Creating an Engaged Workforce

Abstract

Scholars have increasingly recognized the importance of studying factors leading to employee engagement. However, few researchers have created and tested theoretical models that propose mechanisms linking employee engagement to social contextual variables. Based on a random sample of employees (n = 391) working across different industrial sectors in the United States, we proposed and tested a model (rooted in the Social Exchange Theory and the Job Demands-Resources Model) that examined how authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life enrichment are interrelated. A simplified model containing both significant direct and indirect effects fits the data. Theoretical contributions and managerial ramifications of the study were discussed.

Keywords

employee engagement authentic leadership transparent organizational communication work-life enrichment

Management and communication researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of employee engagement in achieving business success and organizational growth (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). Engagement represents employees’ work-related state of mind, characterized by positive affect toward their employers and a high level of perceived empowerment in the workplace (Maslach, Schaufelli, & Leiter, 2001). When employees are engaged, they demonstrate business awareness and willingness to devote extra time and effort for the accomplishment of organizational goals (Matthews, Mills, Trout, & English, 2014).

Because of the embryotic state of employee engagement scholarship, more empirical studies are needed that investigate organizational features or social contextual variables associated with it (Matthews et al., 2014). Prior business and communication studies have suggested sundry factors that could drive engagement, such as managers’ leadership behavior, organizational communication structure, and positive work-life interface in relation to employees’ well-being (Robinson et al., 2004). We propose that authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life enrichment are three important contextual factors associated with employee engagement. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) conceptualized authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior characterized by strong self-awareness, internalized high moral standards, balanced processing of information in ethical decision making, and transparency in interpersonal relationship cultivation between leaders and their followers. Transparent organizational communication refers to an overall organizational communication system or climate that emphasizes information dissemination and the role of organizations’ stakeholders in identifying organizational needs (Cotterrell, 2000). Work-life enrichment refers to the extent to which work experiences can improve employees’ quality of life outside of their work (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006).

The current study draws on two established theoretical frameworks to explain the aforementioned social contextual antecedents of employee engagement: (a) the Social Exchange Theory (SET; Saks, 2006) and (b) the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Menguc, Auh, Fisher, & Haddad, 2013). As rooted in SET and the JD-R model, supervisors’ functional and supportive behavior and an established transparent internal communication system serve as key job resources that not only facilitate employees’ management of various job demands, but, more importantly, also enrich their nonwork life. When employees perceive their personal life is benefiting from their work experiences, they may reciprocate toward their employer with high engagement in their work.

Taken together, this study proposes and tests a conceptual model that links organizational contextual factors of (a) authentic leadership, (b) transparent organizational communication, and (c) employee work-life enrichment to employee engagement. Findings of this study will add to the growing body of literature on employee engagement, leadership, internal communication, and work-life interface. It will also provide important ramifications for organizational managers and communication professionals on how to effectively create an engaged workforce.

Literature Review

Employee Engagement

A plethora of management and communication research shows that employee engagement has positive individual and organizational outcomes (Saks, 2006). Cutting across its various conceptualizations are two common themes of employee engagement: (a) It refers to employees’ physical, cognitive, and emotional presence when occupying and performing an organizational role, and (b) it is never a momentary state but a highly persistent affective-cognitive state characterized by attention, absorption, vigor, dedication, and empowerment (Robinson et al., 2004). Engagement represents employees’ affective-cognitive presence in enacting their work roles and their persistent, pervasive, and fulfilling state of work-related mind focused on positive affect and empowerment (Maslach et al., 2001).

Various factors could drive employee engagement. Perceived organizational support in terms of providing resources—both financial and non-financial resources—counters the negative effects of stressful job demands and poor working conditions and thus increases engagement (Robinson et al., 2004). In addition to these social contextual factors, some socio-demographic and job characteristic variables have been suggested to influence employee engagement, although to a lesser extent. For instance, previous studies found that minority ethnic employees are more engaged than their White colleagues and younger employees are more engaged than older employees (Robinson et al., 2004). Apart from ethnicity and age, organizational size, income level, and organizational position do matter—Employees from smaller companies are more engaged than those from larger organizations, high-income employees are generally more engaged than low-income employees, employees in managerial positions are more engaged than non-management employees (Men, 2011).

Our approach recognizes the potential influence of socio-demographic variables on employee engagement, but focuses particularly on exploring several key drivers of engagement as suggested by previous literature—work environment (i.e., work-life enrichment), leadership (i.e., authentic leadership), and communication climate (i.e., transparent organizational communication)—and their interplay effect on employee engagement. Conceptualizations of each of these key drivers are presented next.

Work-Life Enrichment

In defining work-life, researchers conceptualized work as employees’ paid employment and everything outside of work as life (Kossek & Lambert, 2004). Employees’ best interests are served by a balanced and healthy lifestyle that reinvigorates their life and bolsters their morale (Haar, 2013). Resources acquired in work roles as a by-product of professional interactions and occupational development may be transferred to and reinvested in life roles (McMillan, Morris, & Atchley, 2011). When employees enact different roles, their identities or personalities may get enhanced and expanded as they get used to discrepancies and adjust themselves to meet the competing demands from work and life domains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). The resulted role transitions and boundary fluidity that employees manage between work and life may create enriching effects that spill over into life roles that employees play (McMillan et al., 2011). Based on the theory of the interdependencies between work and life roles, scholars have called for more studies examining the positive interactions between work and life, employing the concept of work-life enrichment and investigating the links to its own antecedents and outcomes (Kossek & Lambert, 2004).

Our perspective uses Carlson et al.’s (2006) conceptualization of work-life enrichment that has three distinct dimensions: (a) developmental, (b) affective, and (c) capital. Specifically, work-life development represents the gains of instrumental resources such as skills, knowledge, capabilities, perspectives, and behaviors in employees’ work domain. Work-life affect is defined when involvement in work promotes employees’ positive emotional state that benefits their nonwork life. Work-life capital refers to the gains of psychosocial resources such as confidence, accomplishment, self-fulfillment, security, and self-esteem that help employees become a better member in their life role.

Authentic Leadership

Leadership as an organizational contextual factor could influence how employees feel about their work environment and the organization as a whole (Men & Stacks, 2013). We pay special attention to authentic leadership, which has four features. As summarized in Walumbwa et al. (2008), a leader’s self-awareness reflects personal understanding of his or her strengths, weaknesses, and how his or her multifaceted self is constructed through close interactions with other people. Relational transparency emphasizes trust that is achieved through leaders’ self-disclosure, information sharing, and self-expressions. Processing information in a balanced way, leaders analyze all relevant information before making decisions, regardless of the sentiment of viewpoints. Finally, as the dimension of internalized moral perspective indicates, authentic leaders often incorporate a positive moral perspective that guides decision making and behaviors, such as honesty, altruism, kindness, fairness, accountability, and optimism.

Transparent Organizational Communication

Relatedly, an organization’s communication climate and system is also an important contextual factor that affects engagement (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007). Transparent organizational communication is a process that generates trust and credibility (Rawlins, 2009), which potentially drives employee engagement. Transparent organizational communication is an organization’s deliberate information dissemination coupled with employees’ active participation in information acquisition and information distribution, in a manner that is truthful, substantial, and complete, for the purpose of holding organizations accountable for their business practices and policies (Stirton & Lodge, 2001). Transparency is only meaningful when it provides information relevant to the employees about their organizations’ actions and decisions, and organizations invite their employees to participate in identifying, acquiring, and distributing information (Cotterrell, 2000). When achieving completeness (Rawlins, 2009), organizations voice the reasons for their actions and highlight the importance of employees as an audience. Transparent organizational communication is also related to source credibility and organizational accountability (Tapscott & Ticoll, 2003). It is precisely the credibility of organizations as information sources that makes accountability realistic (Rawlins, 2009).

Theoretical Framework

The central focus of SET is on reciprocity and compensation between parties who are mutually dependent. When employees receive highly valued “socioemotional resources” from their employers (Saks, 2006, p. 603), they may choose to reciprocate positively, engage themselves more into their work, and devote more of their physical, emotional, and cognitive resources to their employers. The JD-R model extends SET by noting that job demands and job resources may affect job stress and employee outcomes (Menguc et al., 2013). Organizational social resources such as supervisory support, communication climate, and work environment are critical for employees not only to deal with job demands and stress but also to foster their personal growth and engagement.

As SET and the JD-R model suggest, supervisors’ supportive leadership behavior and the presence of a transparent internal communication structure serve as key job resources that help employees manage various job demands and, at the same time, enrich their nonwork life. When employees perceive a high level of work-life enrichment, they may reciprocate toward their employer by being highly engaged in their work.

Authentic Leadership and Transparent Organizational Communication Leading to Work-Life Enrichment

The extent to which managers exhibit authentic leadership capabilities plays a critical role in how likely an organization is to practice transparent communication. When managers demonstrate that they understand their own strengths and weakness, clearly communicate their ideas, openly share information, show great consistency between their beliefs and actions, and encourage employees to voice their alternative or opposing opinions (Walumbwa et al., 2008), employees are more likely to perceive that they have adequate control over the information they need for problem solving (Tapscott & Ticoll, 2003). It also indicates that substantial information can be made accessible to them in the workplace (Stirton & Lodge, 2001) and that their employers are highly accountable for their actions and policies (Rawlins, 2009).

Although there is not ample empirical evidence, prior studies have explored how top managers who demonstrate authentic leadership behavior can shape an organization’s culture characterized by dialogue, transparency, and organizational learning (Mazutis & Slawinski, 2008). A longitudinal study by Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) also indicates that in order to gain high levels of trust across individual, group, and organizational levels, authentic leaders tend to engage in positive and transparent communication. Therefore, based on the above reviewed literature and empirical evidence, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Authentic leadership is positively linked to transparent organizational communication.

As demonstrated in SET and the JD-R model, a positive exchange between work and life can take place when employees perceive the effectiveness of job resources in the workplace in helping them fulfill various job demands and in strengthening their performance in the life domain (Wayne et al., 2007). Prior empirical findings also suggest that a resource-rich work environment with transparent organizational communicative activities is likely to foster work-life enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). For instance, the substantial information and policies on scheduling that supervisors shared and the welcoming attitude and transparent communication that supervisors had enabled employees to voice their concerns and opposing thoughts about scheduling in the workplace (Pedersen & Jeppesen, 2012). When employees can negotiate with their supervisors for much-needed scheduling flexibility, they tend to get more involved in their nonwork personal activities, leading to a high level of work-life enrichment (Carlson et al., 2006). Thus, two more hypotheses are suggested:

Hypothesis 2: Authentic leadership is positively related to work-life enrichment.

Hypothesis 3: Transparent organizational communication is positively associated with work-life enrichment.

Engagement as an Outcome Associated With Leadership, Organizational Communication, and Work-Life Enrichment

According to SET, employees may feel more engaged with their work and their employer when supervisors/managers encourage more participative information sharing and ethical decision making via authentic leadership (Saks, 2006). Likewise, level of employee engagement tends to be high when organizations enable employees to exert adequate control over information acquisition and distribution, decision making, and truthfully communicate to employees the reality of organizational subjects, incidents, or events with substantial information (Mazutis & Slawinski, 2008). Moreover, according to the JD-R model, managers’ authentic leadership behavior and organizations’ transparent communication structure are key sources that motivate employees to be engaged in the workplace (Menguc et al., 2013). Having a supportive supervisor focused on self-disclosure and self-regulation, information sharing, and ethical decision making can significantly boost employees’ motivation and effective involvement in meeting a great variety of job demands (DeConinck, 2010). Furthermore, supervisory support can ameliorate the strain that employees experience when facing challenging job demands (Babin & Boles, 1996). Consequently, employees may remain engaged when feeling they are furnished with adequate supervisory resources (Sand & Miyazaki, 2000). In terms of transparent communication as another critical resource, level of employee engagement remains high when employees perceive they are receiving accurate guidance, candid feedback on their performance, and manageable suggestions for improvement (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991).

Based on SET and the JD-R model, we argue that employees also make cognitive attributions regarding the source of benefits across work and life domains. In particular, when the work domain (i.e., the sending domain) is seen as transferring helpful resources not only to facilitate employees’ fulfillment of job demands but also to benefit their personal life (i.e., the receiving domain), employees experience satisfaction with the sending domain (Carlson et al., 2006). As an outcome of enrichment, the perception that resources accrued in jobs would help employees’ work performance when facing challenging job demands and, at the same time, enhance employees’ functioning in their personal life, will likely result in attitudinal and behavioral reactions to their employers—for instance, a high level of engagement with their work (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Authentic leadership positively relates to employee engagement.

Hypothesis 5: Transparent organizational communication is positively associated with employee engagement.

Hypothesis 6: Work-life enrichment is positively related to employee engagement.

The Mediating Role of Transparent Organizational Communication and Work-Life Enrichment

Supervisors who exhibit authentic leadership capabilities can help shape a nurturing organizational culture or climate, characterized by transparency, dialogue, and organizational learning that may result in enriching effects of workplace experiences upon employees’ social performance in their nonwork arenas (Mazutis & Slawinski, 2008). Supervisors’ individual supportive leadership behavior may not account for the full variance in employees’ perception of high engagement with not only their work but also their employer as a whole (DeConinck, 2010). It is likely that individual leadership behavior may exert its effect on both work- and organization-related outcomes via mediators at the organizational level (Menguc et al., 2013), such as transparent organizational communication (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012) and employees’ feeling that their organizational life as a whole is benefiting or nurturing their family and social activities (Nahrgang et al., 2011). Therefore, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 7: Transparent organizational communication mediates the effect of authentic leadership on work-life enrichment (H7a) and the effect of that on employee engagement (H7b).

Hypothesis 8: Work-life enrichment mediates the effect of authentic leadership (H8a) and that of transparent organizational communication (H8b) on employee engagement.

Hypothesis 9: Transparent organizational communication and work-life enrichment mediate the effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement.

In view of the preceding discussion on authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life enrichment in association with employee engagement, the hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model.

Method

With the assistance of a premier global provider of survey services, Survey Sampling International (SSI; http://www.surveysampling.com/), we conducted an online survey on a random sample of employees working across diverse industry sectors in a 2-week period in November 2013. Through its patented online sampling platform, SSI solicited participation from its 1.5 million research panel members in the United States. Stratified and quota random sampling strategies were used to obtain a representative sample with comparable age groups, genders, and corporation sizes across various income and education levels. A final sample size of 391 was achieved.

Participant Profile

The average age of participants was 40 (SD = 10.58). On average, they worked 8.49 (SD = 7.35) years for their respective employers at the time of data collection. Females made up the majority of the sample (n = 205, 52.7%). The size of participants’ employers varied from 100 to 250 employees (n = 45, 11.5%) to more than 7,000 employees (n = 115, 29.4%) from various industry sectors. In terms of their level of position, non-management participants accounted for 52.7% (n = 206) of the sample, followed by middle-level management (n = 95, 24.3%), lower level management (n = 60, 15.3%), and top management (n = 30, 7.7%). Participants reported diverse annual income levels. The income range with the largest number of participants was US$30,000 to US$49,999 (n = 100, 25.6%).

Measures

All items used a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Nine items from Carlson et al. (2006) were used to measure work-life enrichment. Measures for each type of work-life enrichment had high reliability (α = .90 for development, .97 for affect, and .96 for capital). Authentic leadership was assessed with Neider and Schriesheim’s (2011) measure. Cronbach’s alphas were .91, .91, .90, and .91 for its four distinct dimensions: self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing, respectively. A measure of 18 items from Rawlins (2009) assessed an organizational climate of transparent communication, which demonstrated high reliability (α = .94 for participation, .95 for substantial information, and .92 for accountability). To examine employee engagement, 11 items adapted from Kang (2014) and Saks (2006) were used consisting of two subscales: Positive Affect (α = .94) and Empowerment (α = .92).

Analysis

To examine our hypotheses, we performed a two-step Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis with the Mplus 7.11 program. First, because of the a priori theoretical conceptualizations of the constructs, we tested a second-order measurement model. Covariance paths among items within the same latent factor were added so as to control for content redundancy (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). We then tested the structural model.

Results

Preliminary Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics

As presented in Table 1, the results of the descriptive analysis showed that participants’ managers demonstrated moderately high authentic leadership behavior (M_{self-awareness} = 4.90, SD = 1.39, n = 391; M_{relational transparency} = 5.13, SD = 1.45, n = 391; M_{internalized moral perspective} = 5.00, SD = 1.31, n = 391; M_{balanced processing} = 4.89, SD = 1.38, n = 391). Additionally, participants believed their organizations provided with them moderately high information (M_{substantiality} = 4.92, SD = 1.25, n = 391), exhibited moderately high participation (M_{participation} = 4.57, SD = 1.41, n = 391) and accountability (M_{accountability} = 4.43, SD = 1.42, n = 391) in organizational transparent communication. Moreover, participants reported a moderately high level of work-life development (M_development = 4.89, SD = 1.25, n = 391), work-life capital (M_capital = 4.83, SD = 1.43, n = 391), and work-life affect (M_affect = 4.47, SD = 1.50, n = 391). In terms of engagement, participants also perceived a moderately high level of positive affect (M_{positve affect} = 4.70, SD = 1.36, n = 391) and empowerment (M_empowerment = 4.47, SD = 1.44, n = 391). Correlations between the observed variables in this study ranged from .41 to .83 (p <.01; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of First-Order and Second-Order Constructs in the Study (Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations).

	α	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1	.91	4.90	1.39	1.00
2	.91	5.13	1.45	.81**	1.00
3	.90	5.00	1.31	.76**	.82**	1.00
4	.91	4.89	1.38	.81**	.83**	.80**	1.00
5	.94	4.57	1.41	.60**	.57**	.56**	.64**	1.00
6	.95	4.92	1.25	.58**	.56**	.57**	.57**	.83**	1.00
7	.92	4.43	1.42	.50**	.46**	.49**	.57**	.81**	.76**	1.00
8	.90	4.89	1.25	.44**	.42**	.43**	.44**	.44**	.43**	.44**	1.00
9	.97	4.47	1.50	.50**	.48**	.43**	.51**	.69**	.63**	.62**	.66**	1.00
10	.96	4.83	1.43	.46**	.45**	.44**	.50**	.63**	.61**	.59**	.71**	.82**	1.00
11	.94	4.70	1.36	.52**	.48**	.48**	.55**	.75**	.68**	.69**	.59**	.75**	.77**	1.00
12	.92	4.47	1.44	.47**	.41**	.42**	.52**	.69**	.61**	.65**	.50**	.68**	.70**	.82**	1.00
13	.97	4.97	1.27	.91**	.93**	.92**	.94**	.64**	.61**	.55**	.47**	.52**	.50**	.55**	.49**	1.00
14	.97	4.66	1.26	.60**	.57**	.58**	.64**	.95**	.94**	.91**	.47**	.69**	.65**	.76**	.70**	.65**	1.00
15	.96	4.59	1.33	.52**	.50**	.48**	.54**	.65**	.62**	.61**	.86**	.92**	.94**	.78**	.70**	.55**	.67**	1.00
16	.96	4.73	1.26	.52**	.47**	.47**	.56**	.76**	.68**	.70**	.57**	.75**	.77**	.96**	.95**	.55**	.77**	.78**	1.00

Note. 1 = AL-self-awareness; 2 = AL-relational transparency; 3 = AL-internalized moral perspective; 4 = AL-balanced processing; 5 = TC-participation; 6 = TC-substantiality; 7 = TC-accountability; 8 = WLE-development; 9 = WLE-affect; 10 = WLE-capital; 11 = EE-positive affect; 12 = EE-empowerment; 13 = AL (authentic leadership); 14 = TC (transparent communication); 15 = WLE (work-life enrichment); 16 = EE (employee engagement).

Correlation is significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).

Tests on socio-demographic variables

A series of ANOVAs revealed no significant relationships between company size, industry type, ethnicity, and education level and any of the four constructs in our hypothesized model. Hierarchical linear regression analysis also did not reveal a significant relationship between age and any of the four key constructs. Results of t tests did not reveal significant gender differences in authentic leadership and work-life enrichment. Male participants did report significantly higher values than female participants on employee engagement, t(384) = −3.02, p < .01, and transparent communication, t(384) = −2.14, p < .05. Position level was not significantly related to employees’ perception of work-life enrichment but was related to levels of transparent organizational communication, F(3, 384) = 4.72, p < .01, work-life enrichment, F(3, 386) = 7.67, p < .001, and employee engagement, F(3, 384) = 12.85, p < .001. In addition, salary level was not significantly associated with employees’ perceptions of authentic leadership and transparent organizational communication but was related to work-life enrichment, F(10, 379) = 1.86, p = .05, and employee engagement, F(10, 377) = 2.21, p < .05. Based on the results of the preliminary tests and our reviewed literature, we controlled three variables—gender, salary level, and position level—in our SEM analysis.

Measurement Model Results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that in accordance with previous literature, work-life enrichment, authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication, and employee engagement formed a second-order construct with their respective underlying first-order factors. The model achieved good data-model fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = .95; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .047; 90% confidence interval [CI] = [.044, .050]; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .04; χ² = 2,466.88 [p < .001]; df = 1,337; n = 381).

Structural Model Results

The hypothesized structural model demonstrated good fit with the data: CFI = .95; RMSEA = .047 (90% CI = [.044, .050]); SRMR = .04; χ² = 2,472.59 (p < .001); df = 1,339; n = 381. The results indicated that all standardized path coefficients were significant except for the direct effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement (see Figure 2). For the sake of parsimony, the model was reduced by deleting the non-significant path. The simplified or reduced model was re-estimated and compared with the hypothesized model via nested model comparison. Estimation of the simplified model also yielded a satisfactory data-model fit (CFI = .95; RMSEA = .047; CI = [.044, .050]; SRMR = .04; χ² = 2,473.17; p < .001; df = 1,340; n = 381). The model fit change was not statistically significant: Δχ² (1, n = 381) = .58, p = .446 (see Table 2). Therefore, the more parsimonious and simplified model was retained (see Figure 3).

Figure 2.

The hypothesized structural model with standardized path coefficients.

Table 2.

Fit Indices of the Hypothesized, Simplified, and Alternative Models.

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δ χ²	Sig. of Δ	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Hypothesized Model	2,472.59	1,339	1.85	—	—	.95	.047 (90% CI = [.044, .050])	.04
Simplified Model	2,473.17	1,340	1.85	.58	.446	.95	.047 (90% CI = [.044, .050])	.04
Alternative 1	2,538.10	1,340	1.89	65.51	.000	.95	.047 (90% CI = [.044, .050])	.05
Alternative 2	2,547.04	1,341	1.90	74.45	.000	.95	.049 (90% CI = [.046, .051])	.05

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CI = confidence interval.

Figure 3.

The final structural model with standardized path coefficients.

In order to identify the best-fitting model, two other theoretically plausible models were compared with the hypothesized and simplified models, considering the role of transparent organizational communication and work-life enrichment as mediators. In Alternative Model 1, the link between transparent organizational communication and employee engagement was removed from the hypothesized model. In Alternative Model 2, both the link between authentic leadership and employee engagement and that between transparent organizational communication and employee engagement were removed. As demonstrated in Table 2, the χ² differences of the two alternative models ranged from 65.51 to 74.45 (both ps < .001) and supported the superiority of our simplified model (see Figure 3).

Test of Hypotheses

As shown in our simplified model (see Figure 3), the association between authentic leadership and transparent communication was positive and significant (β = .67, p < .001), supporting H1. R-square for transparent organizational communication equaled .49. The standardized path coefficients for the relationship between authentic leadership and work-life enrichment (β = .14, p < .05) and that between transparent communication and work-life enrichment (β = .63, p < .001) were both significant and positive. H2 and H3 were supported. R-square for work-life enrichment was .59. H5 and H6 were supported as well. The association between transparent organizational communication and employee engagement (β = .44, p < .001) and that between work-life enrichment and employee engagement (β = .51, p < .001) were significant and positive. R-square for employee engagement was .84.

A test of mediation effects with a bootstrapping procedure (N = 5,000 samples) was conducted. Results revealed a significant indirect effect of authentic leadership on work-life enrichment via transparent organizational communication (β = .42, p < .001; 90% CI = [.33, .51]). The indirect effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement via transparent organizational communication was also significant (β = .30, p < .001; 90% CI = [.21, .38]). Therefore, H7 was supported. Work-life enrichment significantly mediated the effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement (β = .07, p < .05; 90% CI = [.00, .14]). The indirect effect of transparent organizational communication on employee engagement via work-life enrichment was significant as well (β = .30, p < .001; 90% CI = [.21, .38]). H8 was supported. Overall, transparent organizational communication and work-life enrichment significantly mediated the effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement (β = .22, p < .001; 90% CI = [.16, .27]). H9 was thus supported.

Discussion

Work-Life Enrichment as the Key Driver of Employee Engagement

Previous research has suggested that working environment such as resource support and job demands (Attridge, 2009), and concern for employee health and well-being (Robinson et al., 2004), drive employee engagement. Along these lines, results of the study showed that work-life enrichment demonstrated a significant strong positive association with employee engagement. Employees’ knowledge gained, skills acquired, and happy and cheerful emotions, as well as personal fulfillment, accomplishment, and success experienced at work, could all spill over to employees’ personal life (Haar, 2013). When employees’ work role activities benefit their personal life, they will be more attentive, absorbed, and dedicated to their work and reciprocate with active participation and involvement in organizational activities, as indicated by the SET (Menguc et al., 2013). This finding reinforces the new theoretical approach (role enrichment) toward understanding how organizations can help their employees balance their multiple roles effectively through, for instance, cultivating an organizational climate of authentic leadership and transparent communication.

Transparent Organizational Communication as Another Driver of Employee Engagement

Transparency is the foundation for building engagement (Wayne et al., 2007). Yet there exists little empirical literature examining such assumption. Results of our study showed that transparent organizational communication demonstrated a strong positive effect on employee engagement. When organizations openly share substantial, complete, relevant, and truthful information with employees in a timely manner, encourage employee participation, and convey balanced information that is open to employees’ scrutiny and holds the organization accountable, employees are more likely to feel engaged. Involving employees to identify the information they need and incorporating their input in organizational decision making empower employees (Men, 2011). Our finding also supports previous researchers’ argument that open, constant, and transparent communication keeps an organization visible, gratifies its employees’ information needs, and lets employees stay abreast of goings-on in the organization (Men & Stacks, 2014). Further, it provides empirical evidence for the JD-R model that organizational communication climate is among the key resources that facilitate employees’ job performance, help them meet organizational job demands, and motivate employees to be engaged in the workplace (Menguc et al., 2013).

Linking Authentic Leadership to Employee Engagement: Transparent Organizational Communication and Work-Life Enrichment

As a contextual factor, organizational leadership nurtures the communication climate in the organization (Yukl, 2010). The present study enriches the understanding of the connection by revealing the strong positive effect of authentic leadership on transparent organizational communication. Employees who are managed by authentic leaders tend to perceive the organizations, communication as transparent. Authentic leaders internalize moral values such as integrity, fairness, kindness, altruism, and accountability, which guide their daily leadership behavior and communication practice (Walumbwa et al., 2008). These ethical core values provide a common ground for authentic leadership and transparent organizational communication (Yukl, 2010).

Unexpectedly, the direct effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement was not found, but the mediation effects from authentic leadership to employee engagement via transparent organizational communication and work-life enrichment were strong and significant. The finding of transparent organizational communication and work-life enrichment as mediators suggests that the effects of authentic leadership on employee outcomes are not necessarily straightforward and readily observable. When authentic leadership is prevalent in the organization, an effective transparent communication system is most likely to be established. Such a system and communication climate help convey leaders’ values, beliefs, missions, organizational expectations, and policies to employees, engage employees into dialogues, and foster employees’ sense of work-life enrichment. Without a transparent organizational communication system or authentic leaders utilizing open communication to promote the positive exchange between work and life, employee engagement may be difficult to achieve.

The Linkage Between Authentic Leadership, Transparent Organizational Communication, and Work-Life Enrichment

Results of the study showed that authentic leadership demonstrated a relatively small but significant relationship to work-life enrichment of employees. This again could be attributed to the fact that authentic leaders advocate open communication, invite various perspectives, adhere to their moral values and principles, and objectively analyze all relevant information before coming to a conclusion or decision, which reduces employees’ frustration and uncertainty and fosters a positive environment that contributes to employees’ overall psychological well-being (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The positive emotional state, self-fulfillment, confidence, accomplishment, and self-esteem that result from interactions with authentic managers could cross the work domain and benefit employees’ personal life experiences, which is exactly what work-life enrichment means (Carlson et al., 2006).

Likewise, transparent organizational communication demonstrated a large positive direct effect on employee work-life enrichment. In an open environment where organizations listen closely to employees, value employees’ voice and input, and readily accept employee criticism or scrutiny (Rawlins, 2009), employees perceive capital gains as well as positive feelings that could transfer to employees’ other life roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Researchers have found the positive effects of transparent communication on favorable organizational outcomes such as employee trust (Rawlins, 2009) and employee-organization relationships (Men & Stacks, 2014). This study extends this line of research by demonstrating the positive impact of transparent organizational communication on one positive aspect of employee work-life interface, that is, work-life enrichment.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The study findings provide important guidelines and implications for communication management scholars and professionals. Theoretically, this study draws upon SET and the JD-R model to advance the growing literature on employee engagement through testing organizational context factors closely associated with it. Findings of this study provide much-needed evidence that confirms the critical roles of leadership, communication, and work-life interface in driving employee engagement. This study enriches the theoretical understanding of employee engagement by addressing the growing concerns of corporate transparency and authenticity, two overused yet under-researched constructs in communication literature. Adding into the growing body of enrichment literature from the expansionist as opposed to the conflict perspective (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), the present study demonstrates the positive impact of authentic leadership and transparent organizational communication on employees’ work-life enrichment. It emphasizes the importance of a nurturing and supportive communication and leadership work climate for employees’ overall well-being.

In terms of strategic implications, it is essential for organizations to invest in systematic leadership training, rewarding, and providing guidance for leaders’ behavior and communication. Additionally, organizations should build a transparent communication culture or climate that ensures the free flow of truthful, complete, relevant, and substantial information in a timely manner, facilitates upward communication and listening, and welcomes employee participation and comments regardless of whether they are commending, criticizing, or complaining. To that end, collaborative efforts between communication professionals, organizational leaders, and human resource managers are critically needed.

Additionally, the findings also attest to the value of work-life enrichment in effectively engaging employees. Employees’ work and life mutual influence is a reality. What employees experience at work (e.g., knowledge learnt, skills acquired, feelings and emotions experienced) influences employees’ personal lives, and employees’ personal lives and overall well-being have significant implications for organizational outcomes. However, in practice, organizations often fail to understand how crucial work-life issues are for organizational success because work-life issues are often perceived as “soft” issues, the linkage of which to the organizational bottom line is not self-explanatory. By contrast, engagement issues have gained enormous attention from organizations and business managers in the past decades. A large amount of academic and professional literature has provided adequate evidence for the linkage between employee engagement and business success (e.g., productivity, financial performance, sales, etc.; Robinson et al., 2004). By demonstrating the strong effect of positive work-life interface on employee engagement, this study highlights the strategic importance of focusing on work-life enrichment for organizational success and provides significant practical implications for management.

In sum, employee engagement has become a centrally desired outcome for organizational success. To address the hype, guesswork, and confusion arising from the prevalent professional speculations around the concept, more empirical research explicating the underlying process of employee engagement and how it is related to communicative factors is critically needed.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations that should be noted and addressed in future research. The survey sample included only employees from large and medium-sized companies in the United States. Organizations outside of the scope or from other cultural settings should be careful making inferences from the findings. A cross-sectional survey approach is also limited in suggesting order of effects revealed in this study. For instance, this study found work-life enrichment to be an antecedent of employee engagement. Future research may also explore the possible impact of engagement on work-life enrichment. A bi-directional relationship may exist. Also, the study data were gathered only from the employees’ perspective. Although a check of common method variance with Harman’s single factor test did not imply a serious problem, incorporating the organizations, or managers’ insights in future research efforts could provide a more complete picture and comprehensive understanding of how leadership, communication, and work-life enrichment factors drive employee engagement. Finally, future endeavors should empirically examine other potential drivers of employee engagement such as organizational culture, structure, communication messages and channels, and employees’ individual factors, and most importantly, connect engagement to business outcomes to understand its value on Return on Investment. Likewise, more theoretical deliberations and empirical studies are in need from a management communication perspective to enrich the understanding of employees’ work-life interface (i.e., conflict, enrichment, balance, fit, and integration), which eventually influences organizational performance and effectiveness.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor, Dr. Michael Elwood Roloff, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and helpful suggestions in revising the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Hua Jiang, PhD, is an assistant professor of public relations in S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. Her research interests include relationship management, employee communication, work-life issues, social media, and public relations leadership. She has published more than two dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Her work has appeared in leading refereed journals including Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Journal of Health Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Journal of Public Affairs, Public Relations Journal, Public Relations Inquiry, Asian Journal of Communication, and Global Media Journal-Canadian Edition.

Rita Linjuan Men, PhD, APR, is an assistant professor of public relations at the University of Florida. Her research interests include employee engagement, leadership communication, organizational relationship and reputation management, and social media public relations. Her work has appeared in leading refereed journals including Journal of Public Relations Research, Management Communication Quarterly, Public Relations Review, Journal of Communication Management, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Corporate Reputation Review, Computers in Human Behavior, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Public Relations Journal, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Journal of Interactive Advertising, among others.

References

Attridge

(2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24, 383-398.

Babin

B. J.

Boles

J. S.

(1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72, 57-75.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Wayne

J. H.

Grzywacz

J. G.

(2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131-164.

Cotterrell

(2000). Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Cultural Values, 3, 414-426.

DeConinck

J. B.

(2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1349-1355.

Fulmer

C. A.

Gelfand

M. J.

(2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38, 1167-1230.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.

Haar

J. M.

(2013). Testing a new measure of work-life balance: A study of parent and non-parent employees from New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3305-3324.

Jaworski

B. J.

Kohli

A. K.

(1991). Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact on salespeople’s performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 190-201.

10.

Kossek

E. E.

Lambert

S. J.

(2004). Work-family scholarship: Voice and context. In Kossek

E. E.

Lambert

(Eds.), Work and life integration in organizations: New directions for theory and practice (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Maslach

Schaufelli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

12.

Matthews

R. A.

Mills

M. J.

Trout

R. C.

English

(2014). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 168-181.

13.

Mazutis

Slawinski

(2008). Leading organizational learning through authentic dialogue. Management Learning, 39, 437-456.

14.

McMillan

H. S.

Morris

M. L.

Atchley

E. K.

(2011). Constructs of the work/life interface: A synthesis of the literature and introduction of the concept of work/life harmony. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 6-25.

15.

Men

L. R.

(2011). Exploring the impact of employee empowerment on organization-employee relationship. Public Relations Review, 37, 435-437.

16.

Men

L. R.

Stacks

D. W.

(2013). Measuring the impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication Management, 19, 171-192.

17.

Men

L. R.

Stacks

D. W.

(2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 301-324.

18.

Menguc

Auh

Fisher

Haddad

(2013). To be engaged or not to be engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2163-2170.

19.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Morgeson

F. P.

Hofmann

D. A.

(2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71-94.

20.

Neider

L. L.

Schriesheim

C. A.

(2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146-1164.

21.

Pedersen

V. B.

Jeppesen

H. J.

(2012). Contagious flexibility? A study on whether schedule flexibility facilitates work-life enrichment. Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 347-359.

22.

Rawlins

(2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 71-99.

23.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Robinson

Perryman

Hayday

(2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Brighton, UK: Institute for Employment Studies.

25.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-618.

26.

Sand

Miyazaki

A. D.

(2000). The impact of social support on salesperson burnout and burnout components. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 13-26.

27.

Stirton

Lodge

(2001). Transparency mechanisms: Building publicness into public services. Journal of Law and Society, 28, 471-489.

28.

Tapscott

Ticoll

(2003). The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will revolutionize business. New York, NY: Free Press.

29.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

Wernsing

T. S.

Peterson

S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.

30.

Wayne

J. H.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

(2007). Work-family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63-76.

31.

Yukl

(2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.