Examining the Relationships Between Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Employee Engagement During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Moderating Effect of Employee Generations

Christopher Lee, C.; Lim, Hyoun Sook

doi:10.2478/sbe-2024-0007

Abstract

This study examines the effects of various dimensions of transformational (i.e., charismatic leadership, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individual consideration) and transactional (i.e., contingent reward, and active management by exception) leadership on employee engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, this study explored moderating effects of generational differences (including Generation Z, Generation Y, Generation X) on the relationships between leadership and employee engagement. Based on a sample of 546 employees of three different generations, the findings of the multiple regression analysis showed mixed findngs. Implications and future directions for this study were discussed.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arnold, K. A., Loughlin, C., & Walsh, M. M. (2016). Transformational leadership in an extreme context: Examining gender, individual consideration and self-sacrifice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(6), 774–788.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arora, N., & Dhole, V. (2019). Generation y perspective, engagement, expectations, preferences and satisfactions from workplace; a study conducted in Indian context. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(5), 1378–1404.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, M. B. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire third edition: Manual and sampler set. Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Babcock-Roberson, M., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–26.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bako, M. (2018). Different leadership style choices, different generations. Prizren Social Science Journal, 2(2), 127–143.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire for research. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Basu, M., & Mukherjee, K. (2019). Transformational leadership: A contextual evaluation of gender and perception. Adhyayan: A Journal of Management Sciences, 9(1), 52–64.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bolkan, S. (2015). Intellectually stimulating students’ intrinsic motivation: The mediating influence of affective learning and student engagement. Communication Reports 28(2), 80–91.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. The British Psychology Society, 87(1), 138–157.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brown, O., Shallcross, D., & Stuebs, M. (2019). What it takes for accounting firms to recruit Gen Z: Organizational culture and opportunities for career growth are the top factors today’s students seek in an employer. Journal of Accountancy, 228(6), 37.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bru, E., Virtanen, T., Kjetilstad, V., & Niemiec, C.P. (2021). Gender differences in the strength of association between perceived support from teachers and student engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(1), 153–168.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burke, R. J. (1994). Generation X: Measures, sex, and age differences. Psychological Reports, 74, 555–562.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Deichmann, D., & Stam, D. (2015). Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership to cultivate the generation of organization-focused Ideas. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 204–219.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dhopade, P. (2016). Support Generation Z. Benefits Canada, 40(2), 22–23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Douglas, S., & Roberts, R. (2020). Employee Age and the Impact on Work Engagement. Strategic HR Review, 19(5), 209–213.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Edgar, S. (2015). Identifying the influence of gender on motivation and engagement levels in student physiotherapists. Medical Teacher, 37(4), 348–353.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D.T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students’ motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Computers & Education, 75, 136–148.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Geue, P. E. (2018). Positive practices in the workplace: Impact on team climate, work engagement, and task performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 272–301.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(6), 532–550.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hansen, A., Byrne, Z., & Kiersch, C. (2014). Increasing employee engagement: The role of interpersonal leadership. Strategic Direction, 31(2), 34–36.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heffner, A. L., & Antaramian, S. P. (2016). The role of life satisfaction in predicting student engagement and achievement. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1681–1701.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hernandez-Bark, A. S., Escartin, J., Schuh, S. C., & Van Dick, R., (2016). Who leads more and why? A mediation model from gender to leadership role occupancy. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 473–483.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Islam, N., Furuoka, F., & Idris, A. (2021). Employee engagement and organizational change initiatives Does transformational leadership, valence, and trust make a difference? Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 40(3), 50–62.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kasasa (2020). Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z explained. Retrieved April August 28, 2020 from https://www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kleinaltenkamp, M., Karpen, I., Plewa, C., Jaakkola, E., Conduit, J. (2019). Collective engagement in organizational settings. Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 11–23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kolodinsky, R. W., Ritchie, W. J., & Kuna, W. A. (2018). Meaningful engagement: Impacts of a ‘calling’ work orientation and perceived leadership support. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(3), 406–423.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Age-based faultlines and perceived productive energy: The moderation of transformational leadership. Small Group Leadership, 41(5), 593–620.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, C. C., Aravamudhan, V., Roback, T., Lim, H. S., & Ruane, S. G. (2021). Factors impacting work engagement of Gen Z employees: A regression analysis. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 18(3), 147–159.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li, Y., Castano, G., & Li, Y. (2018). Linking Leadership Style to Work Engagement. Chinese Management Studies, 12(2), 433–452.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martin, J. (2015). Transformational and transactional leadership: An exploration of gender, experience, and institution type. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 15(2), 331–351.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nienaber, H., & Martins, N. (2020). Exploratory study: Determine which dimensions enhance the levels of employee engagement to improve organizational effectiveness. TQM Journal, 32(3), 475–495.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prochazka, J., Gilova, H., & Vaculik, M. (2017). The relationship between transformational leadership and engagement: Self-efficacy as a mediator. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2), 22–33.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Putriastuti, B. C. K., & Stasi, A. (2019). How to lead the millennials: A review of 5 major leadership theory groups. Journal of Leadership in Organizations, 1(2), 96–111.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Salas-Vallina, A., & Fernandez, R. (2017). The HRM-performance relationship revisited. Employee Relations, 39(5), 626–642.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader values and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist-manager Journal, 10(1), 47–74.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review, 61(3), 5–18.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social an intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117–1142.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang, C. C., Hsieh, H. H., & Wang, Y. D. (2020). Abusive supervision and employee engagement and satisfaction: The mediating role of employee silence. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1845–1858.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang, C. C., Hsieh, H., & Wang, Y. d. (2020). Abusive supervision and employee engagement and satisfaction: The mediating role of employee silence. Personnel review, 49(9), 1845–1858.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Sauser Jr., W. I. (2014). How distinct is servant leadership theory? empirical comparisons with competing theories. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(1), 11–25.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wolfram, H. J., & Gratton, L. (2014). Gender role self-concept, categorical gender, and transactional-transformational leadership: Implications for perceived workgroup performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(4), 338–353.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wu, H., Li, S., Zheng, J., Guo, J. (2020) Medical students’ motivation and academic performance: The mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning engagement. Medical Education Online, 25(1), 1–7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Xu, L., Du, J., Lei, X., & Hipel, K. W. (2020) Effect of locus control on innovative behavior among new generation employees: A moderated mediation model. Social behavior & personality: An international journal, 48(10), 1–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yoerger, M., Crowe, J., & Allen, J. A. (2015). Participate or else!: The effect of participation in decision-making in meetings on employee engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 67(1), 65–80.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhang, T., Avery, G. C., Bergsteiner, H., & More, E. (2014). The relationship between leadership paradigms and employee engagement. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 4–21.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Examining the Relationships Between Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Employee Engagement During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Moderating Effect of Employee Generations

Abstract

Paradigm

My account