Moderation role of transactional leadership on employee engagement: Recent challenges in Indian start-up companies-SmartPLS analysis

Madhyvadany, M.; Panboli, S.

doi:10.47974/JSMS-1020

Open Access Research Article

Moderation role of transactional leadership on employee engagement: Recent challenges in Indian start-up companies-SmartPLS analysis

^*M. MadhyvadanyCorresponding authormadhyvadany.vijay@gmail.comDepartment of Management StudiesChennaiB. S. Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and TechnologyIndia0000-0003-4944-5724View full profile → , S. PanboliDepartment of Management StudiesChennaiB. S. Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and TechnologyIndiaView full profile →

* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details

pp. 379–400Vol. 26Issue 2March 2023DOI: 10.47974/JSMS-1020XML

Received:: 05 Nov 2022
Accepted:: 15 Nov 2022
Published Online:: 30 Mar 2023
Article type:: Research Article
Language:: EN
Article no.:: JSMS-1020
Pages:: 379–400

Abstract

This study is aimed at assessing the moderating effect of transactional leadership on the engagement level of employees (team members) working in start-up companies in metro cities in light of the recent increase in layoffs and resignations. This study incorporates quantitative methods, a questionnaire survey type has been carried out amongst employees (team members) across start-up companies. A sample size of 237 was finalised for this study. The respondents were among all levels in the organization. Simple random sampling technique was adopted for the study. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted using (PLS-SEM) PARTIAL. LEAST. SQUARE.–STRUCTURAL. EQUATION. MODELING. to obtain result of data-analysis. The outcomes indicate that there is relatively a positive and significant effect of the factors of perceived communication satisfaction (PCS), employee engagement (EE) (behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, physical engagement and Intrapreneurship (INT)). Also, the role of transactional leadership (TL) as a moderator facilitates the relationship of perceived communication satisfaction, employee engagement types (behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, physical engagement). However it dampens the relationship of intrapreneurship and employee engagement. The research paper makes substantial repository towards the literature and execution of the (intrapreneurship, perceived communication satisfaction & employeee engagement types (behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, physical engagement and transactional leadership literature). This study also supports the employees (team members) in the target start-ups to focus on the role of leadership to be adopted, which happens to be the major contribution towards productivity through engagement.

Keywords

Perceived communication satisfaction Employee engagement Intrapreneurship Transactional leadership

Subject Classifications

62-Statistics

References

[1] Adelman, K. Promoting employee voice and upward communication in healthcare: The CEO’s influence. Journal of Healthcare Management 57 (2), 133, (2012).
[2] Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7-24, (2003).
[3] Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers. (2014).
[4] Bass, B. M. Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3 ed.). New York: Free Press. (1990).
[5] Bhatnagar, J. Managing capabilities for talent engagement and pipeline development. Industrial and Commercial Training 40 (1), 19-28, (2008).
[6] Ch. Sahyaja & S. Sekhara Rao. Factors influencing the ambidextrous leadership: A study on IT sector in India, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 23:2, 379-388, (2020). DOI: 10.1080/09720510.2020.1736321
[7] Chieh-Yu Lin. Determinants of organizational innovation for logistics service providers in Taiwan, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 9:3, 613-631, (2006). DOI: 10.1080/09720510.2006.10701226.
[8] Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. “Evaluating structural models with unobservable variable and measurement”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1689-1699, (1981).
[9] Gibbons, J. Employee engagement: A review of current research and its implications. The Conference Board, New York, (2006).
[10] Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. Leadership: A Communication Perspective (7 ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc., (2018).
[11] Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L.M. and Ringle, C.M. “Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 63-76, (2016).
[12] Hewitt, A. Trends in Global Employee Engagement Report.Analysis Included, 284, 2010–2012, (2014).
[13] Ibrahim, A. S., & Al-Taneiji, S. Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal effectiveness in Dubai schools. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2(1), 41–54, (2013).
[14] Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33 (4), 692–724, (1990).
[15] Madlock, P. E. The Influence of Supervisors’ Leadership Style on Telecommuters. Journal of Business Strategies, 29(1), 1-24, (2012).
[16] Ndethiu, E. The Effects of Leadership Styles on Employee Engagement in an International Bank with Substantial Operations in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University-Africa), (2014).
[17] Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. A. Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership style. Global Business Review, 17(4), 965–979, (2016).
[18] Shuck, B., & Herd, A. M. Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156–181, (2012).

Views: 256Downloads: 72Citations: 1