Abstract
Purpose
This study explores the impact of transformational leadership on work engagement within remote work settings. More specifically, we investigate whether supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement.
Design/methodology/approach
Moderated mediation model has been tested using a sample of 410 consultants in Italy who worked within a fully remote work setting during Covid-19 pandemic.
Findings
Drawing on construal level theory and social presence theory, our study provides insights into the dynamics of leadership and work engagement in remote work settings. We demonstrate that, despite the challenges posed by physical distance, transformational leaders can effectively stimulate the work engagement of remote collaborators. Moreover, our findings suggest that the perceived digital communication skills of supervisors play a crucial role in moderating the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement. This underscores the importance of supervisors' adept use of digital tools in conveying psychological presence and fostering employee engagement in remote work environments.
Practical implications
Our study highlights the importance of developing supervisors' digital communication skills to support and stimulate employee engagement in remote work settings.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the literature by providing one of the first empirical tests of the relationship between transformational leadership, perceived supervisor support, supervisor’s digital communication skills and work engagement within a remote work setting. By challenging prior assumptions and offering novel insights, our research enhances understanding of leadership dynamics and provides practical guidance for organizations navigating the challenges of remote work.
Keywords
Citation
Boccoli, G., Gastaldi, L. and Corso, M. (2024), "Transformational leadership and work engagement in remote work settings: the moderating role of the supervisor’s digital communication skills", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 1240-1257. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2023-0490
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Gabriele Boccoli, Luca Gastaldi and Mariano Corso
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
It has been widely demonstrated (Kahn, 1990; Bakker et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2010) that work engagement underpins job satisfaction and positive behavior, leading, on the one hand, to higher productivity and profitability (Eldor and Harpaz, 2016; Saks, 2006) and, on the other, to lower absenteeism and turnover (Harter et al., 2002).
Social support is a crucial antecedent of work engagement, encompassing various workplace interactions (Boccoli et al., 2023). Literature extensively analyzed the relationship between peers and supervisors, highlighting the significance of constructive feedback (Xanthopoulou et al., 2008) and effective leadership styles (McGrath et al., 2017). Notably, transformational leadership emerges as one of the most impactful styles to foster work engagement (Boccoli et al., 2023) as elucidated by social exchange theory (Eisenberger et al., 2002).
So far, these relationships have been investigated within traditional work settings, where collaborators and supervisors are physically in the same location. In the new normal after Covid-19 pandemic, however, there is an increasing shift towards a virtual workplace (Franken et al., 2021; Hodder, 2020), with significant changes in the way we work and interact with each other (Becker et al., 2022). As emphasized by Liebermann et al. (2021), there is a dearth of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of transformational leaders in remote working contexts. According to their study, communication challenges emerge as the primary obstacle to adapt the transformational leadership style to new ways of working. One key difficulty leaders face, in maintaining close connections with their peers, is the lack of authorization and proper technical equipment for leading video conferences. The quality of available technological tools significantly influences the development of effective leadership, trust, social exchange, and team effectiveness in virtual collaborations (Liebermann et al., 2021).
In this unfolding scenario, there is a growing need to explore whether transformational leaders can support their teams and enhance their engagement, even in remote workplaces. Our study contributes to the literature on transformational leadership, work engagement, and remote work in several ways.
Firstly, contrary to previous findings (Liebermann et al., 2021; Zigurs, 2003), we show that transformational leaders are perceived as supportive even in remote work settings. More specifically, results show that maintaining quality relationships between supervisors and employees is achievable through behaviors such as providing feedback, presenting a compelling vision, and motivating teams towards common goals. This challenges the notion that virtual interactions inherently obstruct effective communication. Our findings, consistent with construal level theory, indicate that physical distance might prompt remote employees to perceive social interactions in a more abstract manner, thus aiding in the assimilation of leaders' messages. Moreover, remote workers, experiencing a sense of depersonalization, could become more open to embracing social norms presented by their supervisors, further enhancing the beneficial effects of transformational leadership. Construal level theory investigates individuals' cognitive interpretations of experiences (Short et al., 1976), while depersonalization theory (Lee, 2006) delves into the emotional distancing individuals exhibit towards certain interactional aspects. These theoretical lenses not only provide valuable insights into how employees mentally shape and personalize their workplace interactions, but have been also suggested (e.g.Whitford and Moss, 2009) to better comprehend the intricate dynamics of supervisor support and its impact on employee engagement.
Secondly, our study highlights a positive link between perceived supervisor support and work engagement among remote workers. We propose that the effective use of digital communication tools, such as video calls, fosters social interactions and emotional connections, crucial for engagement. Transformational leaders leveraging these tools can convey vision, offer individualized consideration, and stimulate intellectual engagement, mitigating challenges of isolation in remote work settings.
Thirdly, we highlight the crucial role of supervisors' digital communication skills in moderating the relationship between perceived support and work engagement. Proficient use of digital tools amplifies the supervisor’s psychological presence, bolstering the perception of support and ultimately boosting engagement levels. This emphasizes the importance of leaders' digital proficiency in remote work contexts. This recommendation aligns with the social presence theory (Short et al., 1976), which posits that a medium’s ability to convey the psychological presence of the message sender significantly impacts performance and work attitudes. By displaying confidence in digital communication (Dennis et al., 2008), transformational leaders enhance social presence within digitally-mediated work environments, reinforcing the theoretical link between communication medium and task performance or work attitudes.
Finally, our research offers practical insights for post-Covid-19 remote work challenges. Leaders can leverage transformational leadership and digital solutions to support remote employees effectively, fostering engagement. Prioritizing perceived supervisor support is crucial for employee wellbeing in remote settings. Investing in leaders' digital communication skills is vital for navigating digitally-mediated work environments and enhancing support to remote teams through training programs.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1 Transformational leadership and perceived supervisor support within the remote working context
Transformational leadership is one of the most investigated leadership approaches characterized by four factors (Bass, 1985): idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Literature has shown that transformational leaders may be perceived as more supportive (Liaw et al., 2010; Görgens-Ekermans and Roux, 2021), bringing improvements in employee performance (Kovjanic et al., 2013) as well as in other aspects linked to their wellbeing, such as job satisfaction and positive emotions (Bono et al., 2007; Breevaart et al., 2014).
Although transformational leadership and its impact on individuals and organizations have been widely investigated in traditional, face-to-face work settings, only a few studies have covered these matters in remote work environments, where they have mostly analyzed the impact of transformational leadership on virtual teams (Balthazard et al., 2009; Ben Sedrine et al., 2020; Mutha and Srivastava, 2021).
Remote working has increased significantly over the past years (Kerman et al., 2022) due to the diffusion of modern digital technologies, which have substantially simplified remote communication and collaboration (Kossek et al., 2012), and the progressive improvements in work-life balance (Allen et al., 2013). Other relevant reasons are the general willingness to improve organizational effectiveness and productivity (Brumley and George, 2022), and, more recently, the Covid-19 pandemic (Kerman et al., 2022).
Within this changed work context, there arises the necessity to investigate whether (and how) transformational leaders are capable of exhibiting their leadership effectively and efficiently. Ruggieri (2009) demonstrated that a transformational leadership style is more satisfying than a transactional one and that a transformational leader is judged to be better than a transactional one in virtual teams. An experimental study conducted by Purvanova and Bono (2009) demonstrated that: (1) the most effective leaders were those who upscaled their transformational leadership in virtual teams; (2) the effect of transformational leadership on team performance was stronger in virtual than in face-to-face teams. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that transformational leaders may influence employees’ perception and acceptance of workplace digitalization (Hooi and Chan, 2022).
In our study, we investigate how aspects of transformational leadership – such as individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and visionary leadership – may influence work engagement through perceived supervisor support when supervisors and their collaborators work from different locations.
Considering construal level theory (Short et al., 1976), people who work at a distance from their leaders may see their behavior in a different light from those working close by (Henderson et al., 2006). In fact, according to the theory, entities can be described or perceived either concretely or abstractly (Trope and Liberman, 2003; Forster et al., 2004). Individuals who describe an entity in concrete terms refer to specific and observable actions and use narrow categories to classify the related experience. On the contrary, individuals who make use of abstract representations describe entities through broad, unobservable and intangible aspects, extrapolating only their essence (Nussbaum et al., 2003). People usually prefer to use tangible representations to define entities that are close in time or space, and abstract representations for entities that are instead remote in time or space (Forster et al., 2004).
Following this theoretical lens, employees may extract only the essence of a message, suggestion or proposal transmitted by their leaders (Henderson et al., 2006). Hence, the value of an inspiring vision could be even greater when leaders and collaborators work separately, as implied by Whitford and Moss (2009).
Furthermore, it has been proven that people are more inclined to embrace the social norms and values of their team when they feel a sense of depersonalization, a state that may be more easily observed when teams are dispersed (Lee, 2006). Employees with feelings of depersonalization could detach themselves from the sense of their work, inducing leaders to further stimulate their collaborators intellectually about their work’s meaning and purpose (Lee, 2006).
Lastly, we suppose that the individualized considerations typical of transformational leadership styles will become more emphasized as leaders will try to bridge the social gap intrinsic to remote working. Remote work could induce leaders to strengthen their ability to preserve the quality of the relationship with their collaborators, providing greater (perceived) support. For all these reasons, we are proposing the following hypothesis:
Transformational leadership is positively related to perceived supervisor support in remote work settings.
2.2 Fostering work engagement of remote workers through supervisor support
In response to the unprecedented changes brought about by Covid-19, many organizations have embraced various forms of remote work. This shift not only changes how employees interact but also affects their levels of work engagement (Galanti et al., 2021). Several studies (Zhong et al., 2016; Rich et al., 2010) have shown that higher levels of work engagement improve individual performance, increasing satisfaction in both professional (Haynie et al., 2016) and personal life (Bakker et al., 2005). Social interactions, particularly those with supervisors, appear to be crucial in enhancing employees' engagement levels (Boccoli et al., 2023), influencing employees' perception of the entire company (Saks, 2006). This remains true even in remote working scenarios, which might lead to physical and psychological isolation (Wang et al., 2021).
Psychological isolation involves feeling disconnected from others and perceiving a lack of support and other social and emotional aspects (Golden et al., 2008). Physical isolation relates to the physical separation of workers from colleagues, collaborators, and supervisors (Bartel et al., 2012).
Literature (e.g. Murthy, 2017), demonstrates that these senses of isolation can have adverse effects on individuals' mental and physical health, leading to decreased productivity and an increased likelihood of procrastination or quitting their jobs (Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, the perception of isolation may erode individuals' sense of support from their organizations and supervisors, putting organizational commitment and engagement in job roles at risk (Wang et al., 2021).
In this scenario, it is crucial to consider the role of supervisor support in reducing the sense of isolation experienced by remote workers. When employees perceive adequate support from their supervisors, they are more likely to feel connected to their colleagues and the organization, which in turn can increase their engagement in job roles, mitigating the detrimental impact of isolation on employee wellbeing and performance (Boccoli et al., 2023). Building upon these considerations, we propose the following hypothesis:
Perceived supervisor support is positively related to work engagement in remote work settings.
Previous research has demonstrated a positive correlation between transformational leadership and work engagement in traditional work settings when coupled with social support (Schmitt et al., 2016; Breevaart et al., 2014). Transformational leaders foster work engagement through social support by creating a supportive work environment that enhances employees' wellbeing and performance (Makowski, 2023). The support from leaders helps in mitigating negative emotions and providing a supportive work environment (Goswami et al., 2016).
In accordance with social exchange theory (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), organizations and supervisors that address the concerns and needs of their employees typically observe heightened levels of work engagement. For example, regular communication from supervisors has been shown to positively influence work engagement by bridging physical and social distance barriers, thereby providing support to employees (Rahmadani et al., 2020).
Despite extensive exploration of this relationship in conventional workplaces, there is a noticeable gap in evidence within the context of remote work (Freeney and Fellenz, 2013; James et al., 2011).
Given the distinct challenges of remote work, it’s reasonable to infer that transformational leaders could significantly impact engagement levels. This influence may occur through the mediation of the support provided by leaders to their team members. Through their unique behaviors, transformational leaders could potentially alleviate the physical isolation experienced by remote workers. The remote work environment may necessitate leaders to enhance their skills in maintaining high-quality relationships with their team, thereby offering heightened perceived support. Based on these premises, we posit the following hypothesis:
The relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement in remote work settings is partially mediated by perceived supervisor support.
2.3 The importance of the supervisor’s digital communication skills in remote work settings
In the current landscape, various digital solutions facilitate remote work, fostering connectivity and collaboration among companies, teams, and employees (Choudhury et al., 2021). Extensive research on computer-mediated work, telecommuting, and virtual teams explored how digital solutions enable synchronous communication, rivaling traditional face-to-face interactions (Daft and Lengel, 1984, 1986; Dennis et al., 2008).
Interest is growing across disciplines regarding the adoption of suitable leadership approaches in digitally mediated contexts. Avolio et al. (2014, p. 107) term this phenomenon as e-leadership: “A social influence process embedded in both proximal and distal contexts mediated by Advanced Information Technology, capable of producing changes in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and performance.” While many studies focus on the technologies themselves, we center our study on the supervisor’s digital communication skills, considering them essential for effective virtual communication and collaboration (Van Wart et al., 2019; Roman et al., 2018).
Clear and organized communication through digital media is identified as a principal competency for effective remote leadership (Roman et al., 2018). These digital skills become particularly crucial for leaders managing challenges arising from remote work (Spagnoli et al., 2020).
Starting with the premise that the support provided by a supervisor is influenced by the leaders' communication and transmission of their approach, we can suppose that the more proficient they are in digital communication skills, the better they can effectively communicate in remote work settings, making them appear more supportive. Thus, by improving their digital communication skills, supervisors can increase their presence among remote workers, fostering higher engagement.
This phenomenon can be understood through the social presence theory (Short et al., 1976), which explains how effective communication can reinforce the supervisor’s social presence, increasing the perceived support and, consequently, both the wellbeing as well as the performance of their collaborators. Additionally, certain communication channels, such as synchronous and rich ones, can cultivate a sense of social presence, facilitating connections among individuals engaging digitally (Karahanna and Straub, 1999). For all these reasons, we hypothesize that the supervisor’s digital communication skills can positively moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor support and the work engagement of remote workers. In other words, in digitally mediated work environments, we expect that transformational leaders can amplify their supportive function through proficient use of digital communication tools, leading their peers to higher levels of engagement. Thus, we propose this last hypothesis:
The supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement in remote work settings.
Figure 1 presents the hypotheses set out in this paper and the overall model that will be empirically tested.
3. Method
3.1 Context, participants and procedure
To test our model, we gathered data from a survey conducted in November and December 2020 within an Italian information consultancy company whose staff (consultants) were all required to work remotely during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The consultants selected for our sample predominantly rely on computer-mediated tools, particularly those facilitating synchronous and information-rich communication, for most of their work tasks. They exhibited effectiveness and efficiency in the use of digital technologies.
This selection highlights the suitability of the chosen work organization for the aim of this research. The enforced supervisor-collaborator remote relationship provided a suitable sample for investigating the effect of transformational leadership approaches on work engagement within a remote work setting.
The questionnaire was distributed by email via the company’s HR department, explaining the research aim and ensuring anonymity regarding the data gathered. The questionnaire consisted of two parts.
The first covered demographic matters (e.g. age, gender, etc.) whereas the second included all the constructs of transformational leadership, the supervisor’s perceived support, the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills and work engagement.
In total, 410 out of 1,540 employees took part in the study, giving a good response rate (27%) and providing representativeness of the whole population (Poynton et al., 2019). The final sample was composed by 127 women (31%) and 283 men (69%), with a mean age of 42 years (SD = 10.08). The participants’ mean presence at the company was over five years (SD = 5.35).
3.2 Measures
The participants were asked to answer questions on a seven-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All the measures scales have been tested and validated by scientific literature.
Transformational leadership was measured with the seven-item scale developed by Carless et al. (2000).
Perceived supervisor support was measured with a four-item scale adapted from Rhoades et al. (2001).
The supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills were measured through five items based on the scale developed by Roman et al. (2018).
Work engagement was measured through the nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Control variables. In agreement with previous studies (Breevaart et al., 2014), three socio-demographic variables – age, gender, and years of working in the organization – were included in the model as control variables.
3.3 Statistical analyses
Firstly, descriptive statistics were used to show a general overview of the constructs considered.
Secondly, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses and the relationships between the various constructs. SEM combines factor and regression analyses on one or more dependent and independent variables (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2015). All the analyses were carried out using Stata 14.
The Comparative Fix Index, CFI (Bentler, 1990), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, SRMR, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA (Steiger, 1990), were used to test the model’s fit and these values have also been reported.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, Standard Deviations (SDs), and the correlations between the studied variables. The results indicated that demographic variables (age, gender, years at the company) were not significantly correlated with the variables investigated in this study. Transformational leadership was positively related to perceived supervisor support, to the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills and to work engagement. The results showed that: (1) high levels of work engagement coincide with higher levels of transformational leadership and perceived supervisor support; (2) the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills were positively related to transformational leadership and perceived supervisor support.
4.2 Common method variance
With the aim of eliminating ambiguity from the questionnaire, items have been designed to be specific, concise, and simple with the help of the HR department of the company (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
First, we used the Harman single-factor test method and conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the measurement items of all variables. The maximum unrotated factor variance interpretation rate in this study was 48.19%, which was less than 50%, indicating that the common method bias of the sample data was not problematic (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Second, we used the Unmeasured Latent Method Construct (ULMC) approach to test common method bias (Richardson et al., 2009). We define two models: Model 1 include all the constructs considered in this study; Model 2 adds a latent variable named “CMB” on which all items of the four variables were loaded. The results reveal that there was no significant difference in the model fit between Model 1 (χ2 (293, N = 410) = 1145.974, p < 0.001; TLI = 0.89, CFI = 0.90 and RMSEA = 0.08) and Model 2 (χ2 (291, N = 410) = 1125.025, p < 0.001; TLI = 0.89, CFI = 0.90 and RMSEA = 0.08). Hence, no serious common method bias exists in our study.
4.3 Exploratory factor analysis
Although all measures have been already tested and based on the literature, we run an exploratory factor analysis including all 25 items corresponding to the 4 constructs analyzed. This provides further evidence of the discriminant validity of the measures. We used the KMO test to evaluate sampling adequacy. All the items are greater than 0.80. The overall KMO for the complete model is 0.94. This indicates that the proportion of common variance is low and that data are suitable for PCA. Table 2 shows the results of the exploratory factor analysis. All factor loadings are greater than the 0.3 thresholds and they all load on a single factor (no cross-loadings with values greater than 0.3). The Cronbach’s alpha values confirm the internal consistency reliability of the measures.
4.4 Confirmatory factor analysis
We considered four nested models with various numbers of factors. In particular, Model A is a single-factor model that incorporates all four constructs. Model B is a two-factor model combining transformational leadership, perceived supervisor support, and the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills (factor 1) and work engagement (factor 2). Model C is a three-factor model combining perceived supervisor support and the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills (factor 1), transformational leadership (factor 2), and work engagement (factor 3). Model D considers each construct as a separate factor. The fit indexes of the models are presented in Table 3 and confirm that the four-factor model gives the best fit (for all the indexes). Thus, it is the best model for the measurement part of our model. The factor loadings of all items were significant at p < 0.01.
4.5 Path analysis
Figure 2 shows the structural model of the relationship between the various constructs. The hypothesized model is a good fit to the data (χ2(341) = 1135.182, CFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.060 and RMSEA = 0.079).
The results indicate that: (1) transformational leadership is significantly and positively related to perceived supervisor support (β = 0.81, p < 0.01); (2) perceived supervisor support significantly and positively relates work engagement (β = 0.76, p < 0.01); (3) the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills significantly and positively moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement (β = 0.14, p < 0.01).
With regards to the control variables, age has a significant effect on work engagement (β = 0.09, p < 0.05), whereas the effect is insignificant for gender and number of years at the company (β = 0.05, β = − 0.03).
The results show in Table 4 indicate a significant indirect effect of transformational leadership on work engagement through the mediating variable of perceived supervisor support. The estimated indirect effect is 0.580, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.442–0.719. The high z-value (8.225) and low p-value (0.002) demonstrate strong statistical significance, suggesting that the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement is partially explained by the mediated pathway through perceived supervisor support These findings support the hypothesis that perceived supervisor support plays a substantial role in transmitting the impact of transformational leadership on work engagement. In summary, the study provides evidence for a mediated indirect effect involving perceived supervisor support in the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement.
Figure 3 shows the results of the moderation analysis conducted in our study, examining how supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills influence the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement using simple slope tests. Results highlighted that for employees with low supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills levels, the association between perceived supervisor support and work engagement was significantly positive, with a slope coefficient of 0.7137 (t = 3.0822, p = 0.0022). This suggests that for each unit increase in perceived supervisor support, work engagement increased by approximately 0.7137 units. Conversely, for employees with high supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills levels, the relationship remained positive but slightly weaker, with a slope coefficient of 0.7861 (t = 2.6056, p = 0.0095). In general, these results indicate that supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills moderates the association between perceived supervisor support and work engagement.
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1 Theoretical contribution
Our study contributes to the literature streams on transformational leadership, work engagement, and remote work in three ways.
Firstly, and contrary to Liebermann et al. (2021) and Zigurs (2003), our results demonstrate that transformational leaders are perceived as supportive even when employees work remotely. Additionally, our findings suggest that the quality of the relationship between supervisors and employees does not necessarily deteriorate in terms of quality. This happens when these leaders engage in behaviors such as providing constructive feedback, presenting an appealing vision of the future, and motivating and inspiring their teams toward shared goals. We contradict previous empirical evidence, which stated that virtual social interaction could create obstacles to effective communication between supervisors and collaborators. In line with construal level theory, our results indicate that the supportive behaviors of transformational leaders are positively perceived by remote collaborators due to the physical distance between them and their supervisors (Henderson et al., 2006). In other words, the distance may lead remote employees to interpret the transmitted information in abstract terms, allowing them to internalize the essence of social interactions more effectively, such as the supervisor’s vision and shared goals. Furthermore, our study introduces the possibility that remote collaborators may be more inclined to embrace social norms and values presented by their supervisors, due to a sense of depersonalization experienced by remote workers (Lee, 2006). This state of depersonalization may create conditions conducive to amplifying the positive influence of transformational leadership. Importantly, we emphasize the role of individualized consideration in bridging the physical gap experienced during remote work, suggesting that leaders tailor their approaches to strengthen support and cultivate high-quality relationships with remote collaborators. These theoretical implications, rooted in construal level theory and depersonalization theory, enhance the understanding of how transformational leaders positively support their remote collaborators.
Secondly, our results underscore a positive correlation between perceived supervisor support and work engagement among remote workers. In line with social exchange theory, when supervisors take care of the needs and concerns of remote employees, in turn these respond offering high levels of work engagement. For instance, the extensive use of video calls during the pandemic provides a real-time and immersive communication experience, including paraverbal language like tone and body language. These digital communication channels facilitate social interactions, knowledge exchange, and emotional connections, creating essential conditions for fostering individual engagement (Boccoli et al., 2023). In this scenario, transformational leaders who effectively utilize digital communication tools are able to provide support, bridging the physical gap in remote work scenarios. For instance, the use of video calls allows leaders to convey an inspiring vision, offer individualized consideration, and stimulate intellectual engagement. These supportive actions are crucial in mitigating the challenges posed by physical isolation characterizing remote working settings, ultimately enhancing engagement levels (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
Thirdly, our research demonstrates for the first time that the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills play a positive role in moderating the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement. We demonstrate that, when the relationship between supervisor and her/his peers shifts from the physical to the virtual space, individuals feel that they are receiving more support when their supervisor clearly knows how to handle the digital tools used to communicate and collaborate. In line with social presence theory, the effectiveness of a communication medium in conveying the supervisor’s psychological presence significantly influences the work engagement of their remote collaborators. Competent use of digital communication tools can create a sense of social presence, which, in turn, reinforces the perception of support from the supervisor. In other words, when transformational leaders demonstrate digital communication skills, they enhance the quality of their psychological presence in a remote work setting, thereby intensifying the positive influence of perceived supervisor support on the work engagement of their remote collaborators. Furthermore, considering work engagement as a psychological dimension of wellbeing (Grant et al., 2007), our results suggest that supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills may improve the perception of the support offered by supervisor that, in turn, will enhance the psychological wellbeing of employees from a eudaimonic perspective.
5.2 Practical contributions
This research provides useful indications for organizations and managers on how to deal with the challenges of working remotely as an outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic, where the ensuing difficulties impacted negatively on the wellbeing of employees (Wang et al., 2021).
Firstly, the results of this study offer a new understanding of how transformational leadership can have a positive influence on perceived supervisor support and, consequently, on employee work engagement within a remote working context. We suggest that, by adopting suitable digital solutions, leaders can communicate in a more efficient and effective way with their peer, stimulating, influencing and supporting them effectively even if at distance. A culture of experimenting with new remote collaboration and communication solutions is needed. It’s important to critically assess different options and understand when to employ the most suitable one.
Secondly, we demonstrated that perceived supervisor support can stimulate the employees’ engagement and wellbeing. If we consider engagement as a key element of psychological wellbeing, it’s imperative to highlight the support that leaders extend to remote employees. This support becomes even more critical in remote settings, where establishing it can be particularly challenging. Similarly, high levels of work engagement could assist companies in achieving their organizational goals by enhancing the individual performances of employees.
Thirdly, our research demonstrates that, in a forced remote work environment, supervisors' proficiency in digital communication aids in navigating the digitally-mediated setting and offering enhanced support, consequently impacting employee engagement levels. In this scenario, the development of leaders' digital communication skills is crucial for effectively managing digitally-mediated work environments and providing increased support to their team members. Prioritizing the cultivation of these skills through appropriate training programs and on-the-job experiences can lead to leaders becoming increasingly effective in exercising leadership in modern and remote contexts.
5.3 Limitations and avenues for future research
This study has some limitations. Firstly, the sample analyzed consists of a single category of workers (consultants). For this reason, the final considerations cannot be extended to the general working population.
Secondly, as in many countries, remote working was mandatory in Italy during the pandemic, limiting the freedom and flexibility of all employees. This forced form of flexibility, which only allowed employees to work from home, did not offer true spatial flexibility, where individuals could freely choose their work location.
Thirdly, it would be possible to include other variables relating to communication channels, and their features, in the test model, in order to gain a better understanding of their impact on the relationship between supervisors and employees.
In future research, it might be interesting to investigate other aspects relating to e-leadership or the different subdimensions of transformational leadership on perceived supervisor support and work engagement. At the same time, it could be interesting to study the impact of transformational leadership within a remote working context that is not forced, as it was during the pandemic. It could also be interesting to understand whether the relationship investigated in this research could influence other dimensions of psychological wellbeing, such as relational wellbeing, as well as employee performance. Lastly, it would be interesting to investigate which features of digital technologies and communication channels could influence the relationship between supervisor and collaborator within a remote work context. In this sense, considering the growing interest in adopting AI in the workplace, it could be interesting to understand how this new way of working and communicating may influence the interaction between leaders and their collaborators. Additionally, it could be intriguing to analyze the differences between bidirectional and authentic communications compared to those of AI. This area of research is an attractive avenue of study that, so far, it has been poorly investigated.
5.4 Conclusions
Our study challenges previous assumptions by revealing that in remote work scenarios, transformational leaders may be perceived as supportive even when they work from different locations. This empirical evidence goes against the worry that virtual interactions might make communication between leaders and team members less effective. The construal level theory explains how transformational leaders positively perceived by remote collaborators despite the physical distance.
Moreover, and in line with social exchange theory, our research shows a positive correlation between perceived supervisor support and work engagement among remote workers. We highlight that the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement is partially mediated by perceived supervisor support, emphasizing the pivotal role of digital communication tools in mitigating challenges posed by physical isolation and enhancing engagement.
Furthermore, our results demonstrate that the supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills positively moderate the relationship between perceived supervisor support and work engagement. This underscores the importance of supervisors' adept use of digital tools in conveying psychological presence. In line with social presence theory, remote employees feel more supported when supervisors demonstrate proficiency in digital communication, translating into higher levels of work engagement.
Comprehensively, our research provides valuable guidance for organizations and managers navigating remote work challenges, highlighting the need for transformational leaders to leverage suitable digital solutions to effectively communicate, stimulate, and support remote collaborators.
Figures
Figure 1
Model and hypotheses
Figure 2
SEM results of the hypothesized model
Figure 3
Moderating effect simple slope test results
Means, standard deviations, inter-correlations and internal consistencies*
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Transformational leadership | 5.37 | 1.15 | (0.93)* | |||||
| 2. Perceived supervisor support | 4.75 | 0.87 | 0.6952** | (0.87)* | ||||
| 3. Supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills | 4.23 | 0.69 | 0.5133** | 0.4213** | (0.88)* | |||
| 4. Work engagement | 5.35 | 1.11 | 0.5620** | 0.4054** | 0.3567** | (0.94)* | ||
| 5. Gender | 1.31 | 0.46 | 0.0864 | 0.0283 | 0.0077 | 0.0587 | ||
| 6. Age | 40.88 | 10.08 | 0.0099 | 0.0954 | 0.0227 | 0.0970 | −0.1847** | |
| 7. Years at company | 5.39 | 5.35 | 0.0439 | 0.0100 | 0.0113 | 0.0143 | −0.0640 | 0.2844** |
Note(s): ** = Significant at p < 0.05
Results of the exploratory factor analysis
| Construct | Item | Factor loading | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transformational leadership | My supervisor communicates a clear and positive vision of the future | 0.37 | 0.93 |
| My supervisor treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development | 0.42 | ||
| My supervisor gives encouragement and recognition to staff | 0.33 | ||
| My supervisor fosters trust, involvement, and cooperation among team members | 0.41 | ||
| My supervisor encourages thinking about assumptions | 0.32 | ||
| My supervisor is clear about his/her values | 0.30 | ||
| My supervisor instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent | 0.36 | ||
| Perceived supervisor support | My supervisor cares about my opinions | 0.30 | 0.87 |
| My work supervisor really cares about my well-being | 0.40 | ||
| My supervisor strongly considers my goals and values | 0.34 | ||
| My supervisor shows very little concern form me (R) | 0.64 | ||
| Supervisor’s perceived digital communication skills | My supervisor knows how to communicate competently through digital communication channels | 0.50 | 0.88 |
| My supervisor has never not been able to convey something via digital communication channels | 0.35 | ||
| My supervisor uses email and the Internet with ease | 0.43 | ||
| My supervisor always knows how to communicate properly whatever digital communication channel is being used | 0.48 | ||
| My supervisor knows how to adapt his/her message to the digital communication channel being used when interacting via computer | 0.44 | ||
| Work engagement | At work, I feel bursting with energy | 0.31 | 0.94 |
| At my job, I feel strong and vigorous | 0.35 | ||
| I am enthusiastic about my job | 0.34 | ||
| My job inspires me | 0.36 | ||
| When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work | 0.36 | ||
| I feel happy when I am working intensely | 0.33 | ||
| I am proud of the work that I do | 0.32 | ||
| I am immersed in my job | 0.30 | ||
| I get carried away when I am working | 0.30 |
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis
| Model | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR | χ2 | df | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-1 factor | 0.565 | 0.527 | 0.181 | 0.133 | 4065.058 | 299 | |
| B-2 factors | 0.776 | 0.756 | 0.130 | 0.80 | 2235.877 | 298 | 1829.181* |
| C-3 factors | 0.811 | 0.792 | 0.120 | 0.77 | 1932.314 | 296 | 303.563* |
| D-4 factors | 0.901 | 0.891 | 0.087 | 0.46 | 1145.974 | 293 | 786.340* |
Note(s): * = Significant at p < 0.01
Significance testing of the indirect effect. Sobel test
| Indirect effect | Std Err | z-value | p-value | Conf. Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TL → PSS → WE | 0.580* | 0.071 | 8.225 | 0.002 | 0.442–0.719 |
Note(s): * = Significant at p < 0.01
References
Allen, T.D., Johnson, R.C., Kiburz, K.M. and Shockley, K.M. (2013), “Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 345-376, doi: 10.1111/peps.12012.
Avolio, B.J., Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S. and Baker, B. (2014), “E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 105-131, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 661-689, doi: 10.1177/0018726705055967.
Balthazard, P.A., Waldman, D.A. and Warren, J.E. (2009), “Predictors of emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 651-663, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.008.
Bartel, C.A., Wrzesniewski, A. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (2012), “Knowing where you stand: physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 743-757, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0661, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23252086
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Becker, W.J., Belkin, L.Y., Tuskey, S.E. and Conroy, S.A. (2022), “Surviving remotely: how job control and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and well-being”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1002/hrm.22102.
Ben Sedrine, D.S., Bouderbala, A. and Nasraoui, H. (2020), “Leadership style effect on virtual team efficiency: trust, operational cohesion and media richness roles”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 365-388, doi: 10.1108/jmd-10-2018-0289.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 238-246, doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238.
Boccoli, G., Gastaldi, L. and Corso, M. (2023), “The evolution of employee engagement: towards a social and contextual construct for balancing individual performance and wellbeing dynamically”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 75-98, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12304.
Bono, J.E., Foldes, H.J., Vinson, G. and Muros, J.P. (2007), “Workplace emotions: the role of supervision and leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1357-1367, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O.K. and Espevik, R. (2014), “Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 138-157, doi: 10.1111/joop.12041.
Brumley, K.M. and George, M.E.S. (2022), “Rules of engagement: flexplace and ideal workers”, Social Currents, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 573-591, doi: 10.1177/23294965221102896.
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J. and Mann, L. (2000), “A short measure of transformational leadership”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389-405, doi: 10.1023/a:1022991115523.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C. and Larson, B. (2021), “Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 655-683, doi: 10.1002/smj.3251.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1984), “Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organization design”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 191-233, doi: 10.21236/ada128980.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 554-571, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554.
Dennis, A.R., Fuller, R.M. and Valacich, J.S. (2008), “Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 575-600, doi: 10.2307/25148857.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. and Rhoades, L. (2002), “Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573, doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.565.
Eldor, L. and Harpaz, I. (2016), “A process model of employee engagement: the learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 213-235, doi: 10.1002/job.2037.
Forster, J., Friedman, R.S. and Liberman, N. (2004), “Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 177-189, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177.
Franken, E., Bentley, T., Shafaei, A., Farr-Wharton, B., Onnis, L. and Omari, M. (2021), “Forced flexibility and remote working: opportunities and challenges in the new normal”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1131-1149, doi: 10.1017/jmo.2021.40.
Freeney, Y. and Fellenz, M.R. (2013), “Work engagement, job design and the role of the social context at work: exploring antecedents from a relational perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 11, pp. 1427-1445, doi: 10.1177/0018726713478245.
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S. and Toscano, F. (2021), “Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: the impact on employees' remote work productivity, engagement, and stress”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 426-432, doi: 10.1097/jom.0000000000002236.
Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F. and Dino, R.N. (2008), “The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1412-1421, doi: 10.1037/a0012722.
Görgens-Ekermans, G. and Roux, C. (2021), “Revisiting the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership debate: (How) does emotional intelligence matter to effective leadership?”, A Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v19i0.1279.
Goswami, A., Nair, P., Beehr, T. and Grossenbacher, M. (2016), “The relationship of leaders' humor and employees' work engagement mediated by positive emotions: moderating effect of leaders' transformational leadership style”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1083-1099, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-01-2015-0001.
Grant, A., Christianson, M. and Price, R. (2007), “Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 51-63, doi: 10.5465/amp.2007.26421238.
Harter, J., Schmidt, F. and Hayes, T. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279, doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268.
Haynie, J.J., Mossholder, K.W. and Harris, S.G. (2016), “Justice and job engagement: the role of senior management trust”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 889-910, doi: 10.1002/job.2082.
Henderson, M.D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2006), “Transcending the “here”: the effect of spatial distance on social judgment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 845-856, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.845.
Hodder, A. (2020), “New Technology, Work and Employment in the era of COVID-19: reflecting on legacies of research”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 262-275, doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12173.
Hooi, L.W. and Chan, A.J. (2022), “Innovative culture and rewards-recognition matter in linking transformational leadership to workplace digitalisation?”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1063-1079, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2021-0349.
James, J., Mckechnie, S. and Swanberg, J. (2011), “Predicting employee engagement in an age‐diverse retail workforce”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 173-196, doi: 10.1002/job.681.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724, doi: 10.5465/256287.
Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (1999), “The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use”, Information and Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 237-250, doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(98)00096-2.
Kerman, K., Korunka, C. and Tement, S. (2022), “Work and home boundary violations during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of segmentation preferences and unfinished tasks”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 784-806, doi: 10.1111/apps.12335.
Kossek, E.E., Ruderman, M.N., Braddy, P.W. and Hannum, K.M. (2012), “Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: a person-centered approach”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 112-128, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003.
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S.C. and Jonas, K. (2013), “Transformational leadership and performance: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 543-555, doi: 10.1111/joop.12022.
Lee, E. (2006), “When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication?”, Communication Research, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 423-447, doi: 10.1177/0093650206293248.
Liaw, J., Chi, N.-W. and Chuang, A. (2010), “Examining the mechanisms linking transformational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: the mediating roles of perceived supervisor and coworker support”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 477-492, doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9145-x.
Liebermann, S.C., Blenckner, K., Diehl, J.-H., Feilke, J., Frei, C., Grikscheit, S., Hünsch, S., Kohring, K., Lay, J., Lorenzen, G. and Reinhardt, J. (2021), “Abrupt implementation of telework in the public sector during the COVID-19 crisis”, Zeitschrift Für Arbeits-Und Organisationspsychologie A&O, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 258-266, doi: 10.1026/0932-4089/a000367.
Makowski, P. (2023), “Remote leadership and work engagement: a critical review and future directions”, European Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.24018/ejbmr.2023.8.4.1835.
McGrath, E., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., Garrosa, E., Sanz-Vergel, A.I. and Cheung, G.W. (2017), “Rested, friendly, and engaged: the role of daily positive collegial interactions at work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1213-1226, doi: 10.1002/job.2197.
Murthy, V. (2017), “Work and the loneliness epidemic: reducing isolation at work is good business”, Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/09work-and-the-loneliness-epidemic
Mutha, P. and Srivastava, M. (2021), “Decoding leadership to leverage employee engagement in virtual teams”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 737-758, doi: 10.1108/ijoa-07-2021-2856.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2015), Mplus User's Guide, 7th ed., Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles.
Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2003), “Creeping dispositionism: the temporal dynamics of behavior prediction”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 485-497, doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.84.3.485.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 539-569, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Poynton, T.A., DeFouw, E.R. and Morizio, L.J. (2019), “A systematic review of online response rates in four counseling journals”, Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 33-42, doi: 10.1002/jcad.12233.
Purvanova, R. and Bono, J. (2009), “Transformational leadership in context: face-to-face and virtual teams”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-357, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.004.
Rahmadani, V.G., Schaufeli, W.B. and Stouten, J. (2020), “How engaging leaders foster employees' work engagement”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1155-1169, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-01-2020-0014.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714, doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-836, doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.825.
Rich, B., Lepine, J. and Crawford, E. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635, doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51468988.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J. and Sturman, M.C. (2009), “A tale of three prespectives: examining post hoc statisical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 762-800, doi: 10.1177/1094428109332834.
Roman, A., Van Wart, M., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S. and Mccarthy, A. (2018), “Defining e-leadership as competence in ICT-mediated communications: an exploratory assessment”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 853-866, doi: 10.1111/puar.12980.
Ruggieri, S. (2009), “Leadership in virtual teams: a comparison of transformational and transactional leaders”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1017-1022, doi: 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.8.1017.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619, doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92, doi: 10.1023/a:1015630930326.
Schmitt, A., Den Hartog, D.N. and Belschak, F.D. (2016), “Transformational leadership and proactive work behaviour: a moderated mediation model including work engagement and job strain”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 588-610, doi: 10.1111/joop.12143.
Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976), The Social Psychology of Telecommunications, John Wiley & Sons, London, doi: 10.1177/009365028000700307.
Spagnoli, P., Molino, M., Molinaro, D., Giancaspro, M.L., Manuti, A. and Ghislieri, C. (2020), “Workaholism and technostress during the COVID-19 emergency: the crucial role of the leaders on remote working”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, 620310, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620310.
Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-180, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2003), “Temporal construal”, Psychological Review, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 403-421, doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403.
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X. and Liu, C. (2019), “Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: identifying the elements of e-leadership”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 80-97, doi: 10.1177/0020852316681446.
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J. and Parker, S. (2021), “Achieving effective remote working during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a work design perspective”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 16-59, doi: 10.1111/apps.12290.
Whitford, T. and Moss, S.A. (2009), “Transformational leadership in distributed work groups: the moderating role of follower regulatory focus and goal orientation”, Communication Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 810-837, doi: 10.1177/0093650209346800.
Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A.B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Working in the sky: a diary study on work engagement among flight attendants”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 345-356, doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.345.
Zhong, L., Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (2016), “Job engagement, perceived organizational support, high‐performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: a cross‐level investigation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 823-844, doi: 10.1002/job.2076.
Zigurs, I. (2003), “Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 339-351, doi: 10.1016/s0090-2616(02)00132-8.