1
Leadership and Employee Engagement
George Pyrgos
Division of Continuing Education, Harvard Extension School, Harvard University
IORP E-1501: Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Dr. Adam Smith PhD
December 2, 2024
2
Leadership and Employee Engagement
Introduction
Leadership as a topic and subject of discussion holds a constant focus across society. Whether it is a
CEO’s direction in the workplace, an elected official’s policy decisions, a community organizer’s ability to
mobilize members of the public for a common cause, or the performance of the captain of our favorite
sports team, leaders and their leadership practices exert an influence and impact on almost all areas of
modern life. This persistent influence perhaps explains why, as Levy (2019) states, leadership is “a
dimension along which people are evaluated in all walks of life” (p. 782). Although leadership is just one
of many factors that influence organizational success, it is one of the most researched, indicating the
extent to which it is seen as one of the most important (Carasco-Saul et al. 2014).
However, leaders can’t lead without followers. In an organizational context, an employees’ motivation
and attitude to their work are important influences on and predictors of work behaviors (which in turn
contribute to work outcomes) (Levy, 2019). Employee motivation and job attitudes have been of interest
to researchers for as long as organizational psychology has been defined, but recent years have seen an
increasing interest in employee engagement (Hughes & Rog, 2008). Carasco-Saul and her colleagues
(2014) point out that although leadership is one of the most studied topics in organizational psychology,
and employee engagement is one of the most current, the relationship between them has not been
widely investigated until recently.
The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between leadership and employee engagement,
understand how different leadership approaches influence and affect employee engagement, and
examine employee engagement as an outcome of leadership effectiveness. High levels of employee
engagement, motivation, and positive job attitudes can manifest in different variables and different
3
workplace outcomes. For example, display of organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational
commitment, and low turnover are all described by Levy (2019) as both outcomes and predictors
positive employee job attitudes. Research has connected many of these same variables and outcomes to
a range of models and theories of leadership. This paper will explain the relationship between these two
areas of research through the lens of leadership theory, focusing on how models such as behavioral
leadership theory, leader-member exchange, and transformational leadership interact with employee
engagement.
Literature Review
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement has emerged as a topic of research since the turn of the millennium. Although
generally seen to be a positive element in the workplace, one of the challenges of researching employee
engagement is the lack of a precise definition for the term. Gibbons (2006, cited by Hughes & Rog, 2008)
describes employee engagement as “a heightened emotional and intellectual connection that an
employee has for his/her job, organization, manager, or co‐workers that in turn influences him/her to
apply additional discretionary effort to his/her work” (p.5). Another definition comes from Hewitt and
Associates (2004, as cited by Hughes & Rog, 2008), who describe engagement as “a measure of the
energy and passion that employees have for their organizations,” and engaged employees as people who
“take action to improve business results for their organizations” (p. 12). These researchers focus on
engagement as a relational and attitudinal aspect of an employee’s relationship with their employer. In
contrast, Schaufeli & Bakker (2010) focus more on the employee’s attitude towards their work itself.
Schaufeli and his colleagues (2000) define work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state
of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). These varied definitions and
approaches indicate some disagreement around the exact nature of engagement. However, researchers
4
are united in perceiving it as a positive force in the workplace, with multiple studies suggesting that
engagement is related to extremely positive outcomes, particularly in terms of employees’ well-being
and job performance (Mazzetti & Shaufeli, 2022). Meta-analysis by Mazzetti and her colleagues (2023)
found that work engagement correlates strongly with job satisfaction (r = .60) and commitment (r = .63),
and moderates turnover intention, among a range of other variables. Similarly, research has also linked
employee engagement with creativity, task performance, trust in the supervisor, and organizational
citizenship behaviors (Bakker et al., 2014; Basit, 2017). This is important as these variables are both
relevant to positive organizational outcomes, and have also been found to be related to leadership.
Leadership
In contrast to engagement, the vast scholarship on leadership has produced a clear and widely accepted
definition of leadership as the way in which particular individuals (leaders) purposefully influence other
individuals (their followers) to obtain defined outcomes (Yukl, 1989, as cited by Mazzetti & Schaufeli,
2022). Over the years, scholars have described a large variety of different models and theories of
leadership. Scientific understanding of leadership has evolved from early trait theories in the 1930s-50s,
behavioral and contingent approaches that emerged in the 1960s, through transformational and implicit
leadership theories that began to be described in the 1970s and 1980s respectively, to modern
approaches such as authentic and servant leadership (Levy, 2019). Carasco-Saul et al. (2014) highlight
that research in to the relationship between leadership and engagement is still in its infancy, but
conclude from a review of the literature available that “most of the reviewed studies were consistent in
arguing that leadership is significantly correlated with and is affecting employee’s work engagement
directly or via mediation” (p. 18). Although employee engagement has only come in to focus as a topic
of research in the last 25 years, extensive research has been carried out on the impact and influence of
leadership on the employee experience over many years. Researchers have linked leadership practices
5
and effectiveness to engagement related constructs such as job satisfaction, follower motivation,
affective organizational commitment, displays of organizational citizenship behaviors, employee energy
levels, employee creativity, and work group performance (Judge et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2012;
Gerstner & Day, 1997, House & Aditya, 1997). These commonalities are most prevalent in scholarship
examining behavioral theories of leadership, leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, and
transformational leadership theory, supporting Mazzetti & Schaufeli’s (2022) assertion that engagement
is positively associated with various person-centered leadership styles.
Engagement and Behavioral Leadership Theories
Behavioral leadership theories “focus on identifying what leaders actually do, in the hope that this
approach will provide a better understanding of leadership processes” (Levy, 2019, p. 790). Development
of these theories was led by researchers at Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and the
University of Iowa in the 1960s, with a common theme emerging across the scholarship: the division of
leadership behaviors in to two dimensions, initiating structure/task-oriented behaviors, and
consideration/relationship-oriented behaviors. (Levy, 2019). Various research has found relationships
between these different leadership behavior dimensions and engagement related constructs. Judge and
his colleagues (2004) found through meta-analysis correlations ranging from .22 to .78 between behavior
related leadership effectiveness indicators, job satisfaction, and follower motivation. Similarly, Lambert
et al. (2012) found a strong relationship between task-oriented leadership behaviors and a subordinate’s
trust of their supervisor, affective organizational commitment, and display of organizational citizenship
behaviors, all of which have also been linked to employee engagement. Interestingly, the researchers
found that with these behaviors, a balance is important: too much or too little initiating structure had
negative effects on the engagement predictors. These findings support Schaufeli’s (2017) argument that
operational leadership is critical for enhancing follower’s work engagement, as leaders are in a position
6
to monitor, manage, and allocate job demands resources, which moderate their follower’s levels of work
engagement. However Lambert et al. found a more linear positive relationship between consideration
behaviors and the outcome variables, suggesting that relationship-oriented leadership behaviors have a
positive relationship to employee engagement.
Engagement and Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory evolved from vertical dyad linkage theory and became fully
established in the 1990s, as researchers examined leadership as a reciprocal interaction between two
parties (Lord, 2000, as cited in Levy, 2019). LMX is considered as a contingency theory in that it takes in
to account situational and contextual variables. Where trait and behavior-based theories focus on the
leader, LMX focuses on the individual relationships between leaders and their followers, acknowledging
that these relationships are unique, with leaders moderating and adjusting their leadership style across
different relationships (Levy, 2019). Research has show significant overlap between LMX related
variables and employee engagement related variables. In an early meta-analysis, Gerstner & Day (1997)
found that the quality of LMX relationships predicted outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and turnover intentions. Similarly, Atwater & Carmeli (2009) found that LMX relationships
correlated positively with employee energy levels and creativity. Across a range of different studies,
positive LMX relationships aligned with predictors and outcomes of high levels of employee engagement,
whilst unfavorable relationships were associated with negative outcomes such as job dissatisfaction (Han
& Jekel, 2011). This intuitively makes sense; in the workplace, leaders are in a position of power over
their subordinate’s experience of the workplace, so it is logical that a positive or negative aspect to this
relationship will correlate to a positive or negative level of employee engagement.
7
Engagement and Transformational Leadership Theory
Bass (1985, as cited by Levy, 2019) describes transformational leadership as a form of leadership in
which the interaction of the leader and follower raises both to higher levels of motivation and morality
than they would achieve individually. This model of leadership emerged in the 1970s and is defined by
four main components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Given the function of transformational
leadership to raise motivation levels, and the natural alignment with descriptions of employee
engagement in terms of employee passion and dedication, it is unsurprising that much of the scholarship
examining the relationship between leadership and engagement focus on transformational leadership
(Mazzetti & Schaufeli, 2022). House & Aditya (1997) have shown transformational leadership to be
correlated to previously mentioned engagement related organizational outcomes such as job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work group performance. The authors suggest that this
style of leadership results in a high level of subordinate motivation, commitment and performance. This
supports the conclusions of Jiatong et al. (2022), who found that employee engagement partially
mediates the relationship between transformational leadership, affective organizational commitment,
and job performance. This again makes intuitive sense; an effective transformational leader may have a
positive impact on their followers’ motivation and commitment, but if they are not engaged with the
work or the organization, this is likely to have a limited effect by itself. Mazzetti & Schaufeli have built on
this strong relationship between employee engagement and transformational leadership, proposing
engaging leadership as a new model to explain the relationship between these areas of research.
Engaging leadership is rooted in self-determination theory and in many ways stands as a culmination of
the different leadership theories that have preceded it, incorporating aspects of behavioral theories,
LMX, and transformational leadership theories. This model proposes that “engaging leaders inspire,
strengthen, and connect their followers, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs of autonomy,
8
competence, and relatedness” (p. 2). In their model of engaging leadership, the authors have also sought
to address some of the criticisms of transformational leadership found in the literature: namely, that the
theoretical definitions of its dimensions are vague, the lack of a causal model of explanation, and low
validity measurement tools.
Discussion
As demonstrated, the literature shows that leadership significantly influences employee engagement in a
variety of ways. Leaders play a pivotal role in shaping employees’ workplace experiences, through
actions and practices that affect motivation, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Leadership
models such as behavioral theories, leader-member exchange (LMX), and transformational leadership
consistently highlight the importance of trust, communication, and individualized support in fostering
engagement. Research on behavioral leadership theories suggests seeking a balance in task-oriented
behaviors, whilst encouraging relationship-oriented behaviors. Leaders who provide appropriate
direction, support, and recognition cultivate trust and commitment, which in turn drives engagement.
Similarly, LMX theory underscores the importance of quality leader-follower relationships, showing that
positive exchanges characterized by mutual respect and trust correlate strongly with job satisfaction,
energy, and creativity, all of which have been shown to be correlated with engagement. Transformational
leadership, which focuses on inspiring and motivating employees, is particularly effective in fostering
engagement. Research suggests that transformational leaders enhance employees’ emotional
connection to their work by promoting autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The emerging concept
of engaging leadership builds on these theories, integrating psychological needs and addressing
limitations in measurement and application. Future research could explore contextual factors like
organizational culture and the unique challenges of remote work, both of which can be assumed to have
a moderating influence on both leadership and engagement variables. Overall, the findings emphasize
9
that fostering positive leader-employee relationships is critical for enhancing employee engagement and
achieving organizational success.
10
References
Atwater, L. E., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader– member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in
creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 , 264– 275.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD– R
approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1 (1),
389– 411.
Basit, A. (2017). Trust in Supervisor and Job Engagement: Mediating Effects of Psychological Safety and
Felt Obligation. The Journal of Psychology, 151 (8), 701-721.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181– 217.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2014). Leadership and employee engagement. Human Resource
Development Review, 14 (1), 38–63.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader– member exchange theory: Correlates
and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (6), 827– 844.
Han, G., & Jekel, M. (2011). The mediating role of job satisfaction between leader– member exchange
and turnover intentions. Journal of Nursing Management, 19, 41– 49.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
Management, 23 (3), 409– 473.
Hughes, J. C., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 20 (7), 743–757.
Jiatong, W., Wang, Z., Alam, M., Murad, M., Gul, F., & Gill, S. A. (2022). The impact of transformational
leadership on affective organizational commitment and job performance: The mediating role of
employee engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
11
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and
initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (1), 36-51.
Lambert, L. S., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Holt, D. T., & Barelka, A. J. (2012). Forgotten but not gone: An
examination of fit between consideration and initiating structure needed and received. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97 (5), 913– 930.
Levy, P. E. (2019). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace (6th ed.). New
York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Mazzetti, G., Robledo, E., Vignoli, M., Topa, G., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2023). Work
Engagement: A meta-Analysis Using the Job Demands-Resources Model. Psychological Reports,
126 (3), 1069-1107.
Mazzetti, G., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2022). The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and
team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and
team resources. PLoS One, 17 (6), e0269433.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the Job Demands-Resources model: A ‘how to’ guide to measuring and
tackling work engagement and burnout. Organizational Dynamics, 46 (2), 120-132.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the
concept. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.) & M. P. Leiter, Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory
and research (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3,
71–92.