“The Effect of Employee Engagement Drivers on the Organizational Change Management Process and the Mediating Role of Transformational Leadership”

Muhammad Anwer*1, Dr.Hong SHEN1, Zaheer Abbas2, Farhan Azmat Mir3
“The Effect of Employee Engagement Drivers

This paper aims to model the dynamic relationship between employee engagement drivers and organizational change management process and also evaluate the role of transformational leadership as a mediating variable. We assume that there is a positive relationship between employee engagement drivers and the change management process and the transformational leadership will strengthens this relationship. Survey data was collected from respondents employed at the banking and textile sectors of Pakistan through self-administered questionnaire. 280 questionnaires were distributed among the employees working in different cities of Pakistan and 170 participants returned back the feedback.   Results indicated that Employee Engagement Drivers have a significant relationship on OCB with particularly “Environment and Culture and Role of Communication” having a positive and significant impact. Transformational Leadership has shown a slight positive effect on the relationship between employee engagement and organization change process. A variation was also observed in responses from different management levels. The study is cross-sectional and uses self-reported data. Other moderating factors could exist such as LMX (Leader Member Exchange) and most of the conceptual underpinnings for this study came from research carried out in textile and banking sectors and more work could be done in public sector of Pakistan Managers in Pakistani industries should carefully design employee engagement practices to enable purposeful organizational change. More over as people resist change due to different factors, transformational leadership inspires people to move towards the change by clarifying the benefits. Thus, organizations that wish to improve employee engagement should focus on employee’s perceptions about support they receive from their organizations and leaders. A rare study in Pakistan using multiple dimensions and could provide useful insights from the selective industries. Hopefully the research will generate important vision in the context of management and leadership implications.
Keywords: Employee Engagement Drivers, Transformational Leadership, Organizational Change Management Process, Regression Analysis.

Employee engagement Drivers are critical for business success in today’s competitive marketplace because Employee Engagement is not affected by signal factor many factor included in this term as Job/individual characteristics, Management Support, Reward and Recognition, Environment/Culture and Communication. These factors have impact on the employee engagement. Research shows that when the surrounding are right, when the leader are inspirational, when the individual find their support from management and the absolute place in which to relate their strengths.(Pauken 2008) enhancing engagement in a long term. The engagement concept put forward by Kahn (1990, 1992) is of an integrated, profound, and purposeful use of a person’s whole self in his or her role performance. This overlaps with other concepts that depict a cognitive, affective, and behavioral connection of the individual employee with the role and organization. Accordingly, some researchers propose that other psychological concepts that connect employees with their work are also part of engagement. Research topic encircled about the effect of employee engagement on the organizational change management process and the mediating role of transformational leadership for change management and relationship between these variables. In Pakistan organizational change process in public sector is slow as compared to private sector because of low intentions towards change by organization’s top management and employees as well. The structure of the government organizations is bureaucratic and it doesn’t supports employee engagement. The focus is on traditional management practices rather than to inject leadership essentials. Private sectors is also dependent on  its structure, flexible structure engage employees and works on constant change as they think change is necessary to avoid derail in the rivalry. The Multinational working in Pakistan as facing global competition strongly focuses on leadership and employee engagement to bring change in the organization. The change may be minor or major, technological or in the process, people or in the practices, but they make strategies on continuous basis to adopt new changes. In international context introduction of new technologies, world standards, benchmarks, innovations, reductions in product life cycle, diminishing international boundaries, abundance of information to customers, flexibility in international and country laws of trade let organization on the track of continuous change. People resist changes due to many risks involved, leadership can influence the people and can led them to towards change.
The results of this study suggest that employee engagement is a meaningful construct that is worthy of future research. There are several avenues to consider. One area would be to investigate other potential predictors of job and organization engagement. The present study included a number of factors associated with engagement models. However, there are other variables that might also be important for both job and organization engagement. For example, human resource practices such as flexible work arrangements, training programs, and incentive compensation might also be important for engagement. Importance of studying employee engagement and its effect on the organizational change management process and also the role of transformational leadership is according to my understanding. These are as follow
Employee engagement will help us to determine the role of any employee in the organizational change   management process.
How we can improve transformational leadership activities to enhance the organizational change management process.
What factor affects more on employee engagement to enhance the performance of organization?
Employee engagement is an affective-motivational, work-related state of fulfillment in employees that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Engaged employees have high levels of energy, are enthusiastic about their work, and they are often fully immersed in their job so that time flies (Macey and Schneider, 2008; May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004). Research has shown that the concept of employee   engagement can be reliably measured (Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova,2006), and that it can be discriminated from related concepts like work holism (Schaufeli, Taris, and Van Rhenen, 2008),job involvement, and organizational commitment (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006). Importantly, recent studies have indicated that engagement related positively to organizational change management (Salanova, Agut, and Peiró, 2005).Harter, et al meta-analysis (2002) report that employee engagement is positively associated with customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, productivity, and profitability, and negatively associated with employee turnover.
Transformational leadership behaviors include articulating and presenting a clear vision, displaying charisma, motivating employees through inspiration and intellectual stimulation derived from exposing them to new and complex ways of thinking, and being considerate of their individual needs and desires (Podsakoff et al. 1990). Transformational leadership may also reduce stress experienced by individuals through its impact on mentoring functions (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Transformational leadership style places great importance on organizational change management processes, such as empowering followers and helping them become autonomous and competent individuals who reach self-actualization and high levels of morality; it regards these processes as critical for distinguishing transformational leadership from other forms of leadership (Burns, 1978). Indeed, these change processes were described as being ‘‘at the heart of transformational leadership theory’’ (Bass, 1997). Pertinent to the developmental processes between leaders and followers, Shamir et al. (1993) suggested a self-concept motivational theory to explain the process by which charismatic leader behaviors cause transformational effects on followers. They argued that charismatic leaders motivate followers by implicating the followers’ self-concepts, for example, by increasing the intrinsic valence of effort and goal accomplishment, and by creating personal commitment.
Research indicates that numerous variables have an impact on a leader’s effectiveness. This study explores the behaviors associated with leadership effectiveness in driving change management process. The findings confirm previous research that identifies change effectiveness skills, while isolating the specific leader behaviors deemed most valuable to implementing change motivation and communication.
2:- Hypothesis and Conceptual frame work.
2.1 Employee engagement drivers
Employee engagement Drivers are critical for business success in today’s competitive marketplace because Employee Engagement is not affected by signal factor many factor included in this term as Job/individual characteristics, Management Support, Reward and Recognition, Environment/Culture and Communication. These factors have impact on the employee engagement. Research shows that when the surrounding are right, when the leader are inspirational, when the individual find their support from management and the absolute place in which to relate their strengths.(Pauken 2008) enhancing engagement in a long term. Although there is little empirical research on the factors that predict employee engagement, it is possible to identify a number of potential antecedents from Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al.’s (2001) model. While the antecedents might differ for job and organization engagement, identical hypotheses are made for both types of engagement given the lack of previous research and this being the first study to examine both job and organization engagement.
2.1.1 Job Characteristics (JC)
Sense of return on investments is involved in psychological meaningfulness of the self-in-role performances (Kahn, 1992). According to Kahn (1990,1992), psychological meaningfulness can be accomplished from challenging work provided through task characteristics, personal direction, variety, allow the use of different skills, and the opportunity to make essential contributions. This is based on Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics model and in particular, the five core job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). The thing that brings people to be more willing and engage in work is to be high in core job characteristics that provide more intrinsic and extrinsic incentives to individual (Kahn, 1992). May et al. (2004) found that “job enrichment was positively related to meaningfulness and meaningfulness mediated the relationship between job enrichment and engagement” The control and workload conditions from the Maslach et al. (2001) model also put forward the significance of job characteristics for engagement. In fact job characteristics, specifically autonomy and feedback, have been constantly related to stress (Maslach et al., 2001). From a SET perspective, one can argue that with challenging and enriched jobs provided to employee will feel gratified to react with advanced levels of engagement. Vigor means the level of the mental resilience and energy while at work, determination in the face of complications and willingness to devote energy in one’s work. Dedication means an inspiration, a sense of meaning, pride, enthusiasm and challenge. Absorption refers the state of deeply absorbed in one’s work and being fully focused, whereby others focus to pass time quickly and has difficulties in detaching oneself from work. Previous research literature detailed that certain job characteristics are linked with employee engagement. Specially, employees with more control more autonomy both reports advanced levels of engagement (Hallberg et al, 2006; Salanova et al.2005). Therefore, we can hypothesize that
  • H1a Job Characteristic has positive impact on Change Management Process.
  • H1b Job Characteristic has positive impact on Change Management Process which then would influence employee engagement

2.1.2 Rewards and Recognition (RP)
Kahn (1990) stated that people differ in their engagement as a benefit they receive from the function of their perceptions from a role. Furthermore, in addition to meaningful work a sense of return on efforts and commitment can come from external rewards and intrinsic like recognition. Therefore, one might believe to the extent that employees perceive a better amount of rewards and self-recognition for their role performances that employees’ are more likely to engage themselves in their work. Maslach et al. (2001) have stated that while a lack of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards can lead employees to burnout, suitable rewards are significant for engagement. In relations of SET, when employees get recognition and rewards from their organization, they feel appreciative and respond with higher levels of engagement.
Rewards both intrinsic and extrinsic will be positively associated to
(1) Employee engagement
(2) Organization engagement. Therefore, we can hypothesize that
H2a Reward and Recognition have positive impact on Change Management Process.
H2b Reward and Recognition have positive impact on Change Management Process. Which then would influence employee engagement.

2.2.3 Perceived Organizational and Supervisor Support(Management Support) (MS)
Psychological safety includes an intelligence to show and employ the self of being able without adverse consequences (Kahn, 1992).A key aspect of safety stems from the amount of support and cares that employees ‘perceive to be delivered by their organization and their direct supervisor. In fact, Kahn (1990) found that compassionate, trusting, supportive management and supportive interpersonal relationships are factors that promoted psychological safety. Organizational members sensed safe in work environments that were considered supportive, open and flexible. Supportive environments let members to research and try new things in new ways and even fail without fear of the penalties and concerns (Kahn, 1990).  Kahn’s model, May et al. (2004) empirical test also found that supportive and flexible supervisor relations was positively associated to psychological safety.
Two variables that are likely to know the importance of social support is perceived supervisor support (P.S.S) and perceived organizational support (P.O.S). Perceived OS refers to a general belief that they work is meaningful to organization and they have worth and care in organization (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). SET is the premise of organizational support research. In Specifically, P.O.S creates an obligation towards employees to feel and care about the organization’s wellbeing and to support the organization to reach its goals (Rhoades et al., 2001). POS has been found to be linked to a number of positive outcomes (e.g. performance, job satisfaction and commitment) (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002) but no preceding study has linked it with employee engagement. But it is probable that Perceived Organizational Support might lead to positive outcomes is through employee engagement. In other words, employee might become more engaged to their job and organization that have higher POS as slice of the reciprocity norm of SET in order to reach objectives by helping the organization (Rhoades et al., 2001).when employees have faith that their organization is anxious about them and cares about their health and safety, they are more likely to respond by making an effort to fulfill their obligations of themselves towards organization by becoming more engaged. This is because employees tend to view their immediate supervisor’s attention toward them as indicative of the organization’s support (Rhoades et al, 2002), Perceived Supervisor Support is also an important interpreter of employee engagement. The fact is, a lack of support from supervisors has been found an important factor related to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001).Especially First-line supervisors play an important role in building engagement as well as cause of employee disengagement (Bates, 2004; Frank et al,2004). Finally, given that the antecedents are expected to predict engagement and engagement predicts the outcomes, it is more likely that engagement mediates the relationship between the consequences and antecedents. The consistent result with the Maslach et al. (2001) model and is  likely given most of the antecedents(e.g. justice perceptions, POS, job characteristics) have been related with numerous work outcomes. Furthermore, several studies have found that engagement mediates the relationship between outcomes and antecedent variables (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003). Therefore, we can hypothesize that
  • H3a Management Support has positive impact on Change Management Process.
  • H3a Management Support has positive impact on Change Management Process. Which then would influence employee engagement.
2.2.4 Communication. (COM)
Most researches had noted that there is a need for clarification and communication of organizational goals and objectives among all employees for better engagement. Supporting this view, CIPD (2006) survey reported that the two most significant driver of employee engagement are having opportunities to have their voice held and feeling well informed about what is going on in the organization. Communication also encompasses that employee receives feedback about their performance. Communication system help employee to do better work,(Connie Triller2011) and also play  effective role in job completion. Communication serves a crucial role in getting employee to feel part of the organization and get deep buy-in into the vision, mission, and goal of the organization. In the absence of consistent communication, employees become concerned about the future of the organization and start thinking about leaving (Wilson 2009).
Durkin (2007:31) suggest that organizations should establish their purposes and values, then clearly share them with all employees. Purposes refer to the reason the organization exists, and was created in the first place. Ideally, this should go beyond just making a profit.(Dobni, Ritchie et al.2000). Therefore, we can hypothesize that
  • H4a Communication has positive impact on the Change Management Process.
  • Communication has positive impact on the Change Management Process. Which then would influence employee engagement.
2.2.5 Environment and Culture (EC)
The environment at workplace leaves great impact on employee productivity, employee morale, and engagement in both way negatively and positively. The environment at organizational workplace in a majority of industry is risky and unhealthy. These includes ill designed workstation, inappropriate furniture, absence of ventilation, inappropriate lighting, un wanted noise, inadequate safety measures in  fire emergencies and also lack of personal protective equipment’s. Working poorly managed environment is reason to occupational disease and has impact on employee’s performance and satisfaction. Productivity as it is related with satisfaction of environment is also decreased due to workplace environment. The quality of the workplace environment impacts on the level of motivation and performance of employees.(Biswas and Varma)how well they involve within organization, specifically with their work environment, impacts to a great degree their mistake rate, innovation level and association with other employees in organization. Absenteeism and turnover, how long employee stays on the job. Maintaining a suitable work environment in which employee are productive is vital to increased profits for organization and tool of work, an integral part of work itself is workplace. The management that needs to know how exactly to increase employee productivity is centered on two main areas of focus: Infrastructure of the work environment and personal motivation (Wilson2009). Work place environment have greater influence on the performance of employee, management must promise satisfactory physical working condition in the organization because better condition lead to higher performance and commitment to organization (Orpen1997). Therefore, we can hypothesize that
  • H5a Environment and Culture have positive impact on the Change Management.
  • H5b Environment and Culture have positive impact on the Change Management. Which then would influence employee engagement.
2.2 Change management process
Definitions of changes management are as diverse as the challenges clients may be faced with given today’s ever evolving business environment characterized by rapid rates of change, uncertainty, and complexity. Change management is the systematic approach and application of knowledge, tools and resources to leverage the benefits of changes, managing an as is process or function moving towards a better or more efficient process or function in hopes to positively impact performance. In order to achieve desirable utility change must be effective, successful and most importantly sustainable. Change management entails thoughtful planning, sensitive implementation, and consultation with and involvement of the people affected by a specific change. Increasingly, change management is seen as a permanent business function to improve productivity and profits by keeping organizations adaptable to the competitive marketplace. Change must be realistic, achievable and measurable.
2.2.1 Planning and Initiation (PI)
It is important as the starting point of a change effort to highlight the idea for what needs to be changed or what new product should be introduced or what particular innovation might bring a significant lead over competitors. A source for ideas for improving the origination can arise through creative tension (Senge, 1990), Senge noted that creative tension evolves from clearly seeing where we want to be, our vision, and telling the truth about where we are note, our current reality. The gap between the two generates a natural tension. In an interview (Tichy and Charan, 1989), Jack Welch similarly notes a key characteristic of any leader is to fists face reality. There is a key distinction between leading a change effort around ideas developed through creative tension s opposed to implementing fixes to current organizational problems when one focuses on problem solving, the energy to change comes from the desire to escape and unpleasant status quo. With creative tension, the energy for the change comes from the vision, of what one wants to crate, juxtaposed with the current reality. With problem solving, the energy of the change diminishes as the problems become less pressing and the situation is improved. Senge notes that the energy for change that drives the problem saving process is extrinsic because it represents a way to escape from the status quo. Change driven by creative tension tends to be intrinsic. The extrinsic/intrinsic orientation can have a significant impact on the consequences of the change effort. In the context of a learning organization, extrinsic motivation for change produces adaptive learning, whereas change driven by creative tension yields generative or new learning. Recognizing change (the need for the idea or, and the context thereof) is just the first step.  Change strategists are responsible for the initial work: Identifying the need for change, creating a vision of the desired outcome, deciding what change is feasible, and choosing who should sponsor and defend it. The vision creation assists in the formation of creative tension that can yield generative learning. Change implementers are the ones who make it happen. Their task is to help shape, enable, orchestrate and facilitate successful progress. Change recipients represent the largest group of people that must adapt to the change. In the case of a new product development, the end use is also a recipient who must be convinced that the targeted audiences, the initiative is dead before it even begins. Both change strategists and implementers must implicitly understand how the organization functions in its environment, how it operates, and what its strengths and weakness are. Such understanding will assist in develop on alternative scenarios that could be created by the proposed changes. This will facilitate crafting an effective implementation plan. As part of this analysis, change masters need also study the company’s history with previous change. Although failures of the organization in implementing previous change efforts do not forever doom an organization to future failure, Dalziel and Schoonover (1988) suggest that these patterns of resistance are likely to be repeated. In such situations, a gradual nonthreatening, and more participative process is advocated to break the failure syndrome.
When developing a plan for implementation, one must tailor the approach to the frame of reference (FOR) of the individual participants. A change will require the efforts of people at many levels in the company with many diverse roles. Each person will have their own FOR that will affect how resistant or open to the effort they will be. Some of the basic farming methods to consider are the hammer, the carrot, the challenge and the prestige (often useful with researchers). In all instance, creating the implementation plan is very much like planting sees in a garden. Groundwork needs to be done to discover what seeds will be most fruitful or whether the ground needs to be broken apart forcefully (the hammer) before anything will take root and grow. Many times, the approach also depends on the needed speed of implementation. Short term pressures usually involve the hammer, but this does not win people for a long term project. Listening to and actively seeking the involvement of the recipients of the change will prove fruitful in performing many of the later steps in the process. Getting people to see a future return on their personal investments today (carrot) is a successful method in long term projects. FOR involves more than just deciding ‘Pay me now or pay me later’. Rather, the proper balance must be reached between the use of power to ensure order compliance and the use of time to build commitment.
2.2.2 Implementation.
It has been observed that the change is perceived as being positive or negative doesn’t matter. Resistance is emerged because due to change status quo is effected that’s is great risk for employees because they can lose their current positions and powers if they were unable to learn about the change It is unknown what change will bring even though the idea behind is for the betterment and this ambiguity leads to stress to people. To deal with resistance, advantages and disadvantages many communication and motivational strategies can be found in Kotter and Schlesinger (1979).They advocate the use of, surveys, suggestions and focus groups to bring the problems of resistance to the management. How the situation is enclosed is directly related to change efforts through resistance (Gabarro and Kotter, 1993). Organization must deal with Resistance because it is a natural emotion and in case of avoidance it may raise major issues. Hultman (1979) said that “without resistance to change, we are skeptical of real change occurring. Without real questioning, skepticism, and even outright resistance, it is unlikely that the organization will successfully move on to the productive stage of learning how to make the new structure effective and useful”. Implementing change his model consisting of ten steps, Jick (1991a) makes the comment that, in large scale change, in creating the corporate vision, leader plays a critical role. The leader inspires the people to move in direction of vision and makes an organizational structure that consistently rewards people by focusing on the effort of people to pursue towards vision. In  5th step of the model, deals with supporting role of a solid leader, Jick proceeds the opinion similar to the one learned in the change process. Team can be wisely assembled to exploit that suitable skill sets. Review of Belington’s (1997) the team literature found that there are three core elements of an effective team: Common purpose, Commitment and competence. Commitment means the attainment of particular performance goals. Team members Core competencies are a critical factor of how active a team can be. The teams that are best invest their time and effort to agree on purpose and explore that is to be internalized both collectively and individually. As an agent of change an effective team must be self-energetic and motivated. Skills diversity and drive that is to be internalized both collectively and individually. Diversity of skills and views makes a strong team as long as all share and articulate the vision. (Katzenbach and Smith 1993).
2.2.3 Control and feedback.
No other model of the change process directly dales with the process of generating a set of lessons learn through reflection. At the root of lessons learned is reflection. Reflection is a personal cognitive activity that requires stepping back form an experience to think carefully and persistently about its meaning through the creation of inferences (Baird et al, 1997; Kleiner and Roth, 1997; Seibert, 1999), brings to light insights and learning themes (concepts) by directing and duding changes strategists and implementers to think actively about the learning that is going on during the change process itself. Reflection then connects leaning directly to job performance and yields more relevant personal learning. Reflections are an extremely powerful way to learn from experience. It is a major component of individual leaning, and individual learning is the building block for organizational learning. At the heart of the reflection process is the use of carefully thought out trigger questions. Research has shown that people are generally poor reflectors unless provided with questions about their experience as stimuli (Seibert and Daudelin, 1999). Researcher has shown that people are generally poor reflectors unless provided with questions about their experience as stimuli (Seibert et al, 1999). Expectations have shifted from seeing change as an extraordinary event to seeing it as a permanent condition of business life. Similarly, change management is increasingly perceived as an ongoing business function rather that a focused response to an occasional need for reorganization. Change management is becoming institutionalizes in various ways, having a dedicated change management function within an organization (typically with in HR), dedication and commitment to develop in tools for planning and implementation, focused communication efforts directed at facilitation change, reorientation of corporate culture toward flexibility and agility with regard to change.
2.4 Transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership could be potentially effective across a variety of situations, though certain contextual factors like structure of the organization could facilitate the emergence and impact of transformational leadership (Shamir and Howell, 1999). Leaders who are generally more transformational have been found to be more effective than less transformational leaders in situations involving change (Heroldet al. 2008).Transformational leadership increases employees' job satisfaction which contributes in gaining more loyal and committed employees (Shim et al., 2002; Nguniet al., 2006; Chen et al., 2009).
2.4.1 Idealized influence. (II)
Idealized influence refers to behaviors like showing that benefits of the group are more important than benefits of the individual, demonstrating high ethical norms, and being a role model for the subordinates (Bono and Judge, 2004). Inspirational motivation and idealized influence together are also called “charisma”. Charismatic leaders have a positive influence on their subordinates and can change the self-focus of the employees to a collective focus (Yorges, Weiss, and Strickland, 1999). As a result, subordinates become more involved with the vision of the leader and are willing to make sacrifices for that vision (House and Howell, 1992).Leaders are admired, respected, and trusted. Followers identify with and want to emulate their leaders. Among the things the leader does to earn credit with followers is to consider followers’ needs over his or her own needs. The leader acts as a role model, shares risks with followers and behaves in a manner consistent to articulated ethics, principles and values. Transformational leadership strengthens the common identity of work groups (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004; Kark, Shamir et al, 2003). A common identity may stimulate followers’ team spirit and helpfulness (helping behavior). Moreover, by identifying with both organizational goals and their team followers may engage in higher levels of sportsmanship.
2.4.2 Inspirational motivation. (IMP)
By providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work, leaders motivate their followers. Furthermore, leader’s encourage followers to envision attractive future states. Individual and team spirit is aroused, since leaders display enthusiasm and optimism. Inspirational motivation focuses on the communication of an appealing vision of the future and the use of symbols to articulate this vision (den Hartog et al., 1997). In other words, the supervisor is optimistic and enthusiastic about the future (Bono et al, 2004). Transformational leadership seems particularly promising to enhance followers’ motivation to engage in debate despite of these risks. First, by individualized consideration, the transformational leader strengthens followers ’individual self-efficacy and self-confidence (Avolio et al, 1998).Transformational leadership strengthens the common identity of work groups (Dionne,Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004; Kark,Shamir et al, 2003). A common identity may stimulate followers’ team spirit and helpfulness (helping behavior). Moreover, by identifying with both organizational goals and their team followers may engage in higher levels of sportsmanship. They align the objectives and goals of individual followers and the larger organization (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 3) and provide the follower with support, mentoring and coaching. Bass (1985) identified four components of transformational leadership.
2.4.3 Intellectual stimulation (IS)
Intellectual stimulation which means that the supervisor challenges the subordinate to see problems from a different perspectives. In this way, the supervisor makes the workers active thinkers within the organization and consequently, the employees become more involved with the organization. (Maria Tims , Arnold B. Bakker, DespoinaXanthopoulo). Leaders motivate followers by questioning assumptions, analyzing problems and approaching to solutions in new ways. There is no ridicule or public criticism of follower’ mistakes (Bass et al, 1994).Followers highly identify with organizational goals, they will be motivated to engage in a(heated) controversial discussion and to accept the transaction costs (i.e., time and effort)(Gebert, 2004) A common identity, enhanced by transformational leadership (see above), raises the probability that the subordinates interpret the situation within the group as cooperative instead of competitive and that trust between the followers increases. In such a climate, expressing divergent ideas and questioning other peoples’ opinions do not fear of a controversial discussion may be bring out a high risk, so that the followers’ reduced (Simons and Peterson, 2000).
2.4.5 Individualized consideration. (IC)
Leaders pay devotion to each individual’s need for accomplishment and development by performing role as a mentor or coach. Followers are successfully developed to higher levels of potential. New learning opportunities are offered and individual differences in terms of needs and desires are taken into account. Transformational leaders are assumed to stimulate followers to perform beyond the level of expectations” (Bass, 1985).Therefore, it seems likely that transformational leaders, by stimulating follower’s organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff et al., 1990), enhance quality and quantity of follower performance. A transformational leader provides meaning, and thereby makes followers identify with the respective goals and problems (Shamir et al, 1993). If the team leader communicates and continually reiterates the team objectives in an inspiring way, these objectives may become the basis of a shared social identity (Tajfel, 1981) Individual consideration, refers to coaching, supporting and stimulating subordinates. The supervisor acknowledges followers' feelings and emotions and their need to grow and develop themselves (denHartog et al., 1997). Employees are seen as unique individuals who need specific, individual attention that is congruent with the developmental phase they are in (Avolio et al, 1995).

The study was descriptive in nature as it collects numerical data by means of cross-sectional survey technique. The variables for the research were acknowledged from the objectives developed for the study along with the supports from the literature review on the topic of interest.
3.1 The instrument development
The survey instrument used in this study was a four-page questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of two parts. In the first part, the participants were asked about their demographics and general idea regarding research topic. Final Part consists of questions related to the employee engagement drivers, change management process and transformational leadership. The wording of each part of the questionnaire was closely examined so as to make sure clarity and ease of use.
3.2 Constructs’ reliability and validity
Appropriate tests were performed to check the adequacy of constructs in terms of reliability and validity. The scales have been found to display adequate reliability and validity. The internal reliability of the items was verified by computing the Cronbach’s alpha.
3.3 Sampling and data collection
The sampling frame for this study was based on the employee occupation level, A sample size of 280 was selected across whole of the Pakistan out of which 171 responses were received with response rate of 60%. The profile of respondents along with different characteristics is mentioned in the Table in descriptive statistics section. The sampling technique I have chosen is “Simple Random Sampling”   as it trend to eliminate bias in the results and simplify the analysis procedure. Moreover, variations in population are also exhibited in the sample. Questionnaire was distributed across various industries (Services and Manufacturing) in Pakistan to get a comprehensive view across respondents of different demographics.  The organizations were located in different cities of Pakistan that were selected. Cities include Gilgit Baltistan, Islamabad, Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, Karachi and   turbat (Baluchistan). These are metropolitan cities were selected to better represent the population.
3.4 Hypotheses testing      
Multiple linear regression technique was used to measure the predictive power of each independent variable on respective dependent variables. However, before proceeding with regression analysis, we checked the reliability test for internal validity and the value of Cronbach’s Alpha  is 0.905 which is highly reliable and shows good results
Results and discussion
4.1 Profile of consumers’ demographics
Total 280 questionnaires administered, out of 171 were returned for analysis within a period of 6 weeks. A total of 171 responses were then retained for data analysis through SPSS 17®. Among 171 fulfilled questionnaires, 92.4% percent of were male and 7.6% percent were female.
Majority of the participants had ‘Master’s degree followed by those who had Bachelors’. slightest number of participants were Intermediate’ because our key apprehension was with management representatives.
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis shows the relationship between dependent variables with one or more independent variables. This analysis also indicates how the value of dependent variables change when variation occurs in any other independent variable.
To analysis the relation among factors we used correlation analysis. The relations among different factors are revealed in above table. The table shows that communication has significant p (.000) correlation with job and individual characteristics, management support, reward and recognition and environment and culture. Management support also has positive relation with individual and job characteristics having p (.000) valve.  On the other hand Reward and recognition also shows positive relation with management support, job and individual characteristics having with p (.000) value. We can see that Environment and culture also shows positive relation with job and individual characteristics, management support and reward and recognition having p (.000) value. The correlation results also show that individual characteristics have positive significant relation with individual characteristics. These values designate that all these factors have imperative involvement on employee engagement and also considerable collision on organizational change management process.
Analysis of variance only suggests that at least two of the group have statistically significant different means. Multiple Comparisons are conducted to find the difference between different groups from each other. The Tukey post-hoc test is conducted in a one-way ANOVA to find the difference between the groups. Analysis of variance and Tukey post-hoc test is conducted on Change management process, Transformational Leadership and Employee engagement. Post hoc test on overall change management shows that middle manager and lower manager have different level of overall change management as p-value is less than 0.05, however top manger and middle manager have same level of overall change management as p-value is larger than 0.05. Similarly top manager and lower manger also have same level of overall change management level as p value is greater than 0.05.
The second table about Transformation Leadership effect on each level of management style as a dependent variable. As for result shows there were statistically significant in between top to low managers with p value= (0.025). In transformational leadership there were significant exist in between Middle to Low manager with p value= (0.041) but there were no significant exist in between Top to Middle managers with p value= (0.350). The last table was regarding Employee Engagement Driver’s effect on the management style. As for results concerns there were a statistically significant in between Top to Middle manager with p value=(0.015)and also significant exist in between Middle to Low managers with p value=(0.01)  but Employee Engagement has highly significant on overall drivers in between Top to Lower managers with p value=(0.000).
The effect of overall Transformational leadership and overall employee engagement is observed on overall. Results shows that overall transformational leadership and employee engagement explains about 47% of the variation in dependent variable.
Results also shows that overall transformational leadership and overall employee engagement have statistically significant effect on dependent variable. This effect is positive.
The effect of overall transformational leadership on dependent variable is about 0.3 and effect of overall employee engagement is about 0.475 on dependent variable.
Finding and Conclusion
The purpose of this research is to test a model of employee engagement in order to ascertain the influence of individual factors of employee engagement on organizational change management process using the measures of employee engagement drivers (Job and Individual Characteristics, Management Support, Reward and Recognition, Environment/Culture and Communication) as the mediating variables and the social exchange theory as the theoretical underpinning.
In addition, the findings of this study supported that social exchange theory (SET) can be used as a theoretical framework in understanding the construct of employee engagement. This means that the employees who have perceived support from the leaders and management are more likely to reciprocate with greater level job engagement and organizational change management; employees who are provided with adequate development (training, skills and learning) are more likely to be more engaged in their job role and organization roles; and would repay with greater organization change management. Thus, engaged employees have positive behaviors, attitudes, intentions derived from a high level mutual relationship with their leaders and their organization.
On the basis of empirical results we found that our independent variables (Employee Engagement Drivers) are inter related with the organizational change management process and transformational leadership and also show highly significant relationship with each them. We have found that in our research if environment/culture and communication of the organization is tremendous then the employee engagement will increased with the organizational change management process. Change management process have negative effects on job/individual characteristics, management support, reward and recognition. Transformational leadership (individualized influence, inspired motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration) support also having essential role in the employee engagement and its positive effect on the organizational change management process. Results also shows that overall transformational leadership and overall employee engagement have statistically significant effect on dependent variable…. This effect is positive.
The effect of overall transformational leadership on dependent variable is about 0.3 and effect of overall employee engagement is about 0.475 on dependent variable. We predicted that a transformational leadership style would enhance work engagement through the mediation of self-efficacy at the management level (top, Middle and lower level). In line with earlier studies that found that a transformational supervisor may enhance employees' self efficacy beliefs, we expected that transformational leaders, by increasing followers' confidence in their abilities to attain difficult goals would enhance followers' work engagement. Transformational leaders allow themselves to be guided by broader values like equality and change-oriented values like an exciting life. According to the sobel test results that there is significant evidence that Transformational Leadership has shown significant mediation between Engagement Drivers and Change Management Process.
Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe’s (2008) study shows that transformational leadership behaviors are associated with more positive attitudes from employees. The leadership scales in their research are predominantly relationship-oriented, for example showing genuine concern, and acting with integrity, although task-oriented behaviors are also present, such as resolving complex problems, and focusing effort. Their results suggest that various relationship and task-oriented leader behaviors are associated with engagement.
Finally, the results of this study suggest that employee engagement can be understood in terms of SET. That is, employees who perceive higher organizational/management support are more likely to reciprocate with greater levels of engagement in their job and in the organizational change management process; employees who are provided with jobs that are high on the job characteristics are more likely to reciprocate with greater job engagement; and employees who have higher perceptions of procedural justice and leading clearly are more likely to reciprocate with greater organization engagement. Engaged employees are also more likely to have a high-quality relationship with their employer leading them to also have more positive attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.
The results of this study should be considered in light of its limitations. Similar to other studies in this area. This study used cross-sectional and self-report data. Research was also limited to the reviewed business, for that some sectors are chosen and conducted in Pakistan we acknowledge that our sample was derived from only two different sectors of manufacturing and services concerned, which limits the generalizability of our results However, note that the sample was not strictly homogeneous since participants were working in three different divisions, and had various job positions and tasks.
Suggestions for future research:
Our study confirms the link between role of leadership and employee engagement. Employee engagement is, in turn, associated with positive organizational change process. More evidence is needed that links leader ‘role, employee engagement, and organizational change management process in a single study. Longitudinal data would be particularly useful in this regard, to explore causality in the leadership-engagement relationship. Additionally, there is a need to assess whether leadership development programs are effective in improving organizational change process via employee engagement.
In line with previous research, we found that being in a leadership position was associated with higher levels of engagement. More research is needed to understand why leaders have higher engagement levels, for example looking at job characteristics and social networks of leaders versus followers to assess the most important contributors. From a practical perspective, it may be possible to make use of some of these factors to promote engagement among other employees. For instance, if inclusion in social networks is key in making work meaningful or providing a safe environment for engagement then more emphasis can be placed on supporting employees in building their networks, for example through organization-supported special Interest groups or mentoring.
In summary, although the definition and meaning of engagement in the practitioner literature often overlaps with other constructs, in the academic literature it has been defined as a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance. Furthermore, engagement is distinguishable from several related constructs, most notably organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job involvement. This research confirms that leadership behaviors (supports team, performs effectively, and displays integrity) are positively associated with followers’ engagement, with leadership behaviors focused on supporting and developing the team being the strongest unique predictor of engagement among followers. Holding a leadership position was also associated with higher engagement and positive result on organizational change management process. These findings are in line with earlier research, and support the link between the behavior of leaders and the willingness of employees under their guidance to fully engage in their work roles. Research findings also confirms that if environment and culture of the organization is well fine then employee engagement will increased with organizational change management process.
We also conclude that multiple changes occurring in society and the business world have created a greater need for transformational leaders. The re­sults indicate that transformational leadership is strongly and positively correlated with perceived effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort, and is strongly and negatively correlated with intention to quit.
Finally research  have found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement well-being that was mediated or partially mediated by the meaning found in organizational change management process.
Implications for practice:
1: The results of this study also have some practical implications. First, POS (perceived organizational support) was the only significant predictor of both job and organization engagement. Interestingly, this is the one predecessor variable in the study where SET has been used to explain employee attitudes and behavior. In the context of this study, it would appear that the caring and concern associated with POS creates a sense of obligation on the part of employees who respond with greater levels of job and organization engagement. Thus, organizations that desire to improve employee engagement should focus on employees’ perceptions of the support they receive from their organization. Organizational programs that address employees’ needs and concerns (e.g. surveys, focus groups, and suggestion programs) and demonstrate caring and support (e.g. flexible work arrangements) might cause employees to respond with higher levels of engagement.
Second, an important practical implication for managers is the need for them to understand the significance of social exchange for employee engagement. In particular, managers need to provide employees with resources and benefits that will compel them to reciprocate in kind with higher levels of engagement. Although the results of this study highlight the importance of job characteristics and social support, there might be other factors that are more important for different employees.
2:  Finally, managers should understand that employee engagement is a long-term and on-going process that requires continued interactions over time in order to generate obligations and a state of reciprocal interdependence. In addition, engagement needs to be viewed as a broad organizational and cultural strategy that involves all levels of the organization a series of actions and steps that require the input and involvement of organizational members and consistent, continuous, and clear communications. On the basis of the findings, this study urges managers to focus on how employees perceive the benefits of their present position as frontline employees. Specifically, managers ought to encourage their employees to perceive their job as a resource for status enhancement.
In order to quantity of variables, we adopted our research questions from deferent sources and materials. These links are as follow with cross pounding variables.
We measured Job and individual Characteristics as key engagement drivers using six items from USAID (2009) a survey on employee engagement and Jame K. Harter et al.1990, 3003. Similarly we measured Management Support adopted three items from USAID (2009) and Karen Wilson, 2009 survey on employee engagement. Reward and Recognition one of the widely discussed engagement driver was measured using three items from Devin Edward Flesch, 2007 (2, an evaluation of the effectiveness of change management models utilized by organizations. As for measuring purpose of Environment/Culture and Communication we adopted six items from USAID (2009), James K. Harter et al.2003 and Karen Wilson, 2009 survey on employee engagement and International Mapping of Knowledge Sharing Excellence Questionnaire having Cronbach’s Alpha value .871.
We measure Planning and Initiation on Change Management Process by adopted four items from David H, Maister, 2006 Prosci’s change management planning check list and Devin Edward Flesch, 2007 an evaluation of the effectiveness of change management models utilized by organization.As well as measurement of  Implementation we adopted four items from Devin Edward Flesch, 2007.Finally we measure Control and Feedback  by adopted four items from David H, Maister,2006, Devin Edward Flesch 2007, and Health Care improvement project  having Cronbach’s Alpha value .861.
We measure dimensions of Transformational Leadership (Individual Influence, Inspired Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration) by adopted twelve items from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) having Cronbach’s Alpha value .871.All these results are affirmative.
Cronbach’s Alpha should greater than 0.5 for the acceptability of the data .In the above given table the value of Cronbach’s Alpha is greater then 0.5 and the value is 0.905 which is highly reliable and shows good results.
Its describes the main features of collection of data. This statistics provide the summary about the sample and measurement.

  • Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, J., 2003. Leadership in public sector organizations.
In: Storey, J. (Ed.), Current Issues in Leadership & Management Development.
Routledge, London, pp. 225e248 (chapter13).
  • Altounyan, C., 2003. R.W.Revans (1907e2003) at: http://www.library.salford.ac.uk/
  • Bell, M., Coen, E., Coyne-Nevin, A., Egenton, R., Ellis, A., Moran, L., 2007. Experiences of an action learning set. Pract. Dev. Health Care 6 (4), 232e241.
  • Brook, C., 2010. Action learning in health care. In: Dilworth, R.L., Boshyk, Y. (Eds.),
Action Learning and its Application. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp. 3e14
(Chapter 1).
  • Baird, L. Henderson, J.C. and Watts, S. (1997) “Learning from Action: An Analysis of the Center
  • Burns, J.M. (1978) , Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY
  • Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional transformational leadership paradigm transcend
  • Bass, B. M., &Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
  • Bates, S. (2004), “Getting engaged”, HR Magazine, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 44-51.
  • Christiansen, A., Prescott, T., Ball, J., 2012. Learning in action: developing safety
improvement capabilities though action learning. Nurse Educ. Today 34 (2),
  • Currie, K., Biggam, J., Palmer, J., Corcoran, T., 2012. Participants’ engagement with
and reactions to the use of on-line action learning sets to support advanced nursing role development. Nurse Educ. Today 32 (3), 267e272.
  • Curtis, E.A., Sheerin, F.A., de Vries, J., 2011. Developing leadership in nursing: the
impact of education and training. Br. J. Nurs. 20 (6), 344e352.
  • Chen, L. (2004). Examining the effect of organizational culture and leadership behaviors on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan. The journal of American Academy of Business, 432-438.
  • Dinkin, D.R., Frederick, S.L., 2013. Action-learning projects used in public health
leadership institutes. Leadersh. Health Serv. 26 (1), 7e19.
  • Douglas, S., Machin, T., 2004. A model for setting up interdisciplinary collaborative
working in groups: lessons form an experience of action learning. J. Psychiatr.
Ment. Health Nurs. 11, 189e193.
  • Dalziel, M., & Schoonover, S. (1988). Changing ways: A practical tool for implementing change within organizations. NY: American Management Association.
  • Den Hartog, A. P., & Van Vliet, W. (1997). U.S. Patent No. 5,635,145. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of organizational change management, 17(2), 177-193.
  • Francis, Lord, 2013. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public
Inquiry. The Stationary Office, London.
  • Gentle, P., 2010. The influence on an action learning set of affective and organizational
cultural factors. Action Learn. Res. Pract. 7 (1), 17e28.
  • Great Britain, 2012. Health and Care Bill. The Stationary Office, London.
  • Garbarro,J.J.andKotter,J.P(1993 )”HBR Classic- Managing your Boss’,Harvard Business Rewiew, 72(3),150-157.
  • Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction.
  • Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  • Hallberg, U. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Same but different: can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?”, European Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 119-27.
  • Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?”, European Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-27.
  • Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?”, European Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-27.
  • 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, Vol. 87, pp. 268-79.
  • House, R. J. (1992). Charismatic leadership in service-producing organizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3(2), 5-16.
  • Jick,T.(1991a) Implementing Change,Note 9-191-114, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personalengagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
  • Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be full there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 321-49.
  • Kahn, W.A., 1992. To be fully there: psychological presence at work. Human Relations 45 (4), 321–349.
  • Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 4-11.
  • Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Harvard Business Press.
  • Lamont, S., Brunero, S., Russell, R., 2010. An exploratory evaluation of an action
learning set within a mental health service. Nurse Educ. Pract. 10 (5), 298e302.
  • Leonard, H.S., Lang, F., 2010. Leadership development via action learning. Adv. Dev.Hum. Resour. 12 (2), 225e240.
  • Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
  • May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
  • Mento, A. J., Jones, R. M., &Dimdorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-60.
  • Marks-Maran, D., Ooms, A., Tapping, J., Muir, J., Phillips, S., Burke, L., 2013.
A preceptorship programme for newly qualified nurses: a study of preceptees'
perceptions. Nurse Educ. Today 33 (6), 633e638.
  • Marlow, A., Spratt, C., Reilly, A., 2008. Collaborative action learning: a professional
development model for educational innovation in nursing. Nurse Educ. Pract. 8
(3), 184e189.
  • Marquardt, M.J., 2000. Action learning and leadership. Learn. Organ. 7 (5), 233e241.
  • McGill, I., Beaty, L., 1995. Action Learning: a Guide for Professional, Management
and Educational Development, second ed. Kogan Page, London.
  • McGill, I., Brockbank, A., 2004. The Action Learning Handbook. Routledge, London.
  • MacPhee, E.M., Skelton-Green, J., Bouthillette, F., Suryaprakash, N., 2012. An
empowerment framework for nursing leadership development: supporting
evidence. J. Adv. Nurs. 68 (1), 159e169.
  • Myers-Briggs, I., Myers, P., 1995. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type.
Davies-Black, Mountain View, CA.
  • NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement/Academy of Medical Royal Colleges,
  1. Medical Leadership Competency Framework, third ed. NHS Institute for
Innovation and Improvement, Coventry.
  • NHS Leadership Academy, 2011. The NHS Leadership Framework. University of
Warwick/NHS Leadership Academy, Coventry.
  • Pedhazur, E.J., Schmelkin, L., 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: an Integrated
approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, R. H. Moorman, R. Fetter. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quart. 1(2) 107–142.
  • Revans, R., 1980. Action Learning: New Techniques for Management. Blond & Briggs,
Ltd, London.
  • Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization:the contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 86, pp. 825-36.
  • Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714.
  • Walia, D. 618 Marks-Maran / Nurse Education in Practice 14 (2014) 612e619
  • Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 25, pp. 293-315
  • Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a crossnational study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (4), 701–716.
  • Senge,P.(1990) “The Lesder’s New Work; Building a Learning Organization; Sloan Management Review,32(1) 7-24.
  • Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
  • Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 102-111.
  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge university press.
  • Tichy,N. and Charan,R.(1989) “Speed, Simplicity and Self-Confidence. An interview with Jask Welch; Harvard Business Review,65(5),112-118.
  • Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 428.