Download Team level engagement as a mediator for the relation between

Team level engagement as a mediator for the relation
between perceived supervisor support and
organizational performance.
Anne van den Berg
Tilburg, the Netherlands
February, 2013
Team level engagement as a mediator for the relation
between perceived supervisor support and
organizational performance.
Master Thesis Social and behavioural sciences
Faculty of Social Science, Tilburg University
Name:
ANR:
Anne van den Berg
541730
First reader:
Second reader:
Dr. Kerstin Alfes
Dr. Brigitte Kroon
1
Abstract
Teams are becoming more embedded in organizational structures nowadays and therefore, research on
team levels is becoming of increasingly interest recent years. Research showed that many benefits can
be derived from the use of teams. Therefore this research investigated the relationship between
perceived supervisor support (PSS) and organizational performance mediated by team level
engagement. It is expected that there is a positive relationship between PSS and team level
engagement, and a positive relationship between team level engagement and organizational
performance. It is also expected that team level engagement fully mediates this relationship. All
hypotheses were accepted, only with one performance outcome, labour quality. Data of UK’s
Workplace Employment Relations Suvey of 2004 were used for this study. The data used was
aggregated within establishment, because within establishments people work together as they do in
teams. So perceived supervisor support will be the same for all members. Results show that team level
engagement fully mediates the relationship with labour quality, one of the four performance outcomes.
Key words: perceived supervisor support, teams, engagement, organizational performance, labour
quality, social exchange theory, human capital theory.
2
Table of content
Table of content ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................................ 6
Perceived supervisor support and engagement within establishments ................................................ 6
Engagement within teams and organizational performance ................................................................ 7
Engagement as mediator of PSS and organizational performance ...................................................... 8
Conceptual model ................................................................................................................................ 9
Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Research design ................................................................................................................................. 10
Population and sample....................................................................................................................... 10
Procedure ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Instruments ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Perceived supervisor support......................................................................................................... 11
Team level engagement ................................................................................................................. 11
Organizational performance .......................................................................................................... 12
Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12
Correlations ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Regression analyses........................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Limitations & recommendations ....................................................................................................... 19
Implications ....................................................................................................................................... 20
References ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 31
3
Introduction
Engagement has been of considerably interest in recent years (Saks, 2006). Many studies investigated
the antecedents and consequences of engagement (Saks, 2006; Wollard & Shuck, 2011; Slatten &
Mehmetoglu, 2011). Engagement can be defined as ‘’ a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind
that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma &
Bakker, 2002). Vigor refers to level of the energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness
to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to a sense of
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption captures the state of being fully
concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby one perceives time to pass quickly and has
difficulties detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli, et al., 2002). Engaged employees usually are less
stressed, more productive, take fewer sick days (Gallup Organization, 2003; Harter, Schmidt & Hayes,
2002), have a higher quality of work (Kahn, 1992) than their less engaged counterparts and they can
create revenue growth for their organizations (Gibbons, 2006). Engaged employees also have higher
productivity and performance levels on individual, team, as well as on organizational levels (Gibbons,
2006).
Most research to date, has been carried out on the individual level of analysis. However, we
know relatively little about engagement at any unit above the individual level, such as work group,
store, department or establishment (Pugh & Dietz, 2008). This is an important omission as these are
levels at which employee survey data are typically reported to client organizations (Harter, et al.,
2002). Moreover, work teams are nowadays becoming more and more embedded within
organizational structures (West, Patera & Carsten, 2009) and research has shown that many benefits
can be derived from the use of these teams, such as increased individual performance, better quality,
less absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover (Harris, 1992). Individuals performing as teams
often show regular patterns of behaviors that are evident to other team members (Stewart, 2003). Thus,
when team members have high levels of engagement, it is likely that this will influence the other
members of the team. Displayed emotions of one group member are able to influence other members
within the group until all group members are experiencing a similar emotional state (Pescosolido,
2002). Therefore, it seems relevant to investigate engagement within teams and explore whether
engagement levels within a team are related to increased organizational performance.
Performance at team levels is more a barometer of success than performance of individuals.
Managers frequently use language and metrics at group or organization levels, so the focus is more on
unit characteristics and outcomes (Pugh & Dietz,2008). Team performance effectiveness and the
factors that lead to it are tied to the nature and effectiveness of organizations. Thus, performance of a
team or set of teams in organizations is believed to be more profitable for a business (Guzzo &
Dickson, 1996). According to Macy and Izumi (1993) improved organizational performance can be
achieved through team-based work arrangement. Moreover, in order to gain insight into engagement
in teams, it is of interest to investigate factors that might have an influence on engagement at the team
4
level.
Leaders have been found to have an important role in fostering engagement among their
followers. Research suggests that leaders are key social resources for the development of employee
engagement (Tims, Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2011). Also, perceived supervisor support has been
found to be an important predictor of engagement (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou,
2007; Saks, 2006). So, the leader of a group can be seen as one important factor for team engagement.
Levels of engagement are positively related to business-unit performance (Harter, et al., 2002).
Therefore, it seems relevant to investigate the impact of perceived supervisor support (PSS) on
engagement levels of teams and further on organizational performance.
In short, the aim of this study is to examine whether perceived supervisor support is positively
associated with performance and if this relationship is mediated by engagement at the team level of
analysis. The following research question is formulated: To what extent does engagement within
establishments mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor support and performance?
Since, perceived supervisor support and engagement are predictors of performance (Gibbons, 2006), it
is important for organizations to understand these influences. The relationship between manager and
employees is an essential driving force for engagement in organizations, employees will not engage
without support of their supervisors (Rutledge, 2006). Teams are seen as an important factor of
organizational success (Cohen & Bailey, 1997) and according to Applebaum and Blatt (1994), teambased work arrangements show improved organizational performance. Also, literature has shown that
both, PSS and engagement at an individual level are predictors of performance, but their relation in
explaining and predicting performance are not evident within teams. That is why it is relevant to
investigate the relationship. If this relationship becomes evident, organizations can try to improve
performance, by monitoring the sources of PSS and engagement within their teams or establishment.
In the following paragraph, the central concepts of the relationship between PSS, engagement within
teams, and performance will be discussed.
5
Theoretical framework
This study investigates whether the relationship between perceived supervisor support and
performance can be explained by engagement within teams and thus establishments. In the following
sections the relation of perceived supervisor support with engagement will be explained, the
relationship of engagement within teams and performance and, subsequently the relationship between
PSS and organizational performance mediated by engagement. Finally, the conceptual model of this
study will be presented.
Perceived supervisor support and engagement within establishments
In this section the relationship between perceived supervisor support and engagement in teams will be
discussed. Perceived supervisor support is defined as the degree to which employees develop general
views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their wellbeing (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). The relationship between supervisors and their employees are
fundamental forces for improved engagement. It is doubtful that employees engage without support
from their supervisors (Rutledge, 2006). According to Hogg, Martin, Epitropaki, Mankad, Svensson,
and Weeden (2005) leadership is a social psychological phenomenon that is firmly grounded in social
relations and psychology of its membership. Individuals in a group may perceive leadership behaviors
from their supervisor differently and also react differently on them but Walumbwa, Wang, Wang,
Schaubroeck, and Avolio (2010) state that leadership behaviors can be assumed to be the same for all
followers. The followers might evolve a collective mental model about the supervisor (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000), so the perceptions about the supervisor are equal. That is why PSS on team level
engagement is an important concept to investigate.
In line with the original definition of engagement by Schaufeli, et al. (2002), team work
engagement is conceptualized as a positive, fulfilling, work-related shared-state that is characterized
by team work vigor, dedication, and absorption, which emerges from the interaction and shared
experiences of the members of a work team. Two reasons are essential for these collective phenomena
namely, team members can affect each other’s’ moods and they are likely to experiences (Ilies,
Wagner, & Morgeson, 2007).This principle can also be applied to engagement by considering
emotional contagion as the main potential mechanism. This means that positive emotions can
crossover from one person to another (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005). Thus, team work
engagement occurs from agreement on the perceptions of team members who are able to share
common ideas on how the team expresses vigor, dedication and absorption. It is important for leaders
of a group to optimize the emotional climate in their team. A good leader is able to enhance
motivation and engagement (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004). Research suggests
that engagement is “contagious”, it passes over not only from leader to follower, but also from one
team member to another (Bakker, Van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006). Engagement also appears to be a
collective phenomenon, aiming that teams feel engaged when group members closely collaborate to
6
accomplish particular tasks (Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003), the leader can
have an important influence in this process.
Therefore, the relationship between PSS and engagement can be explained using social
exchange theory (SET) (Saks, 2006; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). SET states that obligations are
generated through interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. A
basic principle of SET is that relationships develop over time into loyal, trusting, and shared
commitments as long as the parties continue by certain rules of exchange (Cropanzano and Mictchell,
2005). Rules of exchange normally involve reciprocity or repayment rules specified that the actions of
one party lead to responses or actions by the other. When focusing on the relationship between
supervisor and followers, employees see the relationship with their leader as beyond the standard
economic contract such that both operate on the basis of trust, goodwill, and the perception of mutual
obligations (Blau, 1964). The exchange indicates a high-quality relationship, and issues of care and
consideration in the relationship are of main importance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). PSS can produce a
felt obligation to help supervisors reach their goals (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, VandenBerghe,
Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). The quality of the relationship
that develops between a leader and followers is predictive of outcomes at the individual, group, and
organizational level of analysis. One manner for individuals to repay their organization is through their
level of engagement. That is, employees will choose to engage themselves to varying degrees and in
response to the resources they receive from their supervisor (Saks, 2006).
Leaders who are able to openly share information and build trusting relationships with their
followers in their group, department, or within the entire organization are very important (Avolio, et
al., 2004; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Thus, subordinates’ PSS should raise subordinates’
engagement. Employees who have shared perceptions regarding high levels of supervisor support
must lead to higher felt obligations to reciprocate by collectively, so within the establishments, helping
their supervisor to attain their business-unit goals (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2012). According to the theory
and literature, it is expected that support of the supervisor can help enhance engagement. Therefore the
following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived supervisor support will positively influence team level engagement.
Engagement within teams and organizational performance
Engaged employees within teams may perform better than their less engaged counterparts (Bakker,
Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004) and are therefore able to create positive business-unit outcomes (Harter
et al., 2002). A highly engaged workforce is decisive to high performance (Craig & Silverstone, 2009)
and performance is essential for organizational survival and effectiveness (Swanson, 1994).
The relationship between team level engagement and organizational performance can be
explained using human capital theory. Human capital theory upholds that knowledge provides
individuals with increases in their cognitive abilities, which leads to more productive and efficient
7
potential activity (Schultz, 1959; Becker, 1964; Mincer, 1974). Therefore, if profitable opportunities
for new economic activity exist, individuals with more or higher quality human capital should be
better at perceiving them. Once engaged in the entrepreneurial process, such individuals also have
superior ability in successfully exploiting opportunities (Davidsson & Honig, 2003). The human
capital of organizations thus, has a positive impact on employee performance (Bosma, Van Praag,
Thurik & De Wit, 2002).
Traits employees bring to the job are also aspects of human capital, these are intelligence,
fulfilling work energy, commitment, a generally positive attitude, reliability, motivation to share
information and knowledge (Fitz-Enz, 2000). Engaged employees have high levels of energy, which
corresponds with traits of human capital. Also, employees engaged within teams are able to share
motivation, information and knowledge. Therefore, engagement can be seen as an important indicator
of human capital in an organization. Human capital in organizations can, thus create more individual
performance, and employees in teams influence each other by their interactions. This can lead to an
increase of cognitive abilities and these, in turn, could result in more productive activities and higher
performance levels. Higher performance levels of individual employees and teams within
organizations can alternately lead to more organizational performance. When mutually engaged
employees are dedicated to cultivating the supportive workplace relationships that sustain people’s
efforts over time and are also focused on the organization’s goals, the group’s energy, enthusiasm and
focus are multiplied and superior efforts and performance are the end result (Craig & Silverstone,
2009). Consequently, team level engagement can increase organizational performance.
Also, organizations with a higher quality of work environment, thus better human capital,
incline higher profits and business success (Lau & May, 1998). Previous research has demonstrated
that organizations with a highly engaged workforce have a much higher success rate in terms of
profits, productivity, customer satisfaction, and employee retention than organizations with less
engaged employees (Harter, et al., 2002). Engaged employees are very energetic, self-efficacious, and
have the believe they are able to influence events that occur (Bakker, 2009; Schaufeli, Taris, Le Blanc,
Peeters, Bakker, & De Jonge, 2001). Due to their positive attitude and activity level, employees with
high engaged levels can create positive feedback in terms of appreciation, recognition, and success
(Bakker, Albrecht & Leiter, 2010). So, when individuals have abilities to successfully exploit
opportunities for their organization, they are able to share these within their team. This can result in a
more productive team and in the end to higher organizational performance. It is therefore expected that
engaged teams contribute to organizational performance. So, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 2: Team level engagement will positively influence organizational performance.
Engagement as mediator of PSS and organizational performance
Research indicates that when supervisors are supportive of subordinates, it leads to advantageous
outcomes for employees and organizations. Team leaders have a positive impact on levels of
8
individual as well as on collective engagement (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2010). Leadership behaviors
can stimulate a favorable group climate that is characterized by fairness, trust, openness and
constructive problem solving and thus, perceived supervisor support is of great importance to get
teams engaged. Organizations focusing only on improving individual engagement miss an important
opportunity for identifying and nurture collective engagement, as collective engagement is an
important factor for high performance (Craig & Silverstone, 2009). So, team level engagement is an
important predictor of organizational performance. Engagement can be seen as a force that motivates
employees to perform higher levels of performance (Wellins & Concelman, 2005). Supervisors have
great influence on levels of engagement in teams and employees working in teams also have an
influence on each other. When teams within organizations feel engaged, a much higher level of
engagement in the organization can be reached. This is a favorable outcome as it suggests that a high
level of collective engagement leads to more organizational performance. Perceived supervisor
support predicts team level engagement, because it can motivate and stimulate groups of people.
Engagement within teams appears to be a predictor of performance, and when teams within
organizations have high levels of performance this will lead to more organizational performance.
Thus, in line with hypothesis 1 and 2, as PSS has a positive effect on team level engagement and team
level engagement on organizational performance, it is expected that team level engagement fully
mediates the relationship between PSS and organizational performance. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 3: Team level engagement mediates the relationship between PSS and organizational
performance.
Conceptual model
In conclusion, as the relation between PSS and organizational performance is positive, and PSS
ensures higher levels of team level engagement, it can be expected that employees who receive
support from their supervisors feel more engaged with their team and consequently their organization
and can therefore have a positive influence on organizational performance (figure 1). To determine to
what extent team level engagement has a mediating effect on the relationship between PSS and
organizational performance, it is relevant to formulate the following research question: To what extent
does engagement within establishments mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor
support and performance?
+
Team perceptions of
supervisor support
Team level
Engagement
+
+
Organizational
performance
Figure 1: Conceptual model of the expected relationships in this study
9
Methods
In this section the method for answering the research question is described. A distinction is made
between research design, population and sample, procedure, instruments, and statistical analysis.
Research design
For answering the research question and test the conceptual model of this study a quantitative research
design is conducted. Data of the Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS), 2004 will be used to
measure the different concepts. The data is collected by the National Centre for Social Research. The
data includes both cross-section and panel surveys. The management data were collected by interviews
with a senior person in the establishment with responsibility for industrial relations, employee
relations or personnel matters, most of them were not personnel specialists. The employee data were
collected through a survey of employees in the establishments and were collected by self-completion
questionnaires randomly distributed within the establishments. The repeated cross-sectional data used
in this research are part of a larger dataset that investigated industrial relations and employment
practices across almost every sector of the economy in Great Britain. The employee questionnaire will
be used to measure perceived supervisor support, and engagement within teams. Only the
establishments with 100 or less employees are used in this study because these establishments can act
as if they are teams. So, team level outcomes can be measured. The study is explanatory, because the
hypotheses are based on existing theories.
Population and sample
The focus of the study is establishments in Great Britain. The data of the management questionnaire
consist of 2295 cases, so that is the number of total establishments. Only 1297 management
questionnaires will be used because that are the establishments with 100 employees or less. At each
establishment taking part in the survey a sample of 25 employees (or all employees at establishments
found to have between 5-24 employees) was selected to take part in the Survey of Employees. In total
22451 questionnaires were gathered. The sample assures both private and public sector, and all
industries engaged in primary industries and private households with domestic staff. Establishments
with less than five employees were excluded, this was one of the requirements for them to participate
in the research.
Procedure
The sampling procedure used conducting the data is based on a stratified random sample of
establishments and a sample of employees at those establishments. The panel sample was selected
from the WERS 98 achieved sample of 2191 productive cross-section interviews using a
straightforward stratified sample. So, the same cases as the data of WERS 98 was approached for the
WERS 2004 study. The strata were defined by establishment size at the time of the 1998 interview,
and the same sampling fraction was used per strate. The data has been aggregated within
establishments with 5-100 employees because this gives insight at a team level. The employees
10
working in establishments cooperate with each other as in teams and therefore PSS and engagement
can be measured at the team level.
Instruments
Perceived supervisor support
PSS will be measured using the WERS 2004 questionnaire, part C ‘Your views on working here’,
question C2. PSS is measured on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly
disagree, with the 6th point reserved for the ‘don’t know’ response, coded as a missing value. It
consists of six items. The items are: “Managers here can be relied upon to keep their promises”,
“Managers here are sincere in attempting to understand employees’ views”, “Managers here deal with
employees honestly”, ”Managers here understand about employees having to meet responsibilities
outside work”, “Managers here encourage people to develop their skills”, and “Managers here treat
employees fairly”. Most previous research measured PSS with the Survey of Perceived Organizational
Support (SPOS) scale. Three items from the SPOS were adapted to assess employees’ perceptions that
their supervisor cares for their well-being and supports them at work (Eisenberger, et al., 2002; Kottke
& Sharafinski, 1988; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). An example of an item is: ‘My
supervisor is willing to listen to my job related problems’. The WERS 2004 seems to be a good
measure for PSS as the items are conceptually very similar. For example, one item from the WERS
2004 questionnaire is: ’Managers here are sincere in attempting to understand employees’ views’. A
factor-analysis was conducted, in order to check whether the items for perceived supervisor support
load on the same construct. The factors were chosen based upon the content of the questions used to
measure the variable and the scree-plot criterion. A reliability analysis was carried out to check the
scales reliability. The factor analysis on PSS showed no violation of the simple structure (appendix 1).
The KMO-index showed a value of .917 and the scale for PSS has a cronbach’s alpha of .931 and all
the items of cronbach’s alpha if item deleted were lower. So, this is a very reliable scale.
Team level engagement
Also, for team level engagement the WERS 2004 questionnaire is used, and also part C is used,
question C1. Team level engagement will be measured on a 6-point Likert scale as well. It consists of
three items, with answers ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree, with the 6th point
reserved for the ‘don’t know’ response, which was coded as a missing value. The items are: “I share
many of the values of my organization”, “I feel loyal to my organization”, and “I am proud to tell
people who I work for”. Most research on engagement used the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES) for measuring engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, 2006; Schaufeli, et al., 2002). An
example of an item in the UWES is ‘I am proud of the work that I do’. This item is similar to the item
of the WERS questionnaire. Therefore the WERS questionnaire is a good way to measure team level
engagement. When examining the construct validity of the scale for engagement, the factor analysis
demonstrated a violation of the simple structure (appendix 2). Normally the questions that are
11
violating the simple structure can be removed. This appears to be a problem because item removal
would lead to a model with insufficient items to explain the factors. The KMO-index showed a value
of .721 and scale reliability was good with a cronbach’s alpha of .850.
Organizational performance
Organizational performance will be measured using the WERS 2004 survey of managers.
Organizational performance will be measured using financial performance, labour productivity, labour
quality and absenteeism. Each measure is based on a rating made by the managerial respondent during
the interview according to a five-point scale that ranged from ‘a lot below average’ to ‘a lot better than
average for our branch of industry’. For absenteeism the percentage of work days lost through
employee sickness or absence is available for every workplace. Since the distribution of this measure
is skewed and long tailed, its logarithm will be used and the few workplaces that had zero percentage
will be adjusted.
Several control variables will be taken into account when measuring the relationships. That
will be activity of the establishment, part of a larger organization and size of the organization. Size of
the organization will be measured as size of the establishment (Wood, Van Veldhoven, Croon & De
Menezes, 2012). A distinction is made between four kind of activities. The first one, activity 1, is:
‘We provide goods or services to the general public’, the second one, activity 2, is ‘We provide goods
or services to other organizations’, the third one, activity 3, is ‘We provide goods or services to other
parts of our organization’ and the last one, activity 4, is: ‘This is an administrative office only for our
organization’. The control variable part of a larger organization is divided into three different options.
The first option is: ‘Is this establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging
to the same organization’, the second option is: ‘Is this establishment a single independent
establishment’, and the last options is: ‘Is this establishment the sole UK establishment of a foreign
organization’.
Statistical analysis
The data used in this study is aggregated within establishments. Although the variables are measured
at the individual level it makes sense to explain them at the team level, because it is expected that
within establishments the people work together as in a team. So, support perceived from supervisors
will be the same for all members of teams, and the establishments cooperate and share behaviors.
Therefore, also engagement can be measured as a team level variable.
Organizational performance will be measured at the organizational level. Four performance
outcomes will be used to measure organizational performance. The variables financial performance,
labour productivity, labour quality and absenteeism will be used to measure it, therefore four measures
must be done. It is possible to measure at organizational levels, because of the control variables that
are included, activity of the establishment, part of a larger organization and size of the organization.
12
Results
This section provides the findings from the study that are found by using statistical software. This
section also contains multiple tables that visualize the results.
Correlations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are presented in table 1. Preliminary
analyses were done to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality and linearity. The missing
values were deleted pairwise, the cases are excluded only if they are missing the data required for the
specific analysis. The sample has not much reduced by the missing values. Only for absenteeism the
missing value rate was quite high but still 379 values could be used so it was possible to use
absenteeism in the analyses. All main and control variables were included. Table 1 shows the teamlevels on perceived supervisor support (M = 2.39) and on team level engagement (M = 2.26). Both
team-level engagement and PSS are measured on a six point likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly
agree to (5) strongly disagree, with the 6th point reserved for the ‘don’t know’ response. The ‘don’t
know’ response was part of the missing values and thus not included in the analysis. Financial
performance (M = 2.78), labour productivity (M = 2.85) and labour quality (M = 2.17) score a little
below the average. These scores were measured on a five-point scale ranged from (1) ‘a lot better than
average’ to (5) ‘a lot below average’ for our branch of industry. The scores on absenteeism (M = .278)
are very low, which is a good thing because absenteeism is used as a performance outcome, so the
lower the absenteeism rate the better.
Looking at the correlations in table 1, team-level engagement and PSS are highly significant
correlated (.680). This means that high levels of PSS are associated with higher levels of team level
engagement. Team level engagement is only significantly correlated with labour quality (.117), as
performance outcome. PSS is significantly correlated with absenteeism(.171) and also labour
quality(.102).
13
Regression analyses
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis is done to analyze the effects between the variables and to
check the hypotheses. The hierarchical regression analysis is used to specify a fixed order of entry for
variables in order to test the effects of certain predictors, independent of the influence of others
(Pallant, 2010). Before starting the analyses the assumptions for hierarchical regression analyses were
checked. The sample size was large enough to do the analyses and the normal probability plots and
scatter plot suggested normality, linearity, independence of residuals and homoscedasticity. Since
there were no correlations higher than .70 between the variables, and tolerance and VIF values were
not too high, multicollinearity was not assumed and all variables could be retained. The control
variables were added in these analyses.
Four steps of Baron and Kenny (1986) needed to be taken to find out whether team level
engagement mediates the relationship between PSS and organizational performance. The first step is
to show that there is a significant relation between the predictor and the outcome, so a regression
analysis has been done for the effect of PSS on organizational performance. The second step is to
show that the predictor is related to the mediator, thus an analysis was done to find the effect of PSS
on team level engagment. The third step is to show that the mediator is related to the outcome variable,
so a regression is done to see the effect of team level engagement on organizational performance. The
last step involves a complete mediation across the variables, thus the effect of the initial variable over
the outcome variable, while controlling for the mediator, is insignificant. So, checking the strength of
the relation between the predictor and outcome to see whether it significantly reduces when the
mediator is added to the model (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the hierarchical regression analyses size of
the establishment, activity of the establishment and number of employees were entered as control
variables in the first step. If team level engagement is a partial mediator, the relation between PSS and
organizational performance will be significantly smaller when team level engagement is included, by a
full mediation the effect becomes non-significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Hence, a regression analysis was done for all performance outcomes separately. The first
hierarchical regression analysis conducted tested the relationships with financial performance. As can
be seen in table 2, the relationship between PSS and financial performance is not significant. Model 2a
explains a little bit more than model 1a (R² = .022) and there is an F change (2.373). However, the F
change of model 1a is significant and higher than in model 2a, besides no significant beta is found.
This suggest no significant relationship between PSS and financial performance. Model 3a does not
change compared with model 1a (R² = .019), only the F change in model 1a is significant and no
significant beta for engagement was found. That means no relation between engagement and financial
performance. Model 4a explains a bit more than the first model (R² = .023), the F change is not
significant, no significant beta is found for PSS and engagement. Taken together, the results show no
significant relations between PSS and team level engagement with financial performance.
14
Table 3 presents the relationships with labour productivity, no significant results are shown for the
relationship between PSS and labour productivity. The R² of model 2b is higher, but very small
(R²=.009) and no significant F change was found. The relationship between engagement and labour
productivity shows no significant results as well. The R² in model 3b is higher than model 1b
(R²=.008) but also very small. No significant F change is found. The relationship between engagement
and PSS on labour productivity also shows no significant results. Hence, no significant relation is
found between engagement, PSS and labour productivity.
15
For absenteeism, the relationship between PSS and absenteeism has a R² of .179, a little higher than
model 1c, a significant beta (.069) and a significant F change (10.280). However, the F change of
model 2c is lower than the one of model 1c. So, there is a very small relationship between PSS and
absenteeism. The β of model 2c is positive, which means more absenteeism when there is more PSS.
The R² for team level engagement with absenteeism is higher in model 3c (.167) but there is no
significant beta variable and the F change is not significant. This means a non-significant relation
between team level engagement and absenteeism. The relation of PSS and engagement with
absenteeism, presents a difference with model 1c (R² = .186), there is a smaller but significant F
change. Only a significant beta (.119) for PSS is found, not for engagement, therefore this study has
not taken absenteeism into account, as it is only related to PSS and not team level engagement.
The regression analysis between PSS, engagement and labour quality, shown in table 5, presents a
better second model 2d for the relation between PSS and labour quality (R²=.022), a significant beta
variable (=1.79) and a significant F change (9.742). Model 3d, the relation between engagement and
labour quality shows a better relation (R²= .024, a significant beta variable (=.1.69) and a significant F
change (11.739). Model 4d shows the regression of PSS and engagement on labour quality and is
better than model 1d (R²=.026), a significant beta variable (=1.637) and a significant F change (6.472).
Also, the relationship between PSS and engagement is significant, as can be seen in model 1e. There
also a significant R squared is found (R²=.477), a significant beta variable (=1.79) and a significant F
change (= 9.742).
Overall, the analyses showed no significant relationships of PSS and team level engagement
with financial performance, labour productivity and absenteeism. There are significant relationships
with labour quality as a performance outcome, thus this research continues with the analyses focusing
on labour quality only. Therefore, a mediation effect could be possible with labour quality as
16
performance outcome, as higher levels of PSS, and team level engagement, assume higher levels of
labour quality. As a result, labour quality is chosen as organizational performance outcome, to find out
whether team level engagement mediates the relationship between PSS and organizational
performance.
For testing hypothesis 1, which assumes a positive influence of PSS on team level
engagement, the control variables were entered in first, which presents to what extend the control
variables influence engagement, and PSS was entered in the second model. Hypothesis 1 is confirmed,
this suggest that higher levels of PSS will lead to higher levels of team level engagement.
To find out whether team level engagement mediates the relationship between PSS and
organizational performance, there must be a relation between the initial variable and the outcome
variable. Thus, a hierarchical regression analysis between PSS and labour quality. The control
variables were taken into account and entered first and PSS is entered secondly. To test the second
hypothesis, a positive influence of team level engagement on organizational performance. First the
control variables were entered and second team level engagement was entered. Hypothesis 2 is
confirmed. This indicates that higher levels of team level engagement will lead to more labour quality,
so, organizational performance.The last step in the mediation analysis is an hierarchical regression
analysis of PSS and team level engagement on labour quality. If PSS drops from significance there is a
full mediaton effect of team level engagement. This corresponds with hypothesis 3, which states that
team level engagement mediates the relationship between PSS and organizational performance. Also,
in this analysis the control variables entered first and PSS and team level engagement secondly.The
direct effect between PSS and organizational performance, when controlling for team level
engagement drops in significance and the beta dropped as well. Thus PSS has a significant effect in
both models, so team level engagement mediates the relationship between PSS and labour quality as
an organization performance outcome.
Hypothesis 3 is accepted because there is a full mediation of team level engagement on the
relationship between PSS and organizational performance. Thus, all hypotheses are accepted.
Although only with labour quality as a organizational performance outcome. This means that team
level engagement fully mediates the relationship between PSS and labour quality.
17
Discussion
The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between perceived supervisor support and
organizational performance with a mediating role of team level engagement. The research question
stated: ‘To what extent does engagement within establishments mediates the relationship between
perceived supervisor support and performance?’
Results represent that perceived supervisor support leads to higher levels of team level
engagement and labour quality, and so organizational performance. According to the literature and
theory used in this study, it was expected that the relationship between PSS and organizational
performance could be explained by team level engagement. Evidence was found for all the
relationships with labour quality as an organizational performance outcome. For the three other
performance outcomes no evidence is found in this research. This study supports that when teams get
supported by their supervisor in their team there is more collective engagement and this will lead to
higher labour quality.
The results show that labour quality is the most important performance outcome from a PSS
and team level engagement perspective. The four organizational performance measure seemed good
measures for organizational performance, however it appeared that PSS and team level engagement
both lead to more quality of the teams but not more financial performance, labour productivity or less
absenteeism. Financial performance, labour productivity and labour quality are all measured with a
five-point scale that ranged from ‘a lot below average’ to ‘a lot better than average for our branch of
industry’. Consequently, PSS is able to influence team level engagement which can lead to more
quality of the teams and as a result to higher labour quality of an organization. Engagement, in
general, can lead to individual outcomes such as quality of people’s work and their own experiences
doing that work (Kahn, 1992). As a result, people who are more engaged are likely to be in more
trusting and high-quality relationships with their colleagues and employer, they will therefore be more
likely to report positive attitudes (Saks, 2006). Also, highly engaged people believe that they can
positively affect the quality of their company (Attridge, 2009). Employees engaged in teams are able
to share motivation, information and knowledge and therefore, team level engagement can lead to
more individual performance. As employees in teams can influence each other and share their
qualities, this can lead to more labour quality. Therefore, employees engaged in teams have a higher
quality of work, so labour quality of the organization will in turn be higher.
PSS and team level engagement are both not able to influence the financial performance of an
organization, probably no financial results can be found directly relating to more PSS or team level
engagement. So, a possibility is that the effects of PSS and team level engagement cannot be linked to
the financial perspective of the organization. Financial performance is mainly influenced by situational
factors, like the kind of branch. Also, the effect of branch on financial returns suggest that branches
that are located in busier areas generally have more profit (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti,
Schaufeli, 2009). This study is done across almost every sector of the economy in Great Britain, so in
18
a lot different branches, therefore it might be the case that it is not possible to measure the effect of
financial performance. Probably the managers have no understanding of the effect of the behaviour of
their teams on the financial outcomes of the organizations.
Also, they apparently cannot influence their team’s productivity. Labour productivity depends
on an organizations strategy. An effective strategy can lead to more good people in the firm and the
more certainty an organization creates the more labour productivity it will enjoy (Koch & McGrath,
1996). So, it seems that other factors also have an influence on the productivity of the labour. It seems
that those factors are more important than the effect of PSS and team level engagement for labour
productivity.
There is also no influence on absenteeism, it turns out that the absenteeism does not change by
PSS and team level engagement. According to Schaufeli, Bakker and Van Rhenen (2009), more
engagement leads to less absenteeism. Also, Hoxsey (2010) showed in his study that employees who
are more engaged are more likely to stay within their organization, as engagement increases, sick time
decreases. So, it could be that absenteeism is not related to team level engagement. Besides it might
depends on other factors like, work pressure, overtime and distance to their work (Cohen and Bailey,
1997). This study looked at the effect of PSS and team level engagement on absenteeism, probably
other factors need to be taken into account to find reasons for absenteeism.
For these reasons the mediation relationship is checked with labour quality as a organizational
performance outcome, because it has been found that employees can see the quality of themselves
compared to other organizations. The other three organizational performance outcomes were
disregarded.
Limitations & recommendations
This research has some limitations that should be addressed. Although the data consists of repeated
cross-section and panel surveys, a longitudinal design would be even better to demonstrate causal
relationships. This would be interesting for the interrelationship between PSS and organizational
performance. This makes the data more reliable and it makes the possibility of generalizing the results
bigger because the study involves almost all Britain. Also, by using a questionnaire, it might be the
case that questions are understood differently by the respondents, this could have affected the
outcomes of the study. If engagement, for example, is understood differently in all organizations, it
would be hard to explain the concept, therefore another method might be used so everyone knows
exactly what is meant. Behaviour in organizations can be shaped by organizational characteristics such
as organizational culture, structure, demography, and the corporate mission and vision propagated by
the organizational board (van Engen, van der Leeden & Willemsen, 2001), so support can be
perceived differently by the different organizations. Due to the fact that organizations might perceive
support differently it is harder to generalize the results. Also, those organizational characteristics
might influence teams within the organization in general, so those differences are important for future
19
research to take into account. Only the establishments with 100 or less employees are used in this
study because these establishments can act as if they are teams. Due to the fact that some
establishments are still very large, it is hard to say if they really feel like they are a team, this might
have affected the results, because it is not sure whether or not the establishments really act as teams
do. Also, differences in teams are not taken into account in this study, this is something future
research should look at, because differences in teams can have an influence in the way teams behave.
The data used in this study was all collected in Great Britain. This could have an effect on the results,
because there are a lot of differences between countries, like cultural differences, the results might
have been different if the study was done in another country. The scales for team level engagement
and PSS used in this study are new and used for the first time for this concept, although they seem
good measures for team level engagement and PSS, there is a possibility that this has an effect on the
results. The research approach also has several limitations. First of all the data conducted didn’t have
the purpose to measure variables at the team level. The data was collected to provide large-scale,
statistically reliable evidence about a broad range of industrial relations and employment practices.
Secondly, the scales used for measuring the variables are not used before for measuring these
variables. The scales match with items from scales that are used before to measure PSS and
engagement, but no study researched the variables in this way before. In addition, it is a crosssectional research design so the data is aggregated at one point in time. This does not allow drawing
reliable causal conclusions. If there was done a longitudinal study it would be easier to demonstrate
causal relationships. These are interesting for the interrelationship between PSS and team level
engagement. Lastly, the data of PSS and team level engagement is aggregated so it could be measured
from a team level perspective. The correlation between PSS and team level engagement became very
high, namely .680. This could mean multicollinearity, so aggregating the data has had an influence on
the findings.
Besides the limitations, some recommendations should be mentioned as well. It is important
for future research to keep investigating the relation between PSS, labour quality and team level
engagement, because significant results have been shown. Very little research investigated this
relationship at a team level perspective, hence significant relationships are shown on a team level it is
an important contribution for future research to invest not only individual levels. Teams nowadays
play crucial roles in organizations (Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2012), but research has
not yet researched team levels a lot, so this is an important contribution. This research is a step
forward in team level research, it shows the relevance of investigating at higher levels than the
individual level.
Implications
This can also have implications for organizations. When organizations focus more on teams within
their organization, it results in higher performance outcomes. As employees in teams really influence
20
each other it is important for organizations to know what kind of effects teams can have in their
organization. It is also recommended to find out whether differences in teams matter, to see what other
things can have an effect on the results. This study focused on establishments as teams, future research
should focus on teams in organizations to see if the same results occur. Additionally, it would be
interesting for future research to study what other variables can be influenced by team level
engagement. The results suggest importance of PSS, team level engagement and labour quality in all
industries of Great Britain, so there is a possibility to compare between companies. It also has a unique
contribution to the literature, because team level engagement has not been researched in this manner
before.
Besides these research implications, some practical implications should be mentioned as well.
This study illustrated that team level engagement helps organizations to improve organizational
performance. The results present significant relations with team level engagement as a mediator
variable. People in engaged teams are likely to influence each other and so create more organizational
performance. A supportive supervisor is able to influence teams in organizations to collaborate more,
the support can have an influence on the level of team engagement. The results of this study can be
used as recommendations for focusing on teams, because when teams in organizations are used
promoting a team orientation will be efficient. Thus the findings notice organizations of the need to
take care of team resources (Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2012), positive consequences
regarding team levels can influence desired organizational outcomes, as organizational performance.
Dysvik and Kuvaas (2012) showed in their study that PSS was positively related to business-unit
performance. Their findings express the importance of shared perceptions of supportive leadership,
that is, supervisors who are collectively perceived as valuing employees’ contributions and being
concerned with the well-being of their employees. Accordingly, to foster PSS, organizations would
profit from being more selective when staffing supervisor positions with candidates honest interest in
people (Purcell, Kinnie, Swart, Rayton & Hutchinson, 2009). Supervisors have daily contact with
most employees, so they are able to convey positive valuations and caring. To foster a teams positive
outcomes, supervisors may exaggerate their positive valuation of their subordinates and their own role
in obtaining benefits for the employees, resulting in greater PSS (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Van den
Berghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002).
21
References
Applebaum E. & Blatt, R. (1994). The New American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research
and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24:4, 383-398.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F. & May, D.R. (2004). Unlocking the mask:
A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The
leadership quarterly, 15, 801-823. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003
Bakker, A.B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R.J. Burke & C.L. Cooper (eds.), The
peak performing organization.( 50-72). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. & Leiter, M.P. (2011): Key questions regarding work engagement.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20:1, 4-28.
Bakker, A.B. & Bal, M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting
teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands–resources model to
predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2005). The cross-over of burnout and work
engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58, 661-689.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B. & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). Work engagement and
financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost
engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(2), 274–284.
Bakker, A.B., van Emmerik, H. & Euwema, M.C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in
work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 4, 464-89.
22
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bates, S. (2004), Getting engaged, HR Magazine, 49 (2). 44-51.
Baumruk, R. (2004), The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success.
Workspan, 47, 48-52.
Becker, G. S., 1964. Human capital. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bhanthumnavin, D. (2003). Perceived social support from supervisor and group members’
psychological and situational characteristics as predictors of subordinate performance in Thai
work units. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 79–97.
Bhanthumnavin, D. & Vanintananda, N. (1997). Religious belief and practice Thai Buddhists:
Socialization and quality of life (research report). Bangkok: National Research Council of
Thailand.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bosma, N., Van Praag, M., Thurik, R. & De Wit, G. (2002). The value of human and social capital
investments for the business performance of startups. Tinbergen Institute Discussion
Paper,027, 3.
Burud, S., & Tumolo, M. (2004). Leveraging the new human capital: Adaptive strategies, results
achieved, and stories of transformation. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the
shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 3, 239-290. Doi:
10.1177/014920639702300303
Crabtree, S. (2005). Gallup study: Unhappy workers are unhealthy too. The Gallup Management
Journal. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://gmj.gallup.com/
Craig, E. & Silverstone. (2009). Tapping the power of collective engagement. Strategic HR Review, 9,
Doi: 10.1108/14754391011040019
23
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.
Journal of management, 31:874. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A, & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organization Management, 27, 324-351.
Davidsson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs.
Journal of Business Venturing 18, 3, 301-331.
Department of Trade and Industry. Employment Markets Analysis and Research et al. , Workplace
Employee Relations Survey, 2004: Cross-Section Survey, 2004 and Panel Survey, 1998-2004;
Wave 2 [computer file]. 4th Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor],
January 2008. SN: 5294 , http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5294-1
Dirks, K. T.,& Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611-628.
Dysvik, A. & Kuvaas, B. (2012). Perceived supervisor support climate, perceived investment in
employee development climate and business-unit performance. Human Resource
Management, 51, 5, 651-664. DOI:10.1002/hrm.21494
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L.,& Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived
supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention.
Journal of Applied Psychology,87: 565-573.
Ellis, C. M., & Sorensen, A. (2007). Assessing employing engagement: The key to improving
productivity. Perspectives, 15(1). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.sibson.com/
publications/perspectives/volume_15_issue_1/index.cfm
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), The race for talent: retaining and engaging
workers in the 21st century, Human Resource Planning, 27, 3, 12-25.
Fitz-enz, J. (2000). The ROI Human Capital: Measuring the Economic Value of Employee
Performance. New York: American Management Association.
24
Gallup Organization. (2003). Bringing work problems home. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved
August 9, 2007, from http://gmj.gallup.com/
Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee engagement: A review of current research and its implications. New
York: The Conference Board.
Guzzo, R.A. & Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent Research on Performance
and Effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338. Doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (2010), Work
engagement: The essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press, 102-117.
Harris, T.E. (1992). Toward effective employee involvement: An analysis of parallel and selfmanaging teams. Journal of Applied Business Research, 9, 1, 25-33.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-79.
Hogg, M.A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A. & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective
Leadership in Salient Groups: Revisiting Leader-Member Exchange Theory From the
Perspective of the Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personal Social Psychology, 31, 991.
Doi: 10.1177/0146167204273098
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudemonic well-being:
understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.
Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual
differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism–collectivism. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1140–1148.
Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be full there: psychological presence at work, Human Relations, 45, 321-49.
25
Koch, J. & McGrath, R.G. (1996). Improving Labor Productivity: Human Resource Management
Policies do Matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5, 335-354.
Kottke, J. L. & Sharafinski, C. E. 1988. Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support.
Educational& Psychological Measurement, 48: 1075-1079.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. J. W.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions, 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lau, R. S. M., & May, B. E. (1998). A win-win paradigm for quality of work life and business
performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 3, Doi: 211–226002E
Macy, B.A.& Izumi H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation: a meta-analysis
of 131 North American field studies—1961–1991. In W. Passmore & R. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Change and Development. 7:235–313. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Mayfield, J. R., Mayfield, M. R., & Kopf, J. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language on
subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37, 3–4, 235–248.
Mincer, J., 1974. Schooling, Experience and Earnings. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pallant, J. (2010) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for
Windows(4th ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: Open University Press
Pescosolido, A.T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly.
13, 583-599.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce: Workplace
flexibility and engagement. Community, Work & Family, 11, 2, 215-229.
Doi:10.1080/13668800802021906
Pugh, S. D., & Dietz, J. (2008). Employee engagement at the organizational level.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 44–47.
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Swart, J., Rayton, B., & Hutchinson, S. (2009). People management and
performance. London, UK: Routledge.
26
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan,
49, 36-9.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), Perceived organizational support: a review of the Literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization:
the contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 825-36.
Rhoades-Shanock, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2006). When Supervisors Feel Supported: Relationships
With Subordinates’ Perceived Supervisor Support, Perceived Organizational Support, and
Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 3, 689–695. Doi: 10.1037/00219010.91.3.689
Rothbard, N.P. (2001), Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-84.
Rutledge, T.(2006). Getting Engaged: The New Workplace Loyalty. Natcon papers
Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21,7, 600-619. Doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective
efficacy, subjective well–being and task performance among electronic work groups. Small
Group Research, 34, 43–73.
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M.J. & Martinez, I.M. (2010). Linking transformational
leadership to nurses’ extra-role behavior: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work
engagement. Journal of advanced nursing, 67, 10, 2256-2266. Doi: 10.1111/j.13652648.2011.05652.x
27
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., Xanthopoulou, D. & Bakker, A.B. (2010). The gain spiral of resources
and work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (eds.), Work Engagement: A Handbook
of Essential Theory and Research. New York: Psychology Press, 118-131.
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.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzáles-Romá, V. & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3,
71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2010). How to improve work engagement? In S. Albrecht (Ed.),
The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice . 399415. Northampton, MA: Edwin Elgar.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A. & De Jonge, J. (2001). Maakt arbeid
gezond? Op zoek naar de bevlogen werknemer. [Does work make one healthy? In search of
the engaged worker]. De Psycholoog, 36, 422-8.
Schultz, T., 1959. Investment in man: An economist's view. The Social Service Review, 33,2:69-75.
Slåtten, T. & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees: A
study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 21, 1, 88 – 107
Stewart, G.L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M.
Barrick & A.M. Ryan (Eds.). Personality and Work: Reconsidering the Role of Personality in
Organizations, 212-233. Jossey – Bass.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support
and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
251–270.
Swanson, R.A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organizations and
documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their
followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22,1, 121-131.
28
Torrente, P., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). From “I” to “We”: The factorial
validity of team work engagement scale. In S.P. Gonçalves & J.G. Neves (Eds.).
Occupational Health Psychology: From burnout to well-being, 334-355. Scientific &
Academic Publishing: USA.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or
fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 339–348.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J. & Avolio, B.J. (2010). Psychological
processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 21,
901-914. Doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.015
Wellins, R.,&Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a culture for engagement. Workforce Performance
Solutions (www.wpsmag.com). Retrieved July 19, 2005, from
www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf
West, B.J., Patera, J.L. & Carsten, M.K. (2009). Team level positivity: investigating positive
psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 2,
249-267. Doi: 10.1002/job.593.
Wollard, K.K. & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to Employee Engagement. A Structured Review of
the Literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 4, 429-446.
Doi: 10.1177/1523422311431220.
Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M. & De Menezes, M. (2012). Enriched job design, high
involvement management and organizational performance: the mediation roles of job
satisfaction and well-being. Human relations, 65, 419-445. Doi: 10.1177/0018726711432476.
29
Appendix 1
Factor analysis PSS
Component Matrix
a
Component
1
Thinking about the
managers at this workplace,
,901
to what extent do you
Thinking about the
managers at this workplace,
,898
to what extent do you
Thinking about the
managers at this workplace,
,880
to what extent do you
Thinking about the
managers at this workplace,
,873
to what extent do you
Thinking about the
managers at this workplace,
,796
to what extent do you
Thinking about the
managers at this workplace,
,778
to what extent do you
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
df
Sig.
,917
95471,399
15
,000
30
Appendix 2
Factor analysis team level engagement
Component Matrix
a
Component
1
To what extent do you agree
or disagree with the
,895
following statements
To what extent do you agree
or disagree with the
,887
following statements
To what extent do you agree
or disagree with the
,848
following statements
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
,721
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
28247,064
df
3
Sig.
,000
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues
Total
% of Variance
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Cumulative %
1
2,308
76,926
76,926
2
,410
13,665
90,592
3
,282
9,408
100,000
Total
2,308
% of Variance
76,926
Cumulative %
76,926
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
31