RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC LEADERS' CAPABILITIES AND FACULTY STAFF WORK ENGAGEMENT
Eman Abd ElAlim Etway*, Nadia Taha Mohamed
Assistant professor at Nursing Administration, Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University
Corresponding Author’s Email: emabdalim@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Leaders' capabilities have positive impact on employees’ behaviors and engagement that lead to several benefits, including increased productivity, improved individual and organizational performance, and heightened organizational commitment. Aim: The present study aimed to examine the relationship between academic leaders' capabilities and staff work engagement. Design: Descriptive correctional design was utilized in this study. Setting: The present study was carried out in a Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University. Sample: Convenient sample of 103 academic staff who was working in different departments constituted the study sample Tools: Two tools were adopted and used for data collection: Global Executive Leadership Inventory (GELI) was designed to measure leadership capabilities and job engagement questionnaire to measure the staff engagement job of the faculty. Results: Showed that, faculty staff had high perception of their leaders’ capabilities as well as their work engagement. The main academic leaders’ capabilities as perceived by faculty staff were visioning, emotional intelligence followed by Team building. Conclusion: There was a highly statistically significant positive correlation between academic leaders' capabilities and faculty staff work engagement. Recommendations: The leaders' capabilities could be assessed during manager selection processes to ensure that those recruited are promoted into management positions and leaders
need to develop strategies to deal with the need of those faculty staff that were unengaged in their work.
Keywords: Academic Leaders, Capabilities, Faculty Staff, Work Engagement
INTRODUCTION
Leadership plays a vital role while dealing with diverse mix of employees that are increasing rapidly in organizations, and leadership style help followers to coordinate with each other effectively to increases satisfaction level (Shibru, 2011). Leadership capabilities have positive impact on employees’ behaviors and influencing levels of staff engagement (Swathi, 2013). Leadership can be defined in terms of traits, characteristics and behaviors that focus on a clear vision, action, modeling the way, ethical relationships, congruence, trustworthiness and collaboration. The nature of relationships with leaders influences job satisfaction, turnover, positive relationships and wellbeing of followers and organizational productivity (Boyatzis et al., 2012). There is an emergent view that leadership is everyone’s responsibility (Javaid & Mirza, 2012). Leaders are the individuals in the organization who set the tone and culture. Leadership is a process whereby one individual influence a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Achua & Lussier, 2013).
An effective leader can influence his followers to reach the goals of the organization. The ability to lead, to inspire, direct, and teach others in an organization, is a capability that must permeate an organization (Alkahtaniet al., 2011). Effective leader acts as educators who help others learn. By these means, credible leaders turn followers into leaders Aboshaiqah et al., (2014). Based on the inspirational power of the leader, some components of leadership such as the ability to make decisions regarding task scheduling and completion, performance assessment, support from the group and freedom to exercise capabilities are particularly important for improving job-related resources. Consequently, such resources positively affect
employee engagement (Breevaart, Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Leader's capabilities act as role models through ‘idealized influence’ resulting in greater employee contributions that in turn lead to enhanced employee engagement (Zhu, Avolio & Walumbwa 2009). Leader's capabilities also show ‘individualized consideration’, i.e., genuine concern for each employee, which gives employees a stronger sense of belonging to their organization (Tims, Bakker & Xanthopoulou 2011). This enhanced sense of belonging increases employee engagement, as employees wish to exhibit more affirmative attitudes in response to such consideration and support (Simsek & Gozukara, 2016).
The recent interest in the higher education literature about leadership is in response to calls for more relevant democratic cultures and less hierarchical models of leadership (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2014). Likewise, Achua & Lussier (2013) analyze international literature and identified 13 forms of leadership behavior associated with departmental effectiveness and concluded that leaders should focus on ‘vision, integrity, consideration, and sense of direction’. Individuals in formal leadership positions demonstrating effective emotional intelligence along with consultative and collaborative style supporting effective academic performance (Castro, Gomes & Desousa, 2012; Parrish, 2013). The focus of distributive leadership is on ‘collective collaboration rather than individual power and control’ to build leadership capacity in learning and teaching (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2014). There are contested meanings of leadership in higher education that need to be understood and considered in these debates, namely: leadership as position; leadership as performance; leadership as practice; and leadership as professional role model (Juntrasook, 2014).
Concepts like ‘capability’ remains poorly understood, capability is more than competence. Capability as involving that level of talent, gift or capacity required to produce productive outcomes and deliver innovations and it is constantly shifting human and technical situations. In this sense, ‘capability’ is more associated with higher education leadership than management,
with having the talent and capacity necessary to operate successfully with others to achieve continuous improvement and innovation (Iheriohanma, Wokoma & Nwokorie, 2014). It entails, the possession of attributes like being able to work productively, calmly, persuasively and deftly with diversity and uncertainty; a willingness to take responsibility and difficult decision; a capacity to inspire others through sound decision-making, integrity and enthusiasm; an ability to diagnose a complex situation; a capacity to ‘see the big picture’, to identify and set down long term beneficial settings, and then the ability to engage and support people in making it happen in a way that is both strategic and responsive (Nasomboon, 2014). Also it entails the ability to read and respond to a continuously and rapidly changing external environment (Cenkci, & Ozcelik, 2015).
Capability is more about responsiveness, creativity, contingent thinking and growth in relatively uncertain ones. According to Cenkci & Ozcelik, (2015) observation that combines aspects of leading and managing in higher education is leaders’ capacity to manage not only their own learning and change but that of others. This is closely associated with the idea of helping people through the change and providing a vision for the future (Bolden, 2009; Yukl, 2009). In particular considering their emotional intelligence both personal and interpersonal along with a distinctive, contingent capacity to work with and figure out troubling situations, to determine which of the hundreds of problems and unexpected situations they might encounter, that are worth attending to and which are not, and then the ability to identify and trace out the consequences of potentially relevant ways of responding to that situation (Frank, Eckrich & Rohr 2010).
So, in this view, capable learning and teaching leaders need more than the knowledge and skills required for the completion of educational or administrative tasks. They need the intellectual, personal and interpersonal capacity to respond in effective ways to new situations as they arise. In this sense, capability comprises the ability to identify and self-regulate leadership learning
and development (Parrish, 2013). Also, capability depends much more on confidence so that leader can effectively use and develop his skills in complex and changing circumstances than on mere possession of those skills (Daramola & Amos 2016).
Leaders impact organizational effectiveness through their followers. Leadership can have a great impact on engaging employees within the organization. Creating a positive leader teacher relationship and interaction is an essential quality of educational management that a leader can implement to motivate staff to improve the effectiveness of their teaching practice (Muriel et al., 2015). However, leaders' capabilities limit the leader to use reward-based behaviors in order to achieve higher performance from employees, which only have short-term effects (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2010). Leaders' capabilities emerge as a skill that fosters the development of employee engagement and job satisfaction (Babcock & Strickland, 2010). Leaders focusing on relationship building and trust development increase engagement levels (Bakker, 2011). Organizations that received positive responses on employee engagement achieved superior profits, increased productivity, higher retention rates, and better customer satisfaction than average organizations (Corace, 2011).
Faculty staff performs well when they are clear with their goals and objectives and aware of the process in achieving them and they tend to be motivated and committed to it. Hence, communication of clear goals and direction from the leader becomes crucial (Gladys & Njoki, 2014). Leaders must also help faculty staff to develop personal accountability for their goals and help achieve them. Setting performance expectations and instilling personal accountability among faculty staff are critical for getting outcome (Muriel et al., 2015). Faculty staff needs to trust that their leaders have the capability to bring success to the institution. To win that trust, leaders must show that they have a plan, articulate that plan clearly to faculty members, and demonstrate that plan in being implemented effectively (Swathi, 2013). Faculty staff wants
not only to know what the bigger picture is, but also to feel that they are a part of that picture (Nasomboon, 2014).
In recent times retaining and motivating the workforce has become quite challenging due to the intense competitive situation around the world. Educational leaders play important role with the intention to make teaching and learning more effective and to give quality education to students (Haruni & Mafwimbo, 2014). Establishing a positive relationship between Head of Department and their staff is a very important strategy in educational leadership. The impact of student’s achievement is not as direct and obvious as that of teachers; nonetheless, student’s achieve through their teachers. So, the teachers must be effective educators (Muriel et al, 2015).
Work engagement is a workplace approach resulting in the right conditions for all members of an organization to give their best each day, committed to their organization's goals and values, motivated to contribute to organizational success, with an enhanced sense of their own well- being. Employee engagement is based on trust, integrity, two-way commitment and communication between an organization and its members. This can be measured. It varies from poor to great. It can be nurtured and dramatically increased (Achua & Lussier, 2013). Hakanen & Schaufeli, (2012) defines employee work engagement as the extent to which employees are committed to something or someone in their organization depending on the hard work and the time spent working (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2014). Park et al., (2017) asserts that, several key themes connect the multiple definitions of employee engagement, including: Employees’ satisfaction with their work and pride in their employer. The extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do, and the perception that their employer values what they bring to the table. The term engagement refers to an individual’s involvement and satisfaction as well as enthusiasm for work (Montani, Odoardi & Battistelli, 2014).
Employee engagement cannot be achieved by a mechanistic approach which tries to extract discretionary effort by manipulating employees’ commitment and emotions. Employees see through such attempts very quickly and can become cynical and disillusioned (Fearon, McLaughlin & Morris, 2013). Engagement describes the intimate involvement with and framework of the work experience (Khuong & Yen, 2014). When employees are engaged, they are emotionally connected to others and cognitively vigilant to the direction of the team (Hsieh & Wang 2015). Engagement occurs when employees know what to expect, have the resources to complete their work, participate in opportunities for growth and feedback, and feel that they contribute significantly to the organization.
Work engagement involves positive, fulfilling, work related psychological state that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, that is the willingness of an individual to invest extra effort in his job. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of significance and enthusiasm towards one's work role. Meanwhile, absorption means being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one's work, where as time passes by, one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work (Montani, Odoardi, & Battistelli, 2014). Highly engaged employees receive performance ratings that are better than their colleagues with average levels of engagement. Considering the financial implications of employee engagement, attention has been paid to the role that leaders play in fostering engagement in the workplace (Deswal, 2015). Kaliannan et al., (2015) stated that, there is general agreement among researchers that first-line supervisor are key influencers of employee engagement in terms of executive level of leadership. The single most sought-after competency in emerging senior leaders is the ability to motivate and engage Leaders who are already ahead of the game (Voilleque, 2012). Also, Hui-jun, (2016) claims that, the single most sought-after competency in emerging senior leaders is the ability to motivate and engage employees.
Significance of the study
While significant attention has been paid to the concept of employee engagement, it has been argued that there is a dearth of research on employee engagement within the academic literature (Omidifar & Reza, 2013). Practitioners and academics tend to agree that the consequences of employee engagement are positive (Chen, Yen & Tsai, 2014). There is a general belief that there is a connection between employee engagement and business results. Nasomboon, (2014) found critical links between employee engagement, customer loyalty, business growth and profitability. Furthermore, while both practitioner and academic literature have acknowledged that organizational leaders play a role in influencing the engagement of their employees, very little work has been done to identify specifically the leadership competencies and capabilities that are most predictive of staff engagement. So, the aim of the present study is to examine the relationship between perceived academic leaders' capabilities and faculty staff work engagement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Design
Descriptive correlational design was utilized in this study.
Research questions:
What are the perceived academic leaders' capabilities?
What is the perceived faculty staff work engagement?
What is the relationship between perceived academic leader's capabilities and faculty staff work engagement?
Study setting
The present study was carried out in all departments at a Faculty of Nursing, in Cairo University: Nursing Administration, Medical Surgical Nursing, Pediatric Nursing, women’s’
health and newborn Nursing, Community health Nursing, Psychiatric and mental health Nursing and critical care and emergency nursing.
Sample
Convenient sample of faculty staff who was working in the previously mentioned departments constituted the study sample. The total number of the participants who agreed to participate in the study was 103 academic staff out of 150 from all the academic nursing departments.
Inclusion criteria
Clinical instructor who are working in the faculty and have at least one year of experience. Assistant lecturer, lecturer, assistant professor and professor who directly deal with head of department and who accepted to participate, constitutes the sample of the current study. Heads of departments were excluded.
Tools
Data for the present study was collected through utilizing the following two tools:
The Global Executive Leadership Inventory (GELI)- that is designed to measure leadership capabilities developed by Demon, (2001) and was modified by the researcher. It comprises of two parts: The first part includes the personal characteristics of faculty staff as: Position, age, years of experience and gender. The second part incorporated the Global Executive Leadership Inventory (GELI). It is used to assess the perception of faculty staff for the leadership capabilities. It consists of 50 items divided into seven dispositional characteristics, namely: Visioning (3 items), Empowering (5 items), Energizing (4 items), Designing and Aligning (4 items), Rewarding and feedback (3 items), Team building (6 items), Outside orientation (3 items), Global mindset (2 items), Tenacity (3 items), and Emotional intelligence (10 items), Life balance (3 items), and Resilience to stress (4 items). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, extending from 1 (Never) with 5 (Always).
Job engagement questionnaire developed by Balducci, Fraccaroli & Schaufeli, (2010) and was modified by the researcher. It was used to measure faculty staff job engagement. It was divided into the following four subscales of engagement: Vigor (6 items), Dedication (6 items) and Absorption (8 items). Each item ranked on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Tools validity
The two tools contents were adopted and tested for its content validity through five expertise from nursing administration department, Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University. In the light of their recommendations the important adjustments were produced.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was carried out on a sample of 10% before starting the actual data collection to ascertain the clarity, and applicability of the study tools. It also aided to estimate the time necessary on fill in those questionnaires. In view of the outcomes of the pilot study, modifications, clarifications, and rearrangement of some questions were done.
Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to determine internal reliability. It showed (0.93) during pilot study. This indicated that both instruments are reliable. The significance level (P-value) of all statistical analysis was less than 0.05.
Ethical consideration
The aim of the study was explained to the administrative personnel. Official permissions were obtained from dean of faculty and head of all nursing departments and from all participants from Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University to conduct the study at the selected units.
Procedure
Once permission was granted from the Faculty dean and head of all departments with the prepared research, the purpose of the study was explained to the faculty staff who accepted to participate in the study. The respondents were assured of complete confidentiality. An explanation of each instrument was done before it was handed over studied participants in their work places. Data was collected for two months from the beginning of October till the end of November 2018. questionnaire was filled up by the participants in a time span of 30 minutes.
RESULTS
Table 1: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Faculty Staff according to their Personal Characteristics (N=103)
Items
Frequency
%
Position:
Clinical instructor
42
40.7
Assistant lecturer
30
29.1
Lecturer
13
12.6
Assistant professor
8
7.7
Professor
11
10.6
Age
20< 30 year
51
49.5
30< 40 year
32
31.1
40< 50 year
17
16.5
50< 60 year
3
2.9
37.28±0.84
Years of experience:
less than 10 years
70
68
10
20years
20
19.4
20
30 years
9
8.7
30
40 years
4
3.9
14.9±0.81
Gender
Male
21
20.4
Female
82
79.6
Table 1 showed that, regarding their job position about 40.7% & 29.1% of study sample were clinical instructors and assistant lecturers respectively. Regarding the age about half of the study sample (49.5%) was in the age group ranged from 20 year to less than 30. As regard to years of experiences (68%) had less than 10 years of experiences. Also 79.6% of study sample was female.
Tables 2: Mean Scores of Faculty Staff Perception Regarding to Academic Leaders Capabilities, (N = 103)
No
Dimensions
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Mean %
1.
Visioning
3
15
12.19
2.83
81.27
2.
Empowering
5
25
19.94
5.2
79.76
3.
Energizing
4
20
15.89
4.11
79.45
4.
Designing and Aligning
4
20
16.13
4.01
80.65
5.
Rewarding and feedback
3
15
11.99
2.99
79.9
6.
Team building
6
30
24.26
5.62
80.87
7.
Outside orientation
3
15
11.89
2.90
79.27
8.
Global mindset
2
10
7.78
2.08
77.8
9.
Tenacity
3
15
12.1
2.96
80.67
10.
Emotional intelligence
10
50
40.61
9.60
81.22
11.
Life balance
3
15
12.05
3.19
80.33
12.
Resilience to stress
4
20
15.69
4.60
78.45
Total
50
250
200.50
46.70
80.2
Table 2 showed that, faculty staff highly perceived all dimensions of leaders' capabilities (X=200.50; SD=46.70). Academic leaders' capabilities as perceived by faculty staff was ranked as following visioning and emotional intelligence (81.27 & 81.22%) respectively, followed by team building, tenacity and designing and aligning (80.87, 80.67 & 80.65). The least mean percentage (77.8%) was with regard to dimension of Global mindset.
Tables 3: Total Mean Scores of Faculty Staff Perception Regarding Staff Work Engagement, (No =103)
Job engagement dimensions
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Mean %
Vigor
6
30
22.95
5.52
76.5
Dedication
6
30
23.22
5.73
77.4
Absorption
8
40
31.21
7.19
78.03
Total
20
100
77.39
17.60
77.39
Table 3 showed that staff of the faculty highly perceived all dimensions of their job engagement which is reflected in total job engagement (X=77.39; SD=17.60). The faculty staff had highest mean percentage in perceiving their job engagement dimensions (78.03, 77.4 & 76.5) absorption, dedication and vigor respectively.
Table 4: Correlation between Academic Leaders' Capabilities and Staff Work Engagement (N=103)
Items
Mean ±SD
r
p
Leadership abilities
200.50±46.70
0.72
0.00**
Job engagement
77.39±17.60
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 4 The above table showed that, there was a highly significant positive correlation between total leaders' capabilities dimensions and total faculty staff work engagement.
Table 5: Statistical Relationship between Faculty Staff Perception and their Demographic Characteristics(N=103)
Item
Type of test
Mean±SD
Result
p
Position:
Clinical instructor
ANOVA
290.10±53.61
1.03
0.40
Assistant lecturer
271.13±69.97
Lecturer
259.38±59.4
Assistant professor
258.25±24.51
Professor
300±0
Age
20< 30 year
ANOVA
275.78±66.27
0.84
0.48
30< 40 year
284.25±63.46
40< 50 year
281.12±35.78
50< 60 year
227.67±13.61
Years of experience:
less than 10 years
ANOVA
281.37±63.28
0.60
0.62
10
20 years
267.05±64.75
20
30 years
286.67±31.52
30
40 years
251.50±36.54
Gender
Male
t-test
282.19±72.82
0.36
0.28
Female
276.79±57.53
Table 5 revealed that, there is no statistically significant difference between faculty staff perception about academic leaders’ capabilities, staff job engagement in relation to their demographic characteristics.
DISCUSSION
The formal organizational roles of leadership and management were perceived by faculty staff as entwined and complementary to each other to ensure achievement of governance and administrative functions. Leaders were focused to ensure the rules and policies were followed by staff and were able to manage grievances. Leaders needed to be outward and have institutional credibility in order to create positive work environments for staff (Parrish, 2013). The present study was conducted to examine the relationship between academic leaders' capabilities and faculty staff work engagement in a Faculty of Nursing in Cairo University.
Results of the present study revealed that, faculty staff were highly perceived with academic leaders' capabilities. This finding is in accordance with prior research on faculty staff perceptions of leaders' capabilities. As Haruni & Mafwimbo (2014) reported that, faculty staff were able academic leaders. On the contrary Simsek & Gozukara (2016) found that faculty staff had fair level of leadership capabilities. Moreover, when mean scores of leaders' capabilities dimensions were analyzed, results of the present study revealed that, faculty staff perceived academic leaders’ visioning and emotional intelligence capabilities as most important dimensions, followed by team building, tenacity, designing and aligning. These findings were consistent with literature that identified the importance of integrity and collaboration for leadership effectiveness. Leadership with formal responsibilities is related to their understanding of their staff that eventually influenced work culture and productivity (Boyatzis et al., 2012; Cuddy et al., 2013). Visionary leaders need to remember that, their job is not just to get the organization to the ultimate goal, but it is to inspire and involve others along
the way. Their strength is in creating unity and organizational loyalty (Yukl, 2010). From the researcher’s point of view this result could be contributed to the nature of leader’s abilities that encourage faculty staff with a clear sense of leaders 'direction and vision’ and their capacity to bring people together and influence their movement towards change and collective goal achievement.
The importance of emotional intelligence for leaders has been found in many studies and includes a leader’s personal and interpersonal capabilities (Castro, Gomes & deSousa, 2012). The most effective leader has the capability in particular with their emotional intelligence both personal and interpersonal and a distinctive, contingent capacity to work with and figure out what is going on in troubling situations, to determine which of the hundreds of problems and unexpected situations they encounter each week are worth attending to and which are not. Then the ability to identify and trace out the consequences of potentially relevant ways of responding to the ones that need to be addressed (Castro, Gomes & deSousa, 2012). Thus, it is argued that an emotionally intelligent leader may create favorable psychological climate that in turn facilitates employees to exhibit creativity (Cenkci & Ozcelik, 2015).
Additionally, Trinidad, Patti & Holzer, (2015) found that, an important perceptual adjustment of the aspiring leaders in social awareness and relationship management and clustering emotional intelligence is to discover methods to increase self-awareness and self-management competencies. Furthermore, faculty would ideally hope that the employers and employees who work with the aspiring leaders - would see demonstrated behavioral changes in social and emotional competencies identified as critical for effective faculty leadership.
Polis et al., (2017) who proposed that, the relationship between team work and leadership were significant. Also this finding was consistent with Leonard & Frankel (2011) who concluded that Leaders play a crucial role in enhancing work quality for staff. According to Duffield et al., (2011) and MacPhee et al., (2012) nursing staffing, nursing workload is affected by work
environment and patient outcomes. Effective leadership, teamwork and mentoring is vital in promoting generational cohesion (Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). Closed loop communication ensures that all team members are actively exchanging information. Communication is essential to teamwork (Leonard & Frankel, 2011).
De Beer, Rothmann & Mostert (2016) concluded that, trust and integrity is one of eight key drivers of employee engagement. Chen, Yen & Tsai (2014) stated that employees continue in an organization when they feel that members of senior management, care about their general well-being, demonstrably tell the truth, effectively communicate difficult situation, listen to employees, and follow up with appropriate actions, and follow organizational goals and values in their own conduct. These characteristics were consistent with vision, tenacity, and designing and aligning items found in the results of the present study.
The present study found that faculty staff highly perceived their work engagement dimensions. The faculty staff perceived interest, dedication and vigor as most important aspect of their job engagement. In consistent with these findings, Schaufeli & Bakker, (2010) indicated that, employee engagement can be achieved through the creation of an organizational environment where positive emotions such as involvement and pride are encouraged which is matched with engagement criteria. When individuals feel positive, they can think in a more flexible, open- minded way and are also likely to have greater self-control, cope more effectively and be less defensive in the workplace. These individuals can cope more effectively and be less defensive in the workplace which is matched with dedication items (Bakker & Bal, 2010; De Cooman et al., 2016. Also, Deci, Olafsen & Ryan, (2017) reported that study of employee work engagement has gained significant attention, particularly with researches showing its relevance for organizational outcomes.
The present study revealed that, there was a highly statistically significant positive correlation between academic leaders' capabilities and faculty staff work engagement. From the researcher’s point of view this result indicated that, the faculty staff had perceived that, leaders' capabilities in building trust and integrity and their dealings with other by using emotional intelligence process with good communication and create good, friendly, supportive and healthy work environment encouraging faculty staff to engage to their work. Carasco & Kim (2015) reported that certain characteristics of managers can be critical for engagement specifically having good communication systems Simsek & Gozukara (2016) supported this results that nature of an organization's leadership and management can have an indirect impact on engagement behaviors demonstrated by employees, through leaders building trust with their staff. De Beer, Rothmann & Mostert (2016) stated that leaders' competency was positively correlated with employee engagement.
In a study among employees worldwide showed a high correlation between engagement and the extent to which the manager clearly articulates with their staff regarding the organizational goals, the extent to which they set realistic performance expectations and the extent to which they are flexible and adapt to changing situations (Breevaart et al., 2012). Similarly, a survey by Hakanen & Schaufeli (2012) found that, both large and small organizations rated the actions of senior leaders and direct supervisors as the most important drivers of employee engagement. A study by Hsieh & Wang (2015) found that, managers are critical to engagement with effective managers. On the other hand, Allameh et al., (2014) reported that, managers in many cases did not effectively recognize and reward achievements, and not effectively encouraging the use of their talents. This was supported by Al-Ansi & Abdullah (2015) who proposed that, leadership style influence job satisfaction and organizational commitment affecting those factors, such as feeling valued, that directly influence levels of perceived engagement.
The present study showed that, there is no statistically significant difference between faculty staff perception about academic leaders’ capabilities, staff job engagement in relation to their personal characteristics. While, Khuong & Yen (2014) identified that, such evidence indicates that for most employees, the first year on the job is their best and thereafter it is ‘downhill’. One challenge for employers is to find ways of renewing employees’ engagement levels through the tenure of their employment. Gladys & Njoki (2014) concluded that, women tend to find more fulfillments in their jobs and are more engaged than men. Another difference related to gender is that female managers or supervisors tend to have a higher percentage of actively disengaged workers than male managers.
Implications for Nursing Practice
The findings of this study suggest that there is a relationship between the leadership capabilities of senior leaders and the engagement of employees in their broader organizational units, as well. This indicates that it may be useful for some attention to be paid by organizations to drive positive changes to promote employee engagement through leadership initiatives with the senior most layers of the hierarchy. Organizations commonly make the mistake of perceiving that senior leaders are “fully formed” and, consequently, do not invest as heavily in their ongoing performance appraisal and development. However, as implied by this research, a systemic focus on leadership development “at the top” may have many benefits, one of which may be improvement in employee engagement in their organizations. To the extent that the findings of this research can be extrapolated to other organizations, there are practical implications of the significant relationships between staff engagement and the leadership capabilities regarding their integrity, collaboration and teaming. Organizations might consider ways to integrate these findings into efforts around recruitment, selection, performance evaluation, high potential assessment, development, succession planning, and other processes.
The findings of this research also suggest new synergies for consulting groups that bring expertise in both the measurement of, and intervention on, leadership and staff engagement. Such firms may find that they are able to deliver a stronger overall return on the investment of their clients by not only providing insights around leader capability or employee engagement as separate phenomena, but also as linked phenomena with potential for shared interventions to address opportunities for improvement in both arenas.
Limitations
The study is limited by the sample, which was in one college only. This does not allow generalization of the findings. In addition, the self-report questionnaire was used for data collection with research assumption of trustworthiness of the respondents. Researches and references on this issue (leaders' capabilities) are few.
CONCLUSION
From the present study it can be concluded that faculty staff had high perception of their leaders’ capabilities as well as their work engagement. The main academic leaders’ capabilities as perceived by faculty staff were visioning, emotional intelligence followed by team building capabilities. Also, there was a highly statistically significant positive correlation between academic leaders' capabilities and faculty staff work engagement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were:
Learning and development interventions could be designed based on the framework to support managers in developing the skills and behaviors relevant to enhancing employee engagement.
The competencies could be assessed during manager selection processes to ensure that those recruited or promoted into management positions either currently show or have the potential to develop the relevant behaviors.
Systemic interventions could be made to modify reward structures to reinforce honest, ethical decision-making behavior, or to support teamwork and collaboration.
Providing environmental supports for senior leaders along with the displays of integrity, collaboration and teaming could result in benefits to many aspects of organizational functioning through heightened employee engagement, such as improved commitment, higher retention rates among employees, enhanced innovation and greater employee productivity.
Leaders need to develop strategies to deal with the need of those faculty members who were dissatisfied.
The employee (faculty members) must be given the freedom for expression of view.
The priority area of focus for teaching and learning is the performance indicators and the capabilities identified as counting effective performance, into a revised and complementary set of leadership position descriptions, succession plans, selection procedures, development processes and performance management systems.
Assessing academic leadership potential and capabilities, which go beyond standard interview selection procedures. This would include investigating the use of a proposed online, role specific leadership evaluation & development resource leader.
Institutions and government continue to highlight the importance of learning and teaching in order to attract a new generation of leaders to this critical role, as the current,
older generation of leaders leaves the system. The moral and financial importance of effective leadership of learning and teaching in universities depends on the individuals, surrounding communities and the country emphasized.
Replication of the study in different nursing faculties to have evident results.
REFERENCES
Aboshaiqah, A., Hamdan, A., Sherrod, D., Alkhaibary, A. & Alkhbary, S. (2014). Nurses’ Perception of Managers’ Leadership Styles and Its Associated Outcomes. American Journal of Nursing Research, 2(4), pp 57-62.
Achua, C. & Lussier, R. (2013). Effective Leadership. 5th edition. Canada: South Western Publishing.
Al-Ansi, A.M., Rahardjo, K. & Prasetya, A. (2015). Analysis Impact of Leadership Style and Pay Fairness on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Business and Management, 17(3), pp 76-82.
Alkahtani, A.H., Abu-Jarad, T., Sulaiman, M. & Nikbin, D. (2011). The impact of Responsibility and Leadership Styles on Leading Change Capability of Malaysian Managers. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(2), pp 70-98.
Allameh, S.M., Pool, J.K., Jaberi, A. & Soveini, F.M. (2014). Developing a model for examining the effect of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing on organizational performance based on EFQM approach. Journal of Science & Technology Policy Management, 5(3), pp 265- 280.
AlSwidi, A., Nawawi, M. & Al-Hosam A. (2012). Is the relationship between employees’ psychological empowerment and employees’ job satisfaction contingent on the transformational leadership? A study on the Yemeni Islamic Banks. Asian Social Science, 8(10), pp 130–150.
Babcock-Roberson, M.E. & Strickland, O.J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 144(3), pp 313–326.
Bakker, A. & Bal, M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), pp 189–206. Bakker, A. & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), pp147-154.
Bakker, A.B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), pp 265-269.
Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F. & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): A Cross-Cultural Analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2), pp 143-149.
Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. & Dennison, P. (2009). A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks. University of Exeter: Centre for Leadership studies. Retrieved from: http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/documents/mgmt_standards.pdf.
Boyatzis, R., Passarelli, A., Koenig, K., Lowe, M., Matthew, B., Stoller, J. & Phillips, M. (2012). Examination of the neural substrates activated in memories of experiences with resonant and dissonant leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), pp 259-272.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Hetland, J. (2014). The Measurement of State Work Engagement: A Multilevel Factor Analytic Study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(4), pp 305–312.
Carasco-Saul M., Kim W. & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), pp 38–63.
Castro, F., Gomes, J., de Sousa, F.C. (2012). Do intelligent leaders make a difference? The effect of a leader's emotional intelligence on followers' creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), pp 171-82.
Cenkci, A. & Ozcelik, G. (2015). Leadership styles and subordinate work engagement: The moderating impact of leader gender. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 7(4), pp 8-20.
Chen, C., Yen, C. & Tsai, F. (2014). Job Crafting and Job Engagement: The Mediating Role of Person-Job Fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, pp 21-28.
Corace, C.J. (2011). Engagement: Enrolling the quiet majority. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), pp 171-175.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Kohut, M. & Neffinger, J. (2013). "Connect, Then Lead." Harvard Business Review School, 91(7/8), pp 54–61.
Daramola, A.G. & Amos, T.T. (2017). Management and leadership in Nigerian universities.
FUTA Journal of Management and Technology, 2(1), pp 1-16.
De Beer, L.T., Rothmann, S., Jr. & Mostert, K. (2016). The bidirectional relationship between person-job fit and work engagement: A three-wave study. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(1), pp 4-14.
De Cooman, R., Vantilborgh, T., Bal, M. & Lub, X. (2016). Creating inclusive teams through perceptions of supplementary and complementary person–team fit: examining the relationship between person-team fit and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), pp 310-342.
Deci E., Olafsen A. & Ryan R. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The State af a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(F), pp 19-43.
Demon, A. (2001). Organizational Identification and Job Autonomy. International Journal of Business, 2(4), pp 20-26.
Deswal, S. (2015). A Study of Job Satisfaction in Relation to Employee Engagement.
International Journal of Applied Research, 1(9), pp 303-304.
Duffield, C., Diers, D., O’Brien-Pallas, L., Aisbett, C., Roche, M. & King, M. (2011). Nursing staffing, nursing workload, and the work environment and patient outcomes. Applied Nursing Research, 24(4), pp 244-255.
Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H. & Morris, L. (2013). Conceptualizing work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(3), pp 244-256.
Frank, B., Eckrich, H. & Rohr, J. (1997). Quality nursing care, leadership makes the difference.
Journal of Nursing Administration, 27(5), 13-14.
Gladys, M. & Njoki, K. (2014). Influence of Head teachers’ Leadership Styles on Pupils’ Performance in Kenya Certificate of Primary Education Examination in Dagoreti District, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(18), pp 64-70.
Hakanen J. & Schaufeli W. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorder, 141(2-3), pp 415-424.
Haruni, J. & Mafwimbo, M. (2014). Influence of leadership styles on Teacher’s job satisfaction, a case of selected primary schools in Songea & Morogoro Districts, Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 6(4), pp 53-61.
Hsieh, C. & Wang, D. (2015). Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership influence employee work engagement through employee-perceived authentic leadership and employee trust? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(18), pp 2329-2348.
Hui-jun, N. (2016). The Relationship among Leadership Style, Employees Engagement and Management Performance in Grid Company. International Conference on Applied Mechanics, Electronics and Mechatronics Engineering, Beijing, China.
Iheriohanma, E.B.J., Wokoma, C.U. & Nwokorie, C.N. (2014). Leadership Question and the Challenges of Community Development in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 10(35), pp 204-216.
Javaid, M.F. & Mirza, U. (2012). Leadership style enhances the employee organizational commitment: A case study of educational institutions in Lahore. International Journals and Conference of Management, Statistics and Social Sciences, 1(1), pp 64-77.
Juntrasook, A. (2014). You do not have to be the boss to be a leader: contested meanings of leadership in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), pp 19-31.
Kaliannan, M. & Adjovud, S.N. (2015). Effective employee engagement and organizational success: a case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172(2015), pp 161-168.
Khuong, M.N. & Yen, N.H. (2014). The effects of leadership styles and sociability trait emotional intelligence on employee engagement A study in Binh Duong City, Vietnam. International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review, 2(1), pp 121-136.
Leonard, M.W. & Frankel, A.S. (2011). Role of effective teamwork and communication in delivering safe, high-quality care. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 78(6), pp 820-826.
MacPhee, M., Skelton-Green, J., Bouthillette, F. & Suryaprakash, N. (2012). An empowerment framework for nursing leadership development: Supporting evidence. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1), pp 159-169.
Montani, F., Odoradi, C. & Battistelli, A. (2014). Individual and contextual determinants of innovative work behavior: Proactive goal generation matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), pp 645-670.
Muriel, T., Evans, O., Teresiana, J. & Marcella, M. (2015). Influence of head teachers’ democratic leadership style on students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Marakwet sub-county, Kenya. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2(7), pp 274-277.
Nasomboon, B. (2014). The Relationship among Leadership Commitment, Organizational Performance, and Employee Engagement. International Business Research Archives, 7(9), pp 77-90.
Nelsey, L. & Brownie, S. (2012). Effective leadership, teamwork and mentoring-Essential elements in promoting generational cohesion in the nursing workforce and retaining nurses. Collegian, 19(4), pp 197-202.
Omidifar, A. & Reza, C. (2013). Leadership Style, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A Case Study on High School Principals in Tehran, Iran. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(4), pp 263-267.
Park, J.G., Kim, J.S., Yoon, S.W. & Joo, B-K. (2017). The effects of empowering leadership on psychological well-being and job engagement: the mediating role of psychological capital. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), pp 350–367.
Parrish, D.R. (2013). The relevance of emotional intelligence for leadership in a higher education context. Studies in Higher Education.
Polis, S., Higgs, M., Manning, V., Netto, G. & Fernandez, R. (2017). Factors contributing to nursing team work in an acute care tertiary hospital. Collegian, 24(1), pp 19-25.
Schaufeli W. & Bakker A.B. (2010). The conceptualization and measurement of work engagement,” in Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, eds Bakker A. B., Leiter M. P., editors. (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 10–24.
Shibru, B. (2011). Transformational leadership and its relationship with subordinate satisfaction with the leader (the case of Leather Industry in Ethiopia). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 3(5), pp 686–697.
Simsek, O. & Gozukara, I. (2016). Role of Leadership in Employees’ Work Engagement: Organizational Identification and Job Autonomy. International Journal of Business and Management Archives, 11(1), pp 72-84.
Sousa, M.J.C. & Dierendonck, D.V. (2014). Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(6), pp 877-899.
Swathi, S. (2013). Impact of leadership on employee engagement. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research, 2(5), pp 151-157.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), pp 121-131.
Trinidad, M., Patti, J. & Holzer, A. (2015). Effectiveness of a Leadership Development Program that Incorporates Social and Emotional Intelligence for Aspiring School Leaders. Journal of Educational Issues, 1(1), pp 65-84.
Voillequé, C. (2012). Starting Your Innovation Think Tank. Randy and Carmen. Retrieved From: https://randyandcarmen.com/blog/starting-your-innovation-think-tank/
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. 7th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. & Walumbwa, F. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group and Organization Management, 34(5), pp 590-619.