Engaging Leadership and Its Implication for Work Engagement and Job Outcomes at the Individual and Team Level: A Multi-Level Longitudinal Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. The Concept of Engaging Leadership
2.2. Team-Level Effect of Engaging Leadership at the Team Level on Team Outcomes as Mediated by Team Work Engagement
2.3. Cross-Level Effect of Engaging Leadership at the Team Level on Job Outcomes as Mediated by Team Work Engagement
2.4. Cross-Level Effect of Engaging Leadership at the Team Level on Job Outcomes as Mediated by Individual Work Engagement
3. Method
3.1. Sample and Procedure
3.1.1. Sample
3.1.2. Procedure
3.2. Measurements
3.3. Preliminary Analysis
3.3.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
3.3.2. Data Aggregation
3.4. Strategy of Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Hypotheses Testing
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Direction
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Boxall, P.; Purcell, J. Strategy and Human Resources Management; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kontoghiorghes, C.; Awbre, S.M.; Feurig, P.L. Examining the relationship between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2005, 16, 185–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Bell, B.S. Work groups and teams in organizations. In Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R., Klimoski, R.J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; Volume 12, pp. 333–375. [Google Scholar]
- Montoya-Weiss, M.M.; Massey, A.P.; Song, M. Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 1251–1262. [Google Scholar]
- Yukl, G. Effective Leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 26, 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yukl, G.; Lepsinger, R. Leading change: Adapting and innovating in an uncertain world. Leadersh. Action 2006, 26, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, 8th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.-T.; Hsu, H.M.; Liou, J.W.; Tsai, C.-T. Psychological contracts and innovative behavior: A moderated path analysis of work engagement and job resources. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, 2120–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hakanen, J.J.; Perhoniemi, R.; Toppinen-Tanner, S. Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. J. Vocat. Behav. 2008, 73, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Gevers, J.M.P. Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 91, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harter, J.K.; Schmidt, F.L.; Hayes, T.L. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salanova, M.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.M.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Cifre, E. Flowing together: A longitudinal study of collective efficacy and collective flow among workgroups. J. Psychol. 2014, 148, 435–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W. Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Rom. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 14, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, B.; Yost, A.B.; Kropp, A.; Kind, C.; Lam, H. Workforce engagement: What it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 39, 462–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrente, P.; Salanova, M.; Llorens, S.; Schaufeli, W.B. Teams make it work: How team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams. Psicothema 2012, 24, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Richardson, J.; West, M. Engaged work teams. In Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; pp. 323–340. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, P.; Passos, A.M.; Bakker, A. Empirical validation of the team work engagement construct. J. Pers. Psychol. 2014, 13, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salanova, M.; Llorens, S.; Cifre, E.; Martinez, I.M.; Schaufeli, W.B. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective wellbeing and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Res. 2003, 34, 43–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schaufeli, W.B. Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Dev. Int. 2015, 20, 446–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nikolova, I.; Schaufeli, W.; Notelaers, G. Engaging leader—Engaged employees? A cross-lagged study on employee engagement. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahmadani, V.G.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Ivanova, T.Y.; Osin, E. Basic psychological need satisfaction mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement: A cross-national study. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2019, 30, 453–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W. A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach; Bauer, G.F., Hämmig, O., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 43–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bliese, P.D.; Halverson, R.R.; Schriesheim, C. Benchmarking multilevel methods in leadership. The articles, the model, and the data set. Leadersh. Q. 2002, 13, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essoussi, S. Engaging Leadership in Job Demands Resource Model: Analysis at Team Level. Master’s Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Robijn, W.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Deprez, J.; Euwema, M. Is my leader your leader? A multi-rater approach to engaging leadership. submitted.
- Ilgen, D.R.; Hollenbeck, J.R.; Johnson, M.; Jundt, D. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 517–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Loréns-Montes, F.J.; Ruíz-Moreno, A.; García-Morales, V. Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: An empirical examination. Technovation 2005, 25, 1159–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jimenez-Jimenez, D.; Sanz Valle, R. Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In Handbook of Self-Determination Research; Deci, E., Ryan, R.M., Eds.; University of Rochester Press: Rochester, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
- Andersen, S.M.; Chen, S.; Carter, C. Fundamental human needs: Making social cognition relevant. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 269–318. [Google Scholar]
- Hadden, B.W.; Smith, C.V. I gotta say, today was a good (and meaningful) day: Daily meaning in life as a potential basic psychological need. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 20, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baumeister, R.F. Meanings of Life; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Frankl, V. Meaning in industrial society. In International Forum for Logotherapy; Viktor Frankl Institute: Vienna, Austria, 1992; Volume 15, pp. 66–67. [Google Scholar]
- May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deci, E.; Ryan, R. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, S.A.; Svyantek, D.J. Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. J. Vocat. Behav. 1999, 55, 254–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- West, M.A.; Farr, J.L. Innovation at work. In Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies; West, M.A., Farr, J.L., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1990; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- Mäkikangas, A.; Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B. Antecedents of daily team job crafting. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2017, 26, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D.; van Rhenen, W. Job crafting at the team and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group. Organ. Manag. 2013, 38, 427–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guchait, P. The mediating effect of team engagement between team cognitions and team outcomes in service-management teams. J. Hos. Tou. Res. 2016, 40, 139–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000, 73, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.; Emmerik, H.V.; Euwema, M. Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work Occup. 2006, 33, 464–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatfield, E.; Cacioppo, J.; Rapson, R.L. Emotional Contagion; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Hatfield, E.; Rapson, R.L.; Le, Y.L. Emotional contagion and empathy. In The Social Neuroscience of Empathy; Decety, J., Ickes, W., Eds.; MIT Press: Massachusetts, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Gierveld, J.H.; Van Rijswijk, K. Succesfactoren bij Vrouwelijke Schoolleiders in het Primair Onderwijs: Een Onderzoek naar Burnout, Evlogenheid en Prestaties (Success Factors among Female School Principals in Primary Teaching: A Study on Burnout, Work Engagement, and Performance); Right Management Consultants: Diemen, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Salanova, M.; Llorens, S.; Schaufeli, W.B. Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it! On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2011, 60, 255–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Albrecht, S.L.; Leiter, M.P. Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2011, 20, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salanova, M.; Schaufeli, W.; Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B. The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Bakker, A., Leiter, M.P., Eds.; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2010; pp. 118–131. [Google Scholar]
- Jeno, L.M.; Raaheim, A.; Kristensen, S.M.; Kristensen, K.D.; Hole, T.N.; Haugland, M.J.; Mæland, S. The relative effect of team-based learning on motivation and learning: A self-determination theory perspective. CBE. Life. Sci. Edu. 2017, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kusurkar, R.A.; Croiset, G.; Olle, T.J.; Cate, T. Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive class¬room teaching derived from self-determination theory. Med. Teach. 2011, 33, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unsworth, K.L.; Clegg, C.W. Why do employees undertake creative action? J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, S.; Bruce, R. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.; Salanova, M. Enhancing work engagement through the management of human resources. In The Individual in the Changing Working Life; Naswall, K., Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 380–404. [Google Scholar]
- Halbesleben, J.R.B. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Bakker, M.P., Leiter, A.B., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 102–117. [Google Scholar]
- Christian, M.S.; Garza, A.S.; Slaughter, J.E. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 89–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huhtala, H.; Parzefall, M. A review of employee wellbeing and innovativeness: An opportunity for a mutual benefit. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2007, 16, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jung, D.I.; Chow, C.; Wu, A. The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadersh. Q. 2003, 14, 525–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagné, M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 331–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, Y.K.; Song, J.H.; Yoon, S.W.; Kim, J.W. Learning organization and innovative behavior: The mediating effect of work engagement. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2014, 38, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Q.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W.; van Hessen, D.J.; Hakanen, J.; Salanova, M.; Shimazu, A. East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet: Work engagement and workaholism across Eastern and Western cultures. J. Behav. Soc. Sci. 2014, 1, 6–24. [Google Scholar]
- Drach-Zahavy, A.; Somech, A. Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2001, 5, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, M.A.; Wallace, M. Innovation in health care teams. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 21, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, N.G.; Hanges, P.J.; Hall R., J. Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2005, 16, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Mierlo, H.; Vermunt, J.K.; Rutte, C.G. Composing group-level constructs from individual level survey data. Organ. Res. Methods 2009, 12, 368–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- James, L.R.; Demaree, R.G.; Wolf, G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 1984, 69, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bliese, P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions; Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 349–381. [Google Scholar]
- LeBreton, J.M.; Senter, J.L. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ. Res. Methods 2008, 11, 815–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, K.J.; Kozlowski, S.W.J. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Snijders, T.A.B.; Bosker, R. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Curran, P.J.; West, S.; Finch, J.F. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Selig, J.P. Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Commun. Methods Meas. 2012, 6, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Tollefsen, D. Group deliberation, social cohesion, and scientific teamwork: Is there room for dissent? Episteme 2006, 3, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, R.K. Mood and emotion in groups. In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes; Hogg, M.A., Tindale, R.S., Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Xanthopoulou, D. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Walumbwa, F.O.; Wang, P.; Wang, H.; Schaubroeck, J.; Avolio, B.J. Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 2010, 21, 901–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bormann, K.C.; Rowold, J. Construct proliferation in leadership style research: Reviewing pro and contra arguments. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 8, 149–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, S.; Breidahl, E.; Marty, A. Organizational resources, organizational engagement climate, and employee engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2018, 23, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, Z.S. Understanding Employee Engagement: Theory, Research, and Practice; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kalisch, B.J.; Curley, M.; Stefanov, S. An intervention to enhance nursing staff teamwork and engagement. J. Nurs. Adm. 2007, 37, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saks, A.; Gruman, J. What do we really know about employee engagement? Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2014, 25, 155–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spector, P.E. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organ. Res. Methods. 2006, 9, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widmann, A.; Messmann, G.; Mulder, R.H. The impact of team learning behaviors on team innovative work behavior: A systematic review. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2016, 15, 429–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Dierendonck, D.; Euwema, M.C. Engaging leadership and servant leadership: Psychological needs a driving force for engagement. In The Fun and Frustration of Modern Working Life; Taris, T., Peeters, M., De Witte, H., Eds.; Pelckmans Pro.: Kalmthout, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Individual’s Characteristics | N | Percent | |
---|---|---|---|
Educational Level | Elementary education | 57 | 25.4 |
Secondary education | 126 | 56.3 | |
Bachelor | 39 | 17.4 | |
Master | 2 | 0.9 | |
Tenure (year) | 0–5 | 24 | 10.7 |
6–10 | 12 | 5.4 | |
11–15 | 15 | 6.7 | |
16–20 | 42 | 18.8 | |
21 and more | 131 | 58.5 | |
Working in current team (year) | 0–5 | 98 | 43.8 |
6–10 | 35 | 15.6 | |
11–15 | 14 | 6.3 | |
16–20 | 27 | 12.1 | |
21 and more | 50 | 22.3 | |
Working with current | less than a year | 72 | 32.1 |
supervisor (year) | 1–5 | 146 | 65.2 |
5–10 | 6 | 2.7 |
Variables | Rwg Cut off > 0.70 | % of Meeting the 0.70 Cut off | F | p-Value | ICC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Engaging Leadership T1 Team Work Engagement T2 Team Performance T2 Team Learning T2 Team Innovation T2 | 0.78–1.00 | 98% | 1.586 | 0.014 | 0.10 |
0.72–1.00 | 100% | 1.967 | 0.001 | 0.15 | |
0.75–1.00 | 100% | 1.910 | 0.001 | 0.12 | |
0.71–1.00 | 65% | 2.040 | 0.000 | 0.10 | |
0.70–1.00 | 93% | 2.170 | 0.175 | 0.15 |
Team-Level Variables | Mean | SD | Variables | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
Engaging leadership at the team level T1 Team work engagement T2 Team performance T2 Team learning T2 Team innovation T2 | 4.13 | 0.25 | |||||
4.49 | 0.33 | 0.49 ** | |||||
4.28 | 0.28 | 0.47 ** | 0.42 ** | ||||
3.58 | 0.48 | 0.31 * | 0.51 ** | 0.23 ns | |||
4.23 | 0.39 | 0.53 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.46 ** | 0.48 ** | ||
Cross-Level Variables | Mean | SD | Variables | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
Engaging leadership at the team level T1 Work engagement T2 Job performance T2Employee learning T2 Innovative work behavior T2 | 4.13 | 0.25 | (0.861) | ||||
4.61 | 0.41 | 0.29 ** | (0.874) | ||||
4.04 | 0.48 | 0.29 ** | 0.36 ** | (0.823) | |||
3.60 | 0.79 | 0.28 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.59 ** | (0.757) | ||
3.66 | 0.85 | 0.38 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.64 ** | 0.76 ** | (0.874) |
Team Performance (No Mediating Effect) | |||
B | SD | B | |
Step 1 | |||
Constant | 2.09 | 0.57 | |
Engaging Leadership Time 1 | 0.53 | 0.14 | 0.47 ** |
Step 2 | |||
Constant | 1.72 | 0.59 | |
Engaging Leadership Time 1 | 0.39 | 0.15 | 0.35 * |
Team Work Engagement Time 2 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.25 ns |
R2 | 0.27 ** | ||
F | 9.43 ** | ||
ΔR2 | 0.05 ns | ||
ΔF | 3.32 ns | ||
Team Learning (Full Mediation) | |||
B | SD | B | |
Step 1 | |||
Constant | 1.14 | 1.04 | |
Engaging Leadership Time 1 | 0.59 | 0.25 | 0.31 * |
Step 2 | |||
Constant | −0.53 | 1.01 | |
Engaging Leadership Time 1 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.08 ns |
Team Work Engagement Time 2 | 0.67 | 0.20 | 0.47 ** |
R2 | 0.27 ** | ||
F | 9.18 ** | ||
ΔR2 | 0.17 ** | ||
ΔF | 11.74 ** | ||
Team Innovation (Partial Mediation) | |||
B | SD | B | |
Step 1 | |||
Constant | 0.80 | 0.75 | |
Engaging Leadership Time 1 | 0.83 | 0.18 | 0.53 ** |
Step 2 | |||
Constant | 0.25 | 0.78 | |
Engaging Leadership Time 1 | 0.62 | 0.20 | 0.40 ** |
Team Work Engagement Time 2 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.27 * |
R2 | 0.34 * | ||
F | 13.17 ** | ||
ΔR2 | 0.06 * | ||
ΔF | 4.32 * |
Dependent Variables | WE T2 | TWE T2 | Job Performance T2 | Employee Learning T2 | Innovative Work Behavior T2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | |
Constant | 4.61 (0.03) | 0.18 (0.66) | 4.04 (0.04) | 4.03 (0.04) | 3.60 (0.05) | 3.60 (0.05) | 3.65 (0.07) | 3.65 (0.06) |
Level 2 (Team Level) | ||||||||
Engaging Leadership T1 | 0.46 ** (0.15) | 0.65 ** (0.16) | 0.57 ** (0.16) | 0.32 ** (0.15) | 1.06 ** (0.25) | 0.83 ** (0.27) | 1.16 ** (0.34) | 0.83 * (0.40) |
TWE T2 | 0.34 ** (0.16) | 0.34 (0.19) | 0.49 (0.28) | |||||
Level 1 (Individual Level) | ||||||||
WE T2 | 0.37 ** (0.09) | 0.60 ** (0.14) | 0.76 ** (0.14) | |||||
R12 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.19 | |
R22 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.33 | 0.34 ** | 0.27 | 0.30 | |
Pseudo R2 | 0.24 | |||||||
F | 16.58 ** |
Path | Effect | SE | LLCI 95% | ULCI 95% |
---|---|---|---|---|
Test of team-level direct effects (2-2 model) | ||||
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Performance T2 | 0.39 ** | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.68 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Learning Behavior T2 | 0.15 ns | 0.26 | −0.35 | 0.67 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Innovation T2 | 0.62 ** | 0.20 | 0.23 | 1.01 |
Test of cross-level direct effects (2-1 model) | ||||
Engaging Leadership T1 > Job Performance T2 | 0.32 ** | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.62 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Employee Learning T2 | 0.83 ** | 0.27 | 0.31 | 1.36 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Innovative Work Behavior T2 | 0.83 ** | 0.40 | 0.04 | 1.61 |
Test of team-level mediated effects (2-2-2 model) | ||||
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Work Engagement T2 > Team Performance T2 | 0.14 ns | 0.09 | −0.02 | 0.33 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Work Engagement T2 > Team Learning Behavior T2 | 0.44 ** | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.82 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Work Engagement T2 > Team Innovation T2 | 0.20 * | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.49 |
Test of cross-level mediated effects (2-2-1 model) | ||||
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Work Engagement T2 > Job Performance T2 | 0.17 * | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.49 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Work Engagement T2 > Employee Learning T2 | 0.28 ns | 0.11 | −0.01 | 0.53 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Team Work Engagement T2 > Innovative Work Behavior T2 | 0.35 ns | 0.13 | −0.03 | 0.75 |
Test of cross-level mediated effects (2-1-1 model) | ||||
Engaging Leadership T1 > Work Engagement T2 > Job Performance T2 | 0.22 * | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.33 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Work Engagement T2 > Employee Learning T2 | 0.22 * | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.52 |
Engaging Leadership T1 > Work Engagement T2 > Innovative Work Behavior T2 | 0.32 ** | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.63 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rahmadani, V.G.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Stouten, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zulkarnain, Z. Engaging Leadership and Its Implication for Work Engagement and Job Outcomes at the Individual and Team Level: A Multi-Level Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 776. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17030776
Rahmadani VG, Schaufeli WB, Stouten J, Zhang Z, Zulkarnain Z. Engaging Leadership and Its Implication for Work Engagement and Job Outcomes at the Individual and Team Level: A Multi-Level Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(3):776. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17030776
Chicago/Turabian StyleRahmadani, Vivi Gusrini, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Jeroen Stouten, Zhenduo Zhang, and Zulkarnain Zulkarnain. 2020. "Engaging Leadership and Its Implication for Work Engagement and Job Outcomes at the Individual and Team Level: A Multi-Level Longitudinal Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 3: 776. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17030776