Vol. 17 No. 4 (2022)

Articles

Inclusiveness as a key determinant of work engagement: evidence from V4 countries

Published 30-12-2022

Igor Borisov
Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Szergej Vinogradov
Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Abstract

Research background: There is currently a need for empirical research regarding the validity of specific work environment model elements supported by strong statistical evidence. The amount of research conducted in this field has been particularly limited in Central-Eastern Europe. The desire to fill in these gaps was at least in part responsible for the uniqueness of the research approach and its differences from previous similar studies.

Purpose of the article: The purpose of this study was to examine factors affecting employee engagement and to examine their relationship with each other using Visegrad countries as an example.

Methods: The initial data is taken from the fourth European Company Survey (2019) for management respondents. After data cleaning, the sample sizes for Czechia, Hungary Poland, and Slovakia are N(CZ)=904, N(HU)=682, N(PL)=511, and N(SK)=361, respectively. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the following five dimensions were identified for this research: (1) inclusiveness, (2) empowerment, (3) work autonomy, (4) organizational learning environment, and (5) work engagement. An analysis of structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to determine the links that exist among these dimensions of a constructive work environment.

Findings & value added: The structural model indicates that inclusiveness and empowerment have a significant positive impact on work engagement in all the countries examined. Inclusiveness was the strongest predictor of work engagement, followed by empowerment. Both of the two other predictors in the model (workplace autonomy and organizational learning environment) generally had less or no effect on employee engagement. The present study extends recent literature on work engagement by empirically validating the influence of workplace environment-related factors, as well as providing useful organizational policy recommendations for managers.

Keywords

empowerment, workplace autonomy, organizational learning environment, structural equation modeling

PDF

References

  1. Adamonien?, R., Litavniece, L., Ruibyt?, L., & Viduolien?, E. (2021). Influence of individual and organisational variables on the perception of organisational values. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 13(2), 7?17. doi: 10.2478/emj-2021-0008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2021-0008
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Afthanorhan, A., Awang, Z., Abd Majid, N., Foziah, H., Ismail, I., Al Halbusi, H., & Tehseen, S. (2021). Gain more in-sight from common latent factor in struc-tural equation modeling. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1793(1), 012030. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1793/1/012030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1793/1/012030
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed, T., Shahid Khan, M., Thitivesa, D., Siraphatthada, Y., & Phumdara, T. (2020). Impact of employees engagement and knowledge sharing on organiza-tional performance: study of HR challenges in COVID-19 pandemic. Human Systems Management, 39(4), 589?601. doi: 10.3233/HSM-201052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-201052
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Alshaabani, A., & Rudnák, I. (2022). Impact of trust on employees? engagement: the mediating role of conflict management climate. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences. Advance online publication. doi: 10.3311/P Pso.18154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.18154
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Andreoni, A., Chang, H. J., & Labrunie, M. (2021). Natura non facit saltus: chal-lenges and opportunities for digital industrialisation across developing coun-tries. European Journal of Development Research, 33(2), 330?370. doi: 10.10 57/s41287-020-00355-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00355-z
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Baldoni, J. (2015). Mindful leaders have moxie. Leader to Leader, 2015(75), 31?36. doi: 10.1002/ltl.20163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20163
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees' use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social forces, 80(3), 813?845. doi: 10.1353/s of.2002.0002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0002
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Blumberg, P. (1969). Industrial democracy: the sociology of participation. Schocken Books.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Borisov, I., & Vinogradov, S. (2019). The effect of collaboration-oriented manage-rial environment on employee job satisfaction. Journal of Management, 2(35), 5?19.
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Brey, P. (1999). Worker autonomy and the drama of digital networks in organiza-tions. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(1), 15?25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006199816737
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastra (Ed.). Execu-tive power (pp. 51?77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Buss, A. R., & Royce, J. R. (1975). Detecting cross-cultural commonalities and differences: intergroup factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 128?136. doi: 10.1037/h0076156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076156
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employ-ee involvement in creative tasks in the work-place: the mediating role of psy-chological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250?260. doi: 10.108 0/10400419.2010.504654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Cheng, B., Wang, M., Moormann, J., Olaniran, B. A., & Chen, N. S. (2012). The effects of organizational learning environment factors on e-learning ac-ceptance. Computers & Education, 58(3), 885?899. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.014
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Cheng, H. G., & Phillips, M. R. (2014). Secondary analysis of existing data: oppor-tunities and implementation. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(6), 371. doi: 10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.214171.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Cheng, J. W., Lu, K. M., Chang, Y. Y., & Johnstone, S. (2013). Voice behavior and work engagement: the moderating role of super-visor?attributed motives. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51(1), 81?102. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00030.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00030.x
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Cho, E. (2016). Making reliability reliable: a systematic approach to reliability coefficients. Organizational Research Methods, 19(4), 651?682. doi: 10.1177/1 094428116656239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116656239
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Cho, S., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2008). Understanding of diversity and inclusion in a perceived homogeneous culture: a study of organizational commitment and job performance among Korean employees. Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 100?126. doi: 10.1080/03643100802293865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100802293865
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., Beierlein, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). The cross-national invariance properties of a new scale to measure 19 basic human values: a test across eight countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(5), 764?776. doi: 10.1177/0022022114527348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114527348
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Inter-active effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on work-place deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599?609. doi: 10.1037 /0021-9010.89.4.599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297?334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Csath, M. (2021). Sustainability requires balanced economic and social develop-ment: the example of the V4 countries. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 5(1), 5?37. doi: 10.53116/pgaflr.2020.1.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53116/pgaflr.2020.1.1
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open? Academy of management journal, 50(4), 869?884. doi: 10.17015/ejbe.2018.021.03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Eguchi, H., Inoue, A., Kachi, Y., & Tsutsumi, A. (2021). Association between adap-tation of management philosophy and mission statement, and work engage-ment among Japanese workers: a 1-year prospective cohort study in a Japa-nese company. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(9), e601?e604. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002303
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Pub-lic Health, 58(4), 637?642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Engbers, T. A., Thompson, M. F., & Slaper, T. F. (2017). Theory and measurement in social capital research. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 537?558. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1299-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1299-0
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Eurofound & Cedefop (2020a). European company survey 2019: workplace prac-tices unlocking employee potential. European company survey 2019 series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2806/763770.
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Eurofound & Cedefop (2020b). European company survey 2019: technical re-port, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Findler, L., Wind, L. H., & Barak, M. E. M. (2007). The challenge of workforce management in a global society: modeling the relationship between diversity, inclusion, organizational culture, and employee well-being, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 63?94. doi: 10.1300/J147v31n03_05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v31n03_05
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing re-search, 18(1), 39?50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Fotiadis, A., Abdulrahman, K., & Spyridou, A. (2019). The mediating roles of psy-chological autonomy, competence and relatedness on work-life balance and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1267. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01267
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Frayne, C. A., & Geringer, J. M. (2000). Self-management training for improving job performance: a field experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 361. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.361
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Fürstenberg, N., Alfes, K., & Kearney, E. (2021). How and when paradoxical lead-ership benefits work engagement: the role of goal clarity and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94, 672?705. doi: 10.1111/joop.12344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12344
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199?223. doi: 10.1023/A:1025007614869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Goswami, S., & Goswami, B. K. (2018). Exploring the relationship between work-force diversity, inclusion and employee engagement. Drishtikon: A Management Journal, 9(1), 65?89.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic sur-vey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159?170. doi: 10.1037/h0076546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106?121. doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
    View in Google Scholar
  39. Hanaysha, J. (2016). Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environ-ment, and organizational learning on organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 289?297. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016. 07.139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.139
    View in Google Scholar
  40. Hardy, C., & Leiba-O?Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: impli-cations for research and practice. Human Relations, 51(4), 451?483. doi: 001872679805100402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805100402
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business out-comes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268. doi: 10.103 7/0021-9010.87.2.268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
    View in Google Scholar
  42. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277?319. doi: 10.1037/0033?2909.97.3.562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
    View in Google Scholar
  43. Hislop, D., Bosua, R., & Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organiza-tions: a critical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hebz/9780198724018.001.0001
    View in Google Scholar
  44. Holcomb, B. (2001). Friendly for whose family? In A. Leckey (Ed.). The best busi-ness stories of the year: 2001 edition (pp. 327?335). New York: Pantheon Books.
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2017). Employee voice, supervisor sup-port, and engagement: the mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 915?929. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21809
    View in Google Scholar
  46. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equa-tion Modeling, 6(1), 1?55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
    View in Google Scholar
  47. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16(2), 131?152. doi: 10.1177/0022002185016002001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002185016002001
    View in Google Scholar
  48. Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., & Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a reliability coefficient be too high? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1), 55?58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1001&2_05
    View in Google Scholar
  49. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disen-gagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692?724. doi: 10.5465/256287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
    View in Google Scholar
  50. Kausel, E. E., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Narrow personality traits and organization-al attraction: evidence for the complementary hypothesis. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 3?14. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2 010.08.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.002
    View in Google Scholar
  51. Kimiloglu, H., Ozturan, M., & Kutlu, B. (2017). Perceptions about and attitude toward the usage of e-learning in corporate training. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 339?349. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.062. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.062
    View in Google Scholar
  52. Korsakien?, R., Raišien?, A. G., & Bužavait?, M. (2017). Work engagement of older employees: do employee and work-related factors matter? Economics and Sociology, 10(4), 151?161. doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-4/12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-4/12
    View in Google Scholar
  53. Kowalska, A., Kovarnik, J., Hamplova, E., & Prazak, P. (2018). The selected topics for comparison in Visegrad four countries. Economies, 6(3), 50. doi: 10.339 0/economies6030050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies6030050
    View in Google Scholar
  54. Kumar, D. P., & Swetha, G. (2011). A prognostic examination of employee en-gagement from its historical roots. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(3), 232. doi: 10.7763/IJTEF.2011.V2.108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJTEF.2011.V2.108
    View in Google Scholar
  55. Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople's commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1328?1334. doi: 10.1016/j. jbusres.2011.10.026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
    View in Google Scholar
  56. Lambert, S. J., & Waxman, E. (2005). Organizational stratification: distributing opportunities for work-life balance. In E. Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds). Work and life integration: organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 103?126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    View in Google Scholar
  57. Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: an empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 27?52. doi: 10.1348/096317903321208871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903321208871
    View in Google Scholar
  58. Lee, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: empirical study of hotel employees and managers. Kansas State University. Retrieved from https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/13653/JungHoonLe e2012.pdf.
    View in Google Scholar
  59. Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., Son, M. H., & Kim, M. S. (2015). Linking organizational justice to job performance: Evidence from the restaurant industry in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1), 1527?1544. doi: 10.1080/ 10941665.2015.1016052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2015.1016052
    View in Google Scholar
  60. Leydesdorff, L. (2021). The evolutionary dynamics of discursive knowledge: Communication-theoretical perspectives on an empirical philosophy of sci-ence, Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59951-5
    View in Google Scholar
  61. Li, M., Liu, W., Han, Y., & Zhang, P. (2016). Linking empowering leadership and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organization-al Change Management, 29(5), 793?803 doi: 10.1108/JOCM-07-2015-0116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2015-0032
    View in Google Scholar
  62. Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mecha-nisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical ex-tension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236?263. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001
    View in Google Scholar
  63. Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Lee, T. W. (2011). The effects of autonomy and empowerment on employee turnover: test of a multilevel model in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1305?1316. doi: 10.1037/a0024518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024518
    View in Google Scholar
  64. Lockwood, N. R. (2006). Talent management: driver for organization success. Research Quarterly, 6(6), 1?13. doi: 10.14738/abr.63.4075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.63.4075
    View in Google Scholar
  65. Lundvall, B. ?. (Ed.) (2010). National systems of innovation: toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (Vol. 2). Anthem Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7135/UPO9781843318903
    View in Google Scholar
  66. Malhotra, N., & Birks, D. (2018). An applied approach. Marketing research. Geor-gia Institute of Technology: Pearson Education Ltd.
    View in Google Scholar
  67. Markowska-Przybyla, U. (2012). Social capital as an elusive factor of socio-economic development. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(3), 93?103.
    View in Google Scholar
  68. Markwich, C., & Robertson-Smith, G. (2009). Employee engagement. A review of current thinking. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
    View in Google Scholar
  69. Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning organization mastering 5 elements for corporate learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, Inc.
    View in Google Scholar
  70. Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be engaged: the antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of business research, 66(11), 2163?2170. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012. 01.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.007
    View in Google Scholar
  71. Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). The inclusive workplace: an ecosystems approach to diversity management. Social Work, 45(4), 339?353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.4.339
    View in Google Scholar
  72. Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399?406. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399
    View in Google Scholar
  73. Mulligan, R., Ramos, J., Martín, P., & Zornoza, A. (2021). Inspiriting innovation: the effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) on innovative behavior as me-diated by mindfulness and work engagement. Sustainability, 13(10), 5409. doi: 10.3390/su13105409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105409
    View in Google Scholar
  74. Mura, L., Ključnikov, A., Tvaronavičien?, M., & Androniceanu, A. (2017). Devel-opment trends in human resource management in small and medium enter-prises in the Visegrad Group. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 14(7), 105?122. doi: 10.12700/APH.14.7.2017.7.7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.14.7.2017.7.7
    View in Google Scholar
  75. Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2015). Diversity and inclusion at the workplace: a review of research and perspectives. Research and Publication Department, Indian Insti-tute of Management, Working Paper, WP2015-03-34.
    View in Google Scholar
  76. Nord, W. R., & Tucker, S. (1987). The organizational dynamics of implementing innovation. Implementing routine and radical innovations. Lexington: Lexing-ton Books.
    View in Google Scholar
  77. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1?28 doi: 10.2307/2667029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
    View in Google Scholar
  78. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Com-mon method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. doi: 10.10 37/0021-9010.88.5.879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
    View in Google Scholar
  79. Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leader-ship: realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190?203. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
    View in Google Scholar
  80. Randolph, W. A., (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organization-al Dynamics, 24, 19?32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(95)90014-4
    View in Google Scholar
  81. Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212?236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
    View in Google Scholar
  82. Rodin, J., Rennert, K., Solomon, S. K., Baum, A., & Singer, J. E. (1980). Intrinsic motivation for control: fact or fiction. In Advances in environmental psychol-ogy: Vol. 2. Applications of personal control (pp. 131?148). NJ: Erlbaum Hillsdale.
    View in Google Scholar
  83. Salge, C., Glackin, C., & Polani, D. (2014). Empowerment ? an introduction. In M. Prokopenko (Eds.). Guided self-organization: inception. Emergence, complexi-ty and computation (pp. 67?114). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-642-53734-9_4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53734-9_4
    View in Google Scholar
  84. Saragih, S. (2015). The effects of job autonomy on work outcomes: self efficacy as an intervening variable. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(3), 203?215. doi: 10.21632/irjbs.4.3.203-215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.4.3.203-215
    View in Google Scholar
  85. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71?92. doi: 10.1023/A: 1015630930326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
    View in Google Scholar
  86. Schwartz, S. H., & Butenko, T. (2014). Values and behavior: validating the refined value theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 799?813. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2053C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2053
    View in Google Scholar
  87. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organi-zation. New York: Currency Doubleday.
    View in Google Scholar
  88. Shakil, R. M., Memon, M. A., & Ting, H. (2021). Inclusive leadership and innova-tive work behaviour: the mediating role of job autonomy. Quality & Quantity, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01102-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01102-0
    View in Google Scholar
  89. Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Farrell, M. (2017). Organi-zational climate for innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 67?77. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004
    View in Google Scholar
  90. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442?1465. doi: 10.2307/256865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
    View in Google Scholar
  91. Spreitzer, G. M. (1992). When organizations dare: the dynamics of individual empowerment in the workplace. Document ID 9308456. University of Michi-gan.
    View in Google Scholar
  92. Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537?549. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153
    View in Google Scholar
  93. Stankiewicz, J., & Moczulska, M. (2015). The involvement of employees in knowledge management in the light of the research results. Oeconomia Copernicana, 6(2), 37?51. doi: 10. 12775/OeC.2015.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/OeC.2015.011
    View in Google Scholar
  94. Steinmetz, H., Schmidt, P., Tina-Booh, A., Weiczorek, S., & Schwartz, S. (2009). Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality & Quantity, 43(4), 599?616. doi: 10.1007/s11135-007-9143-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9143-x
    View in Google Scholar
  95. Suzuki, Y., Tamesue, D., Asahi, K., & Ishikawa, Y. (2015). Grit and work engage-ment: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0137501. doi: 10.1371/j ournal.pone.0137501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137501
    View in Google Scholar
  96. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Upper Sad-dle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
    View in Google Scholar
  97. Tang, N., Wang, Y., & Zhang, K. (2017). Values of Chinese generation cohorts: do they matter in the workplace? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143, 8?22. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.007
    View in Google Scholar
  98. Tannenbaum, A. S. (1986). Back to basics: beyond perception. In R. N. Stern & S. McCarthy (Eds.). International yearbook of organizational democracy for the study of participation, co-operation, and power: Volume III, The organiza-tional practice of democracy (pp. 323?331). New York: John Wiley.
    View in Google Scholar
  99. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ?interpretive? model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666?681. doi: 10.5465/amr.1990.4310926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926
    View in Google Scholar
  100. van Tuin, L., Schaufeli, W. B., Van den Broeck, A., & van Rhenen, W. (2020). A corporate purpose as an antecedent to employee motivation and work en-gagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 572343. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572 343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572343
    View in Google Scholar
  101. Vogt, P. (1997). Transfer to power. Credit Union Management, 20(6), 44?45.
    View in Google Scholar
  102. Wang, X., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2007). Influence of demographic factors and ownership type upon organizational learning culture in Chinese enterprises. International Journal of Training and Development, 11(3), 154?165. doi: 10.11 11/j.1468-2419.2007.00278.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00278.x
    View in Google Scholar
  103. Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    View in Google Scholar
  104. Weiss, M., & Zacher, H. (2022). Why and when does voice lead to increased job engagement? The role of perceived voice appreciation and emotional stability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 132, 103662. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103662
    View in Google Scholar
  105. Xu, J., & Cooper-Thomas, H. D. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 399?416. doi: 10.1108/01437731111134661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111134661
    View in Google Scholar
  106. Yazdani, B. O., Yaghoubi, N. M., & Giri, E. S. P. (2011). Factors affecting the em-powerment of employees. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(2), 267? 274.
    View in Google Scholar
  107. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engage-ment. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 590?619. doi: 10.1177/10596011 08331242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331242
    View in Google Scholar

Similar Articles

11-20 of 148

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.