| Literature DB >> 35210879 |
Muhammad Farhan Mughal1, Shuang Li Cai1, Naveed Ahmad Faraz2, Fawad Ahmed3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Employees' pro-environmental behavior is crucial for accomplishing organizations' green initiatives. There is a dearth of empirical research that explored the underlying mechanism of environmentally specific servant leadership (ESL) influencing employees' pro-environmental behavior (EPB). The theoretical lens of self-efficacy theory is employed to explore the influence of ESL in predicting EPB. Employees' green self-efficacy was introduced as the mediator through which ESL influences EPB.Entities:
Keywords: employees’ pro-environmental behavior; energy sector; environmentally specific servant leadership; green self-efficacy; self-efficacy theory
Year: 2022 PMID: 35210879 PMCID: PMC8856745 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S328776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Theoretical Model.
Sample Profile of Participants
| Supervisors | Employees | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | % | Frequency | % | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 263 | 69 | 255 | 67 |
| Female | 118 | 31 | 126 | 33 |
| Age (in years) | ||||
| 18–24 | 42 | 11 | 73 | 19 |
| 25–34 | 69 | 18 | 99 | 26 |
| 35–44 | 145 | 38 | 133 | 35 |
| 45–54 | 91 | 24 | 53 | 14 |
| Above 54 | 34 | 09 | 23 | 06 |
| Education (level) | ||||
| Graduation | 107 | 28 | 210 | 55 |
| Masters | 198 | 52 | 129 | 34 |
| MS/PhD | 76 | 20 | 42 | 11 |
| Experience (in years) | ||||
| 01–05 | 38 | 10 | 141 | 37 |
| 06–10 | 80 | 21 | 110 | 29 |
| 11–15 | 175 | 46 | 69 | 18 |
| Above 15 | 88 | 23 | 61 | 16 |
| Position | ||||
| Senior Manager | 49 | 13 | — | — |
| Manager | 145 | 38 | — | — |
| Deputy Manager | 187 | 49 | — | — |
| Assistant Manager | — | — | 179 | 47 |
| Officer | — | — | 202 | 53 |
| Sub-Sectors | ||||
| Generation | 107 | 28 | 107 | 28 |
| Despatch | 133 | 35 | 133 | 35 |
| Distribution | 141 | 37 | 141 | 37 |
Confirmatory Composite Analysis
| Constructs | Items | S.L. | α | C.R | AVE | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmentally specific Servant Leadership | ESL1 | 0.84 | ||||
| ESL2 | 0.88 | |||||
| ESL3 | 0.88 | |||||
| ESL4 | 0.92 | |||||
| ESL5 | 0.86 | |||||
| ESL6 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.937 | 0.558 | 1.59 | |
| ESL7 | 0.89 | |||||
| ESL8 | 0.78 | |||||
| ESL9 | 0.82 | |||||
| ESL10 | 0.77 | |||||
| ESL11 | 0.72 | |||||
| ESL12 | 0.84 | |||||
| Pro-environmental Behavior | EPB1 | 0.77 | ||||
| EPB2 | 0.78 | |||||
| EPB3 | 0.79 | |||||
| EPB4 | 0.81 | |||||
| EPB5 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.945 | 0.631 | 1.81 | |
| EPB6 | 0.76 | |||||
| EPB7 | 0.79 | |||||
| EPB8 | 0.85 | |||||
| EPB9 | 0.8 | |||||
| EPB10 | 0.84 | |||||
| Green Self-efficacy | GSE1 | 0.79 | ||||
| GSE2 | 0.78 | |||||
| GSE3 | 0.83 | |||||
| GSE4 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.917 | 0.648 | 1.75 | |
| GSE5 | 0.81 | |||||
| GSE6 | 0.83 |
Note: Values for the t-statistics were obtained through a two-tailed test, significant at 5% with 5000 bootstrap runs.
Abbreviations: S.L., standard loadings; α, Cronbach alpha; C.R, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; VIF, variance inflation factor.
Discriminant Validity
| Mean | S.D | EPB | GSE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employees’ Pro-environmental Behavior | 4.52 | 0.96 | ||
| Green Self-efficacy | 4.47 | 1.12 | 0.498 | |
| Environmentally specific Servant Leadership | 4.58 | 1.19 | 0.487 | 0.395 |
Assessment of the Structural Model
| Hypothesized Paths | C.I | VAF | Decision | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Path | |||||||
| H1: | ESL -> EPB | 0.286 | 5.979 | [0.235, 0.429] | N/A | Supported | |
| Mediation Paths | |||||||
| H2: | ESL->GSE-> EPB | 0.133 | 3.702 | [0.109, 0.203] | 73% | Partial Mediation | |
| Quality Indicators | |||||||
| R2 Employees’ Green Self-efficacy = 0.270 | Q2 Employees’ Green Self-efficacy = 0.163 | ||||||
| R2 Employees’ Pro-environmental Behavior = 0.600 | Q2 Employees’ Pro-environmental Behavior = 0.236 | ||||||
Note: Values for the t-statistics and C.I were obtained through a two-tailed test, significant at 5% with 5000 bootstrap runs.
Abbreviations: ESL, Environmentally-specifics servant leadership; GSE, Green self-efficacy; C.I, confidence interval; β, Path coefficient; R2, Coefficient of determination; Q2, Predictive relevance.
Figure 2Structural Model Results.