1Characteristics of the participants (N = 179). http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/900/581
Measuring instruments The Leader Empowering Behaviour Questionnaire (LEBQ) was developed by Konczak et al. (2000) and is aimed at providing leaders with feedback with regard to employees’ behaviour that relates to employee empowerment. The original instrument consists of 17 items and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). A typical item is ‘My manager gives me the authority I need to make decisions that improve work processes and procedures’ (Konczak et al., 2000, p. 307) and a high score signifies high leadership empowering behaviour. Two items were added from Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000) with the aim of increasing the number of items that demonstrated the ‘information sharing’ dimension. These items are ‘My manager explains his/her decisions and actions to my work group’ and ‘My manager explains company goals to my work group’. In previous research (Konczak et al., 2000) the interfactor correlations ranged from 0.40 to 0.88 whilst a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.95 for reliability was found (Dwyer, 2001). Maré (2007) found Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from 0.57 to 0.78 in a large sample within a gold mining industry in South Africa. Maré (2007) found a one factor structure for LEBQ. Tjeku (2006) and Dwyer (2001) found that a 3-factor model was best in a study done within a steel manufacturing organisation. For the purpose of this study a simple principal components analysis was carried out on leader empowering behaviour items (as measured by the LEBQ). An analysis of the Eigenvalues ( > 1.00) and scree plot indicated that three factors could be extracted, which explained 69.7% of the total variance. These were named Development, Accountability and Authority. The Measures of Role Conflict and Ambiguity Questionnaire (MRCAQ) was developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) and is aimed at identifying role conflict and role ambiguity within complex organisations. The original instrument consists of 30 items, 15 of which deal with role ambiguity (even numbers) and 15 with role conflict (odd numbers). The measure is scored on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘very false’ (1) to ‘very true’ (7). Mukherjee and Malhotra (2006) found that the role ambiguity items of this measure should be renamed ‘role clarity’ and this is substantiated in other research (Beehr, Glazer, Fischer, Linton, & Hansen, 2009; Bray & Brawley, 2002) and therefore, for this study these items were utilised because role clarity is of interest. A typical item is ‘explanation is clear of what has to be done’ (Rizzo et al., 1970, p. 156) and a high score indicates high role clarity (or low role ambiguity). In previous research (Koustelios, Theodorakis & Goulimaris, 2004) the reliability was found to be adequate with Cronbach alpha coefficients for this instrument ranging from 0.85 for role ambiguity and 0.86 for role conflict. In Mukherjee and Malhotra’s (2006) study conducted on 342 call centre employees, a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.85 was obtained. A simple principal components analysis was carried out on Role clarity items (as measured by the MRCAQ). An analysis of the Eigenvalues ( > 1.00) and scree plot indicated that two factors could be extracted, which explained 44.95% of the total variance. Since this study is focusing on role clarity, only the items loading on this factor were utilised. The Measuring Empowerment Questionnaire (MEQ) was developed by Spreitzer (1995) and is aimed at measuring the participants’ psychological empowerment. The instrument consists of 12 items and is scored on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). The measure has four sub-dimensions, namely (Spreitzer, 1995): meaning competenceself-determination impactTypical items within these sub-dimensions are, for: Meaning: ‘The work I do is meaningful to me’ Competence: ‘I have mastered the skills necessary for my job’ Self-determination: ‘I have significant autonomy in determining how to do my job’ Impact: ‘I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department. A high score indicates high levels of empowerment. Regarding internal consistency, Stander and Rothmann (2009) reported the following alpha coefficients: Meaning: α = 0.89 Competence: α = 0.81 Self-determination: α = 0.85 Impact: α = 0.86. Stander and Rothmann (2009) found a 4-factor structure for the MEQ, which is in line with previous research (Spreitzer, 1995). Confirmatory factor analyses on MEQ which were conducted with AMOS for the purposes of this study showed that a 4-factor model of psychological empowerment (consisting of Meaning, Competence, Self-determination and Impact) fitted the data best (χ2/df = 3.13; CFI > 0.90; RMSEA < 0.08). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) and is aimed at measuring the participants’ work engagement. The instrument consists of 17 items and is scored on a 7-point frequency scale, ranging from ‘never’ (0) to ‘daily’ (6). The measure has three scales, namely (Schaufeli et al., 2002): Vigour Dedication AbsorptionA typical item for Vigour is ‘At my work I feel bursting with energy’. A typical item for Dedication is ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’. A typical item for Absorption is ‘I feel happy when I am working intensely’. A high score indicates high levels of engagement. The internal consistency of the measure ranges from a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.68 to 0.91 (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.78 for Vigour, 0.89 for Dedication and 0.78 for Absorption were found by Storm and Rothman (2003). Research in various countries including South Africa showed that the fit of the hypothesised 3-factor structure to the data was superior to that of alternative factor models (Seppälä et al., 2008; Storm & Rothmann, 2003). Confirmatory factor analyses on the UWES which were conducted with AMOS for the purposes of this study showed that a 3-factor model of work engagement (consisting of Vigour, Dedication and Absorption) fitted the data best (χ2/df = 3.53; CFI > 0.90; RMSEA < 0.08). The Intention to Leave Scale (ILS) was developed by Firth, Mellor, Moore and Loquet (2004) and is aimed at measuring the strength of participants’ intentions to leave. The instrument consists of two items and is scored on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘very often’ (1) to ‘rarely or never’ (5). A typical item is ‘How often do you think of leaving your present job?’ (Firth et al., 2004, p. 187). A high score reflects a low intention to leave. Firth et al. (2004) found a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.75, which is an adequate reliability score. The ILS consists of only two items and therefore a factor analysis investigating the loadings of items was not necessary. Research procedure An entire business unit (N = 240) in a chemical organisation was approached by means of a convenience sample. Permission was granted from the management team as well as the employees. Participation in this study was voluntary and all information was treated anonymously and with high regard to respondents’ confidentiality. The raw data captured was converted by means of the SPSS program for further analyses. Statistical analysis In order to answer the research questions the SPSS programme (SPSS Inc, 2007) and AMOS program (Arbuckle, 2006) were used. Exploratory factor analysis was performed for this study to investigate the factor structure of the Leader Empowering Behaviour Questionnaire (LEBQ) and Measures of Role Clarity and Ambiguity Questionnaire (MRCAQ). Initially a principal components analysis was conducted on the constructs so that the Eigenvalues and scree plot could be investigated and so the number of factors could be extracted. Thereafter a principal axis factor analysis with a direct oblimin rotation was performed in order to determine factor loadings. Structural equation modelling, as implemented in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2006), was used to test the factorial models of the MEQ and the UWES, by using the maximum likelihood analyses. The following indexes produced by AMOS were used in this study: the Chi-square statistic (χ2), which is the test of absolute fit of the model, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root-Means-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the distribution of scores. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationships between the variables. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Effect sizes were used to assess the practical significance of the correlation coefficients (Steyn, 2005). A cut-off point of 0.30 (medium effect) was set for practical significance of correlation coefficients (Cohen, 1988). Canonical analyses were used to determine the relationships between sets of constructs (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with the variables in their continuous form. In the first step, the scales of the LEBQ were entered into the regression equation. In the second step the role ambiguity items of the MRCAQ were entered, whilst in the third step the scales of the MEQ were entered. To investigate the moderating effects of role clarity, the predictors (i.e. leadership empowerment behaviour and psychological empowerment) and moderator (i.e. role clarity) were entered into a hierarchical multiple regression equation (with work engagement as dependent variable), followed by their interaction in the second step. The interaction term is represented by the product of two main effects (Aiken & West, 1991). Also, in line with the procedure suggested by these authors, the independent variables and the moderator were centred before testing for the significance of the interaction term. To centre a variable, scores are put into deviation score form by subtracting the sample mean from all individuals’ scores on the variable, thus producing a revised sample mean of zero. ResultsDescriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients and correlation coefficients for all of the constructs which were measured are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2 shows that the Cronbach alpha coefficients for leader empowering behaviour, role clarity, psychological empowerment, engagement and intention to leave are all acceptable according to Foxcroft and Roodt (2005) who state that a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.65 or higher is acceptable.
2Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients and correlation coefficients of the measuring instruments. http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/900/582
Table 2 Shows that Development is positively related to Role clarity, Impact and Self-determination (practically significant, large effect). Development also correlated positively with Meaning, Vigour, Dedication, Absorption and Intention to Leave (practically significant, medium effect). Accountability correlated positively with Competence and Self-determination (practically significant, medium effect), whilst Authority is positively related to Self-determination (practically significant, large effect). Authority correlated positively with Role clarity, Meaning, Impact and Intention to Leave (practically significant, medium effect). Role clarity related positively to Competence, Impact, Self-determination, Vigour, Dedication and Intention to Leave (practically significant, medium effect). Role clarity also correlated with Meaning (practically significant, large effect). Meaning correlated positively with Vigour, Dedication and Absorption (practically significant, large effect). Meaning also related positively to Intention to Leave (practically significant, medium effect). Impact related positively with Dedication (practically significant, large effect); and with Vigour, Absorption and Intention to Leave (all practically significant, medium effect). Self-determination correlated positively with Vigour and Dedication (both practically significant, medium effect). Vigour and Absorption are positively related to Intention to Leave (practically significant, medium effect). Dedication relates positively with Intention to Leave (practically significant, large effect). Next, a canonical analysis was done to analyse the relationship between two sets of variables namely the leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment set with the work engagement and intention to leave set. The results are illustrated in Table 3 below.
3Canonical correlations between leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment set and the work engagement and intention to leave set. http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/900/583
The first statistically significant canonical correlation was 0.80 [F(32, 617.46) = 7.60, p < 0.0001]. The second statically significant canonical correlation was 0.35 [F(21, 482.96) = 1.71, p < 0.02]. The two sets of the first canonical variate shared 64% of the variance, whilst the two sets of the second canonical variate shared 12.25% of the variance. With a cut-off correlation of 0.30 the variables in the Leader Empowering Behaviour, Role Clarity and Psychological Empowerment Set that were correlated with the first canonical variate were Development (-0.57), Authority (-0.38), Role Clarity (-0.59), Meaning (-0.88), Impact (-0.72) and Self-determination (-0.43). Amongst the Work Engagement and Intention to Leave set, Vigour (-0.79), Dedication (-0.98) and Absorption (-0.75) correlated with the first canonical variate. The variables in the Leader Empowering Behaviour, Role Clarity and Psychological Empowerment Set that correlated with the second canonical variate was Accountability (-0.50), Authority (-0.40), Role Clarity (0.32) and Competence (-0.45). Amongst the Work Engagement Set Vigour (-0.50) and Absorption (-0.35) correlated with the second canonical variate. Therefore leader empowering behaviour (Development, Accountability and Authority), Role Clarity and psychological empowerment (Competence, Meaning, Impact and Self-determination) are strongly related to the three categories of work engagement (Vigour, Dedication and Absorption) and Intention to Leave. Based on the above analysis hypothesis 1 is accepted. Table 4 summarises the regression analysis with leader empowering behaviour (as measured by the LEBQ), role clarity (as measured by the MRCAQ) and psychological empowerment (as measured by the MEQ) as independent variables and Vigour, Dedication and Absorption (as measured by the UWES) as the dependent variables.
4Multiple regression analyses with leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment as independent variables and vigour, dedication and absorption as dependent variable. http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/900/584
Leader empowering behaviour and work engagement: Firstly, multiple regression analyses with Vigour, Dedication and Absorption (as measured by the UWES) as dependent variables and the three dimensions of leader empowering behaviour (as measured by LEBQ) as independent variables showed statistically significant F-values for Vigour [F(3, 175) = 9.24, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.14], Dedication [F(3, 175) = 14.04, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.19] and Absorption [F(3, 175) = 7.60, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.12]. Regarding Vigour, one variable, namely Development made a statistical significant contribution to the regression model (β = 0.35, t = 3.18, p < 0.01). Development was also the only variable which made a statistical significant contribution to the regression model for Dedication (β = 0.54, t = 5.06, p < 0.01) and Absorption (β = 0.40, t = 3.57, p < 0.01). Leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and work engagement: Secondly, multiple regression analyses with Vigour, Dedication and Absorption (as measured by the UWES) as dependent variables and the three dimensions of leader empowering behaviour (as measured by LEBQ) and Role Clarity (as measured by the MRCAQ) as independent variables showed statistically significant F-values for Vigour [F(4, 174) = 8.19, p = 0.00, DR2 = 0.02], Dedication [F(4, 174) = 16.29, p = 0.00, DR2 = 0.08] and Absorption [F(4, 174) = 5.95, p = 0.00, DR2 = 0.01]. Regarding Vigour, two variables, namely Development (β = 0.25, t = 2.09, p < 0.05) and Role Clarity (β = 0.17, t = 2.12, p < 0.05) made statistically significant contributions to the regression model. Development (β = 0.35, t = 3.12, p < 0.01) and Role Clarity (β = 0.33, t = 4.33, p < 0.01) made a statistically significant contributions to the regression model for Dedication. For Absorption, Development was also the only variable which made a statistical significant contribution to the regression model (β = 0.35, t = 2.87, p < 0.01). Leader empowering behaviour, role clarity, psychological empowerment and work engagement: Thirdly, multiple regression analyses with Vigour, Dedication and Absorption (as measured by the UWES) as dependent variables and the three dimensions of leader empowering behaviour (as measured by LEBQ), Role Clarity (as measured by the MRCAQ) and the four dimensions of psychological empowerment (as measured by the MEQ) as independent variables showed statistically significant F-values for: Vigour [F(8, 170) = 13.17, p < 0.0001, ∆R2 = 0.27] Dedication [F(8, 170) = 33.48, p < 0.0001, ∆R2 = 0.34] Absorption [F(8, 170) = 13.15, p < 0.0001, ∆R2 = 0.26]. Regarding Vigour, two variables, namely Development (b = 0.24, t = 2.36, p < 0.05) and Meaning (b = 0.61, t = 7.16, p < 0.01) made statistically significant contributions to the regression model. Development (b = 0.30, t = 3.54, p < 0.01), Authority (β = -0.23, t = -2.90, p < 0.01), Competence (b = -0.24, t = -4.03, p < 0.01), Meaning (b = 0.64, t = 9.08, p < 0.01) and Impact (b = 0.23, t = 3.32, p < 0.01) made statistically significant contributions to the regression model for Dedication. For Absorption, Development (b = 0.33, t = 3.10, p < 0.01) Authority (b = -0.17, t = -2.00, p < 0.05), Competence (b = 0.26, t = -2.47, p < 0.01) and Meaning (b = 0.61, t = 6.84 p < 0.01) were the only variables which made statistically significant contributions to the regression model. The multiple regression analysis shows that leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment predicts a large percentage of the variance in engagement. More specifically, leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment explains 43% of the variance in Vigour, 61% of the variance in Dedication and 38% of the variance in Absorption. Based on the aforementioned statistical analysis hypothesis 2 is accepted. Leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment predict work engagement within the business unit. Moderation effects of role clarity: The moderation effects of role clarity on the relationship between leadership empowering behaviour as (measured by the LEBQ) and psychological empowerment (as measured by the MEQ) and Work Engagement (Dedication and Absorption) were tested with hierarchical regression procedures. In an attempt to test the possibility of interaction effects, the centred predictors and moderators were entered first into the regression equation followed by their interactions in the second step to predict facets of work engagement. The results of the hierarchical regressions are reported in Table 5. Table 5 shows that the interaction terms amongst leader empowering behaviour, psychological empowerment and role clarity to predict Dedication and Absorption yielded statistically significant effects [FDedication(15, 163) = 19.60, ∆R2 = 0.03, p < 0.05 and FAbsorption (15, 163) = 8.25, ∆R2 = 0.05, p < 0.05]. Although small, the significant interaction effects were plotted as indicated by Figures 2, 3 and 4.
5Interaction of leader empowering behaviour, psychological empowerment and role clarity on work engagement. http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/900/585
Figure 1 shows that at a high level of Role Clarity (compared with a low level); high Competence was associated with a lower level of Dedication. Figure 2 shows that at a high level of Role Clarity (compared with a low level), high Meaning had a stronger effect on Dedication. Figure 3 shows that at a low level of Role Clarity (compared with a high level); high Development had a stronger effect on Absorption. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is accepted. Role clarity moderates the relationship between leader empowering behaviour, psychological empowerment and work engagement within the business unit. Finally, a regression analysis was computed to determine if engagement and its three sub-scales predict intention to leave. The results are reported in Table 6. Table 6 summarises the regression analysis with work engagement as a predictor of Intention to Leave. The regression analysis produced a statistically significant model (F(3, 175) = 24.25; p = 0.00), accounting for approximately 29% of the variance. More specifically, it seems that Dedication (b = 0.43, t = 4.51, p = 0.00) predicts Intention to Leave. This result provides support for hypothesis 3.
6Regression analysis with intention to leave as dependent variable. http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/900/586
DiscussionThe aim of this study was to determine firstly, whether leader empowering behaviour, role clarity and psychological empowerment predict employee engagement, secondly if role clarity moderates the relationship between leader empowering behaviour, psychological empowerment and work engagement and finally to determine if work engagement predicts intention to leave within the business unit. The analyses showed that a leader’s behaviour is related to employees’ experiences of the work environment. A higher level of development was related to higher role clarity. Therefore, when a leader focuses on the development of employee, they are more aware of the expectations that are placed upon them. Higher levels of development relate to higher levels of impact; therefore, an empowering leader ensures that employees feel they can influence their work (Nielsen et al., 2008). Furthermore, higher levels of authority correlated with higher levels of self-determination, indicating that when a leader delegates authority appropriately, employees will experience autonomy in determining how to fulfil the expectations placed upon them. It is clear that leader empowering behaviour has a strong relationship with role clarity and psychological empowerment. High levels of meaning correlated with high levels of vigour, dedication and absorption. Therefore, when employees experience their work as meaningful they will concurrently experience higher levels of energy in doing their work, be more enthusiastic in completing work-related tasks and demonstrate high levels of focus in their work. High levels of impact are related to elevated levels of dedication, which indicates that when employees feel they have control over their work environment they will react with increased eagerness in doing their work. This is supported in the findings of Stander and Rothmann (2010). When employees experience high levels of dedication they will be less likely to have intentions of leaving. Employees who are enthusiastic about their work are more likely to have positive emotions about their work environment and as a result will be less likely to think about leaving their organisation. Hence, the more engaged an employee is the less likely he or she will be to have cognitions of leaving (see Simpson, 2009). The canonical analysis showed that leader empowering behaviour (development, accountability and authority), role clarity and psychological empowerment (competence, meaning, impact and self-determination) are strongly related to the three categories of work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) and intention to leave. The results of the multiple regression analysis showed that vigour was predicted by development, role clarity and meaning. Therefore, when leaders provide employees with frequent opportunities to develop their skills and ensure that expectations are clearly stated and when employees experience their work as meaningful, they will respond with positive affective responses like physical strength, emotional energy and cognitive liveliness. Rothmann and Jordaan (2006) found similar results in their study within a higher education institution. Dedication, according to the multiple regression analysis, was predicted by development, role clarity, authority, competence, meaning and impact. This implies that when a leader is perceived as supportive, when information is shared and when authority is appropriately delegated, employees will derive a sense of significance from their work. Furthermore, when employees feel competent in their work, experience this work as meaningful and feel they have the ability to influence their work environment, the result will be employees who feel proud, enthusiastic and inspired. These findings are corroborated in previous research (Greco et al., 2006). The multiple regression analysis also showed that absorption was predicted by development, authority, competence and meaning. Employees who are totally immersed in their work are led by managers who make development a priority and share their authority (Quesada, González & Kent, 2008). Employees who believe in their capabilities and who experience alignment of their work roles, beliefs, values and behaviours are more likely to be immersed in their work. With reference to the interaction effects, the following was found. Firstly, role clarity interacted with competence to affect employees’ dedication. When role clarity is high, employees with a low competence experience higher levels of dedication. In other words, employees who experienced a low level of competence were more dedicated when role clarity was high. So role clarity is less of an issue for employees who feel competent, especially as far as their dedication is concerned. Secondly, role clarity interacted with meaning to affect employees’ dedication. Employees who experienced a high level of meaning were more dedicated when they experienced high role clarity. Finally, role clarity interacted with the developing of employees (as a facet of leader empowering behaviour) to affect absorption. Employees who experienced low role clarity were more absorbed in their work when they experienced that their leaders developed them. Lastly, a regression analysis showed that dedication (a sub-construct of engagement) predicts an employee’s intention to leave. Therefore, when employees feel inspired by their work and experience their work as challenging they will be less likely to have thoughts of leaving the organisation or their current position (Karlowicz & Ternus, 2007). In conclusion, the research found statistically significant relationships between leader empowering behaviour, role clarity, psychological empowerment, work engagement and intention to leave. It was also evident that development and meaningful work plays an extremely important role in the retention of talent. The retention of talent is a vital element in creating a positive organisation (Davenport & Harris, 2007; Ulrich et al., 2008). This research is beneficial in highlighting the importance of employee development and empowerment in creating a positive organisation and, consequently, ensuring the retention of talent. Based on the results various recommendations can be made. Organisations that want to be market leaders need to recognise the importance of focusing on overall wellness for both the organisation and its employees. The interest in applying positive psychology principles to the workplace is proving to be extremely beneficial, resulting in lower absenteeism, lower turnover, decreased stress levels and diminished alcohol and tobacco usage (Wilson et al., 2004). It is recommended that interventions focusing on the aspects promoting overall wellness be implemented in the business unit. Therefore, it is essential that the business unit understand the elements encompassed by a healthy organisation. If the business unit wishes to benefit in terms of building a positive organisation and, consequently, talent retention, it should adopt empowerment behaviour in its management style. According to Nedd (2006), a leader has the strongest impact on an employee’s intention to stay. Therefore the importance of leader behaviour in talent retention is vital. Development was found to be one of the most important aspects of leader empowering behaviour relating to retention (i.e. lower intentions of leaving). This is substantiated in previous research that found professional development to be the most important aspect leading to the retention of employees (Loeb & Darling-Hammond, 2005; Rosser & Townsend, 2006). Taplin and Winterton (2007) found that a proactive approach to avoiding the costs involved in employee turnover is best and that serious investment in training may be the answer for many organisations. Stander and Rothmann (2009) reiterate this by identifying the development of employees as a key competence for managers. They point out that in order to be a good people developer, managers should be coached and developed to delegate authority, hold employees accountable for outcomes, lead by example, encourage subordinates, show concern for others’ feelings, allow participative decision-making, share information and coach and mentor people. It is therefore advisable that the business unit apply leader empowering behaviour practically. The following can act as a guide: Delegation of authority: leaders within the business unit must create an environment that encourages employees to be involved in decision-making. Accountability: it is the leaders’ responsibility to ensure that all employees within the business unit are held accountable for the work they are assigned to, for performance and results and for customer satisfaction. Self-directed decision-making: leaders within the business unit must allow the employees to utilise their skills in formulating solutions independently, thereby allowing them to make decisions that affect their work. Information sharing: employees within the business unit must be given all the necessary information by the leader so that they are able to ensure high quality work performance within their assigned roles. Skill development: leaders must make continuous learning, skills development and employee problem-solving a priority within the business unit. It is also important to ensure that the employees’ roles are clarified through the provision of the necessary information regarding expectations placed upon them. The extent to which information is successfully received and understood is also important. Tasks must be communicated to employees in such a way that their fit and function within the organisation is comprehensively understood. Leaders must ensure that employees have clear career paths, detailed job models and a structured process to consult when clarification of expectations is needed. Interventions employed within the business unit should also take engagement into account as engagement contributes to the enhancement of work-life and promotes the well-being of employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Through the utilisation of engagement, employees will become happier in their work environment and be less likely to think of leaving. Wildermuth and Pauken (2008) state that the first step that leaders need to take in engaging employees is to ensure that they themselves are engaged. Adopting this approach will ensure that employees are enthusiastic, energetic and focused on their work, which will essentially contribute to organisational success. Engaged employees promise higher productivity, improved customer satisfaction, increased profits and good safety records (Saks, 2006). The role of meaningful work is extremely important with regard to engagement efforts. The business unit should conduct stay-in interviews, group discussions and meetings in order to establish whether employees experience their work as meaningful. Interventions can also focus on increasing the meaningfulness of work in order to increase the engagement of employees within the business unit (Dychtwald & Morison, 2006). The following limitations have been noted in terms of this study. The research design was cross-sectional and this limits the determination of cause-and-effect relationships; also, the participants’ opinions, attitudes and feelings are representative at only one point in time. The sampling technique involved targeting an entire business unit. Although a larger sample would have been more beneficial, the sample size of 179 is a reasonable and representative sample size. The measures that were administered were in English and this may have been a limitation in the way in which items were understood by participants who were not English-speaking. Furthermore, these measures were self-report measures and this may lead to ‘method variance’. Longitudinal studies should be employed to establish the causal relationships amongst the variables. To enhance external validity, the sample size of 179 should be expanded, both to reach a larger sample size as well as to obtain the involvement of more organisations. It would be beneficial to investigate the effect of leader empowering behaviour, role clarity, psychological empowerment and work engagement on absenteeism, general health and employee wellness (e.g. alcohol and substance abuse and stress). 1.AddaeH.M.ParboteeahK.P.VelinorN.2008Role stressors and organisational commitment: public sector employment in St Lucia29567582doi:10.1108/014377208109042202.AikenL.S.WestS.G.1991Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions3.ArbuckleJ.L.2006AMOS user’s guide version 7.04.ArnoldJ.A.AradS.RhoadesJ.A.DrasgowF.2000The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leaders’ behaviours21249269doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3<249::AID-JOB10>3.0.CO;2-# 5.AveyJ.B.HughesL.W.NormanS.M.LuthansK.W.2008Using positivity, transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity29110126doi:10.1108/014377308108524706.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE.2008Towards a model of work engagement13209223doi:10.1108/136204308108704767.BakkerA.B.SchaufeliW.B.2008Positive organisational behaviour: Engaged employees in flourishing organisations29147154doi:10.1002/job.5158.BaskinB.2007, NovemberVigor, dedication, and absorption: Work engagement among secondary English teachers in Indonesia9.BeehrT.A.GlazerS.FischerR.Linton L.L.HansenC.P. 2009Antecedents for achievement of alignment in organizations82120doi:10.1348/096317908X31024710.BergielE.B.NguyenV.Q.ClenneyB.F.TaylorG.S.2009Human resources practices, job embeddedness and intention to quit32205219doi:10.1108/0140917091094308411.BhatnagarJ.2007Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention29640663doi:10.1108/01425450710826122 12.BoninelliI.MeyerT.N.A.2004Building human capital: South African perspectives13.BrayS.R.BrawleyL.R.2002Role efficacy, role clarity, and role performance effectiveness33233253doi:10.1177/10464964020330020414.BryanL.L.JoyceC.I.2007Mobilizing minds: Creating wealth from talent in the 21st century organization15.BurkeR.J.CooperC.L.2009The peak performing organization16.CameronK.S.DuttonJ.E.QuinnR.E.2003Positive organisational scholarship: Meet the movement12266271doi:10.1177/105649260325634117.CarsonC.M.KingJ.E. Jr.2005Leaving leadership: Solving leadership problems through empowerment4310491053doi:10.1108/0025174051061004418.Chen J.C.SilverthorneC.2005Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee readiness26280288doi:10.1108/0143773051060065219.CoffmanC.2002Building a highly engaged workforce: How great managers inspire virtuous performanceRetrieved July 30, 2007http://www.gmj.gallup.com/content/238/Building-a-Highly-Engaged-Workforce.html20.CohenJ.1988Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd edn.)21.CongerJ.A.KanungoR.N.1988The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice13471482doi:10.2307/25809322.ConleyC.2007Peak: How great companies get their mojo from Maslow23.DavenportT.H.HarrisJ.G.2007Competing on analytics24.DeviV.R.2009Employee engagement is a two way street.1734doi:10.1108/09670730910940186 25.DvirT.EdenD.AvolioB.J.ShamirB.2002Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment4573544doi:10.2307/306930726.DwyerT.C.2001Employee empowerment within a manufacturing environment27.DychtwaldK.MorisonR.2006 Workforce crisis: How to beat the coming shortage of skills and talent28.FirthL.MellorD.J.MooreA.LoquetC.2004How can managers reduce employee intention to quit?19170187doi:10.1108/02683940410526127 29.FoxcroftC.RoodtG.2005An introduction to psychological assessment in the South African context (2nd edn.)30.GreasleyK.BrymanA.DaintyA.PriceA.NaismithN.SoetantoR. 2008Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective143955doi:10.1108/1352759081086019531.GrecoP.LaschingerH.K.S.WongC.2006Leader empowering behaviours, staff nurse empowerment and work engagement/burnout19415632.GroblerP.WärnichS.CarrellM.R.ElbertN.F.HatfieldR.D.2006Human resource management in South Africa (3rd edn.).33.HarterJ.L.SchmidtF.L.HayesT.L.2002Business unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis87268279doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268PMid:1200295534.HongP.NahmA.Y.DollW.J.2004The role of project target clarity in an uncertain environment2412691291 doi:10.1108/0144357041056904735.KahumuzaJ.SchlechterA.F.2008Examining the direct and some mediated relationships between perceived support and intention to quit1721936.KarlowiczK.A.TernusM.P.2007Issues influencing psychiatric nurse retention during the first year of employment: a case analysis174958doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00850.xPMid:1916652237.KayeB.Jordan-EvansS.2000Retention: tag, you’re it!2934April38.KlidasA.van den BergP.T.WilderomC.P.M.2006Managing employee empowerment in luxury hotels in Europe187088doi:10.1108/0956423071073290239.KonczakL.J.StellyD.J.TrustyM.L.2000Defining and measuring empowerment leader behaviours: development of an upward feedback instrument60301313doi:10.1177/0013164002197042040.KonradA.M.2006Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices1641.KousteliosA.TheodorakisN.GoulimarisD.2004Role ambiguity, role conflict and job satisfaction among physical education teachers in Greece18879242.KreismanJ.B.2002nsight into employee motivation, commitment and retention12443.LoebS.Darling-HammondL.2005How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools804470doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8003_444.LuthansF.2002The need for and meaning of positive organisational behaviour23695706doi:10.1108/0262171021042686445.LuthansF.PetersonS.J.2001Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy: implications for managerial effectiveness and development2137638746.MackyK.BoxallP.2008High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: a study of New Zealand worker experiences463855doi:10.1177/103841110708654247.MaloneT.W.2004The future work: How the new order of business will shape your organization, your management skills and your life48.MardanovI.S.HeischmidtK.HensonA.2008Leader-member exchange and job satisfaction bond and predicted employee turnover152159175doi:10.1177/1548051808320985 49.MaréZ.2007Leader empowering behaviour, organisational commitment and turnover intention, within the gold mining industry50.MarquardtM.2002Building the learning organisation: Mastering the five elements for corporate learning (2nd edn.)51.MayD.R.HarterL.M.2004The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work771137doi:10.1348/096317904322915892 52.McHughM.2001Employee absence: An impediment to organisational health in local government144358 doi:10.1108/0951355011038706653.MenonS.T.2001Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach50153180doi:10.1111/1464-0597.0005254.MukherjeeA.MalhotraN.2006Does role clarity explain employee-perceived service quality?17444473 doi:10.1108/09564230610689777 55.NeddN.2006Perceptions of empowerment and intention to stay2448949756.NielsenK.RandallR.YarkerJ.BrennerS.2008The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study221632doi:10.1080/0267837080197943057.Park J.S.KimT.H.2009Do types of organisational culture matter in nurse job satisfaction and turnover intention22203858.Prieto L.L.SalanovaM.S.MartinezI.SchaufeliW.2008Extension of the job demands-resources model in the prediction of burnout and engagement among teachers over time2035436059.QuesadaG.GonzálezM.E.KentT.2008A road for achieving an international measure and understanding on leaders’ behaviours29678692doi:10.1108/0143773081091663160.ReyndersE.2005Job insecurity, psychological empowerment and work engagement in a government organisation. Unpublished master’s dissertation61.RizzoJ.R.HouseR.J.LirtzmanS.I.1970Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organisations15150163doi:10.2307/2391486 62.RosserV.J.TownsendB.K.2006Determining public 2-year college faculty’s intent to leave: An empirical model77124147doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.000663.RothmannS.JordaanG.M.E.2006Job demands, job resources and work engagement of academic staff in South African higher education institutions324879664.RusselJ.E.A.2008Promoting subjective well-being at work16117131doi:10.1177/106907270730814265.SaksA.M.2006Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement21600619doi:10.1108/0268394061069016966.SauerD.2003Psychological empowerment, leadership empowerment and job insecurity within a steel-manufacturing environment67.SchaufeliW.B.SalanovaM.González-RomáV.BakkerA.B.2002The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach37192doi:10.1023/A:101563093032668.SellgrenS.EkvallG.TomsonG.2007Nursing staff turnover: Does leadership matter?20169183doi:10.1108/17511870710764023PMid:2069046269.SeppäläP.MaunoS.FeldtT.HakanenJ.KinnunenU.TolvanenA.SchaufeliW.B.2008The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence10459481doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y 70.ShaughnessyJ.J.ZechmeisterE.B.1997 Research methods in psychology (4th edn.)71.SimpsonM.R.2009Predictors of work engagement among medical-surgical registered nurses314465doi:10.1177/0193945908319993PMid:1861208872.SlattenT.2008Antecedents and effects of emotional satisfaction on employee-perceived service quality18370386doi:10.1108/0960452081088561773.SnyderC.R.LopezS.J.2002Handbook of positive psychology74.SpreitzerM.G.1995Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation3814421465doi:10.2307/25686575.2007 SPSS 16.0 for Windows76.StanderM.W.RothmannS.2009Psychological empowerment of employees in selected organisations in South Africa3511877.StanderM.W.RothmannS.2010Psychological empowerment, job insecurity, and employee engagement36118doi:10.4102/ sajip.v36i1.84978.SteeleJ.P.FullagarC.J.2009Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting143527doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5-27PMid:19157070 79.SteynH.S.2005Handleiding vir bepaling van effekgroottes-indekse en praktiese betekenisvolheid [Manual for determining effect size indices and practical significance].80.StormK.RothmannS.2003 A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service29627081.TabachnickK.W.VelthouseB.A.2001Using multivariate statistics (4th edn.)82.TaplinI.M.WintertonJ.2007The importance of management style in labour retention27518doi:10.1108/01443330710722724 83.TehP.OoiK.YongC.2008Does TQM impact on role stressors? A conceptual model10810291044doi:10.1108/0263557081090459684.ThomasK.W.VelthouseB.A.1990Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model on intrinsic task motivation15666681doi:10.2307/258687 85.TjekuM.S.2006Empowerment and job insecurity in a steel manufacturing organisation86. TownsendP.GebhardtJ.2008Employee engagement completely162224doi:10.1108/0967073081086952987.UlrichD.BrockbankW.JohnsonD.SandholtzK.YoungerJ.2008HR competencies: Mastery at the intrasection of people and business88.WeisbergJ.1994Measuring workers’ burnout and intention to leave15 414doi:10.1108/01437729410053590 89.WildermuthC.M.S.PaukenP.D.2008A perfect match: decoding employee engagement: Part 1: Engaging cultures and leaders403122128doi:10.1108/0019785081086860390.WilsonM.G.DeJoyD.M.VandenbergR.J.RichardsonH.A.McGrathA.L.2004Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of a model of healthy work organisation77565588doi:10.1348/0963179042596522