| Literature DB >> 35572235 |
Minyan Li1, Feng Yang1, Muhammad Waheed Akhtar2.
Abstract
Using social information processing theory, our study investigates the effect of responsible leadership on employee career success via work engagement. The model also examines whether self-enhancement motives moderate the aforementioned mediating linkages. In three waves, data were collected from employees in the education sector. Macro PROCESS was used to assess the hypotheses. According to the findings, responsible leadership boosts employee work engagement, which leads to career success. The results also suggest that responsible leadership has a stronger positive effect on work engagement among individuals high on self-enhancement motives. There is no evidence in the educational literature about the underlying process through which a responsible leadership impacts employee success. Our research addresses this gap by suggesting work engagement as a mediator of the effect of responsible leadership on individuals' career success at various degrees of self-enhancement motives.Entities:
Keywords: career success; education sector; responsible leadership; self-enhancement motives; work engagement
Year: 2022 PMID: 35572235 PMCID: PMC9094063 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.888386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model.
Confirmatory factor analysis: Validity and reliability.
| Latent variables Standardized loadings | Average variance extracted Composite reliability | ||
|
| 0.68 | 0.92 | |
| RL1 | 0.800 | ||
| RL2 | 0.828 | ||
| RL3 | 0.846 | ||
| RL4 | 0.821 | ||
| RL5 | 0.839 | ||
|
| 0.59 | 0.89 | |
| SEM1 | 0.696 | ||
| SEM2 | 0.856 | ||
| SEM3 | 0.705 | ||
| SEM4 | 0.804 | ||
| SEM5 | 0.770 | ||
| SEM6 | 0.752 | ||
| Work engagement | 0.58 | 0.92 | |
| WET1 | 0.728 | ||
| WET2 | 0.791 | ||
| WET3 | 0.732 | ||
| WET4 | 0.804 | ||
| WET5 | 0.815 | ||
| WET6 | 0.811 | ||
| WET7 | 0.820 | ||
| WET8 | 0.510 | ||
| WET9 | 0.849 | ||
| Career success | 0.71 | 0.92 | |
| CS1 | 0.800 | ||
| CS2 | 0.887 | ||
| CS3 | 0.853 | ||
| CS4 | 0.858 | ||
| CS5 | 0.803 | ||
Discriminant validity test results.
| Latent constructs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 1. Responsible leadership |
| |||
| 2. Self-enhancement motives | 0.657 |
| ||
| 3. Work engagement | 0.398 | 0.462 |
| |
| 4. Career success ‘ | 0.357 | 0.261 | 0.601 |
|
Correlations.
| Sr # | Mean | SD | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 1 | Responsible leadership (T1) | 4.62 | 1.52 |
| |||
| 2 | Self-enhancement motives (T1) | 4.89 | 1.27 | 0.59 | 1 | ||
| 3 | Work engagement (T2) | 4.76 | 1.29 | 0.44 | 0.46 | 1 | |
| 4 | Career success (T3) | 4.28 | 1.53 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.57 | 1 |
** p < 0.01. SD = standard deviation.
Mediation results.
| M (work engagement) | ||||||||
| Path | B | SE | P | Path | B | SE | p | |
| RL | A | 0.37 | 0.05 | 0.00 | ć1 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| Work engagement | − | − | − | b1 | 0.66 | 0.07 | 0.00 | |
| Constant | i1 | 3.05 | 0.25 | 0.00 | i2 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.15 |
| R2 = 0.19 | R2 = 0.40 | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Indirect Effect via work engagement | ||||||||
| Bootstrap results for indirect effects | 0.25 [0.17, 0.35] | |||||||
| Indirect effect (Sobel Test) | 0.25 (z = 5.84) | |||||||
N = 228.
Regression coefficients and conditional indirect effect estimates.
| B | SE |
| B | SE |
| |||
| RL (X) | −0.18 | 0.19 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.02 | ||
| SEM (W) | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.73 | |||||
| X*W | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.03 | |||||
| Work engagement | − | − | − | 0.66 | 0.07 | 0.00 | ||
| R2 = 0.27 | R2 = 0.40 | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| SEM − 1 SD | 0.10 | 0.08 | −0.06 | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.07 | −0.06 | 0.21 |
| SEM M | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.32 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.25 |
| SEM + 1 SD | 0.30 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.34 |
N = 228.
B = standardized coefficient, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower limit of confidence interval, ULCI = upper limit of confidence interval.
FIGURE 2Interaction plot.