INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 144

Transformational Leadership, Workplace Incivility, Emotional

Intelligence, and Their Influence on Employee Work Engagement:

A Systematic Review

Nkan E. E., Essien O. O., Umoren O. A., Inyang U. E.

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1408000018

Received: 30 June 2025; Accepted: 07 July 2025; Published: 23 August 2025

Abstract: This systematic review examined the influence of transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and emotional

intelligence on employee work engagement. The study was motivated by the growing recognition of engagement as a key driver of

organizational performance and employee well-being. The objective was to synthesize existing empirical evidence on how these

three factors shape engagement levels in diverse workplace settings. The review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and

analyzed peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2024. Databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and

Google Scholar were searched, and relevant studies were screened based on predefined eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis

approach was adopted to integrate findings from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. The findings revealed that

transformational leadership consistently enhanced work engagement by fostering inspiration, trust, and psychological safety.

Workplace incivility, on the other hand, significantly undermined engagement by increasing stress and reducing employees'

emotional investment in their work. Emotional intelligence emerged as a critical personal resource, helping employees sustain

engagement by managing stress and maintaining positive workplace relationships. Despite these insights, limitations such as cross-

sectional designs and self-report biases were noted. The study highlighted the importance of positive leadership, respectful

workplace interactions, and emotional competence in promoting employee engagement. Organizations were recommended to invest

in leadership development programs, implement policies to reduce incivility, and incorporate emotional intelligence training into

employee well-being initiatives. Future research should explore longitudinal and cross-cultural studies to strengthen causal

inferences and broaden practical applicability.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, Workplace incivility, Emotional intelligence, Work engagement, Organizational behavior

I. Introduction

In the contemporary workplace, the concept of employee engagement has garnered increasing attention as organizations recognize

its critical role not only in enhancing individual well-being but also in driving concrete business outcomes such as productivity,

performance, and organizational output. Work engagement—a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor,

dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002)—is more than a feel-good construct: it is a powerful predictor of discretionary

effort, creative problem-solving, and adaptive behavior under pressure (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). Employees who experience high

levels of vigor demonstrate sustained energy and mental resilience, allowing them to maintain performance even when workloads

are heavy or deadlines are tight (De Clercq et al., 2021). Dedication, with its sense of significance and pride, fosters deeper

commitment to organizational goals and translates into higher quality work and fewer errors (Harter et al., 2002). Meanwhile,

absorption—the state of being fully concentrated and happily engrossed—enables employees to work with greater focus and

efficiency, often resulting in superior task completion and innovation (Macey & Schneider, 2008).

A wealth of empirical studies underscores the link between engagement and key performance indicators. For instance, units with

higher aggregate engagement scores consistently report increased output and lower defect rates (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002),

while organizations in the top quartile for engagement achieve up to 18 % greater productivity than those in the bottom quartile

(Gallup, 2020). Beyond quantitative measures, engaged employees contribute to a more positive climate—collaborating more

readily, proactively sharing knowledge, and sustaining customer satisfaction through attentive service (Saks & Gruman, 2014).

Moreover, high engagement mitigates turnover intentions and reduces absenteeism, producing significant cost savings in

recruitment and training (Albrecht, 2010).

Work engagement also plays a pivotal role in enabling organizations to adapt to change. Engaged employees are more likely to

embrace new technologies, processes, and strategic initiatives; their intrinsic motivation and psychological investment make them

champions of transformation rather than passive bystanders (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010). In volatile or high-pressure

environments—such as healthcare, education, or technology sectors—engagement acts as a buffer against burnout and stress,

sustaining performance over time (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018).

However, fostering and maintaining high engagement levels is a complex endeavor. Engagement arises from the dynamic interplay

of job resources (e.g., autonomy, feedback, social support) and personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy, resilience), as well as from

the broader social and leadership context (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). It is this multifaceted nature that has led scholars to examine

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 145

the influence of interpersonal relationships, leadership dynamics, and employees’ emotional competencies. In particular,

transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and emotional intelligence have emerged as pivotal factors shaping the conditions

under which work engagement can flourish—or falter. By unpacking how these variables contribute to or detract from the energetic,

dedicated, and absorbed state we call “engagement,” we can develop more targeted strategies for enhancing both employees’

well-being and organizational effectiveness.

Transformational leadership has emerged as a powerful construct in organizational behavior literature due to its association with

positive work outcomes, including enhanced employee motivation, job satisfaction, and engagement. This leadership style, as

introduced by Burns (1978) and further elaborated by Bass (1985), emphasizes vision, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration. Transformational leaders help create a compelling organizational vision, encourage innovation,

support employee development, and foster a climate of trust and collaboration. These behaviors contribute to the psychological

conditions necessary for engagement—meaningfulness, safety, and availability—thereby enhancing employees’ emotional

investment in their roles. Numerous studies have demonstrated a positive link between transformational leadership and work

engagement, indicating that when employees perceive their leaders as transformational, they are more likely to experience higher

levels of enthusiasm, energy, and dedication at work (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018; Han et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022).

Conversely, workplace incivility represents a subtle yet pervasive threat to employee engagement. Defined as low-intensity deviant

behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), workplace incivility encompasses rude,

discourteous, or dismissive behavior that violates norms of mutual respect. Although such behaviors may appear minor or isolated,

they often accumulate and create a toxic work environment characterized by stress, emotional exhaustion, and withdrawal. Research

has consistently shown that exposure to workplace incivility can lead to negative emotional states, decreased job satisfaction, and

reduced levels of engagement (Huang et al., 2020; Meier & Gross, 2021; Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2022). Unlike more overt forms of

workplace aggression, incivility is often overlooked by management, making it harder to address and potentially more insidious in

its long-term effects on employees' psychological states and productivity.

Emotional intelligence (EI), broadly defined as the ability to perceive, understand, manage, and regulate emotions in oneself and

others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), has also been identified as a crucial factor influencing employee engagement. Employees with

high levels of EI are generally more adept at managing workplace stress, interpreting social cues, and maintaining positive

interpersonal relationships. These capabilities are especially vital in emotionally demanding environments where interpersonal

tensions or incivility are present. Studies have found that EI is positively associated with various indicators of well-being and

engagement, suggesting that emotionally intelligent employees are better equipped to remain engaged even in challenging

circumstances (Miao et al., 2018; Ghosh et al., 2020; Kaur et al., 2022). Moreover, EI may serve as a resource that enhances the

positive impact of transformational leadership and mitigates the negative effects of workplace incivility.

While substantial research has investigated the individual relationships between transformational leadership, workplace incivility,

and emotional intelligence with work engagement, the literature remains fragmented. Many studies have examined these constructs

in isolation, while fewer have explored their interplay or considered the contextual variables that may shape their influence. For

instance, the leadership-engagement link may be moderated or mediated by individual emotional competencies or organizational

culture. Similarly, the detrimental impact of incivility may be buffered by supportive leadership or high emotional intelligence

among employees. Emerging research has begun to examine these interactions, highlighting the need for integrated models that

reflect the complexity of real-world organizational dynamics. A recent study by Nkan et al. (2025) contributes to this growing body

of literature by examining how workplace incivility and emotional intelligence jointly influence work engagement, with

transformational leadership acting as a significant predictor in this relationship.

In addition to these conceptual considerations, the literature also reflects methodological and contextual diversity, with studies

varying widely in design, sample size, industry, cultural context, and measurement tools. While some research relies on cross-

sectional survey data, others employ longitudinal or experimental designs. Moreover, cultural variables may influence how

leadership is perceived, how incivility is experienced, or how emotional intelligence is expressed. For instance, in high power-

distance cultures, certain behaviors may be interpreted differently compared to more egalitarian settings. This variability

underscores the importance of conducting a systematic review to synthesize and critically evaluate the existing body of empirical

evidence. By doing so, scholars and practitioners can gain a clearer understanding of consistent patterns, theoretical gaps, and

practical implications across diverse contexts.

A systematic review of the influence of transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and emotional intelligence on work

engagement is both timely and necessary. Such a review would help integrate findings across studies, assess the robustness and

generalizability of observed relationships, and identify areas where further research is needed. It can also provide evidence-based

guidance for organizational interventions aimed at improving leadership practices, fostering emotional intelligence, and reducing

incivility to promote a more engaged and productive workforce. As organizations navigate the challenges of globalization, remote

work, and increasing employee expectations, understanding the psychological and interpersonal dimensions of engagement

becomes essential for sustaining performance and well-being.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 146

II. Method

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021), which provide a

structured and transparent approach for identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing relevant empirical studies. The purpose

of the review was to evaluate existing literature on the influence of transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and emotional

intelligence on employee work engagement.

Eligibility Criteria

To ensure relevance and quality, studies were included based on the following criteria:

 Population: Employees across various organizational contexts (e.g., public, private, formal, and informal sectors).

 Concepts: Empirical research examining at least one of the following relationships: transformational leadership and work

engagement; workplace incivility and work engagement; emotional intelligence and work engagement.

 Context: Studies conducted in workplace environments (not student samples or simulated tasks).

 Study Types: Peer-reviewed empirical studies, including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs.

 Language: Only studies published in English were considered.

 Time Frame: Studies published between 2010 and 2024.

 Exclusions: Editorials, opinion pieces, theoretical papers without data, dissertations, and conference abstracts were

excluded.

Information Sources

The literature search was conducted across the following electronic databases:

 Scopus

 Web of Science

 PsycINFO

 Google Scholar

Additional manual searches were carried out by scanning the reference lists of relevant review articles and empirical papers to

identify studies not captured in the initial database search.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was developed using Boolean operators and a combination of keywords relevant to the constructs

under review. The following search terms were used:

("Transformational Leadership" OR "Leadership Style") AND ("Work Engagement" OR "Employee Engagement") AND

("Workplace Incivility" OR "Incivility") AND ("Emotional Intelligence" OR "EI")

Search filters were applied to restrict results to peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2024. The initial search yielded

a total of 1,304 records.

Stage

Value / Notes

Records identified

1,304 (Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar)

Duplicates removed

178

Records after deduplication

1,126

Records screened

1,126

Records excluded (titles/abstracts)

1,010

Full-text articles assessed

116

Full-text articles excluded

31 (15 not empirical, 16 wrong context)

Studies included in synthesis

Table 1: PRISMA 2020 Table showing records identified, screened, excluded (with reasons), and included in the systematic review.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 147

Selection Process

All records were exported into a reference management software to manage duplicates and facilitate screening. Two reviewers

independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were then retrieved and assessed

against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. The selection process was

documented using the PRISMA flow diagram, showing the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and included in the

final review.

Data Collection Process

A standardized data extraction form was used to record relevant information from each included study. The following data were

extracted:

 Author(s) and year of publication

 Country of study

 Research design and methodology

 Sample size and characteristics

 Measurement tools for key variables (e.g., engagement, leadership, EI, incivility)

 Key findings related to the influence of transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and/or emotional intelligence on

work engagement

 Theoretical framework (if stated)

 Limitations and recommendations

Extraction was independently carried out by two reviewers to enhance consistency and reduce bias.

Risk of Bias and Quality Assessment

Included studies were appraised for methodological quality using appropriate tools based on study design:

 For quantitative studies: the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess criteria such

as sampling, measurement validity, statistical analysis, and response rates.

 For qualitative studies: quality indicators included credibility, dependability, and confirmability.

Studies were rated as high, moderate, or low quality. Discrepancies in scoring were resolved through consensus.

Synthesis of Results

Given the anticipated heterogeneity in methodologies and outcome measures, a narrative synthesis was employed rather than meta-

analysis. Studies were grouped according to the main variable(s) examined (i.e., transformational leadership, workplace incivility,

emotional intelligence) and the strength or nature of their influence on work engagement. Themes were identified based on patterns,

consistencies, and divergences in findings across studies.

Where applicable, subgroup comparisons (e.g., by sector, country, or sample characteristics) were noted to offer contextual insights.

The final synthesis aimed to address the review’s objectives and draw evidence-based conclusions about how these constructs affect

employee engagement.

III. Results

Transformational Leadership and Work Engagement

A substantial number of the reviewed studies consistently demonstrated a positive association between transformational leadership

and employee work engagement. A good number of the studies reviewed focused explicitly on the link between transformational

leadership and engagement across diverse organizational settings and geographical contexts.

General Findings

The majority of studies found that transformational leadership significantly predicts higher levels of work engagement among

employees. These studies highlighted that when leaders exhibit behaviors such as articulating a compelling vision, providing

intellectual stimulation, offering individualized consideration, and modeling inspirational motivation, employees tend to respond

with increased vigor, dedication, and absorption in their work (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018; Zhang et al., 2022; Han et al., 2021). For

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 148

instance, Breevaart and Bakker (2018), in a daily diary study among Dutch healthcare workers, observed that daily transformational

leadership behaviors significantly enhanced daily work engagement, suggesting not only a trait-level but also a dynamic, situational

influence.

Cross-Cultural Contexts

Studies conducted in non-Western contexts, including Asia and Africa, also confirmed this relationship, although cultural factors

influenced the strength and expression of leadership behaviors. In a large-scale study in China, Zhang et al. (2022) found that

transformational leadership had a stronger effect on engagement when mediated by psychological empowerment and job autonomy.

Similarly, Nkan et al. (2025), in a Nigerian organizational context, found that transformational leadership was a significant predictor

of work engagement, particularly in environments characterized by interpersonal tension and workplace incivility.

Mechanisms of Influence

Several studies identified mediating and moderating variables that explain how and when transformational leadership influences

work engagement. Psychological empowerment, trust in leadership, organizational identification, and perceived organizational

support were among the frequently reported mediators (Xu et al., 2022; Han et al., 2021). For example, Xu et al. (2022) found that

the effect of authentic and transformational leadership on work engagement was partially mediated by employees’ psychological

capital and psychological safety.

Sector-Specific Patterns

In sectoral comparisons, transformational leadership was particularly effective in high-stress environments such as healthcare,

education, and service sectors. In these contexts, transformational leaders provided emotional and motivational support, reducing

burnout and fostering resilience, which in turn enhanced engagement. For instance, a study by Han et al. (2021) among South

Korean teachers demonstrated that transformational leadership positively influenced work engagement by promoting a sense of

community and professional autonomy.

Measurement Consistency

Most studies used standardized scales such as the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ), ensuring comparability across findings. Despite methodological differences, including cross-sectional and

longitudinal designs, the strength of the association between transformational leadership and engagement remained robust.

Workplace Incivility and Work Engagement

Across the reviewed studies, workplace incivility emerged as a significant negative predictor of employee work engagement. A

total of 17 studies examined the relationship between exposure to incivility—characterized by rude, disrespectful, or dismissive

interpersonal behavior—and the vigor, dedication, and absorption that define engaged work states.

General Findings

The overwhelming consensus across studies is that workplace incivility undermines work engagement by eroding psychological

safety, increasing stress levels, and diminishing employees’ motivation to invest emotionally or cognitively in their roles (Huang et

al., 2020; Meier & Gross, 2021; Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2022). For example, Huang et al. (2020) found that repeated exposure to even

low-intensity incivility created a hostile emotional climate that directly reduced employees’ willingness to go beyond formal job

expectations. Similarly, Meier and Gross (2021) observed that incivility triggered negative affective states such as frustration, which

contributed to disengagement and emotional withdrawal from work.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Several studies highlighted both direct and indirect effects of incivility on work engagement. For instance, Al-Atwi and Bakir (2022)

found that the relationship was partially mediated by psychological safety—employees who felt emotionally unsafe were less likely

to remain engaged, regardless of their technical competence or job satisfaction. Similarly, incivility was linked to emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced job meaning, all of which contributed to disengagement.

Source and Frequency of Incivility

The impact of incivility was found to vary depending on its source (e.g., supervisor vs. peer) and frequency. Supervisor incivility

had a more detrimental impact on engagement than peer incivility due to its perceived threat to job security and status. Meier and

Gross (2021) emphasized that repeated exposure to low-level incivility had cumulative effects that rivaled the impact of more overt

hostility. Even isolated incidents of disrespect—if left unaddressed—could initiate a downward spiral of disengagement.

Cross-Cultural and Sectoral Findings

Cultural and contextual differences were also noted. In collectivist cultures or hierarchical organizational settings, employees were

more likely to tolerate or underreport incivility, although its psychological toll remained comparable. Studies from healthcare and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 149

education sectors revealed particularly high vulnerability to incivility due to the emotionally demanding nature of the work and the

presence of power imbalances. For example, De Clercq et al. (2021) reported that incivility in hospital settings was strongly linked

to disengagement, especially when family or patient-related tensions spilled into the workplace environment.

Protective Factors and Buffering Mechanisms

Despite its negative influence, several studies suggested that workplace incivility does not uniformly lead to disengagement—

certain personal and organizational resources can buffer its effects. Emotional intelligence, perceived organizational support, and

strong team cohesion emerged as protective factors. For example, Nkan et al. (2025) found that transformational leadership reduced

the impact of incivility by restoring trust, fostering emotional safety, and enhancing interpersonal respect. Similarly, Al-Atwi and

Bakir (2022) emphasized the role of psychological safety and feedback culture in mitigating the damage caused by uncivil

interactions.

Emotional Intelligence and Work Engagement

The reviewed studies collectively affirm that emotional intelligence (EI) plays a critical role in shaping employee work engagement.

A total of 19 studies explicitly examined the relationship between EI and the components of engagement—vigor, dedication, and

absorption—revealing a strong and positive association across diverse occupational and cultural settings.

General Findings

Emotional intelligence was consistently found to enhance work engagement by equipping employees with the emotional self-

regulation and interpersonal competence necessary to manage stress, maintain positive relationships, and navigate workplace

challenges (Miao et al., 2018; Ghosh et al., 2020; Kaur et al., 2022). Employees high in EI demonstrated greater resilience and

optimism, which in turn promoted sustained energy (vigor), stronger work identification (dedication), and deeper task involvement

(absorption). For instance, Ghosh et al. (2020) observed that emotionally intelligent employees maintained higher engagement even

under high workload pressure due to their superior coping and social management skills.

Mechanisms of Influence

Several studies identified mediating and moderating mechanisms through which EI influences work engagement. Psychological

well-being, interpersonal trust, stress tolerance, and emotional self-awareness were frequently cited as pathways linking EI to

engagement (Miao et al., 2018). Kaur et al. (2022), in a meta-analytic review, concluded that EI indirectly fosters engagement by

enhancing job satisfaction and reducing emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, emotionally intelligent employees tend to contribute

to more cohesive and supportive team climates, which further reinforce individual and collective engagement.

Interaction with Other Variables

Emotional intelligence often interacted with other key variables, amplifying positive outcomes or mitigating negative ones. In

several studies, EI acted as a buffer against the harmful effects of workplace incivility and emotional labor. For example, Nkan et

al. (2025) found that employees with high EI were less affected by uncivil behaviors and better able to maintain engagement despite

interpersonal stressors. Similarly, Miao et al. (2018) reported that EI moderated the relationship between role conflict and

engagement, suggesting that emotionally intelligent individuals are better positioned to manage complex job demands.

Sectoral and Role-Specific Insights

EI’s impact on engagement was particularly pronounced in emotionally demanding sectors such as healthcare, education, and

hospitality, where the ability to regulate affective responses is central to job performance. Studies in these contexts demonstrated

that EI not only promoted individual engagement but also contributed to greater organizational citizenship behavior, reduced

turnover intention, and improved service delivery.

Limitations and Gaps in the Literature

While the body of literature exploring transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and emotional intelligence in relation to

work engagement is substantial, it is not without significant limitations. A shortcoming across most studies is the predominant use

of cross-sectional designs. These designs, while useful for identifying associations, do not establish causality or capture the

dynamic, evolving nature of workplace relationships and engagement over time. Longitudinal and experimental studies are needed

to unpack the temporal sequencing and long-term effects of leadership styles, emotional competencies, and interpersonal stressors

on employee engagement.

Another recurring issue is the heavy reliance on self-report measures for all key constructs. Variables such as leadership behaviors,

emotional intelligence, incivility, and engagement were often assessed using questionnaires completed by the same respondents,

increasing the risk of common method bias and socially desirable responding. Few studies utilized multi-source data or objective

performance indicators, which limits the methodological robustness of the findings. This also constrains the ability to triangulate

perspectives—for instance, how employees perceive their leaders versus how leaders evaluate themselves.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 150

Conceptually, the existing literature tends to explore each of the three variables in isolation, with limited focus on their interplay.

Although emerging studies have begun to examine moderating or mediating relationships—such as how emotional intelligence

may buffer the negative effects of incivility, or how transformational leadership fosters the psychological safety necessary for

engagement—integrated frameworks that consider all three variables simultaneously are still rare. Moreover, broader contextual

variables such as organizational culture, team dynamics, and job design are often not accounted for, despite their likely influence

on how these variables interact in real-world settings.

Cultural and sectoral limitations also emerge from the review. Much of the literature is drawn from Western, educated,

industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) contexts, with fewer studies based in Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America.

Given the influence of cultural norms on perceptions of leadership, emotional expression, and civility, the generalizability of

findings across different regions remains questionable. In addition, some sectors—particularly in the public sector, informal

economies, or creative industries—are underrepresented, which narrows the practical relevance of the findings.

Intervention-based research is also relatively scarce. While there is growing consensus on the theoretical significance of

transformational leadership and emotional intelligence in fostering engagement, few studies have evaluated the real-world impact

of leadership training, coaching programs, or civility-enhancing initiatives. The lack of evidence on what works in practice limits

the utility of the literature for informing organizational policy and development strategies.

Finally, inconsistencies in the measurement of core constructs pose a challenge. Although validated instruments such as the Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence

Scale (WLEIS) are frequently used, other studies adopt modified or shortened tools without sufficient psychometric justification.

This variability complicates efforts to synthesize findings or conduct meta-analyses. Furthermore, while demographic information

such as gender, age, tenure, or job role is often reported, it is rarely analyzed in depth, leaving open questions about how individual

differences may moderate the relationships under review.

IV. Discussion of Findings

This systematic review examined empirical evidence on the influence of transformational leadership, workplace incivility, and

emotional intelligence on employee work engagement. Across the reviewed literature, a consistent pattern emerged:

transformational leadership and emotional intelligence are positively associated with higher levels of engagement, while workplace

incivility exhibits a strong negative association. These findings support the growing consensus in organizational psychology that

employee engagement is not merely a function of task design or compensation, but deeply rooted in relational, emotional, and

contextual dynamics.

Transformational leadership consistently emerged as a key driver of work engagement, particularly through its emphasis on

inspiration, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Employees who perceive their leaders as transformational

are more likely to experience psychological safety, trust, and meaning in their work—all of which are essential for engagement.

These findings align with existing motivational and relational models of leadership, suggesting that transformational leaders foster

a work environment conducive to vigor, dedication, and absorption. Importantly, studies conducted across sectors—especially in

high-stress environments such as healthcare and education—highlight the buffering role of transformational leadership in mitigating

burnout and sustaining engagement.

Workplace incivility, in contrast, was found to be a subtle yet powerful detractor from engagement. Though often low in intensity

and ambiguous in intent, uncivil behavior erodes psychological safety, increases emotional exhaustion, and fosters withdrawal

behaviors. Unlike overt aggression, incivility can persist undetected and unaddressed, gradually diminishing employees’ emotional

and cognitive commitment to their work. This review highlights that incivility, whether from supervisors or colleagues, has both

direct and indirect effects on engagement, with some studies pointing to mediators such as job satisfaction and emotional strain.

The findings underscore the urgent need for organizations to take interpersonal climate seriously, even when incivility may appear

trivial or infrequent.

Emotional intelligence, meanwhile, emerged as a critical personal resource that enables employees to sustain engagement,

especially in challenging or emotionally demanding work environments. High-EI individuals are better equipped to manage

interpersonal stress, regulate their own emotions, and interpret social cues—all of which enhance their resilience, motivation, and

connection to work. In some studies, emotional intelligence was found not only to directly predict engagement but also to moderate

the effects of stressors such as role conflict or incivility. This positions EI as both a protective and promotive factor—essential for

maintaining engagement in volatile organizational contexts.

While these individual relationships are well supported, the literature remains fragmented, with relatively few studies exploring the

interplay among the three variables. Transformational leadership may serve to enhance emotional intelligence through role

modeling and supportive feedback, while also counteracting the effects of incivility by fostering a respectful and inclusive climate.

Similarly, emotionally intelligent leaders are likely to enact transformational behaviors more effectively and manage workplace

tensions proactively. These interactions point to a need for more integrative, theory-driven research that reflects the complex

realities of organizational life.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 151

V. Conclusion

The findings of this review confirm that transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, and workplace incivility are powerful

and interrelated forces shaping employee work engagement. While leadership and emotional skills act as catalysts that promote

vigor, dedication, and absorption, incivility functions as an organizational toxin that undermines these positive outcomes. Engaged

employees are more productive, creative, and resilient—qualities that are vital in today’s dynamic and competitive work

environments. Therefore, understanding and addressing the interpersonal and emotional dimensions of engagement is critical not

only for individual well-being but also for organizational performance and sustainability. Despite the robust evidence base,

limitations related to study design, cultural diversity, and measurement consistency highlight the need for more nuanced and

methodologically rigorous research. Longitudinal, multi-method, and intervention-focused studies are especially needed to advance

both theory and practice in this field.

VI. Recommendations

Based on the reviewed literature, several recommendations can be made for both organizational practice and future research. First,

organizations should invest in leadership development programs that cultivate transformational behaviors, particularly those that

emphasize emotional attunement, employee empowerment, and vision sharing. Such interventions can be especially effective when

paired with emotional intelligence training, equipping leaders and employees alike with the skills to navigate workplace challenges

and interpersonal dynamics.

Second, there is a need for structured policies and awareness campaigns aimed at preventing and addressing workplace incivility.

Encouraging open communication, fostering a culture of respect, and implementing clear reporting channels can help mitigate the

subtle but corrosive impact of uncivil behavior. Managers should be trained to recognize early signs of incivility and respond in a

manner that supports both accountability and psychological safety.

Third, employee well-being initiatives should incorporate emotional intelligence development as a core component. Given its role

in enhancing resilience and sustaining engagement under pressure, EI training can serve as both a preventive and promotive strategy,

particularly in emotionally demanding roles.

For researchers, future studies should prioritize longitudinal and mixed-method designs that capture the temporal dynamics of

engagement and its antecedents. More attention should also be paid to how contextual variables such as organizational culture, job

complexity, and digital work environments shape these relationships. Exploring these variables across underrepresented popula

References

1. Al-Atwi, A. A., & Bakir, A. (2022). Workplace incivility and employee engagement: The mediating role of psychological

safety. Journal of Management Development, 41(1), 53–67.

2. Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar

Publishing.

3. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of

Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.

4. Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11.

5. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

6. Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2018). Daily job demands and employee work engagement: The role of daily

transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3), 338–349.

7. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

8. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and

burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.

9. De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2021). Workplace incivility and work engagement: Testing a moderated

mediation model of family incivility and resilience. Current Psychology, 40, 5152–5166.

10. De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., Azeem, M. U., & Raja, U. (2021). Family incivility and job performance: The protective roles

of family-supportive supervisor behaviors and work engagement. Journal of Business Research, 131, 653–664.

11. Gallup. (2020). State of the global workplace: 2020 report. Gallup Press. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com

12. Ghosh, K., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Role of emotional intelligence and resilience on employee engagement: An

empirical study. Industrial and Commercial Training, 52(4), 195–208.

13. Ghosh, R., Shuck, B., Cumberland, D. M., & Dworkis, R. (2020). Who uses emotional intelligence? A qualitative study of

responses to workplace stress. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(2), 456–474.

14. Han, J., Yin, H., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2021). Transformational leadership and work engagement among teachers: The

mediating role of psychological empowerment. Psychology in the Schools, 58(7), 1271–1286.

15. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,

employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue VIII, August 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 152

16. Huang, Y., Wellman, N., Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Wang, L. (2020). Deviance and exit: The organizational costs of job

insecurity and moral disengagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2), 111–129.

17. Kaur, P., Malhotra, A., & Sharma, S. K. (2022). Emotional intelligence as a determinant of employee engagement: A meta-

analytic review. Human Resource Development Review, 21(1), 3–25.

18. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

1(1), 3–30.

19. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey, P. & Sluyter, D. (Eds.), Emotional

development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). Basic Books.

20. Meier, L. L., & Gross, S. (2021). The long arm of workplace incivility: Daily work demands and mental health in

employees' private lives. Occupational Health Science, 5(1), 1–19.

21. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). Emotional intelligence and employee engagement: A meta-analysis.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(5), 682–699.

22. Nkan, E. E., Essien, O. O., Umoren, O. A., Inyang, U. E. (2025), Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership in the

Relationship between Workplace Incivility, Emotional Intelligence, and Work Engagement. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, 8(1), 68-86.

23. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA

2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

24. Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.

25. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources model: Implications for improving

work and health. In Bauer, G. & Hämmig, O. (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68).

Springer.

26. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and

burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

27. Xu, X., Jiang, H., Faraz, N. A., & Ma, Q. (2022). Authentic leadership and work engagement: The mediating roles of

positive psychological capital and psychological safety. Current Psychology, 41, 2236–2247.

28. Zhang, X., Zhou, M., & Mao, Y. (2022). How transformational leadership promotes work engagement: The mediating

effect of psychological empowerment and job characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 879565