Essay:

Essay details:

  • Subject area(s): Marketing
  • Price: Free download
  • Published on: 14th September 2019
  • File format: Text
  • Number of pages: 2

Text preview of this essay:

This page is a preview - download the full version of this essay above.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This research will explore the impact of leadership styles on employee engagement in Continental Tyre PJ Malaysia Company. This chapter provides the background and problem statement of this study. The research objectives and the importance of the study are also presented. The research methodology is explained and the contents of each chapter are discussed.

1.2 Company Background

Continental Tyre PJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd is a Germany based company under Continental AG - the fourth largest tyre manufacturer worldwide and one of the world\'s leading suppliers to the automotive industry for tyre and brake technology, vehicle dynamic control, including electronic and sensor systems.

The tyre manufacturing activity in Malaysia is carried out by two manufacturing facilities for the Asia-Pacific region; Continental Tyre PJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd (CTPJM) with its factory located in Petaling Jaya, and Continental Tyre AS Malaysia Sdn Bhd (CTASM) located in Alor Setar. Its Marketing and Sales is carried out through Continental Tyre PJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd.

The company has the largest tyre dealer network in Malaysia totaling over 1,200 tyre outlets providing a wide range of car care and tyre services to motorist throughout the country. The company\'s research and development (R&D) activities centralized mainly in Germany and supported by Continental Tyre PJ Technology Centre Sdn Bhd located in Petaling Jaya. Its laboratories are accredited with ISO/IEC 17025 certifications.

The tyre brands marketed in Malaysia include Continental, Dunlop Barum, Sime Tyres and Simex (Industrial and OTR tyres).

1.3 Problem Statement

The issue of employee turnover rate often been said in Continental Tyre Pj. Form the human resource management indicates employee turnover give a negative impact on organizations performance. The process of recruiting, selecting and training need to be carried out in getting new employees. Sometimes, also give impact on financial problem when recruiting a new employee.

Besides that, employee turnover may also effect the company productivity especially involves critical position in organizations. Company not reduce the rate of employee turnover can lose their competiveness in a long- term.  Therefore, the issue of employee turnover also causes of sense of discontinuity in the workplace hence unsettling managers and employees.

There is a challenge for company who need to spend more time and resource to recruit and retain workers. Employee is the most effective asset in achieving organizational goals. Lastly, leadership style being the most important role to increase the employee engagement.  

1.4 Research Objective

• To investigate the relationship transactional style and employee engagement.

• To determine the relationship transformational style and employee engagement.

• To analyses the relationship laissez-faire style and employee engagement.

1.5 Research Question

• Is there any relationship between transactional style and employee engagement?

• Is there any relationship between transformational style and employee engagement?

• Is there any relationship between laissez-faire style and employee engagement?

1.6 Hypothesis

• H01: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional style and employee engagement?

• Ha1: There is statistical significant relationship between transactional style and employee engagement?

• H02: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational style and employee engagement?

• Ha2: There is statistical significant relationship transformational between style and employee engagement?

• H03: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire and employee engagement?

• Ha3: There is statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire and employee engagement?

1.7 Significant of research

Nowadays, company faced a challenge to maintain the employee engagement in a current business. Similar to others industry, the manufacturing industry also facing a problems employee turnover in management and operators. This happens because the low organizational commitment of employees. Shortage of employees may effects the operations and profitability of manufacturing industry.

This research is importance to increase the awareness and knowledge the effect of leadership style which can impact on employee engagement in Continetal Tyre Pj. Lastly, this study will be helpful to the Continental Tyre Pj in understanding the leadership style that can influence the employee engagement. So that , the company can achieve the company objectives and increase the effectiveness of employees.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual meaning of Dependent Variable

Firstly, employee engagement is combination of feeling and behavior associated with work and the organization. Feelings include energy and enthusiasm. Behaviors include accomplishing goals (Schneider, Macey, Barbera & Martin,2009; Vernice J. Moody, 2012). Secondly, employee engagement also has defined a positive state of mind while involve in work (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006; Edward Micheal Colbert, 2012). Then, (Gebauer and Lowman, 2009; Nathan Satheli, 2013) describe employee engagement as having a deep and broad connection with the company that results in the willingness to go above and beyond what is expected to help the company succeed; they also offer a framework for building engagement based on “knowing, growing, inspiring, involving, and rewarding” employees and within that framework recommend actions for senior leaders, managers, human resource professionals, and employees themselves. Therefore, (Schaufeli, Salanova et al, 2002; Debra Ruth Wilson, 2013) defined employee engagement as an individual's positive affective-cognitive work-related state of mind, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Besides that, (Kahn, 1990 ; Elizabeth K. Ndethiu United, 2014), an expert on employee engagement, describes employee engagement as the harnessing of organization members‟ selves to their work roles; whereby they employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances. (Devi, 2009; Elizabeth K. Ndethiu United, 2014) more recently describes employee engagement as the extent to which an employee puts discretionary effort into his or her work, beyond the required minimum to get the job done, in the form of extra time, brainpower and energy. Furthermore, employee engagement is defined as “the passion and energy employees have to give of their best to the organization to serve the customer” ( Angela R. Johnson, 2015). Lastly, the bottom line is employee engagement is about how willing and able are employees in creating a positive experience for customers ( Angela R. Johnson, 2015).

2.2 Conceptual meaning of Leadership Styles

 An early researcher, (Bingham 1997; Vernice Moody, 2012) described leadership as group performing activity to accomplish a common purpose. After that, ( Robbins and Judge 2007 ; Vernice Moody, 2012) described leadership as the ability to influence a group toward a vision or set or goals. Besides, leadership is no longer simply described as an individual characteristic or difference but rather is depicted in various models as dyadic, shared, relational strategic, global and complex social dynamic (Avolio 2007; Nathan Staheli, 2013). Furthermore, leadership is described as process whereby an individual influence a group of individual to achieves a common goal. ( Northouse 2013;Elizabeth K.N Dethiu, 2013). Then, leadership has been classified in terms of individual traits, behavior interaction patterns, role relationship influence over the people, occupation of an administrative position and perception by others regarding legitimacy of influence(Yukl,2006;Chan Sook Leng ,2014). Besides that, leadership is an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of members (Bass, 1990; Chan Sook Leng, 2014). After that, (Hunter ,1998; Angela R.Johnson, 2015) defines leadership as the ability to influence people to work passionately towards goals identified as being the common good. Then,(Kauzes and Posner 1995; Angela R.Johnson 2015) creatively defines leadership as “the art of mobilizing others to want struggle for shared aspirations. Then, leadership is recognized is someone behavior when experienced or seen (Pandey, 2007;  Raimonda Alonderiene, 2016). Lastly, some definitions define leadership as a process to influence people to achieve certaion goals or results (Howell and Costley,2006; and Pardey 2007;and Raimonda Alonderiene 2016). This study use three leadership style that give impact on employee engagement which is transactional, transformational and lissez-faire.

2.2.1 Transactional style

Firstly, (Bass 1990b; and Vernice J. Moody 2012) indicated leaders who displayed transactional characteristics know the actions followers should take to complete an outcome so they satisfy followers' needs in exchange for certain achievements. Then, transactional as known the contingent leader, will reward employee for contracted goals and objective are often criticized for not being able to enact large-scale change, only incremental change (Murphy 2005; Vernice J. Moody 2012). Furthermore, transactional leadership style limit to using reward based behavior in order to achieve higher performance from employee, which only has short-term effects (Batista-Taran et al 2009; and Elizabeth K. Ndethiu 2014). Besides that, (Achua and Lussier,201; and Elizabeth K. Ndethiu 2014 ) stated that transactional leaders seeks to maintain stability within an organization through regular economic and social exchanges that achieve specific goals for both leaders and their followers. Moreover, Bass and Avolio,1990 ; and  Angela R. Johnson 2015) defined transactional leadership as a leader who manages by exception and promises subordinates rewards for good performance. Next, (Deluga 1988; Angela R. Johnson 2015) describes managing by exception as taking corrective action against an employee and proactively looks for deviations from rules and standards. Another way to view transactional leadership is “work for pay agreement”. Lastly, transactional leadership encourages the development of interest-based relationships between employees and managers, which is at the heart of a political process. It encourages negotiation about interests and puts a price tag on everyone and everything. This may lead employees to promote their interests more aggressively in an environment that struggles over limited resources (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Derya Kara 2016).

2.2.2 Transformational Leadership

Firstly, transformational leadership is an approach that some leader takes whereby they can fundamentally change the organizations, its culture and its people. Transformational leader are charismatic, inspirational encourage followership, promote intellectual thought and large-scale innovation in the people within the organizations. (Edward Micheal Colbert, 2012). Then, Bass, 1990b; Vernice J. Moody,2012) characterized transformational leaders as those who elevate employees' interests, generate awareness, and build a relationship with followers. Therefore, as discussed by Bass and Avolio 1990; Nathan Satheli 2013), intellectual stimulation is the enhancement of the followers' ability to think on his/her own related to the work tasks. Besides that, transformational leadership also improves the overall operations in the organization (Pounder, 2002; Nathan Satheli 2013). Moreover, the transformational leadership style is analogous to the relations oriented leadership, where the focus is on the relationship between the leader and the employee. Transformational leaders are known for changing their employee's attitudes, values and beliefs such that they become aligned with the organizational goals (Charbonneau, 2004; Angela R. Johnson, 2015). (Charbonneau, 2004 Angela R. Johnson, 2015) states transformational leaders inspire employees by presenting an attractive vision. (Charbonneau, 2004; Angela R. Johnson, 2015) defines this as “inspirational motivation”. Besides that, transformational leadership inspires and motivated followers (Yukl, 2002; Dr.V.Rama Devi, 2016). Lastly, Transformational leaders move followers beyond their self-interest for the great good of the organization by creating a blame-free environment and building trust in leader to enable employee engagement (Kahn, as cited in Jessica and Helena, 2011; Dr.V.Rama Devi 2016).

2.2.3 Laissez-faire style

Firstly, (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland,2007; Vernice J. Moody, 2012) noted laissez-faire leadership contributes to workplace stressors, bullying and distress. Secondly, However, (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Vernice J. Moody, 2012) noted a nonresponsive behavior by leaders could be fair or equitable if poor performance by employees is out of their control. Then, laissez-faire whereby a leader only gets involved when there is a problem ( Northouse,2013; Bass,1985; and Elizabeth K. Ndethiu, 2014). Next, (Robbins, 2007; Chan Sook Leng, 2014) defined the laissez-faire style as abdicates responsibilities avoid making decisions. Lastly, passive-avoidant leadership is known for not taking action until a problem presents itself and is serious enough for corrective action (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Angela R. Johnson, 2015). This leadership style is also known as laissez-faire.

2.3 Relationship between Leadership style and Employee Engagement

Leaders impact organizational effectiveness through their followers. Leadership can have a great impact on engaging employees within the organization. A critical element in employee engagement is leadership (O'Neal & Gebauer, 2006; Vernice J Moody, 2012).The leadership quality influences this engagement (Wellins & Concelman, 2008; Vernice J. Moody, 2012). Then, psychological safety offers the most potential for leadership to influence engagement and particularly leadership that provides a supportive, trusting environment allows employees to fully invest their efforts into their work roles (Xu & Thomas, 201; Vernice J. Moody, 2012). Therefore, A leader is more than having employees, leaders must know how to work with employees (Fisk, 2008; Vernice J. Moody, 2012). Effective leaders understand and manage the expectations of employees (McGuire et al., 2007; Sexton, 2007; Vernice J. Moody, 2012).

2.4 Research Framework

Independent Variable     Dependent Variable

Figure 1

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

According to Borrego et al, 2009; Vernice J.Moody, 2012), “quantitative methods are a good fit for deductive approaches, in which theory or hypothesis justifies the variables, the purpose statement, and the direction of the narrowly defined research questions” (p. 54). Quantitative research includes describing a trend or explaining a relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Creswell, 2008; Vernice J.Moody, 2012). The independent variable is leadership style include transactional, transformational and laissez-faire. Then, the dependent variable is employee engagement. The type of this research is a basic research. Basic research refers to the study and research that is meant to increase the understanding of certain phenomena or behavior but does not seek to solve or treat these problems (Kendra Cherry, 2016).

3.2 Population

A population is described as all members of any well-defined class of people, events or objects about which a generalization is made, whereas a sample is a portion of the population or a small group that is observed in a research study (Manoharan, 2009; Elizabeth K. Ndethiu, 2014). The target population of this study is consisted of 150 employees in Continental Tyre Pj from different department. The participants from Continental Tyre Pj include different age, levels of experience, and occupational titles in the workplace.

3.3 Sampling

3.3.1 Sampling Design

Sampling is the process of selecting sufficient number of elements from the population, so that a study of the sample and an understanding of its properties or characteristics would make it possible for us to generalize such properties or characteristics to the population elements. Probability sampling, or random sampling, is a sampling technique in which the probability of getting any particular sample may be calculated.

This research is use non-probability sampling to get the data. Non-probability sampling is the elements that do not have known or predetermined chance of being selected as subjects. Non-probability sampling, also known as purposive sampling selects individuals who represent certain characteristics or criteria (Creswell, 2008; Gelo et al., 2008; Vernice J. Moody, 2012).

3.3.2 Sampling Technique

This research is use convenience sampling is type of non-probability sampling. This sampling refers to the collection from members of the population that possible to participate on this research. This sampling are normally use during trial period of research project.

Convenience sampling is type of sample that use primary data source for the research without extra necessities. In other way, this sampling technique includes getting members wherever you can discover them and regularly wherever is convenient. These methods also can be applied to know for the specific issue such as service such the impact of leadership style on employee engagement in Continental Tyre Pj.

3.3.3 Sampling Size

There are two categories of sampling techniques which are random sampling and non-random sampling. Random sampling is the process of selecting sample that would representative of the population interest. In other words, using random sampling every member of the population has an equal probability to be chosen to participate in the research.

Apart from that, non-random sampling does not provide an equal chance for every member of the population to be selected as sample in the research. In non-random sampling, respondents are selected based on certain criteria.

3.4 Measurement Procedures

Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring information on targeted variables in an established systematic fashion, which then enables one to answer relevant questions and evaluate outcomes. Sekaran (2013) clarified that the most commonly used data collection methods were interviews, questionnaires, and

observation, and gave more suggestion such as personal interview which can be most profitably used.

3.4.1 Primary Data

Questionnaires were utilized as the data collection tool for this study were self-administered, and filled by the respondents and collected by the researcher. (Elizabeth K. Ndethiu United, 2014). The questionnaire was distributed to 150 workers in Continental Tyre Pj.

\\

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the result and findings from the analysis that had been done collected during the research period. Data gathered based on the survey questionnaire distributed and was used to key in through statistical analysis. The first section for the findings analysis focused on the respondent while the second analyzed on research hypothesis. This chapter also makes a discussion on the implication of the study.

4.2 Frequency analysis of Respondent

The demographic profiles of respondent were analyzed using descriptive analysis. The data include age, qualification, working experience, job designation and race.

Table 4.1: Respondent Profile Information

Profile Frequency

(N=100) Percentage

(%)

Gander

Male

Female

55

45

55.0

45.0

Age

<21

21-25

26-30

30>

4

28

24

44

4.0

28.0

24.0

44.0

Race

Malay

Indian

Chinese

Others

58

19

16

7

58.0

19.0

16.0

7.0

Qualification

SPM

STPM/ Diploma

Degree

Postgraduate

7

35

46

12

7.0

35.0

46.0

12.0

Working Experience

Less than 1 years

1-5 years

5-10 years

10- 15 years

More than 15 years  

24

25

24

11

16

24.0

25.0

24.0

11.0

16.0

Job Designation

Supervisor

Manager

Executive

Others

27

14

41

18

27.0

14.0

41.0

18.0

As the table shown the total respondent are 100. Respondents who fall under male are 55 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 55.0 .And other respondents who fall under female category are 45 which further constitute 45.0 lower than male.

Then, total respondents are 100. Respondents who fall under the age < 21 4 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 4.0%. And other respondents who fall under the age 21-25 are 28 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 28.0. At 3rd stage respondents who fall under the age 26-30 are 24 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 24.0.  And other respondents who fall under the age 30 > are 44 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 44.0.

Besides that, most of the respondent are Malay which contributed 55.0 (N=55) followed by Indian 19% (N=19), Chinese 16% (N=16) and 7% (N=7) from others respondents. Then for qualification, total respondents are 100. Respondents who fall under the SPM are 7 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 0.7. And other respondents who fall under the STPM/Diploma are 35 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 35.0 . Then others stage respondents who fall under the degree are 46 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 46.0. Lastly, other respondents who fall under the postgraduate are 12 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage of 12.0.

Lastly, the total respondents are 100 for working experience.  Respondents who fall under less than 1 year and 5-10 have same results are 24 in number which further constitutes the percentage 24.0. Then, respondents who fall under 1-5 years are 25 in number which further constitutes the percentage 25.0. And others respondents who fall under 10-15 are 11 in number which further constitutes the percentage 11.0 and 16 in number which further constitutes the percentage 16.0 are more than 30 years. The majority respondents are from executive level which is 41 constitutes the percentage 41.0. Respondent who fall under supervisor are 27 in numbers which further constitutes the percentage 27.0 followed by manager 18 in numbers which further constitutes percentage 18.0. Lastly, others respondent who fall under others are 18 in number which further constitutes the percentage 18.0.

4.3 Descriptive Statistic for All Variables

The mean score were referred to determine the degree of agreement with the variable. Based on five point of Likert scales, the standard deviation of variable and sub variable were also analyzed. The summary of the mean and standard deviation is illustrates in Table 4.2 all the variable use in study.

Table 4.2 : The Mean and Standard Deviation All Variables (N=100)

Variable Min Max Mean Standard Deviation

Transactional Style 2.33 4.50 3.4417 .45835

Transformational Style 1.83 8.00 3.7033 .75082

Laissez-faire Style 1.67 4.50 3.1267 .62815

Employee Engagement 2.60 4.73 3.6680 .40822

Based on Table 4.2, the mean for all items are ranging from 3.1267 to 3.7033. The mean for the first independent variable which is transactional style is 3.4417. For the second independent variable transformational style is 3.7033 and followed by third independent variable which is lasissez-faire style are 3.1267. Lastly, for dependent variable which is employee engagement the mean is 3.6680. It shows the most of the respondent feels natural until strongly agree with the impact of leadership style on employee engagement.

4.4 Reliability Analysis

In order to check the quality of the research instrument that was used in this study, the reliability of the measurement was verified. The Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients were performed in order to access the reliability of the measurement.

Table 4.3: Results of the Reliability for the Entire Measurement

Variable Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient,α No. of items No. of item Deleted

Transactional Style 0.424 6 -

Transformational Style 0.424 6 -

Laissez-faire Style 0.695 6 -

Employee Engagement 0.771 15 -

As the table shown the total respondent are 100. That table illustrates the Cronbach's Alpha score for all variable used in the study. Each questionnaire was examined separately and the Cronbach's Alpha tests for the entire variable are ranging from 0.4 to 0.7.

The results show for the independent variable which is transactional style the Cronbach's Alpha is 0.4.24 Meanwhile, the others variable transformational style show the Cronbach's Alpha 0.4 424 and followed by lasses-faire  style which is 0.695. Lastly, the result for dependent variable for employee engagement is 0.771. These mean that not all the variable can use for the future research.

Table 4.4: Results of the Reliability for the Entire Measurement after Item Deleted

Variable Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient,α No. of items No. of item Deleted

Transactional Leadership 0.565 5 Q2

Transformational Leadership 0.720 5 Q5

Laissez-faire Leadership 0.695 6 -

Employee Engagement 0.771 15 -

As the table shown the total respondent are 100. That table illustrates the Cronbach's Alpha score for all variable used in the study after item deleted. Each questionnaire was examined separately and the Cronbach's Alpha tests for the entire variable are ranging from 0.5 to 0.7.

The result show for independent variable which is transactional style after question two deleted is 0.565. Then, for transformational style question five have been deleted and the result show is 0.720. Meanwhile, for third independent variable which is laissez-faire style is 0.695. Lastly, the result for dependent variable for employee engagement is 0.771.

4.5 Correlation Analysis

Since the questionnaire for measuring variable are in the form of likert scale person correlation is selected to determine the correlation value.  

Table 4.5: Table of Correlation for All Variables

Correlations

Transactional

Style Transformational  style Laissez-faire

style Employee

Engagement

Transactional

Style Pearson Correlation 1 .298** .089 .284**

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .377 .004

N 100 100 100 100

Transformational style Pearson Correlation .298** 1 -.116 .204*

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .251 .042

N 100 100 100 100

Laissez-faire

style Pearson Correlation .089 -.116 1 -.155

Sig. (2-tailed) .377 .251 .124

N 100 100 100 100

Employee

Engagement Pearson Correlation .284** .204* -.155 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .042 .124

N 100 100 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Based on Table 4.4 above, it presents the inter-correlations among the variables that being discovered. From the analysis, the variable have positive correlated with employee engagement are transactional style which is (r=.284, p<0.01) and transformational style is (r=.204, p< 0.05). Meanwhile, only one variable show negative relationship which laissez-faire style is (r=-.155, p>0.05).

4.6 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis is used to test the impact of independent variables transactional leadership style, transformational leadership style and laissez-faire leadership style on a single dependent variable (employee engagement). Regression tests the deviation about the means, and all variables must be at least interval scaled. Multiple regression analysis is chosen as it helps to predict the linear relationship of a dependent variable and one or more independent variables.  (Chan Sook Leng, 2014)

Table 4.6: The Multiple Regression Analysis Result of Leadership Styles on Employee Engagement.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

3 .351c .123 .096 .38816

a. Predictors: (Constant), mean_iv_tr

b. Predictors: (Constant), mean_iv_tr, mean_iv_ts

c. Predictors: (Constant), mean_iv_tr, mean_iv_ts, mean_iv_lz

As table shown, R value represents the correlations coefficient between dependent variable and independent variable. The R value is 0.351. There are is a positive and weak correlation between the dependent variable and the three independent variables taken together. Whereas, the R square from the table is 0.123 which means that the independent variable can explained 12.3% the variation of the dependent variable. However, there are 87.7% of the variance remain unexplained in this study.

Table 4.7: The Correlations Results between Leadership Styles on Employee Engagement

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

3 Employee engagement 2.974 .367 8.109 .000

Transactional style .238 .090 .268 2.651 .009

Transformational style .057 .055 .105 1.038 .302

Laissez-faire style -.108 .063 -.166 -1.715 .090

a. Dependent Variable: mean_dv

Table 4.7 shows the results for the hypothesis result for hypothesis testing results of H1 to H3 in which a simple linear regression was conducted with employee engagement as the dependent variable and each of the three types of leadership style.

Hypothesis Testing 1:

H01: There is no statistical significant relationship between transactional style and employee engagement?

Ha1: There is statistical significant relationship between transactional style and employee engagement?

Based on table 4.7 the Beta value of transactional style is 0.268. This indicate when transactional style increase by 1%, employee engagement value increase by 0.268%. according to Sakaran (2013), the relationship between two variable is significant if p value below 0.05. The p value transactional style is 0.009 is less than 0.05. Transactional leadership style was found to be significant relationship between employee engagements. Thus, H1 is accepted for this study.

Hypothesis Testing 2:

H02: There is no statistical significant relationship between transformational style and employee engagement?

Ha2: There is statistical significant relationship transformational between style and employee engagement?

Based on table 4.7 the Beta value of transformational style is 0.105. This indicates when transformational style increase by 1%, employee engagement value increase by 0.105%.The p value transactional style is 0.302 more than 0.05. Transformational style was found to be not significant relationship between employee engagements. Thus, H02 is accepted for this study.

Hypothesis Testing 3:

H03: There is no statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire and employee engagement?

Ha3: There is statistical significant relationship between laissez-faire and employee engagement?

Based on table 4.7 the Beta value of laissez-faire style is -0.166. This indicates when laissez-faire decrease by 1%, employee engagement value decrease by -0.166%.The p value laissez-faire style is 0.090 more than 0.05. Laissez-faire style was found to be not significant relationship between employee engagements. Thus, H03 is accepted for this study.

4.7 Discussion

4.7.1 Transactional Leadership Style and Employee engagement.

Research result indicates there is a significant positive correlation in employee engagement with transactional style. Transactional style limits a leader to using reward based behaviors in order to achieve higher performance from employees, which only have short-term effects (Batista-Taran et al., 2009; Angela R.Johnson, 2015). Therefore, as concluded by May, Gilson and Harter,2004; Angela R.Johnson, 2015), managers should attempt to foster meaningfulness through other channels such as effective design of jobs, selecting the proper employees for particular work and finally through learning more about the personal aspirations and desires of employees in order to fit them to roles that will allow them to better express themselves.

4.7.2 Transformational Leadership Style and Employee Engagement

The results also indicated there is a significant positive correlation in employee engagement with transformational leadership style. There positive relationship in employee engagement with a leader who demonstrates a transformational leadership style. Previous research demonstrated the transformational leadership style facilitates a willingness of an employee to do more work than they initially intended or expected (Rui, Emerson & Luis, 2010; Angela R.Johnson, 2015)). This is possible due to the relationship a transformational leader develops with employees (Charbonneau, 2004; Angela R.Johnson, 2015).

4.7.3 Laissez-Faire Leadership Style and Employee Engagement

Lastly, the result indicates there is negative relationship in employee engagement with laissez-faire. This leadership style takes a hand off approach (Frooman, Mendelson & Murphy, 2012; Angela R.Johnson, 2015). The hands off approach exhibited by a supervisor's unresponsiveness to an employee's problem and lack of monitoring work performance are not motivating to employees. (Angela R.Johnson, 2015).

4.8 Conclusion

In chapter 4, we had done a series of analysis on the data which including reliability, descriptive, correlations and regression. Hypothesis testing was carried out as well. Now we will proceed to limitations, recommendation and conclusion of the study in Chapter 5 which is the last chapter in this study.

CHAPTER FIVE

LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter are discussed the limitations of the study and provided some recommendations for the future research. Lastly, a conclusion is drawn for the entire research project.

5.2 Limitations

There are a few limitations to this study. The study measured the perception of supervisor or leader skill by individuals at the workplace. However, sometime the supervisor or leaders not apply the correct leadership style when giving direction to their subordinate. So this is difficult to their subordinate to evaluate their leader or supervisor.

Besides that, the bias response of the survey-taker can cause by social acceptability of the response, and /or how the response makes the survey taker feel. Often times, people choose answer on a survey based on that boosts their own ego the most, rather choosing the answer based on fact (Arnold & Feldman, 1981; Edward Micheal Colbert, 2012).

The optimal study would be to utilize the MLQ-360 instrument in conjunction with the MLQ-5X Short survey tool. However, the expanded study was not conducted due to the difficulty in administering for the purpose of this research (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Angela R. Johnson, 2015). However, Avolio and Bass' (2004) Angela R. Johnson, 2015, MLQ 5X survey instrument was used to measure the supervisor's style of leadership in this study and in over 300 research programs, doctoral dissertations and master thesis around the world in the past 10 years.

5.3 Recommendation for future Research

This study will focus on recommendation for future research. After the examination and analysis of the research finding thru following recommendation are suggested.

The researcher suggested for the future research is increase the number of respondent. This study the researcher use 100 of respondent to answer the questionnaire. To get the better result in correlations and regression the researcher need to have more than 100 of respondent to get more significant relationship between dependent variable and independent variable.

Besides that, in this research, future researches are recommended not only focus in manufacturing industry, but should also focus in other industries such as hotel industry, educational sector and government sector. By doing so, the research can be conducted in a much more specific way and researchers are able to track to most impact that can influence on employee engagement.

Lastly, in this research the most influence factor is leadership style. For the future research need to know the others factor that can influence employee engagement at the workplace such demographic factor, environmental factor and others. That can show more significant impact on employee engagement.

5.4 Conclusion

Based on the results, there is a significant impact of transactional leadership style on employee engagement. For the transactional leadership style, it will the most influence towards employee engagement, followed by transformational leadership style. For laissez-faire leadership style, it influences negatively towards employee engagement. Using this research result, managers can determine which the leadership style should be applied to increase employee engagement. That will effect on productivity of employee and company future.

Despite of achieving the research objectives, there a few limitations that brought throughout the study. Some improvements are needed for the future research to get the better results. .  However, the findings from this research can be useful for the future research especially for the manager. This study can also help in improving the employee engagement and motivationg employee to achieve their goals.

References

Bibliography

1. Amos, M. D. (2015). Servant Leadership's Impact On Engagement, The Meaning Of Work And Meaning Life .

2. Colbert, E. M. (2012). The Impact Of Leadership On Employee Enagagement At Chemical Manufacturing In United State.

3. Devi, D. (2016). Impact Of Leadership On Employee Engagement .

4. Johnson, A. R. (2015). The Effect Of Leadership Style On Employee Engagement Within Organization And Enviroment Change .

5. Leng, C. S. (2014). The Impact Of Leadership Styles On Employee Engagement In Retail Industry .

6. Li, Y. (2016). The Impact Of Leadership Behavior On Employee Engagement .

7. Metzler, J. M. (2006). The Relationship Between Leadership Style And Employee Engagement .

8. Moody, V. J. (2012). Examining Leadership Styles And Employee Engagement In The Public.

9. Ndethiu, E. K. (2014). The Effects Of Leadership Styles On Employee Engagement In An International Bank With Substantial Operations In Kenya.

10. Staheli, N. (2013). The Role Of Leadership And Performance Measurement Systems.

11. Yang, I. (2015). Positive Effect Laisse-Faire Leadership Conceptual Exploration .

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

This essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, . Available from:< https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/marketing/2017-6-18-1497777819.php > [Accessed 15.10.19].