American Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 2016 Publish Date: Jul. 21, 2016 Pages: 129-135

Leadership Style and Employee Performance Through Mediating Role of Work Engagement

Muhammad Salman, Mula Nazar Khan*, Madiha Javaid,
Muhammad Naeem u din

Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan


The objective of the research is to realize the relationship between participative leadership style and employee performance through a mediating effect of work engagement. Using the information gathers through self-administered questionnaire from schools, colleges and Universities of Lahore. Results are exploited through SPSS version 16. Outcomes of the study reveals that a participative leadership style and employee performance have a strong relationship. Employee engages in work through participative leadership style. Research also indicates that work engagement has partial medication between PLS and Employee performance. Very first time the work done indicates the strong relationship of participative leadership style on the employee’s performance through the mediating effect of work engagement. Practical implication and future guidelines were also discussed in detail.


Work Engagement (WE), Participative Leadership Style (PTS), Employee Performance (EP), Mediating Effect

1. Introduction

Participative leadership style in leader establish encourage, delegate authority, and also completing organization goals and tasks in decision making (Dubrin, 2015). Individual participation in decision making process has positive association with personal satisfaction. The supervisor recognition boost employees pride, moral and matureness in work. This intensity refers to dedication one of the basic dimension of work engagement (Sarti, 2014). Participative leadership style promotes work engagement in employees and work engagement leads to employee’s performance (Harter et al., 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). A engaged employee in work tries to produced better output for company and also a key role in determination of employees performance (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2002) Lepine et al., (2005). Employee performance discusses as "an outcome achieved or accomplishment made at workplace" (Anitha, 2014). Employee’s performance associated with organization policies, performance of organization features and practice. Job demands and resources in organization with a mediating role of environment change improved employee’s efficiency (Danish, 2014). Hence, this study is price focus to measure the impact of participative leadership style on work engagement, which leads to employee’s performance. The literacy rate of developing countries are too low like Pakistan. The teacher’s performance is associated with development and growth of education sector (Akram, 2012). So researcher wants to identify and understand the determinants which influenced on performance of teacher (Aslam, 2011). Previous studies focus on employee’s performance with promotion and compensation (Akram, 2012; Shahzad, 2008). Pervious literature highlighted direct relationship with transactional leadership with employees performance (Danish, Nazir, Abbasi, & Hunbal, 2013; Paracha, Qamar, Mirza, Inam-ul-Hassan, & Waqas, 2010). In previous research asserts that participation in decision making enhance employees performance but this perspective is overlook in Pakistan (Sukirno & Siengthai, 2011). However, few researchers found that the indirect impact of participative leadership style with outcomes through moderating variable (Somech & Wenderow, 2006; Benoliel & Anit, 2012). There is an unattended area to address the indirect impact of participative leadership style with mediating variable.

Furthermore, in the current study there is prime focus on participative leadership style as an antecedent of work engagement for the achievement of employee’s performance in educational sector of Pakistan. Its finding provide a future implication for teachers and managers to boost the productivity and learning in their institution. On above mention discussion our focus is to investigate the impact of participative leadership style on employee performance through the mediation of employee engagement. A very few studies are test the indirect impact of Participative leadership style it also fills the gap as well.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Participative Leadership Style

Participative leadership Style explains as "a non-directive form of role-clarifying behavior which is gauged by the extent to which leaders allow subordinates to influence the decision by requesting input and contribution" (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000, p. 776). Stressful environment creates panic atmosphere which leads towards exhaustion, depression, loss of confidence and stress (Schat, 2005; Wang, 2005). So, healthy and happy employees are valuable asset of organization (Schaufeli, 2004). Therefore, previous studies asset that participative leadership style is a helpful to produce job satisfaction and job commitment among employees (Aryee & Chen, 2006) and outcomes is to provide opportunity to accomplish goals with working (Aryee & Chen, 2006; Taris, 2006).

The Path-goal theory (1994) explained that effective leaders helps and motivate their subordinates in decision making. It also argues that leader should focus on opinion, needs and environment of the subordinates (Lamb, 2013). A good manager adopt participative leadership style for work related policies (Bass, 1990). Participative leadership style is way to learning through feed-forwarding (Bucic, Robinson, & Ramburuth, 2010). Participative leadership style creates innovation and versatility in problem solving (Sarti, 2014). According to conceptual model, participation gives intrinsic and psychological empowerment in decision making which leads to effective performance (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jenning, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The finding of Latham et al., 1994 and (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) investigate the participative leadership style directly and indirectly effect the employee performance. In education sector participative leadership recognize new opportunities and challenges to combine, acquire and share knowledge (Edmonson, 1999). Participative leadership style constructs sense of responsibility, improved satisfaction, consensus, motivation for better performance (Wagner & MS, 2006; Watson, 2002) and lesson the barriers for innovation and for minimum social risk (West, 2002). Path-goal theory explained that participation in decision making express and propose new ideas and to accomplish the task. Previous studies assert that four factors have great importance in participative leadership style which are 1st is participation efforts, 2nd is valuable participation, 3rd is true dedication and 4th is power in decision making process (Sukrino & Siengthai, 2011). Moreover, participative leadership style give psychological empowerment, and motivation for better performance (Russ, 2011) Erez, 1993; Somech, 2005). On the basis of this theoretical argument researcher develop below relationship

H1: Participative leadership style has a significant impact on employee performance.

H2: There is a significant impact of participative leadership style on work engagement.

2.2. Work Engagement

According to the Schaufeli et al. (2002, p. 74) work engagement is "positive fulfilling work-related state of mind which is characterized by vigour, dedication and absorption". Therefore, work engagement is three dimensional model consist of dedication, vigor and absorption. Vigour signifies "a high level of energy and mental resilience at work and willingness to invest efforts in one’s work and persistence in the face of difficulties". Vigour promotes high motivation toward job (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2007). I always work and push myself for achieving the organization goals (Shuck & Reio, 2013 p. 423). Dedication is "a strong psychological involvement in one’s meaningful work by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride an challenge" (W. B. Schaufeli, Marisa Salanova, Gonz, Alez-Rom, & Bakker, 2002 p. 74). Absorption means, "Total concentration on the work being done as immersed in the work that ceases to time". Absorption skill is developed by perform challenging work (Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, & Randall, 2005; Gonza´lez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006). Organization and individual success depends upon engagement because its leads toward organization success, performance and outcomes. Employee engagement with full concentration gives positive results like job performance, OCB, employee performance, productivity, and efficient delivery (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Holbeche & Springett, 2003; Richman, 2006). Work engagement promotes loyalty, retention,builds reputation and satisfaction (Lockwood, 2007). Previous studies indicates that WE shows extra-role performance (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010). WE enhance creativity, mindfulness, motivation, authentication and ethical behavior (J. K. Harter et al., 2002). Customer loyalty is also positive association between work engagement and service climate (Salanova, Lorente, Chambel, & Martínez, 2011). Moreover, engagement construct to employee advocacy, well-being, success and productivity (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). On the basis of previous study findings researcher can easily conclude that work engagement is helpful in prediction job performance (Rich, 2010; Halbesleben, 2010).

H3: There is a significant impact of work engagement on employee performance.

2.3. Employee Performance

Employee Performance explained as "the level of productivity of an individual employee, relative to his or her peers, on several job-related behaviors and outcomes" (Babin, J, Boles, S., & 1998). Financial and non-financial indicators influence on job performance and ultimately linked with success of organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Employee performance was defined in Vroom’s Expectancy theory 1964, as "an individual motivate to achieve a particular goal or performance target can be obtained in terms of what outcome would become beneficial to the individual as result of achieving that goal and what value is placed on that outcome" (Banjoko, 2002). Motivation theories like Goal setting theory, McGregor’s X and Y explain the employee work behavior. Leaders participative behavior, work engagement and inspiration make a positive work in employee performance (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008; Sarti, 2014).

Work Engagement as Mediator between Participation Leadership and Employee Performance

By taking together the hypotheses H1,H2 and H3 it is indicated that work engagement mediates the relationship between participative leadership style and employee performance (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Participation in decision making is a key aspect which make employees to be engaged in work (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008; Sarti, 2014) and engagement leads to employee performance (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Holbeche & Springett, 2003; Richman, 2006). Previous literature indicate the mediation effect of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, Isabel, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014; J., 2014; Saks, 2006; W. B. Schaufeli & Bakker, 2005; Song, Kolb, Lee, & Kim, 2012). Moreover, Roberson and Strickland (2010) link charismatic leadership with organizational commitment. Keeping in view their study, this study also links participative leadership style and employee performance through work engagement.

H4: Work engagement mediates the relationship between participative leadership style and employee performance.

3. Methodology

Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Model.

3.1. Research Design

In current study the quantitative method is used with a self-administrative questionnaire with minimal interference of the researcher means that the current study was done in a natural environment. This study is a cross sectional study and correlational in nature. Keeping in view, the short time and limited resources non-probability sampling technique was used to collect the data. In non-probability sampling convenience sampling was used to investigate the relationship between participative leadership style and employee performance with a mediation of work engagement.

3.2. Sample Size

The targeted population of the study is the faculty members of the Schools, Colleges, and Universities of Lahore Punjab. The schools are selected on the affiliation of BISE Lahore. Furthermore, public sector universities are selected which are HEC recognized. The unit of analysis is individual faculty member. And private colleges are selected to address the unattended area. Each faculty member is considered as a source of data. The sample size of the study is 500.

3.3. Data Collection Instrument

The instrument was developed by adoptive method. The development of an instrument is segregate as Participative leadership style measure adopted from Ogbonno and Harris (2000). Work engagement instrument adopted from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Dimensions of work engagement is vigour, dedication and absorption. Employee performance scale was adopted from Teseema & Soeters in 2006. A self- administered questionnaire was adopted from previous studies to collect the data. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. In the first section the questions regarding employee performance, participative leadership and work engagement were asked. Second section of questionnaire was consist on demographics gender, name, age, institution, experience. Five point Likert scale was used having option as "1= strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree". The full and completed questionnaires for analysis are 384 means overall response rate is 60% consistent with previous studies (Danish, Ahmad, Ramzan, & Khan, 2014 )

3.4. Procedure and Statistical Methods

The data were analyzed through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. The descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, person correlation, regression analysis and mediating testing, was used through SPSS.

4. Findings and Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

In the current study the respondents a belongs to education sector in which 39% belongs to schools and 39% belongs to a colleague and 22% belongs to universities of Lahore. The majority of the respondents are female (N=260) and the male is 124. The Majority of respondents belong to 21-25 years age, which is 56% of the total participants. The 30% belongs to 25 to 30 years of age. The age of 9% respondents is 30 to 35 years and remaining are above 35 years. The Majority of the respondent’s qualification was master which is 53% of the total sample size. The 31% belongs to bachelors and the remaining are above masters. The respondents working at low level is 15%, the employees working at the middle level is 68% and 17% of respondents working at top level management is 17%. The majority of the participants experience is between 1 to 5 years, which is 81%. The working experience is 5 to 10 is 15.1% and the remaining are above 10 years.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Variables Mean Median Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Participative Leadership Style 3.5 3.6 .82 -.717 .794
Work Engagement 3.7 3.5 .58 -.700 1.007
Employee Performance 3.9 4 .66 -1.042 2.198

The data were normally distributed. The values of Skewness and kurtosis shows that the data was normally distributed. The Skewness and kurtosis values lie between -1 to +1 and -3 to 3+ respectively. Table 1 shows the values of mean, median, stranded deviation, Skewness and kurtosis. The value of mean shows 3.5, 3.7, 3.9 for PLS, WE, EP respectively. The value of median is 3.6 for participative leadership style, 3.5 for work engagement and 4 is for employee performance. Standard deviation shows.82,.58 and.66 for PLS, WE and EP respectively. The values of Skewness and kurtosis shows individually that the data is normally distributed.

4.2. Reliability & Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis shows that the variable are correlated or not with each other. The reliability explains the consistence and stability of the instrument. In the current study the overall reliability of the instrument is Cronback Alfa 0.851 in Table 2 factors vise reliability and Person correlation is shown

Table 2. Reliability and Correlation Analysis.

Variables Reliability Participative Leadership style Work Engagement Employee Performance
Participative Leadership Style 0.77 1    
Work Engagement 0.854 .309 ** 1  
Employee Performance 0.774 .357 ** .388 ** 1

According to George & Mallery (2003).851 is the overall reliability is good and reliability of each factor is also good as shown in the table for PLS is 0.77, WE has.85 and EP has a 0.77 reliability. Person correlation value of.309** show a positive relationship between work engagement and participative leadership style. Employee performance with person correlation value. 357** indicate a positive relationship between EP and PLS. Employee performance is also positive significant with a work engagement at. 388**.


Table 3. Regression Analysis.

Hypothesis R R2 Beta P value F
H1 0.267 0.072 .267 0.000 29.4
H2 0.40 .164 0.40 0.000 74.8
H3 .655 .430 .65 0.000 82
H4 0.057 0.43 0.43 0.00 Partially Mediate

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

In the current study the first hypothesis is a significant impact of participative leadership style on work engagement. The results indicate that the R2 is. 072 and p value is 0.000. The researcher concludes that there is a positive association of PLS on EP. So, researcher fail to accept the null hypothesis.

In 2nd hypothesis of the study work engagement has a significant impact on employee performance. The results assert that the R2 is.0164 and level of significance is 0.000>5. So, the researcher concludes that WE has significant impact on EP.

In the 3rd hypothesis of the study participative leadership style has a significant impact on employee performance. The R2 0.430 and p value 0.000>5 assert that there is a significant relationship of PLS and EP.

The Last hypothesis of this study is work engagement mediates the relationship between participative leadership style and employee performance. The values of hierarchal regression show that work engagement mediates the relationship of PLS and EP.

4.4. Mediating Testing

Figure 2. Proposed Mediation Model.

Firstly, regression is done by considering the PLS as dependent variable and EP as independent variable which shows positive relationship. In the 2nd step PLS is an independent and WE as dependent variable, and they show significant relationship. In the 3rd step WE regressed on EP shows significant results and at last hierarchical regression analysis was used, results assert that p value is 0.000 and R2 0.43 a positive relation. So the researcher concludes that work engagement shows partially mediation between PLS and EP.

Figure 3. Regression Coefficeient Among Variables.

5. Conclusion and Further Recommendation

Participative Leadership style indicates the performance of faculty members in the educational sector. The results reveal that participative leadership style is significant at P= 0.000>5 level of significance. Participative role of the leader motivate, inspire the employees in the decision making process. It also gives a physiologic empowerment to perform the work in an efficient way. This also gives consistent results that participation in decision making has greater impact on employee performance (Sarti, 2014; Danish, 2013). Participative leadership style also has a significant relationship with a work engagement at P=0.000 >5. The employees work with vigor, dedication, and absorption for achieving the goals. Employee performance is developed and enhance with work engagement (Anitha, 2013; Menguc & Seigyound; 2013). Work engagement partially mediates the relationship of participative leadership style and employee performance. This study added value in literature of Education sector of Pakistan. Leaders, managers of the company give a weightage of your employee voices and make a part of decision making improved performance, efficiency, boost up confidence, thinking new ideas and solved any problem with dynamic, versatile critical thinking.

6. Limitations and Future Direction

Data was collected from Lahore, Punjab for testing the hypothesis, Future researcher will do a comparative study by using mixed method. Future research will also test the impact of work engagement with family interference, autocratic, directive leadership style.


  1. Anitha. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-323.
  2. Aslam, H. D. (2011). Performance Evaluation of Teachers in Universities:Contemporary Issues and Challenges. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(2), 2-21.
  3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources Model: State Of The Art Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
  4. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 309-328.
  5. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Isabel, A., & Sanz-Vergel. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD–R Approach. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411.
  6. Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research. Psychology Press, Hove, 1-9.
  7. Bass, B. M. (1990). From Transactional to transformational Leadership:Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
  8. Bucic, T., Robinson, L., & Ramburuth, P. (2010). Effects of leadership style on team learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(4), 228-248.
  9. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
  10. Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jenning, K. R. (1988). Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.
  11. Danish, R. Q., Ahmad, F., Ramzan, S., & Khan, M. A. (2014 ). Determinants of Employee Engagement in Service Sector of Pakistan Universal Journal of Management, 2(2), 64-71.
  12. Danish, R. Q., Nazir, S., Abbasi, H., & Hunbal, H. (2013). Effect of Knowledge Sharing, Participative Decision Making and Transformational Leadership on Organizational Performance. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(10), 1339-1347.
  13. Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, E. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work engagement and job performance. work engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and research,Psychology Press / Ed. A.B. Bakker, M.P. Leiter. - Hove: Psychology Press, 2010. - ISBN 978-1-8416-9736-9, 147-163.
  14. Dubrin, A. (2015). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills: Nelson Education.
  15. Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow experiences at work: for high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 755–775.
  16. Gonza´lez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 165–174.
  17. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16, 250-279.
  18. Harter, K, J., Schmidt, L, F., Hayes, & L, T. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcome: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
  19. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
  20. Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2003). In Search of Meaning at Work. Horsham, Roffey Park Institute, ISBN: 0 907416527.
  21. J., A. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-323.
  22. Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects Of Leadership Style And Problem Structure On Work Group Process And Outcomes In An Electronic Meeting System Environment. Personnel Psychology, 50, 121-146.
  23. Lamb. (2013). How can Managers Use Participative Leadership Effectively? Retrieved March 17, 2014, from
  24. Lathan, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2004). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century Annual review of psychology, 56, 485-516.
  25. Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage:HR’s Strategic Role. HR Magazine, 52(3), 1-11.
  26. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
  27. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70 149–171.
  28. Nonaka, & Ikujiro. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation. Sloan Managemetn Review, 29(3), 9-19.
  29. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000, p.776). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766-788.
  30. Paracha, M. U., Qamar, A., Mirza, A., Inam-ul-Hassan, & Waqas, H. (2010). Impact of leadership style on employee performance and mediating role of job satisfaction study of private schools in Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(4), 54-65.
  31. Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1107-1121.
  32. Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49(1), 36-39.
  33. Robertson-Smith, G., & Markwick, C. (2009). Employee Engagement;A review of current thinking. Human Relations, 12(2), 210-218.
  34. Russ, T. L. (2011). Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for participative decision making Management Decision, 49(5), 823-836.
  35. S.Christian, M., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review work engagement and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
  36. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
  37. Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10), 2256–2266.
  38. Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116-131.
  39. Sarti, D. (2014). Leadership styles to engage employees: evidence from human service organizations in Italy. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 202-216.
  40. Schat. (2005). The Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ): Construct Validation of a Self-Report Scale of Somatic Symptoms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 363-381.
  41. Schaufeli. (2004). The future of occupational health psychology. Applied psychology: An international review, 53(4), 502-517.
  42. Schaufeli, & Bakker. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
  43. Schaufeli, W. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, & E. Soane
  44. (Eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
  45. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2005). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315
  46. Schaufeli, W. B., Marisa Salanova, Gonz, V., Alez-Rom, & Bakker, A. B. ( 2002 p. 74). The Measurement Of Engagement And Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
  47. Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2013 p. 423). The Employee Engagement Landscape and HRD,How Do We Link Theory and Scholarship to Current Practice? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 419-428
  48. Somech, A. (2006). The Effects of Leadership Style and Team Process on Performance and Innovation in Functionally Heterogeneous Teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132-157.
  49. Song, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees' work engagement. Human resource developement quarterly 23(1).
  50. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment In The Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement And Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
  51. Sukirno, D. S., & Siengthai, S. (2011). Does participative decision making affect lecturer performance in higher education? International Journal of Educational Management, 25(5), 494-508.
  52. Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extrarole behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3), 188-207.
  53. Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. work and stress, 20(3), 316-334.
  54. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An "Interpretive" Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.
  55. Wagner, & MS, S. E. (2006). Staff Retention: From "satisfied" to"engaged". Nursing Management, 37(3), 24-29.
  56. Wang, J. (2005). Work stress as a risk factor for major depressive episode(s). Psychological Medicine, 5, 865–871.
  57. Watson. (2002). Understanding the Factors That Influence Nurses’ Job Satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration, 32(5), 229-231.
  58. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200.

MA 02210, USA
AIS is an academia-oriented and non-commercial institute aiming at providing users with a way to quickly and easily get the academic and scientific information.
Copyright © 2014 - 2016 American Institute of Science except certain content provided by third parties.