix
97
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
represent the survey questions, while each row represents participants' response scores for the
corresponding survey items (see Figure B26). Demographic-related data were nominal, while
survey items were ordinal data using a 7-point Likert scale. In addition, as SPSS cannot work
with zero values, it transformed the original 7-point Likert scale responses (0 to 6; where zero
means never engaged, and six means always engaged) to a 7-point Likert scale response (1 to 7;
where one means never engaged and seven means always engaged).
To prepare the survey data for statistical analysis, I first screened the partially completed
surveys and calculated the employee engagement score by averaging the response value of the
nine engagement-related questions for each participant. This individual employee engagement
score will be the dependent variable of the study (Y). Before explaining the next part of my
process, it is essential to understand some of the terminologies. Behavioral domains of the study
(see Figure B15) are benchmark behaviors representing the core universe of the leadership
behaviors of the research: leading with humility and respecting every individual. Benchmark
behaviors are sub-components of the domain; these are actual behaviors; the way people bring
the domain to life.
Next, I calculated participants' ratings on direct managers' leading with humility score and
respecting every individual score by the mean value of the respective domains (x11-x16) and
(x21-x27), respectively representing these leadership behaviors (see Figure B27). Leading with
humility (X1) and respecting every individual (X2) are the two main independent variables of the
study. I calculated the leadership behavior score for each domain, where x11-x16 represents
leading with humility, and x21-x27, which attributes respecting every individual behavior by the
mean value of the corresponding survey questions (see Figure B27).
98
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Next, participants were classified into sub-groups based on their level of work
engagement. I explored options for grouping with relative equal group proportions and similar
sub-sample sizes. Visual Binning is an SPSS function to create new variables based on grouping
adjacent values of existing variables into a finite number of distinct groups. The engagement
value of 5.5 appears to be an infection point where the bell-shaped curve starts to change (see
Figure 25). Therefore, I used an engagement score of 5.5 as the cut point to create two
subgroups. Leveraging SPSS's Visual Binning function, with the application of a 5.5 cut point, I
broke down the total sample of 181 into two relatively similarly sized groups (see Table A3 and
Figure 25). Group 1 includes participants with an engagement score of 5.5 or lower (n=84),
while Group 2 contains participants with an engagement score above 5.5 (n=97). This participant
grouping method satisfies the independent t-test sample size requirements. According to the
G*Power sample size calculations, for testing differences between two independent means using
Mann-Whitney, each group sample size should be at least 53 (see Figure B13). I tested these two
clusters of participants, Group 1 moderately engaged employees against Group 2, highly engaged
employees, and see whether there is a potentially significant impact of direct supervisor's leading
with humility behavior and respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Results of Hypothesis Tests
Mourougan and Sethuraman (2017) stated that hypothesis testing is a vital activity of
evidence-based research. A research hypothesis is a statement about the expected outcome of the
study or experimentation. The purpose of hypothesis testing is to determine whether there is
enough statistical evidence in favor of an expected outcome. Null-hypothesis represents the
favored assumption while alternative hypothesis the other possible conclusion.
99
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Normality Tests
According to Mishra et al. (2019), there are various methods available to test the
normality of the data, most popular methods are Shapiro–Wilk test, Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests.
The Shapiro–Wilk test is a more suitable method for small sample sizes (<50 samples) while it
can also handle larger sample sizes while Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is used for n ≥50. I used
both as some of the sub-groups are close to the 50 sample-size. The distribution of the dependent
variable, Employee Engagement Score was tested for normality using SPSS's built-in
functionality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. According to Mishra et al.
(2019), when the significance value is p<0.05, the null hypothesis that the population is normally
distributed is accepted, and data were determined to be normally distributed. KolmogorovSmirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated that our dependent variable's employee engagement
score does not follow the normal distribution examining the entire sample population (n=181),
(see Table A4). Mishra et al. (2019) stated that according to the Central limit theorem, violation
of normality is not a significant concern when the sample size is 100 or more. The actual sample
size is of this study was 181. Therefore, I could use the t-test for the whole sample population.
However, as I was conducting Casual-Comparative research comparing sub-groups, the group
size was less than 100. Therefore, I could not use the t-test comparing sub-groups. Alternatively,
the Mann-Whitney U test can compare two independent groups where the dependent variable is
not normally distributed (MacFarland & Yates, 2016). For the Mann-Whitney U test, four
assumptions need to be met, namely: (a) dependent variable should be measured at the ordinal or
continuous level, (b) independent variable should consist of two categorical, independent groups,
(c) independence of observations (all participants in a sample are only counted once), and (d)
when your two variables are not normally distributed.
100
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B25 histogram suggests a right-skewed sample distribution; most data falls to the
right side of the histogram. 54% of participants scored their level of work engagement five and
higher on the 7-point Likert scale, indicating a high level of work engagement for most
participants. On the other hand, only 9% of participants scored their level of work engagement
less than 4, while 37% of participants scored between four and five. I interpret this right-skewed
distribution with a couple of factors. First, as my LinkedIn network was the primary target
population, most participants were managers and leaders. According to Quantum Workplace’s
research by Hackbarth et al. (2016), they tend to score higher in work engagement than the
general population. Secondarily, disengaged employees are less likely participate in volunteer
engagement surveys, therefore highly engaged are overrepresented among the participants. The
dependent variable of the survey instrument was collected via the well-established Schaufeli’s
(2006) UWES-9 questionnaire (see Appendix C). Therefore, the risk is low for potential issues
caused by the survey instrument resulting in not-normally distributed data.
Test of normality for groups
Table A3 includes descriptive statistics results of the two subgroups of samples. Group 1
contains 84 moderately engaged participants with a mean engagement score of 4.53, median of
4.67, and skewness of -1.45. Group 2 consists of 97 engaged participants with a mean
engagement score of 6.07, median of 6.0, and skewness of 0.59. The normality test using both
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test indicates that our dependent variable, employee
engagement score, did not follow a normal distribution in Group 1 among the moderately
engaged participants or Group 2 highly engaged participants.
101
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Exploring Alternatives to Transfer Not Normally Distributed Data to Normality
Based on both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, the Employee
Engagement Score in Group 1 and Group 2 does not follow the normal distribution (see Table
A3). Therefore, several alternative options were considered and performed, attempting to transfer
data towards normal distribution. Firstly, applied SPSS's compute variable function using natural
logarithmic transformation of employee engagement score. According to Feng et al. (2014), logtransformation is a widely used technique to handle skewed data in psychosocial research. After
the data transformation, retested data for normality. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test
suggest that the logarithmically transformed data in Group 1 and 2 still do not follow the normal
distribution (see Table A5).
Next, I performed a Box-Cox transformation on employee engagement score and retested
data for normality. According to Bicego and Baldo (2016), the Box-Cox transformation is a
parametric pre-processing technique aiming to convert the distribution of a set of points
approximately Gaussian (normal distribution). Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test
suggest that the Box-Cox transformed employee engagement score data in Group 1 and 2 still do
not follow the normal distribution (see Table A6). Lastly, using SPSS's explore statistics
function, identified extreme values for employee engagement and values equal or less than 3.22
and equal and greater than 6.78 were considered outliers and temporarily eliminated from the
data. Outlier elimination resulted in 166 remaining survey items. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilk test suggest the streamlined population of employee engagement score with the
elimination of outliers in Group 1 and Group 2 still did not produce normal distribution (see
Table A7).
102
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Exploring Possibilities of Participant’s Data Distortion
Due to the international participation in the survey, only 50% of participants were from
the North American region (n=91), (see Table A1). A potential factor of data distortion might be
English as a second language for close to half of the study participants. To examine the potential
impact of survey comprehension, participants were clustered by region of the country of
residency and tested normality of employee engagement score by geographic region.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test suggest that employee engagement distribution
does not follow a normal distribution in North America or Europe. In contrast, data collected
from Asia and South America follows the normal distribution (see Table A8). There is not
enough data point from Central America and Oceania to test for normality. These results suggest
that English as a second language is not a critical factor in the skewed data distribution.
First Hypothesis Test
H01: There is no significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee engagement.
Ha1: There is a significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee engagement.
To test the hypothesis, the survey outcome of two independent groups was analyzed.
Group 1, moderately engaged participants’ direct supervisors’ leading with humility score against
Group 2, highly engaged participants’ direct supervisors’ leading with humility score to see a
potential statistical difference. As Group 1 and Group 2 are not normally distributed, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was performed.
Nonparametric, Mann-Whitney U Test
Following MacFarland and Yates's (2016) guidelines, requirements to run a MannWhitney test were considered and confirmed: (a) dependent variable is measured at the ordinal
level, (b) independent variable consist of two categorical, independent groups, (c) the
103
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
observations are independent, and (d) variables are not normally distributed. Results of the test
(U = 2054, Z = -5.747, p < 0.001) indicated that we reject the null hypothesis that there is no
significant impact of leading with humility behavior on employee engagement and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Due to the significant test, the effect size was calculated and found to be r
= 0.183. The mean ranks were 66.95 and 111.82 (see Table A9). Thus, direct supervisors'
leading with humility score between Group 1 modestly engaged employees and Group 2 highly
engaged employees is a statistically different.
Second Hypothesis Test
H02: There is no significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
Ha2: There is a significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement.
To test the hypothesis, the survey outcome of two independent groups was analyzed.
Group 1, moderately engaged participants’ direct supervisors’ respecting every individual score
against Group 2, highly engaged participants’ direct supervisors’ respecting every individual
score to see a potential statistical difference. As Group 1 and Group 2 are not normally
distributed, a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was performed.
Nonparametric, Mann-Whitney U Test
Following MacFarland and Yates's (2016) guidelines, requirements to run a MannWhitney test were considered and confirmed: (a) dependent variable is measured at the ordinal
level, (b) independent variable consist of two categorical, independent groups, (c) the
observations are independent, and (d) variables are not normally distributed. Results of the test
(U = 2180.00, Z = -5.387, p < 0.001) indicated that we reject the null hypothesis that there is no
104
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
significant impact of respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement and accept
the alternative hypothesis. Due to the significant test, the effect size was calculated and found to
be r = 0.161. The mean ranks were 68.46 and 110.52 (see Table A10). Thus, direct supervisors'
respecting every individual score between Group 1 modestly engaged employees and Group 2
highly engaged employees is statistically different.
Third Hypothesis Test
H03: There is no significant relative difference of impact between leading with humility
and respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Ha3: There is a significant difference of impact between leading with humility and
respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement.
Chi-square independence test was performed to see strength of association between
variables.
Chi-square Test
An association between leading with humility and employee engagement and respecting
every individual and employee engagement was observed in previous tests. Therefore, a Chisquare test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between leading with
humility and employee engagement and respecting every individual and employee engagement.
According to McHugh (2013), the Chi-square test is a non-parametric, distribution-free test.
Tested data satisfy the test requirements as all variables are measured on an original scale, and
variables are two or more independent groups.
The relation between leading with humility and employee engagement was significant, χ2
(180, N = 181) = 4179.94, V = 0.79, p < .05, while the relation between respecting every
individual and employee engagement was also significant, χ2 (180, N = 181) = 4473.15, V =
105
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
0.817, p < .05 (see Table A11). Cramer’s V value results suggest a strong association for both
leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior to employee
engagement. In contrast, the higher V value suggests respecting every individual even more
strongly associated with employee engagement than leading with humility.
Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation test
A nonparametric correlation test was performed to test strength and direction of
association between the benchmark leadership behaviors. Data satisfies test requirements, as all
variables measured on an ordinal scale, variables represent paired observations, and monotonic
relationship observed between variables based on scatter-plot charts (see Figure B28). The
correlational matrix suggests that there is a strong positive association between seeking out and
valuing others’ ideas, admitting vulnerability, empowering, inquiring, self-confidence, and
empathy (see Table A12). P value is <0.001 for all combinations suggesting statistically
significant association for all, with Spearman’s rank-order value ranging between 0.705 and
0.859, with the strongest positive association between seeking out and valuing others’ ideas and
admitting vulnerability.
Spearman’s rho results are in a tight close range, between 0.705-0.859, indicating
potential variable overlapping. For example, within the leading with humility domain, inquiring
and self-confidence appears to be their own variables while seeking out and value other’s ideas,
and admitting vulnerability seems overlapping variables likely can be crush to one variable. The
same observation holds that empowering and empathy domains are likely overlapping and can be
crashed into one variable. Within the respecting every individual domain, driving accountability
and assessing a safe and healthy work environment appears to be their own variables while
valuing each individual, nourishing employees to their full potential, and providing support to
106
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
succeed seems overlapping variables likely can be crush to one variable. The same observation
holds that listening actively and appreciating others are likely overlapping and can be crashed
into one variable.
Outliers
Box-plot chart indicated potential outliers, particularly in Group 1 moderately engaged
participants with data points far outside of the minimum value (see Figure B25). Upon further
review, three participant feedback was identified as potential outliers, each submitted from the
North America region; two are leaders with a director or above position. Using SPSS's explore
statistics function, identified extreme values for employee engagement and values equal or less
than 3.22 and equal and greater than 6.78 were considered outliers and temporarily eliminated
from the data. Retested data for normality after outliers were temporarily removed; dependent
variable remained not normally distributed, therefore decided to keep outliers in the study data.
Summary
Chapter four analyzed collected study results. First, participants’ demographic data were
evaluated, and the general description of participants was interpreted. Next, the unit of analyses
and measurement was confirmed, followed by discussing sample size, pilot testing, and details of
data collection. Hypothesis tests were performed, and test results were interpreted to answer
research questions. Chapter four was concluded with a discussion about outliers. Chapter five
will complete this study by discussing ethical dimensions of the research, reviewing limitations
and findings, followed by a reflection of learning, recommendations, and suggestions for future
research.
107
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Chapter 5: Concluding the Study
Chapter five contains the conclusions of this exploration. The chapter begins with a
summary of the study, followed by a review of the ethical dimensions of the research. Afterward,
the population and sampling method overview is presented, followed by discussing limitations
and findings. Finally, the chapter concludes with a reflection on learning through this project,
recommendations for applying findings, suggestions for future research, and a conclusion.
Summary of the Study
In this study, I investigated the impact of leadership behaviors on employee engagement.
The purpose of this study was twofold; first, to examine employee perceptions of the impact, if
any, of two fundamental leadership behavior; (a) leading with humility and (b) respecting every
individual on employee engagement, and second to explore the relative difference of impact
leading with humility and respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement. The
quantitative research followed a Causal-Comparative (ex-facto) design to fulfill the study
objectives. Data collection included a purpose-built, hybrid research instrument added to the
well-established Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), capturing employee engagement
as the study's dependent variable (see Appendix C). The custom-built add-on questionnaire
supplemented the UWES-9 to capture employees' feedback on direct supervisors' leadership
behaviors focusing on leading with humility and respecting every individual orientation as
independent variables of the study (see Figure B16). The pilot study established the validity for
the custom-built add-on questionnaire before the main study. Following the Casual-Comparative
(ex-facto) research design, two clusters of participants to test my research hypotheses and answer
the research questions. I compared Group 1 moderately engaged employees against Group 2,
highly engaged employees and draw my conclusions based on the test results.
108
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Ethical Dimensions
This research adhered to strict ethical standards, honored participants' confidentiality, and
followed IRB recommendations. I treated each study participant fairly, and all participants
received a proper consent form electronically (see Appendix D). The use of a mandatory
acknowledgment of the built-in consent form (see Appendix I) as a pre-requisite to proceed to
the survey removed the need for a separate consent form while ensured each study corresponds
to an efficiently completed consent form. All participants obtained a proper e-mail address and
phone number, allowing them to ask questions during the survey process and review the inquiry
results. Participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time, without giving a reason
and without cost. The survey responses did not jeopardize anonymity as they contained no
identifying marks related to the participant, including identifiers of institutions, participants, or
collaborative efforts. A strict data access protocol was followed with multi-level password
protection and encrypting to ensure protected information.
Overview of the Population and Sampling Method
The primary study participants are adult working professionals (age of 21 and older) with
a minimum of 1 month of paid work experience and direct supervisors. Participants were not
limited by geography, gender, ethnicity, or their respective level in the organization. Recruiting
was strictly online using my LinkedIn professional social network, which resulted in selfselective, voluntary participation in the study. The research questionnaire was available in
English only. Data collection was performed via Survey Monkey’s web collector function,
resulting in 233 participants including 52 partially complete survey questionnaires, with a 78%
completion rate. This resulted in 181 fully completed surveys as the final study sample. This 181
fully completed survey superseded the minimum required sample size of 159 established in
109
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Chapter 3 to ensure the desired statistical power and data saturation (see Figure B13 and Figure
B14).
Participants' demographics align with my LinkedIn network demographics with 75%
male and 25% female representation, geographically 52% US-based while 48% based outside of
the U.S. Out of the 181 fully completed participants, 78% were male (n=141), and 22% were
female (n=40). From a geographic standpoint, 50% of participants were from North America
(n=91), 40% from Europe (n=73), 4% from Asia (n=7), 3% from South America (n=5), 1% each
from Central America and the Middle East (n=2 in each) and .6% from Oceania or the Caribbean
(n=1). Age demographics were as follows, listed in order of decreasing prevalence: 45% of
participants were from the age group of 41-50 years old (n=81), 21% from the age group of 5160 years old (n=38), 20% from the age group from 31-40 years old (n=37), 7% from the age
group of 61-70 years old (n=13) and 7% from the age group of 21-30 years old. Regarding
education levels, 71% of participants have a graduate-level degree (n=128), 22% with an
undergraduate degree (n=40), and 7% with a high school diploma (n=13) as their highest degree.
From the standpoint of position within the organization, 47% of participants are leaders with
director or above responsibility (n=85), 32% are managers (n=57), 14% associates (n=26) and
7% front line supervisors (n=13). Study participants are relatively evenly distributed in terms of
years of service at the current organization. Most participants, a total of 93%, have regular, at
least monthly direct engagement with their direct supervisor.
Limitations
From a methodology standpoint, two possible limitations became apparent. The first
limitation of the study has related to the use of self-reported data. According to Pekrun (2020),
self-reported data possess the limitation of honestly choosing a socially acceptable answer rather
110
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
than being truthful, introspective ability. Furthermore, self-reported participants potentially
cannot assess themselves accurately and possibly incurs response or sampling bias. The second
limitation was the lack of regular direct engagement with immediate supervisors for a small
portion of participants, limiting their ability to observe leadership behaviors and form
empirically based feedback on immediate supervisors' behaviors.
Findings
Two-third of Americans are not actively engaged at work and not living up to their full
potential (Harter, 2018). The low level of work engagement harms business outcomes and
impacts the social lives of millions of employees. While evidence for the relationship between
leadership behavior and organizational culture has been established by Grosyberg et al. (2018),
there has been limited research on specific observable leadership behavior perceived to promote
a high-level employee engagement organizational performance. Building upon Owens and
Hekman's (2012) humble leadership theoretical model, coupled with other research founding on
the significance of respect to engagement (Lavigna, 2016; Schwartz & Porath, 2014), this study
explored how to cultivate foundational cultural enablers, especially regarding leading with
humility and respecting every individual oriented leadership behavior in the organization and
how does it relate to employee engagement.
The purpose of this study was twofold; first, to examine employee perceptions of the
impact, if any, of two fundamental leadership behavior; (a) leading with humility and (b)
respecting every individual on employee engagement, and second to explore the relative
difference of impact leading with humility and respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement. In addition, I conducted exploratory research seeking to identify the critical
characteristics of leadership behavior that can help nourish employee engagement and foster an
111
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
organizational culture to achieve high performance. As the outcome of this study, I strive to arm
business leaders with exemplary leadership behaviors which put in practice consistently, likely
will foster a culture that nourishes employee engagement. A high level of employee engagement
fosters a strong culture that drives positive organizational outcomes (Grosyberget et al., 2018).
Findings Regarding Leading with Humility on Employee Engagement
The first research question was intended to examine the potential impact of leading with
humility leadership behavior on employee engagement. Mann-Whitney U test results indicated a
statistically significant difference comparing direct supervisors' leading with humility score
between Group 1 modestly engaged employees and Group 2 highly engaged employees. Thus,
findings suggest that immediate supervisors' leading with humility behavior likely positively
impact employee engagement. This conclusion is consistent with Sousa and Direndonck's (2017)
finding that leaders' humility positively impacts followers' social interactions, learning, and
adaptation in the organization, enhancing their level of work engagement.
Findings Regarding Respecting Every Individual on Employee Engagement
The second research question was intended to examine the potential impact of respecting
every individual leadership behavior on employee engagement. Mann-Whitney U test results
indicated a statistically significant difference comparing direct supervisors' respecting every
individual score between Group 1 modestly engaged employees and Group 2 highly engaged
employees. Thus, findings suggest that immediate supervisors' respecting every individual
behavior likely positively impacts employee engagement. This conclusion is consistent with
Porath et al.'s (2015) research findings that respect is the most important leadership behavior. In
addition, their global research concluded that no other leadership behavior substantially impacted
112
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
employee outcomes more than the supervisor's respect; they underlined that the supervisor's
respectful engagement enhances job performance and work engagement.
Findings Regarding Relative Difference of Impact
The third research question was intended to explore whether leading with humility or
respecting every individual has a more beneficial impact on employee engagement. Cramer’s V
value results from the Chi-square test of independence suggest a strong association for both
leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior to employee
engagement. In contrast, the higher V value implies respecting every individual even more
strongly associated with employee engagement than leading with humility.
Reflection
Based on the experience gained in this research project, I have identified several significant
improvement opportunities to advance my future research. From the methodology standpoint, I
would further narrow the study target population, for example targeting a particular geographic
region, industry, or organization. The rationale for more focused research is multi-faceted. A
narrower scope makes the study more manageable. Furthermore, an even more homogeneous
group of participants would deepen the research and likely reduce variation in the study. A
narrower scope potentially could enable the researcher to develop an experimental research plan
to test causal relationships. To further improve participants' survey experience, I would further
strengthen communication to the participant about requirements, including having a direct
supervisor and regular (at least monthly) interaction with the immediate supervisor to reduce
partial survey completion.
This exploratory study built the foundation for future in-depth research in the influence of
leadership behavior on employee engagement, particularly leading with humility and respecting
113
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
every individual behavior impact on employee engagement. The outcome of this CausalComparative research suggests that leading with humility and respecting every individual may
have a positive effect on employee engagement. However, due to the non-experimental design,
no claims of causality will be made.
Recommendations
This research concluded that leading with humility and respecting every individual are
fundamental leadership behaviors strongly associated with employee engagement. Leading with
humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior potentially contribute to nourishing
a remarkable employee engagement and consequently enable a high-performance organizational
culture. Based on the study results, I recommend leaders intentionally and consistently put
leading with humility in practice by showcasing benchmark behaviors such as seeking out and
valuing others’ ideas, admitting vulnerability, empowering, inquiring, exhibiting self-confidence,
and empathy. Also, I recommend leaders demonstrate respecting every individual purposely and
routinely to nourish employee engagement. I advocate leaders showcasing the following
benchmark behaviors: valuing each individual, nourishing employees to their full potential,
ensuring a safe and healthy work environment, listening actively, appreciating others, providing
support to succeed, and driving accountability.
In terms of practical applications, I recommend three key concepts to start the
implementation. First, articulate the essence of each desired and the undesired leadership
behavior undoubtedly clear. Making desired leadership behavior apparent sets standards for
expected behavior norms in the organization (Toussaint, 2015). According to Sullivan, "respect
each person, and value each person, that is really the power of truly human leadership" (Steward,
2021). Sullivan also underlined that crystallizing the essence of each leadership behavior should
114
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
be a collaborative team effort to create buy-in and drive ownership across the organization.
Building upon the ideas of Toussaint, 2015, I recommend organizational leaders introducing key
behavioral indicators (KBIs), a simple observable manner of conduct for leaders putting the ideal
behaviors into practice. Key behavior indicators will drive transparency and enable the
organization to track the progress of the desired behavior. As Drucker said, "you can't manage
what you can't measure" (Prusak, 2010). Therefore, alongside the key performance indicators
(KPIs), such as safety improvements, quality improvements, profit margin expansion, etc., I
recommend leaders operationalize the key behavioral indicators. Provide regular coaching
feedback and drive the actual performance of the given KBI towards ideal levels.
Suggestions for Future Research
While this research was exploratory, it creates the foundation in this subject for future indepth analysis. To test a possible causal relationship, I recommend an experimental study
investigating the potential causal relationship between leadership behaviors, explicitly leading
with humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior and employee engagement.
Building upon the preliminary Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation test, some benchmark
behaviors likely overlap, representing leading with humility and respecting every individual
leadership behavior. Therefore, further research is needed to solidify the essential core
components of leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior and its
components relative significance to employee engagement. Furthermore, I would make the
survey instrument available in multiple languages to expand and enhance participant experience
for non-English speakers.
115
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Concluding the Study
The purpose of this study was twofold; first, to examine employee perceptions of the
impact, if any, of two fundamental leadership behavior; (a) leading with humility and (b)
respecting every individual on employee engagement, and second to explore the relative
difference of impact leading with humility and respecting every individual behavior on employee
engagement. In essence, culture is the sum of values and behaviors practiced in the organization
(Groysberg et al., 2018). Values represent the organization's core beliefs; they serve as a moral
compass and represent why we do what we do. Behaviors manifest the values in actions; how we
bring the values to life. Alignment and consistency between values and behaviors are vital to
nurturing a cohesive, high-performance culture. Leaders cast a long shadow; how we lead
matters (Nelson & Cundy, 2008). The way leaders lead, and act impacts the culture and the
overall outcome of the organization. Leaders' actions create expectations and set norms about
rewarded and undesired behaviors in the organization. Largely, leaders shape the organization's
culture; therefore, they are responsible for the business outcome and how it creates the result.
According to Miller (2018), most organizational cultures are not built intentionally.
Often, they emerge while people are busy focusing on results. However, Rezaei et al. (2018)
argued that high-performing organizations purposefully built and practiced the things necessary
to maintain an exemplary culture of excellence. This study built upon Hougaard & Carter’s
(2018) work of human-centered leadership foundations to create a more people-centered culture
where both employees and leaders are fulfilled and can deliver high-performance organizational
results.
Naranjo-Valencia et al. (2015) studied the link between culture, innovation, and
organizational performance. They revealed that culture could foster and obstruct both innovation
116
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
and company performance contingent upon the values promoted by the culture. Edgeman (2019)
argued that leadership behaviors heavily influence organizational culture. He emphasized that for
sustainable transformations, it is essential to understand the relationship between leadership
behavior, organizational culture, and employee engagement.
This study explored the relationship between fundamental leadership behaviors and
employee engagement, primarily examined the impact of leading with humility and respecting
every individual on employee engagement. Although I cannot test causal relationships due to the
Causal-Comparative research design, my findings suggest a strong association for leading with
humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior to employee engagement. In
addition, the higher V value implies respecting every individual even more strongly associated
with employee engagement than leading with humility. Based on the study results, to nourish
employee engagement, I recommend leaders intentionally and consistently lead with humility in
practice by showcasing benchmark behaviors such as seeking out and valuing others' ideas,
admitting vulnerability, empowering, inquiring, exhibiting self-confidence, and exhibiting selfconfidence empathy. Also, I recommend leaders demonstrate respecting every individual
purposely and routinely to nourish employee engagement. I advocate leaders showcasing the
following benchmark behaviors: valuing each individual, nourishing employees to their full
potential, ensuring a safe and healthy work environment, listening actively, appreciating others,
providing support to succeed, and driving accountability.
117
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
References
Ali, Z., & Bhaskar, S. B. (2016). Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis. Indian
Journal of Anesthesia, 60(9), 662-669. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190623
Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n264
Al-Tit, A., & Hunitie, M. (2015). The mediating effect of employee engagement between its
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Research, 7(5), 47-62.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v7i5.8048
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018).
Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA
Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1),
3-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000389
Arditi, D., Nayak, S., & Damci, A. (2017). Effect of organizational culture on delay in
construction. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 136-147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.018
Asag-Gau, L., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). The impact of servant leadership on
organizational commitment among the highly talented: the role of challenging work
conditions and psychological empowerment. European Journal of International
Management, 5(5), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1504/ejim.2011.042174
Avella, J. R. (2016). Delphi panels: Research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges.
International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11(1), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.28945/3561
Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing social research (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill Inc
118
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Baker, W. H., & Rolfes, K. (2015). Lean form the long term: Sustainment is a myth,
transformation is reality. CRC Press
Bakotica, D. (2016). Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational performance.
Economic Research, 29(1), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2016.1163946
Bala, J. (2016). Contribution of SPSS in Social Sciences Research. International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science, 7(6), 250-254.
Balter, D. (2020). The humility imperative: Effective leadership in an era of arrogance.
Houndstooth Press
Baroncelli, C., & Ballerio, N. (2016). WCOM (World Class Operations Management): Why you
need more than lean. Springer
Behrendt, P., Matz, S., & Göritz, A. S. (2017). An integrative model of leadership behavior. The
leadership quarterly, 28(1), 229-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.002
Bennis, W. G. (2009). On becoming a leader (4th ed.). Basic Books
Bersin, J. (2015). Becoming irresistible. Deloitte Review, 16, 146-163.
Bertush, A. & Pahm, L (2012). A guide to multivariate analysis in cross cultural research.
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR). 1(1), 97-121.
Bicego, M., & Baldo, S. (2016). Properties of the Box–Cox transformation for pattern
classification. Neurocomputing, 218, 390-400.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.08.081
Bicheno, J., & Holweg, M. (2016). The lean toolbox; a handbook for lean transformation (5th
ed.). PICSIE Books.
Blanch, J., Gil, F., Antino, M., & Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. (2016). Positive leadership models:
Theoretical framework and research. Psychologist Papers, 37(3), 170-176.
119
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Blank, C., Frey, R., Schweyer, A., Whillans, A., & Winkelspecht, C. (2017). The foundation for
global employee engagement. A behavior-based model for leaders and practitioners.
White Paper. Harvard Business School.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=55208
Bloomfield, J. & Fisher, M. (2019). Quantitative research design. Journal of the Australian
Nurses Association, 22(2), 27-30. https://doi.org/10.33235/jarna.22.2.27-30
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L.
(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and
behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Boyce, A. S., Nieminen, L. R., Gillespie, M. A., Ryan, A. M., & Denison, D. R. (2015). Which
comes first, organizational culture or performance? A longitudinal study of causal
priority with automobile dealerships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3), 339359. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1985
Brown, B. (2016). Brené Brown encourages educators to normalize the discomfort of learning
and reframe failure as learning. About Campus, 20(6), 3-7.
https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21224
Brown, S. M. (Producer). (July. 1, 2020). Dave Balter; The Humility Imperative (Episode 19).
[Audio podcast]. https://www.smaxbrown.com/episode-19-dave-balter
Brown, S. M. (Producer). (July. 8, 2020). Dr. Hal Gregersen; Questions Are the Answer
(Episode 20). [Audio podcast]. https://www.smaxbrown.com/episode-20-dr-halgregersen
120
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Brown, S. M. (Producer). (Aug. 5, 2020). Hitendra Wadhwa; Columbia Business School
(Episode 23). [Audio podcast]. https://www.smaxbrown.com/episode-23-hitendrawadhwa
Cable, D. M. (2019). Alive at work: The neuroscience of helping your people love what they do.
Harvard Business Press.
Caldwell, C., Ichiho, R., & Anderson, V. (2017). Understanding level 5 leaders: the ethical
perspectives of leadership humility. Journal of Management Development. 36(5), 724732. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-09-2016-0184
Caldwell, C., & Hayes, L. A. (2016). Self-efficacy and self-awareness: moral insights to
increased leader effectiveness. Journal of Management Development. 35(9), 1163-1173.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-01-2016-0011
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on
the competing values framework. John Wiley and Sons
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E, DeGraff, J., & Anjan, V. T. (2006). Competing values framework.
Edward Elgar Publishing
Campagne, C. S., Roche, P., Gosselin, F, Tschanz, L. and Tatoni, T (2017). Expert-based
ecosystem services capacity matrices: Dealing with scoring variability. Ecological
Indicators, 79 (2017), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.043
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1542
121
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Cesário, F., & Chambel, M. J. (2017). Linking organizational commitment and work engagement
to employee performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 152-158.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1542
Charter Partners. (Producer). (2017). Paul O’Neil CEO of Alcoa – it’s all about safety. [Video]
https://youtu.be/tC2ucDs_XJY
Choi, S. L., Goh, C. F., Adam, M. B. H., & Tan, O. K. (2016). Transformational leadership,
empowerment, and job satisfaction: the mediating role of employee empowerment.
Human Resources for Health, 14(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-016-0171-2
Chiu, C. Y. C., Owens, B. P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in
teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance
capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1705-1720.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000159
Cheema, S., Akram, A., & Javed, F. (2015). Employee engagement and visionary leadership:
Impact on customer and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly,
7(2), 139-148.
Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The functions of a servant
leader. Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7010005
Coetzee, R., Van der Merwe, K., & Van Dyk, L. (2016). Lean implementation strategies: how
are the Toyota Way principles addressed? South African Journal of Industrial
Engineering, 27(3), 79-91. https://doi.org/10.7166/27-3-1641
Conelly, L. (2013). Demographic data in research studies. Journal of the Academy of MedicalSurgical Nurses, 22(4), 269-270.
122
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Xu, J., & Saks, A. M. (2018). The differential value of resources in
predicting employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(4/5), 326–344.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-12-2017-0449
Culp. L. (2020, June 18). Moving forward. LinkedIn. Retrieved Aug. 7, 2020, from
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/moving-forward-larryculp?articleId=6679348986614202368#comments6679348986614202368&trk=public_profile_article_view
Cummings, J. A. & Sanders, L. (2019). Introduction to Psychology. University of Saskatchewan
Open Press.
Curtis, E. A., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational
research. Nurse Researcher, 23(6), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382
Dahlgaard, J. J., Chen, C. K., Jang, J. Y., Banegas, L. A., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2013).
Business excellence models: Limitations, reflections and further development. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(5-6), 519-538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.756745
Davis, C. & Fisher, M. (2018). Understanding the research paradigms. Journal of the Australian
Nurses Association, 21(3), 21-25.
Decuypere, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2020). Leadership and work engagement: Exploring
explanatory mechanisms. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(1), 6995. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219892197
De Neve, J.-E., & Ward, G. (2017). Does Work Make You Happy? Evidence from the World
Happiness Report. Harvard Business Review.
123
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Dweck, C. (2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard Business Review,
13, 213-226.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis
program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
European Foundation for Quality Management (2002). The fundamental concepts of excellence.
https://www.efqm.org/index.php/learning-sharing/
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Ewenstein, B., Smith, W., & Sologar, A. (2015, July). Changing change management. Retrieved
from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/changing-changemanagement
Edgeman, R. (2019). Complex Management Systems and the Shingo Model: Foundations of
Operational excellence and Supporting Tools (1st ed.). Productivity Press
Falzarano, M., & Zipp, G. P. (2013). Seeking consensus through the use of the Delphi technique
in health sciences research. Journal of Allied Health, 42(2), 99-105. PMID: 23752237
Fan, X., & Lu, D. (2014). Re-balancing the excellence frameworks with individualistic logic.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(5-6), 478-493.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.799333
Feng, C., Wang, H., Lu, N., Chen, T., He, H., Lu, Y., & Tu, X. M. (2014). Log-transformation
and its implications for data analysis. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(2), 105–109.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.02.009
124
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Fernández-Domínguez, J. C., Sesé-Abad, A., Morales-Asencio, J. M., Sastre-Fullana, P., PolCastañeda, S., & de Pedro-Gómez, J. E. (2016). Content validity of a health science
evidence-based practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) with a web-based modified Delphi
approach. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 28(6), 764-773.
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzw106
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. North American edition (5th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation
SAGE (Vols. 1-4). http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
Frostenson, M. (2016). Humility in business: A contextual approach. Journal of Business Ethics,
138(1), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2601-9
Gallo, A. (2011). Making sure your employees succeed. Harvard Business Review, 7.
Gandolfi, F., Stone, S., & Deno, F. (2017). Servant leadership: An ancient style with 21st century
relevance. Review of International Comparative Management, 18(4), 350-361.
Gartenberg, C. M., Pret, A. & Serafeim, G. (2016). Corporate purpose and financial
performance. Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 16-69.
https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers/274
Gebauer, J., Lowman, D., & Gordon, J. (2008). Closing the engagement gap: How great
companies unlock employee potential for superior results. Penguin.
Georgiadou, E., Siakas, K., Berki, E., Estdale, J., Rahanu, H., & Ross, M. (2020). The
sociocultural dimension of the Software Process Improvement Manifesto: Pilot validation
by experts. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 32(11), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2304
125
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Glazek, K. J., Adu, P., & McFeeters, B. B. (2018). Development and preliminary evaluation of a
doctoral dissertation support center. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 12(3), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000192
Gogoi, P. (2020). Application of SPSS program in the field of social science research.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE). 8(5). 2424-2427.
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.d9260.018520
Griffin, J. J., Bryant, A., & Koerber, C. P. (2015). Corporate responsibility and employee
relations: From external pressure to action. Group & Organization Management, 40, 378404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560168
Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: A method for testing complex and multifaceted
topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 112-130.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910930545
Groysberg, B., Lee, J., Price, J., & Cheng, J. (2018). The leader’s guide to corporate culture.
Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 44-52.
Gupta, N., & Sharma, V. (2016). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and
employee engagement and its linkage to organizational performance: A conceptual
model. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 59.
Gutermann, D., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. L., Boer, Born, M. and Voelpel, S. C. (2017). How
leaders affect followers’ work engagement and performance: Integrating leader−member
exchange and crossover theory. British Journal of Management, 2017(28), 299–314.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12214
Gregersen, H. (2018, March-April). Better brainstorming. Harvard Business Review, 2(18), 6471
126
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Hackbarth, N., Harris, D. & Wright, H. (2016). 2016 Workplace engagement trends among
America’s best places to work. Quantum Workplace.
Haney, H., McCarthy, S., Viniak, V., Richardson, N. & Myers, D. (2019). Keys to lasting,
sustainable cost improvement. Supply Chain Management Review. July/August. 2019
Harter, J. (2018). Employee engagement on the rise in the U.S. GALLUP.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx
Hazzi, O., & Maldaon, I. (2015). A pilot study: Vital methodological issues. Business: Theory
and Practice, 16(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.437
Hertz, H. S., Baker, S., & Edgeman, R. (2018). Current and future states: reinventing enterprise
excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, (2018), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1444475
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D. & De Neve, J. E. (2020). World Happiness Report 2020.
Retrieved from https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2020/WHR20.pdf
Hewitt, A. (2017). Trends in global employee engagement: Global anxiety erodes employee
engagement gains. AON Hewitt.
Hines, P. and Butterworth, C. (2019). The essence of excellence; creating a culture of continuous
improvement. S.A. Partners
Hohmann, E., Cote, M. P., & Brand, J. C. (2018). Research Pearls: Expert consensus-based
evidence using the Delphi Method. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related
Surgery, 34(12), 3278–3282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.004
Hougaard, R., & Carter, J. (2018). Creating people-centric leadership and organizations:
Applying mindfulness, selflessness and compassion. Leadership Excellence, 35(5), 40.
127
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Hoskin, T. (2012). Parametric and nonparametric: Demystifying the terms. In Mayo Clinic CTSA
BERD Resource. 1-5. https://www.mayo.edu/research/documents/parametric-andnonparametric-demystifying-the-terms/doc-20408960
Hussain, T., Edgeman, R., Eskildsen, J., Shoukry, A., & Gani, S. (2018). Sustainable enterprise
excellence: Attribute-based assessment protocol. Sustainability, 10(11), 4097.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114097
Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., Schneiders, A. (2015). The matrix reloaded: A
review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modeling.
295, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024
Jha, B., & Kumar, A. (2016). Employee engagement: A strategic tool to enhance performance.
DAWN: Journal for Contemporary Research in Management, 3(2), 21-29.
Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2010). Initial scale development: sample size for pilot studies.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394-400.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355692
Jonsen, K., Galunic, C., Weeks, J., & Braga, T. (2015). Evaluating espoused values: Does
articulating values pay off? European Management Journal, 33(5), 332–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.03.005
Jordan, S.R. (2016). Positive Leadership Behavior. In: Farazmand A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia
of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham
Juevesa, R. D., Juevesa, C. V., & Castino, J. M. P. (2020). Employee engagement, commitment,
satisfaction and organizational performance among multigenerational workforces.
International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, 3(7), 36-40.
https://www.journals.resaim.com/ijresm/article/view/14
128
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Julious, S. A. (2005). Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study.
Pharmaceutical Statistics, 4(4), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.185
Kaur, S. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: A literature review.
IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior. 16(3), 33-38.
https://www.ijltemas.in/DigitalLibrary/Vol.6Issue4/33-38.pdf
Kulikowski, K. (2017). Do we all agree on how to measure work engagement? Factorial validity
of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale as a standard measurement tool–a literature
review. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30,
161-175. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00947
Kumar, A., & Mahal, R. (2017). Modified Delphi Technique: Content validity of the Pressure
ulcer risk assessment tool. Journal of Nursing Science and Practice, 7(3), 17-19.
http://medicaljournals.stmjournals.in/index.php/JoNSP/article/view/86
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S.
(2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational
support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
Koller, I., Levenson, M. R., & Glück, J. (2017). What do you think you are measuring? A mixedmethods procedure for assessing the content validity of test items and theory-based
scaling. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(126), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00126
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Publishing
Kruse, E., Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). State humility: Measurement, conceptual
validation, and intrapersonal processes. Self and Identity, 16(4), 399-438.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1267662
129
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Lavigna, R. (2015). Now is the time to improve federal employee engagement. Association for
Talent Development, 6(4), 18-27. https://www.td.org/magazines/the-publicmanager/now-is-the-time-to-improve-federal-employee-engagement
Lavigna, R. (2016). Employee engagement and respect. HR News Magazine. https://www.ipmahr.org/docs/default-source/public-docs/importdocuments/node-documents/30641employee-engagement-and-respect-article.pdf?sfvrs
Lisbona, A., Palaci, F., Salanova, M., & Frese, M. (2018). The effects of work engagement and
self-efficacy on personal initiative and performance. Psicothema. 30(1), 89-96.
https://doi.org/10.7234/psicotherma2018.245
Liker, J. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest
manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Education
Lind, D. A., Marchal, W. G. & Wathen, S. A. (2015). Statistical techniques in business
economics (16th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education
Lopez, S. O. (2018). Vulnerability in Leadership: The Power of the Courage to Descend.
(Doctoral Dissertation, Seattle Pacific University)
Lovell, A. (2018). 2018 Global Culture Report. O.C Tanner Institute.
https://www.octanner.com/content/dam/oc-tanner/documents/whitepapers/2018/2018_Global_Culture_Report.pdf
Lu, Z., Chen, A., & Song, J. (2018). The influence of humble leadership on employee’s proactive
behavior – the tole of psychological empowerment and conscientiousness. Panyapiwat
Journal, 10(3), 138-153. https://so05.tcithaijo.org/index.php/pimjournal/article/download/162375/117155/
130
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
MacFarland, T. W., & Yates, J. M. (2016). Mann–Whitney u test. In Introduction to
nonparametric statistics for the biological sciences using R. Springer, Cham 103-132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30634-6_4
Malmqvist, J., Hellberg, K., Möllås, G., Rose, R., & Shevlin, M. (2019). Conducting the pilot
study: A neglected part of the research process? Methodological findings supporting the
importance of piloting in qualitative research studies. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 19(18), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919878341
Manti, S., & Licari, A. (2018). How to obtain informed consent for research. Breathe, 14(2),
145-152. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.001918
Marciano, P. (2010). Carrots and sticks don’t work: Building a culture of employee engagement
with the principles of respect. McGraw-Hill
Maxwell, J. C. (2018). Developing the leader within you 2.0 workbook. Thomas Nelson
Maxwell, J. C. (Producer). (Nov. 13, 2019). Ten maxims for motivation (Part 1). [Audio
podcast]. https://johnmaxwellleadershippodcast.com/motivate
McGuire, J. B., & Palus, C. J. (2018). Vertical Transformation of Leadership Culture. Integral
Review: A Transdisciplinary & Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, &
Praxis, 14(1).
McLeod, S. (2019). What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative research? Simply
Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitativequantitative.html
Meskelis, S. (2017). An investigation of the relationship among honesty-humility, authentic
leadership and employee engagement. Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326262753
131
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Meshkat, B., Cowman, S., Gethin, G., Ryan, K., Wiley, M., Brick, A., ... & Mulligan, E. (2014).
Using an e-Delphi technique in achieving consensus across disciplines for developing
best practice in day surgery in Ireland. Journal of Hospital Administration, 3(4), 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.5430/jha.v3n4p1
Miller, R. D. (2018). Hearing the voice of the Shingo Principles: Creating sustainable cultures
of enterprise excellence. Taylor & Francis Group
Mills, M. J., Culbertson, S. S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring
engagement: An analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 13(3), 519-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9277-3
Minor D., and Rovkin, J. (2016). Truly human leadership at Barry-Wehmiller. Harvard Business
School. No. 9-717-420. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive
statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anesthesia, 22(1), 67–
72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_157_18
Morris, W. V. (2017). Culture of Inquiry in professional development. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 26(2), 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791702600202
Mullen, P.M. (2003). Delphi: myths and reality. Journal of Health Organization and
Management, 17(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260310469319
Musgrove, C., Ellinger, A. E., & Ellinger, A. D. (2014). Examining the influence of strategic
profit emphases on employee engagement and service climate. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 26, 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-08-2013-0057
Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valleb, R. (2015). Studying the links
between organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies.
132
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Revista Latinoamericana de Ps 48(2016), 30-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2015.09.009
Nelson, M. C. & Cundy, D. (2008). How we lead matters: Reflections of a life of leadership.
McGraw-Hill
Nguyen, N. H., & Mohamed, S. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and
knowledge management practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management
Development, 30(2), 206-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711111105786
Nielsen, R., & Marrone, J. A. (2018). Humility: Our current understanding of the construct and
its role in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 805-824.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12160
Nijhawan, L. P., Janodia, M. D., Muddukrishna, B. S., Bhat, K. M., Bairy, K. L., Udupa, N., &
Musmade, P. B. (2013). Informed consent: Issues and challenges. Journal of Advanced
Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 4(3), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.4103/22314040.116779
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications
Ogbeifun, E., J. Agwa-Ejon, C. M, & Pretorius, J. H. (2016, March 8-10). The Delphi technique:
A credible research methodology. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/services/Download/uj:20279/SOURCE1
O'Dwyer, L. M., & Bernauer, J. A. (2014). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher.
SAGE Publications.
133
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace.
International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 4.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/ijamt/vol16/iss1/4/
Oswick, C. (2015). Guest editorial. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 8-16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314558743
Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2018). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination
of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1147-1173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315604187
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance?
Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(3), 1088-1111. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0660
Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchel, T. R (2013). Expressed humility in organizations:
implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science 24(5), 15171538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and
quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies. 3(9).
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089
Padhi, P. (2017). Organizational culture and employee performance. International Journal of
Research in IT and Management (IJRIM) 7(5), 77-81. https://euroasiapub.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/10IMMay-4884.pdf
134
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Pekrun, R. (2020). Self-report is indispensable to assess students’ learning. Frontline Learning
Research, 8(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.14786%2Fflr.v8i3.637
Plenert, G. (2018). Discover excellence: An overview of the Shingo Model and its guiding
principles. CRC Press
Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. A. (2016). Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership style.
Global Business Review, 17(4), 965-979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916645701
Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., & Schorch, S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527–1541.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000016
Prusak, L. (2010). What can’t be measured. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2010/10/what-cant-be-measured
Prime, J. & Salib, E. (2014). The best leaders are humble leaders. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/05/the-best-leaders-are-humble-leaders
Probst, J. R. (2019). A Causal-Comparative Analysis of Mathematics Self-Efficacy Based on
Gender and Math Acceleration. [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Raosoft Inc. (N/A). Sample size calculator. Raosoft. Retrieved from
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Reddy, M. V. (2019). Non-Parametric Tests of Significance. Statistical Methods in Psychiatry
Research and SPSS, 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429023309-11
Rego, A., Owens, B., Yam, K. C., Bluhm, D., Cunha, M. P. E., Silard, A., & Liu, W. (2019).
Leader humility and team performance: Exploring the mediating mechanisms of team
135
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
PsyCap and task allocation effectiveness. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1009-1033.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316688941
Rezaei, G., Mardani, A., Senin, A. A., Wong, K. Y., Sadeghi, L., Najmi, M., & Shaharoun, A.
M. (2018). Relationship between culture of excellence and organizational performance in
Iranian manufacturing companies. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
29(1/2), 94-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1168692
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. & Spaulding, L. S. (2014). Navigating the doctoral journey; A
handbook of strategies for success. Rowman & Littlefield
Rodrigues, I. B., Adachi, J. D., Beattie, K. A., & MacDermid, J. C. (2017). Development and
validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in
people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskeletal disorders, 18(1), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1914-5
Rusev, S. J., & Salonitis, K. (2016). Operational excellence assessment framework for
manufacturing companies. Procedia CIRP, 55, 272-277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.08.026
Salkind, N. J. (2010) Encyclopedia of research design (vol. 1). SAGE Publications.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n108
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th
ed.). Sage Publications.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
136
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short
measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577. https://doi.org/10.1027/10155759/a000430
Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers
Schneider, B., Yost, A. B., Kropp, A., Kind, C., & Lam, H. (2018). Workforce engagement:
What it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 462-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2244
Schwartz, T. & Porath, C. (2014). The power of meeting your employees’ needs. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/06/the-power-of-meeting-your-employees-needs
Shariff, N. J. (2015). Utilizing the Delphi Survey approach: A review. Journal Nursing and
Care, 4(3) 246. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1168.1000246
Siegel, J.J., & Schwartz. J. D. (2004). The Long-term returns on the original S&P 500 firms.
Financial Analysts Journal, 62(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v62.n4.4181
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 ed.).
Dissertation Success, LLC.
Shingo Institute (2017). The Shingo Model Handbook. Shingo Institute, Utah State University.
https://shingo.org/model
Shu, C. Y. (2015). The impact of intrinsic motivation on the effectiveness of leadership style
towards on work engagement. Contemporary Management Research, 11(4), 327-350.
https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.14043
137
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Shrotryia, V. K., & Dhanda, U. (2019). Measuring employee engagement: Perspectives from
literature. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 26-47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018821751
Skinner, R., Nelson, R. R., Chin, W. W., & Land, L. (2015). The Delphi method research
strategy in studies of information systems. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems. 37(2), 31-63. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03702
Stangor, C., & Walinga, J. (2019). Introduction to psychology (1st Canadian edition). Retrieved
(2019, March) from https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology
Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and
application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale.
Human Resource Development International, 15(5), 529-547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.726542
Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2017). Servant leadership and the effect of the interaction
between humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower engagement. Journal of
Business Ethics, 141(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2725-y
Sossa, J. W. Z., Halal, W., & Zarta, R. H. (2019). Delphi method: analysis of rounds, stakeholder
and statistical indicators. Foresight. 21(5), 525-544. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-11-20180095
Sowcik, M. J., Andenoro, A. C., & Council, A. (2017). Addressing the biggest (baddest) and best
ideas ever: Through the lens of humility. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(4), 164179. https://doi.org/10.12806/v16/i4/t5
Staniškienė, E., Daunorienė, A., & Stankevičiūtė, Ž. (2018). Continuous Improvement of
Employee Engagement: Impact on Quality Management System. Environmental
138
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Research, Engineering and Management, 74(4), 7-18.
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.74.4.22119
Steward, B. (Producer). (July. 27, 2021). Tim Sullivan; A career of service. [Audio podcast].
https://www.barrywehmiller.com/post/podcast/2021/07/27/podcast-tim-sullivan-a-careerof-service
Stocker, D., Keller, A. C., Meier, L. L., Elfering, A., Pfister, I. B., Jacobshagen, N., & Semmer,
N. K. (2018). Appreciation by supervisors buffers the impact of work interruptions on
well-being longitudinally. International Journal of Stress Management. 26(4), 331–343.
https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000111
Srinivasan R. & Lohith C.P. (2017). Pilot Study—Assessment of validity and reliability.
Strategic Marketing and Innovation for Indian MSMEs, 43–49.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3590-6_6
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the
validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. How to test the validation of a
questionnaire/survey in a research. International Journal of Academic Research in
Management (IJARM). 5(3), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040
Taherdoost, H. (2019). What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design;
Review of different lengths of rating scale / attitude scale / Likert scale. International
Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM). 8(1), 1-10. https://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/hal-02557308
139
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Tischler, L., Giambatista, R., McKeage, R., & McCormick, D. (2016). Servant leadership and its
relationships with core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. The Journal of Values-Based
Leadership, 9(1), 8. http://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol9/iss1/8
Toussaint, J. (2015). Management on the mend. Theda Care Center for Healthcare Value
Toronto, C. (2017). Considerations when conducting e-Delphi research: A case study. Nurse
Researcher, 25(1). 10-15. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2017.e1498
Turhan, N. S. (2020). Karl Pearson’s chi-square tests. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(9),
575-580. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2019.3817
Trochim, W. M. K. (2020). The research methods knowledge base. Internet page at URL: https://
https://conjointly.com/kb/ (version current as of 27 April 2020)
Xu, M., Fralick, D., Zheng, J. Z., Wang, B., Tu, X. M., & Feng, C. (2017). The differences and
similarities between two-sample t-test and paired t-test. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry,
29(3), 184. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.217070
Xu, J., & Cooper Thomas, H. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 399–416.
https://doi.org/10.1108%2F01437731111134661
Yang, J., Zhang, W. & Chen, X. (2019). Why do leaders express humility and how does this
matter: A rational choice perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1925.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01925
Yip, C., Han, N. L. R., & Sng, B. L. (2016). Legal and ethical issues in research. Indian Journal
of Anesthesia, 60(9), 684-688. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190627
140
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more
attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088
Van Quaquebeke, N., & Felps, W. (2018). Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading
through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 5-27.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0537
Van Dam, N., & Rogers, E. M. (2018). People, Purpose, and Performance at Barry-Wehmiller:
Business as a powerful force for good. Business Despite Borders. 193-212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76306-4_14
van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant
leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research: Journal of Business
Ethics, 128(1), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z
Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Witvliet, C. V. (2019). Humility. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 463-468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419850153
Verma, J. P., & Verma, P. (2020). Use of G* Power software in research studies. Springer, 5560. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5204-5_5
Wagner III, W. E. (2019). Using IBM® SPSS® statistics for research methods and social
science statistics (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Wang, H., Tsui, A. S., &. K. R. Xin, (2011). CEO leadership behaviors, organizational
performance, and employees' attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011), 92–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.009
141
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Webers, N. C. W (2012). Performance behavior: the lean methodology for continuously
improving performance behaviors. The Netherlands: Behave Publishing Company
Weidman, A. C., Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2018). The psychological structure of humility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 153-178.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000112
Williams, P., & Denney, J. (2016). Humility: The secret ingredient of success. Barbour
Publishing.
Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant
leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(4), 413-434.
https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-10-2013-0135
Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar,
A. R. (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: development of an
instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring
Sciences, 4(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017
Zhou, F., & Wu, Y. J. (2018). How humble leadership fosters employee innovation behavior.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal.39(3) 375-378.
https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2017-0181
142
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix A: Tables
143
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A1
Participant demographics
Note: Characteristics of research participants are displayed by gender, geographic region, age
group, level of education, position in the organization, years of service at current organization
and current position, and frequency of engagement with direct supervisor.
144
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A2
Correlation between responders’ engagement and frequency of direct supervisor engagement
Note: Parson's Correlation score of -.059 suggests a minimal degree of association between
employee engagement score and frequency of direct engagement with direct supervisor.
145
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A3
Descriptive statistics and test of normality for Employee Engagement by groups
Notes: If the significance value is greater than the alpha value of .05, there is no reason to think
that the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. As the significance value is less
than .05 in both tests, we accept the null hypothesis that neither Group 1 moderately engaged,
nor Group 2 highly engaged groups are normally distributed. Group 1, moderately engaged
groups have a -1.45-skew value indicating this group skewed to the right, Group 2 has a 0.59skew value moderately skewed to the left.
146
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A4
Descriptive statistics and test of normality for Employee Engagement Score
Notes: If the significance value is greater than the alpha value of .05, there is no reason to think
that the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. As the significance value is less
than .05 in both tests, we accept the null hypothesis that it is non-normal distribution.
147
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A5
Test of normality results after natural logaritmic transformation
Notes: If the significance value is greater than the alpha value of .05, there is no reason to think
that the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. As the significance value is less
than .05 in both tests for Group 1 and 2, we accept the null hypothesis that Group 1 and 2 are
non-normal distribution.
148
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A6
Test of normality results after Box-Cox transformation
Notes: If the significance value is greater than the alpha value of .05, there is no reason to think
that the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. As the significance value is less
than .05 in both tests for Group 1 and 2, we accept the null hypothesis that Group 1 and 2 are
non-normal distribution.
149
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A7
Test of normality results after outiers elimination
Notes: If the significance value is greater than the alpha value of .05, there is no reason to think
that the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. As the significance value is less
than .05, we accept the null hypothesis that it is non-normal distribution
150
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A8
Test of normality results for employee engagment by geographic region
Notes: If the significance value is greater than the alpha value of .05, there is no reason to think
that the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. As the Shapiro-Wilk significance
value is less than .05 in North America and Europe, we accept the null hypothesis that
participants’ survey data in North America and Europe are non-normal distribution. At the same
time, data collected from South America and Asia is a normal distribution. There were not
enough participants from Central Asia and the Middle East to calculate p values.
151
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A9
Nonparametric, Mann-Whitney Test of Leading with humility between Group 1 and 2
Note: As the p-value is <0.05, we reject the hypothesis that the two groups' mean rank is equal.
Based on our sample, the mean rank value of direct supervisors leading with humility behavior is
statistically higher in the highly engaged group than in the moderately engaged group.
152
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A10
Nonparametric, Mann-Whitney Test of Respecting every individual between Group 1 and 2
Note: As the p-value is <0.05, we reject the hypothesis that the two groups' mean rank is equal.
Based on our sample, the mean rank value of direct supervisors respecting every individual
behavior is statistically higher in the highly engaged group than in the moderately engaged
group.
153
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A11
Chi-square test results for leading with humility and respecting every individual
Leading WH * Employee Engagement
Respecting EI * Employee Engagement
Note: The relation between leading with humility and employee engagement was significant, χ2
(180, N = 181) = 4179.94, V = 0.79, p < .05, while the relation between respecting every
individual and employee engagement was also significant, χ2 (180, N = 181) = 4473.15, V =
0.817, p < .05, supporting the claim (see Figure 36). Cramer’s V value results suggest a strong
association for both leading with humility and respecting every individual leadership behavior to
employee engagement. In contrast, the higher V value suggests respecting every individual even
more strongly associated with employee engagement than leading with humility.
154
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Table A12
Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation for benchmark leadership behaviors
Leading with humility
155
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Respecting every individual
Note: P value is <0.001 for all combinations suggesting statistically significant association for
all, with Spearman’s rank-order value ranging between 0.705 and 0.859, with the strongest
positive association between seeking out and valuing others’ ideas and admitting vulnerability.
156
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix B: Figures
157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B1
Conceptual Model
Lead with humility
Respect every
individual
Employee
engagement
Notes. Researchers’ conceptual model for the study.
158
High performance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B2
Shingo Model and the Shingo Guiding Principles
Notes. Adopted from The Shingo Institute’s The Shingo Model Handbook (2017, p.12)
159
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B3
Initial Independent and Dependent Variables of the Study
Independent variables (Xs)
Dependent variable (Y)
X1: Lead with humility (Cultural Enabler)
x1: Seek out and value others ideas (humbleness admitting leader does not know all the answers)
x2: Admit vulnerability (teachability, transparently share mistakes and learning)
Behavioral x3: Empower and engage everyone (empowerment and delegation of decision making)
Indicators x4: View self accurately (willingness to self-awareness)
x5: Put others first (servant leadership)
Y:
x6: Inquire (seek to understand)
Employee
engagement
X2: Respect every individual (Cultural Enabler)
x1: Value each individual (human-centered, servant leadership)
x2: Nourish employees to their full potential (continual learning opportunities, develop people)
Behavioral x3: Assure a safe and healthy work environment (safety always)
Indicators x4: Listen actively (intentional, active listening with undivided attention)
x5: Appreciate others Appreciate others (culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition)
x6: Provide support to succeed (tools, training, resources)
Notes. List of input and output variables of the study identified through the literature review.
160
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B4
Collin’s Good to Great Framework
Notes. Adapted from Pratikna & Gamayanto, 2017, p. 46
161
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B5
Collin’s Level 1 to 5 Leadership Pyramid
Notes. Adapted from Pratikna & Gamayanto, 2017, p. 48
162
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B6
Overview Assessment of Humility Measures
Authors, year
Owens, Johnson & Mitchell, 2013
Davis et al. 2011
Lee & Ashton, 2004
Measure
Expressed Humility Scale
Rational Humility Scale
Honesty-Humility HEXACO
The Humility/Modesty Subscale of the
Park,
Peterson
&
Seilgman,
2004
Values in Action-Inventory of Strenghts
Survey
measures of Bollinger, Kopp, Hill & Williams, 2006 Rosemead Humility Scale
general Rowatt et al., 2006
Humility Semantic Differentials
humility Brown, Chopra & Schiraldi, 2013
Humility Inventory
Ou et al., 2014
CEO Humility
Quiros, 2006
Healthy Humility Inventory
Humility Subscale of the Servant
Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011
Leadership Survey
McElroy et al., 2014
Intellectual humility Scale
Cultural Humility Scale
Survey Hook et al., 2013
measures of Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016
Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale
humility Leary et al., 2017
General Intellectual Humility Scale
subdomains Hoyle, Davisson, Diebles & Leary, 2016 Specific Intellectual Humility Scale
Davis et al., 2010
Spiritual Humility Scale
State
Humility-Related Feelings
measures of Weidman, Cheng & Tracy, 2016
humility Kruse, Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2017 State Humility Scale
Davis et al., 2017
Experiences of Humility Scale
Notes. Adapted from McElroy-Heltzel et al. (2019), p. 395
163
Level of evidence of estimated reliability and validity
Scale has good evidence
Good supporting evidence
Overall good evidence
Some evidence though warrants additional investigation
Suggeted some caution of use until additional evidences developed
Suggested some caution of use while can suffice as brief measure
Not recommended due to weak evidence
Suggested this measure should be used cautiously
Not recommended for use until stronger evidences developed
Not recommended for use until stronger evidences developed
Good supporting evidence
Limitted evidence
Promissing initial evidence with some concers
Moderate evidence
Good evidence while carefully consider contextual factors
Relative limited evidence
Additional evidence needed
Currently limited evidence
Good evidence for reliability, limited evidence of convergent validity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B7
Integrative Model of Leadership Behavior
Notes. Adopted from Behrend, Matz & Gortz (2016), p. 11
164
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B8
The Multidimensional Construct of Respectful Inquiry
Notes. Adopted from Van Quaquebeke and Felps (2018), p. 10
165
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B9
The Global Employee Engagement Model
Notes. Adopted from Blank et al. (2017), p. 3
166
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B10
Positive Leader Behavior and Employee Engagement Research Model
Notes. Adopted from Decuypere & Schaufeli (2019), p. 11
167
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B11
The Ten Most Significant Employee Engagement Measurement Instruments
Instrument and
reference
The Gallup Workplace Audit
(GWA)
Harter et. al. (2002)
The Utrecht Work Engagegement
Scale (UWES)
Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Description
Q12,
five-point-scale
Q17,
seven-point-sclae
Psychological Engagment Measure Q13,
May et al. (2004)
five-point-scale
Definition of
Engagement
Individual's connection and
satisfaction with as well as
enthusiasm for work.
An uplifting work-related state of
mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication and absorption.
Kahn (1990) psychological
meaningfulness, safety and
availability.
Job and Organizational Engagment five-item scale for job
Social Exchange Theory and
Sclae
and six-item-sclae for
Kahn's theory
Saks (2006)
org. engagment
Variables
Sample
Reliability
Personal job satisfaction and other
affective construct.
Gallup's database of close to 8,000
units in 36 countries
Vigor, dedication and absorption.
Sample 1: 314 undergrad students
Cronbach's α for vigor: 0.78
Sample 2: 619 employees from 12
dedication: 0.84
public and private org.both in Spain absorption: 0.73
Job-enrichment, work-role fit and coworker and supervosory relations and
behavioral norms.
Job characteristics, precieved org.
support, pervieved supervisory
support, rewards and recognition,
procedural and distributive justice.
Value consequence, percieved
organizational support, and core selfevaluations.
Job quality (supervisor support, job
authonomy, schedule input and
flexibility, career development
opportunities, and perception of
faimes)
Cronbach's α = 0.91
213 employees at large insurance
firm located in Midwestern US
Cronbach's α = 0.77
102 employees working in varietey
of jobs and organizations in Canada
Cronbach's α for job
engagement: 0.78, and 0.90
for org. engagment
245 full-time US firefighters and
their suppervisors in four
minicipalities
Cronbach's for overall job
engagement α = 0.95
6,047 Citi Sales employee in 352
stores in three regions in the US
Cronbach's for overall scale
α = 0.91
Job Engagment Measure
Rich et al. (2010)
Q18,
five-point-scale
Kahn (1990) psychological
meaningfulness, safety and
availability.
Employee Engagment Survey
James et al. (2011)
Q8,
five-point-scale
Social Exchange Theory. The
engagment measure was
developed for Citi Sales by an
external vendor.
Global Engagment Survey
White (2011)
Q27,
multiple chose item
Coworker's contribution to the
organization's success, and
Job satisfaction and job contribution.
personal satisfaction in their role..
10,914 employes from NAM, India,
Europe, South East Asia, ANZ and
N.A
China and 30 interviews with HR
and line managers
Intellectual, Social, Affective
Engagment Scale (ISA ES)
Soane et al. (2012)
Q9
seven-point-scale
Definition by Kahn (1990), and
engegament having three facets intellectual, social and affective
engagment.
Intellectual engagement: the anticipated
involvement of positive affect relating
to one's work role as well as Affective
Engagement and Social engagment.
540 emploees of UK based
production companies (Study 1) and Cronbach's for overall
759 UK-based employees working constract α = 0.91
the the retail sectos (Study 2)
Employee Engagment Measure
Pati (2012)
Q7,
five-point-scale
Engagment is attributed by
empowerment related to the role.
Employee engagment is looked at as
beneficial additive fucntion of
Passinate Task Performance and
Orgnizational Citizenship Behaviors.
278 employees across three different Cronbach's for (PTP) α =
organization
0.88 and 0.757 for (OCB)
The Employee Engagment Scale
Shuck et al. (2016)
Q12,
five-point-scale
Engegement is an active, workrelated positive psyhological sate Cognitive engagment.
operationalized by the intensity
Emotional engagment.
and direction of cognitve behavior Behavioral engagment.
and emotional energy.
Notes. Adopted from Shrotryia & Dhanda (2019) p. 30-33
168
283 professional workers (Study 1).
241 healthcare workes (Study 2).
1,067 financial workers (Study 3).
490 educational workers (Study 4).
Cronbach's for cognitive α =
0.94 and 0.91 for
behavioral, 0.88 for
emotional engagment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B12
Approximation for Sample Characteristics
Sample characteristics
Value
Population size (approximate total number of companies in the US) 5.6 million
Accepted margin of error
10%
Confidence level
95%
Response distribution
50%
Recommended sample size
97
Notes: Used Raosoft Inc, Sample size calculator
169
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B13
Sample size calculation for t-test
Note: t-test is used to compare two independent groups’ means. I calculated sample size statistics using the power analyses of
GPower. The plot of Power vs. Total sample size represents changes in sample size and the change of power of analysis.
170
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B14
Sample size calculation for Analysis of Variances
Note: ANOVA (F-test). I calculated sample size statistics using the power analyses of GPower. The left figure represents sample size
calculations comparing means of two groups, while the right figure represents sample size calculations comparing means of three
groups.
171
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B15
Independent and Dependent Variables
Independent variables (Xs)
X1: Lead with humility (Cultural Enabler)
Dependent variable (Y)
x11: Seek out and value others ideas:
humbleness admitting leader does not know all the answers
x12: Admit vulnerability:
teachability, transparently share mistakes and learning
x13: Empower and engage everyone:
Behavioral
empowerment, delegation of decision making
Indicators x14: View self accurately:
willingness to self-awareness
x15: Put others first:
servant leadership
x16: Inquire:
seek to understand
X2: Respect every individual (Cultural Enabler)
Y:
Employee
engagement
x21: Value each individual:
human-centered, servant leadership
x22: Nourish employees to their full potential:
continual learning opportunities, develop people
x23: Assure a safe and healthy work environment:
Behavioral
safety always mindset and actions
Indicators x24: Listen actively:
intentional active listening with undivided attention
x25: Appreciate others:
culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition
x26: Provide support to succeed:
tools, training, resources
Notes. List of input and output variables of the study identified through the literature review.
172
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B16
Initial Survey Outline
General demographic data
Gender: Female ( ), Male ( ), Other/Not to disclose ( )
Age:
Level of education:
Years of service at current organization:
Position in the organization:
Number of years in current position:
Frecuency of enagement with my direct supervisor
Country of residence: (
)
Below 21 years old ( )
No schooling completed ( )
No work experience yet ( )
Associate ( )
Less than 1 year in position ( )
No direct engagement ( )
Employee Engagmenet (UWES-9)
1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
3. I am enthusiastic about my job.
4. My job inspires me.
5. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
6. I fel happy when I am working intensely.
7. I am proud of the work that I do.
Between 21 and 31 years old ( ) Between 31 and 41 years old ( )
Primary school graduate ( )
High school graduate ( )
Less than 1 year of service ( ) 1-3 years of service ( )
Front-line supervisor ( )
Manager, below director level ( )
1-3 years in position ( )
4-6 years in position ( )
Ocassinally ( )
Quarterly engagement ( )
(0) Never /
(1) Almost Never /Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
A few times a year or less
8. I am immersed in my work.
9. I get carried away when I'm working.
Between 41 and 51 years old ( ) Between 51 and 61 years old ( ) 61 years and 71 years old ( )
71 years and older ( )
Undergraduate college graduate ( ) Graduate school graduate ( )
4-6 years of service ( )
7-10 years of service ( )
11-20 years of service ( )
More than 20 years of service ( )
Leader, director and above ( )
7-10 years in position ( )
11-20 years in position ( )
More than 20 years in position ( )
Monthly engagement ( )
Weekly engagement ( )
Daily engagement ( )
(2) Rarely/Disagree
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
(4) Often/Slightly Agree
(5) Very Often/Agree (6) Always/Strongly Agree
Once a month or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
Every day
\
Leading with humility oriented leadership bahavior relative to my Engagement
Seek out and value others ideas (humbleness admitting leader does not know all the answers)
10. My direct supervisor consciously seeks out feedback and welcome other's ideas.
11. My direct supervisor embodies humbleness and are willing to admit they do not know all the answers.
12. My direct supervisor eagerly seeks feedback even if it is critical.
Admit vulnerability (teachability, transparently share mistakes and learning)
13. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges his/her mistakes.
14. My direct supervisor viewes mistakes as learning and as an opportunity for development.
15. My direct supervisor is willing to learn from others.
Empower and engage everyone (empowerment, delegation of decesion making)
16. My direct supervisor delegates decision making to the lowest possible level.
17. My direct supervisor continously challenges and rewardes me for taking actions and building capabilities.
18. My direct supervisor empoweres me to make the right choices in my spare of influence.
View self accurately (willingness to self-awareness)
19. My direct supervisor has a clear, unbiased view of himself/hieself.
20. My direct supervisor acceptes challenges from others.
21. My direct supervisor is willing to acknowledge when others have more knowledge and skills than himself/herself.
Put others first (servant leadership)
22. My direct supervisor puts coworkers first, as opposed to himself/herself.
23. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges and celebrates others' accomplishments.
24. My direct supervisor is able to notice and grasp emotions that are experienced by hi/her team.
Inquire (seek to understand)
25. My direct supervisor seekes to understand the situation holistically before making decisions.
26. My direct supervisor gatheres facts, validates assumptions and solicits inputs to fully grasp the situation.
27. My direct supervisor is curious, solution-oriented, and value asking questions as a core leadership skill.
Respecting every individual oriented leadership behavior relative to my Engagement
Value each individual (human-centered, servant leareship)
28. My direct supervisor genuinely cares for every other individual and me in the organization.
29. My direct supervisor viewes leadership as a privilege serving others rather than a rank in the hierarchy.
30. My direct supervisor notices others' strenghts.
Nourish employees to their full potencial (continual learning opportunities, develop people)
31. My direct supervisor provides me continual learning opportunities to expand my knowledge and enable me growth.
32. My direct supervisor functions as a mentor and coach to develop me reaching my full potential.
33. My direct supervisor lookes for, recognizes and appreciates the development of new compentencies and skills.
Assure a safey and healthy work environment (safety always)
34. My direct supervisor puts safety as the number one priority and never compromises that commitment.
35. My direct supervisor is actively involved in proactive safety risk reduction initiatives.
36. My direct supervisor is genuinely concerned about the safety of his/her team.
Listen actively (intentional active listening with undevided attention)
37. My direct supervisor listens to me with full attention.
38. My direct supervisor intentionally dedicates time and creates forums for active listening.
39. My direct supervisor makes me feel heard and valued in conversations.
Appreciate others (culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition)
40. My direct supervisor makes me feel valued at work.
41. My direct supervisor acknowledges and celebrates everyone's contribution fairly and frequently.
42. My direct supervisor looks for and recognizes positive behaviors not only pointing out unwanted behaviors.
Provide support to succeed (tools, training, resources)
43. My direct supervisor provides all the necessary resources for me to be successful.
44. My direct supervisor not only supports but also encourages me to excel and succeed.
45. My direct supervisor makes information available to keep his/her team informed.
46. My organization has a culture of respect.
Notes. Initial survey questionnaire before the Expert-panel validation.
173
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B17
Variables with Planned Groupings
Independent variables (Xs)
X1: Lead with humility (Cultural Enabler)
Dependent variable (Y)
Y: Employee engagement
x11: Seek out and value others ideas:
humbleness admitting leader does not know all the
x12: Admit vulnerability:
teachability, transparently share mistakes and learning
x13: Empower and engage everyone:
empowerment, delegation of decision making
Behavioral
Indicators x14: View self accurately:
willingness to self-awareness
x15: Put others first:
servant leadership
x16: Inquire:
seek to understand
Group 1
modestyengaged
X2: Respect every individual (Cultural Enabler)
x21: Value each individual:
Group 2
highlyengaged
human-centered, servant leadership
x22: Nourish employees to their full potential:
continual learning opportunities, develop people
x23: Assure a safe and healthy work environment:
Behavioral
safety always mindset and actions
Indicators x24: Listen actively:
intentional active listening with undivided attention
x25: Appreciate others:
culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition
x26: Provide support to succeed:
tools, training, resources
Notes. List of input and output variables of the study with participant grouping based on
employee engagement level.
174
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B18
Data Matrix
Demographic attributes
Dependent Variable attributes
Country of Level of Year of
Years in
Freq. of DS
Gender Age Residency education service Position current role engagement
Y11
Y12
Y13
Independent Variable attributes
x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Participant 9
Participant 10
Participant 11
Participant 12
Participant 13
Participant 14
Participant 15
Participant 16
Participant 17
Participant 18
Participant 19
Participant 20
…
Participant N
Notes. Will organize the participant’s feedback collected by the survey questionnaire into this
data matrix.
175
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B19
Instrument validation Expert-panel general description
Degree Field of expertise
Geographic region
Sex
Ph.D
Ph.D
Ph.D
MD
Ph.D
Psy.D.
Ph.D
Ph.D
Ph.D
Ph.D
EngD
Ph.D
EdD
Ph.D
Ph.D
USA, West
USA, North East
Hungary, Europe
Hungary, Europe
United Kingdom, Europe
USA, West
USA, South
USA, South
USA, North East
USA, North East
United Kingdom, Europe
Switzerland, Europe
USA, North East
France, Europe
Hungary, Europe
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
College Professor at Cal Poly
Phsychologist, best seller author on employee engagement and respect in the workplace
Public opinion researcher, communication consultant freelancer
Phyisitian and researcher
Partner at a Consulting firm, College lecturer at Waterford Institute of Technology
Marketer and Researcher at Utah State University
Clinical psychologist, Founder and CEO, leadership and culture expert, and author
College Professor at University of Kentucky
Senior Staff at Massachusetts Institue of Technology
College lecturer of Management at PennState University
Partner at a Consulting firm
College Professor and Chair at ETH Zurich
Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Board Member
Researcher of applied psychology and College lecturer at Paris-Dauphine University
College lecturer at Corvinus University and Partner at a Consulting firm
Notes: Demographics of the instrument validation Expert-panel participants
176
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B20
Instrument validation Expert-panel, domains’ essentiality outcome
1D
Paul
1D
Tor
1D
Peter
1D
Nate
1D
Dominic
1D
Doug
1D
Suzy
2D
Eric
3D
Fiona
5D
Beatrice
6D
Eszter
6D
Christopher
7D
Adam
9D
Fazlena
Survey domain construct / Expert's feedback on Essentiality Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7 Expert 8 Expert 9 Expert 10 Expert 11 Expert 12 Expert 13 Expert 14
9D
Andras
Expert 15
% of
agreement on
'Essentiality'
Expert-panel Round 1
interpretation
93%
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Impact on survey
instrument
Leading with humility
Domain 1: Seeking out and value others' ideas
x
Domain 2: Admitting vulnerability
x
Domain 3: Empowering
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Domain 4: Viewing self accurately
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Domain 5: Putting others first
x
Domain 6: Inquiring
x
x
x
Doman 7: Self-efficacy
Experts' comment for missing essential component
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
67%
x
x
x
80%
x
x
x
Wiling to
admit when
wrong or
don't know
the answer
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Empathy,
the ability to
put yourself
in someone
else's shoes
What is the
opposite of
"leading with
humility"? and its
components to
measure your
variable through
its negative
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Blank
x
x
Creating an
Emotional
emotionally
intelligence
safe
although
environment,
implied in
focusing on
viewing self
growth
accurately, I
mindset,
think it is more decentralizing
appropriate
decision
making
x
47%
x
47%
x
80%
x
53%
Blank
Blank
Remained on
Instrument
Considered and
Essentiality Somewhat Accepted
remained on
No sufficient consensus yet
instrument
Consensus reached,
Remained on
Essentiality Accepted
Instrument
Elimination from
Essentiality Rejected
the survey
Elimination from
Essentiality Rejected
the survey
Consensus reached,
Remained on
Essentiality Accepted
Instrument
Considered and
Essentiality Somewhat Accepted
remained on
No sufficient consensus yet
instrument
Respecting every individual
Domain 1: Valuing each individual
Domain 2: Nourishing employees to their full potential
x
x
x
x
93%
x
x
x
x
x
80%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
93%
x
x
x
x
73%
Domain 3: Assuring a safe and healthy work environment
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Domain 4: Listening actively
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Domain 5: Appreciating others
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Domain 6: Providing support to succeed
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
73%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
80%
Blank
1. Support the
wider
community
2. Creating a
diverse and
inclusive org.
3. Supporting
mental health
Blank
Blank
Domain 7: Driving accountability
Experts' comment for missing essential component
Giving
straight
feedback
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
x
x
x
Blank
x
x
Empathy,
the ability to
put yourself
in someone
else's shoes
Disclosing how
each individual's
work is
important for the
whole
organization, so
that it makes
sense for any
individual
x
Ability/opportu
nity to
freely/openly
Feed backing
express ideas
growth mindset
(listening
actively related
to this aspect).
80%
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Consensus reached,
Essentiality Accepted
Remained
Remained
Remained
Remained
Remained
Remained
Remained
Blank
Notes: According to the predetermined Expert-panel agreement criteria: with higher than 70% agreement, item's Essentiality
Accepted, with less than 50% agreement, item's Essentiality Rejected, with an agreement level of at least 50% though less than 70%,
item's Essentiality Somewhat Accepted.
177
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B21
Instrument validation Expert-panel, items’ relevancy outcome
% of
Survey item construct / Expert's feedback on items Relevance
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7 Expert 8 Expert 9 Expert 10 Expert 11 Expert 12 Expert 13 Expert 14 Expert 15
Number of 3 or 4 rating
agreement on
for relevancy
'Relevnce'
Leading with humility
D1: Seeking out and value others idea
I1. My direct supervisor consciously seeks out feedback and welcome other's ideas.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I2. My direct supervisor embodies humbleness and are willing to admit they do not know all the answers.
I3. My direct supervisor eagerly seeks feedback even if it is critical.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
13
12
100%
87%
80%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
14
14
87%
93%
93%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
15
14
87%
100%
93%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
7
12
87%
47%
80%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
14
9
87%
93%
60%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
14
14
87%
93%
93%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
12
10
11
80%
67%
73%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
12
11
13
80%
73%
87%
x
D2: Admitting vulnerability
I4. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges his/her mistakes.
I5. My direct supervisor views mistakes as learning and as an opportunity for development.
I6. My direct supervisor is willing to learn from others.
x
x
D3: Empowering
I7. My direct supervisor delegates decision making to the lowest possible level.
I8. My direct supervisor continuously challenges and rewards me for taking actions and building capabilities.
I9. My direct supervisor empowers me to make the right choices in my spare of influence.
D4: Viewing self accurately
I10. My direct supervisor has a clear, unbiased view of himself/himself.
x
I11. My direct supervisor accepts challenges from others.
I12. My direct supervisor is willing to acknowledge when others have more knowledge and skills than himself/herself.
D5: Putting others first
I13. My direct supervisor puts coworkers first, as opposed to himself/herself.
x
I14. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges and celebrates others' accomplishments.
I15. My direct supervisor is able to notice and grasp emotions that are experienced by his/her team.
D6: Inquiring
I16. My direct supervisor seeks to understand the situation holistically before making decisions.
I17. My direct supervisor gathers facts, validates assumptions and solicits inputs to fully grasp the situation.
I18. My direct supervisor is curious, solution-oriented, and value asking questions as a core leadership skill.
x
x
x
D7: Self-efficacy
I19: My direct supervisor exhibits self-confidence in most all circumstances.
I20: My direct supervisor is willing to take calculated risk as a path to increase chances for success.
x
x
I21: My direct supervisor reflects upon mistakes as opportunities to improve himself/herself.
x
Respecting every individual
D1: Valuing each individual
I22. My direct supervisor genuinely cares for every other individual and me in the organization.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
14
15
13
93%
100%
87%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
15
15
100%
100%
100%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
11
15
100%
73%
100%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
14
13
100%
93%
87%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
14
13
100%
93%
87%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
14
14
15
93%
93%
100%
I23. My direct supervisor views leadership as a privilege serving others rather than a rank in the hierarchy.
I24. My direct supervisor notices others' strengths.
x
x
D2: Nourishing employees to their full potential
I25. My direct supervisor provides me continual learning opportunities to expand my knowledge and enable me growth.
I26. My direct supervisor functions as a mentor and coach to develop me reaching my full potential.
I27. My direct supervisor looks for, recognizes and appreciates the development of new competencies and skills.
D3: Assuring a safe and healthy work environment
I28. My direct supervisor puts safety as the number one priority and never compromises that commitment.
I29. My direct supervisor is actively involved in proactive safety risk reduction initiatives.
I30. My direct supervisor is genuinely concerned about the safety of his/her team.
D4: Listening actively
I31. My direct supervisor listens to me with full attention.
I32. My direct supervisor intentionally dedicates time and creates forums for active listening.
I33. My direct supervisor makes me feel heard and valued in conversations.
x
x
D5: Appreciating others
I34. My direct supervisor makes me feel valued at work.
I35. My direct supervisor acknowledges and celebrates everyone's contribution fairly and frequently.
I36. My direct supervisor looks for and recognizes positive behaviors not only pointing out unwanted behaviors.
x
D6: Providing support to succeed
I37. My direct supervisor provides all the necessary resources for me to be successful.
I38. My direct supervisor not only supports but also encourages me to excel and succeed.
I39. My direct supervisor makes information available to keep his/her team informed.
D7: Driving accountability
I40: My direct supervisor clearly sets up expectations and defines what people are accountable for.
I41: My direct supervisor aligns team goals and individual goals.
I42: My direct supervisor holds both himself/herself and others accountably for expected outcome.
Total of 42 Items
x
Avg. Relevance
88%
Notes: According to the predetermined Expert-panel agreement criteria: with higher than 70% agreement, item's Relevance Accepted,
with less than 50% agreement, item's Relevance Rejected, with an agreement level of at least 50% though less than 70%, item's
Relevancy Somewhat Accepted.
178
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B22
Instrument validation Expert-panel, items’ clarity of wording feedback
Survey item construct / Expert's feedback on items Relevance
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7 Expert 8 Expert 9 Expert 10 Expert 11 Expert 12 Expert 13 Expert 14 Expert 15 Acg.
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
Clarity
Score
Comments:
Leading with humility
D1: Seeking out and value others idea
I1. My direct supervisor consciously seeks out feedback and welcome other's ideas.
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.53
3
3
3
3
2
3
blank
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.79
2
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2.71
I4. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges his/her mistakes.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
blank
3
blank
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2.93
2.53
3.00
I5. My direct supervisor views mistakes as learning and as an opportunity for development.
3
3
2
3
3
3
blank
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.71
I6. My direct supervisor is willing to learn from others.
I2. My direct supervisor embodies humbleness and are willing to admit they do not know all the answers.
I3. My direct supervisor eagerly seeks feedback even if it is critical.
D2: Admitting vulnerability
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.00
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.93
I7. My direct supervisor delegates decision making to the lowest possible level.
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.93
I8. My direct supervisor continuously challenges and rewards me for taking actions and building capabilities.
2
3
2
3
2
3
blank
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.57
1
2
1
2
blank
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1.79
I9. My direct supervisor empowers me to make the right choices in my spare of influence.
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1.87
3
3
2
3
blank
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
2.50
D3: Empowering
D4: Viewing self accurately
I10. My direct supervisor has a clear, unbiased view of himself/himself.
I11. My direct supervisor accepts challenges from others.
I12. My direct supervisor is willing to acknowledge when others have more knowledge and skills than himself/herself.
D5: Putting others first
I13. My direct supervisor puts coworkers first, as opposed to himself/herself.
I14. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges and celebrates others' accomplishments.
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
blank
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.57
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
blank
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2.93
2.53
3
3
2
3
blank
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2.71
3
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.86
2
3
3
3
blank
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
2.36
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
2.67
3
2
3
3
blank
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2.71
3
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2.79
2
2
3
2
blank
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2.57
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
2.20
3
3
2
2
2
2
blank
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.57
I20: My direct supervisor is willing to take calculated risk as a path to increase chances for success.
2
3
3
3
3
3
blank
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.71
I21: My direct supervisor reflects upon mistakes as opportunities to improve himself/herself.
2
3
3
3
3
3
blank
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.71
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2.53
2
2
2
1
blank
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2.29
1
3
3
3
I16. My direct supervisor seeks to understand the situation holistically before making decisions.
2
3
I17. My direct supervisor gathers facts, validates assumptions and solicits inputs to fully grasp the situation.
3
3
I18. My direct supervisor is curious, solution-oriented, and value asking questions as a core leadership skill.
3
3
3
I19: My direct supervisor exhibits self-confidence in most all circumstances.
I15. My direct supervisor is able to notice and grasp emotions that are experienced by his/her team.
D6: Inquiring
D7: Self-efficacy
Respecting every individual
D1: Valuing each individual
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
blank
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.79
2.79
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.93
3
3
3
3
2
2
blank
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2.57
I26. My direct supervisor functions as a mentor and coach to develop me reaching my full potential.
3
3
3
3
3
2
blank
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2.71
I27. My direct supervisor looks for, recognizes and appreciates the development of new competencies and skills.
2
3
2
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.79
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.87
I28. My direct supervisor puts safety as the number one priority and never compromises that commitment.
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2.79
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
2
1
3
3
3
1
3
2
2.43
I34. My direct supervisor makes me feel valued at work.
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
I29. My direct supervisor is actively involved in proactive safety risk reduction initiatives.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
blank
3
blank
blank
blank
3
blank
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.86
2.93
3.00
2.50
2.79
3.00
2.79
I35. My direct supervisor acknowledges and celebrates everyone's contribution fairly and frequently.
2
3
3
2
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.71
I36. My direct supervisor looks for and recognizes positive behaviors not only pointing out unwanted behaviors.
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
blank
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
2.36
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2.67
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.93
I37. My direct supervisor provides all the necessary resources for me to be successful.
I38. My direct supervisor not only supports but also encourages me to excel and succeed.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
blank
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.86
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
blank
3
blank
blank
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2.93
2.80
2.86
2.86
I22. My direct supervisor genuinely cares for every other individual and me in the organization.
I23. My direct supervisor views leadership as a privilege serving others rather than a rank in the hierarchy.
I24. My direct supervisor notices others' strengths.
D2: Nourishing employees to their full potential
I25. My direct supervisor provides me continual learning opportunities to expand my knowledge and enable me growth.
D3: Assuring a safe and healthy work environment
I30. My direct supervisor is genuinely concerned about the safety of his/her team.
D4: Listening actively
I31. My direct supervisor listens to me with full attention.
I32. My direct supervisor intentionally dedicates time and creates forums for active listening.
I33. My direct supervisor makes me feel heard and valued in conversations.
D5: Appreciating others
D6: Providing support to succeed
I39. My direct supervisor makes information available to keep his/her team informed.
D7: Driving accountability
I40: My direct supervisor clearly sets up expectations and defines what people are accountable for.
I41: My direct supervisor aligns team goals and individual goals.
Eliminate ands, reduce hyperbole embodies humbleness. You are in danger of introducing
politically correct biases.
Is rather than are.
These seems redundant
Not sure about the world teachability.
Avoid ands.
My direct supervisor views mistakes as a learning and development opportunity.
Willing to learn requires mind-reading, I am very wary of such questions that require
inferences.
Lowest possible level might be arbitrary choice that is a bit naïve for a leader.
Instead of lowest possible level, use appropriate person.
Avoid ands. Not sure about the reward part.
Second question is compound. I may be challenged by not rewarded. Delete rewards.
I do not get the idea behind this statement.
Not sure empower is sufficiently action oriented to be a behavior.
Is this statement referring to 'sphere' of influence?
I am certain you meant sphere. Typo, spare is sphere.
Even with the correct word I am not sure what you mean by this.
Simply put can be Emotional Intelligence
Require mind-reading.
Remove unbiased, just say 'clear view of themselves'.
My supervisor is self-aware and understand his/her strengths and weaknesses. How can
someone have an unbiased view of themselves?
Same mind-reading problem, little less.
My supervisor encourages different views and perspectives, and is always happy to listen
to challenges from the team.
What do you mean by challenge? Disagree?
It is part of vulnerability.
Should the first statement refer to subordinates instead of coworkers?
If the statement relates to the direct supervisor, a coworker would be another individual at
the supervisor's level.
Avoid ands.
My supervisor shows empathy and understanding of the emotions of team members.
Maybe should also have and act upon as so what if they grasp them but don't do anything. I
might replace coworkers with other team members.
I do not see anything yet about going to where the work is happening to understand.
I recommend it.
Keep it simple, spell out holistically.
Avoid language so academic and social-science oriented. I suspect your audience will be
businesses or organizations Keep the language pain, clarity and conciseness are valued.
Perhaps replace holistically with all aspects of a situation.
Some of these statements include multiple characteristics all of which my not be relevant for
any given individual, i.e. one can be curious but may not be solution-oriented
Value should be values. I would delete solution-oriented.
Lots of double barrel and behavior/intent assumptions here.
Values vs. value.
Keep it simple, it is too academic, self-confidence might be better.
Not sure self-efficacy would be commonly understood.
Remove the word most or all in the first section.
No need for the word all. All not most all.
There is something here about valuing people's views and ideas regardless of position in the
hierarchy.
You must delete this one, got to get away from mind-reading. You will get invalid and
unreliable data.
demonstrate care: shows care and consideration.
Every individual may be too broad? How the respondent have knowledge about how
his/her supervisor cares for everyone else in the organization?
Would the relevant scope be the supervisor's team/unit?
Rephrase; cares for each individual in the organization, including me.
What about the local community?
Mind-reading.
Mind-reading. What do they do (the behavior) about it?
Might create a negative reaction in business audience that is already resistant to soft
skill development, remove nourishing and focus on development
Simplify 'enable my growth and learning'.
Provides me with continual…me should be my growth.
…to help develop me
Maybe you might widen this as recognition is so key so not just these areas but I might
suggest recognizes me for doing a good job.
This question seems to focus on physical safety. Is this what you were intending?
Creating psychological safety might be important as well.
Is this only manufacturing? What if office staff? Will be hard to answer, make sure
to allow people to leave blank or N/A
Safety has a broad mining, please define it more accurately.
Not sure what this means? I'd say something about empowering the team to act on any
safety concerns. These seems very similar, again you should include something on mental
health.
Avoid ands.
I feel heard and valued in conversations with my direct supervisor.
You can not make someone feel. Reword: I feel valued at work by my direct supervisor.
It has too many qualifiers, remove and frequently.
Fairly is a tough word.
Add comma after behaviors. I wonder if you should think about frequency here (it might
apply elsewhere) i.e. regularly.
Replace with Access to support resources
There is also something here about helping to break down roadblocks to ensure success.
Consider how statements with absolutes (e.g. all the necessary) interact in interpretation
with Likert scale (e.g. Always all?)
1 and 2 very similar. I might add something here about learning and coaching or fighting my
balltes upward when I need resources.
Avoid ands.
1 and 3 overlap a lot
2
3
3
2
2
2
blank
2
1
3
3
1
3
2
3
2.29
They would be belter broken into two separate statements. One focusing on the direct
supervisor holding themselves accountable and the other about the direct supervisor holding
others accountable. Also simplify himself/herself to themselves. You tend to be too wordily.
The sentence does not make sense, I think you meant accountable. There is something here
about supervisor retaining accountability even if work is delegated to team members.
Accountably should be accountable. Lots of managers hold their direct reports accountable
but not themselves.
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2.27
Challenge is recognizing behavior vs. intent. I think there is an underlying assumption in
many of these that if we see this behavior, the intent is there. I do not have and easy
answer.
I42: My direct supervisor holds both himself/herself and others accountably for expected outcome.
I43: My organization has a culture of respect.
Avoid 'double barrel' questions (e.g. seek out and value). What if the person values,
but does not seek out?
I suggest you stick to encouraging ideas, rather than mixing with the third item.
Notes: I organized expert panels' wording clarity feedback in the above table. Green cells
indicate precise wording as it is, yellow cells indicate the general public can understand it while
it can be improved, and red cells indicate confusing language, lack of clarity. I focused on
enhancing the clarity of items with the lowest average clarity score (average score under 2 item
is highlighted with red, between 2 and 2.5 item is highlighted with yellow).
179
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B23
Content Validity Index for survey items
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7 Expert 8 Expert 9 Expert 10 Expert 11 Expert 12 Expert 13 Expert 14 Expert 15
Survey item construct / Expert's feedback on items Relevance
Round 1, I-CVI
% of
Number of 3 or 4 rating
agreement on (Content Validity
for relevancy
'Relevnce'
Index)
Interpretation
Leading with humility
D1: Seeking out and value others idea
I1. My direct supervisor consciously seeks out feedback and welcome other's ideas.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I2. My direct supervisor embodies humbleness and are willing to admit they do not know all the answers.
I3. My direct supervisor eagerly seeks feedback even if it is critical.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
13
12
100%
87%
80%
1.00
0.87
0.80
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
14
14
87%
93%
93%
0.87
0.93
0.93
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
15
14
87%
100%
93%
0.87
1.00
0.93
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
7
12
87%
47%
80%
0.87
0.47
0.80
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
14
9
87%
93%
60%
0.87
0.93
0.60
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
Domain eliminated
Eliminated
Eliminated
Eliminated
Domain eliminated
Eliminated
Eliminated
Eliminated
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
14
14
87%
93%
93%
0.87
0.93
0.93
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
12
10
11
80%
67%
73%
0.80
0.67
0.73
Appropriate
Need for revision
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
12
11
13
80%
73%
87%
0.80
0.73
0.87
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
D2: Admitting vulnerability
I4. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges his/her mistakes.
I5. My direct supervisor views mistakes as learning and as an opportunity for development.
I6. My direct supervisor is willing to learn from others.
x
x
D3: Empowering
I7. My direct supervisor delegates decision making to the lowest possible level.
I8. My direct supervisor continuously challenges and rewards me for taking actions and building capabilities.
I9. My direct supervisor empowers me to make the right choices in my spare of influence.
D4: Viewing self accurately
x
I10. My direct supervisor has a clear, unbiased view of himself/himself.
I11. My direct supervisor accepts challenges from others.
I12. My direct supervisor is willing to acknowledge when others have more knowledge and skills than himself/herself.
D5: Putting others first
x
I13. My direct supervisor puts coworkers first, as opposed to himself/herself.
I14. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges and celebrates others' accomplishments.
I15. My direct supervisor is able to notice and grasp emotions that are experienced by his/her team.
D6: Inquiring
I16. My direct supervisor seeks to understand the situation holistically before making decisions.
I17. My direct supervisor gathers facts, validates assumptions and solicits inputs to fully grasp the situation.
I18. My direct supervisor is curious, solution-oriented, and value asking questions as a core leadership skill.
x
x
x
D7: Self-efficacy
I19: My direct supervisor exhibits self-confidence in most all circumstances.
I20: My direct supervisor is willing to take calculated risk as a path to increase chances for success.
x
x
I21: My direct supervisor reflects upon mistakes as opportunities to improve himself/herself.
x
Respecting every individual
D1: Valuing each individual
I22. My direct supervisor genuinely cares for every other individual and me in the organization.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
14
15
13
93%
100%
87%
0.93
1.00
0.87
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
15
15
100%
100%
100%
1.00
1.00
1.00
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
11
15
100%
73%
100%
1.00
0.73
1.00
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
14
13
100%
93%
87%
1.00
0.93
0.87
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
15
14
13
100%
93%
87%
1.00
0.93
0.87
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
14
14
15
93%
93%
100%
0.93
0.93
1.00
Appropriate
Appropriate
Appropriate
88%
90%
0.88
0.90
I23. My direct supervisor views leadership as a privilege serving others rather than a rank in the hierarchy.
I24. My direct supervisor notices others' strengths.
x
x
D2: Nourishing employees to their full potential
I25. My direct supervisor provides me continual learning opportunities to expand my knowledge and enable me growth.
I26. My direct supervisor functions as a mentor and coach to develop me reaching my full potential.
I27. My direct supervisor looks for, recognizes and appreciates the development of new competencies and skills.
D3: Assuring a safe and healthy work environment
I28. My direct supervisor puts safety as the number one priority and never compromises that commitment.
I29. My direct supervisor is actively involved in proactive safety risk reduction initiatives.
I30. My direct supervisor is genuinely concerned about the safety of his/her team.
D4: Listening actively
I31. My direct supervisor listens to me with full attention.
I32. My direct supervisor intentionally dedicates time and creates forums for active listening.
I33. My direct supervisor makes me feel heard and valued in conversations.
x
x
D5: Appreciating others
I34. My direct supervisor makes me feel valued at work.
I35. My direct supervisor acknowledges and celebrates everyone's contribution fairly and frequently.
I36. My direct supervisor looks for and recognizes positive behaviors not only pointing out unwanted behaviors.
x
D6: Providing support to succeed
I37. My direct supervisor provides all the necessary resources for me to be successful.
I38. My direct supervisor not only supports but also encourages me to excel and succeed.
I39. My direct supervisor makes information available to keep his/her team informed.
D7: Driving accountability
I40: My direct supervisor clearly sets up expectations and defines what people are accountable for.
I41: My direct supervisor aligns team goals and individual goals.
I42: My direct supervisor holds both himself/herself and others accountably for expected outcome.
Total of 42 Items original
After item eliminations
x
S-CVI (Ave)
S-CVI (Ave)
Notes: Individual items' Content Validity Index (I-CVI), and overall survey instrument's Content Validity Index (S-CVI). Using
Shrotryia and Dhanda's (2019) guidelines, scale content validity should be a minimum of 0.8. S-CVI came to 0.9, indicating a high
level of content validity for the survey instrument.
180
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B24
Enhanced survey instrument based on Expert-panel feedback
General demographic data
Gender: Female ( ), Male ( ), Other/Not to disclose ( )
Age:
Level of education:
Years of service at current organization:
Position in the organization:
Number of years in current position:
Frecuency of enagement with my direct supervisor
Country of residence: (
)
Below 21 years old ( )
No schooling completed ( )
No work experience yet ( )
Associate ( )
Less than 1 year in position ( )
No direct engagement ( )
Employee Engagmenet (UWES-9)
1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
3. I am enthusiastic about my job.
4. My job inspires me.
5. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
6. I fel happy when I am working intensely.
7. I am proud of the work that I do.
Between 21 and 31 years old ( ) Between 31 and 41 years old ( )
Primary school graduate ( )
High school graduate ( )
Less than 1 year of service ( ) 1-3 years of service ( )
Front-line supervisor ( )
Manager, below director level ( )
1-3 years in position ( )
4-6 years in position ( )
Ocassinally ( )
Quarterly engagement ( )
(0) Never /
(1) Almost Never /Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
A few times a year or less
8. I am immersed in my work.
9. I get carried away when I'm working.
Between 41 and 51 years old ( ) Between 51 and 61 years old ( ) 61 years and 71 years old ( )
71 years and older ( )
Undergraduate college graduate ( ) Graduate school graduate ( )
4-6 years of service ( )
7-10 years of service ( )
11-20 years of service ( )
More than 20 years of service ( )
Leader, director and above ( )
7-10 years in position ( )
11-20 years in position ( )
More than 20 years in position ( )
Monthly engagement ( )
Weekly engagement ( )
Daily engagement ( )
(2) Rarely/Disagree
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
(4) Often/Slightly Agree
(5) Very Often/Agree (6) Always/Strongly Agree
Once a month or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
Every day
\
Leading with humility oriented leadership bahavior relative to my Engagement
D1. Seeking out and value others ideas (humbleness admitting leader does not know all the answers)
10. My direct supervisor is encouraging others' ideas.
11. My direct supervisor embodies humbleness by admitting not knowing all the answers.
12. My direct supervisor eagerly seeks feedback, even if it is critical.
D2. Admitting vulnerability (transparently sharing mistakes and learning)
13. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges his/her mistakes.
14. My direct supervisor views mistakes as a learning and development opportunity.
15. My direct supervisor is sharing his/her feelings and experiences with others.
D3. Empowering (empowerment and delegation of decision making)
16. My direct supervisor delegates decision making to the appropriate level.
17. My direct supervisor continuously challenges me to take action and building capabilities.
18. My direct supervisor empowers me to make the right choices in my sphere of influence.
D4. Inquiring (seeking to understand)
19. My direct supervisor seeks to understand the situation before making decisions.
20. My direct supervisor gathers facts by going to where the work is happening to validate assumptions and grasp the situation.
21. My direct supervisor is curious who values asking questions as a core leadership skill.
D5. Self confidence
22. My direct supervisor exhibits self-confidence in most circumstances.
23. My direct supervisor is willing to take calculated risk as a path to increase chances for success.
24. My direct supervisor learns from mistakes to improve himself/herself.
D6. Empathy (ability to put oneself into others' shoes)
25. My direct supervisor builds meaningful relationships with those they lead.
26. My direct supervisor understands others' prospective.
27. My direct supervisor recognizes people's emotions.
Respecting every individual oriented leadership behavior relative to my Engagement
D7. Valuing each individual (human-centered)
28. My direct supervisor shows care and consideration for every individual in our team.
29. My direct supervisor provides regular, constructive feedback to others.
30. My direct takes time to meet with his/her team members individually as often as possible.
D8. Nourishing employees to their full potential (continual learning opportunities, develop people)
31. My direct supervisor provides me learning opportunities to enable my growth.
32. My direct supervisor functions as a coach to help develop me to reach my full potential.
33. My direct supervisor recognizes and appreciates the development of new competencies and skills.
D9. Assuring a safe and healthy work environment (both mental and physical)
34. My direct supervisor puts safety as the number one priority and never compromises that commitment.
35. My direct supervisor empowers the team to act on safety concerns while actively participates in problem resolution.
36. My direct supervisor is genuinely concerned about the safety of his/her team.
D10. Listening actively (intentional, active listening with undivided attention)
37. My direct supervisor listens to me with full attention.
38. My direct supervisor intentionally dedicates time to active listening.
39. I feel heard and valued in conversations with my direct supervisor.
D11. Appreciating others (culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition)
40. I feel valued at work by my direct supervisor.
41. My direct supervisor acknowledges and celebrates everyone's contribution adequately.
42. My direct supervisor recognizes positive behaviors, not only pointing out unwanted behaviors.
D12. Providing support to succeed (tools, training, resources)
43. My direct supervisor provides all the necessary resources for me to be successful.
44. My direct supervisor removes roadblocks as necessary to enable his team to succeed.
45. My direct supervisor makes information available to keep his/her team informed.
D13. Driving accountability
46. My direct supervisor sets up clear expectations.
47. My direct supervisor aligns team goals and individual goals.
48. My direct supervisor is retaining accountability even if work is delegated to team members.
DG. My organization has a culture of respect.
181
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B25
Boxplot and histograms of Employee Engagement Score by groups
Note: Total population histogram suggests the population does not follow the normal
distribution. By breaking down the sample population into two groups, the Boxplot indicates that
average employee engagement scores do not overlap. The shape of the histograms suggests that
Group 1 and Group 2 do not follow the normal distribution.
182
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B26
Data matrix with actual survey data
Note: Columns of the data matrix represent the survey questions,while each row represent
participants’s response score for the corresponding survey items.
183
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B27
Actual data for dependent and independent variables
Note: Employee engagement score (Y) is the dependent variable of the research, while
participant’s direct supervisor’s leading with humility and respecting every individual score are
the independent variables of the research.
184
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Figure B28
Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation for benhcmark leadrship behaviors
Note: Scatter-plot charts suggest a monotonic relationship between leading with humility and
employee engagement and a similar monotonic relationship between respecting every individual
and employee engagement.
185
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix C: UWES Instrument
186
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
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, cross the
“0” (zero) in the space after the statement. If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you
feel it by crossing the number (from 1 to 6) that best describes how frequently you feel that way.
Almost
never
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
Rarely
2
Once a
month
or less
Sometimes
3
Very often
Often
5
Always
A few
times
6
4
A few times Once a
week
a month
Every day
a week
1. ________ At my work, I feel bursting with energy
2. ________ At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
3. ________ I am enthusiastic about my job
4. ________ My job inspires me
5. ________ When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
6. ________ I feel happy when I am working intensely
7. ________ I am proud of the work that I do
8. ________ I am immersed in my work
9. ________ I get carried away when I’m working
© Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale is free for use for noncommercial scientific research. Commercial and/or non-scientific use is prohibited, unless
previous written permission is granted by the authors
187
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix D: Consent Form
188
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Consent Form
TITLE OF STUDY
Examining Leadership Behaviors on Employee Engagement: A Quantitative Study of Lead with
Humility and Respect Every Individual
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Laszlo A Magyar, Doctoral Candidate at California Southern University
(814) 450-6970, laszlo.magyar@my.calsourthern.edu
PURPOSE OF STUDY
You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted for a doctoral dissertation.
Before you decide to participate in this study, it is essential that you understand why the research
is being done and what it will involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please
ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
This quantitative study aims to contribute to the growing body of research in narrowing the gap
of knowledge between leadership behavior and employee engagement. There are two objectives
to this study. First, examine employee perceptions of the impact of two fundamental leadership
behaviors: (1) leading with humility and (2) respecting every individual on employee
engagement. Second, to explore the difference of impact between these leadership behaviors on
employee engagement. The researcher seeks to identify the critical characteristics of leadership
behavior that can best aid employee engagement to arm business leaders with exemplary
behaviors that likely will foster a culture that supports lasting high-performance.
STUDY PROCEDURES
Hence, I ask that you complete a short, approximately 15-minute research questionnaire. This
survey includes questions about your work engagement and about the behavior you observed
from your direct supervisor. There is no restriction for participation; however, as the study
focuses on adult working professionals, participants under 21 and without working experience
will be excluded from the analyses. After completing data collection, statistical analysis will be
conducted to examine the potential relationship between the variables to answer research
questions.
RISKS
There is no risk identified participating in this study. If you choose to participate, you may
discontinue participation at any time.
BENEFITS
189
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
There will be no other compensation for your participation in this study. However, you may
benefit from the research finding, which will be published via ProQuest and available for all
participants.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. I am not collecting any identifying
information; please do not share any unique or personal identification. Neither individual
participant nor participating organizations' names will appear in any report or publication of the
research.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions at any time about this study, you may contact the researcher, Laszlo A
Magyar, at laszlo.magyar@my.calsouthern.edu or Doctoral Project Committee Chair Dr. Walter
Witham, Ph.D. at walter.witham@my.clsouthern.edu. If you have questions regarding your
rights as a research participant, or if problems arise which you do not wish to discuss with the
Primary Investigator, please contact the Internal Review Board at (865) 354-3000, ext. 4822.
CONSENT
I have read and understood the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask
questions. I acknowledge that I am at least 21 years old and had work experience (paid job for at
least a month). I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at
any time, without giving a reason and without cost. By completing the survey and returning it to
the researcher indicates I consent to participate in this study.
Participant's Name: _________________ Researcher's Name: _______________
Date: _____________ Date: _____________
190
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix E: Letter of Invitation to Participate in Expert-Panel
191
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Letter of Invitation to Participate in Expert-Panel
Examining Leadership Behaviors on Employee Engagement: A Quantitative Study of Lead with
Humility and Respect Every Individual
Date: _____________
Dear _____________
Part of a pilot study, I invite you to participate in an Expert-Panel before the primary research
conducted by myself, Laszlo A Magyar, a student at the California Southern University’s Doctor
of Business Administration program. The Chair of my Doctoral Project is Dr. Walter Witham,
Ph.D. Core Faculty.
Following the consensus-based, modified e-Delphi Method, the Expert-Panel's objectives are to
assess the instrument validity (content, construct, and external validity) and, subsequently, the
reliability of the purpose-built survey instrument. The research questionnaire is a hybrid
instrument. It is a combination of the well-established UWES-9 questionnaire capturing
employee engagement as the dependent variable of the study, supplemented by a self-edited
questionnaire to attribute the leadership behavioral independent variables of the research; lead
with humility and respect every individual. The Expert-Panel validation is focused on the selfedited portion of the questionnaire.
The pilot study aims to discover potential flaws and proactively strengthen the instrument to
address issues before the actual data collection. Your participation in the panel is voluntary and
confidential; participants identifying information will not be shared. The Expert-Panel will
consist of subject matter experts: college lecturers and industry professionals with a terminal
degree and relevant research experience in social science. The panel will be administered online
via e-mail invite through multiple rounds of iterations (minimum of two rounds) seeking
feedback on the survey instrument's current version with 70% consensus criteria. The outcome of
the main study will be shared with each panel participant.
The purpose of the main study is to contribute to the body of research to narrow the gaps in
knowledge in leadership behavior and employee engagement relationship. There are two
objectives of this study; first to examine employee perceptions of the impact of two fundamental
leadership behavior; (1) leading with humility and (2) respecting every individual on employee
engagement, and second to explore the relative difference of impact leading with humility and
respecting every individual behavior on employee engagement. I seek to identify the critical
characteristics of leadership behavior that can help nourish employee engagement and foster an
organizational culture to achieve high-performance hence arm business leaders with exemplary
behaviors that likely will foster a culture that supports lasting superior performance.
Your consideration of participating in the panel is highly appreciated. Please indicate your
interest in participation with a confirmation email; when you accept participation, you confirm
that you meet Expert-Panel selection criteria.
192
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Feel free to contact me at (814) 450-6970 or at laszlo.magyar@my.calsouthern.edu or my Chair
at walter.witham@my.calsouthern.edu with any questions, concerns.
Sincerely, Laszlo A. Magyar, Doctoral Candidate
193
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix F: IRB Approvals
194
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
195
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix G: Instrument Validation Expert-Panel Questionnaire
196
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Instrument validation Expert-Panel
Welcome to Round 1: face and content validation
Welcome to this panel of Experts helping me to validate my research instrument used in my Doctoral Project at CalSouthern University
DBA program.
Doctoral Project title:
Examining Leadership Behaviors on Employee Engagement: A Quantitative Study of Lead with Humility and Respect Every Individual
Context:
This study will explore how to cultivate foundational cultural enablers, especially regarding leading with humility and respecting every
individual oriented leadership behavior in the organization and how does it relate to employee engagement.
To examine this potential relationship, a survey instrument was developed. The research questionnaire is a hybrid instrument. It is a
combination of the well-established UWES-9 questionnaire capturing employee engagement as the dependent variable of the study,
supplemented by a self-edited questionnaire to attribute the research's leadership behavioral independent variables, lead with humility,
and respect every individual. The Expert-Panel validation is focused on the self-edited portion of the questionnaire. The construct of
leading with humility and respecting every individual was compiled through a comprehensive literature review with the outcome
captured below for your review.
Requested response time:
Based on the panel participants' feedback, the P75 value of expected response time came to 10 days; therefore, respectfully, I will
request 10 days turnaround responding to this survey inquiry. If someone cannot make it that timeframe, please let me know. I will
send a gentle reminder 3 days prior to the 10 days deadline.
If you have questions at any time about this study, you may contact the researcher, Laszlo A Magyar, at
laszlo.magyar@my.calsouthern.edu by phone at 814-450-6970 or Doctoral Project Committee Chair Dr. Walter Witham, Ph.D. at
walter.witham@my.clsouthern.edu.
Instrument validation Expert-Panel, Round 1
Domain components essentiality validation questions.
197
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Please rate each behavior component by its essentiality to the given leadership behavior using a 3-point Likert scale.
Please rate the essentiality of each component of leading with humility behavior.
Please rate the essentiality of each component of respecting every individual behavior.
198
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Please rate each benchmark behavior's clarity of wording and understandability to the general population (target group is adult working
Instrument validation Expert-Panel, Round 1
Please evaluate the clarity of wording for each benchmark behavior.
professionals, 21 of age and above).
Please evaluate the clarity of wording and understandability of each behavioral component to the general population.
199
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
200
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Instrument validation Expert-Panel, Round 1
Please evaluate the relevancy and clarity of wording for each statement representing the behavior.
These will be the survey instrument's statements asking participants to describe their perception about their direct supervisor's
behaviors on a 7-point Likert scale (from 0; Never / Strongly Disagree till 6; Always/Strongly Agree Every day). Please rate the level of
relevancy and clarity of wording for each statement representing the benchmark behavior.
201
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Seeking out and value others ideas oriented statements
Clarity of statement
Admitting vulnerability oriented statements
202
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Empowering oriented statements.
Viewing self-accurately oriented statements.
203
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Putting others first oriented statements.
Inquiring-oriented statements.
204
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Self-efficacy oriented statements
My direct supervisor exhibits self-confidence in most all
Valuing each individual oriented statement.
205
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Relevancy of the item
Clarity of statement
206
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Nourishing employees to their full potential oriented statements.
Assuring safe and healthy work environment oriented statements.
207
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Listening actively oriented statements.
208
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appreciating others oriented statements.
209
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Relevancy of the item
Clarity of statement
My direct supervisor makes me
feel valued at work.
My direct supervisor
acknowledges and celebrates
everyone's contribution fairly
and frequently.
My direct supervisor looks for
and recognizes positive
behaviors not only pointing out
unwanted behaviors.
Proposal for rephrasing (if any)
Providing support to succeed oriented statements.
Relevancy of the item
My direct supervisor provides
all the necessary resources for
me to be successful.
My direct supervisor not only
supports but also encourages
me to excel and succeed.
My direct supervisor makes
information available to keep
his/her team informed.
Proposal for rephrasing (if any)
Driving accountability oriented statements.
210
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Relevancy of the item
Clarity of statement
My direct supervisor clearly
sets up expectations and
defines what people are
accountable for.
My direct supervisor aligns
team goals and individual
goals.
My direct supervisor holds both
himself/herself and others
accountably for expected
outcome.
My direct supervisor holds both
himself/herself and others
accountably for expected
outcome.
Proposal for rephasing (if any)
211
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Relevancy of the item
Clarity of statement
My direct supervisor clearly
sets up expectations and
defines what people are
accountable for.
My direct supervisor aligns
team goals and individual
goals.
My direct supervisor holds both
himself/herself and others
accountably for expected
outcome.
My direct supervisor holds both
himself/herself and others
accountably for expected
outcome.
212
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix H: Launch of Data Collection
PARTICIPATION REQUEST
Are you interested to learn more about the impact of leadership behaviors on employee
engagement? Please help my Doctoral Research Project to examine this relationship by filling out an
electronic survey. The survey is entirely anonymous and takes approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Besides yourself, please ask ten other people in your network to fill it out as well. My goal is to
collect at least 160 surveys in two weeks. I greatly appreciate your help; I will publish the study
results and make them available to all participants.
Thanks. Laszlo https://lnkd.in/eeurKch
#leadership #leadershipdevelopment #employeeengagement #research
Laszlo's survey instrument: Examining leadership behaviors on Employee Engagement
surveymonkey.com • 3 min read
213
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Appendix I: Survey Instrument
Laszlo's survey instrument: Examining leadership behaviors on Employee Engagement
Consent Form - please acknowledge before starting the survey
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Laszlo A Magyar, Doctoral Candidate at California Southern University, reachable at (814) 450-6970, or at laszlo.magyar@my.calsourthern.edu
PURPOSE OF STUDY
You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted for a doctoral dissertation. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is essential that you understand why
the research is being done and what it will involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need
more information.
This quantitative study aims to contribute to the growing body of research in narrowing the gap of knowledge between leadership behavior and employee engagement. There are
two objectives to this study. First, examine employee perceptions of the impact of two fundamental leadership behaviors: (1) leading with humility and (2) respecting every
individual on employee engagement. Second, to explore the difference of impact between these leadership behaviors on employee engagement. The researcher seeks to identify
the critical characteristics of leadership behavior that can best aid employee engagement to arm business leaders with exemplary behaviors that likely will foster a culture that
supports lasting high-performance.
STUDY PROCEDURES
Hence, I ask that you complete a short, approximately 15-minute research questionnaire. This survey includes questions about your work engagement and about the behavior
you observed from your direct supervisor. There is no restriction for participation; however, as the study focuses on adult working professionals, participants under 21 and
without working experience will be excluded from the analyses. After completing data collection, statistical analysis will be conducted to examine the potential relationship
between the variables to answer research questions.
RISKS:
There is no risk identified participating in this study. If you choose to participate, you may discontinue participation at any time.
BENEFITS
There will be no other compensation for your participation in this study. However, you may benefit from the research finding, which will be published via ProQuest and available
for all participants.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. I am not collecting any identifying information; please do not share any unique or personal identification. Neither
individual participants nor participating organizations' names will appear in any report or publication of the research.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions at any time about this study, you may contact the researcher, Laszlo A Magyar, at laszlo.magyar@my.calsouthern.edu or Doctoral Project Committee Chair
Dr. Walter Witham, Ph.D. at walter.witham@my.clsouthern.edu. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, or if problems arise which you do not wish
to discuss with the Primary Investigator, please contact the Internal Review Board at (865) 354-3000, ext. 4822.
CONSENT
I have read and understood the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I acknowledge that I am at least 21 years old and had work experience (paid
job for at least a month). I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. By completing the
survey and returning it to the researcher indicates I consent to participate in this study.
214
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
1. Consent acknowledgement
Yes
No
Demographic questions
Your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. I am not collecting any identifying information; please do not share any unique or personal identification. Neither individual participants nor
participating organizations' names will appear in any report or publication of the research.
2. Responders' gender
Female
Male
Other/Not to disclose
3. The geographic region of responders' Country of Residence
North America
Central America
South America
Europe
Asia
Africa
Middle East
Oceania and the Caribbean
4. Responders' age group
Below 21 years old
Age of 21-30
Age of 31-40
Age of 41-50
215
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
Age of 51-60
Age 0f 61-70
Age of 71 years and above
5. Responders' level of education
No schooling completed
Primary school graduate
High school graduate
Undergraduate college graduate
Graduate school graduate
6. Responders' years of service at the current organization
No work experience yet
Less than 1 year of service
1-3 years of service
4-6 years of service
7-10 years of service
11-20 years of service
More than 20 years of service
7. Responders' position in the organization
Associate
Front-line supervisor
Manager, below director level
Leader, director, and above
216
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
8. Responders' number of years in current position
Less than 1 year in position
1-3 years in position
4-6 years in position
7-10 years in position
11-20 years in position
More than 20 years in position
9. Responders' frequency of engagement with my direct supervisor
Daily engagement
Weekly engagement
Monthly engagement
Quarterly engagement
Occasional engagement
No direct engagement
11. Seeking out and value others' ideas (humbleness admitting leader does not know all the answers)
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
(4) Often/Slightly
(5) Very
Agree
Once a week
Often/Agree
A few times a week
(6)
Always/Strongly
(0) Never /
Strongly Disagree
A few times a year
(2) Rarely/Disagree
or less
Once a month or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
10. My direct supervisor is encouraging others' ideas.
11. My direct supervisor embodies humbleness by admitting not
knowing all the answers.
12. My direct supervisor eagerly seeks feedback, even if it is critical.
217
Agree
Every day
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
* 12. Admitting vulnerability (transparently sharing mistakes and learning)
(1) Almost Never /Strongly Disagree
(0) Never / A few times a year Strongly Disagree
or less
(2) Rarely/Disagree
Once a month or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a week
(5) Very
Often/Agree
A few times a week
(6) Always/Strongly
Agree
Every day
13. My direct supervisor openly acknowledges his/her mistakes.
14. My direct supervisor views mistakes as a learning and
development opportunity.
15. My direct supervisor is sharing his/her feelings and experiences with
others.
* 13. Empowering (empowerment and delegation of decision making)
(0)
Never / (1) Almost Never /Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
(2) Rarely/Disagree
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
(4) Often/Slightly Agree
(5) Very Often/Agree
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
(6)
Always/Strongly Agree
Disagree A few times a year or less
Once a month or less
Every day
16. My direct supervisor delegates decisionmaking to the appropriate level.
17. My direct supervisor continuously challenges me to take action and building
capabilities.
18. My direct supervisor empowers me to make the
right choices in my sphere of influence.
* 14. Inquiring (seeking to understand)
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly
(0) Never /
Disagree
(4) Often/Slightly
(5) Very
(6)
Always/Strongly
Strongly A few times a (2) Rarely/Disagree (3) Sometimes/Neutral Disagree year or less Once
a month or less A few times a month
19. My direct supervisor seeks to understand the situation before making
decisions.
20. My direct supervisor gathers facts by going to where the work is happening to
validate assumptions and grasp the situation.
21. My direct supervisor is curious who values asking questions as a core
leadership skill.
218
Agree Once a
week
Often/Agree A few
times a week
Agree Every day
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
* 15. Self-confidence
(0 Strongly
Never
Disagree
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
/ A few times a year (2) Rarely/Disagree
or less
Once a month or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral A
few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a week
(5) Very
Often/Agree
A few times a week
(6) Always/Strongly
Agree
Every day
(5) Very Often/Agree
A few times a week
(6) Always/Strongly
Agree
Every day
22. My direct supervisor exhibits self-confidence in most circumstances.
23. My direct supervisor is willing to take calculated risk as a path to
increase chances for success.
24. My direct supervisor learns from mistakes to improve himself/herself.
* 16. Empathy (ability to put oneself into others' shoes)
(1) Almost Never /Strongly Disagree
(0) Never / A few times a year
(2) Strongly Disagree
Rarely/Disagree
Once a month or
or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral few
Atimes a month
Often/Slightly
Agree
(4)Once a week
25. My direct supervisor builds meaningful relationships with
those they lead.
26. My direct supervisor understands others' perspective.
27. My direct supervisor recognizes people's emotions.
* 17. Valuing each individual (human-centered)
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly
(0)
Never /
Disagree
(5) Very
(6) Always/Strongly
Strongly
A few times a year (2) Rarely/Disagree
Disagree
or less
Once a month or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
Often/Agree A few
times a week
Agree Every
day
28. My direct supervisor shows care and consideration for every
individual in our team.
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly
(0) Never /
Disagree
(5) Very
Strongly
Disagree
A few times a
year or less
(6)
Always/Strongly
(2) Rarely/Disagree
Once a month or less
29. My direct supervisor provides regular, constructive feedback to
others.
30. My direct takes time to meet with his/her team members
individually as often as possible.
219
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
Often/Agree
Agree
A few times a week Every day
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
* 18. Nourishing employees to their full potential (continual learning opportunities, develop people)
rongly
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly
Disagree
(0) Never /
A few times a year
Strongly Disagree
or less
(2) Rarely/Disagree
Once a month or less
31. My direct supervisor provides me learning opportunities to enable my
growth.
32. My direct supervisor functions as a coach to help develop me to reach
my full potential.
(3) Sometimes/Neutral A
few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a wee
(5) Very
(6) Always/St
Often/Agree
Agree
A few times a week
Every day
(3) Sometimes/Neutral A
few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a week
(5) Very
(6) Always/St
Often/Agree
Agree rongly
A few times a week
Every da y
33. My direct supervisor recognizes and appreciates the development of
new competencies and skills.
* 19. Assuring a safe and healthy work environment (both mental &
physical)
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
(0) Never / A few times a year or
Strongly less
(2) Rarely/Disagree
Disagree
Once a month or less
34. My direct supervisor puts safety as the number one priority and
nev compromises that commitment.
er
35. My direct supervisor empowers the team to act on safety concerns
while
actively participates in problem resolution.
36. My direct supervisor is genuinely concerned about the safety of
his/
her team.
36
* 20. Listening actively (intentional, active listeningh undivided attention)
wit
37. My direct supervisor listens to me with full attention.
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
A few times a year or
( 0) Never / less
(2) Rarely/Disagree
Stro ngly Disagree
Once a month or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
(4 ) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a week
(5) Very Often/Agree
A few times a week
(6) Always/Strongly
Agree
Every day
38. My direct supervisor intentionally dedicates time to active
listening.
39. I feel heard and valued in conversations with my direct
supervisor.
* 21. Appreciating others (culture of appreciation; rewards & recognition)
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
Always/Strongly
220
(4) Often/Slightly
(5) Very
(6)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6788A4D8-D36C-4434-B756-5360E674E90A
(0) Never /
Strongly Disagree
A few times a year (2) Rarely/Disagree
or less
Once a month or less
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
Agree
Once a week
Often/Agree
A few times a week
Agree
Every day
(3) Sometimes/Neutral
A few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a week
(5) Very
Often/Agree
A few times a week
(6) Always/Strongly
Agree
Every day
(3) Sometimes/Neutral A
few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly
Agree
Once a week
(5) Very
Often/Agree
A few times a week
ongly
(6) Always/Str
Agree
Every day
40. I feel valued at work by my direct supervisor.
41. My direct supervisor acknowledges and celebrates everyone's
contribution adequately.
42. My direct supervisor recognizes positive behaviors, not only pointing
out unwanted behaviors.
* 22. Providing support to succeed (tools, training,
resources)
(0) Never /
Strongly Disagree
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
A few times a year or (2) Rarely/Disagree
less
Once a month or less
43. My direct supervisor provides all the necessary resources for me to be
successful.
44. My direct supervisor removes roadblocks as necessary to enable his
team to succeed.
45. My direct supervisor makes information available to keep his/her
team informed.
* 23. Driving accountability (self and others)
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
(0) Never /
A few times a year or(2) Rarely/Disagree
Strongly Disagree less
Once a month or less
46. My direct supervisor sets up clear expectations.
47. My direct supervisor aligns team goals and individual goals.
48. My direct supervisor is retaining accountability even if work is
delegated to team members.
* 24. My organization has a culture of respect.
49. My organization has a culture of respect.
(0) Never /
Strongly Disagree
(1) Almost Never
/Strongly Disagree
A few times a year
or less
(2) Rarely/Disagree
Once a month or less
221
Sometimes/Neutral
(3)
A few times a month
(4) Often/Slightly Agree Very Often/Agree
(5) Once
(6) A few
a week
times a week
Always/Strongly
Agree Every day