Cross-Sectional Analysis of Leadership Styles and Employee Engagement Across Sectors

Thesis Abstract

The study investigates how leadership styles influence employee engagement across multiple sectors, addressing the gap in cross-sector comparative insights that account for contextual differences in organizational culture, structure, and performance pressures. While leadership behavior is consistently linked to engagement in single-sector studies, there is limited evidence on how these relationships vary between manufacturing, services, and public sectors, potentially masking differential effects and intervention levers. The aim is to examine the relative impact of transformational, transactional, and authentic leadership on employee engagement, and to determine whether sector membership moderates these relationships. Specific objectives are (1) to quantify the prevalence of leadership styles across sectors; (2) to assess the direct effects of each leadership style on global and domain-specific engagement dimensions (vigor, dedication, absorption, and cognitive engagement with work processes); (3) to evaluate the moderating role of sector on the leadership–engagement linkages; (4) to identify organizational climate and perceived supervisor support as mediators of these relationships; and (5) to provide sector-tuned recommendations for leadership development to enhance engagement. The study employs a cross-sectional analytical design, drawing data from 1,200 employees nested within 60 organizations across manufacturing, services, and public sectors in a major metropolitan region. A multi-stage sampling approach ensures representation by sector, organization size, and job level. Data are collected via a structured questionnaire comprising (i) the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to assess transformational and transactional leadership, (ii) the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) to capture authentic leadership dimensions, (iii) the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to measure vigor, dedication, and absorption, (iv) a perceived supervisor support scale, and (v) a short climate for innovation scale. The instrument set includes demographic items and control variables such as tenure, education, and job complexity. Validity and reliability are established through confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha estimates, with AVE and composite reliability values reported for all constructs (? > 0.70; AVE > 0.50). Data are analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test direct and indirect effects, multi-group SEM to examine sector moderation, and hierarchical regression as a robustness check. Mediation analyses explore whether organizational climate and supervisor support transmit leadership effects to engagement. Descriptive statistics and measurement invariance testing precede SEM. Expected findings indicate that transformational leadership yields the strongest positive association with overall engagement and its sub-dimensions across sectors, while authentic leadership shows nuanced effects moderated by sector type, being more strongly related to engagement in the public and services sectors due to higher emphasis on trust and ethical climate. Transactional leadership is anticipated to have weaker, yet positive, effects on engagement in high-stability contexts (public sector) and lower effects in dynamic service environments. Sector moderation is expected to reveal stronger leadership–engagement linkages in high-uncertainty sectors (manufacturing facing digitalization pressures; services undergoing customer experience transformations) due to heightened employee receptivity to inspirational and participative leadership. Mediation analyses are likely to show that perceived supervisor support and a climate for innovation partially transmit leadership effects to engagement, with stronger mediation in service-oriented organizations. The study contributes to knowledge by providing comparative cross-sector evidences on how leadership styles shape employee engagement, clarifying the contextual contingencies that enhance or attenuate these relationships, and by identifying mediating mechanisms such as climate and supervisor support. Practically, the findings inform sector-specific leadership development programs, selection and appraisal criteria, and organizational designs that cultivate engagement through targeted leadership behaviors. The main conclusion anticipates that a blended leadership approach—emphasizing transformational and authentic dimensions—with supportive climates and supervisor practices yields the most robust engagement gains, particularly in sectors undergoing rapid service and process innovations. Recommendations include tailored leadership development curricula for each sector, embedding climate-building interventions, and ongoing measurement of engagement to monitor the effectiveness of leadership strategies amid sector-specific pressures.