| Literature DB >> 36133627 |
Mar Ortiz-Gómez1, Horacio Molina-Sánchez1, Antonio Ariza-Montes2, Araceli de Los Ríos-Berjillos2.
Abstract
Introduction: Empirical evidence shows that leadership style is a job resource that promotes employee subjective well-being among workers of value-based organizations. These organizations try to create cultures with strong values to which employees adhere, increasing their subjective well-being and transmitting the identity values. Concretely, religious organizations are characterized by transmitting their values while they perform their services. The value-based management model of religious entities is an appropriate setting for studying the effects that this style based on values has on subjective well-being. Purpose: In organizations with strong value-based cultures, the most appropriate styles are moral leadership and, among them, servant and authentic leadership; thus, this research contributes from the theoretical framework of job demands-resources (JD-R) model to the open debate on leadership as job resource to promote subjective well-being and the common characteristics of these leadership styles. Patients andEntities:
Keywords: JD-R model; authentic leadership; governance; servant leadership; subjective well-being; value-based organizations
Year: 2022 PMID: 36133627 PMCID: PMC9482960 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S371300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Research model and hypotheses.
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of the Research Variables
| Variable | Range | Average | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Openness | 1–5 | 3.90 | 1.04 | 1 | |||||||||
| 2 | Stewardship | 1–5 | 3.94 | 0.96 | 0.576** | 1 | ||||||||
| 3 | Vision | 1–5 | 4.10 | 0.93 | 0.766** | 0.742** | 1 | |||||||
| 4 | Relational Transparency | 1–5 | 3.94 | 0.87 | 0.718** | 0.654** | 0.756** | 1 | ||||||
| 5 | Internal Moral Perspective | 1–5 | 4.05 | 0.83 | 0.671** | 0.642** | 0.742** | 0.801** | 1 | |||||
| 6 | Balance Processing | 1–5 | 3.81 | 0.93 | 0.677** | 0.603** | 0.750** | 0.802** | 0.764** | 1 | ||||
| 7 | Self-awareness | 1–5 | 3.77 | 0.91 | 0.709** | 0.634** | 0.780** | 0.832** | 0.791** | 0.835** | 1 | |||
| 8 | Life satisfaction | 1–7 | 5.37 | 0.95 | 0.221** | 0.130** | 0.177** | 0.206** | 0.211** | 0.195** | 0.171** | 1 | ||
| 9 | Positive & Negative Feelings | 1–5 | 3.68 | 0.69 | 0.151** | 0.226** | 0.198** | 0.168** | 0.179** | 0.200** | 0.137** | 0.149** | 1 | |
| 10 | Flourishing | 1–7 | 6.29 | 0.58 | 0.424** | 0.257** | 0.353** | 0.400** | 0.464** | 0.387** | 0.384** | 0.382** | 0.168** | 1 |
Note: **p < 0.01.
Full Collinearity VIFs
| AL | SWB | |
|---|---|---|
| 1.000 | 3.607 | |
| 3.607 |
Abbreviations: AL, Authentic Leadership; SL, Servant Leadership; SWB, Subjective Well-being.
Measurement Model. Reliability and Convergent Validity
| Variable | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | rho_A | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Openness | 0.886 | *** | ||||
| 1.2 | Stewardship | 0.849 | *** | ||||
| 1.3 | Vision | 0.943 | *** | ||||
| 2.1 | Relational Transparency | 0.928 | *** | ||||
| 2.2 | Internal Moral Perspective | 0.910 | *** | ||||
| 2.3 | Balance Processing | 0.923 | *** | ||||
| 2.4 | Self-awareness | 0.936 | *** | ||||
| 3.1 | Life satisfaction | 0.690 | *** | ||||
| 3.2 | Positive & Negative Feelings | 0.817 | *** | ||||
| 3.3 | Flourishing | 0.860 | *** | ||||
Notes: The loading and weights significance was estimated by bootstrap 95% confidence interval (based on n = 5000 subsamples). ***p ≤ 0.001 (based on t(4999), two-tailed test). Reliability and convergent validity results of the second-order constructs in bold.
Discriminant Validity
| Fornell-Larcker | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| AL | SL | SWB | |
| AL | |||
| SL | 0.8501 | ||
| SWB | 0.4838 | 0.4426 | |
Note: Italicized numbers represent the square root of the AVE.
Abbreviations: AL, Authentic Leadership; SL, Servant Leadership; SWB, Subjective Well-being.
Structural Model
| Path Coefficient | T-Statistics | p-values | 2.5% | 97.5% | Significance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SL -> SWB | 0.113 | 1.232 | 0.218 | −0.063 | 0.297 | No Sig. | ||
Notes: Bootstrapping bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (based on n = 5000 subsamples). ***p ≤ 0.001 [based on t(4999), two-tailed test]. Significant relationships in bold.
Abbreviations: AL, Authentic Leadership; SL, Servant Leadership; SWB, Subjective Well-being.
PLS Prediction Assessment
| Variable | Q2 |
|---|---|
| Relational Transparency | 0.632 |
| Internal Moral Perspective | 0.597 |
| Balance Processing | 0.600 |
| Self-awareness | 0.632 |
| Life satisfaction | 0.058 |
| Positive & Negative Feelings | 0.117 |
| Flourishing | 0.172 |
Notes: PLS prediction assessment´s results of the second-order constructs in bold.
Abbreviations: AL, Authentic Leadership; SWB, Subjective Well-being.