Articles

Comments on Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Leadership on Employee Satisfaction, Employee Performance and Employee Well-being - Monday, June 15 2009

Leadership, Job Well-Being, and Health Effects-A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis
by Kuoppala et al

Comments on the Article
by
Michael Koscec

June 12, 2009

Several years ago CCI Research was engaged by Entec Corporation to conduct correlation analyses of our client database. The database was created over many years of collecting employee engagement survey data. The database was unique in that Entec collects both data on organizational practices, mission, values and leadership behaviour, as well as mental health factors, namely, mental and physical energy (symptoms of burnout and stress), mood (symptoms of depression) and mental focus and self worth (inclination for substance abuse).

The Connection Between Leadership and Well-being

Our research found that:

1.    There was a high correlation among all three mental health modules∗
2.    There was a high correlation among all three organizational modules and the leadership behaviour module
3.    The three organizational modules statistically linked with the mental and physical energy module
4.    The was no statistical link between the leadership module and any of the mental health modules

We can draw an important conclusion from these findings. First organizational practices have a greater impact on employee well-being than leadership behaviour. More specifically, organizational design and/or individual job design can affect employee well-being more profoundly than leadership behaviour. The review by Kuoppala et al, did not address the impact of organizational practices on employee well-being.

In addition, Kuoppala et al, defined job well-being as symptoms of exhaustion, anxiety, depression or work related stress. The causes of these mental disabilities can be quite different and yet they were all combined together. In our research well-being was separated into three specific disabilities and we measured the impact of various organizational practices and leadership behaviours against each of the disabilities separately. For example, our research showed that there were statistical links between organizational practices and mental and physical energy (symptoms of burnout and stress) and there were no statistical links between either the organizational practices module or leadership behaviour module to depression.

However, an analysis of leadership behaviours showed that there was a statistical link between individual leadership behaviours (but not the whole leadership module) and the mental and physical energy module. In order of priority these were:

1.    Micro management
2.    Treating all employees equally
3.    Keeping promises
4.    Providing the right skills training for job performance

However, no leadership behaviour linked statistically with depression, mental focus or self-worth.

Kuoppala et la, found that if the immediate supervisor was fair and supportive that this was associated with employee well-being. The four leadership behaviours identified above by our research to some extent would support the findings of Kuoppala’s research.

The Connection Between Leadership and Employee Performance

Kuoppala et al, found that leadership “seems to improve job satisfaction and job well-being as well as decrease sickness absenteeism”. This is supported by our research. However, they indicate that the relationship between leadership and job performance is unclear.

There is a growing body of research (including Entec’s) that has shown a strong correlation between highly engaged employees, with high performance and lower absenteeism. In addition, Entec’s research showed that there is a positive correlation between leadership behaviour and employee engagement. Therefore since high engagement employees are also high performers, I think it can be safe to say that strong leadership capability can be linked to high performance.

Research Observations

Entec’s findings different from Kuoppala’s in that our research is original research and much more specific than Kuoppala’s meta-analysis. Therefore the value of Kuoppala’s conclusions seem to be limited.

There are two inherent problems with Kuoppala’s research. First, they treat “leadership” as a single entity, when in fact there is a large spectrum of leadership behaviours. Our research found that value-based behaviours, that reflect a supervisor’s sense of ethics, fairness and justice impact employee engagement to a much greater degree than behaviours associated with performance management. In addition, only a few behaviours out of 22 behaviours that were measured correlated with mental and physical energy. No behaviours correlated with symptoms of depression, mental focus or self worth. This may explain why Kuoppala found only moderate evidence that good leadership was associated with well-being at work and decreased risk of sickness absence, and weak evidence that good leadership was associated with job satisfaction.

Second, Kuoppala treats “well-being” as a single outcome that combines several different mental disabilities whose causes can be stimulated by different sources. Our research found that the statements in the organizational practices, mission and values modules correlated with mental and physical energy and none of the symptoms associated with depression. Kuoppala et al found that “the strength of evidence was moderate that good leadership was associated with well-being”, but they include depression in their definition of well-being. Our research does not support their finding since depression is included in the “catch-all” definition of well-being

Conclusions

Leadership plays an important role in affecting employee engagement and employee performance. Kuoppala et al, found weak evidence linking leadership to performance.

Leadership behaviour has a limited impact on employee well-being in that only a few individual leadership behaviours affect mental and physical energy. There is no evidence that leadership behaviour can directly affect employee depression. Kuoppala et al, indicate a moderate impact of leadership on well-being. But they don’t indicate which leadership behaviours specifically and leadership behaviours have different affects. In addition, they combine exhaustion, anxiety, stress (mental and physical energy) and depression into their definition of well-being. Our research indicates that neither leadership behaviours nor organizational practices correlate with depression.

The most significant factors impacting employee mental and physical energy at work are organizational design and individual job design. Since Kuoppala et al limited their research to leadership they missed the most important factors affecting a part of an employee’s well-being.

Design and Development by Intelex