Perceived Organizational Support as a Mediator: How Span of Control, Uncertainty, and Power Distance Shape Employee Engagement during M&A

Perceived Organizational Support as a Mediator: How Span of Control, Uncertainty, and Power Distance Shape Employee Engagement during M&A | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceived Organizational Support as a Mediator: How Span of Control, Uncertainty, and Power Distance Shape Employee Engagement during M&A Rabih Bedwany Makhlouf This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8263830/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study explores the determinants of employee engagement during mergers and acquisitions (M&A) within Lebanon's insurance and reinsurance sector. Focusing on the perceived organizational support (POS), power distance, span of control (SOC), and uncertainty, we develop and test an integrated model to examine how these factors together affect engagement. Data from 485 non-managerial employees were analyzed using correlation, regression, moderation, and mediation analyses. The results demonstrate that perceived span strain, uncertainty, and power distance all exert significant negative effects on engagement, while POS exhibits a strong positive effect. Furthermore, power distance and uncertainty act as significant aggravating moderators, strengthening the negative impact of span strain on engagement. Mediation analysis revealed that POS partially explains the negative effects of uncertainty (33.8%), span strain (26.2% mediated), and power distance (22.6%). An additional ANOVA with Tukey's HSD tests identified an optimal managerial SOC of 5–8 subordinates to maximize engagement during M&A. These findings are interpreted through the lenses of Social Exchange Theory and Organizational Justice Theory, emphasizing how cultural and structural during M&A influence engagement by shaping employees' perceptions of organizational support. The study provides practitioners with actionable insights for optimizing organizational structures and maintaining workforce morale during complex M&A integrations, ultimately nurturing M&A success. Management Employee Engagement Span of Control Perceived Organizational Support Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) Power Distance Organizational Uncertainty Insurance Sector Lebanon Moderated Mediation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction Employee engagement is an essential factor affecting organizational performance, particularly during periods of change such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A). In today’s unpredictable business environment, employee engagement has emerged as a pillar of organizational resilience and sustained success (Makhlouf, 2025 ). M&A often results in substantial structural and cultural changes (Oorschot et al., 2023 ), creating disorientation and uncertainty among employees. In such contexts, maintaining high levels of employee engagement is essential to enabling seamless integration and supporting M&A success. One of the main challenges in M&A integration is the redistribution of leadership duties, (Steigenberger, 2017 ) raising questions about the optimal span of control (SOC) —the number of employees a supervisor can effectively manage. While a narrower SOC may improve managerial attention and communication, thereby reducing uncertainty, it can also increase inefficiencies by generating additional managerial layers. Conversely, a broader SOC may enhance efficiency, yet overextend managerial resources, resulting in inadequate managerial supervision, less guidance, and limited communication opportunities, compromising employee engagement at a critical time. In uncertain contexts, striking the right balance becomes even more essential, as employees require constant reassurance, managerial accessibility and participative decision making to remain engaged (Xu, & Thomas, 2011; Makhlouf, 2025 ). Besides SOC, power distance–the extent to which hierarchical relationships affect workplace dynamics– also impacts employee engagement. In high power distance cultures, communication is limited and decision making is centralized. Therefore, employee engagement is compromised due to a lack of autonomy and limited access to information. This situation is further exacerbated during M&A, as employees experience high levels of uncertainty and require frequent communication and interaction with their superiors to stay engaged. Collectively, these dynamics signify that uncertainty not only erodes employee engagement dramatically but also magnifies the influence of cultural and structural hierarchies. Nonetheless, despite extensive research on M&A, the combined effect of power distance, uncertainty, and span of control on employee engagement remains underexplored, particularly within tumultuous settings like Lebanon. 1.1 Research Problem: This research gap is particularly salient in Lebanon, where organizations are shaped by a polycrisis context. M&A events in the insurance and reinsurance sector are known to trigger workforce restructuring, which- unless properly managed- can undermine employee engagement and compromise integration efforts. Despite a wealth of research exploring M&A, employee engagement, and span of control separately, their combined effects within high power distance cultures and under conditions of high uncertainties are largely understudied. Understanding their dynamics is crucial, as employees navigating M&A require both fair treatment and managerial accessibility to maintain engagement. 1.2 Research Objectives: This research aims to: Examine the effect of SOC on employee engagement during M&A in the insurance and reinsurance sector. Investigate the role of power distance in determining employee engagement levels during M&A in the insurance and reinsurance sector. Explore how uncertainty moderates the effect of power distance and span of control on employee engagement during M&A in the insurance and reinsurance sector. By addressing these research objectives, this study deepens the understanding of cultural hierarchies, managerial structures, and uncertainty in M&A contexts. The study will provide theoretical implications for understanding the dynamic relationship between employee engagement, SOC, uncertainty and power distance. Additionally, it provides practical insights for organizations aiming to optimize organizational structures and employee engagement during M&A transitions. 1.3 Scope of Study The scope of this research encompasses both the contextual and theoretical boundaries within which it was conducted. Contextually, this research focuses on the insurance and reinsurance firms in Lebanon, which operate in an environment characterized by high political instability, economic volatility and uncertainty. These circumstances make this context a relevant setting for exploring how uncertainty, power distance, and perceived fairness interact to affect employee engagement during M&A. In terms of its empirical scope, this study examines Lebanese and foreign insurance and reinsurance companies operating in Lebanon that have undergone M&A during the last 20 years. The study focuses on the effect of Span of Control (SOC) and power distance in shaping employee engagement during M&A, while accounting for the moderating effect of uncertainty. Theoretically, this research incorporates Organizational Justice Theory (Melkonian et al., 2011 ; Lind, & Van den Bos, 2002 ).), theories of Organizational Uncertainty Theory (Thompson, 1967 ; Galbraith, 1973 ), and the concept of Power Distance (Hofstede, 1980 ) to explore employees’sense-making and behavioral responses to leadership structures during M&A processes. Together, these theories provide a multidimensional understanding of how uncertainty, perceived fairness and cultural hierarchies affect employee engagement during M&A. By incorporating Organizational Justice Theory, the research acknowledges that employee engagement during M&A is influenced by not only cultural or structural factors but also by perceptions of fairness. The inclusion of this theoretical lens allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the contextual and psychological mechanisms driving engagement during organizational changes. Having introduced the topic of study, stated the research problem, and outlined the research scope, we now proceed to the literature review. 2. Literature Review M&A events are among the most disruptive forms of organizational change, often reshaping strategies, cultures, and structures (Shook, & Roth, 2011; Clayton, 2010). However, the success of such transformations, depends not only on strategic fit or financial and operational synergies, but also on the reactions of employees who must adapt to and implement the imposed changes (Cartwright & Cooper, 1992; Carmeli et al., 2013; Kempton, & Sarala, 2021). Employee-level factors such as resilience, engagement, and commitment play a pivotal role in determining the integration outcome. Among these, the primary focus of this research is on employee engagement, given its vital role in fostering adaptability, reducing resistance, and supporting organizational performance during M&A transitions. 2.1 Employee Engagement Employee engagement is a key driver of both individual and organizational performance directly affecting productivity, profitability and resilience (Bhuvanaiah, & Raya, 2014). Defined as the extent to which employees invest their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energies into their roles at work, employee engagement is linked to enhanced organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), loyalty, responsiveness to change, productivity, while reducing employee attrition, absenteeism, and turnover (Antony, 2018; Rastogi, 2013). M&A situations often generate uncertainty and disorientation among employees, as they struggle to understand how they fit into the newly combined entity (Rubin et al., 2013). In these contexts, sustaining employee engagement is crucial for reducing resistance to change, promoting cooperation, and improving the chances of a successful integration (Pech & Slade, 2006). The concept of employee engagement was initially introduced by William A. Kahn in the 1990s and denotes the cognitive and emotional investment of employees in their work. It emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivation as a key factor to improve organizational performance. Engaged employees are highly cooperative, committed, and adaptable (Anitha, 2014), characteristics that are particularly vital for navigating disruptive organizational changes such as M&As. However, M&A changes often challenge employee engagement through changes in social ties, unclear communication, job insecurities, cultural clashes and loss of identity, uncertainty, skill mismatch, and inadequate support. These outcomes, unless appropriately managed, results in employees’ disengagement, manifested as cognitive and emotional separation from the workplace, reduced productivity, lack of enthusiasm, resistance to change and detachment from the firm’s values and goals (Pech, & Slade, 2006). The dynamics of employee engagement during M&A can be understood through several theoretical perspectives. Justice Theory highlights the importance of procedural, interactional and distributive justice in determining employee engagement (Melkonian et al., 2011). Social Exchange Theory suggests that employees are more likely to be engaged when they perceive reciprocity and fairness in their relationships with their superiors and employer (Ram, & Prabhakar, 2011; Biswas et al., 2013). Finally, the Resource-Based View (RBV) underscores the strategic significance of an engaged workforce as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. (Galpin et al., 2012). Together, these theoretical frameworks underscore the complex nature of employee engagement and its importance to achieving fruitful M&A. In the Lebanese context, where cultural, political and economic crises add layers of pressure on individuals and organizations, employee engagement becomes even more critical. M&A events result in severe decrease in engagement, especially for employees of the less powerful entity (Krug & Nigh, 2001; Hambrick & Cannella, 1993) Suggesting that engagement levels are affected by the employee’s group, whether he belongs to the acquired or acquiring firm. Employees of the acquired entity often experience greater insecurity and uncertainty (Cartwright & Cooper, 2018; Carmeli et al., 2013) leading to higher degree of disengagement. Additionally, the relationship between employee engagement and resistance to change is well-established, with higher engagement levels leading to less resistance to change (Culmer, 2012). These findings align with Rubin et al. (2013), who found that engagement is positively related to higher organizational performance and value creation, highlighting the importance of nurturing employee engagement during M&A. In summary, empirical evidence confirms that employee engagement is essential both for reducing resistance to change, and for optimizing M&A performance. Consequently, examining the role of span of control (SOC), uncertainty, and power distance in determining employee engagement is crucial for firms navigating M&A in Lebanon’s dynamic insurance sector. Having discussed the outcome variable of this study—employee engagement—this literature review now turns to the predictor variables, beginning with the span of control 2.2 Span of control The span of control (SOC) defined as the number of employees managed by a single supervisor (Cathcart et al., 2004), is an important metric that provides valuable insight into how an organization is structured, how communication flows and where decisions may be bottlenecked. Also known as the span of management, management ratio, span of authority, span of supervision, and span of responsibility (Zoller, & Muldoon, 2020), SOC is a key lever in organizational design, particularly during periods of major changes like M&A. 2.2.1 Development and Determinants of Span of Control (SOC) The concept of span of control is ancient, dating back thousands of years to ancient Egypt, where the “rule of ten” was the standard number of subordinates a supervisor could effectively supervise (Fleet & Bedean, 1976). The concept of SOC began receiving attention in the early 20th century with Henri Fayol (1841–1942) in his book General and Industrial Management, in which he laid out the 14 principles of management (Zoller & Muldoon, 2020). Similarly, Sir Ian Hamilton (1853–1947), through his research on British military leaders, concluded that a supervisor can effectively manage three to six subordinates. The concept became popular in the 1950s with the emergence of bureaucratic structures and industrialization. It reached its peak in the 1970s, as developments in technology urged organizations to flatten their structures to increase responsiveness to market demands. In some contexts, supervisors were required to manage a larger number of empowered employees, which raised concerns about the optimal number of employees a supervisor can effectively manage without jeopardizing performance. Determining the optimal SOC is not straightforward; rather, it is a complex process affected by numerous factors such as the experience and educational levels of both supervisors and subordinates, the type of industry, technological complexity, and other considerations. A notable contributor to the SOC literature is Joan Woodward (1916–1971), who examined the effect of technology and task complexity on determining the optimal SOC. She distinguished between SOC for first-line supervisors, who manage routine and simple tasks—usually overseeing 15 to 23 subordinates—and top-level executives, who handle complex reports requiring more detailed attention—with a span ranging from four to six subordinates. In addition, Woodward suggested that the median span for an organization should be six. 2.2.2 Narrow vs. Wide SOC Perspectives on the best span of control have evolved over time, reflecting the managerial philosophies of different eras and adapting to environmental requirements. For instance, during the 1920s, a narrow span of control—three to six employees per manager—was preferred, enabling closer supervision and direct communication (Zoller & Muldoon, 2020). A narrow SOC allows a supervisor to manage a smaller number of subordinates, enabling thorough guidance and support. According to leader–member exchange theory (LMX), such an arrangement fosters closer and more frequent interactions, leading to better-quality relationships between managers and their subordinates (Schyns et al., 2010). Finally, in narrow SOC settings, leaders can act as role models and player-coaches, helping employees to improve their skills and performance. Nonetheless, there are negative consequences associated with a narrow SOC, including increased management costs from a larger number of managers, and communication delays due to too many organizational levels (Farrar, 2023), and possible negative effects on employee morale caused by the long chain of command between the bottom and top levels (Turner Jr., 2006). During the 1970s, the trend shifted toward a broader SOC, promoting flatter structures that enable decentralization, faster decision-making, and better responsiveness. While a broader SOC promotes employee autonomy and reduces overhead costs, it can also overload managerial attention, resulting in weaker relationships and lower-quality communication—issues that can be particularly problematic during organizational changes, when employees already experience increased levels of uncertainty and anxiety. 2.2.3 The Critical Role of Span of Control in M&A Optimizing the SOC during M&A is vital for several reasons, including communication and coordination, resource allocation, decision-making, and operational efficiency. Communication and coordination: A sound communication strategy is crucial in organizations, particularly during M&A, to coordinate efforts to implement changes, alleviate uncertainties, and avoid misunderstandings. An optimal SOC ensures that managers can communicate effectively with their employees and coordinate tasks efficiently, which is vital during integration (Risely, 2023). Resource allocation and operational efficiency: Drawing on the resource-based view (RBV) and justice theory , proper resource allocation is essential during M&As. The SOC plays a key role in ensuring that resources are properly distributed (Risely, 2023). Failure to allocate power and authority where it is needed can impede workflow and erode employee engagement. Optimizing SOC helps eliminate potential bottlenecks and inefficiencies, aligning the organization’s structure with operational efficiency goals. Decision-making: SOC significantly affects the efficiency and quality of decisions. If the SOC is too narrow, communication has to pass through numerous managerial levels, slowing decision-making. If the SOC is too wide, managers experience additional demands on their time, attention, and other resources, creating bottlenecks and diminishing decision quality. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize SOC so that leaders can fulfill their managerial duties while maintaining the quality of their decisions (Cathcart, 2004). 2.2.4 Linking Employee Engagement and Span of Control During M&As, the link between SOC and employee engagement becomes paramount. Employees, faced with role ambiguity and future insecurity, have an urgent need for clear and frequent communication to "connect the dots" and form new expectations. SOC directly determines a manager's capacity to provide this. A narrower SOC nurtures the high-quality, trust-based leader-member exchanges necessary to mitigate anxiety, boost morale, and harness commitment (Thiel et al., 2018; Rafferty & Restubog, 2010; Schraeder, 2001). Conversely, a broad SOC may seriously limit managerial accessibility and reduce communication quality at a time when employees need it most, leading to feelings of neglect and disengagement. This is especially critical in the volatile Lebanese insurance sector, where pre-existing crises amplify the disruptive impact of M&A. Therefore, understanding how SOC affects engagement is essential for optimizing post-merger performance. Consequently, based on the arguments above, we propose the following hypothesis: H1: Perceived span of control strain has a significant negative effect on employee engagement. 2.3 Perception of Power Distance An important culture-related concept that impacts individuals’ behavior in social settings is the perception of power distance. According to power distance theorists, employees carry their social beliefs and values into the workplace (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Consequently, organizations mirror the extent of power distance in their societies—on one hand, reflecting human power distance orientations and, on the other hand, gaining legitimacy. As a result, relationships such as those between parent and child or instructor and student extend into the workplace, shaping supervisor–subordinate dynamics. In M&A contexts, power distance remains a central cultural and structural factor because merging entities, even within the same national culture, often differ in their internal power distance orientations. These differences may arise from variations in organizational culture, leadership style, or relative resource endowment—for example, when a dominant, resource-rich acquirer merges with a smaller, resource-constrained target. Such asymmetries shape expectations of authority, communication, and deference, potentially resulting in distrust, disorientation, and uncertainty during the integration process. When the target exhibits a lower PDV than the acquirer (target PDV < acquirer PDV), employees from the target firm—who expect equality and approachability—may clash with those from the acquirer, who expect hierarchy and deference. These disparities frequently lead to status-based competition, tension, and communication breakdowns (Homans, 1950; Gould, 2003; He & Huang, 2011; Bendersky & Hays, 2012). The greater the difference in PDVs or perceived power asymmetries between the combining entities, the stronger the negative consequences for collaboration and performance (Huang et al., 2017). The concept of power distance was originally developed in the 1970s by Geert Hofstede as part of his cultural dimension theory. It denotes the extent to which power is unequally distributed in a society and the extent to which less powerful individuals accept this unequal distribution (Hofstede et al., 2010). Lebanon, for example, scores around 80 on Hofstede’s power distance index, reflecting a high tolerance for hierarchy and unequal authority relations. Power distance is highly relevant to this research because studies suggest that power distance orientation has a more direct relationship with leadership reactions and cognitions than other cultural values (Loi et al., 2012; Kirkman et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2014). Previous studies have shown that employees with a greater power distance orientation exhibit more deference toward organizational leadership, maintain greater social distance, and show greater respect for status differences (Hofstede et al., 2010). These employees are more accustomed to autocratic management styles (Bialas, 2009), meaning they accept authority’s directives without resistance (Lam et al., 2002). Additionally, employees with a higher power distance orientation typically require explicit guidance and direction from their superiors to complete their tasks (Chen et al., 2014). On the other hand, employees with a lower power distance orientation perceive their superiors as approachable and tend to develop close relationships with them (Tyler et al., 2000). Therefore, they expect and actively participate in decision-making and require frequent communication with their superiors (Lian et al., 2012). These differences underscore the importance of optimizing the span of control (SOC) and considering employees’ power distance orientations to nurture engagement during M&A transitions. The concept of power distance is crucial to the context of this study, as it can impact employee engagement by affecting how subordinates view and interact with their superiors and perceive their status. In high-power-distance hierarchies, employees expect direction and guidance and may be less likely to communicate their insights, take initiative, or voice their concerns. In the context of organizational change, they are posited to struggle more severely with disruptions to their routines, roles, and social ties in the workplace, leading to feelings of isolation, frustration, and lower engagement levels. Conversely, in low-power-distance cultures, employees are more empowered to participate in decision-making, voice concerns, seek guidance, raise issues, and express opinions, which supports greater resilience during organizational changes and foster higher engagement. H2: Employee power distance orientation has a significant negative effect on employee engagement. H3: Power distance moderates the span strain-engagement relationship (negative interaction). 2.4 Uncertainty It is well known to scholars and practitioners that mergers and acquisitions (M&As) engender heightened levels of uncertainty among all stakeholders, particularly employees. In this context, uncertainty is defined by Bordia et al. (2004) as the state of being unsure about future outcomes, especially in situations characterized by insufficient information or ambiguity. This definition accurately describes employees’ experiences during M&As, as they face unpredictable organizational changes and a disrupted work environment. Such uncertainty frequently triggers anxiety, disengagement, and turnover (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). During M&As, uncertainty arises from multiple sources, including disruption of work relationships and organizational structures (Shanley & Correa, 1992), cultural clashes (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1992), unclear or inconsistent communication (Schweiger & Denisi, 1991), loss of identity or status (Hambrick & Cannella, 1993), and perceived threats to employment security (Walsh, 1989). Employees often perceive M&As as periods of upheaval, eliciting fears of layoffs, changes in roles or compensation, and disruptions to their professional identity (Ivanevich et al., 1987; Wickramasinghe & Karunarane, 2009). These perceptions of uncertainty escalate stress and can lead to negative organizational outcomes, such as low commitment, absenteeism, and resistance to change (Csoka, 1997; Melkonian et al., 2011). In M&A contexts, the effect of uncertainty on employee engagement becomes particularly evident. Employees have a pressing need for information to understand the future direction of the new entity and their place within it. Therefore, effective communication is essential to managing uncertainty; it helps alleviate anxiety, strengthen organizational commitment, and enhance morale (Rafferty & Restubog, 2010; Schraeder, 2001; Cartwright et al., 2007). However, the extent to which employees receive clear and consistent communication largely depends on the number of subordinates each manager supervises (span of control, SOC). When supervisors manage a wide SOC, their capacity to interact meaningfully with each employee may be limited, causing employees to feel neglected or uncertain about their future roles. Conversely, a narrower SOC enables more personalized and frequent interactions between leaders and subordinates, which can reassure employees, mitigate uncertainty, and preserve engagement (Thiel et al., 2018). In the tumultuous Lebanese context, where M&As often occur amid unstable market conditions, the relationship between uncertainty and SOC becomes particularly critical. 2.4.1 Theoretical Perspectives on M&A-Induced Uncertainty M&A-induced uncertainty and its impact on employee engagement can be further understood through two key theoretical perspectives : 1. Social Identity Theory. Employees’ need for stability and belonging becomes more urgent when their organizational identity is threatened (Seo & Hill, 2005). In M&A contexts, this identity threat is manifested in “us versus them” dynamics between merging entities. In acquisitions, the identity of one entity is often absorbed or abolished, requiring employees to abandon familiar practices and adopt those of the acquiring firm (Giessner et al., 2012; Weber, 2019). Even in mergers of equals, tensions arise between performing tasks in “our way” versus “their way.” When leaders fail to provide clear direction or inclusive management of these dynamics, uncertainty escalates, resulting in resistance to change, lower morale, and disengagement (Buono & Bowditch, 2003; Melkonian et al., 2011). Based on Social Identity Theory, employees seek to maintain a positive social identity within their workplace, and threats to this identity—such as those occurring during M&As—can provoke disengagement and anxiety (Sung et al., 2017). An optimal SOC allows managers to stay attuned to these identity-related challenges, overcome “our ways versus their ways” conflicts, and foster cohesion and trust. This managerial proximity can reduce voluntary turnover and prevent the loss of human capital. 2. Organizational Justice Theory. In high-uncertainty situations, fair treatment becomes crucial. Employees have a strong psychological need to be treated fairly, as they rely on fairness judgments to cope with stressful and ambiguous situations (Van den Bos, 2001; Melkonian et al., 2011). When employees perceive fairness, they are more likely to remain engaged and accept change (Greenberg, 1994; Lind, 2001). This is particularly relevant in M&A contexts, where fairness perceptions regarding compensation, career opportunities, roles, and status directly influence engagement and morale (Van den Bos, 2001). Perceptions of procedural and distributive justice encourage cooperation and support for management decisions (Lind, 2001; Greenberg, 1994). Hence, transparent communication and fair treatment are vital to building an engaged and resilient workforce, particularly during M&As (Ullrich & Van Dick, 2007). Humans have an inherent need to feel fairly treated, especially amid uncertainty, as fairness judgments help them restore psychological stability (Van den Bos, 2001; Melkonian et al., 2011). 2.4.2 Conclusion and Hypotheses In conclusion, the span of control (SOC) can substantially influence employee engagement during M&A transitions by either alleviating or amplifying uncertainty. Supervisors with a narrower SOC are more likely to engage effectively with employees, reducing anxiety and maintaining morale during periods of disruption. Conversely, a broader SOC may limit managerial attention and feedback, increasing perceptions of neglect and uncertainty, thereby undermining engagement. Understanding how SOC affects uncertainty and engagement is thus critical for organizations navigating M&A integration. H4: Perceived uncertainty has a significant negative effect on employee engagement. H5: Uncertainty moderates the span strain-engagement relationship (negative interaction) 2.5 Perceived Organizational Support Perceived Organizational Support (POS) is an essential concept for understanding employees’ reactions during periods of organizational disruption, particularly in M&A settings. POS refers to the extent to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and genuinely cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). When employees sense strong support, they feel obliged to reciprocate through positive attitudes and behaviors that benefit the organization, including stronger engagement and cooperation during change (Eisenberger et al., 1990). Originally developed within Social Exchange Theory (SET), POS highlights that employees interpret the actions of organizational agents—such as supervisors, managers, and HR representatives—as signals of the organization’s intentions (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Levinson, 1965). Although organizations are not living beings, employees personify them, forming expectations about how they will be treated in the future based on past interactions and the consistency of organizational practices (Eisenberger et al., 2020). This personification becomes even more salient during M&A, when uncertainty rises and employees search for cues regarding stability, fairness, and care. The main determinants of POS include fairness, the availability of resources, supervisor support, human resource practices, communication quality, and opportunities for development. These preconditions are directly challenged during M&A, as employees navigate revised structures, new leadership, shifting priorities, and altered roles. POS therefore acts as a stabilizing psychological resource: it meets employees’ needs for emotional support, belongingness, and esteem (Eisenberger et al., 2019), while activating reciprocity norms that encourage employees to remain dedicated and engaged even during stressful transitions. In the context of M&A in the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector, POS is highly relevant. These mergers often introduce heightened uncertainty, rapid structural changes, discrepancies in power distance values, and increased workload strain—conditions that render employees heavily dependent on the supportive signals from the organization. When employees feel supported—through transparent communication, fair treatment, and accessible leadership—they are more likely to stay engaged and adapt to the new organizational reality. H6: Perceived organizational support has a significant positive effect on employee engagement. H7: POS mediates the relationship between span strain and engagement. H8: POS mediates the relationship between power distance and engagement. H9: POS mediates the relationship between uncertainty and engagement. Our conceptual model (Figure 1) proposes that perceived span of control strain, power distance orientation, and uncertainty directly affect employee engagement during M&A (H1, H2, H4), while perceived organizational support (POS) serves as an additional direct driver (H6). We further hypothesize that power distance and uncertainty moderate the relationship between span strain and engagement (H3, H5). Finally, the model posits that POS mediates the effects of span strain, power distance, and uncertainty on engagement (H7, H8, H9). Building on the preceding literature, the next section delineates the methodological approach employed to empirically test these relationships within the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector. 3. Methodology and Procedures This research is guided by deductive reasoning, deriving hypotheses from the literature and ensuring a structured analysis of the relationship between the predictors-span of control (SOC), POS, perceived uncertainty, and perception of power distance- and the dependent variable employee engagement. A purposive sampling technique targeted employees who had experienced M&A in the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector. A total of 485 valid responses were collected out of 594 employees who received the survey, yielding an 81.6% response rate. The population consisted of non-managerial employees from various departments within the merging firms. Data collection and analysis were grounded in a positivist approach, employing quantitative methods to generate robust and generalizable findings. A structured questionnaire was used, consisting of the following sections: Demographic Information Age, belongingness before the acquisition (acquiring vs. acquired company), and tenure. Span of Control (SOC) Structural aspect: measured with a single item reflecting the number of direct reports per manager (categories: 1–4; 5–8; 9–15; ≥16). Functional/perceptual aspect: measured using three items adapted from the Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) literature (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), capturing supervisor accessibility and support. These items represent the psychological mechanisms—reduced support and limited access—through which a wide span of control is hypothesized to influence engagement. Employee Engagement measured using six Likert-scale items derived from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), capturing absorption, dedication, and vigor. Perceived Uncertainty : measured using Bordia et al.’s (2004) Job Uncertainty Scale, consisting of five items assessing ambiguity about job roles, future prospects, and organizational direction during M&A. Power Distance Orientation : measured using the Dorfman and Howell (1988) adaptation of Hofstede’s (1980) Power Distance Scale, containing five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., “Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates”). Perceived Organizational Support (POS) : measured using a 5-item scale derived from Eisenberger et al.’s work, assessing perceived care, appreciation, and support from the organization. Survey Administration The questionnaire was distributed through emails, hard copies, and a Google Form shared via WhatsApp to reach employees across different insurance and reinsurance companies. Participation was voluntary. Data were collected during the summer of 2024. Incomplete responses were removed, and the final dataset was entered into SPSS for analysis. Data Analysis The following statistical tests were applied: Reliability Testing: Cronbach’s Alpha to assess internal consistency. Correlation Analysis: to examine the relationships between employee engagement and the predictor variables (SOC, uncertainty, power distance, POS). Regression Analysis: to determine the predictive impact of SOC, uncertainty, and power distance on engagement. ANOVA: to identify which span-of-control group displays the highest engagement. Moderation Analysis: conducted to test whether: Power distance moderates the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement; Perceived uncertainty moderates the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement. Mediation Analysis: performed to examine whether Perceived Organizational Support (POS) mediates the relationships between the independent variables (span of control strain, uncertainty, and power distance orientation) and employee engagement. After delineating the methodology and statistical tests used, the subsequent section presents the data analysis and interpretation of results. 4. Data Analysis and Results 4.1 Correlation Analysis Correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationships between employee engagement and the independent variables: perceived span of control strain, power distance orientation, perceived uncertainty, and perceived organizational support (POS). Table 1 presents the correlation matrix. All correlations were significant at p < .001 and in the hypothesized directions. Key findings include: Engagement showed a strong negative correlation with Perceived Span Strain (r = –0.586), Power Distance (r = –0.711), and Uncertainty (r = -0.356) indicating that uncertainty, strained managerial relationships and hierarchical distance reduce engagement. Engagement was positively correlated with POS (r = 0.597), highlighting the importance of organizational support for maintaining engagement. POS displayed negative correlations with Span Strain (r = –0.342), Power Distance (r = –0.488), and Uncertainty (r = –0.221), suggesting that these negative workplace conditions reduce employees’ sense of support. These correlations preliminarily support H1, H2, H4, and H6, and also hint at possible mediation effects (H7–H9). Table 1: Correlation Matrix Engagement Power Distance Perceived Span Strain uncertainty POS Engagement Pearson's r — Df — p-value — Power Distance Pearson's r -0.711 — Df 483 — p-value <.001 — Perceived Span Strain Pearson's r -0.586 0.466 — Df 483 483 — p-value <.001 <.001 — uncertainty Pearson's r -0.356 0.162 0.263 — Df 483 483 483 — p-value <.001 <.001 <.001 — POS Pearson's r 0.597 -0.488 -0.342 -0.221 — Df 483 483 483 483 — p-value <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 — 4.2 Regression Analysis Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive power of the independent variables –perceived span of strain, power distance orientation, uncertainty and POS –on the dependent variable, employee engagement. The results of the linear regression, presented in Table 2 & Table 3, confirmed all direct-effect hypotheses. The model was statistically significant (F(4, 480) = 247.00, p < .001) suggesting a 67.3% explanation of the variance in employee engagement. Table 2: Model Fit Measures Overall Model Test Model R R² F df1 df2 p 1 0.820 0.673 247 4 480 <.001 Note. Models estimated using sample size of N=485 Table 3: Model Coefficients - Engagement Predictor Estimate SE t P Intercept 4.270 0.1518 28.13 <.001 Power Distance -0.452 0.0330 -13.73 <.001 Perceived Span Strain -0.175 0.0214 -8.17 <.001 Uncertainty -0.155 0.0262 -5.91 <.001 POS 0.240 0.0279 8.58 <.001 As hypothesized: H1 supported. Perceived span strain had a significant negative effect on engagement (β = –0.175, p < .001). H2 supported. Power distance significantly reduced engagement (β = –0.452, p < .001). H4 supported. Perceived uncertainty negatively predicted engagement (β = –0.155, p < .001). H6 supported. POS positively influenced engagement (β = 0.240, p < .001), consistent with Social Exchange Theory. 4.3 Moderating Effects To test the propose moderation effects, two separate moderation analyses were conducted. The results provide support for the proposed interaction effects as explained below. 4.3.1 Moderation by Perception of Power Distance Orientation Hypothesis 3 (H3) predicted that power distance orientation moderates the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement. As shown in Table 4, the interaction term was statistically significant (b = -0.139, SE = 0.0254, p < .001), supporting H3. Table 4. Results of Moderation Analysis Predicting Employee Engagement Estimate SE Z P Perceived Span Strain -0.205 0.0208 -9.83 <.001 Power Distance -0.545 0.0291 -18.74 <.001 Perceived Span Strain ✻ Power Distance -0.139 0.0254 -5.45 <.001 Estimate SE Z P Perceived Span Strain -0.3586 0.0252 -14.24 <.001 Uncertainty -0.1588 0.0335 -4.75 <.001 Perceived Span Strain ✻ uncertainty -0.0904 0.0215 -4.21 <.001 The nature of this interaction, illustrated in Figure 2, demonstrates that power distance orientation amplifies the negative effect of span strain on engagement. Simple slope analysis revealed that while span strain negatively affected engagement across all levels of power distance, this effect was significantly stronger for employees with high power distance orientation (+1 SD). This indicates that employees who more readily accept hierarchical authority are disproportionately negatively affected by their manager's lack of availability. 4.4.2. Moderation by Uncertainty Hypothesis 5 (H5) predicted that uncertainty would moderate the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement. The analysis revealed a significant interaction effect (b = -0.090, SE = 0.022, p < .001), supporting H5. As illustrated in Figure 3, the pattern indicates that uncertainty exacerbates the negative relationship between span strain and engagement. Under conditions of high uncertainty, the detrimental effect of span strain on engagement was significantly amplified. This suggests that during the ambiguous context of M&A, when employees' need for managerial contact is greatest, the negative consequences of a strained span of control become particularly severe 4.4. Hypothesis Testing: Mediating Effects Hypotheses H7 , H8 , and H9 predicted that perceived organizational support mediates the relationships between: Span strain → engagement Power distance → engagement Uncertainty → engagement Table 5 presents the indirect effects. All indirect effects were significant and had confidence intervals excluding zero, indicating robust partial mediation . Table 5: Mediation Effects through Perceived Organizational Support Predictor → POS → Engagement Indirect Effect SE 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper % Mediated Power Distance -0.165*** 0.021 -0.207 -0.123 22.60% Perceived Span Strain -0.108*** 0.016 -0.139 -0.077 26.20% Uncertainty -0.115*** 0.024 -0.163 -0.068 33.80% *Note: *** p < .001; CI = Confidence Interval* For perceived span strain , POS mediated 26.2% of its effect on engagement (indirect effect = -0.108, 95% CI [-0.139, -0.077]), supporting H7. This suggests that strained managerial spans communicate organizational lack of support, contributing to disengagement. For power distance , POS mediated 22.6% of its total negative effect on engagement (indirect effect = -0.165, 95% CI [-0.207, -0.123]), supporting H8. This indicates that employees with higher power distance orientation feel less supported by the organization, which partially explains their lower engagement levels. Most notably, for uncertainty , POS mediated 33.8% of its effect (indirect effect = -0.115, 95% CI [-0.163, -0.068]), supporting H9. This represents the strongest mediation effect, indicating that uncertainty during M&A primarily damages engagement by eroding employees' sense of organizational support. Key insights: Uncertainty had the strongest mediated proportion (33.8%) , suggesting that uncertainty primarily harms engagement by reducing employees’ perception of organizational support. Span strain and power distance also reduced engagement partly by diminishing POS. Direct effects remained significant in all models → partial mediation . 4.5 ANOVA and Tukey Tests To translate the linear relationship between perceived span strain and engagement into more actionable, structural terms, a supplementary one-way ANOVA was conducted using the objective span of control categories. The analysis revealed a significant difference in engagement levels across span of control groups, F (3, 192) = 26.9, *p* < .001. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that engagement was highest in the moderate span of control group (5-8 subordinates) , which was statistically higher than in both narrower (1-4) and wider (9-15, 16+) spans (all *p* < .05). There was no significant difference in engagement between the two widest span groups (9-15 vs. 16+, *p* = .691). This pattern suggests an optimal range for managerial effectiveness during M&A, with diminishing returns on engagement for spans narrower than 5-8 and a significant decline for spans wider than 8. One-Way ANOVA (Welch's) F df1 df2 p Engagement 26.9 3 192 <.001 Tukey Post-Hoc Test – Engagement 1 2 3 4 1 Mean difference — -0.253 0.439 0.315 p-value — 0.035 <.001 0.031 2 Mean difference — 0.693 0.569 p-value — <.001 <.001 3 Mean difference — -0.124 p-value — 0.691 4 Mean difference — p-value — 5. Discussion This research provides clear evidence that during M&A processes in Lebanon’s highly uncertain and resource-strained context, employee engagement is shaped by a combination of contextual ambiguity (perceived uncertainty), individual orientations (power distance), relational perceptions (perceived organizational support), and structural pressures (managerial span strain). The findings collectively suggest that engagement is most threatened when employees experience heightened ambiguity and reduced managerial accessibility, and most robust when they perceive adequate organizational support. Consistent with the literature on resource depletion and job demands, the results show that power distance , uncertainty , and span strain all exert significant negative effects on engagement. Regression analyses confirm these relationships: power distance (β = –0.452, p < .001), uncertainty (β = –0.155, p < .001), and span strain (β = –0.175, p < .001) each reduce engagement. These findings reinforce Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which argues that when relational clarity, managerial access, and informational stability are depleted, employees’ capacity to remain engaged declines. At the same time, the significant positive effect of POS on engagement (β = 0.240, p < .001) underscores the centrality of relational resources in countering these stressors. This aligns strongly with Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Perceived Organizational Support Theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986), both of which emphasize that employees reciprocate organizational care with positive attitudes and behaviors. In an environment characterized by heavy workloads and persistent national instability, POS becomes an essential psychological anchor that sustains engagement. A major contribution of this study lies in the moderation findings . The results show that uncertainty and power distance intensify the harmful effect of span strain on engagement. Under conditions of high uncertainty, employees become more dependent on managerial communication and direction; when access to managers diminishes, feelings of confusion and disconnection increase sharply, prompting disengagement. Similarly, employees with higher power-distance orientations are more sensitive to managerial strain because it disrupts expected norms of presence, authority, and hierarchical clarity. In a cultural context where leader accessibility is perceived as a fundamental need, reduced managerial support during M&A leads to sharper drops in engagement. Beyond these interactive effects, the mediation results highlight a central theoretical insight: POS partially explains how power distance, uncertainty, and span strain erode engagement. All indirect effects were significant (p < .001). Specifically, POS mediated 33.8% of the effect of uncertainty, 26.2% of the effect of span strain, and 22.6% of the effect of power distance. These findings suggest that stressors do not harm engagement solely through operational burdens, but also through the relational signals they send. When employees perceive heightened ambiguity, unclear structures, or overloaded managers, they interpret these conditions as indicators of reduced organizational care—prompting engagement to decline. Taken together, these results indicate that in Lebanon’s M&A landscape—marked by ongoing crises, weak institutional safeguards, resource scarcity, and macroeconomic instability—employees rely heavily on relational cues to remain engaged. Even when structural pressures cannot be fully alleviated, organizations can protect engagement by reinforcing the socioemotional contract: demonstrating fairness, clarifying decisions, communicating consistently, and signaling genuine care all help maintain POS and, in turn, support engagement. This study also reveals that employees’ relational expectations are not uniformly distributed. Those with higher power-distance orientations experience larger engagement losses under managerial strain, while uncertainty heightens employees’ dependence on leaders for direction. These dynamics highlight the importance of attending not only to structures and processes, but also to employees’ underlying perceptions during M&A transitions. Ultimately, the results emphasize that employee engagement in times of organizational upheaval is not primarily a function of workload or formal processes. Engagement is fundamentally relational . Employees remain adaptive, aligned with organizational goals, and committed to exerting effort when they feel valued and supported. In Lebanon’s polycrisis context—where job alternatives are scarce and employees are often embedded in long-standing relational networks—the relational fabric of the organization becomes the most powerful determinant of sustained engagement. Firms navigating M&A should therefore prioritize managerial availability, strengthen POS, and minimize informational ambiguity. Even modest improvements in fairness, communication, and support can meaningfully buffer employees against the psychological toll of uncertainty. 5.1 Theoretical Contributions This study offers several meaningful contributions to organizational and management theory: Integration of Complementary Theories : this study moves beyond single-lens perspective by integrating Hofstede’s Cultural Framework, Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Organizational Justice Theory. By doing so, it describes how perceived fairness, cultural values (power distance), and relational signals (POS), interacts to shape employee engagement during complex organizational changes. Exploring the Engagement _SOC Mechanism : While wide SOC is often assumed to damage engagement, this study suggests that the relationship is more complex. Span strain impacts employee engagement both indirectly through POS (26.20%) and conditionally , depending on situational context (Uncertainty) and employees’ cultural orientation (Power Distance). This contributes to the literature by reframing SOC not as a purely structural issue, but as a psychological and relational mechanism. Extending M&A and Crisis Literature to a High-Uncertainty Context : By analyzing the Lebanese insurance sector, this research sheds light on organizational change dynamics in high-uncertainty, non-Western environment. The potent predictive power of power distance (β = –0.452) highlights the importance of cultural values in contexts marked by institutional instability. Empirical Support for an Optimal SOC Range : The research provides empirical evidence for an optimal span of 5–8 employees per manager during M&A. This enriches the organizational design literature by anchoring span-of-control recommendations in data instead of mere intuition. 5.2 Practical Implications The findings of this study offer practical guidance for organizations undergoing M&A: Reinforce Managerial Support Capacity : Supervisors overseeing employees with high power-distance orientation, or operating in high-uncertainty conditions require additional communication training and support. Their teams are more susceptible to disengagement under strain. Design SOC Meticulously: Leaders should prioritize managerial spans of 5–8 employees during integration. Wider spans damage engagement, especially in uncertain contexts. Diminish Ambiguity through Continuous and Transparent Communication : Based on the mediation analysis, POS mediates the effect of uncertainty on engagement (33.8%). Therefore, management must proactively address ambiguity by clarifying decisions, maintaining consistent messaging, and providing timely updates. Bolster POS through Genuine Support and Fairness : Providing instrumental and emotional support, demonstrating fairness, and showing concern for employee well-being, all help maintain POS and engagement. Conduct Cultural Due Diligence during M&A : Power-distance orientations between merging organizations should be evaluated early. Integration plans must consider potential cultural clashes related to authority, status, communication, and leadership style. 5.3 Limitations Context Specificity: the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector during a national crisis represents a particular context. The findings may yield different results in more stable or culturally different settings. Cross-Sectional Data: Since data were collected at a single time point, causal relationships cannot be established. Disengaged individuals may perceive their environment more negatively at a given times. Common Method Bias : collecting data from the same source using the same method could amplify relationships. Un-included Variables : other variables—such as leadership behaviors, job autonomy, or personality traits—likely contribute to employee engagement but were not examined in this study. 5.4 Future Research Recommendations Future research could build on this work through: Longitudinal Research Designs : tracking employees across various M&A phases would enable researchers to observe how perceptions evolve. Multi-Method and Multi-source Data : using supervisor ratings for engagement, HR records for SOC, and employee surveys for perceptions would minimize common method bias. Cross-Cultural Comparative Studies : comparing low power distance contexts (e.g. Denmark) with high power-distance contexts would clarify the cultural contingencies explored here. Include Additional Moderators and Mediators : future work could explore other moderators such as resilience, leadership style, and organizational trust, and mediators such as psychological safety, change commitment, or autonomy. Broader Applications : replicating this model in other tumultuous environments (large-scale restructuring, digital transformation, post-pandemic sectors) would test its robustness and generalizability. Conclusion This study expands our comprehension of employee engagement by uncovering the structural, psychological, relational, and cultural forces that shape it during organizational changes, particularly M&A in Lebanon’s tumultuous environment. In contexts where resource scarcity, uncertainty, and institutional fragility converge, this research shows that engagement is not maintained by formal structures and procedures alone—it is sustained by the cultural and relational fabric of the company. The core contribution of this research lies in demonstrating that engagement is significantly affected by a combination of factors—power distance, managerial span strain, and uncertainty—whose damaging effects are transmitted and partially explained by POS. The finding that POS acts simultaneously as a buffer, a relational signal, and a mediator advances established theories of Organizational Justice, Social Exchange, and Conservation of Resources. It underlines that during M&A, employees interpret strained managerial access, hierarchical distance, and ambiguity not merely as operational challenges but as signs of declining support, which then corrode engagement. By positioning this model within Lebanon’s ongoing polycrisis, this research underscores that cultural expectations—especially power distance orientation—carry disproportionate impact. The strong direct effect of power distance and its moderating effect on span strain highlight that in high power-distance contexts, employees assign great importance for the presence of the leader, clarity, guidance and directions to stay psychologically anchored particularly during change. This insight enriches mainstream M&A literature by revealing how relational expectations and cultural norms magnify the psychological outcomes of structural pressures. Practically, the study findings provide important insights for managers. Engagement is shielded not by removing all uncertainty—which is often impossible, particularly during M&A—but by strengthening POS through accessible leadership, fair and considerate treatment, and transparent communication. Even gradual improvements in managerial availability can meaningfully counteract the demoralizing effects M&A changes. Ultimately, the study emphasizes that in turbulent environments, the most enduring resource an organization possesses is not structural, financial, or reputational buffers—but the nature and strength of its social bonds with employees. Taken together, this study presents a detailed and contextually grounded model for understanding engagement during organizational changes. It shows that engagement is essentially relational, culturally shaped, and highly influenced by how employees perceive organizational signals in times of uncertainty. In tumultuous contexts like Lebanon, where employees often rely on relationships more than financial incentives, fostering this relational foundation becomes not only beneficial but crucial for sustaining engagement through the uncertainty of M&A. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 1964) and its later amendments. Ethical review and approval were waived by the Research Ethics Committee of the Lebanese University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, as the study involved anonymous survey data, posed no potential risk to participants, and complied with national research ethics regulations. All participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to completing the survey, either in written form or through confirmed agreement via email or WhatsApp. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Availability of Data and Materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participating firms and employees, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing Interests The author declares no competing interests. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Authors’ Contributions Rabih Makhlouf is the sole author of this study. He conceptualized the research, collected and analyzed the data, and prepared the manuscript. 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. Antony, M. R. (2018). Paradigm shift in employee engagement: A critical analysis on the drivers of employee engagement. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 10 (2), 32–46. Appelbaum, S. H., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B. T. (2005). Generation ‘X’ and the boomers: An analysis of realities and myths. Management Research News, 28 (1), 1–33. Bedeian, A. G. (1976). A history of the span of management . Louisiana State University. https://faculty.lsu.edu/bedeian/files/a-history-of-the-span-of-management.pdf Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23 , 323–340. Bhuvanaiah, T., & Raya, R. P. (2014). Employee engagement: Key to organizational success. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 11 (4), 61–71. Bialas, S. (2009). Power distance as a determinant of relations between managers and employees in enterprises with foreign capital. Journal of Intercultural Management, 1 (2), 105–115. Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: A field study in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (8), 1570–1587. Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13 (3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000128 Carmeli, A., Friedman, Y., & Tishler, A. (2013). Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. Safety Science, 51 (1), 148–159. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). The human factor . Centaur Consulting Ltd. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2018). The psychological impact of mergers and acquisitions on the individual: A study of building society managers. In Managerial, occupational and organizational stress research (pp. 429–450). Routledge. Cathcart, D., Jeska, S., Karnas, J., Miller, S. E., Pechacek, J., & Rheault, L. (2004). Span of control matters. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 34 (9), 395–399. Chen, C., Liao, J., & Wen, P. (2014). Why does formal mentoring matter? The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of power distance orientation in the Chinese context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (8), 1112–1130. Clayton, B. C. (2010). Understanding the unpredictable: Beyond traditional research on mergers and acquisitions. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12 (3), 1–19. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3 , 127–150. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1990). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (1), 1026–1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.1026 Eisenberger, R., Rockstuhl, T., Shoss, M. K., Wen, X., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2020). Is the employee–organization relationship dying or thriving? Journal of Applied Psychology, 105 (9), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000390 Farrar, A. W. (2023). The relationship between span of control and employee engagement: Structural and psychological empowerment as mediators and telework as a moderator (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University). Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations . Addison-Wesley. Galpin, T., Whittington, J. L., & Maellaro, R. (2012). Identifying, retaining and re-engaging key talent during mergers and acquisitions: A best practices framework. People and Strategy, 35 (1), 42. Giessner, S. R., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2012). A social identity analysis of mergers and acquisitions. In The handbook of mergers and acquisitions (pp. 474–494). Gould, R. (2003). Collision of wills . University of Chicago Press. Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (1993). Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures of acquired executives. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4), 733–762. He, J.-Y., & Huang, Z. (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54 , 119–1140. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group . Harcourt, Brace and Company. Huang, Z., Zhu, H., & Brass, D. J. (2017). Cross-border acquisitions and the asymmetric effect of power distance value difference on long-term post-acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (4), 972–991. Kempton, B., & Sarala, R. M. (2021). Employee perspective on mergers and acquisitions (M&As): A state-of-the-art literature review and synthesis. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 20 , 81–98. Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4), 744–764. Krug, J. A., & Nigh, D. (2001). Executive perceptions in foreign and domestic acquisitions: An analysis of foreign ownership and its effect on executive fate. Journal of World Business, 36 , 85–105. Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (1), 1–18. Levinson, H. (1965). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Harper & Row. Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 181–229). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-X Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership, and power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (3), 361–372. Makhlouf, R. B. (2025). Drivers of resilience in Lebanese firms [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6573580/v1 Makhlouf, R. B., & Lebanon, B. (2025). The impact of span of control on employee engagement during M&A: Insights from Lebanese insurance firms. International Journal of Economic Studies and Management, 5 (1). Melkonian, T., Monin, P., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2011). Distributive justice, procedural justice, exemplarity, and employees’ willingness to cooperate in M&A integration processes: An analysis of the Air France‐KLM merger. Human Resource Management, 50 (6), 809–837. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340–363. Optimal Quantum Workplace. (2019). What’s the optimal span of control for people managers? https://www.quantumworkplace.com/future-of-work/whats-the-optimal-span-of-control-for-people-managers Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2006). Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy, 7 (1), 21–25. Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2006). Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy, 7 (1), 21–25. Ram, P., & Prabhakar, G. V. (2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1 (3), 47–61. Rastogi, G. R. (2013). Employee engagement and organizational effectiveness: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. The Business Management Review, 8 (4), 129–136. Risely. (2023). Building the ideal span of control as a manager: 6 key factors . https://www.risely.me/the-optimum-span-of-control-for-managers-6-factors-to-consider/?amp=1 Rubin, D. P., Oehler, K., & Adair, C. (2013). Managing employee engagement during times of change [White paper]. Aon Hewitt. http://www.aon.com/human-capital-consulting/thought-leadership/talent_mgmt/2013_Managing_Engagement_During_Times_of_Change_White_Paper.jsp Schyns, B., Maslyn, J. M., & Weibler, J. (2010). Understanding the relationship between span of control and subordinate consensus in leader–member exchange. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19 (3), 388–406. Shook, L., & Roth, G. (2011). Downsizings, mergers, and acquisitions: Perspectives of human resource development practitioners. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35 (2), 135–153. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflicts and relationship conflicts in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 , 102–111. Steigenberger, N. (2017). The challenge of integration: A review of the M&A integration literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19 (4), 408–431. Sung, W., Woehler, M. L., Fagan, J. M., Grosser, T. J., Floyd, T. M., & Labianca, G. J. (2017). Employees’ responses to an organizational merger: Intraindividual change in organizational identification, attachment, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (6), 910. Thiel, C. E., Hardy III, J. H., Peterson, D. R., Welsh, D. T., & Bonner, J. M. (2018). Too many sheep in the flock? Span of control attenuates the influence of ethical leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103 (12), 1324. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory . McGraw-Hill. Turner, J. T., Jr. (2006). Employee empowerment: Relationships between location in the hierarchy, span of control, and industry type on perceptions of empowerment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6 (4), 1138. Van Oorschot, K. E., Nujen, B. B., Solli-Sæther, H., & Mwesiumo, D. E. (2023). The complexity of post-mergers and acquisitions reorganization: Integration and differentiation. Global Strategy Journal, 13 (3), 673–699. Weber, Y. (2019). The role of organizational identity in post-merger integration. In The synergy of business theory and practice: Advancing the practical application of scholarly research (pp. 91–107). Xu, J., & Cooper-Thomas, H. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32 (4), 399–416. Zoller, Y. J., & Muldoon, J. (2020). Journey of a concept: Span of control–the rise, the decline, and what is next? Journal of Management History, 26 (4), 515–533. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8263830","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":554272773,"identity":"c5804ee7-3b53-4af0-87ae-91600e696f2c","order_by":0,"name":"Rabih Bedwany Makhlouf","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8538-4974","institution":"Lebanese University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rabih","middleName":"Bedwany","lastName":"Makhlouf","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-02 19:57:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8263830/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8263830/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":97646757,"identity":"3f7792c6-d7cf-473b-9b71-face5f50b133","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:43","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":233216,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"paper4.txdocx.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/4d7a24eeba9bceb75bcd76fc.docx"},{"id":97672423,"identity":"8b112527-4f88-48b0-9886-b28364624338","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:37:34","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8263830.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/0619b5163a7233d449122958.json"},{"id":97646766,"identity":"f0185d34-3e56-4096-9cb0-27ab0a4b1375","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:44","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":168194,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs82638300enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/154a5225648c7610d0bd40c0.xml"},{"id":97646761,"identity":"c6d05c33-5751-4f28-bf32-e6d298e26d20","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:43","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":61299,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/a1b877fe59535089f53bd588.png"},{"id":97646762,"identity":"e7f7edf0-0619-443f-b6f2-c9f70a605a78","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:43","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":64111,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/224d152a8de3467172804df6.png"},{"id":97646765,"identity":"1b9ef0a5-c194-4ef5-abd5-eb68ca102a69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:44","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":27581,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/86713497c03efb2046de20a4.jpeg"},{"id":97646760,"identity":"201641f4-f17f-4526-ac3c-d9c246855c88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:43","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19720,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/6eedbd87432b99bd6f66e0d4.png"},{"id":97673819,"identity":"117e3474-584f-4f4d-995d-3c8269550182","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:41:29","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14434,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/77bd63276d883aa6bfc6afe7.png"},{"id":97646763,"identity":"966b3dd1-3565-4203-944c-4fc81e4b6af6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:44","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6369,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinegroupimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/ef93771d47c906b374c6d29f.png"},{"id":97646767,"identity":"5321cea2-6847-4960-be53-65423710fca5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:44","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":166615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs82638300structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/06df8eac5ea522622ba38d97.xml"},{"id":97646768,"identity":"837ecddb-e776-4d1f-91f4-c45475e58ecc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:44","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":175633,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/a6ade2f8425bb0162cd8c1a7.html"},{"id":97646755,"identity":"0c22033b-43e6-4c43-9f6e-4c04987a6cbb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 04:58:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57172,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/04781f8c76cf538465060ec2.png"},{"id":97674810,"identity":"a07f527d-67f5-4dce-98ed-faf0217f5501","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:44:18","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":166784,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/f85c90348ef8954045f74162.png"},{"id":97673542,"identity":"dab8d530-e3c4-40e3-8262-1f00326a967d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:40:33","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":174417,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/93e64f3ff781dc13ad63b823.png"},{"id":97678666,"identity":"08c0de12-d3a8-46a8-9203-68d295b542b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:55:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2693318,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8263830/v1/0daa3bf2-c734-4077-80aa-adafdc9f7660.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003ePerceived Organizational Support as a Mediator: How Span of Control, Uncertainty, and Power Distance Shape Employee Engagement during M\u0026amp;A\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmployee engagement is an essential factor affecting organizational performance, particularly during periods of change such as mergers and acquisitions (M\u0026amp;A). In today\u0026rsquo;s unpredictable business environment, employee engagement has emerged as a pillar of organizational resilience and sustained success (Makhlouf, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). M\u0026amp;A often results in substantial structural and cultural changes (Oorschot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), creating disorientation and uncertainty among employees. In such contexts, maintaining high levels of employee engagement is essential to enabling seamless integration and supporting M\u0026amp;A success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the main challenges in M\u0026amp;A integration is the redistribution of leadership duties, (Steigenberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) raising questions about the optimal span of control (SOC) \u0026mdash;the number of employees a supervisor can effectively manage. While a narrower SOC may improve managerial attention and communication, thereby reducing uncertainty, it can also increase inefficiencies by generating additional managerial layers. Conversely, a broader SOC may enhance efficiency, yet overextend managerial resources, resulting in inadequate managerial supervision, less guidance, and limited communication opportunities, compromising employee engagement at a critical time. In uncertain contexts, striking the right balance becomes even more essential, as employees require constant reassurance, managerial accessibility and participative decision making to remain engaged (Xu, \u0026amp; Thomas, 2011; Makhlouf, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBesides SOC, power distance\u0026ndash;the extent to which hierarchical relationships affect workplace dynamics\u0026ndash; also impacts employee engagement. In high power distance cultures, communication is limited and decision making is centralized. Therefore, employee engagement is compromised due to a lack of autonomy and limited access to information. This situation is further exacerbated during M\u0026amp;A, as employees experience high levels of uncertainty and require frequent communication and interaction with their superiors to stay engaged.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these dynamics signify that uncertainty not only erodes employee engagement dramatically but also magnifies the influence of cultural and structural hierarchies. Nonetheless, despite extensive research on M\u0026amp;A, the combined effect of power distance, uncertainty, and span of control on employee engagement remains underexplored, particularly within tumultuous settings like Lebanon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1 Research Problem:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research gap is particularly salient in Lebanon, where organizations are shaped by a polycrisis context. M\u0026amp;A events in the insurance and reinsurance sector are known to trigger workforce restructuring, which- unless properly managed- can undermine employee engagement and compromise integration efforts. Despite a wealth of research exploring M\u0026amp;A, employee engagement, and span of control separately, their combined effects within high power distance cultures and under conditions of high uncertainties are largely understudied. Understanding their dynamics is crucial, as employees navigating M\u0026amp;A require both fair treatment and managerial accessibility to maintain engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.2 Research Objectives:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research aims to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eExamine the effect of SOC on employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A in the insurance and reinsurance sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvestigate the role of power distance in determining employee engagement levels during M\u0026amp;A in the insurance and reinsurance sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplore how uncertainty moderates the effect of power distance and span of control on employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A in the insurance and reinsurance sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy addressing these research objectives, this study deepens the understanding of cultural hierarchies, managerial structures, and uncertainty in M\u0026amp;A contexts. The study will provide theoretical implications for understanding the dynamic relationship between employee engagement, SOC, uncertainty and power distance. Additionally, it provides practical insights for organizations aiming to optimize organizational structures and employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.3 Scope of Study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scope of this research encompasses both the contextual and theoretical boundaries within which it was conducted. Contextually, this research focuses on the insurance and reinsurance firms in Lebanon, which operate in an environment characterized by high political instability, economic volatility and uncertainty. These circumstances make this context a relevant setting for exploring how uncertainty, power distance, and perceived fairness interact to affect employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of its empirical scope, this study examines Lebanese and foreign insurance and reinsurance companies operating in Lebanon that have undergone M\u0026amp;A during the last 20 years. The study focuses on the effect of Span of Control (SOC) and power distance in shaping employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A, while accounting for the moderating effect of uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this research incorporates Organizational Justice Theory (Melkonian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Lind, \u0026amp; Van den Bos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).), theories of Organizational Uncertainty Theory (Thompson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1967\u003c/span\u003e; Galbraith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e), and the concept of Power Distance (Hofstede, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) to explore employees\u0026rsquo;sense-making and behavioral responses to leadership structures during M\u0026amp;A processes. Together, these theories provide a multidimensional understanding of how uncertainty, perceived fairness and cultural hierarchies affect employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy incorporating Organizational Justice Theory, the research acknowledges that employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A is influenced by not only cultural or structural factors but also by perceptions of fairness. The inclusion of this theoretical lens allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the contextual and psychological mechanisms driving engagement during organizational changes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHaving introduced the topic of study, stated the research problem, and outlined the research scope, we now proceed to the literature review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eM\u0026amp;A events are among the most disruptive forms of organizational change, often reshaping strategies, cultures, and structures (Shook, \u0026amp; Roth, 2011; Clayton, 2010). However, the success of such transformations, depends not only on strategic fit or financial and operational synergies, but also on the reactions of employees who must adapt to and implement the imposed changes (Cartwright \u0026amp; Cooper, 1992;\u0026nbsp;Carmeli et al., 2013;\u0026nbsp;Kempton, \u0026amp; Sarala, 2021). Employee-level factors such as resilience, engagement, and commitment play a pivotal role in determining the integration outcome. Among these, the primary focus of this research is on employee engagement, given its vital role in fostering adaptability, reducing resistance, and supporting organizational performance during M\u0026amp;A transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.1 Employee Engagement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployee engagement is a key driver of both individual and organizational performance directly affecting productivity, profitability and resilience (Bhuvanaiah, \u0026amp; Raya, 2014). Defined as the extent to which employees invest their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energies into their roles at work, employee engagement is linked to enhanced organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), loyalty, responsiveness to change, productivity, while reducing employee attrition, absenteeism, and turnover (Antony, 2018; Rastogi, 2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eM\u0026amp;A situations often generate uncertainty and disorientation among employees, as they struggle to understand how they fit into the newly combined entity (Rubin et al., 2013). In these contexts, sustaining employee engagement is crucial for reducing resistance to change, promoting cooperation, and improving the chances of a successful integration (Pech \u0026amp; Slade, 2006).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of employee engagement was initially introduced by William A. Kahn in the 1990s and denotes the cognitive and emotional investment of employees in their work. It emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivation as a key factor to improve organizational performance. Engaged employees are highly cooperative, committed, and adaptable (Anitha, 2014), characteristics that are particularly vital for navigating disruptive organizational changes such as M\u0026amp;As. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, M\u0026amp;A changes often challenge employee engagement through changes in social ties, unclear communication, job insecurities, cultural clashes and loss of identity, uncertainty, skill mismatch, and inadequate support. These outcomes, unless appropriately managed, results in employees\u0026rsquo; disengagement, manifested as cognitive and emotional separation from the workplace, reduced productivity, lack of enthusiasm, resistance to change and detachment from the firm\u0026rsquo;s values and goals (Pech, \u0026amp; Slade, 2006).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dynamics of employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A can be understood through several theoretical perspectives. Justice Theory highlights the importance of procedural, interactional and distributive justice in determining employee engagement (Melkonian et al., 2011). Social Exchange Theory suggests that employees are more likely to be engaged when they perceive reciprocity and fairness in their relationships with their superiors and employer (Ram, \u0026amp; Prabhakar, 2011; Biswas et al., 2013). Finally, the Resource-Based View (RBV) underscores the strategic significance of an engaged workforce as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. (Galpin et al., 2012). Together, these theoretical frameworks underscore the complex nature of employee engagement and its importance to achieving fruitful M\u0026amp;A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Lebanese context, where cultural, political and economic crises add layers of pressure on individuals and organizations, employee engagement becomes even more critical. M\u0026amp;A events result in severe decrease in engagement, especially for employees of the less powerful entity (Krug \u0026amp; Nigh, 2001; Hambrick \u0026amp; Cannella, 1993) Suggesting that engagement levels are affected by the employee\u0026rsquo;s group, whether he belongs to the acquired or acquiring firm. Employees of the acquired entity often experience greater insecurity and uncertainty (Cartwright \u0026amp; Cooper, 2018; Carmeli et al., 2013) leading to higher degree of disengagement. Additionally, the relationship between employee engagement and resistance to change is well-established, with higher engagement levels leading to less resistance to change (Culmer, 2012). These findings align with Rubin et al. (2013), who found that engagement is positively related to higher organizational performance and value creation, highlighting the importance of nurturing employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, empirical evidence confirms that employee engagement is essential both for reducing resistance to change, and for optimizing M\u0026amp;A performance. Consequently, examining the role of span of control (SOC), uncertainty, and power distance in determining employee engagement is crucial for firms navigating M\u0026amp;A in Lebanon\u0026rsquo;s dynamic insurance sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaving discussed the outcome variable of this study\u0026mdash;employee engagement\u0026mdash;this literature review now turns to the predictor variables, beginning with the span of control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.2 Span of control\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe span of control (SOC) defined as the number of employees managed by a single supervisor (Cathcart et al., 2004), is an important metric that provides valuable insight into how an organization is structured, how communication flows and where decisions may be bottlenecked. Also known as the span of management, management ratio, span of authority, span of supervision, and span of responsibility (Zoller, \u0026amp; Muldoon, 2020), SOC is a key lever in organizational design, particularly during periods of major changes like M\u0026amp;A.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e2.2.1 Development and Determinants of Span of Control (SOC)\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of span of control is ancient, dating back thousands of years to ancient Egypt, where the \u0026ldquo;rule of ten\u0026rdquo; was the standard number of subordinates a supervisor could effectively supervise (Fleet \u0026amp; Bedean, 1976). The concept of SOC began receiving attention in the early 20th century with Henri Fayol (1841\u0026ndash;1942) in his book General and Industrial Management, in which he laid out the 14 principles of management (Zoller \u0026amp; Muldoon, 2020). Similarly, Sir Ian Hamilton (1853\u0026ndash;1947), through his research on British military leaders, concluded that a supervisor can effectively manage three to six subordinates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept became popular in the 1950s with the emergence of bureaucratic structures and industrialization. It reached its peak in the 1970s, as developments in technology urged organizations to flatten their structures to increase responsiveness to market demands. In some contexts, supervisors were required to manage a larger number of empowered employees, which raised concerns about the optimal number of employees a supervisor can effectively manage without jeopardizing performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDetermining the optimal SOC is not straightforward; rather, it is a complex process affected by numerous factors such as the experience and educational levels of both supervisors and subordinates, the type of industry, technological complexity, and other considerations. A notable contributor to the SOC literature is Joan Woodward (1916\u0026ndash;1971), who examined the effect of technology and task complexity on determining the optimal SOC. She distinguished between SOC for first-line supervisors, who manage routine and simple tasks\u0026mdash;usually overseeing 15 to 23 subordinates\u0026mdash;and top-level executives, who handle complex reports requiring more detailed attention\u0026mdash;with a span ranging from four to six subordinates. In addition, Woodward suggested that the median span for an organization should be six.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e2.2.2 Narrow vs. Wide SOC\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerspectives on the best span of control have evolved over time, reflecting the managerial philosophies of different eras and adapting to environmental requirements. For instance, during the 1920s, a narrow span of control\u0026mdash;three to six employees per manager\u0026mdash;was preferred, enabling closer supervision and direct communication (Zoller \u0026amp; Muldoon, 2020). A narrow SOC allows a supervisor to manage a smaller number of subordinates, enabling thorough guidance and support. According to leader\u0026ndash;member exchange theory (LMX), such an arrangement fosters closer and more frequent interactions, leading to better-quality relationships between managers and their subordinates (Schyns et al., 2010). Finally, in narrow SOC settings, leaders can act as role models and player-coaches, helping employees to improve their skills and performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, there are negative consequences associated with a narrow SOC, including increased management costs from a larger number of managers, and communication delays due to too many organizational levels (Farrar, 2023), and possible negative effects on employee morale caused by the long chain of command between the bottom and top levels (Turner Jr., 2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the 1970s, the trend shifted toward a broader SOC, promoting flatter structures that enable decentralization, faster decision-making, and better responsiveness. While a broader SOC promotes employee autonomy and reduces overhead costs, it can also overload managerial attention, resulting in weaker relationships and lower-quality communication\u0026mdash;issues that can be particularly problematic during organizational changes, when employees already experience increased levels of uncertainty and anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e2.2.3 The Critical Role of Span of Control in M\u0026amp;A\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOptimizing the SOC during M\u0026amp;A is vital for several reasons, including communication and coordination, resource allocation, decision-making, and operational efficiency.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunication and coordination:\u003c/strong\u003e A sound communication strategy is crucial in organizations, particularly during M\u0026amp;A, to coordinate efforts to implement changes, alleviate uncertainties, and avoid misunderstandings. An optimal SOC ensures that managers can communicate effectively with their employees and coordinate tasks efficiently, which is vital during integration (Risely, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResource allocation and operational efficiency:\u003c/strong\u003e Drawing \u003cstrong\u003eon\u003c/strong\u003e the resource-based view (RBV) and \u003cstrong\u003ejustice theory\u003c/strong\u003e, proper resource allocation is essential during M\u0026amp;As. \u003cstrong\u003eThe\u003c/strong\u003e SOC plays a key role in ensuring that resources are properly distributed (Risely, 2023). Failure to allocate power and authority where it is needed can impede workflow and erode employee engagement. Optimizing SOC helps \u003cstrong\u003eeliminate\u003c/strong\u003e potential bottlenecks and inefficiencies, \u003cstrong\u003ealigning\u003c/strong\u003e the organization\u0026rsquo;s structure with operational efficiency goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecision-making:\u003c/strong\u003e SOC significantly affects the efficiency and quality of decisions. If the SOC is too narrow, communication has to pass through numerous managerial levels, slowing decision-making. If \u0026nbsp;the SOC is too wide, managers experience additional demands on their time, attention, and other resources, creating bottlenecks and diminishing decision quality. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize SOC so that leaders can fulfill their managerial duties while maintaining the quality of their decisions (Cathcart, 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e2.2.4 Linking Employee Engagement and Span of Control\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring M\u0026amp;As, the link between SOC and employee engagement becomes paramount. Employees, faced with role ambiguity and future insecurity, have an urgent need for clear and frequent communication to \u0026quot;connect the dots\u0026quot; and form new expectations. SOC directly determines a manager\u0026apos;s capacity to provide this. A narrower SOC nurtures the high-quality, trust-based leader-member exchanges necessary to mitigate anxiety, boost morale, and harness commitment (Thiel et al., 2018; Rafferty \u0026amp; Restubog, 2010; Schraeder, 2001). Conversely, a broad SOC may seriously limit managerial accessibility and reduce communication quality at a time when employees need it most, leading to feelings of neglect and disengagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is especially critical in the volatile Lebanese insurance sector, where pre-existing crises amplify the disruptive impact of M\u0026amp;A. Therefore, understanding how SOC affects engagement is essential for optimizing post-merger performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently, based on the arguments above, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1:\u003c/strong\u003e Perceived span of control strain has a significant negative effect on employee engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.3 Perception of Power Distance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn important culture-related concept that impacts individuals\u0026rsquo; behavior in social settings is the perception of power distance. According to power distance theorists, employees carry their social beliefs and values into the workplace (Meyer \u0026amp; Rowan, 1977). Consequently, organizations mirror the extent of power distance in their societies\u0026mdash;on one hand, reflecting human power distance orientations and, on the other hand, gaining legitimacy. As a result, relationships such as those between parent and child or instructor and student extend into the workplace, shaping supervisor\u0026ndash;subordinate dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn M\u0026amp;A contexts, power distance remains a central cultural and structural factor because merging entities, even within the same national culture, often differ in their internal power distance orientations. These differences may arise from variations in organizational culture, leadership style, or relative resource endowment\u0026mdash;for example, when a dominant, resource-rich acquirer merges with a smaller, resource-constrained target. Such asymmetries shape expectations of authority, communication, and deference, potentially resulting in distrust, disorientation, and uncertainty during the integration process. When the target exhibits a lower PDV than the acquirer (target PDV \u0026lt; acquirer PDV), employees from the target firm\u0026mdash;who expect equality and approachability\u0026mdash;may clash with those from the acquirer, who expect hierarchy and deference. These disparities frequently lead to status-based competition, tension, and communication breakdowns (Homans, 1950; Gould, 2003; He \u0026amp; Huang, 2011; Bendersky \u0026amp; Hays, 2012). The greater the difference in PDVs or perceived power asymmetries between the combining entities, the stronger the negative consequences for collaboration and performance (Huang et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of power distance was originally developed in the 1970s by Geert Hofstede as part of his cultural dimension theory. It denotes the extent to which power is unequally distributed in a society and the extent to which less powerful individuals accept this unequal distribution (Hofstede et al., 2010). Lebanon, for example, scores around 80 on Hofstede\u0026rsquo;s power distance index, reflecting a high tolerance for hierarchy and unequal authority relations. Power distance is highly relevant to this research because studies suggest that power distance orientation has a more direct relationship with leadership reactions and cognitions than other cultural values (Loi et al., 2012; Kirkman et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have shown that employees with a greater power distance orientation exhibit more deference toward organizational leadership, maintain greater social distance, and show greater respect for status differences (Hofstede et al., 2010). These employees are more accustomed to autocratic management styles (Bialas, 2009), meaning they accept authority\u0026rsquo;s directives without resistance (Lam et al., 2002). Additionally, employees with a higher power distance orientation typically require explicit guidance and direction from their superiors to complete their tasks (Chen et al., 2014). On the other hand, employees with a lower power distance orientation perceive their superiors as approachable and tend to develop close relationships with them (Tyler et al., 2000). Therefore, they expect and actively participate in decision-making and require frequent communication with their superiors (Lian et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese differences underscore the importance of optimizing the span of control (SOC) and considering employees\u0026rsquo; power distance orientations to nurture engagement during M\u0026amp;A transitions. The concept of power distance is crucial to the context of this study, as it can impact employee engagement by affecting how subordinates view and interact with their superiors and perceive their status. In high-power-distance hierarchies, employees expect direction and guidance and may be less likely to communicate their insights, take initiative, or voice their concerns. In the context of organizational change, they are posited to struggle more severely with disruptions to their routines, roles, and social ties in the workplace, leading to feelings of isolation, frustration, and lower engagement levels. Conversely, in low-power-distance cultures, employees are more empowered to participate in decision-making, voice concerns, seek guidance, raise issues, and express opinions, which supports greater resilience during organizational changes and foster higher engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2:\u003c/strong\u003e Employee power distance orientation has a significant negative effect on employee engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3:\u003c/strong\u003e Power distance moderates the span strain-engagement relationship (negative interaction).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.4 Uncertainty\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is well known to scholars and practitioners that mergers and acquisitions (M\u0026amp;As) engender heightened levels of uncertainty among all stakeholders, particularly employees. In this context, uncertainty is defined by Bordia et al. (2004) as the state of being unsure about future outcomes, especially in situations characterized by insufficient information or ambiguity. This definition accurately describes employees\u0026rsquo; experiences during M\u0026amp;As, as they face unpredictable organizational changes and a disrupted work environment. Such uncertainty frequently triggers anxiety, disengagement, and turnover (McMullen \u0026amp; Shepherd, 2006; Schweiger \u0026amp; Denisi, 1991).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring M\u0026amp;As, uncertainty arises from multiple sources, including disruption of work relationships and organizational structures (Shanley \u0026amp; Correa, 1992), cultural clashes (Nahavandi \u0026amp; Malekzadeh, 1992), unclear or inconsistent communication (Schweiger \u0026amp; Denisi, 1991), loss of identity or status (Hambrick \u0026amp; Cannella, 1993), and perceived threats to employment security (Walsh, 1989). Employees often perceive M\u0026amp;As as periods of upheaval, eliciting fears of layoffs, changes in roles or compensation, and disruptions to their professional identity (Ivanevich et al., 1987; Wickramasinghe \u0026amp; Karunarane, 2009). These perceptions of uncertainty escalate stress and can lead to negative organizational outcomes, such as low commitment, absenteeism, and resistance to change (Csoka, 1997; Melkonian et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn M\u0026amp;A contexts, the effect of uncertainty on employee engagement becomes particularly evident. Employees have a pressing need for information to understand the future direction of the new entity and their place within it. Therefore, effective communication is essential to managing uncertainty; it helps alleviate anxiety, strengthen organizational commitment, and enhance morale (Rafferty \u0026amp; Restubog, 2010; Schraeder, 2001; Cartwright et al., 2007). However, the extent to which employees receive clear and consistent communication largely depends on the number of subordinates each manager supervises (span of control, SOC). When supervisors manage a wide SOC, their capacity to interact meaningfully with each employee may be limited, causing employees to feel neglected or uncertain about their future roles. Conversely, a narrower SOC enables more personalized and frequent interactions between leaders and subordinates, which can reassure employees, mitigate uncertainty, and preserve engagement (Thiel et al., 2018). In the tumultuous Lebanese context, where M\u0026amp;As often occur amid unstable market conditions, the relationship between uncertainty and SOC becomes particularly critical.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e2.4.1 Theoretical Perspectives on M\u0026amp;A-Induced Uncertainty\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eM\u0026amp;A-induced uncertainty and its impact on employee engagement can be further understood through \u003cstrong\u003etwo key theoretical perspectives\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Social Identity Theory.\u003c/strong\u003e Employees\u0026rsquo; need for stability and belonging becomes more urgent when their organizational identity is threatened (Seo \u0026amp; Hill, 2005). In M\u0026amp;A contexts, this identity threat is manifested in \u0026ldquo;us versus them\u0026rdquo; dynamics between merging entities. In acquisitions, the identity of one entity is often absorbed or abolished, requiring employees to abandon familiar practices and adopt those of the acquiring firm (Giessner et al., 2012; Weber, 2019). Even in mergers of equals, tensions arise between performing tasks in \u0026ldquo;our way\u0026rdquo; versus \u0026ldquo;their way.\u0026rdquo; When leaders fail to provide clear direction or inclusive management of these dynamics, uncertainty escalates, resulting in resistance to change, lower morale, and disengagement (Buono \u0026amp; Bowditch, 2003; Melkonian et al., 2011). Based on Social Identity Theory, employees seek to maintain a positive social identity within their workplace, and threats to this identity\u0026mdash;such as those occurring during M\u0026amp;As\u0026mdash;can provoke disengagement and anxiety (Sung et al., 2017). An optimal SOC allows managers to stay attuned to these identity-related challenges, overcome \u0026ldquo;our ways versus their ways\u0026rdquo; conflicts, and foster cohesion and trust. This managerial proximity can reduce voluntary turnover and prevent the loss of human capital.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Organizational Justice Theory.\u003c/strong\u003e In high-uncertainty situations, fair treatment becomes crucial. Employees have a strong psychological need to be treated fairly, as they rely on fairness judgments to cope with stressful and ambiguous situations (Van den Bos, 2001; Melkonian et al., 2011). When employees perceive fairness, they are more likely to remain engaged and accept change (Greenberg, 1994; Lind, 2001). This is particularly relevant in M\u0026amp;A contexts, where fairness perceptions regarding compensation, career opportunities, roles, and status directly influence engagement and morale (Van den Bos, 2001). Perceptions of procedural and distributive justice encourage cooperation and support for management decisions (Lind, 2001; Greenberg, 1994). Hence, transparent communication and fair treatment are vital to building an engaged and resilient workforce, particularly during M\u0026amp;As (Ullrich \u0026amp; Van Dick, 2007). Humans have an inherent need to feel fairly treated, especially amid uncertainty, as fairness judgments help them restore psychological stability (Van den Bos, 2001; Melkonian et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e2.4.2 Conclusion and Hypotheses\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the span of control (SOC) can substantially influence employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A transitions by either alleviating or amplifying uncertainty. Supervisors with a narrower SOC are more likely to engage effectively with employees, reducing anxiety and maintaining morale during periods of disruption. Conversely, a broader SOC may limit managerial attention and feedback, increasing perceptions of neglect and uncertainty, thereby undermining engagement. Understanding how SOC affects uncertainty and engagement is thus critical for organizations navigating M\u0026amp;A integration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4:\u003c/strong\u003e Perceived uncertainty has a significant negative effect on employee engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH5:\u003c/strong\u003e Uncertainty moderates the span strain-engagement relationship (negative interaction)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.5 Perceived Organizational Support\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerceived Organizational Support (POS) is an essential concept for understanding employees\u0026rsquo; reactions during periods of organizational disruption, particularly in M\u0026amp;A settings. POS refers to the extent to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and genuinely cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). When employees sense strong support, they feel obliged to reciprocate through positive attitudes and behaviors that benefit the organization, including stronger engagement and cooperation during change (Eisenberger et al., 1990).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOriginally developed within Social Exchange Theory (SET), POS highlights that employees interpret the actions of organizational agents\u0026mdash;such as supervisors, managers, and HR representatives\u0026mdash;as signals of the organization\u0026rsquo;s intentions (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Levinson, 1965). Although organizations are not living beings, employees personify them, forming expectations about how they will be treated in the future based on past interactions and the consistency of organizational practices (Eisenberger et al., 2020). This personification becomes even more salient during M\u0026amp;A, when uncertainty rises and employees search for cues regarding stability, fairness, and care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main determinants of POS include fairness, the availability of resources, supervisor support, human resource practices, communication quality, and opportunities for development. These preconditions are directly challenged during M\u0026amp;A, as employees navigate revised structures, new leadership, shifting priorities, and altered roles. POS therefore acts as a stabilizing psychological resource: it meets employees\u0026rsquo; needs for emotional support, belongingness, and esteem (Eisenberger et al., 2019), while activating reciprocity norms that encourage employees to remain dedicated and engaged even during stressful transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of M\u0026amp;A in the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector, POS is highly relevant. These mergers often introduce heightened uncertainty, rapid structural changes, discrepancies in power distance values, and increased workload strain\u0026mdash;conditions that render employees heavily dependent on the supportive signals from the organization. When employees feel supported\u0026mdash;through transparent communication, fair treatment, and accessible leadership\u0026mdash;they are more likely to stay engaged and adapt to the new organizational reality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH6:\u0026nbsp;Perceived organizational support has a significant positive effect on employee engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH7:\u003c/strong\u003e POS mediates the relationship between span strain and engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH8:\u003c/strong\u003e POS mediates the relationship between power distance and engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH9:\u003c/strong\u003e POS mediates the relationship between uncertainty and engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur conceptual model (Figure 1) proposes that perceived span of control strain, power distance orientation, and uncertainty directly affect employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A (H1, H2, H4), while perceived organizational support (POS) serves as an additional direct driver (H6). We further hypothesize that power distance and uncertainty moderate the relationship between span strain and engagement (H3, H5). Finally, the model posits that POS mediates the effects of span strain, power distance, and uncertainty on engagement (H7, H8, H9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on the preceding literature, the next section delineates the methodological approach employed to empirically test these relationships within the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology and Procedures","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research is guided by deductive reasoning, deriving hypotheses from the literature and ensuring a structured analysis of the relationship between the predictors-span of control (SOC), POS, perceived uncertainty, and perception of power distance- and the dependent variable employee engagement. A purposive sampling technique targeted employees who had experienced M\u0026amp;A in the Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector. A total of \u003cstrong\u003e485 valid responses were collected out of 594\u003c/strong\u003e employees who received the survey, yielding an \u003cstrong\u003e81.6%\u003c/strong\u003e response rate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe population consisted of non-managerial employees from various departments within the merging firms. Data collection and analysis were grounded in a positivist approach, employing quantitative methods to generate robust and generalizable findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA structured questionnaire was used, consisting of the following sections:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographic Information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Age, belongingness before the acquisition (acquiring vs. acquired company), and tenure.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpan of Control (SOC)\u003c/strong\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStructural aspect: measured with a single item reflecting the number of direct reports per manager (categories: 1\u0026ndash;4; 5\u0026ndash;8; 9\u0026ndash;15; \u0026ge;16).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunctional/perceptual aspect: measured using three items adapted from the Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) and Leader\u0026ndash;Member Exchange (LMX) literature (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Graen \u0026amp; Uhl-Bien, 1995), capturing supervisor accessibility and support. These items represent the psychological mechanisms\u0026mdash;reduced support and limited access\u0026mdash;through which a wide span of control is hypothesized to influence engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployee Engagement\u003c/strong\u003e measured using six Likert-scale items derived from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), capturing absorption, dedication, and vigor.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceived Uncertainty\u003c/strong\u003e: measured using Bordia et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2004) Job Uncertainty Scale, consisting of five items assessing ambiguity about job roles, future prospects, and organizational direction during M\u0026amp;A.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePower Distance Orientation\u003c/strong\u003e: measured using the Dorfman and Howell (1988) adaptation of Hofstede\u0026rsquo;s (1980) Power Distance Scale, containing five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceived Organizational Support (POS)\u003c/strong\u003e: measured using a 5-item scale derived from Eisenberger et al.\u0026rsquo;s work, assessing perceived care, appreciation, and support from the organization.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSurvey Administration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was distributed through emails, hard copies, and a Google Form shared via WhatsApp to reach employees across different insurance and reinsurance companies. Participation was voluntary. Data were collected during the summer of 2024. Incomplete responses were removed, and the final dataset was entered into SPSS for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following statistical tests were applied:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability Testing:\u003c/strong\u003e Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha to assess internal consistency.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelation Analysis:\u003c/strong\u003e to examine the relationships between employee engagement and the predictor variables (SOC, uncertainty, power distance, POS).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegression Analysis:\u003c/strong\u003e to determine the predictive impact of SOC, uncertainty, and power distance on engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eANOVA:\u003c/strong\u003e to identify which span-of-control group displays the highest engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModeration Analysis:\u003c/strong\u003e conducted to test whether:\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePower distance moderates the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerceived uncertainty moderates the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediation Analysis:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eperformed to examine whether Perceived Organizational Support (POS) mediates the relationships between the independent variables (span of control strain, uncertainty, and power distance orientation) and employee engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter delineating the methodology and statistical tests used, the subsequent section presents the data analysis and interpretation of results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Data Analysis and Results","content":"\u003ch3\u003e4.1 Correlation Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationships between employee engagement and the independent variables: perceived span of control strain, power distance orientation, perceived uncertainty, and perceived organizational support (POS). Table 1 presents the correlation matrix.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll correlations were significant at p \u0026lt; .001 and in the hypothesized directions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey findings include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEngagement showed a strong negative correlation with Perceived Span Strain (r = \u0026ndash;0.586), Power Distance (r = \u0026ndash;0.711), and Uncertainty (r = -0.356) indicating that uncertainty, strained managerial relationships and hierarchical distance reduce engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEngagement was positively correlated with POS (r = 0.597), highlighting the importance of organizational support for maintaining engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePOS displayed negative correlations with Span Strain (r = \u0026ndash;0.342), Power Distance (r = \u0026ndash;0.488), and Uncertainty (r = \u0026ndash;0.221), suggesting that these negative workplace conditions reduce employees\u0026rsquo; sense of support.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese correlations preliminarily support H1, H2, H4, and H6, and also hint at possible mediation effects (H7\u0026ndash;H9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"636\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 636px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 1: Correlation Matrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePower Distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003euncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026apos;s r\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePower Distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026apos;s r\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.711\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026apos;s r\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.466\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003euncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026apos;s r\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.356\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026apos;s r\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.597\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.488\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.342\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.221\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e483\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e4.2 Regression Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive power of the independent variables \u0026ndash;perceived span of strain, power distance orientation, uncertainty and POS\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;on the dependent variable, employee engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the linear regression, presented in Table 2 \u0026amp; Table 3, confirmed all direct-effect hypotheses. The model was statistically significant (F(4, 480) = 247.00, p \u0026lt; .001) suggesting a 67.3% explanation of the variance in employee engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 2: Model Fit Measures\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall Model Test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.673\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e480\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote. Models estimated using sample size of N=485\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 3: Model Coefficients - Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntercept\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePower Distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.452\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0330\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-13.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.175\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0214\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-8.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0262\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0279\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs hypothesized:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1 supported.\u003c/strong\u003e Perceived span strain had a significant negative effect on engagement (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.175, p \u0026lt; .001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2 supported.\u003c/strong\u003e Power distance significantly reduced engagement (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.452, p \u0026lt; .001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4 supported.\u003c/strong\u003e Perceived uncertainty negatively predicted engagement (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.155, p \u0026lt; .001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH6 supported.\u003c/strong\u003e POS positively influenced engagement (\u0026beta; = 0.240, p \u0026lt; .001), consistent with Social Exchange Theory.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e4.3 Moderating Effects\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test the propose moderation effects, two separate moderation analyses were conducted. The results provide support for the proposed interaction effects as explained below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e4.3.1 Moderation by Perception of Power Distance Orientation\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 3 (H3) predicted that power distance orientation moderates the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement. As shown in Table 4, the interaction term was statistically significant (b = -0.139, SE = 0.0254, p \u0026lt; .001), supporting H3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"641\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 641px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 4. Results of Moderation Analysis Predicting Employee Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.205\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0208\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-9.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePower Distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.545\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0291\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-18.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u0026nbsp;✻\u0026nbsp;Power Distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.139\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.3586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-14.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.1588\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0335\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u0026nbsp;✻\u0026nbsp;uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0904\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0215\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe nature of this interaction, illustrated in Figure 2, demonstrates that power distance orientation amplifies the negative effect of span strain on engagement. Simple slope analysis revealed that while span strain negatively affected engagement across all levels of power distance, this effect was significantly stronger for employees with high power distance orientation (+1 SD). This indicates that employees who more readily accept hierarchical authority are disproportionately negatively affected by their manager\u0026apos;s lack of availability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e4.4.2. Moderation by Uncertainty\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 5 (H5) predicted that uncertainty would moderate the relationship between perceived span strain and employee engagement. The analysis revealed a significant interaction effect (b = -0.090, SE = 0.022, p \u0026lt; .001), supporting H5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Figure 3, the pattern indicates that uncertainty exacerbates the negative relationship between span strain and engagement. Under conditions of high uncertainty, the detrimental effect of span strain on engagement was significantly amplified. This suggests that during the ambiguous context of M\u0026amp;A, when employees\u0026apos; need for managerial contact is greatest, the negative consequences of a strained span of control become particularly severe\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4. Hypothesis Testing: Mediating Effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypotheses \u003cstrong\u003eH7\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003eH8\u003c/strong\u003e, and \u003cstrong\u003eH9\u003c/strong\u003e predicted that perceived organizational support mediates the relationships between:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpan strain \u0026rarr; engagement\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePower distance \u0026rarr; engagement\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUncertainty \u0026rarr; engagement\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 presents the indirect effects. All indirect effects were significant and had confidence intervals excluding zero, indicating \u003cstrong\u003erobust partial mediation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 558px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 5: Mediation Effects through Perceived Organizational Support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictor \u0026rarr; POS \u0026rarr; Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI Lower\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI Upper\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e% Mediated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePower Distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.165***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.60%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived Span Strain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.108***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.139\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.077\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.115***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 558px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*Note: *** p \u0026lt; .001; CI = Confidence Interval*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor \u003cstrong\u003eperceived span strain\u003c/strong\u003e, POS mediated 26.2% of its effect on engagement (indirect effect = -0.108, 95% CI [-0.139, -0.077]), supporting H7. This suggests that strained managerial spans communicate organizational lack of support, contributing to disengagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor \u003cstrong\u003epower distance\u003c/strong\u003e, POS mediated 22.6% of its total negative effect on engagement (indirect effect = -0.165, 95% CI [-0.207, -0.123]), supporting H8. This indicates that employees with higher power distance orientation feel less supported by the organization, which partially explains their lower engagement levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost notably, for \u003cstrong\u003euncertainty\u003c/strong\u003e, POS mediated 33.8% of its effect (indirect effect = -0.115, 95% CI [-0.163, -0.068]), supporting H9. This represents the strongest mediation effect, indicating that uncertainty during M\u0026amp;A primarily damages engagement by eroding employees\u0026apos; sense of organizational support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey insights:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUncertainty had the strongest mediated proportion (33.8%)\u003c/strong\u003e, suggesting that uncertainty primarily harms engagement by reducing employees\u0026rsquo; perception of organizational support.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpan strain and power distance also reduced engagement partly by diminishing POS.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDirect effects remained significant in all models \u0026rarr; \u003cstrong\u003epartial mediation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e4.5 ANOVA and Tukey Tests\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo translate the linear relationship between perceived span strain and engagement into more actionable, structural terms, a supplementary one-way ANOVA was conducted using the objective span of control categories. The analysis revealed a significant difference in engagement levels across span of control groups, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 192) = 26.9,\u0026nbsp;*p*\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePost-hoc Tukey tests indicated that engagement was highest in the \u003cstrong\u003emoderate span of control group (5-8 subordinates)\u003c/strong\u003e, which was statistically higher than in both narrower (1-4) and wider (9-15, 16+) spans (all *p* \u0026lt; .05). There was no significant difference in engagement between the two widest span groups (9-15 vs. 16+, *p* = .691). This pattern suggests an optimal range for managerial effectiveness during M\u0026amp;A, with diminishing returns on engagement for spans narrower than 5-8 and a significant decline for spans wider than 8.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"339\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 320px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne-Way ANOVA (Welch\u0026apos;s)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 320px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTukey Post-Hoc Test \u0026ndash; Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.253\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.439\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.315\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.693\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.569\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.691\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research provides clear evidence that during M\u0026amp;A processes in Lebanon\u0026rsquo;s highly uncertain and resource-strained context, employee engagement is shaped by a combination of contextual ambiguity (perceived uncertainty), individual orientations (power distance), relational perceptions (perceived organizational support), and structural pressures (managerial span strain). The findings collectively suggest that engagement is most threatened when employees experience heightened ambiguity and reduced managerial accessibility, and most robust when they perceive adequate organizational support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with the literature on resource depletion and job demands, the results show that \u003cstrong\u003epower distance\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003euncertainty\u003c/strong\u003e, and \u003cstrong\u003espan strain\u003c/strong\u003e all exert significant negative effects on engagement. Regression analyses confirm these relationships: power distance (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.452, p \u0026lt; .001), uncertainty (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.155, p \u0026lt; .001), and span strain (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.175, p \u0026lt; .001) each reduce engagement. These findings reinforce Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which argues that when relational clarity, managerial access, and informational stability are depleted, employees\u0026rsquo; capacity to remain engaged declines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the significant \u003cstrong\u003epositive effect of POS\u003c/strong\u003e on engagement (\u0026beta; = 0.240, p \u0026lt; .001) underscores the centrality of relational resources in countering these stressors. This aligns strongly with Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Perceived Organizational Support Theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986), both of which emphasize that employees reciprocate organizational care with positive attitudes and behaviors. In an environment characterized by heavy workloads and persistent national instability, POS becomes an essential psychological anchor that sustains engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA major contribution of this study lies in the \u003cstrong\u003emoderation findings\u003c/strong\u003e. The results show that uncertainty and power distance intensify the harmful effect of span strain on engagement. Under conditions of high uncertainty, employees become more dependent on managerial communication and direction; when access to managers diminishes, feelings of confusion and disconnection increase sharply, prompting disengagement. Similarly, employees with higher power-distance orientations are more sensitive to managerial strain because it disrupts expected norms of presence, authority, and hierarchical clarity. In a cultural context where leader accessibility is perceived as a fundamental need, reduced managerial support during M\u0026amp;A leads to sharper drops in engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond these interactive effects, the \u003cstrong\u003emediation results\u003c/strong\u003e highlight a central theoretical insight: POS partially explains how power distance, uncertainty, and span strain erode engagement. All indirect effects were significant (p \u0026lt; .001). Specifically, POS mediated 33.8% of the effect of uncertainty, 26.2% of the effect of span strain, and 22.6% of the effect of power distance. These findings suggest that stressors do not harm engagement solely through operational burdens, but also through the \u003cstrong\u003erelational signals\u003c/strong\u003e they send. When employees perceive heightened ambiguity, unclear structures, or overloaded managers, they interpret these conditions as indicators of reduced organizational care\u0026mdash;prompting engagement to decline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these results indicate that in Lebanon\u0026rsquo;s M\u0026amp;A landscape\u0026mdash;marked by ongoing crises, weak institutional safeguards, resource scarcity, and macroeconomic instability\u0026mdash;employees rely heavily on relational cues to remain engaged. Even when structural pressures cannot be fully alleviated, organizations can protect engagement by reinforcing the socioemotional contract: demonstrating fairness, clarifying decisions, communicating consistently, and signaling genuine care all help maintain POS and, in turn, support engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study also reveals that employees\u0026rsquo; relational expectations are not uniformly distributed. Those with higher power-distance orientations experience larger engagement losses under managerial strain, while uncertainty heightens employees\u0026rsquo; dependence on leaders for direction. These dynamics highlight the importance of attending not only to structures and processes, but also to employees\u0026rsquo; underlying perceptions during M\u0026amp;A transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, the results emphasize that employee engagement in times of organizational upheaval is not primarily a function of workload or formal processes. Engagement is fundamentally \u003cstrong\u003erelational\u003c/strong\u003e. Employees remain adaptive, aligned with organizational goals, and committed to exerting effort when they feel valued and supported. In Lebanon\u0026rsquo;s polycrisis context\u0026mdash;where job alternatives are scarce and employees are often embedded in long-standing relational networks\u0026mdash;the relational fabric of the organization becomes the most powerful determinant of sustained engagement. Firms navigating M\u0026amp;A should therefore prioritize managerial availability, strengthen POS, and minimize informational ambiguity. Even modest improvements in fairness, communication, and support can meaningfully buffer employees against the psychological toll of uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e5.1 Theoretical Contributions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study offers several meaningful contributions to organizational and management theory:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntegration of Complementary Theories\u003c/strong\u003e: this study moves beyond single-lens perspective by integrating Hofstede\u0026rsquo;s Cultural Framework, Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Organizational Justice Theory. By doing so, it describes how perceived fairness, cultural values (power distance), and relational signals (POS), interacts to shape employee engagement during complex organizational changes.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExploring the Engagement _SOC Mechanism\u003c/strong\u003e: While wide SOC is often assumed to damage engagement, this study suggests that the relationship is more complex. Span strain impacts employee engagement both \u003cstrong\u003eindirectly\u003c/strong\u003e through POS (26.20%) and \u003cstrong\u003econditionally\u003c/strong\u003e, depending on situational context (Uncertainty) and employees\u0026rsquo; cultural orientation (Power Distance). This contributes to the literature by reframing SOC not as a purely structural issue, but as a psychological and relational mechanism.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExtending M\u0026amp;A and Crisis Literature to a High-Uncertainty Context\u003c/strong\u003e: By analyzing the Lebanese insurance sector, this research sheds light on organizational change dynamics in high-uncertainty, non-Western environment. The potent predictive power of power distance (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.452) highlights the importance of cultural values in contexts marked by institutional instability.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmpirical Support for an Optimal SOC Range\u003c/strong\u003e: The research provides empirical evidence for an optimal span of 5\u0026ndash;8 employees per manager during M\u0026amp;A. This enriches the organizational design literature by anchoring span-of-control recommendations in data instead of mere intuition.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e5.2 Practical Implications\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study offer practical guidance for organizations undergoing M\u0026amp;A:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReinforce Managerial Support Capacity\u003c/strong\u003e: Supervisors overseeing employees with high power-distance orientation, or operating in high-uncertainty conditions require additional communication training and support. Their teams are more susceptible to disengagement under strain.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign SOC Meticulously:\u003c/strong\u003e Leaders should prioritize managerial spans of 5\u0026ndash;8 employees during integration. Wider spans damage engagement, especially in uncertain contexts.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiminish Ambiguity through Continuous and Transparent Communication\u003c/strong\u003e: Based on the mediation analysis, POS mediates the effect of uncertainty on engagement (33.8%). Therefore, management must proactively address ambiguity by clarifying decisions, maintaining consistent messaging, and providing timely updates.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBolster POS through Genuine Support and Fairness\u003c/strong\u003e: Providing instrumental and emotional support, demonstrating fairness, and showing concern for employee well-being, all help maintain POS and engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConduct Cultural Due Diligence during M\u0026amp;A\u003c/strong\u003e: Power-distance orientations between merging organizations should be evaluated early. Integration plans must consider potential cultural clashes related to authority, status, communication, and leadership style.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e5.3 Limitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003col class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContext Specificity:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe Lebanese insurance and reinsurance sector during a national crisis represents a particular context. The findings may yield different results in more stable or culturally different settings.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCross-Sectional Data:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSince data were collected at a single time point, causal relationships cannot be established. Disengaged individuals may perceive their environment more negatively at a given times.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommon Method Bias\u003c/strong\u003e: collecting data from the same source using the same method could amplify relationships.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUn-included Variables\u003c/strong\u003e: other variables\u0026mdash;such as leadership behaviors, job autonomy, or personality traits\u0026mdash;likely contribute to employee engagement but were not examined in this study.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e5.4 Future Research Recommendations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research could build on this work through:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLongitudinal Research Designs\u003c/strong\u003e: tracking employees across various M\u0026amp;A phases would enable researchers to observe how perceptions evolve.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMulti-Method and Multi-source Data\u003c/strong\u003e: using supervisor ratings for engagement, HR records for SOC, and employee surveys for perceptions would minimize common method bias.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCross-Cultural Comparative Studies\u003c/strong\u003e: comparing low power distance contexts (e.g. Denmark) with high power-distance contexts would clarify the cultural contingencies explored here.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInclude Additional Moderators and Mediators\u003c/strong\u003e: future work could explore other moderators such as resilience, leadership style, and organizational trust, and mediators such as psychological safety, change commitment, or autonomy.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBroader Applications\u003c/strong\u003e: replicating this model in other tumultuous environments (large-scale restructuring, digital transformation, post-pandemic sectors) would test its robustness and generalizability.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study expands our comprehension of employee engagement by uncovering the structural, psychological, relational, and cultural forces that shape it during organizational changes, particularly M\u0026amp;A in Lebanon\u0026rsquo;s tumultuous environment. In contexts where resource scarcity, uncertainty, and institutional fragility converge, this research shows that engagement is not maintained by formal structures and procedures alone\u0026mdash;it is sustained by the cultural and relational fabric of the company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe core contribution of this research lies in demonstrating that engagement is significantly affected by a combination of factors\u0026mdash;power distance, managerial span strain, and uncertainty\u0026mdash;whose damaging effects are transmitted and partially explained by POS. The finding that POS acts simultaneously as a buffer, a relational signal, and a mediator advances established theories of Organizational Justice, Social Exchange, and Conservation of Resources. It underlines that during M\u0026amp;A, employees interpret strained managerial access, hierarchical distance, and ambiguity not merely as operational challenges but as signs of declining support, which then corrode engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy positioning this model within Lebanon\u0026rsquo;s ongoing polycrisis, this research underscores that cultural expectations\u0026mdash;especially power distance orientation\u0026mdash;carry disproportionate impact. The strong direct effect of power distance and its moderating effect on span strain highlight that in high power-distance contexts, employees assign great importance for the presence of the leader, clarity, guidance and directions to stay psychologically anchored particularly during change. This insight enriches mainstream M\u0026amp;A literature by revealing how relational expectations and cultural norms magnify the psychological outcomes of structural pressures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractically, the study findings provide important insights for managers. Engagement is shielded not by removing all uncertainty\u0026mdash;which is often impossible, particularly during M\u0026amp;A\u0026mdash;but by strengthening POS through accessible leadership, fair and considerate treatment, and transparent communication. Even gradual improvements in managerial availability can meaningfully counteract the demoralizing effects M\u0026amp;A changes. Ultimately, the study emphasizes that in turbulent environments, the most enduring resource an organization possesses is not structural, financial, or reputational buffers\u0026mdash;but the nature and strength of its social bonds with employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, this study presents a detailed and contextually grounded model for understanding engagement during organizational changes. It shows that engagement is essentially relational, culturally shaped, and highly influenced by how employees perceive organizational signals in times of uncertainty. In tumultuous contexts like Lebanon, where employees often rely on relationships more than financial incentives, fostering this relational foundation becomes not only beneficial but crucial for sustaining engagement through the uncertainty of M\u0026amp;A.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 1964) and its later amendments. Ethical review and approval were waived by the Research Ethics Committee of the Lebanese University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, as the study involved anonymous survey data, posed no potential risk to participants, and complied with national research ethics regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to completing the survey, either in written form or through confirmed agreement via email or WhatsApp.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participating firms and employees, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRabih Makhlouf is the sole author of this study. He conceptualized the research, collected and analyzed the data, and prepared the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnitha, J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63\u003c/em\u003e(3), 308\u0026ndash;323.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAntony, M. R.\u003c/strong\u003e (2018). Paradigm shift in employee engagement: A critical analysis on the drivers of employee engagement. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Information, Business and Management, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 32\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAppelbaum, S. H., Serena, M., \u0026amp; Shapiro, B. T.\u003c/strong\u003e (2005). Generation \u0026lsquo;X\u0026rsquo; and the boomers: An analysis of realities and myths. \u003cem\u003eManagement Research News, 28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBedeian, A. G.\u003c/strong\u003e (1976). \u003cem\u003eA history of the span of management\u003c/em\u003e. Louisiana State University. https://faculty.lsu.edu/bedeian/files/a-history-of-the-span-of-management.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBendersky, C., \u0026amp; Hays, N. A.\u003c/strong\u003e (2012). Status conflict in groups. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Science, 23\u003c/em\u003e, 323\u0026ndash;340.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBhuvanaiah, T., \u0026amp; Raya, R. P.\u003c/strong\u003e (2014). Employee engagement: Key to organizational success. \u003cem\u003eSCMS Journal of Indian Management, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 61\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBialas, S.\u003c/strong\u003e (2009). Power distance as a determinant of relations between managers and employees in enterprises with foreign capital. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intercultural Management, 1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 105\u0026ndash;115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBiswas, S., Varma, A., \u0026amp; Ramaswami, A.\u003c/strong\u003e (2013). Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: A field study in India. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1570\u0026ndash;1587.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., \u0026amp; DiFonzo, N.\u003c/strong\u003e (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 345\u0026ndash;365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000128\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCarmeli, A., Friedman, Y., \u0026amp; Tishler, A.\u003c/strong\u003e (2013). Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. \u003cem\u003eSafety Science, 51\u003c/em\u003e(1), 148\u0026ndash;159.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCartwright, S., \u0026amp; Cooper, C. L.\u003c/strong\u003e (1992). \u003cem\u003eThe human factor\u003c/em\u003e. Centaur Consulting Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCartwright, S., \u0026amp; Cooper, C. L.\u003c/strong\u003e (2018). The psychological impact of mergers and acquisitions on the individual: A study of building society managers. In \u003cem\u003eManagerial, occupational and organizational stress research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 429\u0026ndash;450). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCathcart, D., Jeska, S., Karnas, J., Miller, S. E., Pechacek, J., \u0026amp; Rheault, L.\u003c/strong\u003e (2004). Span of control matters. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Nursing Administration, 34\u003c/em\u003e(9), 395\u0026ndash;399.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChen, C., Liao, J., \u0026amp; Wen, P.\u003c/strong\u003e (2014). Why does formal mentoring matter? The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of power distance orientation in the Chinese context. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1112\u0026ndash;1130.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClayton, B. C.\u003c/strong\u003e (2010). Understanding the unpredictable: Beyond traditional research on mergers and acquisitions. \u003cem\u003eEmergence: Complexity and Organization, 12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDorfman, P. W., \u0026amp; Howell, J. P.\u003c/strong\u003e (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in International Comparative Management, 3\u003c/em\u003e, 127\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., \u0026amp; Sowa, D.\u003c/strong\u003e (1986). Perceived organizational support. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 71\u003c/em\u003e(3), 500\u0026ndash;507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., \u0026amp; Cameron, J.\u003c/strong\u003e (1990). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 77\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1026\u0026ndash;1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.1026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEisenberger, R., Rockstuhl, T., Shoss, M. K., Wen, X., \u0026amp; Dulebohn, J. H.\u003c/strong\u003e (2020). Is the employee\u0026ndash;organization relationship dying or thriving? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 105\u003c/em\u003e(9), 993\u0026ndash;1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000390\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFarrar, A. W.\u003c/strong\u003e (2023). \u003cem\u003eThe relationship between span of control and employee engagement: Structural and psychological empowerment as mediators and telework as a moderator\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGalbraith, J. R.\u003c/strong\u003e (1973). \u003cem\u003eDesigning complex organizations\u003c/em\u003e. Addison-Wesley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGalpin, T., Whittington, J. L., \u0026amp; Maellaro, R.\u003c/strong\u003e (2012). Identifying, retaining and re-engaging key talent during mergers and acquisitions: A best practices framework. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Strategy, 35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGiessner, S. R., Ullrich, J., \u0026amp; van Dick, R.\u003c/strong\u003e (2012). A social identity analysis of mergers and acquisitions. In \u003cem\u003eThe handbook of mergers and acquisitions\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 474\u0026ndash;494).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGould, R.\u003c/strong\u003e (2003). \u003cem\u003eCollision of wills\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHambrick, D. C., \u0026amp; Cannella, A. A., Jr.\u003c/strong\u003e (1993). Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures of acquired executives. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 733\u0026ndash;762.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHe, J.-Y., \u0026amp; Huang, Z.\u003c/strong\u003e (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 54\u003c/em\u003e, 119\u0026ndash;1140.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHofstede, G.\u003c/strong\u003e (1980). Culture\u0026rsquo;s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., \u0026amp; Minkov, M.\u003c/strong\u003e (2010). \u003cem\u003eCultures and organizations: Software of the mind\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHomans, G. C.\u003c/strong\u003e (1950). \u003cem\u003eThe human group\u003c/em\u003e. Harcourt, Brace and Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHuang, Z., Zhu, H., \u0026amp; Brass, D. J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2017). Cross-border acquisitions and the asymmetric effect of power distance value difference on long-term post-acquisition performance. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 38\u003c/em\u003e(4), 972\u0026ndash;991.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKempton, B., \u0026amp; Sarala, R. M.\u003c/strong\u003e (2021). Employee perspective on mergers and acquisitions (M\u0026amp;As): A state-of-the-art literature review and synthesis. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 20\u003c/em\u003e, 81\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., \u0026amp; Lowe, K. B.\u003c/strong\u003e (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 52\u003c/em\u003e(4), 744\u0026ndash;764.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKrug, J. A., \u0026amp; Nigh, D.\u003c/strong\u003e (2001). Executive perceptions in foreign and domestic acquisitions: An analysis of foreign ownership and its effect on executive fate. \u003cem\u003eJournal of World Business, 36\u003c/em\u003e, 85\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., \u0026amp; Aryee, S.\u003c/strong\u003e (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior, 23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLevinson, H.\u003c/strong\u003e (1965). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Harper \u0026amp; Row.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLind, E. A., \u0026amp; Van den Bos, K.\u003c/strong\u003e (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eAdvances in experimental social psychology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 34, pp. 181\u0026ndash;229). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLoi, R., Lam, L. W., \u0026amp; Chan, K. W.\u003c/strong\u003e (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership, and power distance orientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics, 108\u003c/em\u003e(3), 361\u0026ndash;372.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMakhlouf, R. B.\u003c/strong\u003e (2025). Drivers of resilience in Lebanese firms [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6573580/v1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMakhlouf, R. B., \u0026amp; Lebanon, B.\u003c/strong\u003e (2025). The impact of span of control on employee engagement during M\u0026amp;A: Insights from Lebanese insurance firms. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Economic Studies and Management, 5\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMelkonian, T., Monin, P., \u0026amp; Noorderhaven, N. G.\u003c/strong\u003e (2011). Distributive justice, procedural justice, exemplarity, and employees\u0026rsquo; willingness to cooperate in M\u0026amp;A integration processes: An analysis of the Air France‐KLM merger. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management, 50\u003c/em\u003e(6), 809\u0026ndash;837.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeyer, J. W., \u0026amp; Rowan, B.\u003c/strong\u003e (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Sociology, 83\u003c/em\u003e(2), 340\u0026ndash;363.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOptimal Quantum Workplace.\u003c/strong\u003e (2019). \u003cem\u003eWhat\u0026rsquo;s the optimal span of control for people managers?\u003c/em\u003e https://www.quantumworkplace.com/future-of-work/whats-the-optimal-span-of-control-for-people-managers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePech, R., \u0026amp; Slade, B.\u003c/strong\u003e (2006). Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing problem? \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Business Strategy, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePech, R., \u0026amp; Slade, B.\u003c/strong\u003e (2006). Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing problem? \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Business Strategy, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRam, P., \u0026amp; Prabhakar, G. V.\u003c/strong\u003e (2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related outcomes. \u003cem\u003eInterdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 47\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRastogi, G. R.\u003c/strong\u003e (2013). Employee engagement and organizational effectiveness: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. \u003cem\u003eThe Business Management Review, 8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 129\u0026ndash;136.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRisely.\u003c/strong\u003e (2023). \u003cem\u003eBuilding the ideal span of control as a manager: 6 key factors\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.risely.me/the-optimum-span-of-control-for-managers-6-factors-to-consider/?amp=1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRubin, D. P., Oehler, K., \u0026amp; Adair, C.\u003c/strong\u003e (2013). Managing employee engagement during times of change [White paper]. Aon Hewitt. http://www.aon.com/human-capital-consulting/thought-leadership/talent_mgmt/2013_Managing_Engagement_During_Times_of_Change_White_Paper.jsp\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSchyns, B., Maslyn, J. M., \u0026amp; Weibler, J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2010). Understanding the relationship between span of control and subordinate consensus in leader\u0026ndash;member exchange. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 388\u0026ndash;406.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eShook, L., \u0026amp; Roth, G.\u003c/strong\u003e (2011). Downsizings, mergers, and acquisitions: Perspectives of human resource development practitioners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of European Industrial Training, 35\u003c/em\u003e(2), 135\u0026ndash;153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSimons, T. L., \u0026amp; Peterson, R. S.\u003c/strong\u003e (2000). Task conflicts and relationship conflicts in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 85\u003c/em\u003e, 102\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSteigenberger, N.\u003c/strong\u003e (2017). The challenge of integration: A review of the M\u0026amp;A integration literature. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Management Reviews, 19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 408\u0026ndash;431.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSung, W., Woehler, M. L., Fagan, J. M., Grosser, T. J., Floyd, T. M., \u0026amp; Labianca, G. J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2017). Employees\u0026rsquo; responses to an organizational merger: Intraindividual change in organizational identification, attachment, and turnover. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 102\u003c/em\u003e(6), 910.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThiel, C. E., Hardy III, J. H., Peterson, D. R., Welsh, D. T., \u0026amp; Bonner, J. M.\u003c/strong\u003e (2018). Too many sheep in the flock? Span of control attenuates the influence of ethical leadership. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 103\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1324.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThompson, J. D.\u003c/strong\u003e (1967). \u003cem\u003eOrganizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory\u003c/em\u003e. McGraw-Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTurner, J. T., Jr.\u003c/strong\u003e (2006). Employee empowerment: Relationships between location in the hierarchy, span of control, and industry type on perceptions of empowerment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., \u0026amp; Huo, Y. J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. \u003cem\u003ePsychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1138.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVan Oorschot, K. E., Nujen, B. B., Solli-S\u0026aelig;ther, H., \u0026amp; Mwesiumo, D. E.\u003c/strong\u003e (2023). The complexity of post-mergers and acquisitions reorganization: Integration and differentiation. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Strategy Journal, 13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 673\u0026ndash;699.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWeber, Y.\u003c/strong\u003e (2019). The role of organizational identity in post-merger integration. In The synergy of business theory and practice: Advancing the practical application of scholarly research (pp. 91\u0026ndash;107).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eXu, J., \u0026amp; Cooper-Thomas, H.\u003c/strong\u003e (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? \u003cem\u003eLeadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal, 32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 399\u0026ndash;416.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eZoller, Y. J., \u0026amp; Muldoon, J.\u003c/strong\u003e (2020). Journey of a concept: Span of control\u0026ndash;the rise, the decline, and what is next? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management History, 26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 515\u0026ndash;533.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":true,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Lebanese University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Employee Engagement, Span of Control, Perceived Organizational Support, Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A), Power Distance, Organizational Uncertainty, Insurance Sector, Lebanon, Moderated Mediation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8263830/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8263830/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explores the determinants of employee engagement during mergers and acquisitions (M\u0026amp;A) within Lebanon's insurance and reinsurance sector. Focusing on the perceived organizational support (POS), power distance, span of control (SOC), and uncertainty, we develop and test an integrated model to examine how these factors together affect engagement. Data from 485 non-managerial employees were analyzed using correlation, regression, moderation, and mediation analyses. The results demonstrate that perceived span strain, uncertainty, and power distance all exert significant negative effects on engagement, while POS exhibits a strong positive effect. Furthermore, power distance and uncertainty act as significant aggravating moderators, strengthening the negative impact of span strain on engagement. Mediation analysis revealed that POS partially explains the negative effects of uncertainty (33.8%), span strain (26.2% mediated), and power distance (22.6%). An additional ANOVA with Tukey's HSD tests identified an optimal managerial SOC of 5\u0026ndash;8 subordinates to maximize engagement during M\u0026amp;A. These findings are interpreted through the lenses of Social Exchange Theory and Organizational Justice Theory, emphasizing how cultural and structural during M\u0026amp;A influence engagement by shaping employees' perceptions of organizational support. The study provides practitioners with actionable insights for optimizing organizational structures and maintaining workforce morale during complex M\u0026amp;A integrations, ultimately nurturing M\u0026amp;A success.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceived Organizational Support as a Mediator: How Span of Control, Uncertainty, and Power Distance Shape Employee Engagement during M\u0026amp;A","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-08 04:58:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8263830/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ce1e9c3a-5bc4-49cf-a7f5-c6a7b0a1ac13","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":59244543,"name":"Management"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-29T09:39:58+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-08 04:58:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8263830","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8263830","identity":"rs-8263830","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}