Authentic leadership, fun at work, work
engagement and perceived work performance in a
chemical organisation
C Snygans
orcid.org 0000-0003-3961-2816
Mini-dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree
Master of Arts in Industrial Psychology
at the North-West University
Supervisor: Dr DH du Toit
Co-supervisor: Dr J Bosman
Authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and perceived
work performance in a chemical organisation
Mini-dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Magister Artium in Industrial Psychology at the Vaal Triangle Campus of the North-West
University
Supervisor: Dr Danie Du Toit
COMMENTS
For the purpose of this mini-dissertation, the reader is reminded of the following:
The formating guidelines specified by the post-graduate programme in Industrial Psychology of the North-West University, Vanderbijlpark Campus, were followed in this mini-dissertation. The references and the editorial style comply with the requirements prescribed by the Publication Manual (6th edition) of the American Psychological Association (APA).
The mini-dissertation is submitted in the form of a research article in accordance with SAJIP guidelines.
This research was conducted in a chemical organisation and the views and opinions
DECLARATION
I, Carmen Snygans, hereby declare that “Authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement
and perceived work performance in a chemical organisation” is my own work; that it has not
been submitted for any degree or examination at any other institution of higher learning and that all references have, to the best of my knowledge, been correctly reported. It is being submitted for the degree Magister Artium in Industrial Psychology at the North-West University.
Carmen Snygans March 2019
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All honour and glory to God, my Creator and Saviour, who blessed me with health, talent,
and the opportunity to complete this journey.
To my husband, Louis, thank you for your unbelievable support, encouragement and
believing in me.
To my parents, Jaap and Paula, thank you for your unconditional love and care.
My dearest friends, Pat and John Hamlett, for truly believing in me and giving me a second
chance on life.
To my manager, Marna Malan, and dear colleagues who allowed me the time I required to
fulfil my aspirations.
A special word of thanks to Dr Danie du Toit and Dr Jacqueline Bosman for your patience,
direction and encouragement. Without your support, this journey would not have been possible.
Thank you, Ms Elizabeth Bothma, for your patience, support and statistical expertise.
My gratitude is expressed to the company that provided a platform for this research and all
the willing participants who took the time to complete the questionnaires.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family - my husband Louis, parents Jaap and Paula, sisters, parents-in-law and late grandparents, Nelie and Gert Barnard - who never wavered in their belief of my ability to complete this qualification.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ... iv
List of Figures ... vii
List of Tables ... viii
Summary ... ix
CHAPTER 1 ... 1.1 Introduction ...1
1.2 Problem Statement ...2
1.3 Research Objectives ...11
1.3.1 General and Specific Objectives ...11
1.4 Research Method...12 1.4.1 Research Design ...12 1.4.2 Research Participants ...13 1.4.3 Research Procedure ...13 1.4.4 Measuring Instruments ...14 1.4.5 Statistical Analysis ...16 1.5 Ethical Considerations ...16
1.6 Expected Contribution of the study ...18
1.7 Chapter Division ...19
` References ...20
CHAPTER 2: ARTICLE ...30
CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Conclusions for Literature and Empirical Results ...86
3.2 Limitations……… ...93
3.3 Recommendations ...94
3.3.1 Recommendations for the Practice ...94
3.3.2 Recommendations for Future Research ...95
3.4 Conclusion………… ...97
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Description ... Page
Chapter 1
Figure 1 The conceptualised model ...10
Chapter 2
Figure 1 The conceptual framework ...46 Figure 2 The structural model ...66
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description ... Page
Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (n=303) ...49
Table 2 Job-Related Characteristics of the Participants (n=303) ...50
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients ...54
Table 4 Correlations ...55
Table 5 Fit Statistics of Initial Possible Measurement Models ...57
Table 6 Difference Testing for Changes in Chi-Square in Initial Possible Measurement Models……….... ...58
Table 7 Fit Statistics of Competing Measurement Models……… ……... 60
Table 8 Difference Testing for Changes in Chi-Square in Competing Measurement Models ...61
Table 9 Initial Framework Fit Indices and Standardised Path Coefficients – Fit Indices ...61
Table 10 Initial Framework Standardised Path Coefficients Direct Pathways Perceived Individual Work Performance Subscales ...62
Table 11 Initial Framework Standardised Path Coefficients Direct Pathways Work Engagement Subscales……… 63
Table 12 Initial Framework Standardised Path Coefficients to Fun at Work Subscales ....64
Table 13 Difference Testing for Changes in Chi-Square in Competing Structural Models.………... ... 65
Table 14 Indirect Effects of Authentic Leadership on Work Engagement and Work Performance Through Fun at Work.………... 68
SUMMARY
Title: Authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and individual work performance in a
chemical organisation
Keywords: Positive leadership, authentic leadership, manager-leader, fun, fun at work, humour,
employee engagement, work engagement, perceived individual work performance.
The current volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world of work requires renewed approaches to leadership and attaining employee outcomes. The chemical organisation where this research was conducted had a strong emphasis on improving employees’ work engagement and work performance in a cost-sensitive context. Authentic leadership and fun at work were proposed to appropriately address the challenges posed to organisations and their employees in the current VUCA business environment. This study aimed to investigate authentic leadership and fun at work’s relationships with work engagement and perceived individual work performance.
This research followed a quantitative cross-sectional research design. A total of 326 completed questionnaires were received; of those 303 were appropriately completed and used in data analysis. The results revealed that authentic leadership had a significant impact on all subdimensions of the fun at work construct and the subdimensions of work engagement. Authentic leadership was found to indirectly affect perceived individual work performance, that is counterproductive work behaviour and adaptive work performance, via fun at work and work engagement.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The mini-dissertation aimed at investigating possible relationships between authentic leadership and fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual work performance of employees in a chemical organisation.
Chapter 1 provides the problem statement, followed by the research objectives, the research method and the division of the chapters.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Organisations are affected by tough economic times globally. As a result of challenging business environments, organisations often revert to cost cutting, restructuring, and/or downsizing to remain competitive (Iverson & Zatzick, 2011). The South African economy is still carrying the effects of the 2008-2009 global financial crises (Statistics South Africa, 2015). Factors such as constraints in electrical supply and labour unrest negatively impacted on the performance of the South African economy (Statistics South Africa, 2015).
In turbulent and unpredictable economic times, organisations are focused on enabling employees to perform optimally within budget and resource constraints (Kochanski & Kegerise, 2011). Maintaining employee individual work performance remains a top organisational priority (Koopmans et al., 2011, 2014; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). These dynamic times require the role of the line manager or supervisor to incorporate more elements of positive leadership (Avolio & Luthans, 2006). To achieve positive organisational outcomes within budgetary constraints, positive or authentic leadership, a form of positive leadership, could equip employees with the necessary hope, optimism, resilience and job satisfaction to perform (Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu, 2014).
Employees’ relationships with their supervisors, referred to as supervisor relations, have been found to have a strong effect on work engagement (Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). Bakker (2011) suggests that work engagement could result in higher job performance. Work engagement - briefly described - is the physical, cognitive, and emotional energy employees dedicate to work tasks which enables them to endure apprehensions and become absorbed in their work tasks (Steger, Littman-Ovadia, Miller, Menger, & Rothmann, 2013).
fun at work. Fun at work is increasingly associated with positive outcomes such as increased individual, team and organisational performance (Tews, Michel, & Stafford, 2013). Despite assertions of positive outcomes associated with fun at work (Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, 2015), more scientifically valid research into the possible relationships between fun at work and authentic leadership, work engagement and individual work performance is needed.
The purpose of this research was to investigate possible relationships between authentic leadership and fun at work - in this case line managers or supervisors - and work engagement and perceived individual work performance.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
According to Llopis (2013), the contemporary fast-paced and limited-resource workplace requires more trust amongst employees. This implies transparent intentions, honest discussions
and cross-departmental collaboration in attaining organisationaloutcomes. Llopis (2013) further
claims that when these business conditions prevail, employees feel valued and respected. Moreover, employees want leaders that are likeable, understand their needs and expect them to authentically motivate people. Employees require leaders that know how to create an energised workplace and generate the best results for the organisation (Llopis, 2013). These statements stand central to this research that is aimed at investigating possible relationships between authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual work performance.
Authentic Leadership
Considering the competitive, challenging and stressful international commercial environment, managers-leaders should reconsider their role and adapt to suit the current business context (Avolio & Luthans, 2006). Debate exists in the field of leadership studies on the difference between leaders and managers (Northouse, 2013). Chiu, Balkundi, and Weinberg (2016) mention that followers recognise leadership in their managers not only on a formal basis, but also through the informal associations managers create. Managers that are considered most efficient in the long-term are also viewed as leaders (Dumitru, Motoi, & Budica, 2015). During rapidly changing times leaders are challenged to motivate and inspire followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) to remain energised, engaged and able to perform. Therefore, managers could be vital in fostering positive workplaces, productivity and heightened performance (Hodges, 2010). Managers’ leadership styles are likely to influence workplaces, productivity and performance (Hodges, 2010). Managers
are tasked with maintaining manager-employee relations to ensure performance (Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Managers fulfil a critical role in supporting and empowering employees’ success (Ellinger, 2013). Due to this focus on the role of managers in empowering others, more positive forms of leadership are required. Arakawa and Greenberg (2007) stated that positive leadership focuses on employees’ strengths, assumes a positive stance in situations and tends to recognise employees’ achievements. The impact and the role that managers play in positive organisational outcomes should not be underestimated in the South African context.
Authentic leadership has its origins in the positive leadership domain and is associated with certain positive workplace behaviours such as being transparent in interactions, following unbiased approaches or assuming multiple views on an issue, showing awareness of individuality and upholding high ethical standards (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). According to Terez (2007), authentic leadership involves empowerment rather than the dominance of followers. Empowerment is envisaged to cascade down to followers, who in turn, are likely to empower others. Authentic leadership is likely to encourage diverse opinions and enables sharing and involved relationships with and amongst followers (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, & May, 2004).
The operationalised definition of authentic leadership utilised in this study relies on Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) revisited early definition of authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Fundamental characteristics of the construct as described by Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, and Walumbwa (2005) and Ilies et al. (2005) were also included in Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) heuristic definition of authentic leadership. Consequently, Walumbwa et al. (2008) defined authentic leadership as:
a pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalised moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development (p. 4).
Positioned practically, authentic leadership in this study involves a manager-leader that displays self-awareness, exhibits balanced processing, relies on internalised moral perspective and
Relational outcomes associated with authentic leadership are positive interaction between the leader and followers (Černe, Dimovski, Marič, Penger, & Škerlavaj, 2014; Hsiung, 2012); trust in the leader (Cameron, 2007; Hassan & Ahmed, 2011; Van der Vaart, 2016); and leadership effectiveness (Eberly, 2011; Ilies et al., 2005; Lewis, 2010). Moreover, certain follower outcomes associated with authentic leadership are higher levels of job satisfaction (Batchelor, 2011; Černe et al., 2014); organisational commitment (Abid, Altaf, Yousaf, & Bagram, 2012); creativity (Černe, Jaklic, & Skerlavaj, 2013); empowerment (Emuwa, 2013); psychological capital and higher levels of engagement (Alok & Israel, 2012; Bamford, Wong, & Laschinger, 2013; Černe et al., 2014); and increased performance (Wang et al., 2014). Lower levels of turnover intentions (Batchelor, 2011), and burnout and/or stress (Epitropaki, 2013) are also associated with authentic leadership follower outcomes. Research into possible relationships amongst components of authentic leadership and fun at work could be constructive towards the conceptualisation of both these constructs as direct research on these constructs, appear lacking.
Empirical research linking authentic leadership and fun at work appears lacking, since no such study could be located at this time; possible connections between certain subconstructs could be indirectly assumed. Such anticipated relationships are indirectly indicated in the relational transparency of the authentic leader when socialising with co-workers. Valuing and striving towards openness in one’s relationships with others can be referred to as relational transparency, a component of authentic leadership (Kernis, 2003). Relational transparency is achieved when leaders and followers freely and openly express their actual thoughts and feelings. These positive social exchanges could be linked with the fun at work component, namely socialising with co-workers that includes camaraderie and sharing of stories.
In addition, Norman, Avolio, and Luthans (2010) suggested that authentic leadership is more likely to create a sense of positive feeling at work. Authentic leaders create work environments that build trust, allow employees to experience and display positive emotions and
also allow for elevated levels of workforce engagement.Thus, the assumption is that a relationship
might exist between authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual
work performance.
Fun at Work
Due to limited academic research pertaining to fun at work, various ambiguous definitions exist. Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Peters and Waterman (1982) are seen as the founding fathers
of the fun at work movement due to their prominent assertions that fun, play and humour should be deemed imperative in Westernised workplaces. Moreover, fun at work has been positioned as an expectation of modern employees (Warren & Fineman, 2007). Glasser (2010) suggested that employees attempt to have fun whilst working and that having fun while working could fulfil their most powerful needs. Consequently, many organisations have parted from the historical view that fun and work should be separated. This is supported by the growing interest in fun, both academically (Karl & Peluchette, 2006a, 2006b; Karl et al., 2005; Plester et al., 2015; Tews, Michel, & Bartlett, 2012;), and in popular media publications (Joyce, 2003; Lundin et al., 2011).
Living Dictionaries (2016) define fun as elements of enjoyment, amusement or light-hearted pleasure. All of these elements are said to be beneficial to the employee and organisation as widely advocated in popular media releases. Workplace Dynamics (2016) states that fun at work is likely to encourage teamwork, inspire creativity, and promote productivity, corporate citizenship behaviour, engagement, enthusiasm and good public relations.
Researchers such as Karl, Peluchette, and Harland (2007), McDowell (2005), and Plester et al. (2015) have introduced comprehensive models of fun at work to the field. For the purpose of this study, Fluegge’s (2008) adaptation of McDowell’s (2005) original definition of fun at work has been employed since it fits the purpose of the study. Fun at work was conceptualised as a second-order factor that constitutes a more consistent measure of criteria; it comprises socialising, celebrating, personal freedoms and global fun. From literature, it was deduced that fun at work includes social, interpersonal and task-oriented activities that are playful, humorous, provide amusement, enjoyment and/or pleasure in the workplace. Fun at work in this study entailed employees involved in various light-hearted encounters which allow them to experience enjoyment whilst performing tasks (Fluegge, 2008). Considering the elements and outcomes associated with Fluegge’s (2008) definition of fun at work, the concept involves amusing, spontaneous, positive, social and interpersonal interactions at work (Tews et al., 2013). This could be achieved in groups through social interactions with colleagues and superiors (Abramis, 1989).
Fun at work was depicted as playfulness which stimulates creative approaches to the way employees perform tasks (Lundin, Paul, & Christensen, 2011). Fun at work was very often
interchangeably with humour in literature (Euchler & Kenny, 2006; Fluegge-Woolf, 2014; Newstrom, 2002). Notwithstanding their intuitive similarities, researchers noted that the two constructs are conceptually distinct, although both fun at work and humour are deemed enjoyable experiences. Humour as defined by Cooper (2005) is an intentional and amusing instance shared amongst individuals. Fun at work, in comparison, involves employees engaging socially in positive, amusing and spontaneous endeavours aimed at improving organisations (Fluegge, 2008; Fluegge-Woolf, 2014). Fun at work allows employees to experience personal gratification at work (Tews et al., 2013).
Fun at work is increasingly viewed in relation to positive outcomes on individual, team and organisational levels, such as increased engagement, job satisfaction, job performance, task performance, motivation, productivity, profitability, creativity, positive pressure, customer satisfaction, affective organisational commitment, emotional exhaustion and turnover intent (Berg, 2001; Bolton & Houlihan, 2009; Fluegge, 2008; Karl & Peluchette, 2006a, 2006b; Karl et al., 2005; Karl et al., 2007; McGhee, 2000; Miller, 2005; Plester & Hutchison, 2016; Ramsey, 2001; Strand & Steinauer, 2000; Tews et al., 2012; Weiss, 2002). A heightened focus on engagement to drive performance (Harter, Schmidt, Asplund, Killham, & Agrawal, 2010), as well as the inclusion of team engagement as a performance criterion for leaders (Xu & Cooper-Thomas, 2011), illustrates the need to further investigate the possible relationships between fun at work, work engagement and individual work performance.
According to Chan, Gee, and Steiner (2000), Joyce (2003), and Karl and Peluchette (2006b), increasingly more organisations acknowledge the impact of fun at work on their public
reputation and financial returns. Levering and Moskowitz (2005) reported that many of the top
100 employers of choice Fortune companies in the USA, included a fun work environment in their mission statements. Employees’ experience of fun at work may distinguish an organisation from its competitors (Chan et al., 2000; Joyce, 2003). Karl and Peluchette (2006a, 2006b) found that when employees experience fun at work, they find performing their work tasks more enjoyable. In addition, Fluegge (2008) found that fun has a positive impact on job performance, task performance, creative performance, and organisational citizenship behaviour for undergraduate working students. Redman and Mathews (2002) found that the implementation of a “fun culture” resulted in improved staff relations, reduced stress, and increased service quality.
Although creating fun at work was introduced as a seemingly harmless and benevolent objective, some researchers warn against fun at work that does not arise naturally and which is introduced by deliberate means, since it may result in scepticism and disparagement toward management (Redman & Mathews, 2002). Fun at work is likely to be more effective when introduced in an unpretentious manner (Fleming, 2005; Warren & Fineman, 2007) perhaps through transparent and honest interactions initiated by authentic leadership (Blimes, 2012; Norman et al., 2010). Likewise, Fleming (2005) found that various employees considered fun at work introduced by their organisations as inauthentic and fabricated. These findings align with research conducted by Tews et al. (2013), demonstrating fun as beneficial when closely aligned with the desired organisational outcomes and when sensitive to employee characteristics.
Creating a fun at work environment requires emphasis on leadership rather than traditional management, since an atmosphere of cooperation and personal responsibility should be encouraged (Robertson, 2011). Previous studies might indicate possible relationships between components of authentic leadership and fun at work, such as transparent interaction and socialising with co-workers. According to Michlitsch (2000), fun at work permits management to reveal their deep-seated values in a transparent fashion. This allows true teamwork and honest interactions. Authentic leadership that incorporates fun at work breaks down perceived hierarchical barriers. Cameron, Dutton, and Quinn (2003) stated that a predominantly negative focus in organisations dominated by job-demands and corrupt behaviour could be realigned with a stronger focus on aspects such as engagement and performance (Hodges, 2010). Bolton and Houlihan (2009) refer to fun at work as an employee engagement mechanism. The next section describes employee engagement at work.
Work Engagement
The most widely found definition of work engagement was conceptualised by Schaufeli
and Bakker (2004) who defined work engagement as an “active, positive work-related state
characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption” (p. 295). In turn, vigour can be described as
heightened displays of energy and cognitive pliability whilst conducting tasks. Furthermore,
dedication refers to employees engrossed in their work tasks which affords the employee a sense
being immersed in work activities, which enables employees to manage adversity (Steger, Littman-Ovadia, Miller, Menger, & Rothmann, 2013).
The concept of work engagement is seen as an important organisational outcome and it has been found by May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) as well as Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) to relate positively to outcomes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment and low turnover intention. Furthermore, when engaged employees identified with their work tasks, they were found to exert themselves more at work (Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010). In addition to this, Rothmann and Rothmann (2010) stated that engaged employees expressed themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally when performing work tasks. According to Kahn’s (1990) definition,
work engagement encompasses three dimensions, namely physical, cognitive and emotional engagement. Physical engagement refers to physical involvement in the task and display of energy. In addition, the cognitive dimension relates to employees being alert at work, also being immersed and involved in task performance. Lastly, the emotional dimension refers to demonstrations of dedication and commitment to the job as well as to other employees (Diedericks & Rothmann, 2013; Kahn, 1990).
Work engagement is a fundamental construct in employee and organisational success. Nel (2013) found a statistically significantly positive relationship between positive leadership, which underpins authentic leadership, (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) and work engagement. Various research studies have investigated work engagement (Bolton & Houlihan, 2009; Christian, Gaza, & Slaughter, 2011; Coffeng et al., 2012; Fluegge, 2008) and performance. The following section focuses on work engagement and performance.
Though work engagement has been closely linked to various leadership styles (Alok & Isreal, 2012; Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2012), May et al. (2004) found supervisor relations having the strongest effect on work engagement. Avolio et al. (2004) recognised the possibility of other variants of leadership resulting in positive organisational outcomes such as work engagement; positive emotions elicited through authentic leadership, hope, trust and optimism are likely to positively impact follower work attitudes such as commitment and engagement. According to Bakker, Demerouti, and Brummelhuis (2012), when employees feel engaged, they are likely to be content, dedicated and displaying higher levels of performance at work.
Bakker (2011) suggests that work engagement could result in higher job performance. According to Rothmann (2013), the psychological well-being of employees could be positively
impacted if work engagement is exists in organisations. If employees are generally displeased, this is likely to spill over to their work performance (Mafini, 2014; Zhao, Qu, & Ghiselli, 2011). It has been found that negative emotional states resulting from limited peer or managerial support are likely to elicit poor work engagement and a decrease in employee productivity (Shuck & Reio, 2014). Van Dyk (2015) found work engagement to be positively associated with employees’ subjective well-being and performance and, in turn, negatively related to turnover intention.
Perceived Individual Work Performance
Perceived individual work performance is considered as a relevant outcome of any organisation (Koopmans et al., 2011, 2014; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Individual work performance can be defined as “employee behaviours or actions that are relevant to the goals of the organisation” (Campbell, 1990, p. 64). Individual work performance operationalised consists of four broad dimensions, namely task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance and counterproductive work behaviour (Koopmans et al., 2014; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Contextual performance is defined as the organisational, social and psychological behaviours that support the technical functioning of an organisation (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). This includes the effort exerted to attain performance on individual, peer and team levels (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). According to Rotundo and Sackett (2002), counterproductive work
behaviour is defined as harmful behaviours negatively impacting on the well-being of the
organisation. In an initial review by Koopmans et al. (2011), the dimension of adaptive
performance was also included in the initial heuristic definition and the preliminary 2012 manual
of individual work performance (Koopmans et al., 2012). As described by Griffin et al. (2007),
adaptive performance refers to the increasing interdependency amongst stakeholders and uncertainty within organisations. Nonetheless, this dimension was later compounded with the contextual dimension of the scale in the 2015 version of the questionnaire based on the findings of a field test (Koopmans, 2015).
Various studies support the notion of an indirect relationship of authentic leadership with different forms of performance. Relating to this, Walumbwa et al. (2008) and Mehmood et al. (2016) found positive relationships between authentic leadership and supervisor-rated
Banks et al. (2016) indicated positive links between authentic leadership and task-performance. To date, no studies were found indicating relationships between authentic leadership and individual work performance as defined by the four-factor model comprising task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviour and adaptive performance (Koopmans et al., 2014).
Summary
Based on the above-mentioned discussion, the research problem is summarised as follows: empirical studies are required to determine the possible relationships between authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual work performance of employees in a chemical organisation. Based on the literature review as discussed above, it is anticipated that authentic leadership’s impact on perceived individual work performance will be a function of authentic leadership’s interface with fun at work and work engagement.
The proposed model in Figure 1 displays the envisaged relationships between authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual work performance as described above.
Figure 1. Conceptualised model: Relationships between authentic leadership, fun at work, work
engagement and individual work performance.
Individual Work Performance Work Engagement Fun at Work Authentic Leadership
The primary research question in this study is to investigate the relationship between authentic leaders, fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual work performance in a chemical organisation.
Based on the problem statement, the following specific research questions are formulated: How are authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and individual work performance
conceptualised in literature?
What is the relationship between authentic leadership and fun at work of employees in a chemical organisation?
What is the relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement of employees in a chemical organisation?
What is the relationship between fun at work and work engagement of employees in a chemical organisation?
What is the relationship between fun at work and perceived individual work performance of employees in a chemical organisation?
What is the relationship between work engagement and perceived individual work performance of employees in a chemical organisation?
From the specific questions listed above, the following hypotheses are formulated.
Hypothesis 1: Authentic leadership has an effect on fun at work of employees in a chemical
organisation.
Hypothesis 2: Authentic leadership has an effect on the work engagement of employees in a
chemical organisation.
Hypothesis 3: Authentic leadership indirectly affects individual work performance through fun at
work and work engagement of employees in a chemical organisation.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.3.1 General Objective
influenced work engagement and individual work performance, this could lead to advances in the conceptualisation of the possible impacts of such in organisational settings.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives in this study are to:
describe how the constructs authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement
and perceived individual work performance are conceptualised in literature;
determine the relationship between authentic leadership and fun at work of
employees in a chemical organisation;
determine the relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement of
employees in a chemical organisation;
determine the relationship between fun at work and work engagement of employees
in a chemical organisation;
determine the relationship between fun at work and perceived individual work
performance of employees in a chemical organisation; and
determine the relationship between work engagement and perceived individual
work performance of employees in a chemical organisation.
1.4 RESEARCH METHOD
The research study consisted of two phases, namely a literature review and an empirical study.
1.4.1 Research Design
The proposed study followed a quantitative approach. According to Struwig and Stead (2013), quantitative research includes large representative samples, following a structured approach. The numerical nature of this method allows the researcher to reproduce the same study and compare findings.
Data was collected through structured questions in the form of a cross-sectional design. A
cross-sectional research design examines more than one group of people at a specific point in time (Salkind, 2009); a large number of cases can be compared (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), using one or more variable (Huysamen, 2004). According to Druckman (2005), in cross-sectional designs the “cause and effect” variables are determined simultaneously; it does not include a
control group, nor does it employ randomisation (Ghauri & Grǿnhaug, 2002). This approach is deemed economical and time effective, allowing for rapid data gathering.
1.4.2 Research Participants
This study targeted a population of 1300 employees from a chemical organisation in South Africa. The particular organisation is located in the Free State Province. Within this organisation, there is a focus on optimisation of employees’ engagement and performance, whilst simultaneously being cost-conscious. Based on the current economic state of the world and South Africa, employees voiced the need to trust leadership and have fun whilst delivering results. The respondents comprised managerial and non-managerial employees.
This study made use of an availability or convenience sampling method (Struwig & Stead, 2013). Although convenience sampling had benefits such as fewer time constraints than other methods, a possible disadvantage to consider was generalisation to a population as the sample could be non-representative (Struwig & Stead, 2013).
Participants, employed in different leadership layers within the organisation, were invited to take part in the study, from the first line, supervisor, specialist to senior manager. Role categories are roughly described as the key expectations associated with a theme of work linked to remuneration and performance management. Employees had a good command of English. In addition, respondents all reported to a manager-leader in their organisation. Employees represented different racial groups (African, Indian, Coloured and White), gender and occupational levels.
A total of 326 employees completed and returned the questionnaires (i.e. response rate of 25%). Of the 326 questionnaires, 303 were usable for data analysis and 23 responses were incomplete and thus not included.
1.4.3 Research Procedure
The questionnaires were administered in English to employees in a chemical organisation in South Africa. A written email agreement was obtained from the organisation to conduct this study. All participants were requested to complete the informed consent form prior to undertaking the research study.
use of the research. Furthermore, participants were also informed of what their participation in the research entailed and possible risks (De Vos, Strydom, Fouché, & Delport, 2011).
A clarification letter accompanied the questionnaire, stating the purpose of the research study and emphasising confidentiality in terms of information shared. Online electronic questionnaires were completed by all consenting participants. The survey comprised three sections and took approximately 30 to 40 minutes to complete. Instructions on how to complete the questions accompanied the questionnaire. Responses to items were captured on an Excel spreadsheet, after which it was prepared for statistical analysis by a statistician from Optentia Research Focus Area. The questionnaire completion stretched over a period of roughly seven months. Responses were directly deposited into the survey data repository.
1.4.4 Measuring Instruments
Biographical Questionnaire. The recommended NWU standardised biographical
questionnaire was employed to determine the demographic information of the research participants. This questionnaire provided a detailed description of the research population, as well as the evaluation of differences regarding certain characteristics. These characteristics include age, gender, home language, race, level of education, tenure, supervisory/managerial role, and role category in the organisation.
Authentic leadership was measured using the Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). The ALI was utilised for the purpose of measuring direct reports’ perception of their manager as an “authentic leader” on four first-order factors, namely
self-awareness, balanced processing, internalised moral perspective and relational transparency. The
ALI comprised fourteen items. Example items include “My leader solicits feedback for improving his/her dealings with others” and “My leader encourages others to voice opposing points of view”. The items are scored on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients showed that the scale is reliable (α = .74 to .85) (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). In a South African study conducted by Stander, De Beer, and Stander (2015), the ALI also proved to be a reliable measure (α = .93). In addition, Van der Vaart (2016) found that a one-factor model consisting of 14 items fits the data best in a developing country. These authors thus confirmed the concurrent validity of the ALI in a South African context.
Fun at work was measured by using the four subscales of the Fun at Work Scale (FAWS; McDowell, 2005), namely socialising with co-workers, celebrating at work, personal freedoms, and global fun at work. Each subscale consisted of six items. With the first three subscales, participants rated the degree of occurrence in their workplace using a 5-point frequency scale (1 = never to 5 = almost always). Example items included “socialising with co-workers at work”, “celebrations at work”, and “relaxed dress code”, respectively. However, in the case of global fun at work, participants rated the degree to which they agreed with each of the statements using a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree) to (5 = strongly agree). An example item in the global fun subscale is “this is a fun place to work at”. Coefficient alphas reported for these scales were =
.85 socialising with co-workers; .73 celebrating at work; .63 personal freedoms; and .93global fun
at work (McDowell, 2005).
Work engagement was measured by means of the Work Engagement Scale (WES; Rothmann, 2010). The WES is founded on Kahn’s (1990) depiction of work engagement, namely cognitive, emotional, and physical engagement and relies on nine items measuring these three components. All items in the WES employed a 7-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (almost
never or never) to 7 (almost always or always). Cognitive engagement was measured by three
items (e.g., “I am rarely distracted when performing my job”); emotional engagement by three items (e.g., “I am enthusiastic about my job”); and physical engagement by three items (e.g., “I am full of energy in my work”). The WES was reported to have the following reliability coefficients for the three scales respectively: .78, .82, and .80 (Rothmann, 2010).
Perceived individual work performance was assessed utilising the Individual Work
Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ 1.0; Koopmans et al., 2014). The IWPQ consisted of four
scales (task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance and counterproductive work behaviour), comprising 35 questions. To avoid order effects, item randomisation was presented within each scale. All items are scored on a 5-point frequency scale (“seldom” to
“always” for task and contextual performance, and “never” to “often” for counterproductive work
behaviour). The reliability of the IWPQ scales varied from .74 for the counterproductive work behaviour scale to .85 for the contextual performance scale (Koopmans et al., 2014).
responses affected by external factors such as boredom or time constraints. These questions were: “How well did you understand the questions? How difficult did you find it? Were you anxious or afraid? How well could you concentrate? Did you enjoy the questionnaire?”
1.4.5 Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis was carried out with the SPSS 25 program (IBM Corporation, 2018) to assess internal consistency and Mplus 7.8 statistical modelling program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) were used to describe the data. Reliability of each scale in this study was calculated by means of the reliability coefficient, Raykov’s rho (ρ; Raykov, 2009), with .70 indicating acceptable reliability (Wang & Wang, 2012).
Best fitting model pre-measurement models, measurement models, as well as structural models were calculated. At each step, various competing models were considered to ascertain best fit. The sample data analysis produced the following fit indices: Chi-square (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayes information criterion (BIC), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root means square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardised root mean residual (SRMR).
1.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Prior to the commencement of the study, ethical clearance was obtained from all stakeholders, namely the Basic and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (BaSSREC) of the North-West University as well as an email from the head of Human Resources at the participating organisation, confirming approval from the executive committee to commence with the research at the particular organisation.
In terms of the code of ethics (De Vos et al., 2011), the researcher considered the following aspects during the research process. Firstly, remaining honest, maintaining participants’ dignity and rights, and remaining respectful towards participants. Secondly, ensuring the researcher was qualified and competent to conduct the research. Thirdly, maintaining integrity and ensuring fairness. Fourthly, attempting to remain professional and accepting accountability for all actions. Lastly, ensuring participants were not harmed and aiming to maintain participants’ welfare at all
times. The following sections elaborate on ethical aspects such as avoidance of harm, voluntary participation, violation of privacy and deception.
Avoidance of harm
No actions were performed to purposefully harm participants, whether physical, psychological, social or emotional. The researcher displayed beneficence towards participants. To limit any harm, all participants were thoroughly informed of possible risks worth considering prior to completing the survey. Participants were allowed to withdraw from the study at any stage.
Voluntary participation
Participation in the study was entirely voluntary. Roles and responsibilities of parties were clarified. The researcher ensured that the participants had sufficient information to make an informed decision whether or not to participate in the study (De Vos et al., 2011). Participants were also allowed to withdraw from the study at any stage of the process.
Violation of privacy and confidentiality
The researcher guaranteed that information gathered during this research project remained confidential and anonymous. No participants were obliged to share information that they did not feel comfortable sharing (De Vos et al., 2011). The researcher assured participants that their identity was kept anonymous. It was made clear that participants were free to withdraw from the study if they felt exposed. All data and responses were stored with password protection on the researcher’s personal computer.
Deception
According to Struwig and Stead (2013), deliberately withholding information and misleading or misinforming participants are deceptive. The researcher aimed to provide participants with all information required to make an informed decision regarding the purpose, process and possible risks involved in participating. Furthermore, instructions and communication were written in such a manner that they were simple to understand, limiting possible uncertainty. Results of the study were made available to all parties involved upon request. A summary of the findings regarding the outcomes of the study was shared with participants upon their request.
1.6 EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
The contributions are divided into three parts.
1.6.1 Contribution for the Individual
A better understanding of authentic leadership and fun at work might be translated into how managers lead others. Fun at work could be beneficial to individuals in conducting their daily tasks with enjoyment.
1.6.2 Contribution for the Organisation
An attempt at contributing towards building a scientifically valid basis for fun at work could contribute to the business drive of the organisation and sustained operations in terms of the appropriate application of fun at work. Given the anticipated influences of fun at work as mentioned in various studies (Karl & Peluchette, 2006a, 2006b), less time and money are wasted on costly “fun” initatives that add no discernible value. Since fun at work has been associated with positive outcomes such as increased individual, team and organisational performance (Tews et al., 2013), it would be beneficial to understand if this pertains to the chemical organisation in question. Understanding possible relationships amongst authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and perceived individual work performance, will enable organisations to build interventions on a narrow budget that would equip leaders to motivate and inspire followers. Upon conclusion of the study, the researcher presented an executive summary of the final outcomes to the organisation’s top management.
1.6.3 Contribution for the Industrial/Organisational Psychology Literature
In the South African and greater I/O psychology context, the relationship between authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and individual work performance is worth considering, since no similar study could be found to date. Investigating possible relationships could add to academic literature on authentic leadership, fun at work, work engagement and individual work performance, paving the way for future enquiry into these constructs and possible underlying relationships.
1.7 CHAPTER DIVISION
The chapters in this mini-dissertation were presented as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction, problem statement, research objectives, research design and research methodology.
Chapter 2: Research article.
References
Abid, T., Altaf, M., Yousaf, U., & Bagram, M. (2012). Entrepreneur as an authentic leader: A study of small and medium sized enterprises in Pakistan. Management Science Letters, 2, 2355–2360.
Abramis, D. J. (1989). All work and no play. Isn't even good for work. Psychology Today, 34–38. Alok, K., & Isreal, D. (2012). Authentic leadership and engagement. The Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510.
Arakawa, D., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Optimistic managers and their influence on productivity and employee engagement in a technology organisation: Implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 78–89.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 677–693. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader. Moments matter for accelerating
authentic leadership development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviours. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.
Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour. The Journal of
Psychology, 144(3), 313–326.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(2), 555– 564.
Bamford, M., Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership and areas on work-life on work engagement of registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Management,
Batchelor, J. H. (2011). Leading with emotional labor and affective leadership climate as
antecedents to entrepreneurial effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Berg, D. H. (2001). The power of a playful spirit at work. Journal for Quality & Participation,
24(2), 57–62.
Bolton, S. C., & Houlihan, M. (2009). Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace fun and engagement. Employee Relations, 31(6), 556–568.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.
Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York, NY: Avery Publishers.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cameron, R. K. (2007). Governing ourselves before governing others: An investigation of
authentic leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis,
MN.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modelling the performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 8(4), 687–755.
Carsten M. K., Crossley C. D., Avolio B., Palmer N. F., & Eggers, J. (2008, August). Authentic
leadership and follower outcomes. Paper presented at 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Management Conference, Anaheim, California.
Černe, M., Dimovski, V., Marič, M., Penger, S., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership: Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees' job satisfaction. Australian Journal
of Management, 39, 453–471.
Černe, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9, 63–85.
Chan, K., Gee, M., & Steiner, T. (2000). Employee happiness and corporate financial performance.
Chiu, C. Y. C., Balkunid, P., & Weinberg, F. (2016). When managers become leaders: The role of manager network centralities, social power, and followers' perception of leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.004
Christian, M. S., Gaza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89– 136.
Coffeng, J. K., Hendriksen, I. J. M., Duijts, S. F., Proper, K. I., Van Mechelen, W., & Boot, C. R. L. (2012). Development of the be active & relax vitality in practice (VIP) project and design of an RCT to reduce the need for recovery in office employees. BMC Public Health, 12, 592– 605.
Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 765–776.
De Vos, A. S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C. B., & Delport, C. S. L. (Eds.). (2011). Research at grass
roots: For the social sciences and human services professions. Pretoria, South Africa: Van
Schaik Publishers.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. The rites and rituals of corporate life. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Publishers.
Druckman, D. (2005). Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dumitru, A., Motoi, A. G., & Budica, A. B. (2015). What kind of leader is a manager? Annuals of
the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, 1, 50–60.
Eberly, M. B. (2011). Follower reactions to leader emotions: A cognitive and affective path to
leadership effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
Ellinger, A. D. (2013). Supportive supervisors and managerial coaching: Exploring their intersections. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 86, 310–316.
Emuwa, A. (2013). Authentic leadership: Commitment to supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6, 45–65.
Epitropaki, O. (2013, January). Employment uncertainty and the role of authentic leadership and
positive psychological capital. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Euchler, G., & Kenny, K. (2006). “Some good clean fun” – Humor in an advertising agency and enhanced quality of life. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1273–1283.
Fleming, P. (2005). Workers' playtime: Boundaries and cynicism in a "culture of fun" program.
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 41(3), 285–303.
Fluegge, E. R. (2008). Who put the fun in functional? Fun at work and its effects on job
performance (Doctoral thesis). University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, FL.
Fluegge-Woolf, R. E. (2014). Play hard, work hard: Fun at work and job performance.
Management Research Review, 37(8), 682-705.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leadership and follower development. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372.
Ghauri, P., & Grønhaug, K. (2002). Research methods in business studies: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall.
Glasser, W. (2010). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Asplund, J. W., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2010). Causal impact of employee work perceptions on the bottom line of organizations. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5(4), 378–389.
Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust, and work engagement. International
Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6, 164–170.
Hodges, T. D. (2010). An experimental study of the impact of psychological capital on
performance, engagement, and the contagion effect (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/businessdiss/7
Hsiung, H. H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 349–361.
Huysamen, G. K. (2004). Methodology for social and behavioural sciences. Pretoria, South Africa: Southern Book Publishers.
IBM Corporation. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 23.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.
Iverson, R. D., & Zatzick, C. D. (2011). The effects of downsizing on labor productivity: The value of showing consideration for employees' morale and welfare in high-performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 29–44.
Joyce, K. (2003). Lessons for employers from Fortune’s “100 best”. Business Horizons, 46(2), 77– 84.
Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2006a). Does workplace fun buffer the impact of emotional exhaustion on job dissatisfaction? A study of health care workers. Journal of Behavioural and Applied
Management, 7(2), 128–141.
Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2006b). How does workplace fun impact employee perceptions of customer service quality? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(2). Retrieved from http://jlo.sagepu.com/content/13/2/2.
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Harland, L. (2007). Is fun for everyone? Personality differences in healthcare providers’ attitudes toward fun. Journal of Health and Human Services
Administration, 29(4), 409–444.
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., Hall, L., & Harland, L. (2005). Attitudes towards workplace fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(2), 1–17.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry,
14(1), 1–26.
Kochanski, J., & Kegerise, R. (2011). How to use ‘carve-outs’ to truly pay for performance.
Retrieved from
https://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/pages/carve-outs.aspx
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. B., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., De Vet, H. C. W., & Van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Environment Medicine, 53(8), 856–866.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Buuren, S., van der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. (2014). Improving the individual work performance questionnaire using Rasch analysis.
Koopmans, L., Coffeng, J. K., Bernaards C. M., Boot, C. R.., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Responsiveness of the individual work performance questionnaire.
BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1.
Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2005). The 100 best companies to work for. Fortune, 51(2), 61– 90.
Lewis, T. M. (2010). The influence of authenticity and emotional intelligence on the relationship
between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Alliant
International University, Alhambra, CA.
Llopis, G. (2013, September). 6 Ways to make your leadership and workplace fun again. Forbes
Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2013/09/23/6-ways-to-make-your-leadership-and-workplace-fun-again/#7223e611dba0
Lundin, S. C., Paul, H., & Christensen, J. (2011). Fish! A remarkable way to boost morale and
improve results. London, United Kingdom: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship (pp. 241– 258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mafini, C. (2014). The relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: Empirical evidence form logistics practitioners in a South African steel-making company. International
Business & Economics Research Journal, 13(3), 453–462.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
McDowell, T. (2005). Fun at work: Scale development, confirmatory factor analysis, and links to
organizational outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/pqdtft/docview/305042066/fulltextPDF/1413E FF61A94E253F6C/1?accountid=12865
McGhee, P. (2000). The key to stress management, retention, and profitability? More workplace fun. Human Resource Focus, 77(9), 5–6.
Miller, A. M. (2005). Fun in the workplace toward an environment-behaviour framework relating
office design, employee creativity, and job satisfaction (Unpublished master’s dissertation).
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, FL.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164.
Nel, T. (2015). Investigating positive leadership, psychological empowerment, work engagement
and satisfaction with life in a chemical industry (Unpublished master’s dissertation).
North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.
Newstrom, J. W. (2002). Making work fun: An important role for managers. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 67(1), 4–10.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership, theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 350–364.
Oxford Living Dictionaries. (2016). Definition of fun in English. Retrieved
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fun
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Plester, B., & Hutchison, A. (2016). Fun times: The relationship between fun and workplace
engagement. Employee Relations, 38(3), 332–350.
Plester, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., & Winquist, J. (2015). The fun paradox. Employee Relations,
37(3), 380–398.
Ramsey, R. (2001). Fun at work: Lessons from the fish market. Supervision, 62(4), 7–9.
Redman, T., & Mathews, B. (2002). Managing services: Should we be having fun? The Service
Industries Journal, 22(3), 51–62.
Robertson, R. (2011). Leadership and fun in the workplace. Civil Engineering/Siviele
Ingenieurswese, 19, 4–5.
Rothmann, S. (2010). The reliability and validity of measuring instruments of happiness in the
Rothmann, S. (2013). From happiness to flourishing at work: A Southern African perspective.
Well-Being research in South Africa: Cross-cultural advances in positive psychology, 4, 123–
152.
Rothmann, S., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Factors associated with employee engagement in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1–12.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80.
Salkind, N. J. (2009). Exploring research (7th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 293–315.
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 43–58. Stander, F. W., De Beer, L. T., & Stander, M. W. (2015). Authentic leadership as a source of
optimism, trust in the organisation and work engagement in the public health care sector. SA
Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1- 12.
Statistics South Africa. (2015). Labour market dynamics in South Africa: 2014 Report. Press
Statement. Retrieved from http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=4445
Steger, F. M., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L., & Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and meaningful work interact in relation to work-engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 348–361.
Strand, P., & Steinauer, J. M. (2000). Angling for workplace fun. Incentive, 174(10), 135–136. Struwig, F. W., & Stead, G. B. (2013). Research: Planning, designing and reporting (2nd ed.).
Cape Town, South Africa: Pearson Education.
Terez, T. (2007). Facilitating humanity one workplace at a time. Retrieved from http://www.betterworkplacenow.com
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Bartlett, A. L. (2012). The fundamental role of workplace fun in applicant attraction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 103–111.
