RESEARCH ARTICLES

 

Perceptions regarding the impact of Ubuntu and servant leadership on employee engagement in the workplace

 

 

RJ Muller^{I, *}; EE Smith^II; R Lillah^III

^INelson Mandela University, Department of Management Practice. roger.muller@mandela.ac.za
^IINelson Mandela University, Department of Business Management. elroy.smith@mandela.ac.za
^IIINelson Mandela University, Department of Business Management. riyaadh.lillah@mandela.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

South Africa has some of the lowest employee engagement scores in the world. Leadership is a key determinant of employee engagement, but existing leadership theories and practices are often ineffective in more humanistic and collectivistic cultures like South Africa. To this end, Ubuntu and servant leadership is posited to positively influence organisational performance by increasing employee engagement.
The primary objective of this study is to investigate perceptions regarding the impact of Ubuntu and servant leadership on employee engagement in private organisations of the Eastern Cape. A quantitative research design was utilised and yielded 428 usable questionnaires through non-probability convenience sampling. The empirical results revealed that the spirit of solidarity dimension of Ubuntu leadership influenced employee engagement significantly and positively. Furthermore, it was found that survival and spirit of solidarity had a significant and positive influence on organisational performance as measured through the balanced scorecard (BSC). Servant leadership positively and significantly influenced employee engagement and all dimensions of organisational performance. In addition, it was found that employee engagement mediates the relationship between servant leadership and organisational performance.

Key phrases: Balanced scorecard (BSC); employee engagement; organisational performance; servant leadership and Ubuntu leadership

---

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Employee engagement is defined as the extent to which employees exhibit the desired cognitive, emotional, and behavioural characteristics in completing work tasks with vigour, dedication and absorption (Macey & Schneider 2008:11; Saks 2006:601; Schaufeli 2013:6). The concept of engagement has emerged as a very important construct in organisational research, based on the positive impact of engaged employee behaviours on organisational performance (Chalofsky & Krishna 2009:190). Growing empirical evidence emphasise the significant link between engaged employees and business success. Harter, Schmidt and Keyes (2003:9), for example, revealed that levels of engagement are positively related to indicators of business-unit performance, such as customer satisfaction and loyalty, profitability, productivity, turnover and safety. Employee engagement is therefore commonly considered to be a powerful and useful tool that assists organisations to achieve competitive advantage (Anitha 2014:309; Gruman & Saks 2011:125).

Leaders play an improtant role in fostering engagement (Gruman & Saks 2011:131; Joubert & Roodt 2011:96; Wildermuth & Pauken 2008:126). Western individualistic leadership paradigms, however, are considered wholly ineffective in collectivist communitarian cultures, such as South Africa (Guma 2012:1; Lutz 2009:317; Nkomo 2006:3). A new leadership paradigm is therefore considered crucial to engage employees and reverse the negative trend of declining employee engagement, in order to improve South Africa's global competitiveness (Bezuidenhout & Schultz 2013:279; Richardson, Cook & Hofmeyr 2011:47).

It is suggested that African organisations adopt a leadership approach that is consistent with the communal cultures in which they operate. Lutz (2009:317) asserts that scholars need to determine the significance of Ubuntu leadership in relation to the real world of African business. Ubuntu is defined as an African worldview based on the primary values of intense humanness, caring, sharing, respect, compassion and associated values, ensuring a happy and qualitative human community life in the spirit of family (Broodryk 2006:2). Incorporating Ubuntu principles in management offers a superior approach to managing organisations, especially in the African context (Mangaliso & Damane 2001:32).

Covey (2006:5) rationalised that servant leadership is appropriate for South Africa, since the model is characterised by moral authority, humility, service and sacrifice that bring about trust and respect. Servant leadership models have been cited as good reference point for contextualising the Ubuntu concept (Brubaker 2013:99). The sheer intensity by which values are exhibited by African people living Ubuntu, however, differentiates Ubuntu from similar leadership styles. The major contribution of this study is the novel approach of utilising the indigenous knowledge-system of Ubuntu, as well as servant leadership, to improve employee engagement and organisational performance. The first part of this article covers the problem statement, objectives, hypothetical model of the study and the hypotheses. Thereafter, a theoretical overview and the research methodology are provided. The last part highlights the main empirical results, conclusions and recommendations, and recommendations for future research.

 

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

A global meta-analysis reports that South Africa has one of the lowest employee engagement scores out of 142 countries studied (Gallup 2013:59). The report further reveals that only 9% of South African employees are actively engaged in their work, whilst 45% are actively disengaged. In a study conducted in the Eastern Cape, Charles and Chucks (2012:1) concluded that employee engagement was negatively impacted by the absence of employee input in the form of improvement suggestion schemes and this led to low organisational growth of automotive component manufacturers.

Banhwa, Chipunza and Chamisa (2014:40) recommended that organisations explore employee engagement strategies to win the hearts of employees and attract talent. It was also found that job stress (related to burnout and disengagement) negatively impacted organisational commitment (Ruzungunde, Murugan & Hlatywayo 2016:219). These studies highlighted the dire need to understand why South African employees become disengaged. The importance of employee engagement is further emphasised due to the prolific impact engagement has on organisational performance (Coetzee, Schreuder & Tladinyane 2014:1). Low organisational performance and more specifically, productivity contributed to the negative economic trends in South Africa, with the country experiencing the lowest productivity levels in 46 years (Jones 2014:Internet; Klein 2012:5; McCarthy 2005:Internet).

Leaders play a vital role in fostering the engagement of subordinates (Gruman & Saks 2011:131; Wildermuth & Pauken 2008:126). Excellent leadership, however, appears to be a rarity in Africa and many of the continent's problems have been associated with poor leadership (Salawu 2012:17). For South Africa to remain competitive, effective leadership and engagement is required (Bezuidenhout & Schultz 2013:279). However, a number of managerial approaches have been attempted in South Africa, with relatively limited success (Kuada 2010:19; Luthans, Van Wyk & Walumbwa 2004:513). This led researchers to suggest that a new way of leadership thinking and further research is required for South Africa to remain globally competitive and to reverse the trend of declining organisational performance (Joubert & Roodt 2011:101; Luthans et al. 2004:513; Muchiri 2011:441). To this end, it is proposed that culturally appropriate leadership behaviours be cultivated by developing an Afro-centric perspective on leadership (Bolden & Kirk 2009:69; Muchiri 2011:443).

Limited empirical and theoretical research has addressed management and leadership in Africa, and empirical research on the concept of Ubuntu is almost non-existent (Shrivastava, Selvarajah, Meyer & Dorasamy 2014:60; Walumbwa, Avolio & Aryee 2011:425). Moreover, Muchiri (2011:443) indicates that limited empirical work has been done on the relationship between Ubuntu leadership and follower engagement. Brubaker (2013:115) further notes that no valid scale exists to measure Ubuntu as a leadership construct. This scarcity in empirical work is particularly evident when evaluating how Ubuntu manifests in the workplace.

Carter and Baghurst (2014:455) similarly found that a research gap exists between servant leadership and employee engagement. Research further suggests that to address specific challenges, existing employee engagement models should be adapted to the South African context (Rothmann & Rothmann Jr 2010:11).

Against the background of the above-mentioned problem statement, the main research question of the study is: Can Ubuntu and servant leadership be used to engage employees, and in doing so, improve organisational performance?

 

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the impact of certain dimensions (survival, spirit of solidarity, compassion and, dignity and respect) of Ubuntu and servant leadership on employee engagement in the workplace. To achieve the primary objective, the following secondary objectives were pursued:

■ To explain the nature of and relationships between Ubuntu leadership, servant leadership, employee engagement and organisational performance.

■ To operationalise Ubuntu leadership, servant leadership, employee engagement and organisational performance.

■ To empirically assess perceptions regarding the impact of Ubuntu and servant leadership styles on employee engagement and organisational performance.

■ To develop a set of guidelines to improve organisational performance by integrating Ubuntu and servant leadership practices with employee engagement initiatives.

 

4. PROPOSED HYPOTHESISED MODEL OF THE STUDY

The hypothesised model depicted by Figure 1 was based on previous studies and models by Kataria, Rastogi and Garg (2013:60); Poovan, Du Toit and Engelbrecht (2006:21); Russell and Stone (2002:154); Towers-Perrin (2003:Internet); and Vance (2006:7). The hypothesised model will be discussed in paragraph 5.

 

 

5. THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

The following sections serve to clarify the operationalisation of the study variables and provide a theoretical overview of the constructs.

5.1 Ubuntu leadership

The social values of survival, spirit of solidarity, compassion, dignity and respect were operationalised as the underlying dimensions of Ubuntu leadership in this study. Ubuntu is frequently defined in terms of its etymology of "Ubu-" meaning "being" or "being becoming" and "ntu" meaning "human", which translates in English to humanness or humanism (Guma 2012:3; West 2014:48). The meaning of the word is captured in the African aphorism of "muntu, umuntu ngabantu" translated as "I am because we are" or "a person becomes a person through other persons" (Guma 2012:3). For the purpose of this study, Ubuntu was defined as a set of leadership behaviours that embody and exhibit intense humanness towards followers through survival, a spirit of solidarity, compassion, and dignity and respect.

5.1.1 Survival

Survival is defined as the shared will to survive, which stems from groups relying on individual members' brotherly care to overcome adversity (Bertsch 2012:90). The value of survival may be expressed through open-handedness and concern for the needs and interests of others in the organisation (Broodryk 2006:8; Sigger, Polak & Pennink 2010:48). Poovan et al. (2006:23) concluded that the Ubuntu value of survival increase the effective operation of teams and, ultimately, organisational effectiveness. Based on the operationalisation of survival, it is hypothesised that:

H_1a: There is a positive relationship between Ubuntu leadership value, survival, and employee engagement.

5.1.2 Spirit of solidarity

The distinctive definition of solidarity in the context of Ubuntu is that an individual finds identity in others in the community and the organisation. Solidarity can therefore, be operationalised as valuing collectively according to a community-based understanding of the self (Brubaker 2013:102). The spirit of solidarity is more clearly expressed through the Zulu words "Simunye" (we are one) and "Shosoloza" (working as one) (Broodryk 2006:27). Engaging leaders encourage collaboration by connecting employees and promoting a high team spirit (Schaufeli 2015:448). Against this background, the following is hypothesised:

H1b: There is a positive relationship between the Ubuntu leadership value, spirit of solidarity and employee engagement.

5.1.3 Compassion

Compassion in the Ubuntu sense extends beyond the western notion of the concept, as individuals go out of their way to help others, and share deeply in the sorrow and joy of fellow human beings (Broodryk 2010:81). Accordingly, compassion in Ubuntu is evaluated by confirming that a leader is sensitive to employees' problems and share in their suffering (Brubaker 2013:107). Organisational leaders that show compassion towards employees are operationalised as a job resource that engages employees (Rothmann & Welsh 2013:18). Against this background, it is hypothesised that:

H_1c: There is a positive relationship between the Ubuntu leadership value, compassion, and employee engagement.

5.1.4 Dignity and respect

Studies of Ubuntu typically combine dignity and respect into a single variable (for example Poovan et al. 2006:20; Sigger et al. 2010:8). Employees tend to experience a sense of meaningfulness if they are treated with respect, dignity and appreciation for their contributions (Olivier & Rothmann 2007:50). Psychological meaningfulness has been found to be a key determinant of employee engagement (Anitha 2014:311). Against this background, it is hypothesised that:

H_1d: There is a positive relationship between the Ubuntu leadership value, dignity and respect, and employee engagement.

5.2 Servant leadership

Organisations are increasingly recognising servant leadership as a legitimate model across different national cultures that can increase engagement, and improve the well-being and performance of employees (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck 2014:893). Servant leaders not only stimulate positive energy levels in employees but also significantly increase engagement through high-quality relationships and social interactions (De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja & Matsyborska 2014:206). For the purpose of this study, servant leadership will be treated as a single dimensional factor. Based on the above discussion, the following is hypothesised:

H2 : There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and employee engagement.

5.3 Employee engagement

Employee engagement is defined differently in academic literature (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes 2002:269; Kahn 1990:692; Saks 2006:601; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker 2002:73). Based on this ambiguity and the aforementioned literature, it was defined in this study as the extent to which employees exhibit the desired cognitive, emotional, and physical characteristics in completing work tasks with vigour, dedication and absorption. Employee engagement is conceptualised as consisting of the three dimensions of vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli & Salanova 2007:144). In addition, employee engagement has also been conceptualised as consisting of three psychological dimensions: cognitive, emotional and physical, based on Kahn's (Kahn 1990:692) definition of personal engagement (Iddagoda, Opatha & Gunawardana 2016:93; May, Gilson & Harter 2004:31). However, South African studies concluded a single factor structure of engagement (Olivier & Rothmann 2007:51; Van Zyl, Deacon & Rothmann 2010:8). For this reason, employee engagement was conceptualised to have a single factor structure in this study.

5.4 Organisational performance

Organisational performance is considered a multi-dimensional concept and most of the results are tangible (Van De Voorde, Paauwe & Van Veldhoven 2012:394). Organisations risk jeopardising future organisational performance by over-emphasising financial performance at the expense of strategic performance (Ireland, Hoskisson & Hitt 2012:357). This concern is addressed by utilising the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach consisting of financial performance, customer performance, internal process performance, and learning and innovation performance. Organisations generally expect employees to be engaged in their work, show initiative and be innovative (Schaufeli & Salanova 2007:137). Furthermore, Gallup (2013:107) reports that highly engaged employees hold managers accountable by embedding organisational performance measures in the managers' BSC. Based on the literature review of organisational performance and employee engagement, the following is hypothesised:

H3a: There is a positive relationship between employee engagement and financial performance.

H3b: There is a positive relationship between employee engagement and customer performance.

H_3c: There is a positive relationship between employee engagement and internal process performance.

H3d: There is a positive relationship between employee engagement and learning and innovation performance.

5.5 The relationship between Ubuntu leadership and organisational performance

Researchers propose that organisational leaders harness Ubuntu to improve employee behaviours towards organisational effectiveness (Muchiri 2011:447). Mangaliso and Damane (2001:32) maintain that fostering Ubuntu values in the workplace can lead to sustainable competitive advantage for organisations. Against this background, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H₄: There is a positive relationship between an Ubuntu leadership style and organisational performance.

5.6 The relationship between servant leadership and organisational performance

Servant leadership in the workplace was found to improve productivity, increase customer satisfaction, reduce turnover, improve safety, and increase loyalty, in employee engagement (Whorton 2014:134). The improvement of these organisational outcomes drives operational performance and profit. Against this background, the following is hypothesised:

H5: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership style and organisational performance.

 

6. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

6.1 Research paradigm and approach

The positivistic paradigm was favoured as the most suitable research paradigm for this study, as a social reality was being researched that is independent of the researcher and the research subjects (Matthews & Ross 2010:27). Conclusions were drawn through logical reasoning which involved building hypotheses from existing literature relating to the variables in the hypothesised model. The existing knowledge was thereafter subjected to empirical scrutiny by collecting quantitative data by means of questionnaires administered to respondents (Ghauri & Gronhaug 2010:15). Empirical research pertaining to how the value system of Ubuntu manifests itself in the workplace is almost non-existent (Shrivastava et al. 2014:60). Investigating the relationship between Ubuntu and servant leadership, employee engagement, and organisational performance can therefore be considered exploratory research.

6.2 Population and sampling

The population of this study consists of all employees of private organisations situated in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. A total of 556 000 people was employed in the Eastern Cape metropolitan areas during the time of the survey at the end of July 2016 (StatsSA 2016:xii). Due to the lack of a sampling frame, non-probability convenience sampling was employed (Zikmund, Babin, Carr & Griffin 2009:396). Organisations from online business directories were approached to participate in the study. Employees from these organisations, and others that were known and easily reachable by the researcher and field workers were selected to participate.

6.3 Data collection

Secondary data was collected by means of extensive literature reviews of the study variables, using national and international library databases of peer-reviewed journal articles, reports, books and internet sources. Primary data for this study was collected by means of the survey method using a combination of self-administered paper-based questionnaires and electronic questionnaires administered online through the World Wide Web. A sample size of 400 responses was targeted, as the population size exceeded 5 000 (Leedy & Ormrod 2009:214). A total of 809 questionnaires were distributed and 428 useable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 53% which was deemed adequate (Babbie & Mouton 2001). A formal declaration confirmed that all ethical aspects were duly considered prior to commencing the study. For this reason, full ethical clearance was waivered by the Nelson Mandela University Research Ethics Committee.

6.4 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire used in this study was a combination of self-constructed questions obtained from the literature review, as well as reliable and valid items from the research instruments used in previous studies. Struwig and Stead (2013:98) explain that scaled-response statements are frequently used to gather data on respondents' perceptions and attitudes. Zikmund et al. (2009:350) further recommend the randomisation of questions in a scale to overcome order bias and the anchoring effect prevalent in attitude scales. Randomised, closed-ended questions were therefore used in this study to construct the scales measuring each variable. The questionnaire consisted of statements (items) divided into the following sections:

■ Section A: Perceptions regarding Ubuntu leadership (ordinal scale)

■ Section B: Perceptions regarding servant leadership (ordinal scale)

■ Section C: Perceptions regarding employee engagement (ordinal scale)

■ Section D: Perceptions regarding organisational performance (ordinal scale)

■ Section E: Biographical information (nominal)

Table 1 provides an outline of the structure of the questionnaire and number of items measuring each variable.

6.5 Data analysis

After deleting non-random missing data cases, and cases exceeding 50% missing data, valid mean substitution was used to remedy missing data (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson 2014:51). The next step of analysing the data involved determining the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Content validity was ensured by submitting the questionnaire t experts in the fields of leadership and organisational performance. The constructs of the hypothesised model were subjected to factor analysis in order to determine convergent validity. The tests of unidimensionality were performed and enabled the creation of summated scales. Principle component analysis (PCA) was used as the factor extraction method. Unrotated factors were used to assess the construct validity of the measuring instrument (Hair et al. 2014:110; Zikmund et al. 2009:309).

The retention of factors was determined by applying the Kaiser-Guttmann rule which holds that factors having an explained variance (eigenvalue) greater than one are considered significant and may be retained for further interpretation (Hair et al. 2014:107; Kaiser 1991:855; Zikmund et al. 2009:594). The factors with eigenvalues greater than one is considered to have the same total variance as one variable (Zikmund et al. 2009:594). The internal consistency method calculating Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to assess the reliability of the measuring instrument for this study. A scale with a coefficient alpha of 0.70 or greater was considered to have good reliability (Zikmund et al. 2009:306).

Based on the factors created in the previous steps, the data analysis continued by calculating the descriptive statistics, including the mean, standard deviation, and frequency distributions, in order to condense the data. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the hypothesised relationships between the study variables. The data was analysed using the MS-Excel and Statistica (version 12) software packages.

 

7. EMPIRICAL RESULTS

7.1 The demographical data

Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the respondents of the study.

Table 2 shows that 44% of the respondents were aged between 20 and 29 years, 61% were female and the ethnic classification of the majority of the sample were coloureds at 33%. In terms of educational qualification, 29% of the sample had a grade 12 certificate. Forty-three percent (43%) of the respondents indicated that they are operators or hourly paid employees, and the tenure of 54% of the respondents was 1 - 4 years. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the sample were employed in organisations that employ more than 200 employees, and 34% of the organisations have an employee size of 1 - 49 employees. Sixty percent (60%) of the sampled organisations have been in existence for more than 20 years, and 21% of the respondents work in a retail environment.

7.2 Validity and reliability

The results of the tests of unidimensionality for validity, and internal consistency for reliability are presented Table 3.

The factor loadings presented in Table 3 represent the correlation between the original variable and its factor. Hair et al. (2014:115) state that factor loadings greater than 0.30 can be considered significant if the sample size is greater than 350. The sample size for this study was 428 and a criterion of 0.40 was used as the cut-off point for valid factor loadings to determine construct validity. Hair et al. (2014:115) further state that loadings equal to or greater than 0.50 are considered practically significant and loadings exceeding 0.70 indicate well-defined structure.

Based on the results in Table 3 sufficient evidence of convergent validity for the variables in the hypothesised model was provided, as all the loadings were greater than 0.40. The factor loadings further conform to the criterion of being practically significant, with all loadings being greater than 0.50, except for SERV5 which had a loading of -0.445. The lowest eigenvalue was reported for Financial performance at 2.649 and the highest value was Servant leadership at 9.333.

These relatively high eigenvalues confirm that all the factors are unidimensional and significant, and were therefore retained for further interpretation. For the items measuring each variable, the percentage of total variance explained was the lowest for Employee engagement at 51.5%, and the highest for Compassion at 78.2%. The operationalisation of all the variables therefore remained unchanged, as no items were disregarded or deleted from the original variables.

In terms of reliability, Table 3 reveals that all Cronbach's alpha values were well above the cut-off point of 0.7, therefore sufficient proof of reliability exist and the items for the different scales were retained for further analysis. The highest Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.945 for Servant leadership. Financial performance was found to have to lowest coefficient value at 0.777.

7.3 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the central tendency of the data by measuring the mean and dispersion of the data around the mean by calculating the standard variation. The results are presented in Table 4.

The data was collected by anchoring the items of the questionnaire on a seven-point Likert scale. The Likert scale in the questionnaire was given as: 1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-disagree somewhat; 4-neutral; 5-agree somewhat, 6-agree and 7-strongly agree. The lowest mean score was for Survival at 5.29 and Customer performance had the highest mean at 5.62. The mean scores indicate that respondents agreed somewhat with all the items measuring the different variables of the study.

7.4 Regression analysis

The following sections discuss the four sets of regression analyses calculated to test the relationships between the variables.

7.4.1 The influence of Ubuntu leadership on employee engagement

Table 5 summarises the regression analyses of the dimensions of Ubuntu leadership: Survival, Spirit of solidarity, Compassion, Dignity and respect on Employee engagement. From Table 5, it can be seen that the independent variables of Survival, Spirit of solidarity, Compassion, Dignity and respect explain a significant proportion of the variance in the dependent variable Employee engagement (F 52.88; p < 0.05).

The results, therefore, suggest that as Spirit of solidarity behaviours increase, the level of Employee engagement increases accordingly in the workplace. It is further evident from Table 5 that the independent variables explained 33.33 percent (R²) of the variance of Employee engagement. No significant relationships were found to exist between the independent variables, Survival (b*= 0.174; p > 0.05), Compassion (b*= 0.078; p > 0.05) and Dignity and respect (b^*= -0.028; p > 0.05).

7.4.2 The influence of servant leadership on employee engagement

Table 6 summarises the results of the regression analysis of the independent variable Servant leadership on Employee engagement.

Table 6 indicates that a significant and positive relationship exists between the independent variable Servant leadership and Employee engagement (b* = 0.590; p < 0.05). Furthermore, it can be seen that Servant leadership, in this regression model, explains a significant proportion (F = 228.05; p < 0.05) of the variance in Employee engagement. The R² score in Table 6 reveals that 34.86 percent of the variance in Employee engagement is explained by the influence of Servant leadership. These results suggest that organisational leaders who exhibit servant leader behaviours will increase Employee engagement in the workplace.

7.4.3 The influence of employee engagement on organisational performance

Table 7 summarises the regression analysis results for the influence of Employee engagement on the organisational performance variables of the balanced scorecard. For Financial performance, the R² value indicates that 20.6 percent of the variance in Financial performance is explained by Employee engagement. A significant and positive relationship exists between the mediating variable Employee engagement and the dependent variable Financial performance (b^* = 0.454; p <0.05). This result suggest that Financial performance is predicted to increase as employees become more engaged in the workplace.

In Table 7, the R² value of 0.219 further indicates that 21.9 percent of the variance in Customer performance is explained by Employee engagement. A significant and positive relationship exist between the mediating variable Employee engagement and the dependent variable Customer performance (b^* = 0.468; p < 0.05). The results indicate that Customer performance is predicted to increase as employees become more engaged in the workplace. For Internal process performance, the R² value indicates that 22.7 percent of the variance in Internal process performance is explained by Employee engagement. A significant and positive relationship exists between the mediating variable Employee engagement and the dependent variable Internal process performance (b* = 0.477; p < 0.05).

The results suggest that Internal process performance is predicted to increase as employees become more engaged in the workplace. Table 7 further reveals, based on the R² value of 0.302, that 30.2 percent of the variance in Learning and innovation performance is explained by Employee engagement. A significant and positive relationship exists between the mediating variable Employee engagement and the dependent variable Learning and innovation performance (b* = 0.550; p <0.05). The results suggest that Learning and innovation performance is predicted to increase as employees become more engaged in the workplace.

7.4.4 The unmediated influence of Ubuntu leadership on organisational performance

Table 8 reports the regression results for the unmediated influence of the dimensions of Ubuntu leadership on the dimensions of organisational performance.

Table 8 indicates that Survival and Spirit of solidarity consistently show a significant and positive relationship with all four dimensions of organisational performance. The Compassion dimension of Ubuntu leadership was found to have a significant negative impact on three of the four dimensions (Financial performance, Internal process performance, and Learning and innovation performance) of organisational performance.

Furthermore, an insignificant and negative relationship was found between Compassion and Customer performance. Dignity and respect was found to have an insignificant negative influence on three of the four dimensions (Financial performance, Internal process performance, and Learning and innovation performance) of organisational performance, with a significant negative influence only on Customer performance.

7.4.5 The unmediated influence of servant leadership on organisational performance

Table 9 reports the regression results for the unmediated influence of servant leadership on the dimensions of organisational performance.

The results of the regression analyses in Table 9 indicate that Servant leadership is a significant and positive predictor of all the variables constituting organisational performance. In this study, organisational performance was operationalised based on the balanced scorecard approach. The results, therefore, indicate that Servant leadership behaviours will result in improving organisational performance across all four performance dimensions of the balanced scorecard (financial, customer, internal process, and learning and innovation).

7.5 Findings of hypothesised relationships

Table 10 indicates the findings of the hypothesised relationships.

 

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of Ubuntu leadership, it is recommended that managers draw employees together to accomplish complex tasks and achieve difficult goals collectively, as opposed to individually. It is recommended that quality circles and mission-directed team concepts are explored to improve the effectiveness of problem-solving. Initiatives like "Six sigma" makes extensive use of project teams for problem-solving and is therefore, recommended.

Managers should further help employees understand their role in the context of the collective organisation, and not in terms of the individual physical or psychological contributions they have to offer. The common understanding is that, together, the team can accomplish more than if each member works individually. Organisational leaders should mould a Spirit of solidarity by assisting employees to feel part of the organisational community and, therefore, see the organisation as an extension of the employee's family.

Tasks and projects should be structured to diminish the "I" and augment the "We", thus creating a greater sense of collective accomplishment. To further enhance a Spirit of solidarity, it is recommended that company stationery and notifications display slogans of solidarity, for example, 'Simunye' that translates to 'we are one'. Collective goal accomplishment should be followed by celebrations, collective singing, celebratory rituals and incorporating the individual's family, where possible.

These ceremonies and celebrations create a pleasant work environment, and cultivate a sense of trust and belonging. Happiness and harmony should be fostered in the Spirit of solidarity. Managers and Human Resource practitioners should link reward systems to team performance and, to a lesser extent, to individual performance.

Based on the findings of Servant leadership, it is recommended that managers pay more attention to serving employees and satisfying their psychological needs for growth and development. Employees should be empowered through nurturing attitudes of proactivity and self-confidence; through this, a sense of personal power is derived. Employees should be held accountable for performance only on aspects that are within their control, and the leader should ensure that expectations are always clear. HR practitioners should, therefore, ensure that employees' job descriptions and actual tasks are continuously audited to show good alignment.

In terms of Employee engagement, it is suggested that organisations foster an environment whereby employees: find their jobs inspiring; find it difficult to detach themselves from their work; are able to work for sustained periods of time; are not afraid to be themselves and are enthusiastic about their work. It is further recommended that employees should: keep trying to succeed, even in times of difficulty; deal assertively with work-related problems; confidently handle the physical demands of their job; feel brave enough to express their opinions about work-related matters and consider their job activities to be valuable.

 

9. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESEARCH

Although Ubuntu has been discussed at length in literature, empirical research on the topic is sparse (Sigger et al. 2010:1; Shrivastava et al. 2014:62). A highly reliable and valid measuring instrument was developed to evaluate the Ubuntu leadership style, as at the time, there were no reliable scales available in South Africa. This study has also validated the effective use of the balanced scorecard as a strategic mechanism for organisations to measure organisational performance. Management theory and practices predominantly originate from euro-centric or western schools of thought. This study presents an afro-centric approach to organisational leadership, based on indigenous African knowledge systems.

 

10. CONCLUSION

This study set out to answer the question: Can Ubuntu and servant leadership be used to engage employees, and in doing so, improve organisational performance? The extent to which Ubuntu leadership, operationalised as a multidimensional construct, can be utilised to engage employees in the workplace is most pronounced through the Spirit of solidarity dimension of Ubuntu. The empirical results revealed that fostering a Spirit of solidarity increase Employee engagement, as Ubuntu leaders work to increase employees' level of energy, enthusiasm and stamina in the workplace. Leaders who connect employees and promote team spirit allow employees to get strongly involved in their work. Furthermore, these employees experience a sense of meaning, significance, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Lutz (2009:323) concurs with this finding that states that the application of solidarity to business involves not only perceiving the organisation as a set of contracting relationships among individuals, but viewing the organisation as a community with a purpose. The leadership role of fostering a Spirit of solidarity is, therefore, to also foster the common good of the community. Mangaliso and Damane (2001:23) similarly concluded that Ubuntu values of solidarity must be optimised, as sustainable competitive advantage is derived from strong loyalty to group goals.

The results further suggest that organisational leaders who exhibit servant leader behaviours will increase Employee engagement. When leaders focus their efforts on helping subordinates grow, their subordinates will experience increased feelings of vigour, dedication, and absorption at work. In return for heightening the fulfilling and positive work-related state of mind experienced by engaged employees, engaged employees will improve organisational performance, as measured through the balanced scorecard. This finding is in line with previous studies that found that higher Employee engagement scores were reported for organisations with more servant leaders (Whorton 2014:127). Similarly, Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt & Alkema (2014:544) and van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011:261) concluded that Servant leadership is a strong predictor of Employee engagement, as servant leaders act to satisfy employee needs. Highly engaged employees are characterised by their vigour, dedication, and absorption in the workplace.

From this study it is evident that engaged employees drive Financial performance, are productive and have a high concern for quality and satisfying the needs of customers. These employees are an irreplaceable source of much needed innovation to sustain competitive advantage. This study has provided valuable insights into the factors needed to create an enabling environment for Employee engagement, towards increased organisational performance. The vital role played by organisational leaders in the engagement process cannot be over-emphasised. As organisations in Africa face several unique challenges, the indiscriminate adoption of western leadership and human resource practices is far from ideal. It is therefore crucial to incorporate culturally oriented indigenous knowledge in the management systems of organisations by fostering and inculcating a spirit of Ubuntu and Servant leadership in the workplace.

 

11. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Given the abstract nature of Ubuntu, it is suggested that the concept is further explored qualitatively or through a mixed-methods approach, in order to deepen the understanding of the concept. It is the opinion of the researcher that the finer nuances of the dimensions of Ubuntu might be explored more effectively through focus group discussions, narrative research or qualitative case study methods. It is also recommended that the research instrument developed in this study be improved and validated in future studies using samples beyond the Eastern Cape. Furthermore, servant leadership was included in this study to gain a perspective of a contemporary leadership style that appeared to be similar to Ubuntu leadership. While the unidimensionality of the dimensions of Ubuntu leadership and servant leadership was proved, it would be recommended to establish methods of proving the discriminant validity of these two constructs.

 

REFERENCES

ANITHA J. 2014. Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63(3):308-323.         [ Links ]

BABBIE E & MOUTON J. 2001. The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press        [ Links ]

BANHWA PF, CHIPUNZA C & CHAMISA SF. 2014. The Influence of organisational employee engagement strategies on organisational citizenship behaviour within retail banking: a case of Amatole District Municipality. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5(6):53-62.         [ Links ]

BERTSCH A. 2012. Updating American leadership practices by exploring the African philosophy of Ubuntu. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics 9(1):81-97.         [ Links ]

BEZUIDENHOUT A & SCHULTZ C. 2013. Transformational leadership and employee engagement in the mining industry. Journal of Contemporary Management 10:279-297.         [ Links ]

BOLDEN R & KIRK P. 2009. African leadership: surfacing new understandings through leadership development. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(1):69-86.         [ Links ]

BROODRYK J. 2006. Ubuntu: life coping skills from Africa. Pretoria: KnowRes.         [ Links ]

BROODRYK J. 2010. Understanding South Africa: the uBuntu way of living. Waterkloof: Ubuntu School of Philosophy.         [ Links ]

BRUBAKER T. 2013. Servant leadership, Ubuntu, and leader effectiveness in Rwanda. Emerging Leadership Journeys 6(1):95-131.         [ Links ]

CARTER D & BAGHURST T. 2014. The Influence of servant leadership on restaurant employee engagement. Journal of Business Ethics 124(3):453-464.         [ Links ]

CHALOFSKY N & KRISHNA V. 2009. Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 11(2):189-203.         [ Links ]

CHARLES AA & CHUCKS OK. 2012. Adopting the Kaizen suggestion system in South African lean automotive components companies. Science Journal of Business Management 2012:1-10.         [ Links ]

COETZEE M, SCHREUDER D & TLADINYANE R. 2014. Employees' work engagement and job commitment: the moderating role of career anchors. SA Journal of Human Resource Management 12:1-12.         [ Links ]

COVEY SR. 2006. Servant leadership: use your voice to serve others. Leadership Excellence 23(12):5-6.         [ Links ]

DE CLERCQ D, BOUCKENOOGHE D, RAJA U & MATSYBORSKA G. 2014. Servant leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader-follower social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly 25(2):183-212.         [ Links ]

DE SOUSA MJC & VAN DIERENDONCK D. 2014. Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27(6):877-899.         [ Links ]

GALLUP. 2013. State of the global workplace. [Internet:http://www.gallup.com/services/178517/state-global-workplace.aspx?g_source=state+of+the+global+workplace&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles; downloaded on 06 April 2015.         [ Links ]]

GHAURI P & GRONHAUG K. 2010. Research methods in business studies. 4^th ed. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.         [ Links ]

GRUMAN JA & SAKS AM. 2011. Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review 21(2):123-136.         [ Links ]

GUMA PK. 2012. Rethinking management in Africa: beyond Ubuntu. [Internet:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractjd=2097126; downloaded on 14 May 2015.         [ Links ]]

HAIR JF, BLACK WC, BABIN BJ & ANDERSON RE. 2014. Multivariate data analysis. 7^th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.         [ Links ]

HARTER JK, SCHMIDT FL & HAYES TL. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. The journal of applied psychology 87(2):268-279.         [ Links ]

HARTER JK, SCHMIDT FL & KEYES C. 2003. Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: a review of the Gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived 2:205-224.         [ Links ]

IDDAGODA YA, OPATHA H & GUNAWARDANA KD. 2016. Towards a conceptualization and an operationalization of the construct of employee engagement. International Business Research 9(2):85.         [ Links ]

IRELAND RD, HOSKISSON RE & HITT MA. 2012. The management of strategy: concepts and cases. 10^th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western College.         [ Links ]

JONES M. 2014. SA labour productivity at the lowest level in 46 years. [Internet: http://www.adcorp.co.za/NEws/Pages/SAlabourproductivityatthelowestlevelin46years.aspx; downloaded on 01 April 2015.         [ Links ]]

JOUBERT M & ROODT G. 2011. Identifying enabling management practices for employee engagement. Acta Commercii 11(1):88-110.         [ Links ]

KAHN WA. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33(4):692-724.         [ Links ]

KAISER HF. 1991. Coefficient alpha for a principal component and the Kaiser-Guttman Rule. Psychological Reports 68(3):855-858.         [ Links ]

KATARIA A, RASTOGI R & GARG P. 2013. Organizational effectiveness as a function of employee engagement. South Asian Journal of Management 20(4):56-74.         [ Links ]

KLEIN N. 2012. Real wage, labor productivity, and employment trends in South Africa: a closer look. IMF Working Papers 12:1. Washington DC: IMF.         [ Links ]

KUADA J. 2010. Culture and leadership in Africa: a conceptual model and research agenda. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 1(1):9-24.         [ Links ]

LEEDY PD & ORMROD JE. 2009. Practical research: planning and design. 9^th ed. New Jersey:Prentice Hall.         [ Links ]

LUTHANS F, VAN WYK R & WALUMBWA FO. 2004. Recognition and development of hope for South African organizational leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25(6):512-527.         [ Links ]

LUTZ D. 2009. African Ubuntu philosophy and global management. Journal of Business Ethics 84(3):313-328.         [ Links ]

MACEY WH & SCHNEIDER B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1:3-30.         [ Links ]

MANGALISO P & DAMANE B. 2001. Building competitive advantage from "Ubuntu": management lessons from South Africa. The Academy of Management Executive 15(3):23-34.         [ Links ]

MATTHEWS B & ROSS L. 2010. Research methods: a practical guide for the social sciences. Harlow, UK: Pearson.         [ Links ]

MAY DR, GILSON RL & HARTER LM. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77(1):11-37.         [ Links ]

MCCARTHY C. 2005. Productivity performance in developing countries. [Internet: https://unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Productivity_performance_in_DCs_South_Africa.pdf; downloaded on 23 October 2014.         [ Links ]]

MUCHIRI MK. 2011. Leadership in context: a review and research agenda for sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(3):440-452.         [ Links ]

NKOMO SM. 2006. Images of African leadership and management in organisation studies: tensions, contradictions and revisions. Pretoria: University of South Africa. (Inaugural address 07 March 2006.         [ Links ])

OLIVIER AL & ROTHMANN S. 2007. Antecedents of work engagement in a multinational oil company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 33(3):49-56.         [ Links ]

POOVAN N, DU TOIT MK & ENGELBRECHT AS. 2006. The effect of the social values of Ubuntu on team effectiveness. South African Journal of Business Management 37(3):17-28.         [ Links ]

RICHARDSON A, COOK J & HOFMEYR K. 2011. How leaders generate hope in their followers. Labour 35(2):47-66.         [ Links ]

ROTHMANN S & ROTHMANN JR S. 2010. Factors associated with employee engagement in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 36(2):1 -12.         [ Links ]

ROTHMANN S & WELSH C. 2013. Employee engagement: the roles of psychological conditions. Management Dynamics 22(1):14-25.         [ Links ]

RUSSELL RF & STONE AG. 2002. A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23(3):145-157.         [ Links ]

RUZUNGUNDE VS, MURUGAN C & HLATYWAYO CK. 2016. The influence of job stress on the components of organisational commitment of health care personnel in the Eastern Cape Province South Africa. International Business & Economics Research Journal 15(5):219-226.         [ Links ]

SAKS AM. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(7):600-619.         [ Links ]

SALAWU A. 2012. The paradigm of ethical development for civilized leadership in Africa. Leadership 8(1):17-27.         [ Links ]

SCHAUFELI W. 2013. What is engagement? In Truss ESC, Delbridge R, Alfes K & Shantz A (eds). Employee engagement in theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge. (pp 15-35.         [ Links ])

SCHAUFELI WB. 2015. Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Development International 20(5):446-463.         [ Links ]

SCHAUFELI WB & SALANOVA M. 2007. Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In Gilliland S, Steiner D & Skarlicki D (eds). Managing social issues in organizations. 5^th ed. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. pp 135-177.         [ Links ]

SCHAUFELI WB, SALANOVA M, GONZALEZ-ROMA VA & BAKKER AB. 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3:71-92.         [ Links ]

SHRIVASTAVA S, SELVARAJAH C, MEYER D & DORASAMY N. 2014. Exploring excellence in leadership perceptions amongst South African managers. Human Resource Development International 17(1):47-66.         [ Links ]

SIGGER DS, POLAK BM & PENNINK BJW. 2010. Ubuntu or "humanness" as a management concept. CDS Research Paper 29:1-46.         [ Links ]

STATSSA. 2016. Quarterly labour force survey (Quarter 3). [Internet:http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0211/P02113rdQuarter2016.pdf; downloaded on 20 December 2016.         [ Links ]]

STRUWIG FW & STEAD GW. 2013. Research: planning, designing and reporting. 2^nd ed. Cape Town: Pearson.         [ Links ]

TOWERS-PERRIN. 2003. Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement. [Internet: www.towersperrin.com; downloaded on 27 October 2013.         [ Links ]]

VANCE RJ. 2006. Employee engagement and commitment: a guide to understanding, measuring, and increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.         [ Links ]

VAN DIERENDONCK D & NUIJTEN I. 2011. The servant leadership survey: development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology 26(3):249-267.         [ Links ]

VAN DIERENDONCK D, STAM D, BOERSMA P, DE WINDT N & ALKEMA J. 2014. Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 25(3):544-562.         [ Links ]

VAN DE VOORDE K, PAAUWE J & VAN VELDHOVEN M. 2012. Employee well-being and the HRM-organizational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Management Reviews 14(4):391-407.         [ Links ]

VAN ZYL LE, DEACON E & ROTHMANN S. 2010. Towards happiness: experiences of work-role fit, meaningfulness and work engagement of industrial/organisational psychologists in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 36(1):1-11.         [ Links ]

WALUMBWA FO, AVOLIO BJ & ARYEE S. 2011. Leadership and management research in Africa: a synthesis and suggestions for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(3):425-439.         [ Links ]

WEST A. 2014. Ubuntu and business ethics: problems, perspectives and prospects. Journal of Business Ethics 121(1):47-61.         [ Links ]

WHORTON KP. 2014. Does servant seadership positively influence employee engagement? Phoenix: Grand Canyon University. (DEd-thesis.         [ Links ])

WILDERMUTH C & PAUKEN PD. 2008. A perfect match: decoding employee engagement -part II: engaging jobs and individuals. Industrial and Commercial Training 40(4):206-210.         [ Links ]

ZIKMUND WG, BABIN BJ, CARR JC & GRIFFIN M. 2009. Business research methods. 8^th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.         [ Links ]

 

 

* corresponding author