Understanding Employee Engagement in the Public Sector: The Role of Immediate Supervisor,Perceived Organizational Support,and Learning Opportunities

Abstract

Supervisor support is often argued to be a meaningful predictor of employee engagement; however, existing research has yet to fully support this hypothesis. Drawing from the research on social exchange theory, organizational support theory, and job characteristics model, this study investigates the mediating role of perceived organizational support in the link between supervisor support and employee engagement. How this mediating effect might be moderated by learning opportunities in the job is also considered. Data from a sample of 1,251 employees from state and local government agencies show that supervisor support affects employee engagement both directly and indirectly through its influence on perceived organizational support. In turn, this influences the variance in employee engagement. Results further show that the path linking supervisor support to organizational support is moderated by learning opportunities, such that the positive relationships become invigorated among individuals who reported having opportunities to learn and grow in their job.

Keywords

Job engagement organizational support theory social exchange theory learning opportunities

Introduction

The study of employee engagement has seen an unprecedented popularity in the management literature in recent years (Bakker, 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Saks, 2006). While there are many different conceptualizations of employee engagement, it has been defined in the literature as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 103). Others conceptualize it as a positive psychological state of motivation with behavioral implications, such as discretionary efforts and organizational citizenship behaviors (Saks, 2006). Within the literature, employee engagement has been associated with a variety of important individual and organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Baumruk, 2004), turnover (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999), innovation (Stumpf, Tymon, & van Dam, 2013), individual job performance (Bakker, 2011; Rich et al., 2010), and organizational success (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).

Using a unique data set of state and local government employees, we focus on the role of supervisor support on employee engagement and seek to add to previous research in three ways. First, we contribute to the existing literature by testing the role of perceived supervisor support (PSS) on employee engagement in the government sector. Studying employee engagement is of particular importance in the public sector because maintaining it at a high level is a tough challenge. This difficulty is, in part, due to pay freezes, shrinking budgets, furloughs, and, in recent years, other short-term fixes that had to be addressed to overcome the recent recession that made an enduring mark on the public sector. Many of the current public sector employees are looking for jobs outside of the sector and a recent survey of new college graduates showed that just 6% plan to work in government (Partnership for Public Service, 2012). The 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, revealed that engagement among the nation’s largest employer has declined. Because engagement is key to retention (Nowack, 2008), it remains a key issue for many public sector leaders who try to keep employees committed and loyal to their jobs and agency mission.

Unfortunately, despite the significance of declining employee engagement in the government sector, much of what has been written about employee engagement comes from the corporate sector (Shuck, 2011). There have been fewer engagement studies of government organizations. The notable exceptions include Rich et al.’s (2010) study of firefighters; Britt, Castro, and Adler’s (2005) work on U.S. combat soldiers; Jin and Park’s (2016) study of sexual minority and its influence on work engagement among federal employees; and a study of Norwegian police officers by Richardsen, Burke, and Martinussen (2006). Thus, it stands to reason that our study of employee engagement using a random sample of various state and local government employees may help provide further insight on addressing workforce engagement and potential retention strategies in the public sector organizations.

Second, in a related vein, this contribution explores the role of supervisor support on employee engagement. Despite the popular support among practitioners for the role of supervisors (e.g., Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Wallace & Trinka, 2009), there is a surprising dearth of research on the relationship in the academic literature (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004), most of which derive from private sector organizations (e.g., Brough et al., 2013; Menguc, Auh, Fisher, & Haddad, 2013; Saks, 2006).

Our rationale for emphasizing the distinction between public and private sector organizations is important because the environments in which government managers operate can make motivating their employees more difficult. Unlike the private sector organizations, there are frequent and abrupt changes in leadership in the public sector. For example, elected or politically appointed leaders, including legislators, often have brief tenures. Without any real succession planning, the political turnover makes it difficult to sustain engagement. To compensate, career managers are often pressed to manage not just down but also up, by incoming new political leaders so they understand the agency’s values and goals (Pfiffner, 1987). Other factors that make motivating government employees a challenge for those in supervisory positions include having goals that can often be difficult to translate into units that are objectively measurable, not to mention the strong employee protections and constraints put on the use of financial incentives. In the case of civil-service rules, it is more difficult for supervisors in public sector organizations than for those in the private sector organizations to deal with poor performers because public employees have stronger job protections. Furthermore, unlike private sector organizations, government agencies are typically unable to provide performance incentives such as large pay raises and bonuses.

We pay particular attention to whether supervisor support influences employee engagement and, more importantly, to how it may influence engagement. In fact, the limited literature on supervisor support–employee engagement relationships has revealed mixed findings. According to Saks’s (2006) study of 102 employees working in a wide range of occupations in Canada, supervisor support had no statistically significant influence on either job engagement or organizational engagement.¹ Menguc et al. (2013), drawing on the job demand–resource model, examined the main effect of resources (autonomy and supervisor support) and found that supervisor support had no direct effect on work engagement;² instead, its impact became significant only when moderated by perceived autonomy. Furthermore, based on a convenience sample of nurses, Jenaro, Flores, Begoňa, Cruz, and Cruz (2010) found that support from supervisor did not have significant influence on employee engagement when satisfaction with quality of working life, position, and salary were controlled for. On the contrary, in a study of 1,662 police officers in Australia, Biggs, Brough, and Barbour’s (2014) path analysis model showed that supervisor support was significantly associated with increased engagement.

Thus, the present study contributes to our understanding of employee engagement in the public sector by clarifying the mechanisms through which supervisor support influences employee engagement. Drawing from the organizational support theory (OST) as the guiding theoretical framework (see Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011), we explore whether perceived organizational support (POS; for example, job training, appropriate workload, and work–life balance) mediates the relationship between supervisor support and employee engagement.

Our final contribution is to examine whether the impact of supervisor support on POS is moderated by learning opportunities in the job. Research on the job characteristics model and extensive studies in the leadership literature suggest that leader impact is likely to be moderated by task characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986). We explore whether the indirect effect of supervisor support on employee engagement through POS³ is more pronounced among those who report having opportunities to learn and grow in the past 12 months compared with those who did not report having such opportunities.

As employee engagement is relatively a new concept in the public management and public administration literature, in the next section, we begin by reviewing how the concept of engagement has been defined and developed in the academic literature and discuss its distinction from other well-known organizational constructs, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In the two sections that follow, we introduce the research framework by discussing OST as a guiding theoretical framework and discuss empirical links among supervisor support, organizational support, and learning opportunities. Following an explanation of data, measurements, and method, we report the results of empirical analysis. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications, study limitations, and a future research agenda.

Conceptualizing Engagement

A number of definitions have been provided in the academic literature on employee engagement. Kahn (1990) is credited as the first to introduce the concept of personal engagement, which later forms one of the four pillars of engagement literature. Based on his in-depth interviews and grounded theory, he defines it as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles in which people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Rothbard (2001) also defines engagement as psychological presence, but goes further to state that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption. Attention refers to “cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role” while absorption “means being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role” (p. 656).

In a different fashion, burnout researchers define engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy, the direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. Research on burnout and engagement has found that the core dimensions—exhaustion and cynicism—of burnout and engagement (vigor and dedication) are opposites of each other (Gonzalez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006). This definition, however, has received some criticism, with scholars debating that engagement and burnout are distinct concepts, thereby warranting independent assessment of one another (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002).

In 2002, Schaufeli et al. coined the term work engagement to refer to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. They postulate that rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular event or individual. Vigor, one of the three core components of work engagement, is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working and the willingness to invest effort in one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance and pride. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work. For the purpose of consistency, we adopt the use of “work engagement” hereafter when referring to global characteristics of engagement.

It is important to note that work engagement is different from other well-known employee outcomes, and various scholars have made the efforts. For example, work engagement is different from job satisfaction in that it combines high work pleasure with high activation; job satisfaction is typically a more passive form of employee well-being (Bakker, 2011). Work engagement also differs from organizational commitment, which primarily refers to a person’s attitude and attachment toward his or her organization. Engagement is more than just an attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of his or her roles (Saks, 2006). Finally, although it shares behavioral elements of organizational citizenship behavior, the focus of engagement is one’s formal role performance rather than extra-role behavior, which describe the core characteristics of the behavior. In summary, although several different measures have been employed in the academic literature, scholars agree that it is a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance (Saks, 2006).

Theory and Hypotheses

OST

According to OST (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011), employees develop perceptions of organizational support in response to their socio-emotional needs and the organization’s readiness to reward increased efforts made on its behalf (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). OST is an application of social exchange theory to the employer–employee relationship. As such, OST maintains that, based on the norm of reciprocity, workers trade effort and dedication to their organization for such tangible rewards as added flexibility in life–work balance and promotion. These tangible rewards are the basis for their POS. Employees also trade effort for socio-emotional benefits such as esteem, approval, and care from their supervisors (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

POS is proposed as mediating the relationship between supervisor support and various positive orientations toward organization and work, such as organizational commitment, performance, withdrawal behavior, employee engagement, and reduced cynicism (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Supervisor support is related to POS to the extent that the supervisor is viewed as an agent or representative acting on behalf of the organization (Baran, Shanock, & Miller, 2012). As for the processes underlying the relationship between POS and its consequences, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) specify three processes. First, based on the reciprocity of norm, they posit that employees who perceive organizational support feel more obligated to reciprocate toward the organization. Second, POS helps to fulfill socio-emotional needs such as needs for esteem and affiliation, leading to organizational membership and role status becoming part of one’s social identity, which contributes to one’s increased well-being. Finally, POS helps to determine the organization’s readiness to reward efforts made on its behalf (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

It is also equally important to understand what POS is not because it has at times been misinterpreted or interpreted too broadly as being any type of exchange relationship between the employee and the organization. Eisenberger et al. (1986) posit that for POS to be enhanced, the organizations’ actions must be viewed in relation to the employee as discretionary and as reflecting positive evaluations. To further clarify, Shore and Shore (1995) identified two key types of human resource practices that are related to POS: (a) discretionary practices that imply investment by the organization in an employee (e.g., time off for education) and (b) organizational recognition (e.g., salary increases). Of particular importance is that individuals view a practice as indicating positive evaluations of themselves by the organization. Therefore, benefits available to all employees regardless of performance, such as retirement benefits, would not be associated with POS (Shore & Shore, 1995).

Following the logic of OST, it is posited in this study that employees with high, as opposed to low, perceptions of supervisory support are likely to perceive greater organizational support from the organization. This in turn motivates them to reciprocate by demonstrating greater engagement in the workplace. Borrowing from the research on job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), it is proposed in this study that the indirect effect of PSS on employee engagement via POS is more pronounced among those who report having opportunities to learn in the job compared with those without having such opportunities. Our conceptual research framework in the form of moderated mediation (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) is presented in Figure 1. We now turn to the discussion of theoretical and empirical links among the variables in our model.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework (moderated mediation; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).

Supervisor Support and Employee Engagement

According to OST, supervisor support is viewed as a social exchange construct in which employees perceive the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Social exchange theory posits that if employees perceive that their supervisor supports and cares for their well-being, they will feel attached to the organization and feel obligated to “return the favor” to their supervisor by staying in the organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The relationship with a supervisor is considered as one of the main elements of employees’ work environment (Van der Heijden et al., 2010), and good supervisory feedback and constructive communication between the supervisors and subordinates may increase employees’ capabilities (Blancero Boroski, & Dyer, 1996). Two psychological processes are said to occur when employees observe their supervisors as supportive. They first believe that their supervisor has concern for their feelings and needs, and ultimately believe that they will assist them in career development (House, 1981).

Two extant theories in social and organizational psychology further explain the role of supervisor support as a source of motivation for promoting engagement among employees. One is conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000). COR theory posits that social support in workplace restricts the negative impact of emotional exhaustion related with stressful job-related activities. When employees perceive the absence of support in the workplace, they are not able to invest for resource gain, whereas employees who are given positive feedback regarding their job performance are likely to look for opportunities to develop new skills and form relevant plans of action (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000). Several scholars, most notably the works of Sarason, Sarason, and Pierce (1990) and Kaufmann and Beehr (1986) found that social support is an effective resource for assisting employees to cope with stress and for their well-being (see also Kim and Kellough, 2014).

Another theory is Kahn’s (1990) theory of personal engagement. Kahn (1990) interviewed summer camp counselors and organizational members of an architecture firm about their moments of engagement and disengagement at work and theorized that there are three psychological conditions associated with engagement at work: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Psychological meaningfulness refers to employees’ feeling that they are valued, worthwhile, and feel able to give of themselves within their workplace environment (Kahn, 1990). For example, when supervisors ask their subordinates for input, listen to their ideas, or seem genuinely interested in their success, employees are likely to perceive greater personal empowerment. In turn, this leads to a feeling of obligation to return the favor by putting greater effort at work.

Psychological safety refers to employees having a sense of being able to provide their input without experiencing any negative consequences to their status or career. For example, employees who perceive that their supervisors care what they think will feel psychologically safe and may be motivated to attempt to incorporate aspects of their life outside of their work role (e.g., other work experiences, hobbies) into their job in an appropriate manner (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Psychological availability refers to employees’ sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary for investing self in role performances (Kahn, 1990). Similarly, employees whose managers or supervisors seem genuinely interested in their success or recognize them for their contributions are likely to develop greater perceptions of psychological availability. In turn this makes them feel capable of driving the physical, intellectual, and emotional efforts necessary to perform their work (Kahn, 1990). Considering that immediate supervisors typically interact with their employees on a daily basis, they are most likely to influence the experience employees have at work due to their visibility and the impact they have on an individual’s time and resources. Thus, employees with greater positive perceptions of supervisor support are likely to demonstrate greater engagement in the workplace. Subsequently, several researchers have suggested that higher levels of engagement are seen in employees when direct supervisors exhibit more relationship-oriented behavior (e.g., May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Based on the relevant theoretical foundations and empirical evidence, we establish the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between employees’ perception of supervisor support and their level of work engagement.

The Mediating Role of POS

Similar to developing perceptions toward their supervisors, employees also form global perceptions concerning their valuation by the organization (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, via directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, employees view their supervisor’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them as indicative of the organization’s support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In addition, employees expect that their supervisors’ evaluations of subordinates are ultimately conveyed to upper management, further contributing to employees’ association of supervisor support with organizational support. Empirical studies originating from private sector samples lend support to the positive relationship in which PSS leads to POS (e.g., Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). For example, using a panel design on retail sales employees to examine the relationship of PSS to temporal change in POS and the relationship of POS to temporal change in PSS, Eisenberger et al. (2001) found evidence that PSS-POS relationship increased with perceived supervisor status in the organization. From this literature, we establish the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between employees’ supervisor support and perceived level of organizational support.

According to OST, POS is strengthened by favorable work experiences that employees believe reflect voluntary and purposeful decisions made by the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995). The relationship between favorable work experiences (e.g., leader–member relations, timely feedback from supervisors) and POS will be stronger when those experiences can be attributed to the organization’s discretionary acts as opposed to actions the organization is forced to undertake by external constraints (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). POS, in turn, will enhance positive employee attitudes by producing a felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfare (Eisenberger et al., 2001).

Several scholars have demonstrated that POS mediates the relationship between supervisor support and important employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Ng & Sorensen, 2008), affective commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001), and turnover (Eisenberger et al., 2001). For example, in a study of 413 postal employees, Eisenberger et al. (2001) found evidence that felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfare as a result of POS was positively associated with affective commitment, organizational spontaneity, and in-role performance. In another study, Rhoades et al. (2001) found that POS mediated positive associations of supervisor support with affective commitment. In their study over a 2-year and 3-year span, POS was positively related to temporal changes in affective commitment, suggesting that POS leads to employee commitment. Finally, a meta-analysis of the role of PSS and POS on employee outcomes by Ng and Sorensen (2008) showed that POS mediated the relationship between PSS and turnover intention. These previous findings suggest that POS may mediate the relationship between PSS and work engagement because work engagement is shown to be an immediate predictor of employee work attitudes such as job satisfaction and turnover intention (e.g., Choi, 2013; Karatepe, 2013; Klassen et al., 2012; Lee, Choi, Moon, & Babin, 2014).

Task concentration is believed to be a key element in developing intrinsic interest in one’s work (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006). In theorizing their work, Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) discuss several ways in which POS may increase positive orientation (e.g., work engagement) toward work and the organization. First, the expectation that the resources needed to carry out one’s job well will be provided should increase intrinsic task interest. Second, they posit that the self-efficacy and expanded use of high-level skills, resulting from POS, should make work more interesting. Third, POS is thought to increase expected reward for high performance (Eisenberger et al., 1997), which has been found to enhance intrinsic task interest. Finally, they posit that the positive valuation of one’s current performance should meet needs for approval and esteem and therefore also increase intrinsic interest.

Empirical evidence that examines the direct impact of POS on work engagement is limited. Among the few studies that exist, a recent study by Gillet, Huart, Colombat, and Fouquereau (2013) found empirical evidence among 235 French police officers in which POS had positive impact on work engagement through self-determined motivation. In another study, using a random sample of managers selected from five Finnish trade unions (non-governmental), Kinnunen, Feldt, and Makikangas (2008) found that POS was significantly related to positive work engagement. Finally, applying Kanter’s (1993) theory of organizational empowerment to staff nurses in health care settings, Laschinger and Finegan (2005) found empirical evidence that proper work conditions and job training as sources of organizational empowerment lead to increased work engagement. Given the existing theoretical and empirical evidence related to PSS, POS, and employee outcomes, we develop the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between POS and employee work engagement.

Hypothesis 2c: The relationship between supervisor support and employees’ work engagement is mediated by organizational support, such that supervisor support has a positive, indirect impact on employee work engagement through its influence on organizational support, which in turn increases employees’ level of work engagement.

Moderating Role of Opportunity to Learn and Grow

Until this point, we have argued that perceptions of supervisor support indirectly influence work engagement through greater recognition of organizational support. Yet, organizational scholars, and leadership researchers in particular, have emphasized that the impact of supportive leadership on employee and organizational outcomes varies depending on the task characteristics (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995). One way to increase employee performance and personal outcomes is by enriching the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In their original version of job characteristics theory, Hackman and Oldham proposed a model of five core job characteristics (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) that affect five work-related outcomes (i.e., motivation, satisfaction, performance, and absenteeism and turnover) through various psychological states (e.g., experienced meaningfulness). Explicit in this theory is that not the degree to which these characteristics are embedded in jobs varies. Hackman and Oldham (1976) further proposed that job dimensions such as skill variety and task significance prompt employees’ psychological states that lead to some beneficial personal and work outcomes. Hackman and Oldham (1976) define skill variety as the degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, involving the use of various skills of the person. Task significance refers to the degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people, either in the immediate organization or in the world at large (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Based on the work of Hackman and Oldham, we argue that employees who perceive that they are not getting the opportunity to learn and grow due to the limited scope of the job responsibilities will perceive that the expressions of leader support will have lesser impact on getting the organization to reward them through felt psychological states (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Similarly, employees who perceive that their job allows them to learn and grow will have greater expectation that supervisor support will be translated into formal recognition and rewards by the organization. This is expressed with the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between supervisor support and organizational support will be stronger for employees who reported having opportunities at work to learn and grow, compared with those who did not report having such opportunities.

If POS mediates the relationship between PSS and work engagement, as predicted in Hypothesis 2c, and the impact of PSS on organizational support is dependent on learning opportunities, as predicted in Hypothesis 3a, it is likely that the mediated relationship between PSS and work engagement via POS will be stronger for individuals who reported having opportunities to learn in the job than for individuals who were not given the opportunities. This effect pattern is referred to as moderated mediation (Preacher et al., 2007) as depicted in Figure 1. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between PSS and work engagement via POS will be stronger for those who had the opportunities at work to learn and grow than for those who did not have the opportunities.

Method

Data

The data were drawn from the 2012 Employee Engagement Survey, which was conducted through the joint collaboration between the Governing Institute and International Public Management Association for Human Resources.⁴ Data were collected between June 21 and July 13, 2012, via online. This was the first major survey designed to determine comparative engagement benchmarks and understand the drivers of satisfaction among various state and local government employees in the United States. A total of 2,259 state and local government employees elected to participate in the survey, producing a total sampling error of ±2.5% with 95% confidence.⁵ As our analysis focused on the impact of supervisor support on work engagement, those in senior executive and elected/appointed positions were excluded from the final analysis. A total of 506 staff or support position (non-management) employees and 745 mid-level managers were included in the final analysis. A brief demographic overview of the survey respondents is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents.

	Respondents (%)
Organizational field
Administration	9
Corrections	1.7
Energy	1
Environment	5
Finance	11.9
General services	2.1
Health and human services	8
Higher education	5.7
Human resources	5.4
Transportation	9.9
Judicial/courts	0.6
K-12 education	4.9
Parks/recreation	1
Legislature	2.9
Public safety/police/fire/EMS	7.6
Technology	7.8
Other (specify)	15.7
Function
Staffer/support position (non-management)	40.4
Gender
Female	48.8
Race
Non-White	12
Age
≤30	3.3
31-40	12.7
41-50	26.7
51-60	40.2
61-70	16.2
71 or older	1
Education
High school diploma or equivalent	8.3
Undergraduate degree	30.4
Some graduate school	15.2
Graduate degree or higher	46.1

Note. EMS = emergency medical services.

Measures

This study relies on perceptual rather than objective measures. Although this can be viewed as a weakness, we share Wright and Pandey’s (2011) argument that individual perceptions are a critical determinant of individual behavior in organizations, mediating the relationship between objective characteristics of the work environment and individual responses (see also Rousseau, 1988). Employees are said to interpret their environment based primarily on their perceptions and experience of the situations (Shamir & Howell, 1999). Consequently, our dependence on perceptions carries great weight because it is the primary method through which individuals “interpret events, predict possible outcomes, and gauge the appropriateness of their subsequent actions” (Parker et al., 2003, p. 390). Consequently, even employees in the same organization are not expected to interpret their work environment in identical ways as they will have different views on their relationship with their supervisors, what constitutes appropriate working conditions, and perceived learning opportunity in the workplace. Numerous reviews of organizational research have supported the importance of using individual perceptions when explaining employee behavior (e.g., Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1995; Boyd, Dess, & Rasheed, 1993; Parker et al., 2003).

All primary independent variables and the dependent variable in our study are measured by multiple items derived from exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis with varimax method), except for the moderator which was binary. All 16 items used for the development of three constructs, PSS, POS, and work engagement, were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Table 2 provides the factor loadings that support the use of these items as indicators of the underlying constructs.

Table 2.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Survey Items (Principal Components Analysis, Varimax Method).

Items	1. PSS	2. POS	3. WE
1. My manager/supervisor cares for what I think.	0.88	0.25	0.13
2. My manager/supervisor respects me.	0.87	0.23	0.10
3. My manager/supervisor listens to my ideas.	0.87	0.23	0.12
4. My manager/supervisor recognizes me for my contributions.	0.86	0.22	0.09
5. My manager/supervisor is interested in my success.	0.85	0.22	0.17
6. My manager/supervisor asks me for input.	0.83	0.20	0.12
7. My manager/supervisor provides constructive criticism.	0.82	0.21	0.14
1. The workload is properly distributed.	0.19	0.74	0.03
2. I have the tools/training I need to get the job done effectively.	0.17	0.72	0.13
3. I have proper working conditions.	0.22	0.70	0.04
4. I am able to have a proper work–life balance.	0.16	0.60	0.16
5. My department effectively uses our resources for problem solving.	0.31	0.56	0.24
1. I am fully engaged in my job.	0.13	0.13	0.78
2. I feel I can make a difference by working here.	0.24	0.21	0.73
3. I am focused on serving the public with integrity.	−0.03	−0.05	0.72
4. I am proud to work here.	0.25	0.38	0.68
Initial eigenvalue	7.24	1.96	1.39
Percent of common variance	45.20	12.20	8.60

Note. PSS = perceived supervisor support; POS = perceived organizational support; WE = work engagement.

Dependent Variable

The survey items did not contain a tested scale for work engagement, so proxies were used. Work engagement is measured by an index of four items that capture three dimensions—vigor, dedication, and absorption—of work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Although many different versions of work engagement measures exist, these dimensions are widely used in recent engagement literature (e.g., Li, Li, & Shi, 2010; Strom, Sears, & Kelly, 2013).⁶ Two items measure vigor dimension of engagement: (a) “I feel I can make a difference by working here” and (b) “I am focused on serving the public with integrity.” One item taps dedication dimension of work engagement: “I am proud to work here.” And the fourth item reflects the final dimension, absorption, of work engagement: “I am fully engaged in my job.” These items are strong on face validity. For example, the first two items reflect mental resilience while working, which is characteristic of vigor. The third item refers to experiencing a sense of significance and pride in one’s work, which characterizes dedication. Finally, the last item describes an employee who is being fully concentrated in his or her work, which characterizes one’s absorption. Because we were interested in examining overall engagement, we also ran a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify whether the three dimensions loaded onto a single latent factor. The second-order factor model achieved excellent fit (χ² = 14.02, df = 2; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.99, goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.99, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.99, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.02). We calculated a composite score as the average of the individual items (Cronbach’s α = .76).

Independent Variables

PSS is measured with an index of seven items, as demonstrated in Table 2. A one-factor CFA using the seven items yielded an excellent fit (χ² = 173.60, df = 14; CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.01). We calculated a composite score as the average of the individual items (Cronbach’s α = .95). As also shown in Table 2, POS is measured by five items. A one-factor CFA using the five items yielded an excellent fit (χ² = 31.22, df = 5; CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.02). We calculated a composite score as the average of the individual items (Cronbach’s α = .75).

To measure perceived opportunity to learn and grow, we used a question in a binary format that asked whether the participant has “had opportunities at work to learn and grow in the last 12 months.” Their responses were coded 1 for if they had learning opportunities and 0 for if they did not have a learning opportunity.

Many of the demographic characteristics in the survey are measured by binary variables, including gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race (0 = White, 1 = non-White), and managerial status (0 = management, 1 = non-management). Age (in years), tenure (years with current agency), and education (1 = less than high school, 2 = high school diploma or equivalent, 3 = undergraduate degree, 4 = some graduate school, and 5 = graduate degree or higher) were also included as control variables in the model.

Data Analysis and Findings

We begin presenting our results with an assessment of potential common method bias. Next, we will turn to the presentation of the descriptive statistics. This is followed by the reporting of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression-based path coefficients and indirect effect for moderated mediation model. To provide formal inferential test of our mediation hypothesis, we used an analytical approach outlined by Preacher et al. (2007).

As our data include individuals in support positions, as well as those in middle-level managerial positions, we also explored whether our regression results would differ between the two groups. All findings, including the direction and size of the regression coefficients, as well as the mediation impact, closely mirrored each other between the two groups, except for the moderating impact. As the literature is limited on whether results will vary depending on the level of positions, these separate tests were purely exploratory and are presented in the appendix.

Test of Common Method Bias

We conducted a pair of diagnostic analyses to address the potential for common method bias among the three constructs measured at the same point in time (supervisor support, organizational support, and work engagement). First, we used Harmon’s single-factor test to assess whether common method variance was present in the data, which is useful for examining the seriousness of its bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). If a substantial amount of common method variance is present, either a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis or one general factor will account for the majority of the covariance among the variables. The results of principal components analysis with varimax rotation revealed the presence of three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, rather than a single factor. The three factors together accounted for 66% of the total variance; the first (largest) factor accounted for only 45% (less than half) of the total variance. In addition, we estimated a CFA model in which all its corresponding indicator variables loaded on one general method factor. This alternative one-factor model yielded very poor fit, with χ²(df) = 2,063.65 (104), CFI = 0.83, GFI = 0.76, NFI = 0.82, and SRMR = 0.10. While the results of these analyses do not preclude the possibility of common method variance, they do suggest that it is unlikely to confound the interpretation of our results.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the study variables. As shown in the table, the study variables all possess an acceptable degree of internal consistency reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Of greatest interest, both PSS and POS were positively related to work engagement. The bivariate relationships provide further evidence of the study measures’ discriminant validity. The largest bivariate correlation—between supervisor support and organizational support—was only .53. To further test whether these variables are properly measured as differentiated concepts, we conducted a CFA for variables included in the model. The analysis showed acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, χ²(df) = 514.83 (101), CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.96. SRMR was 0.04, for which the upper threshold is 0.05.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Supervisor support	3.16	0.85	(.96)
Organizational support	2.92	0.62	.53**	(.75)
Work engagement	3.50	0.54	.40**	.43**	(.76)
Learning opportunity	0.77	0.42	.37**	.27**	.26**
Gender	0.49	0.50	−.02	−.01	.05	.04
Race	0.14	0.35	.02	.03	.02	−.00	.06*
Age	50.32	10.00	−.02	.05	.10**	−.08**	−.06*	−.04
Tenure	13.78	9.77	−.01	.00	.04	−.06*	−.13**	−.07**	.44**
Education	3.99	1.05	−.02	−.01	−.05*	.01	−.04	.06*	−.08**	−.12**
Managerial status	0.40	0.49	−.05*	.00	−.09**	−.09**	.01	.04	−.04	−.10**	−.01

Note. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.

Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed. **Significant at the .01 level, two-tailed.

Tests of Hypotheses

Table 4 presents the results of OLS regression. In support of Hypothesis 1, we found a positive direct relationship between supervisor support and work engagement, β = .14, p < .001. In other words, two employees who differed by one unit in their PSS were estimated to differ by .14 units in their level of work engagement, with the person higher on PSS having higher level of work engagement. Hypothesis 2a also received support from the positive relationship between supervisor support and organizational support, β = .38, p < .001. The findings also showed positive relationship between organizational support and employee work engagement, β = .26, p < .001, supporting Hypothesis 2b.

Table 4.

OLS Regression–Based Path Coefficients and Indirect Effect.

Variable	Path coefficients		Indirect effect
Variable	POS(Model 1)	WE(Model 2)	Estimate (boot SE)	Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI
PSS	.38*** (.02)	.14*** (.02)
Learning opportunity	.19*** (.04)	—
PSS × Learning opportunity	.13** (.04)	—
POS	—	.26*** (.02)
Gender	−.00(.03)	.05* (.02)
Race	.03(.04)	.02(.04)
Age	.01** (.00)	.00** (.00)
Tenure	−.00(.00)	.00(.00)
Education	.02(.01)	−.02(.01)
Managerial status	.05(.03)	−.08** (.02)
R ²	.31	.24
F test	52.31	46.16
Total effect of PSS on WE		.24*** (.01)
Indirect effect			.1065 (.0120)	[.0836, .1305]
Ratio of indirect to total effect			.4305 (.0600)	[.3249, .5576]
Moderated mediation test			.0349 (.0125)	[.0124, .0615]

Note. Standard error in parentheses. Bootstrap confidence intervals were constructed using 10,000 resamples. The moderator was mean centered prior to analysis; As our moderator is dichotomous, this is a test of equality of the conditional indirect effects in the two groups. OLS = ordinary least squares; POS = perceived organizational support; WE = work engagement; CI = confidence interval; PSS = perceived supervisor support.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Turning to the mediation hypotheses, to run inferential tests for both mediation and moderated mediation effects, we followed the procedure outlined by Preacher et al. (2007). Among the methods that allow for hypothesis testing of indirect effects, the consensus is that bootstrapping is superior because it makes no assumption about normality in the sampling distribution and has better control over Type I error (Preacher et al., 2007). We used 10,000 bootstrap resamples to generate 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect and moderated indirect effects. Following convention, we consider an effect to be “significant” (or non-zero) if zero is not contained in the 95% confidence interval.

In support of Hypothesis 2c, PSS positively influenced work engagement indirectly through its influence on POS. Hypothesis 3a was also supported as the positive effect of supervisor support on organizational support was invigorated by learning opportunities, β = .13, p < .01. To ease interpretation, we plotted the corresponding interaction to show the moderating impact of learning opportunity on the relationship between PSS and work engagement (shown in Figure 2). As shown in the figure, the positive relationship between PSS and POS was more pronounced among employees who reported having opportunities to learn and grow in the last 12 months, compared with those reporting not to have had such opportunities. Finally, the bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) of the conditional indirect effect of PSS on work engagement via POS by learning opportunity was significantly different from zero, in support of moderated mediation effect, Hypothesis 3b.

Figure 2.

Moderating impact of learning opportunities on the relationship between PSS and POS.

Discussion

In this inquiry, we have sought to achieve a better understanding of what motivates employee to engage in the workplace, by considering their PSS, organizational support, and the opportunity to learn and grow in the organization. We find that level of work engagement increases to the extent that employees perceive that their supervisor supports them, and we identify POS as a key channel through which the positive perceptions of supervisor support increase their level of work engagement. In turn, we show that this mediating role of organizational support is particularly salient among employees who perceived that they had learning opportunity. Taken together, we have (a) highlighted the importance of supervisor support as a significant motivational source of employee engagement in the government sector, (b) attempted to open the black box that connects the relationship between supervisor support and work engagement, and (c) acknowledged the distinct invigorating role of learning opportunity in turning PSS into increased work engagement.

Theoretical Implications

Three primary theoretical contributions emerge from this research. First, drawing from the OST, our study demonstrates that favorableness of discretionary treatment by supervisor (i.e., PSS) had a direct, positive impact on work engagement. This relationship has rarely been studied in academic literature, especially in the context of government employees. The majority of the extant studies have come from the corporate sector. Thus, we add to the small but growing number of studies that investigate employee’s perceptions of supervisor support and its impact on work engagement in the public sector. This study also subsequently responds to the calls of Bakker (2011), Macey and Schneider (2008), and Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa (2009), who warranted the need for such work. In his evidence-based model of work engagement, Bakker (2011) noted that not much is known about how leaders influence their followers’ engagement and the mechanisms that explain this influence. By establishing the direct effect of supervisor support on work engagement in the public sector as in our hypothesis testing, our study reveals the critical role of supervisor as a motivating mechanism for employee engagement.

Second, our study contributes to the work engagement literature by providing a causal explanation of how PSS may influence work engagement. The model tested suggests that supervisor support affects work engagement by increasing POS, which in turn prompts employees to reciprocate with greater levels of work engagement (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). This relationship between supervisor support and organizational support indicates how favorable treatment by the supervisor transcends to the organizational level, in part because of the increased identification with the organization that it entails and subsequently with the work that employees undertake for it (Cable & DeRue, 2002). In light of the mixed findings shown in previous studies that tested only for a direct effect of supervisor support (e.g., Jenaro et al., 2010; Menguc et al., 2013), the unique effects of supervisor support and organizational support separately (e.g., Pati & Kumar, 2010; Ram & Prabhakar, 2011), or its impact across different cultures (e.g., Brough et al., 2013), this study contributes to our understanding of employee engagement by clarifying the mechanisms through which PSS influences work engagement among government employees.

Third, we also find that the contribution of supervisor support in terms of increasing employee work engagement through its positive effect on POS is influenced by employees’ perceived opportunity to learn and grow. In particular, the prominence of POS as a means to link PSS with increased employee engagement is more salient among employees who report having such opportunities. We thus extend previous research that links PSS to POS in that conditions involving job characteristics (e.g., task variety and significance) moderate the relationship. The explanation for this invigorating role is that those who reported having the opportunity to learn and grow in the last 12 months were more cognizant of how PSS can affect organizational responses to recognize and reward employees for increased empowerment.

In summary, this study shows that organizational support functions as an important conduit through which PSS increases employee work engagement, and the extent to which such potential is realized is greater among employees who perceive that they had opportunity to learn and grow, as opposed to those without such opportunity.

Practical Implications

Practitioners may employ the results of the present study to make effective decisions that will help increase employee engagement in the workplace. It would appear that a demonstrated expression of caring and concern by a supervisor can create a sense of obligation on the part of employees to reciprocate with greater levels of work engagement in state and local government organizations. Public sector managers and supervisors who desire to influence their employees’ engagement in work should look beyond merely offering monetary incentives. Instead they should have more confidence on the potential effects of building quality leader–member relations through employee satisfaction surveys, focus groups, and other individualized meetings.

Consistent with Saks’s (2006) view that there is no “one size fits all” approach to employee engagement, supervisors will have better success of having employees engaged through these interventions, which in turn promote better understanding of the needs and demand between the two parties. Unhealthy relationships with supervisors (e.g., lack of communication) have, in fact, been cited as a more critical factor than low status or lower salary in employee dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 2003). Although this finding is encouraging given the notable challenges and constraints associated with public sector, supervisors should also understand that employee engagement is a long-term and ongoing process that requires continued interactions with their subordinates to generate obligations and a state of reciprocal interdependence (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Therefore, supervisors should not view even the “small talk” as a barrier to productivity. Instead of waiting for the formal annual evaluation period at the end of each fiscal year, we suggest that conducting more frequent individualized meetings may provide the opportunity for supervisors to more proactively address issues and barriers that may be hampering employees’ performance. It may also provide the opportunity for subordinates to raise issues that traditionally are not reflected on performance score sheet or peer evaluation and make recommendations.

In a related vein, employees with strong, positive perceptions of supervisor support led to stronger perceptions of organizational support. In turn, this led to increased work engagement. This suggests that employees are more likely to engage in their job with the expectation that the demonstrated care by supervisors will ultimately transcend to formal acknowledgment at the organizational level. Thus, it is important that concerns and needs raised during the leader–member dialogues be resolved to some degree (e.g., increased number of employees teleworking during pregnancy and high performing employees working alternate days). Similarly, we advise supervisory actors from making promises they cannot keep. Our findings suggest that employees’ heightened sense of organizational support can be attributed to PSS, a relationship that can quickly diminish if employees do not trust their supervisors in the first place (Frost & Moussavi, 2011). Therefore, it is important for supervisors to communicate with their subordinates and establish a realistic set of expectations on actions and resources that are attainable by the organization.

Finally, the study’s findings also provide insights into the job characteristics criteria that organizations could adopt. Controlling for the function of the employees (i.e., staff vs. mid-level manager), the indirect effect of PSS via POS was more pronounced among those who reported having, as opposed to not having, the opportunity to learn and grow in the last 12 months. This suggests that employees are cognizant of greater rewards at the organizational level especially when advancement or opportunity for personal growth in competence are available (Herzberg, 2003). Given that some tasks are inherently more routinized or narrower in scope than others (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), not every work position has something to offer for employees beyond formal contractual agreement. One potential remedy may be to promote a learning organizational culture in which every employee is offered training in areas outside of their main tasks, which may facilitate work flow particularly in cases of turnover.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

We acknowledge several limitations that offer opportunities for further research. Our study relies on the use of a cross-sectional design, which precludes the demonstration of causal order among variables. Specifically, strongly engaged employees may, in turn, motivate their supervisors to provide more favorable treatment. A longitudinal design could better distinguish the direction of causal relationship and track possible fluctuations in the effect of work engagement over time.

We are also limited in the use of secondary data, which prevented us from more precise specification of measures. For example, our measure of work engagement did not use the well-known Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), which has been shown to have excellent psychometric properties regarding the three underlying dimensions (vigor, dedication, and absorption) of work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002). All the indices developed for this study have desirable internal consistency as well as face validity; however, the implementation of tested constructs would allow us to better compare with other studies and greatly enhance our understanding of work engagement in the public sector.

In a related vein, our measure of moderator—opportunities to learn and grow—as binary can use improvement in future study. We used an item that asked whether respondents had opportunities to learn and grow in the last 12 months. While we followed Hackman and Oldham (1976) and theorized that individuals’ responses would vary due to the scope of their job requirements based on the job characteristics theory, it is also possible that some were simply unwilling to learn and grow at some point as research suggests that employees show tendency to stop learning because they seem to have all the answers to everything (see Shi & Yip, 2007). Is it possible that some people ceased to have the opportunities to learn and grow when the opportunities were there? It would provide more nuanced measure if respondents were instead asked whether they were “given or received the opportunity . . .” or whether their “job description allowed learning outside of routine tasks.”

The third limitation is that our study focused on exploring only one mechanism, POS, to better understand the relationship between PSS and work engagement. As our findings showed, while POS significantly mediated the effect of PSS on work engagement, only 43% of the effect of PSS on work engagement occurred indirectly through POS (see the Ratio of indirect to total effect from Table 4), which suggests there may be other important mediators not addressed in our model. Previous studies of work engagement consistently have shown that two kinds of resources influence work engagement—job resources and personal resources. As such, factors relating to personal resources were left out of the equation in our model. For future research, incorporating such personal resources as public service motivation (Perry & Wise, 1990) as an independent variable or as a moderator in predicting work engagement may help shed further light on whether supervisor support and job resources still matter, and on whether the impact of supervisor support or job resources is significantly stronger for those with high public service motivation.

Finally, further exploration of the findings revealed that perceived opportunity to learn and grow significantly moderated the relationship between PSS and POS among managerial actors but not among those in staff or support positions (see appendix). Research on job characteristics theory and OST mostly focused on understanding the motivational factors of non-managerial actors. Why the impact of PSS was more prevalent among managerial actors is beyond the scope of our study. Thus, our understanding of work engagement will benefit from more studies that focus on taking into account the various functions and positions of the individuals in the organization.

Conclusion

The main objective of this study was to deepen understanding of the relationship between employees’ perceptions of supervisor support and work engagement. Using a unique survey of local and state government employees, we have shown that POS acts as a critical mechanism through which supervisor support increases employees’ engagement in the workplace. Furthermore, we have revealed that the extent to which organizational support channels supervisor support into higher work engagement is invigorated by employees’ perception on having the opportunities to learn and grow. We hope then that this study prompts further investigation of the processes through which employees are engaged toward the organization and work.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Myung H. Jin is an assistant professor in the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. His research interests include administrative behavior, performance appraisal, citizen engagement, and comparative public administration. His recent research has appeared in Public Performance and Management Review, Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, International Journal of Public Administration, and American Review of Public Administration.

Bruce McDonaldis an assistant professor of public budgeting and finance in the Department of Public Administration at North Carolina State University. He is also an associate editor with the Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs. His research has appeared in the Annual Review of Political and Military Sociology, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, and the Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs.

References

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265-269.

Baran

B. E.

Shanock

L. R.

Miller

L. R.

(2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 123-147.

Baumruk

(2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, 48-52.

Biggs

Brough

Barbour

J. P.

(2014). Exposure to extra-organizational stressors: Impact on mental health and organizational perceptions for police officers. International Journal of Stress Management, 21, 255-282.

Blancero

Boroski

Dyer

(1996). Key competencies for a transformed human resource organization: Results of a field study. Human Resource Management, 35, 383-403.

Bommer

Johnson

Rich

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

(1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605.

Boyd

Dess

Rasheed

(1993). Divergence between archival and perceptual measures of the environment: Causes and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 18, 204-226.

Britt

T. W.

Castro

C. A.

Adler

A. B.

(2005). Self-engagement, stressors, and health: A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1475-1486.

Brough

Timms

Siu

Kalliath

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Sit

C. H.

. . . Lu

(2013). Validation of the job demands-resources model in cross-national samples: Cross-sectional and longitudinal predictions of psychological strain and work engagement. Human Relations, 66, 1311-1335.

10.

Buckingham

Coffman

(1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

11.

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884.

12.

Choi

(2013). The differences between work engagement and workaholism, and organizational outcomes: An integrative model. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 1655-1666.

13.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

14.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.

15.

Eisenberger

Cummings

Armeli

Lynch

(1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820.

16.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

17.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

(2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

18.

Fiedler

F. E.

Garcia

J. E.

(1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York, NY: John Wiley.

19.

Frost

T. F.

Moussavi

(2011). The relationship between leader power base and influence: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8(4), 9-14.

20.

Gillet

Huart

Colombat

Fouquereau

(2013). Perceived organizational support, motivation, and engagement among police officers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44, 46-55.

21.

Gonzalez-Roma

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Lloret

(2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165-174.

22.

Governing Institute. (2016). About the governing institute. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/about

23.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

24.

Harter

J. K.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hayes

T. L.

(2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

25.

Herzberg

(2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.

26.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Shirom

(2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In Golembiewski

R. T.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57-81). New York, NY: Dekker.

27.

House

J. S.

(1981). Work stress and social support. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.

28.

Howell

J. P.

Dorfman

P. W.

Kerr

(1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88-102.

29.

International Public Management Association for Human Resources. (2014). About us. Retrieved from http://ipma-hr.org/about-us

30.

Jenaro

Flores

Begoňa

Cruz

(2010). Vigour and dedication in nursing professionals: Towards a better understanding of work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 865-875.

31.

Jin

M. H.

Park

(2016). Sexual minority and employee engagement: Implications for job satisfaction. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 2(1), 3-14.

32.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

33.

Kanter

R. M.

(1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

34.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2013). Perceptions of organizational politics and hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25, 82-104.

35.

Kaufmann

G. M.

Beehr

T. A.

(1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-526.

36.

Kim

Kellough

J. E.

(2014). At-will employment in the states: Examining the perceptions of agency personnel directors. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 218-236.

37.

Kinnunen

Feldt

Makikangas

(2008). Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 114-127.

38.

Klassen

R. M.

Aldhafri

Mansfield

C. F.

Purwanto

Siu

Wong

M. W.

Woods-McConney

(2012). Teachers’ engagement at work: An international validation study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 317-337.

39.

Kottke

J. L.

Sharafinski

C. E.

(1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075-1079.

40.

Laschinger

K. S.

Finegan

(2005). Empowering nurses for work engagement and health in hospital settings. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35, 439-449.

41.

Lee

Choi

Moon

Babin

B. J.

(2014). Codes of ethics, corporate philanthropy, and employee responses. International Journal of hospitality Management, 39, 97-106.

42.

Shi

(2010). The influence of procedure justice on work engagement: The mediating role of organizational commitment. In 2010 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 2nd Symposium on Web Society (pp. 632-636). New York, NY: IEEE.

43.

Macey

W. H.

Schneider

(2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.

44.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

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

45.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.

46.

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.

47.

T. W. H.

Sorensen

K. L.

(2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243-268.

48.

Nowack

(2008). Leadership, emotional intelligence and employee engagement: Creating a psychologically healthy workplace. Envisia Learning, 1-13.

49.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

50.

Parker

C. P.

Baltes

B. B.

Young

S. A.

Huff

J. W.

Altmann

R. A.

Lacosts

H. A.

Robersts

J. E.

(2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389-416.

51.

Partnership for Public Service. (2012). About best places to work. Retrieved from http://ourpublicservice.org/issues/engage-employees/index.php

52.

Pati

S. P.

Kumar

(2010). Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy, organizational support & supervisor support. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 126-137.

53.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

54.

Pfiffner

J. P.

(1987). Political appointees and career executives: The democracy-bureaucracy nexus in the third century. Public Administration Review, 47, 57-65.

55.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Ahearne

Bommer

W. H.

(1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21, 422-470.

56.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

57.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

58.

Ram

Prabhakar

G. V.

(2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(3), 47-61.

59.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

60.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

Armeli

(2001). Affective commitment to the organization. The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836.

61.

Rich

B. L.

Lepine

J. A.

Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.

62.

Richardsen

A. M.

Burke

R. J.

Martinussen

(2006). Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 555-574.

63.

Robinson

Perryman

Hayday

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

64.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.

65.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. In Cooper

Robertson

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 1988 (Vol. 3, pp. 139-158). New York, NY: John Wiley.

66.

Saks

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.

67.

Sarason

B. R.

Sarason

I. G.

Pierce

G. R.

(1990). Traditional views of social support and their impact on assessment. In Sarason

B. R.

Pierce

G. R.

(Eds.), Social support: An interaction view (pp. 7-25). New York, NY: John Wiley.

68.

Schaufeli

Salanova

Gonzalez-Roma

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.

69.

Shamir

Howell

A. M.

(1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257-283.

70.

Shi

Yip

(2007). Driving innovation and improving employee capability: The effect of customer knowledge sharing on CRM. The Business Review, 7, 107-112.

71.

Shore

L. M.

Shore

T. H.

(1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In Cropanzano

Kacmar

K. M.

(Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work (pp. 149-164). Westport. CT: Quorum Press.

72.

Shuck

M. B.

(2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 304-328.

73.

Shuck

M. B.

Wollard

(2010). Employee engagement & HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110.

74.

Strom

D. L.

Sears

K. L.

Kelly

K. M.

(2013). Work engagement: The roles of organizational justice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(10), 1-12.

75.

Stumpf

S. A.

Tymon

W. G.

van Dam

N. H. M.

(2013). Felt and behavioral engagement in workgroups of professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 255-264.

76.

Van der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

Kummerling

Van Dam

Van der Schoot

Estryn-Behar

Hasselhorn

H. M.

(2010). The impact of social support upon intention to leave among female nurse in Europe: Secondary analysis of data from NEXT survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 434-445.

77.

Wallace

Trinka

(2009). Leadership and employee engagement. Public Management, 91(5), 10-13.

78.

Wright

B. E.

Pandey

S. K.

(2011). Public organizations and mission valence: When does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43, 22-44.

79.

Zhu

Avolio

B. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34, 590-619.