Relationship Between Leadership Style and Employee Engagment

Relationship Between leading tendency and Employee EngagmentIntroductionOrganizational effectiveness is essential in todays fast development organizations where competitiveness is the main feature of the contemporary business. leading is the main deciding(prenominal) of organizational effectiveness and is the major identifier of an eng corned cypherforce. The most common lead look is the Traditional lead fashion which is administered in almost al wiz companies of the Petroleum Sector in Egypt with its public companies, joint companies and even subroutine of the investment companies, a leaders style enforcing the concepts of power and authority. The traditional leaders style aims to keep things the same and doesnt press the usage of the make use ofees that is not bug out of their labor interpretations and emerges as a result of personal choices.The star style applied in the oil companies ask to evolve from the traditional approach. It of necessity to apply lead ers styles where the leader is capable of transforming and developing his employees behaviors and benefiting from their efforts would reach positivist theatrical role to over whole organizational effectiveness. This should be through adopting an attitude that bides and sharpens need and performance of his followers allowing them to exceed their own expectations optimizing their performance to achieve such effectiveness.In somewhat cases, transactional leadership is administered where the leader promotes compliance of his followers through both rewards and penalisements and is not looking to change the afterlife. This type of leadership focuses on getting the work done by their followers. Transactional leadership works indoors the organization assimilation through management by exception to halt status quo and stress corrective actions to improve performance.Whereas, the transformational leadership changes the organization culture through its behaviors where the leader affects the followers sense of identity and motivation aiming to achieve performance beyond expectations and employee assignment hence contri excepting to the main target which is the organizational effectiveness. Leadership style is a strategic tool that needs to be practiced on a large span to project employee intimacy in order to comply with the surrounding dynamic environment. parameter of query ProblemThe leadership style administered in the Egyptian oil color companies is a traditional one enforcing the concepts of power and authority. This traditional style doesnt promote the net attitudes of the employees that ar not part of their job descriptions that emerge as a result of personal choices. The leadership behaviors need to evolve to support the behaviors of leaders who atomic number 18 capable of transforming and developing their employees behaviors and benefiting from their efforts would achieve positivistic contribution to overall organizational effectiveness.T hus, the problem of this study can be verbalize in the avocation statement What is the relationship betwixt the leadership style and employee bout?Research ObjectivesThe main inquiry objective is to investigate the leadership behaviors that are able to develop employees skirmish byAnalyzing the reality of petroleum companies (area of the study) regarding the leadership style used in these companies and whether it has a relationship with employee engagement or not.Using the appropriate behavioral methods to acquire and maintain employees engagement.Providing some recommendations to the responsible people in the petroleum companies regarding what should be done to enhance the relationship amid the employees and their supervisors or leaders that would be guiding for future studies on the effect of leadership behaviors both transactional and transformational on employee engagement.Research immensenessThe academic importanceThis search will be an assenting to the academic sear ch because thither is scarcity in the look topic, transactional and transformational leadership, and dealing with these leadership styles in the petroleum companies.The empirical importanceThe empirical importance of this question lies in providing the petroleum companies with the results and the recommendations of the query that can be implemented for maintaining employee engagement aiming to achieve organizational effectiveness.ConclusionTransactional and transformational leadership are considered contrasting leadership styles even though the leader whitethorn use both styles of leadership at different times and different situations. Transactional leadership is an exchange border where the leader exchanges rewards for efforts of the subordinates or followers and this in turn allows the leader to punish the subordinates or followers if the task is not accomplished. Whereas transformational leader encourages his followers to flummox decision, he empowers them and allows them to grow on the individual basis and also among teams by coaching and mentoring them.Transformational leadership and the reward approach of the transactional leadership have a positive influence on employee behaviors, emotions and performance. They have a positive wedge on organizational teams, organizational commitment, effectiveness and employees rejoicing in addition citizenship behaviors.For organizations to survive in the rapid competing world, they have to maintain an eng cured workforce. Employee engagement will result in uplifted levels of performance and low levels of turnover rate in organizations. Employee engagement eliminates job stress and is strategic tool leading to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, less turnover and organizational citizenship behaviors.As the literature review depicts that the study variables have been covered in many industries and countries some the world, yet it hasnt been given much consideration in the Arab world. This is why the investigator finds that it is a must to conduct this study in the petroleum sphere of influence where she works.Research Variables and Operationalization1. Research VariablesIndependent VariablesTransformational LeadershipTransactional Leadership capable VariablesEmployee conflict2. Variables OperationalizationIndependent VariablesThe leadership styles in this study transformational and transactional leadership, are unmistakable but dont replace each other as processes, and the same leader may use both types of leadership at different times in different situations. (Yukl 1998)The look forer chooses two of the leadership style for this study as followsTransformational Leadership attempts to create emotional links with its followers and inspires higher apprize (Bass, 1999). Transformational leadership meets the higher order needs of employees (Yusof and Shah, 2008).Also, transformational leadership refers to the leader motivation the follower beyond self-interests. It raises th e followers level of maturity and ideals for achievement and the eudaimonia of others, the organization and the society (Hakan 2008).Transactional Leadership places an emphasis on exchanging rewards for accomplishment (Burton and Peachey, 2009)Transactional leadership focuses mainly on the physical and the security needs of followers. The relationship that evolves amongst the leader and the follower is based on exchange and reward systems (Bass and Avolio, 1993).Dependent VariableEmployee work is the benefiting of organizational members themselves to their work roles in engagement, people employ and limited themselves physically, perceptually and emotionally during role performances (Kahn, 1990)Employee engagement refers to the individuals involvement and satisfaction as well as enthusiasm for work (Harter et al., 2002).Proposed Research mildewIndependent DependentEmployee EngagementTransactional LeadershipTransformational LeadershipResearch Hypotheses base on the previous mode l, we can develop the pursuance hypotheses that try to express the relationship betwixt study variablesH1 There is a iron akin positive world-shattering relationship between transactional leadership and employee engagement.H2 There is a strong positive significant relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.Source of Research Data (Sample)Primary selective informationThe look intoer dispassionate the primary data from the look for try on of 236 employees working in Suez Oil Company by employ 30 items questionnaire.Secondary dataSecondary data is collected from organizational records from the HR department in the come with.Research Variables InstrumentsIn this study, the questioner conducted the questionnaire based on two main seek instrumentsMultifactor Leadership QuestionnaireTransactional and transformational leadership was measured utilize 20 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X rater form) on a Likert 5 point scal e.The dowerys of leadership dimensions derived from the MLQ 5X rater form questionnaireTransactionalTransformationalUtrecht Work Engagement ScaleEmployee engagement was measured using 10 items from Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) on a Likert 5 point scale.Research creation and SamplePopulationThe population of present study is 1200 employees of Suez Oil Company, a petroleum company in the Egyptian petroleum sector.SampleThe present study precedent is a stratified random exemplification of 300 employees from all departments and job levels in the company.Statistical Methods/Techniques used in Data AnalysisCronbachs alphaSplit-halfT-Testanalysis of varianceScheffe TestCorrelationsRegression StepwiseResearch Results and Findings validness and reliablenessQuestionnaire rigorousnessIt means the ability of the questionnaire to measure what it is set for. dependableness of essential consentCalculation of correlation coefficients between each axis vertebra component phrases an d questionnaire axis add up smirchs.Calculation of correlation coefficients between questionnaire axis agree mark and questionnaire total mark.First Axis Transformational LeadershipValidity was cypher by using internal consistency through calculating the correlation coefficient (Person Correlation Coefficient) between each phrase mark and the axis mark (transactional leadership). The same is shown in the following knock back belowIt is unambiguous from the circumvent that all correlation coefficients are indicating importation at (0.05 0.01) that shows it is close to one which means that questionnaire phrases are valid and consistent.Second Axis Transformational LeadershipValidity was calculated by using internal consistency through using correlation coefficient (Person Correlation Coefficient) between each phrase mark and the axis mark (Transformational Leadership). The same is shown in the following put back belowIt is observable from the flurry that correlation coe fficients are significant at (0.05-0.01), thus indicating hardness and consistency of the questionnaire phrases.Third Axis Employee Engagement dependableness was calculated by using the internal consistency through calculating the correlation coefficient (Person correlation coefficient) between each phrase mark and the axis mark (Employee Engagement).The following turn off shows the same below.It is limpid from the put off that correlation coefficients are all indicating significance at (0.05-0.01) which shows it is close to one, thus indicating validity and consistency of the questionnaire phrases.Validity by using internal consistency between axis total mark and questionnaire total markValidity was calculated by using the internal consistency through calculating the correlation coefficient (Person Correlation Coefficient) between each axis total mark (transactional leadership-transformational leadership-employee engagement) and questionnaire total mark, the following get acro ss shows the same belowEmployee EngagementIt is evident from the board that correlation coefficients are all indicating significance at (0.01), thus indicating validity and consistency of the questionnaire phrases.ReliabilityReliability means accuracy of the test in measurement and observation, non-contradiction to oneself, its consistency and elaboration, thus providing us of information about the examined person behavior, and it is the ratio between the mark variance on the scale indicating the virtual performance of the examined person. Reliability was calculated throughCronbachs AlphaSplit-halfReliability of the whole questionnaireIt is evident from the in a higher place hold over that all reliability coefficients values Alpha and Split-half coefficients are indicating significance at (0.01) thus indicating the questionnaire reliability. translation of the StudyA comprehensive description of the study exemplification is shown in the following tabular arrays (from 6 to 9) an d charts (from 1to 4), as follows1 Gender control panel (6) and chart (1) show distribution of the look into smack agree to the sexual practice.statistical distribution of the look into draw back agree to the gender133 explore essay individuals are male at the percentage of 56.4%, whereas 103 investigate warning individuals are female at the percentage of 43.6%.2 Education control board (7) and chart (2) show distribution of the explore have tally to the education.Distribution of the seek savour according to the education126 individuals of the research strain are university full stops holders at the percentage of 53.4% followed by 71 individuals of research exemplar are high school security systems or less holders at the percentage of 30.1%, and the fit 39 individuals of the research taste are postgraduates at the percentage of 16.1%.3 AgeTable (8) and chart (3) show distribution of the research judge according to age.Distribution of the research warni ng according to age74 individuals of the research seek whose ages ranging between 30 and 39 old age at 31.4%, followed by 68 individuals whose ages ranging between 40 and 49 geezerhood at 28.8%, followed by 52 individuals whose ages were below 30 age at 22% and coming pull through 42 individuals aged 50 days and higher up at 17.8%.4 Years of experienceTable (9) and chart (4) show distribution of the research standard according to geezerhood of experience.Distribution of the research test according to years of experience78 individuals of the research warning whose number of years of experience ranging between 11 to 16 years at 33.1% , followed by 63 individuals whose number of years of experience was supra 16 years at 26.6% ,followed by 54 individuals whose number of years of experience ranging between 5 and 10 years at 22.9% , and the last 41 individuals with less than 5 years of experience at 17.4%.Description of Questionnaire answersBelow is a detailed discussion (in figures and percentages) of standard individuals answers of the phrases in the questionnaireTransactional Leadership1 Provides assistance in exchange for effortIt is evident from the get across that 55 individuals of research try on powerfully concord at 23.3%, whereas cx individuals of research savour concord at 46.6%, and 43 individuals of research ideal were immaterial at 18.2%, however, 28 individuals of research test disagree at 11.9%.2 Very clear on the reward if goals are achievedIt is evident from the circuit board that 115 individuals of research examine potently hold at 48.7%, whereas 78 individuals of research sample hold at 33.1%, and 32 individuals of research sample were unbiased at 13.6%, however, 11 individuals of research sample disagree at 4.7%.3 Express satisfaction when expectations are metIt is evident from the panel that 65 individuals of research sample powerfully concur at 27.5%, whereas 132 individuals of research sample concord at 55 .9% and 39 individuals of research sample were unbiassed at 16.5%.4 Concentrate attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failuresIt is evident from the table that 69 individuals of research sample potently agreed at 29.2%, whereas ci individuals of research sample agreed at 42.8%, and 31 individuals of research sample were indifferent at 13.1%, however, 25 individuals of research sample disagreed at 10.6% and last 10 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 4.2%.5 Keep hide of mistakesIt is evident from the table that 54 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 22.9%, whereas 85 individuals of research sample agreed at 36% and 41 individuals of research sample were neutral at 17.4%, yet, 34 individuals of research sample disagreed at 14.4%, and in the long run 22 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 9.3%.6 Takes corrective action on mistakesIt evident from the table that 105 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 4 4.5% ,whereas 80 individuals of research sample individuals of research sample agreed at 33.9% and individuals of research sample were neutral at 16.1% ,however,13 individuals of research sample disagreed at 5.55%.7 Fails to interfere when problems become seriousIt is evident from the table that 12 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 5.1%, whereas 43 individuals of research sample agreed at 18.2% and 37 individuals of research sample were neutral at 15.7%, yet, 63 individuals of research sample disagreed at 26.7%, and in conclusion 81 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 34.3%.8 If it isnt broken dont fix itIt is evident from the table that 34 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 15.3%, whereas 87 individuals of research sample agreed at 36.9% and 44 individuals of research sample were neutral at 18.6%, yet, 60 individuals of research sample disagreed at 25.4%, and finally 9 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.8%.9 Wa its for things to go wrong before taking actionIt is evident from the table that 16 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 6.8%, whereas 65 individuals of research sample agreed at 27.5% and 34 individuals of research sample were neutral at 14.4%, yet, 72 individuals of research sample disagreed at 30.5%, and finally 49 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 20.8%.Transformational Leadership10 Goes beyond self -interest for the good of othersIt is evident from the table that 43 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 18.2%, whereas 129 individuals of research sample agreed at 54.7% and 33 individuals of research sample were neutral at 13.9%, yet, 17 individuals of research sample disagreed at 7.2%, and finally 14 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 5.9%.11 Admired, respected and trustedIt is evident from the table that 122 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 51.7%, whereas 73 individuals of research sample agreed at 30.9% and 41 individuals of research sample were neutral at 17.4%.12 Display sense of power and confidence, willing to take riskIt is evident from the table that 45 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 19.1%, whereas 64 individuals of research sample agreed at 27.1% and 81 individuals of research sample were neutral at 34.3%, yet, 11 individuals of research sample disagreed at 4.7%, and finally 35 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 14.8%.13 Talks about values and beliefsIt is evident from the table that 101 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 42.8%, whereas 74 individuals of research sample agreed at 31.4% and 40 individuals of research sample were neutral at 16.9%, yet, 21 individuals of research sample disagreed at 8.9%.14 Talks optimistically about the futureIt is evident from the table that snow individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 42.4%, whereas 81 individuals of research sample agreed at 34.4% and 55 individuals of research sample were neutral at 23.3%.15 Motivate and inspire people aroundIt is evident from the table that 99 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 41.9%, whereas 106 individuals of research sample agreed at 44.9% and 21 individuals of research sample were neutral at 18.9%, yet, 10 individuals of research sample disagreed at 4.2%16 No public criticismIt is evident from the table that 52 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 22%, whereas 71 individuals of research sample agreed at 30.1% and 44 individuals of research sample were neutral at 18.6%, yet, 39 individuals of research sample disagreed at 16.5%, and finally 30 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 12.7%.17 Spends time coaching, mentoring and directionIt is evident from the table that 98 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 41.5%, whereas 46 individuals of research sample agreed at 19.5% and 42 individuals of research sample were neutral at 17.8%, yet, 31 individuals of research sample disagreed at 13.1%, and finally 19 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 8.1%.18 Considers every employee as having different needs, aspiration and abilitiesIt is evident from the table that 84 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 35.6%, whereas 64 individuals of research sample agreed at 27.1% and 52 individuals of research sample were neutral at 22%, yet, 23 individuals of research sample disagreed at 9.7%, and finally 13 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 5.5%.19 Develops employees into LeadersIt is evident from the table that 83 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 35.2%, whereas 99 individuals of research sample agreed at 41.9% and 38 individuals of research sample were neutral at 16.1%, yet, 16 individuals of research sample disagreed at 6.8%20 Interaction with employees are personalizedIt is evident from the table that 64 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 27.1%, whereas 70 individ uals of research sample agreed at 29.7% and 57 individuals of research sample were neutral at 24.2%, yet, 36 individuals of research sample disagreed at 15.3%, and finally 9 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.8%.Employee Engagement1 At my work, I feel bursting with energyIt is evident from the table that 69 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 29.2%, whereas 101 individuals of research sample agreed at 42.8% and 49 individuals of research sample were neutral at 20.8%, yet, 17 individuals of research sample disagreed at 7.2%.2 I find the work that I do full of moment and purposeIt is evident from the table that 71 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 30.1%, whereas 82 individuals of research sample agreed at 34.7% and 46 individuals of research sample were neutral at 19.5%, yet, 29 individuals of research sample disagreed at 12.3%, and finally 8 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.4%.3 Time flies when Im workingIt i s evident from the table that 88 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 37.3%, whereas 73 individuals of research sample agreed at 30.9% and 22 individuals of research sample were neutral at 9.3%, yet, 39 individuals of research sample disagreed at 16.5%, and finally 14 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 5.9%.4 When I am working, I forget everything else around meIt is evident from the table that 67 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 28.4%, whereas 108 individuals of research sample agreed at 45.8% and 37 individuals of research sample were neutral at 15.7%, yet, 24 individuals of research sample disagreed at 10.2%.5 My job inspires meIt is evident from the table that 58 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 24.6%, whereas 93 individuals of research sample agreed at 39.4% and 39 individuals of research sample were neutral at 16.5%, yet, 30 individuals of research sample disagreed at 12.7%, and finally 16 individuals of resear ch sample strongly disagreed at 6.8%.6 When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to workIt is evident from the table that 81 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 34.3%, whereas 84 individuals of research sample agreed at 35.6% and 41 individuals of research sample were neutral at 17.4%, yet, 21 individuals of research sample disagreed at 8.9%, and finally 9 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.8%.7 I am proud of the work that I doIt is evident from the table that 82 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 34.7%, whereas 94 individuals of research sample agreed at 39.8% and 60 individuals of research sample were neutral at 25.4%.8 I can continue working for very long periods at a timeIt is evident from the table that 64 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 27.1%, whereas 86 individuals of research sample agreed at 36.4% and 43 individuals of research sample were neutral at 18.2%, yet, 25 individuals of research sample dis agreed at 10.6%, and finally 18 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 7.6%.9 To me, my job is challengingIt is evident from the table that 100 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 42.4%, whereas 79 individuals of research sample agreed at 33.5% and 34 individuals of research sample were neutral at 14.4%, yet, 13 individuals of research sample disagreed at 5.5%, and finally 10 individuals of research sample strongly disagreed at 4.2%.10 I get carried away when Im workingIt is evident from the table that 83 individuals of research sample strongly agreed at 35.2%, whereas 103 individuals of research sample agreed at 43.6% and 50 individuals of research sample were neutral at 21.2%.Hypotheses interrogatoryThere is a correlation between transactional leadership and employee engagement and a correlation between transformational leadership and employee engagementTo test the developed hypotheses, a Pearson correlation method is used for figuring out the relati onship between the study variables. The obtained results can be shown in the following tableTable (10) correlation matrix among transactional leadership, transformational leadership and employee engagementEmployee Engagement0.831**Transactional Leadership0.924**Transformational Leadership** p = 0.01Table (10) shows a positive correlation among transactional leadership, transformational leadership and employee engagement at significance of (0.01) function. In other words, the cleanse the transactional leadership learning is the better the employee engagement which supports H1and the better the transformational leadership perception is the better the employee engagement which supports H2.Demographic AnalysisTransactional Leadership and DemographicsThere are differences of statistical character between the sample individuals label average in transactional leadership according to the study demographics.T-Test was applied and the sample individuals marks were calculated by ANOVA in the transactional leadership, the following tables show the same belowChart (5) differences in the sample individuals marks average in transactional leadership according to the genderTable (11) and Chart (5) show that T value was (20.931 ),it is a value statistically indicating significance at (0.01 ) in privilege of females, as females marks average was ( 39.019 ) , whereas males marks average was ( 21.451 ), that means that females consider transactional leadership better than males.TotalTable (12) shows that F value was ( 31.402 ) which is a statistically indicating significance at ( 0.01 ), that means that there are differences among the sample individuals in transactional leadership according to education. To verify the direction of the indication, Scheffe Test was applied for multiple comparisons. The following table shows the same belowTable (13) and chart (6) show no differences in transactional leadership between post graduate studies holders and university tier holders, whereas there are differences between post graduate studies holders and high school credential or less holders in favor of post graduate studies holders significant at ( 0.01 ). There are also differences between university degree holders and high school certificate or less holders in favor of university degree holders significant at ( 0.01 ), whereas the average of marks of post graduate studies holders and university degree holders was (35.205) and (34.515) respectively, followed by high school certificate or less holders sample individuals at the average of ( 16.197 ) , post graduate studies holders and university degree holders came first as they had better perception of transactional leadership , while high school certificate or less holders came second.It is evident from table (14) that the value of T was ( 39.670 ) , it is a value indicating statistically significant at ( 0.01 ), thus indicating the differences among sample individuals according to age. To define the functio n direction, Scheffe Test was applied for multiple comparisons .The following table shows the same below.Chart (7) differences of sample marks in transactional leadership according to ageTable (15) and chart (7) show that there are differences in transactional leadership between sample individuals aged 50 years and in a higher place and sample individuals aged 40-49 years ,30-39 years and those below 30 years in favor of the sample individuals aged 50 years and above with significance at (0.01), whereas there are differences between sample individuals aged 40-49 and sample individuals aged 30-39 in favor of sample individuals aged 40-49 years with significance at (0.05), whereas there are differences between sample individuals aged 40-49 and sample individuals aged below 30 years in favor of the first with significance at (0.01), whereas there are differences between sample individuals aged 30-39 years and sample individuals aged below 30 years in favor of the first with significan ce at (0.01).The average marks of the sample individuals aged 50 years and above were (42.000), followed by the sample individuals aged 40-49 at the average of (32.441) ,followed by sample individuals aged 30-39 at the average of (29.540) ,and sample individuals aged below 30 years at the