Back to Journals » Psychology Research and Behavior Management » Volume 15

Linkages Between Transformational Leadership, Work Meaningfulness and Work Engagement: A Multilevel Cross-Sectional Study

Authors Meng F, Xu Y, Liu Y, Zhang G, Tong Y, Lin R

Received 23 October 2021

Accepted for publication 5 February 2022

Published 18 February 2022 Volume 2022:15 Pages 367—380

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S344624

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Igor Elman



Fanxing Meng,1 Yongsheng Xu,1 Yiliang Liu,2 Guozan Zhang,3 Yunze Tong,4 Rong Lin1

1Zhejiang Police College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China; 2College of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China; 3School of Creative Arts and Design, Zhejiang Institute of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China; 4College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

Correspondence: Fanxing Meng, Zhejiang Police College, 555 Binwen Road, Binjiang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China, Email [email protected]

Purpose: The issue of employee engagement has increasingly become a focus of concern in public management practice. Based on the theory of purposeful work behavior, integrative theory of employee engagement and Pratt and Ashforth’s typology of work meaningfulness, this study proposes and examines the mediating effects of two types of meaningfulness between transformational leadership and work engagement and the moderating effects of transformational leadership on the relationship between two types of meaningfulness and work engagement.
Patients and Methods: By adopting a multilevel cross-sectional design, this study examines assumed mediation and moderation effects. The data collection was conducted anonymously by means of an online survey. A total of 261 local police officers from 32 police stations were recruited in professional training programs as a sample.
Results: The analysis reveals that both meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work positively mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between meaningfulness at work and work engagement rather than the relationship between meaningfulness in work and work engagement. There are no other significant effects of sex, age or length of service.
Conclusion: Work meaningfulness transmits and combines the effect of transformational leadership to impact work engagement. These findings not only confirm the critical role of work meaningfulness proposed by the theoretical frameworks of the theory of purposeful work behavior, integrative theory of employee engagement and Pratt and Ashforth’s typology of work meaningfulness, but also further extend and clarify the role of and difference in two substructures of work meaningfulness (ie, work meaningfulness in work and at work) in the context of the linkage between transformational leadership and work engagement.

Keywords: transformational leadership, meaningfulness in work, meaningfulness at work, work engagement

Introduction

Effective work engagement among employees in the public sector has increasingly become a topic of great concern. The work engagement of employees is a vital concept within the field of positive psychology and plays a critical and fundamental role in the sustainable process of organizational development and change1–3 because it concerns the focused energy aimed at organizational goals.4,5 Compared with variables such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, work engagement is a more robust predictor of positive work outcomes.6,7 For more than two decades, work engagement has gradually become a forefront area of management research and practice.8,9 For employees in the public sector, a high degree of engagement could be highly conducive to fostering the quality of public services.10 However, employees in the public sector are inclined to engage less than those in the private sector.5,11 Recently, to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of performance, management, decisions and reform, research on employee engagement in the public sector has drawn much interest from researchers.11–13

Experiencing meaningfulness in the workplace as an important aspect of positive psychology reflects the association between the external context of the workplace and the inner world of the individual,14,15 and provides intrinsic motivational energy to facilitate employees’ choices, performances and developments.16 On the basis of their typology of work meaningfulness, Pratt and Ashforth (2003) attempted to detect and illustrate relational premises and salient features of experiencing meaningfulness by conceptually distinguishing meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work.17 The theory of purposeful work behavior holds that purposeful strivings can be translated by external social job characteristics (eg, transformational leadership) into inner meaningfulness of work that plays a key role in affecting subsequent work outcomes.18 The integrative theory of employee engagement proposes that transformational leadership, as a representative social job characteristic, links to both meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work, which further influences engagement in the workplace.19 Based on the above theoretical pathway, previous research detected and confirmed a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and engagement by using the general concept of work meaningfulness20 or a single substructure of work meaningfulness.21,22

Due to its potential to foster positive outcomes in the workplace,23 transformational leadership is expected to adjust the relationship between meaningfulness and engagement. Consistent with the job demand-resource model,24 transformational leadership is considered an important job resource to facilitate followers to transcend their own self-interests to achieve team and organization goals.25,26 In the dual process, on one hand, transformational leaders show individual-focused behavior to develop followers’ capabilities for task completion by communicating high expectations and providing intellectual stimulation, personal development and recognition; on the other hand, they show group-focused behavior to strengthen team effectiveness by underlining team identity and communicating a collective vision and team-building strategies.27 Likewise, previous research has adopted the general meaningfulness of work28 or a single substructure of meaningfulness on engagement29 to study the combined effect of transformational leadership and work meaningfulness.

To explore and address the employees’ engagement issue in the public sector (eg, police department) in the work course of serving people, the primary interest of this study is on the process and condition mechanism of individual work engagement of police officers. Following the research pathway of positive organizational behavior, the present study aims to simultaneously detect and contrast the mediating effects of two types of meaningfulness between transformational leadership and work engagement and the adjusting effects of transformational leadership on the relationships between the two types of meaningfulness and work engagement in the public sector. Our study makes an important theoretical contribution, where the findings help articulate the underlying mechanism by which transformational leadership and experienced meaningfulness influence the individual work engagement, and it provides a better understanding of how and when police officers become engaged in their work in the context of police management. In addition, this study contributes to increasing the meaningfulness experiences of local police officers and to fostering the transformational leadership ability of their leaders to further improve the personal engagement of local police officers in the policing practice through management.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Work Engagement and Work Meaningfulness

Work engagement is a positive psychological state that is reflected in work roles. Engaged employees tend to cognitively, emotionally and physically project themselves into their work roles30,31 and to express high levels of willingness, enthusiasm and energy in the process of work to promote positive personal performance and relationships with work and others.32 In contrast, personal disengagement involves the uncoupling of oneself from work roles through behaviors that tend to result in physical, cognitive, and emotional absence.30,33 Previous studies have found that work engagement is positively related to crucial organizational factors, such as creativity,34 low turnover intention,35 in-role performance,36,37 and team performance.38

The psychological meaning of experience is closely related to work engagement.39 The work engagement of employees in the public sector can be positively predicted by experienced meaningfulness.13 Work meaningfulness is the perception of significance and value attached to work.17,40 Individuals have an intrinsic need to intensify their sense of self-value and personal agency toward work through work meaningfulness.41,42 A high sense of work meaningfulness is more likely to satisfy the high-level needs of belonging, esteem and self-actualization in Maslow’s needs hierarchy.21 When experiencing meaningfulness, an employee is self-driven to act in ways to find a personally fulfilling and motivating purpose in keeping with his or her values for self-enhancement and belonging.43 Accordingly, the more meaningful experiences a job provides the better because it fulfills fundamental needs of human being.44

Based on insights from the identity theory45 and the social identity theory,46 work meaningfulness can be seen as deriving from an employee’s job role as well as an employee’s membership in an organization.17,47 Correspondingly, it is theoretically recognized that work meaningfulness can be divided into two categories, namely, meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work. Regarding the first category, meaningfulness in work focuses on enriching the work role and task goal and reflects the subjective sense and estimation of “what am I doing?” In Kahn’s theory of engagement, meaningfulness is an important psychological condition for the occurrence of engagement. Employees can vary their individual engagement according to their perceptions of meaningfulness.30 Actually, the psychological condition of meaningfulness proposed by Khan (1990) is akin to the concept of meaningfulness in work.19 When employees have a high sense of meaning in work, they are more prone to be intrinsically motivated by in-depth feelings to complete their work.

With regard to the second category, meaningfulness at work, indicating perceived organizational membership, reflects the subjective sense and estimation of “where do I belong?” Meaningfulness at work is apt to be facilitated by strengthening the identities of team members through the dynamic social context (eg, transformational leadership).17 When employees perceive a high sense of meaning at work, they tend to actively participate in work-related activities of the team or organization to which they belong.

Transformational Leadership on Meaningfulness and Engagement

Transformational leadership has gradually become one of the most compelling and influential research concepts in leadership since it was proposed by Burns in 1978.48 Transformational leaders actively interact with their followers to challenge the status quo and create transformative changes by means of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.49,50 In terms of the nature of transformational leadership, it reflects both a behavioral style of a leader who inspires the followers to challenge their own capability and a work context that encourages the followers to go beyond their own self-interest for the goal.51 As a behavioral style, transformational leadership exhibits a pervasive and enduring set of interpersonal behaviors to influence and motivate the followers to build a vision and confidence and make transformative changes.52 Moreover, the work context attribute of transformational leadership can be considered a potential boundary condition on the influence of transformational leaders on the followers.53 In other words, transformational leaders take actions to influence the psychological process and behaviors of followers, which can be promote by the work context of team that they shape.

Substantial evidence shows that transformational leadership plays an important role in a wide range of organizational processes.55,56 In accordance with the job demands-resources model,24 transformational leadership, as one of the most important job resources at the interpersonal level, plays an extrinsic motivational role to facilitate achieving work goals.57 The underlying motivational nature of transformational leadership can lead to high work engagement.58 When encouraged by transformational leaders, police officers show a high level of personal engagement.59,60

Moreover, transformational leadership can foster the experience of meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work in an interpersonal environment of work.21,37 For meaningfulness in work, based on self-determination theory,61 police officers’ experiences of meaningfulness in work aroused by transformational leaders meet their basic psychological needs (ie, competence, autonomy and relatedness),57,58 which makes them engage to overcome difficulties and challenges and maintain positive interactions in the process of goal execution and task completion. Proper change or success guided by intellectual inspiration and authorization from transformational leaders fosters self-reflection toward specific tasks and further self-directed learning of followers to better perform tasks.62 For meaningfulness at work, transformational leadership, as an important social resource in the work context, can shift the orientation of followers from self-interest to collective interest63 and influence the way that employees assign meaning to their jobs.64 According to the effort-recovery model,65 social resources in the work context can facilitate recovery and then dedicate one’s capabilities and efforts to work.58,66 The job demands-control model proposes that social support at work is highly likely to buffer the adverse impact of stress.67 That is, positive interpersonal relationships between transformational leaders and their followers can lead to a high sense of meaningfulness by means of intensifying followers’ valued identity.68

Accordingly, to entirely explore and explain the effect of transformational leadership and work meaningfulness on work engagement, both attributes of behavioral style and work context of transformational leadership must be considered. Transformational leadership can play two roles to bolster the relationship between experienced meaningfulness and work engagement by examining the mediating and moderating processes.

Mediating Effect of Work Meaningfulness

Transformational leaders are good at stimulating followers’ self-progress in learning, growth, and development during task performance,50,58 and making them liable to have intense feelings of self-worth and spontaneously become engaged in their work. Moreover, transformational leaders are adept at individual coaching and mentoring to reduce job strain by means of fostering individual consideration and intensifying social identification within a team as a catalyst for high engagement among followers.69–71 Thus, based on the research pathway above, it can be speculated that work meaningfulness mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement (see Figure 1).

Hypothesis 1a: Meaningfulness in work positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement.

Hypothesis 1b: Meaningfulness at work positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement.

Figure 1 Proposed model of mediation and moderation.

Notes: For the analysis of the mediating effect, the path from leadership to engagement is labeled c. The path from leadership to meaningfulness in work is labeled a1. The path from meaningfulness in work to engagement is labeled b1. The path from leadership to engagement via meaningfulness in work is labeled c1′. The path from leadership to meaningfulness at work is a2. The path from meaningfulness at work to engagement is labeled b2. The path from leadership to engagement via meaningfulness at work is labeled c2′.

Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership

As a typical social resource, transformational leadership is expected to strengthen or weaken the predictive effect of meaningfulness on engagement. Previous studies have shown that social resource plays an active role in the organization process as a moderator.57,72 Transformational leaders are adept at creating a climate to reframe and share the value and purpose of both tasks and membership,73 and thus defining and shaping their followers’ immediate work environment to enable them to achieve work goals in the team.74 Specifically, transformational leadership could influence and inspire police officers to perform beyond their perceived capabilities in the process of dealing with numerous and varied cases. In the work context of transformational leadership, employees tend to experience a high sense of value derived from thinking about changes and making progress to engage in and complete a variety of tasks. Moreover, transformational leaders are likely to foster the establishment of a dominant social identification based on common values and objectives.75 When transformational leadership is high, meaningfulness at work affirms one’s membership in the organization,47 which could foster recovery and engagement at work, such as through vigor.76 Accordingly, transformational leadership is expected to moderate the relationship between work meaningfulness and engagement.

Hypothesis 2a: Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between meaningfulness in work and work engagement such that the relationship is stronger (weaker) when transformational leadership is higher (lower).

Hypothesis 2b: Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between meaningfulness at work and work engagement such that the relationship is stronger (weaker) when transformational leadership is higher (lower).

Materials and Methods

Sample

Police officers in China carry out their work under both strict work regulations and a heavy workload.77 It is common for them to work overtime to deal with a large amount of routine work, potential social risks and various emergencies and contingencies,78 such as ensuring the implementation of the home quarantine order during the COVID-19 outbreak period from December 2019 to June 2020 in China and assisting medical workers to prevent the spread of the pandemic.

In the present study, data were gathered from a police college in southeast China. The college currently offers bachelor’s degrees in two majors and furnishes in-service, short-term training programs or courses to the police officers. Survey data were collected from police officers who were attending mandatory job training courses in the police college. Following Maas and Hox’s suggestion of a minimum acceptable group size of 5 for multilevel modeling,79 the online survey was distributed to at least 5 police officers from each police station by an instructor of the college. The instructor introduced the purpose of this research project and the method to access the online survey before the participants responded to the questions in various courses of training. In total, 283 police officers voluntarily and anonymously completed the survey items. Eighteen surveys were excluded from the analysis because the participants responded to all items with no variation. Four surveys were dropped because one respondent from one police station finished the survey, probably because of curiosity on this research or misunderstanding of its requirements, so the surveys were not suitable for the multilevel analysis. The final sample contained 261 local police officers (92.2%) from 32 police stations. The number of participants included from each police station was 5–10.

Measurement

Before conducting the formal survey, all measure items were translated into Chinese and back-translated into English repeatedly to express the meaning of the words used. Each item was answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Transformational leadership: The style of transformational leadership was assessed by a 7-item short scale of transformational leadership.82 The internal consistency reliability score was 0.862 (see Table 1). A sample item is “Fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members.”

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Meaningfulness in work: Perceived meaningfulness in work was assessed with 4 items (α = 0.739, see Table 1) taken from the scale of psychological meaningfulness.83 A sample item is “The work I do in this job is worthwhile.”

Meaningfulness at work: Perceived meaningfulness at work was operationalized with 4 items (α = 0.787). Two items were adopted in a revised form from the comprehensive meaningful work scale.84 The other two items were adopted in a revised form from the survey of meaningfulness at work.47 A sample item is “Working in this job gives me a sense of belonging.”

Work engagement: Work engagement was assessed using the ultrashort measure for work engagement.85 The internal consistency reliability score was 0.726. A sample item is “I am enthusiastic about my job.”

Analysis Strategy

The data acquired in the present study showed the nested feature that police officers in a given police station shared the same direct leader. A multilevel modeling approach (MLM) was adopted to analyze the mediation (2-1-1) and moderation effects. As shown in Figure 1, transformational leadership at level 2 was expected to predict engagement at level 1 via meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work at level 1. Meanwhile, transformational leadership was assumed to adjust the relationship between meaningfulness in work and engagement and the relationship between meaningfulness at work and engagement. The dependence magnitude within a given police station was estimated by calculating the values of intraclass correlation (ICC). Data processing and analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 7.4.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic characteristics, transformational leadership, meaningfulness in work, meaningfulness at work and engagement (see Tables 1 and 2). Specifically, 97.3% were male and 2.7% were female in the sample (see Table 2). The age ranges were 20–30 years (3.1%), 30–40 years (35.6%), 40–50 years (43.3%), and above 50 years (18%). Their lengths of service were 1–5 years (7.7%), 6–10 years (16.5%), 11–20 years (31%), 21–30 years (34.5%), and more than 30 years (10.3%).

Table 2 Sample Distribution

The results showed that transformational leadership was positively and significantly correlated with meaningfulness in work (r = 0.474, p < 0.01), meaningfulness at work (r = 0.349, p < 0.01) and engagement (r = 0.415, p < 0.01). Meaningfulness in work was positively and significantly correlated with meaningfulness at work (r = 0.322, p < 0.01) and engagement (r = 0.388, p < 0.01). Meaningfulness at work was positively and significantly correlated with engagement (r = 0.424, p < 0.01).

Before the mediation and moderation analyses, the intraclass correlation was examined. The results showed acceptable convergence within a given police station on meaningfulness in work (ICC = 0.063 > 0.05), meaningfulness at work (ICC = 0.169 > 0.05) and work engagement (ICC = 0.151 > 0.05) (see Table 3). The result of Harman’s single factor test showed that the first factor accounted for 33.134% (<40%) of the total variance and that the degree of common method variance was acceptable. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with all 4 correlated constructs had an acceptable fit to the data, χ2/df = 2.336 (≤5), CFI = 0.894 (≥0.9), TLI = 0.869 (≥0.9) and RMSEA = 0.072 (≤0.08).

Table 3 Percentage of Within-Individual Variance and ICC of the Dependent Variables

As shown in Table 4, the composite reliability values of all 4 factors exceeded 0.7. The convergent validity values was very close to 0.5. The square root of each factor’s AVE was greater than the correlations with other latent constructs. The results indicate that the construct validity was acceptable.

Table 4 Composite Reliability, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity

Analysis of Mediating Effect

The results indicated that meaningfulness in work mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. As shown in Table 5, transformational leadership was positively associated with engagement (c = 0.86, SE = 0.118, 95% CI [0.628, 1.091], p < 0.01). Transformational leadership was positively associated with meaningfulness in work (a1 = 0.757, SE = 0.092, 95% CI [0.576, 0.938], p < 0.01) and engagement (b1 = 0.206, SE = 0.068, 95% CI [0.073, 0.339], p < 0.01). The indirect effect of meaningfulness in work was significant (c1′ = 0.156, SE = 0.055, 95% CI [0.048, 0.264], p < 0.01). Meanwhile, meaningfulness at work played a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and engagement. Transformational leadership was positively linked to meaningfulness at work (a2 = 0.576, SE = 0.159, 95% CI [0.263, 0.888], p < 0.01) and positively linked to engagement (b2 = 0.278, SE = 0.073, 95% CI [0.134, 0.421], p < 0.01). The indirect effect of meaningfulness at work was significant (c2′ = 0.16, SE = 0.058, 95% CI [0.47, 0.273], p < 0.01). The predictive effects of sex, age and length of service on engagement were not significant. Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.

Table 5 Results of the Mediating Analysis

Analysis of Moderating Effect

As shown in Table 6, the results indicated that transformational leadership did not moderate the relationship between meaningfulness in work and engagement. The adjusted effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between meaningfulness in work and engagement was not confirmed (B = −0.181, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [−0.495, 0.133], p > 0.05). The association between meaningfulness at work and engagement was significantly moderated by transformational leadership (B = 0.4, SE = 0.176, 95% CI [0.055, 0.745], p < 0.05) (see Figure 2). When transformational leadership was high, the predictive effect of meaningfulness at work on engagement was strong. When transformational leadership was low, the predictive effect of meaningfulness at work on engagement was weak. Significant effects of sex, age and length of service were not found. Hypothesis 2b was supported.

Table 6 Results of the Moderating Analysis

Figure 2 Adjusted effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between meaningfulness at work and work engagement.

Discussion

By adopting a sample of 261 police officers, this study concurrently examines the mediating effect of two types of meaningfulness on the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement and the moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between two types of meaningfulness and work engagement. The results show that both types of meaningfulness mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. Additionally, the results confirm the moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between meaningfulness at work and engagement but not on the relationship between meaningfulness in work and engagement. These findings provide strong support for the critical explanatory role of perceived meaningfulness that transmits and combines the effect of transformational leadership to further impact individual work engagement.

Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the relevant literature in various ways. First, this study advances our understanding of the dual roles of transformational leadership on work engagement. Previous research highlights and confirms the important effect of transformational leadership as an independent variable in a mediation model or a moderator in combining with work meaningfulness on work engagement,37,80,81 but the concurrent attributes of transformational leadership were not explicitly mentioned and examined. The present study was designed and implemented to fill this knowledge void in the existing literature. This study has provided empirical evidence to support the dual roles of transformational leadership by drawing on an integrative model of mediation and moderation to better explain how and when police officers engage more in their work. The findings has provided valuable insights into the imperative role of transformational leadership within the research field of engagement behavior of police officers.

Second, this study contributes to deepen the understanding of the dual pathways of two types of meaningfulness. Previous literature revealed the process and boundary mechanism in the linkage between transformational leadership and work engagement by drawing on a single substructure of meaningfulness concept or holistic and undifferentiated concept of meaningfulness.37,80,81 Different effects of substructures of meaningfulness between transformational leadership and work engagement must be further contrasted and clarified. In the analysis of the mediation model of the present study, the result of approximately equivalent mediating effects of meaningfulness in work and at work has provided in-depth insights into the impact of transformational leadership on work engagement. Dual mediating results are consistent with findings of previous research that takes a single substructure or holistic and undifferentiated of meaningfulness concept as a mediator21,22 and further refines and deepens the understanding of the almost simultaneous and equivalent effects of task-related and membership-related meaningfulness in one mediation model. That is, the effect of transformational leadership can be transmitted to work engagement from both task-related and membership-related pathways of meaningfulness. Based on the social exchange theory,54 the behaviors of transformational leaders, such as idealized influence or inspirational motivation for individual growth and meaningfulness stimulation, represent favorable social exchanges in the leader–follower interaction. A high-quality dyadic relationship promotes the sense of self-actualization and team belonging. The transformational leaders who build strong relationships to develop and communicate both meaningfulness in work and at work particularly encourage their work engagement. Thus, it is necessary for police leaders to exert a transformational influence on and enhance the work engagement of followers via the pathways of meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work.

Another surprising result from the difference examination of the moderating effect of transformational leadership on both relationships between meaningfulness in work or at work and work engagement is that the effect of meaningfulness at work on the work engagement is more pronounced when transformational leadership is higher. Meaningfulness at work represents an important psychological process that underpins social identification with the team and its members.47 The transformational context with voluntary and volitional feature is mainly determined by “will-do” factors (eg, emotion or motivation), which bolster a sense of group belongingness and work meaningfulness to sacrifice their own interests and engage in the work for the collective good.86 The finding implies that creating a transformational context is a valuable and effectual method to promote the influence of membership-related meaningfulness on work engagement. The unexpected moderating effects are that the impact of meaningfulness at work on work engagement does not depend on transformational leadership. This result occurred possibly because task-related meaningfulness is mainly reflected from “can-do” factors (eg, knowledge, ability or skills),86 which are less sensitive and more slowly improved and developed than “will-do” factors due to the influence of the transformational context. Moreover, the second possibility is related to the characteristic of the police sample, who is easily motivated by group identity oriented to organizational culture or climate (eg, loyalty) instead of the process of task execution. By contrast, the different performance of meaningfulness in mediation and moderation models is primarily determined by the behavioral and contextual nature of transformational leadership. The work engagement of police officers can be fostered by spiritual and behavioral encourage and actions of role model of transformational leaders through meaningfulness in work, instead of being adjusted in the transformational context. Additionally, this study is mainly developed by integrating three theoretical frameworks: the theory of purposeful work behavior, integrative theory of employee engagement, and Pratt and Ashforth’s typology of work meaningfulness. Thus, it deepens and expands previous studies on the process and boundary mechanism of work meaningfulness to understand the link between transformational leadership and work engagement.

Third, the findings contribute to the research domain of work engagement in the context of Chinese police management. Although the linkage of transformational leadership and work engagement has been widely examined, there has been relatively scarce research on the association of the combining effect of dual roles of transformational leadership and dual pathways of work meaningfulness with the work engagement of police officers. Using survey data from a sample of Chinese police officers, this study examines the validity of mediating and moderating effects among these key concepts. This study will help researchers and practitioners focus on the important role and significance of work meaningfulness and conduct further research and exploration on the work engagement of police officers. This topic is particularly vital because the existing literature is almost silent on the comparison of meaningfulness in work and at work for the police sample.

Practical Implications

The current study has two practical implications for both police officers and their leaders. First, our findings inform the ways in which leaders in police stations can intervene in and enhance followers’ sense of meaningfulness. Experiencing meaningfulness reflects the intrinsic motivational energy that facilitates the sustainable engagement of followers.16 It should be seriously taken into account to improve the meaningfulness experiences of police officers via two pathways, namely, task-related meaningfulness in work through strategies such as high expectations communicating, intellectual stimulation and individual development and membership-related meaningfulness at work through strategies such as group vision communicating and team building. Second, the findings of the present study can be applied to update the course content and teaching methods of police leadership training programs. Previous studies have verified that transformational leadership behaviors are trainable.87 Concerning the specific situations of local police stations, training the ability of police leaders to motivate followers’ sense of meaningfulness, especially meaningfulness at work, should be given more attention to foster police officers’ work engagement to offer efficient and effective public services.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

From a theoretical view, this study shows that work meaningfulness is closely connected with transformational leadership and work engagement. Mechanistic research on meaningfulness as a mediator and moderator simultaneously deserves to be examined further in future research on the linkage between transformational leadership and work engagement. Moreover, according to Saks’ Integrated Theory of Employee Engagement,19,41 the original conceptual construct of employee engagement can be divided into two forms: work engagement and organization engagement. The primary interest of this study is the less engagement issue of public-sector employees in the process of serving the people, its mechanism and condition factors that influence the individual work engagement of police officers from the perspective of organizational process and positive psychology. It is worthwhile to further study and compare the effects of work engagement and organization engagement in the appropriate aim and context of research.

From a methodological point of view, future research is encouraged to break through the limitation of adopting a cross-sectional design to verify the theoretical model and findings of this study by collecting longitudinal data. From a practical perspective, it is worth further exploring new strategies to improve police officers’ work meaningfulness to facilitate the degree of employees’ engagement in the public sector.

Data Sharing Statement

The data supporting the findings of this article will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.

Ethics Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Zhejiang Police College. All participants provided informed consent and their data was protected. All participants were anonymous and their data was protected. We declare that all participants in our research study allow us to use their data for academic research and publication.

Funding

This study was supported by National Science Foundation Youth Project of China (Grant No. 71801194).

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Leiter MP, Bakker AB. Work engagement: introduction. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Hove, New York: Psychology Press; 2010:1–9. doi:10.4324/9780203853047

2. Mirvis P. Employee engagement and CSR: transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. Calif Manag Rev. 2012;54:93–117. doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.93

3. Kim W, Khan GF, Wood J, Mahmood MT. Employee engagement for sustainable organizations: keyword analysis using social network analysis and burst detection approach. Sustainability. 2016;8:631. doi:10.3390/su8070631

4. Macey WH, Schneider B, Barbera KM, Young SA. Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.

5. Bakker AB, Hakanen JJ. Work engagement among public and private sector dentists. In: Burke RJ, Noblet A, Cooper CL, editors. Human Resource Management in the Public Sector. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2013:109–131. doi:10.4337/9780857937322.00015

6. Mubarak F, Noor A. Effect of authentic leadership on employee creativity in project-based organizations with the mediating roles of work engagement and psychological empowerment. Cogent Bus Manag. 2018;5:1429348. doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1429348

7. Bakker AB. A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation. Public Adm Rev. 2015;75(5):723–732. doi:10.1111/puar.12388

8. Bakker AB, Albrecht S. Work engagement: current trends. Career Dev Int. 2018;23:4–11. doi:10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207

9. Saks AM. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. J Organ Eff. 2019;6:19–38. doi:10.1108/joepp-06-2018-0034

10. Pritchard K. Employee engagement in the UK: meeting the challenge in the public sector. Dev Learn Organ. 2008;22:15–17. doi:10.1108/14777280810910302

11. Agyemang CB, Ofei SB. Employee work engagement and organizational commitment: a comparative study of private and public sector organizations in Ghana. Eur J Bus Innov Res. 2013;1(4):20–33.

12. Ancarani A, Di Mauro C, Giammanco MD, Giammanco G. Work engagement in public hospitals: a social exchange approach. Public Adm. 2018;23(1):1–19. doi:10.1080/12294659.2017.1412046

13. Mostafa AMS, Abed El-Motalib EA. Ethical leadership, work meaningfulness, and work engagement in the public sector. Rev Public Pers Adm. 2020;40(1):112–131. doi:10.1177/0734371X18790628

14. Maher PJ, O’Shea D, Igou ER. Social cognition in the workplace: the future of research on the meaning of work. In: O’Doherty KC, Hodgetts D, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Psychology. New York: Sage; 2019:255–277.

15. Sagnak M, Kuruöz M. Authentic leadership and altruism: the mediating role of meaningfulness. Univers J Educ Res. 2017;5(3):447–452. doi:10.13189/ujer.2017.050316

16. Di Fabio A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1534. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

17. Pratt MG, Ashforth BE. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler; 2003:309–327.

18. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Li N. The theory of purposeful work behavior: the role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Acad. 2013;38(1):132–153. doi:10.5465/amr.10.0479

19. Saks AM, Gruman JA. What do we really know about employee engagement? Hum Resour Dev Q. 2014;25(2):155–182. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21187

20. Aryee S, Walumbwa FO, Zhou Q, Hartnell CA. Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: test of mediation and moderation processes. Hum. 2012;25(1):1–25. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.631648

21. Ghadi MY, Fernando M, Caputi P. Transformational leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2013;34(6):532–550. doi:10.1108/lodj-10-2011-0110

22. Whittington JL, Meskelis S, Asare E, Beldona S. Enhancing Employee Engagement: An Evidence-Based Approach. Enabled. Springer; 2017.

23. Park J, Han SJ, Kim J, Kim W. Structural relationships among transformational leadership, affective organizational commitment, and job performance: the mediating role of employee engagement. Eur J Train Dev. 2021. doi:10.1108/EJTD-10-2020-0149

24. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499–512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

25. Balyer A. Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: a qualitative research based on teachers’ perceptions. Int Online J Educ Sci. 2012;4(3):581–591.

26. Jeong S, Hsiao YY, Song JH, Kim J, Bae SH. The moderating role of transformational leadership on work engagement: the influences of professionalism and openness to change. Hum Resour Dev Q. 2016;27(4):489–516. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21265

27. Wang XHF, Howell JM. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(6):1134–1144. doi:10.1037/a0020754

28. Sengkey M, Saputra D, Sengkey S Moderation effect of meaningful work on the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Social Science, Surabaya, Indonesia, 17–18 October 2019. Paris: Atlantis Press; 2019:956–959.

29. Meng F, Wang Y, Xu W, Ye J, Peng L, Gao P. The diminishing effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between task characteristics, perceived meaningfulness, and work engagement. Front Psychol. 2020;11:3299. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.585031

30. Kahn WA. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad Manag. 1990;33(4):692–724. doi:10.2307/256287

31. Kahn WA. To be fully there: psychological presence at work. Hum Relat. 1992;45(4):321–349. doi:10.1177/001872679204500402

32. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. A critical review of the job demands-resources model: implications for improving work and health. In: Bauer G, Hämmig O, editors. Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health. New York: Springer; 2014:43–68. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3-4

33. Abbas RZ, Murad HS, Yazdani N, Asghar A. Extending “Kahn’s model of personal engagement and disengagement at work” with reference to existential attributes: a case study of HR managers in Pakistan. Int J Soc Econ. 2014;41(1):2–31. doi:10.1108/IJSE-10-2012-0143

34. Bakker AB, Petrou P, Op den Kamp EM, Tims M. Proactive vitality management, work engagement, and creativity: the role of goal orientation. Appl Psychol. 2020;69(2):351–378. doi:10.1111/apps.12173

35. Islam T, Ahmad R, Ahmed I, Ahmer Z. Police work-family nexus, work engagement and turnover intention: moderating role of person-job-fit. Policing. 2019;42(5):739–750. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-09-2018-0138

36. Reina-Tamayo AM, Bakker AB, Derks D. The work engagement–performance link: an episodic perspective. Career Dev Int. 2018;23(5):478–496. doi:10.1108/CDI-10-2017-0179

37. Han S-H, Oh EG. The link between transformational leadership and work-related performance: moderated-mediating roles of meaningfulness and job characteristics. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2020;41(4):519–533. doi:10.1108/LODJ-04-2019-0181

38. Mäkikangas A, Aunola K, Seppälä P, Hakanen J. Work engagement–team performance relationship: shared job crafting as a moderator. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2016;89(4):772–790. doi:10.1111/joop.12154

39. Ahmed U, Majid AHA, Zin MLM. Meaningful work and work engagement: a relationship demanding urgent attention. Int J Acad. 2016;6(8):116–122. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i8/2264

40. Lee S-H, Shin Y, Kim M. Why work meaningfulness alone is not enough: the role of social identification and task interdependence as facilitative boundary conditions. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:1031–1047. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-0027-0

41. Saks AM. Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. J Manag Spiritual Relig. 2011;8(4):317–340. doi:10.1080/14766086.2011.630170

42. Kahn WA, Heaphy ED. Relational contexts of personal engagement at work. In: Truss C, Delbridge R, Alfes K, Shantz A, Soane E, editors. Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge; 2013:96–110.

43. Glazer S, Kozusznik MW, Meyers JH, Ganai O. Meaningfulness as a resource to mitigate work stress. In: Leka S, Sinclair RR, editors. Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014:114–130.

44. Vogel RM, Rodell JB, Sabey TB. Meaningfulness misfit: consequences of daily meaningful work needs–supplies incongruence for daily engagement. J Appl Psychol. 2020;105(7):760–770. doi:10.1037/apl0000464

45. Stryker S, Serpe RT. Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: theory and research example. In: Lckes W, Knowles ES, editors. Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior. New York: Springer; 1982:199–218.

46. Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole; 1979:33–47.

47. Fletcher L, Schofield K. Facilitating meaningfulness in the workplace: a field intervention study. Int J Hum Resour Mang. 2019:2975–3003. doi:10.1080/09585192.2019.1624590

48. Burns JM. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row; 1978.

49. Bass BM. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 1999;8(1):9–32. doi:10.1080/135943299398410

50. Grant AM. Leading with meaning: beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Acad Mang J. 2012;55(2):458–476. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0588

51. Kilduff M, Balkundi P. Chaper 9. A network approach to leader cognition and effectiveness. In: Bryman A, Collinson D, Grint K, Jackson B, Uhl-Bien M, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Leadership. London: Sage; 2011:118–135.

52. Tepper BJ, Dimotakis N, Lambert LS, et al. Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person–environment fit perspective. Acad Manag J. 2018;61(4):1343–1368. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0163

53. Naber AM, Moffett RGIII. Follower moral reasoning influences perceptions of transformational leadership behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2017;47:99–112. doi:10.1111/jasp.12427

54. Blau PM. Exchange and Power in Social Life. NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1964.

55. Banks GC, McCauley KD, Gardner WL, Guler CE. A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: a test for redundancy. Leadersh Q. 2016;27(4):634–652. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006

56. Breevaart K, Zacher H. Main and interactive effects of weekly transformational and laissez–faire leadership on followers’ trust in the leader and leader effectiveness. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2019;92(2):384–409. doi:10.1111/joop.12253

57. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115

58. Demerouti E, Bakker AB. The job demands-resources model: challenges for future research. SA J Ind Psychol. 2011;37(2):1–9. doi:10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974

59. Cruz-Ortiz V, Salanova M, Martínez IM. Transformational leadership and team performance: linked by teamwork engagement. Int Rev Soc Psychol. 2013;28(2):183–196. doi:10.1174/021347413806196762

60. Espinoza-Parra S, Molero F, Fuster-Ruizdeapodaca MJ. Transformational leadership and job satisfaction of police officers (carabineros) in Chile: the mediating effects of group identification and work engagement. Int Rev Soc Psychol. 2015;30(3):439–467. doi:10.1080/02134748.2015.1065087

61. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

62. Joo BK, Nam K. The effects of transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and psychological empowerment on career satisfaction. New Horiz Adult Educ Hum Resour Dev. 2019;31(3):47–64. doi:10.1002/nha3.20247

63. Tan ABC, Van Dun DH, Wilderom CPM. Innovative work behavior in Singapore evoked by transformational leaders through innovation support and readiness. Creat Innov Manag. 2021;30:697–712. doi:10.1111/caim.12462

64. Monnot MJ. Relational-Interdependent self-construal with supervisor (RISCS): scale development and conditional model of meaningfulness at work. Psychol Manag J. 2016;19(2):61–90. doi:10.1037/mgr0000043

65. Meijman T, Mulder G. Psychological aspects of workload. In: De Wolff C, Drenth PJD, Henk T, editors. Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology(Volume 2: Work Psychology). London: Psychology Press; 1998:5–33.

66. Winwood PC, Bakker AB, Winefield AH. An investigation of the role of non–work–time behavior in buffering the effects of work strain. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(8):862–871. doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e318124a8dc

67. Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic books; 1990.

68. Kahn WA. Meaningful connections: positive relationships and attachments at work. In: Dutton JE, Ragins BR, editors. Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007:189–206.

69. Chen C-L, Lin Y-C, Chen W-H, Heng X-S. Determinants of cluster leadership and identification on cluster innovation model. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2018;39(4):538–553. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2017-0305

70. McKnight LL. Transformational leadership in the context of punctuated change. J Leadersh Account Ethics. 2013;10(2):103–112.

71. Bakker AB, de Vries JD. Job demands–resources theory and self-regulation: new explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2021;34(1):1–21. doi:10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695

72. Martinez IM, Salanova M, Cruz-Ortiz V. Our boss is a good boss! Cross-level effects of transformational leadership on work engagement in service jobs. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2020;36(2):87–94. doi:10.5093/jwop2020a10

73. Syrek CJ, Apostel E, Antoni CH. Stress in highly demanding IT jobs: transformational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion and work–life balance. J Occup Health Psychol. 2013;18(3):252–261. doi:10.1037/a0033085

74. Smircich L, Morgan G. Leadership: the management of meaning. J Appl Behav Sci. 1982;18(3):257–273. doi:10.1177/002188638201800303

75. Liu H, Bracht E, Zhang X, Bradley B, Van Dick R. Creativity in non-routine jobs: the role of transformational leadership and organizational identification. Creat Innov Manag. 2021;30:129–143. doi:10.1111/caim.12419

76. Von Dreden C, Binnewies C. Choose your lunch companion wisely: the relationships between lunch break companionship, psychological detachment, and daily vigour. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2017;26(3):356–372. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2017.1301428

77. Lan T, Chen M, Zeng X, Liu T. The influence of job and individual resources on work engagement among Chinese police officers: a moderated mediation model. Front Psychol. 2020;11:497. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00497

78. Liu T, Zeng X, Chen M, Lan T. The harder you work, the higher your satisfaction with life? The influence of police work engagement on life satisfaction: a moderated mediation model. Front Psychol. 2019;10:826. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00826

79. Maas CJM, Hox JJ. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology. 2005;1:86–92. doi:10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86

80. Frieder RE, Wang G, Oh I-S. Linking job-relevant personality traits, transformational leadership, and job performance via perceived meaningfulness at work: a moderated mediation model. J Appl Psychol. 2018;103:324–333. doi:10.1037/apl0000274

81. Chen S-J, Wang M-J, Lee S-H. Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: the mediating effect of employee perceived meaningful work. Pers Rev. 2018;47(3):694–708. doi:10.1108/PR-01-2017-0016

82. Carless SA, Wearing AJ, Mann L. A short measure of transformational leadership. J Bus Psychol. 2000;14(3):389–405. doi:10.1023/A:1022991115523

83. May DR, Gilson RL, Harter LM. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2004;77(1):11–37. doi:10.1348/096317904322915892

84. Lips-Wiersma M, Wright S. Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS). Group Organ Manag. 2012;37(5):655–685. doi:10.1177/1059601112461578

85. Schaufeli W, Shimazu A, Hakanen J, Salanovam M, De Witte H. An ultra-short measure for work engagement: the UWES-3 validation across five countries. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2017;35(4):577–591. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000430

86. Wang G, Oh I-S, Courtright SH, Colbert AE. Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group Organ Manag. 2011;36(2):223–270. doi:10.1177/1059601111401017

87. Crede M, Jong J, Harms P. The generalizability of transformational leadership across cultures: a meta-analysis. J Manag Psychol. 2019;34(3):139–155. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0506

Creative Commons License © 2022 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.