Promoting the Sustainability of Organizations: Contribution of Transformational Leadership to Job Engagement

sustainability Article Promoting the Sustainability of Organizations: Contribution of Transformational Leadership to Job Engagement Guadalupe Vila-Vázquez * , Carmen Castro-Casal , Dolores Álvarez-Pérez and Luisa del Río-Araújo Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Facultade de Ciencias Económicas e Empresariais, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Avda. do Burgo, s/n. Campus Norte, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; [email protected] (C.C.-C.); mdolores.alvar[email protected] (D.Á.-P.); [email protected] (L.d.R.-A.) *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-981-563-100 Received: 19 September 2018; Accepted: 6 November 2018; Published: 9 November 2018   Abstract: The psychology of sustainability highlights the importance of building organizational environments promoting the employees’ well-being, and leaders play an important role in it. Drawing from Kahn’s theory, the purpose of this study is to simultaneously examine the mediating role of task significance, perceived organizational support (POS) and employees’ core self-evaluations (CSE) in the relationship between supervisors’ transformational leadership and job engagement. In order to test the proposed model, a structural equation modelling was performed using the bootstrapping technique in IBM SPSS Amos 23 for Windows. The sample consisted of 320 employees from emergent high-tech and knowledge-based SMEs in Spain. The results supported all the hypotheses posited. By helping employees to find the meaning and significance of their work, making them feel supported by the organization and strengthening their sense of worth and competence, transformational leaders boost job engagement, a key aspect of the human dimension of organizational sustainability. This paper contributes to the psychology of sustainability by advancing knowledge of the mechanisms through which supervisors’ transformational leadership influences employees’ well-being in terms of job engagement. Keywords: psychology of sustainability; leadership; job engagement; task significance; perceived organizational support; core-self evaluations 1. Introduction The psychology of sustainability considers sustainability in broad terms, encompassing not only economic, ecological and social factors, but also the well-being and quality of life from a preventive approach [ 1 , 2 ]. Leadership styles focused on values, respect, dignified treatment and support contribute to employee well-being and sustainable development in organizations [ 1 , 3 ]. Although researchers have analyzed the direct and indirect effect of transformational leadership on various indicators of the followers’ well-being [ 4 – 6 ], few studies have tested several mediators simultaneously. In this sense, recently, Arnold [ 7 ] has called for new studies analysing simultaneously multiple mediating variables in this relationship and “determine which mediators are key in explaining this relationship” (p. 389). There is no commonly accepted definition of well-being. From a broad perspective, well-being is a “mental, physical and general health state of individuals, as well as their experiences of satisfaction both at work and outside of work” [ 8 ] (p. 104). In fact, well-being has been conceptualized in various ways according to the specific purpose of the research, covering both physical and psychological health, Sustainability 2018,10, 4109; doi:10.3390/su10114109 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 2 of 17 and measured in negative (e.g., stress, burnout, or emotional exhaustion) and in positive (e.g., affect, affective well-being, engagement, among others) (see the reviews by Arnold [ 7 ] and Nielsen et al. [ 8 ]). Engagement is a psychological affective-motivational state characterized by high pleasure and high activation. Engaged employees manifest positive emotions (excitement, enthusiasm, energy) [ 9 ]. While in some studies it has been considered as an indicator of well-being (e.g., Schaufeli et al. [ 10 ] and Mäkikangas et al. [ 11 ]), in others it has been treated as a predictor of employee’s well-being and general health (e.g., Shimazu et al. [12] and Caesens et al. [13]). The aim of this study is to examine the underlying processes through which transformational leadership increases individual well-being in terms of job engagement, in a technological and knowledge-intensive context. Kahn [ 14 ] defined engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active, full performances” (p. 700). Engaged employees enjoy better health and well-being. Longitudinal research confirms that engagement leads, over time, to an improvement in employee health and an increase in satisfaction with life [ 12 , 15 ]. Job engagement predicts higher employee performance and citizenship behaviors [ 16 ], as well as knowledge-sharing and innovative behavior [ 17 , 18 ]. In addition, collective engagement has been found to positively influence firm performance [ 19 ]. Consequently, engagement promotes not only social sustainability if not also organizational development and economic sustainability. Indeed, it has been argued that employees’ engagement enables organizations to develop and maintain a competitive advantage [ 9 , 20 ], contributing to their long-term success and competitiveness [21] and their sustainability [17,22]. Leadership is recognized as a determinant of employee health and well-being. Nevertheless, according to Wegge et al. [ 3 ], the underlying processes are not fully understood. Research has supported the positive effect of health-promoting leadership and transformational leadership on employees’ well-being, and on their engagement in particular [ 23 – 27 ]. Transactional leadership has a lower motivational power [ 28 ] and lacks the inspirational attractive of transformational leadership [ 29 ]. The recent meta-analytic review by Hoch et al. [ 30 ] documented a strong corrected correlation ( ρ = 0.48) between transformational leadership and engagement. Despite this, further studies are needed to analyze the mechanisms intervening in the association between transformational leadership and employee job engagement [23,31,32]. According to Saks and Gruman [ 33 ], the transformational leadership can indirectly influence followers’ engagement by providing them with the necessary resources to perform their work. These, in turn, will generate states of greater psychological meaningfulness (“sense of return on investments of self in role performance” [ 14 ] (p. 705)), safety (“sense of being able to show and employ self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career” [14] (p. 705)) and availability (“sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary for investing self in role performances” [ 14 ] (p. 705)) that will boost employees to invest their entire self in their work role. Drawing from Kahn’s theory, Rich et al. [ 9 ] argued that perceptions of task factors and social systems related to support are the main determinants of psychological meaningfulness and safety, respectively, and the subsequent engagement level. They also suggested that the evaluations that individuals make of their self-worth, competencies, and abilities largely determine their psychological availability. Based on these assumptions, this research proposes that perceived task significance, perceived organizational support (POS) and employees’ core self-evaluations (CSE) will mediate the effect of the supervisor’s transformational leadership on the employees’ engagement. First, because the leader frames the ‘reality’ in which employees perform their jobs [ 34 ] (p. 327), he/she can generate in followers the perception that the tasks they perform are significant. Second, transformational leaders are concerned with the needs and well-being of the followers [ 35 ]. To the extent that employees often attribute the actions carried out by the immediate manager to the organization itself [ 36 ], supervisors’ transformational leadership can be expected to foster a greater POS. Third, because transformational Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 3 of 17 leaders can influence the sense of worth and confidence of followers [ 37 ], they are expected to positively influence employees’ CSE. In his study, Kahn [ 14 ] highlighted the potential of tasks characteristics as key antecedents of psychological meaningfulness and subsequent engagement. Tasks significance refers to “the degree to which a job influences the lives or work of others” [ 38 ] (p. 1323). Several reasons have guided the choice of this job dimension. On the one hand, it is the job characteristic that most consistently predicts the meaningfulness experienced in work [ 39 , 40 ]. The recent longitudinal research by Allan [ 40 ] shows that task significance predicts the work significance over time. On the other, according to Grant [ 41 ], to the extent that workers are increasingly interested in the contribution of their work to others and society, it is a key aspect of work experiences in the current economy. However, only two studies [ 42 , 43 ] have investigated the effect of task significance on job engagement. Furthermore, while the relationship between transformational leadership and job characteristics is well documented [ 34 , 44 , 45 ], almost all studies have used an aggregate measure. Kahn [ 14 ] considered supportive and trusting relationships and supportive management as precursors of engagement, because of their impact on psychological safety. POS refers to employees’ “global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being” [ 36 ] (p. 501). POS, together with trust in the organization, is a key precursor to the safety experienced by employees, both individually and collectively [ 46 ]. Responding to Eisenberger and Stinglhamber’s [ 47 ] call for more research on the effect of POS on job engagement, recent studies have provided evidence of this relationship (e.g., Brunetto et al. [ 48 ] and Zhong et al. [ 49 ]). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has analyzed the POS as a mediator in the transformational leadership-job engagement relationship. For employees to be willing to bring their full selves into the role they need to feel that they have the necessary psychological resources [ 9 , 14 ]. Personal resources, such as CSE, favor psychological availability [ 33 ]. CSE refers to the “fundamental appraisal of one’s worthiness, effectiveness, and capability as a person” [ 50 ] (p. 304). Several studies have found a positive impact of employee’s CSE on job engagement. In addition, it has been suggested that leadership can influence follower’s self-concept [51]. In this sense, Zhou and Wu [52] corroborated that humble leadership enhanced the CSE of employees working at technological firms in China. However, we are unaware of any study that has explored the mediating role of CSE in the relationship between transformational leadership and job engagement. In summary, this paper contributes to the psychology of sustainability by advancing knowledge of the mechanisms through which supervisors’ transformational leadership influences employees’ well-being, in terms of job engagement. At the same time, drawing from the theoretical framework proposed by Kahn [ 14 ], it provides evidence of the determinants of job engagement in a context of emergent high-tech and knowledge-based SMEs in Spain. These firms constitute the basis of the current economic development [ 53 ] and contribute to the innovation and development of the regions [ 54 – 56 ]. 2. Theoretical Framework Kahn’s theory [ 14 ] asserts that engagement depends on three psychological states: Meaningfulness, safety and availability. These conditions, in turn, are affected by people’s perceptions of work contexts and their personal resources. In this study, the indirect effect of transformational leadership on employee job engagement is explained via three focal factors: Task significance (meaningfulness), POS (safety) and CSE (availability). As explained previously, each of the mediating variables considered represents a key determinant of these psychological states [9,40,46,57]. 2.1. Task Significance as Mediator According to Kahn’s theory [ 14 ], people’s job perceptions influence the psychological work experience. Employees in enriched jobs will experience more psychological meaningfulness (i.e., they will feel useful and valuable) and engagement [ 14 , 43 , 57 ]. When employees believe that Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 4 of 17 the tasks performed are significant, they will be willing to invest their entire self in their job [ 14 , 57 ], to devote more time and energy [ 41 ] and to maintain it, even in the face of difficulties [ 43 ]. Grant [ 58 ] theorized that the likelihood that employees will invest more effort and be more persistent in completing tasks increases if they are aware of the impact of their work on others. Two empirical studies [ 42 , 43 ] have supported the influence of task significance on job engagement. Furthermore, Christian et al.’s meta-analysis [ 59 ] provided evidence of a strong positive correlation between these variables. On the other hand, it is assumed that transformational leaders can affect employees’ perceptions of work [ 34 , 41 , 60 ]. Apart from making changes in the content of the job, leaders, as potential sources of social information, can significantly influence employees’ perceptions of the job importance [61]. Cleavenger and Munyon argue that by using “words, actions and/or symbols when talking about work” [ 60 ] (p. 352), transformational leaders frame job experiences and strengthen the perceptions of significance and meaning that employees attribute to their work. Piccolo and Colquitt [ 34 ] affirmed that transformational leaders, by expressing with clarity an irresistible shared vision and highlighting the effects of work decisions from an ethical and moral point of view, encourage employees to perceive their work as more important and self-congruent. According to Bass [ 62 ] and Shamir et al. [ 37 ], transformational leaders boost the follower’s perception of the importance to their job. Purvanova et al. [44] concluded that employees whose managers were engaged in transformational behaviors considered their jobs to be more significant and challenging. When leaders emphasize the relevance of the employees’ contributions to the organization and its mission, and link them to a broader purpose, the perceptions of the task significance will increase [ 44 , 60 ]. Several studies support that transformational leadership positively affects employees’ perception of job characteristics evaluated in the aggregate [ 34 , 44 , 45 ]. Additionally, the studies by Aryee et al. [ 23 ] and Ghadi et al. [ 26 ] suggest that transformational leaders influence employee engagement by encouraging employees to perceive meaning in work. Recent evidence indicates that other job motivational characteristics, such as autonomy, mediate the transformational leadership-engagement relationship [28,63]. According to the previous arguments, it is expected that perceived task significance explains the indirect effect of transformational leadership on job engagement. Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership is indirectly related to job engagement via task significance. 2.2. POS as Mediator From Kahn’s perspective [ 14 ], POS is a key determinant of psychological safety [ 46 ]. Employees perceiving high organizational support will consider their work environment as safer and more reliable and, as a result, will have little reason to fear negative consequences that could damage their “self-image, status, or career” [ 14 ] (p. 708), because of investing their energies in the work role [ 9 , 64 ]. In addition, POS strengthens employees’ expectations of effort and reward [ 65 ]. POS provides some assurance to employees that the organization will respond with favorable treatment to their efforts and investments to help it achieve their objectives. According to Kahn [ 66 ], engagement requires that employees have a clear sense of the relationship between their efforts and results. Employees perceiving high organizational support will be willing to intensify their efforts and invest all their energies in their role because they anticipate being recognized. Drawing from social exchange theory [ 67 ], Saks [ 68 ] noted that employees believing that the organization is concerned by them and take care of their well-being try to balance their relationship with the organization. In this situation, employees will develop favorable attitudes and behaviors consistent with the perceived support and will increase their level of job engagement. Previous research has supported the influence of POS on job engagement [9,48,49,68]. Furthermore, it has been argued that the actions of managers and supervisors are often attributed to the organization itself [ 36 ]. The flat structure that characterizes SMEs promotes that Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 5 of 17 employees “identify their supervisors more with the organization’s basic character than those in large organizations” [ 69 ] (p. 572). Therefore, it is to be expected that the support, caring and recognition actions carried out by the transformational supervisors will be attributed to the organization. Transformational leaders articulate a shared vision and express high expectations that motivate, inspire and challenge followers [ 70 ]. As a result, it provides followers with purpose and effectiveness and thus with positive assessments of their contributions to the organization [ 35 , 47 ]. Transformational leaders recognize the employees’ needs and abilities, treat them as unique individuals, and build individualized relationships with them [ 62 ]. These behaviors, which convey care, recognition and appreciation, and improve the employee’s subjective well-being, foster POS [ 35 ]. Transformational leaders are concerned with improving the knowledge, skills and abilities of followers and empowering them by involving them in decision making [ 70 ]. With all these behaviors, the leader transmits that the organization is favorably oriented toward employees. Recent research corroborates the role of the supervisor’s positive leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, in creating a supportive context aimed at generating a psychologically safe environment [46]. Based on the above arguments, it is to be expected that: Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership is indirectly related to job engagement via POS. 2.3. CSE as Mediator Kahn [ 14 , 66 ] argued that to put all their energies into their job and be able to express their true self, people need to feel having the necessary personal resources. People with high CSE are adaptable, positive, confident, and effective, and believe in their own agency [50]. In addition, people with high CSE assess demands more positively and feel that they are better able to meet them effectively [ 50 , 71 ]. In short, they will perceive that they have more resources to invest themselves in their job. The approach/avoidance framework [ 72 ] suggests that differences in people’s sensitivity to positive and negative information are what drives the relationship between CSE and results. Ferris et al. [ 73 ] and Aryee et al. [ 74 ] confirmed that people with high CSE were more likely to adopt a motivational orientation toward positive stimuli and less likely to adopt negative stimuli. As a result, employees with high CSE are more likely to feel autonomous in pursuing positive work outcomes and to consider themselves more competent than those with low CSE [ 75 ]. The studies by Karatepe and Demir [ 76 ] and Lee and Ok [ 77 ] corroborated the positive effect of CSE on job engagement in samples of hotel sector employees. Rich et al. [ 9 ] achieved at the same result in a sample of firefighters. Furthermore, both transformational leadership theory [ 62 ] and self-concept based leadership theory [ 37 ] emphasize that one of the main objectives of transformational leaders is to enhance the followers’ sense of self-worth and self-concept. By delegating responsibilities to employees, transformational leaders not only contribute to them acquiring new skills [ 70 ], they also express confidence in their competencies and reinforce their feelings of personal worth. According to de Cremer et al. [ 78 ], leaders empowering their followers, such as transformational leaders, improve their self-confidence and, thus, their self-concept. Transformational leaders enhance the followers’ self-esteem and self-efficacy by expressing high expectations, trusting in their abilities to meet these expectations, showing how the organization’s mission reflects their personal values and emphasizing the relationships between efforts and important results [ 37 ]. Kark et al. [ 79 ] showed that transformational leadership was positively related to followers’ organization-based self-esteem in a sample of employees working for a bank in Israel. Research has also found a positive influence of transformational leadership on the followers’ self-efficacy [79–81] . Nielsen et al. [ 6 ] supported that the individual self-efficacy completely mediated the effect of transformational leadership on the well-being of the cared employees. Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 6 of 17 Research supports that personal resources and CSE are influenced, at least in part, by other contextual factors. For example, Xanthopoulou et al. [ 82 ] discovered that autonomy, peer support, supervisory coaching and opportunities for professional development stimulated employees’ personal resources, operationalized as generalized self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem and optimism, which in turn generated more engagement and less exhaustion. Karatepe et al. [ 83 ] confirmed that employees with more coworker support reported higher CSE and that these, in turn, significantly impacted on vigor and dedication, two dimensions of engagement. Nguyen and Borteyrou [ 84 ] found that person-environment fit indirectly influenced job satisfaction through the CSE, and Liu et al. [ 85 ] analyzed the mediating role of CSE in the relationship between social support and well-being. Based on the aforementioned arguments and available evidence, transformational leadership is likely to have an indirect positive effect on job engagement via CSE. Consequently, it is proposed the following: Hypothesis 3. Transformational leadership is indirectly related to job engagement via CSE. 3. Method 3.1. Sample Data were gathered from a sample of employees from emergent high-tech and knowledge-based SMEs in Spain. One hundred SMEs, operating for 10 or fewer years [ 40 ] in high-tech and knowledge intensive industries according to Eurostat classification, were contacted to collaborate in the study. Ultimately, 21 firms, sizing between 10 and 100 employees, agreed to participate. Management provided the research team with the employees’ emails. A questionnaire link was mailed directly to the employees to guaranty anonymity. Of the 443 questionnaires distributed, 320 were returned. The response rate per firm ranged from 41.0% to 92.9%. The average response rate was 68.98% in medium-sized firms (169 responses from 245 questionnaires distributed) and 76.26% in small firms (151 responses from 198 questionnaires distributed). Respondents’ mean age was 32.09 years (SD = 6.18), and 204 (63.75%) were men. With regard to education level, 69.06% held a higher education degree, 27.81% held a master or a PhD degree, and 3.12% had high school education or below. 3.2. Measures All the variables were measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and taken or adapted from previously validated and published instruments. Because the scales were originally written in English, they were subjected to a translation process following the procedure proposed by Brislin [86]. Transformational leadership was assessed with the seven-item Global Transformational Leadership (GTL) measure proposed by Carless et al. [ 70 ]. An example item is “My supervisor treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development”. Task significance was assessed with three items of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) by Morgeson and Humprey [ 38 ]. An example is “The results of my work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other people”. POS was measured with six items of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support by Eisenberger et al. [ 36 ]. To improve the participants’ understanding, one reverse score item was worded positively. An example item is “The organization really cares about my well-being”. CSE was assessed with the twelve-item Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) by Judge et al. [ 50 ]. An example item is “I am filled with doubts about my competence” (reverse item). Job engagement was measured with Rich et al.’s scale [ 9 ] based on Kahn’s conceptualization. This scale is composed of three dimensions: Physical (e.g., “I devote a lot of energy to my job”), Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 7 of 17 emotional (e.g., “I am enthusiastic in my job”), and cognitive (e.g., “At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job”). The four items with the highest factor loadings for each dimension were used. As in previous engagement studies [ 23 , 49 , 87 ], age, gender and tenure were included as control variables. 3.3. Analytical Methods Data analysis was carried out in two steps. First, a confirmatory factorial analysis was performed to analyze the fit of the measurement model and examine the internal consistency of each construct, the convergent validity of the scales and the discriminant validity of the constructs. Then, the structural model was estimated using latent structural equation modelling. To analyze mediation, the initially hypothesized model was compared with alternative models. The analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Amos 23 for Windows. The bootstrapping technique was used to analyze the indirect effects. In the present study, a 95% confidence interval of indirect effect was calculated based on 2000 bootstrap resamples. Furthermore, to correct the instability of the parameters, due to the length of the CSE measurement, three parcels of four randomly selected items were created [88]. 4. Results The descriptive statistics and correlations are displayed in Table 1. As is shown, the correlations were aligned with the hypotheses. Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability coefficients. Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Gender - - 2. Age 32.09 6.18 −0.09 3. Tenure 3.17 2.52 −0.18 * 0.37 *** 4. Transformational leadership 5.25 1.43 −0.06 − 0.20 *** −0.16 ** (0.96) 5. Task significance 4.71 1.30 −0.00 0.10 −0.02 0.14 * (0.81) 6. Perceived organizational support 4.73 1.46 0.04 −0.02 − 0.19 *** 0.57 *** 0.28 *** (0.96) 7. Core-self evaluations 5.30 0.82 −0.03 −0.13 * 0.00 0.37 *** 0.32 *** 0.25 *** (0.82) 8. Job engagement 5.77 0.82 0.11 0.05 −0.08 0.33 *** 0.49 *** 0.44 *** 0.56 *** (0.93) Note. N = 320. Values in parentheses are Cronbach’s alphas. * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001. To confirm the constructs’ reliability and validity, prior to testing the hypotheses, we conducted CFAs. First, to evaluate the second-order structure of the engagement several models were proposed and compared. As can be seen in Table 2, the one-factor model, in which the different items were loaded into a single latent variable, adjusted poorly to the data. The three-factor model fitted significantly better than the one-factor model ( χ2 (3) = 723.382, p< 0.001). The high correlations [ 89 ] between the three dimensions of engagement (mean correlation = 0.655) suggest a commonality indicative of a higher order factor [ 9 , 87 , 90 ]. Therefore, an additional model reflecting a second-order factor structure was estimated. This model has the same fit statistics than the three-factor model, since the number of estimated relationships and degrees of freedom are the same [ 9 ]. Furthermore, the second-order factorial loads of the three dimensions (0.879, 0.690 and 0.866) are all positive, high and statistically significant, supporting the structure as second-order factor [9]. Table 2. Engagement structure. Models χ2df CFI IFI RMSEA CI 90% RMSEA One-factor structure 842.983 52 0.764 0.765 0.218 0.206–0.231 Three-factor structure 119.601 49 0.979 0.979 0.067 0.052–0.083 Second-order structure 119.601 49 0.979 0.979 0.067 0.052–0.083 Note. N = 320. In the three models, it was allowed error variances for two items of the physical dimension and other two of the emotional one to correlate. Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 8 of 17 Second, the measurement model fit was tested. The results indicated an adequate fit with the data ( χ2 (421) = 1048.853; χ2 /df = 2.491; CFI = 0.934; TLI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.068), implying the acceptability of the proposed model. Table 3summarizes the statistics used to verify the scales’ reliability and validity. The composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) of each scale exceeded the established minimum of 0.6 and 0.5, respectively [ 91 ], supporting the reliability of the scales. Convergent validity was evidenced by verifying that all the factor loadings were significant and higher than 0.5. The discriminant validity between constructs was verified since the correlation confidence intervals excluded the unit value, and their squared correlations were lower than the AVE [91]. Table 3. Overall reliability and validity of the constructs. TL TS POS CSE JE TL CR = 0.964 AVE = 0.792 TS SC = 0.019 CR = 0.818 (0.008; 0.266) AVE = 0.600 POS SC = 0.328 SC = 0.080 CR = 0.959 (0.467; 0.679) (0.157; 0.407) AVE = 0.797 CSE SC = 0.134 SC = 0.100 SC = 0.063 CR = 0.824 (0.244; 0.488) (0.176; 0.458) (0.123; 0.377) AVE = 0.610 JE SC = 0.111 SC = 0.236 SC = 0.194 SC =0.316 CR = 0.855 (0.213; 0.453) (0.363; 0.609) (0.333; 0.549) (0.446; 0.678) AVE = 0.664 Note. TL, transformational leadership; TS, task significance; POS, perceived organizational support; CSE, core-self evaluations; JE, job engagement; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; SC, squared correlation. All the data were collected from a single source. Therefore, to examine the influence of common method bias, Harman’s one-factor test using a CFA [ 92 ] was applied. The model in which all the items of the five variables loaded onto the same factor did not fit the data well ( χ2 (435) = 6095.668; χ2 /df = 14.013; CFI = 0.409; TLI = 0.386; RMSEA = 0.202), suggesting that common method bias was not a significant issue in the present study [92]. The results of the structural model suggest that the hypothesized model (HM) provides good fit with the data ( χ2 (425) = 1081.935; χ2 /df = 1.923; CFI = 0.931; IFI = 0.932; RMSEA = 0.070). Based on existing theory, alternative models were considered to determine which of these best fit the data. The comparison models were based on the saturated model, which coincides with a partial mediation model. Four alternative models were then proposed. In the first one (M1), only the direct relationships of each variable with the dependent variable were considered. In the following ones, the relationships of transformational leadership with each of the mediating variables were eliminated (M2, with no transformational leadership-task significance relationship; M3, with no transformational leadership-POS relationship; and M4, with no transformational leadership-CSE relationship). Following the Hair et al.’s [ 91 ] recommendation, to determine the best model, differences in χ2 were established according to the degrees of freedom. As can be seen in Table 4, the hypothesized model (HM: Total mediation) is the one that presents a significantly better fit. Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 9 of 17 Table 4. Model comparison. Models χ2df CFI IFI RMSEA CI 90% RMSEA ∆χ2df p Partial mediation 1081.833 424 0.931 0.932 0.070 0.065–0.075 Hypothesized model (HM): total mediation 1081.935 425 0.931 0.932 0.070 0.064–0.075 0.102 1 ns M1 1240.245 427 0.915 0.915 0.077 0.072–0.082 158.412 3 <0.001 M2 1086.872 425 0.931 0.931 0.070 0.065–0.075 5.039 1 <0.05 M3 1199.399 425 0.919 0.919 0.076 0.071–0.081 117.566 1 <0.001 M4 1118.409 425 0.928 0.928 0.072 0.066–0.077 36.576 1 <0.001 Note. M1: Only the direct relationships of each variable with the dependent variable were considered; M2: With no transformational leadership-task significance relationship; M3: With no transformational leadership-POS relationship; M4: With no transformational leadership-CSE relationship. Figure 1shows the parameters of the structural model. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17 Figure 1. Structural model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note. TL, transformational leadership; TS, task significance; POS, perceived organizational support; CSE, core-self evaluations; JE, job engagement; PJE, physical job engagement dimension; EJE, emotional job engagement dimension; CJE, cognitive job engagement dimension. Values in parentheses are the parameters of the structural model, including the control variables. To test the mediation hypotheses, the bootstrapping technique was used. As can be seen in Table 5, the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effects of transformational leadership on job engagement via task significance, POS and CSE exclude zero. These results provide support for Hypotheses 1–3 and confirm the indirect effect of transformational leadership on job engagement through the three considered variables. Together, the independent and mediating variables explain 43.8% of the variance in job engagement. Table 5. Indirect effects of transformational leadership on job engagement. Indirect Effects TL → VM → JE Estimate 95% CI (Lower) 95% CI (Upper) p H1: TL → TS → JE 0.029 0.004 0.066 0.026 H2: TL → POS → JE 0.106 0.059 0.170 0.001 H3: TL → CSE → JE 0.104 0.059 0.162 0.001 Note. TL, transformational leadership; VM, mediating variable; JE, job engagement; TS, task significance; POS, perceived organizational support; CSE, core-self evaluations. 5. Discussion and Implications To encourage employees’ job engagement is considered essential to the sustainability of organizations [17,22] and for their survival and long-term success [20,21], particularly in those immersed in a changing environment [93]. Emergent high-tech and knowledge-based SMEs “are the foundation for economic growth in today’s business” [53] (p. 241). Their development and sustainability depend to a large extent on using and developing employee’s talent, encouraging their well-being and stimulating them to give their best. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of the mechanisms through which supervisors’ transformational leadership influences job engagement. In particular, this paper 0.141* (0.142) 0.366*** (0.368) 0.574*** (0.574) 0.278*** (0.264) 0.313*** (0.300) 0.429*** (0.462) TL TS R POS CSE JE EJE PJE CJE Figure 1. Structural model. * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001. Note. TL, transformational leadership; TS, task significance; POS, perceived organizational support; CSE, core-self evaluations; JE, job engagement; PJE, physical job engagement dimension; EJE, emotional job engagement dimension; CJE, cognitive job engagement dimension. Values in parentheses are the parameters of the structural model, including the control variables. To test the mediation hypotheses, the bootstrapping technique was used. As can be seen in Table 5, the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effects of transformational leadership on job engagement via task significance, POS and CSE exclude zero. These results provide support for Hypotheses 1–3 and confirm the indirect effect of transformational leadership on job engagement through the three considered variables. Together, the independent and mediating variables explain 43.8% of the variance in job engagement. Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 16 of 17 63. Gözükara, ˙ I.; ¸Sim¸sek, O.F. Linking transformational leadership to work engagement and the mediator effect of job autonomy: A study in a turkish private non-profit university. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015 ,195, 963–971. [CrossRef] 64. Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999 ,44, 350–383. [CrossRef] 65. Eisenberger, R.; Fasolo, P.; Davis-LaMastro, V. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990,75, 51–59. [CrossRef] 66. Kahn, W.A. The essence of engagement: Lessons from the field. In Handbook of Employee Engagement.Perspectives, Issues, Research, and Practice; Albrecht, S.L., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 20–30, ISBN 9781849809504. 67. Blau, P. Power and Exchange in Social Life; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1964; p. 352, ISBN 9780471080305. 68. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006 ,21, 600–619. [CrossRef] 69. Eisenberger, R.; Stinglhamer, F.; Vandenberghe, C.; Sucharski, I.L.; Rhoades, L. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002 ,87, 565–573. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 70. Carless, S.A.; Wearing, A.J.; Mann, L. A short measure of transformational leadership. J. Bus. Psychol. 2000 , 14, 389–405. [CrossRef] 71. Judge, T.A.; Hurst, C. Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007 , 92, 1212–1227. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 72. Chang, C.; Ferris, D.L.; Johnson, R.E.; Rosen, C.C.; Tan, J.A. Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. J. Manag. 2012,38, 81–128. [CrossRef] 73. Ferris, D.L.; Johnson, R.E.; Rosen, C.C.; Djurdjevic, E.; Chang, C.D.; Tan, J.A. When is success not satisfying? integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013,98, 342–353. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 74. Aryee, S.; Walumbwa, F.O.; Mondejar, R.; Chu, C.W.L. Core self-evaluations and employee voice behavior: Test of a dual-motivational pathway. J. Manag. 2017,43, 946–966. [CrossRef] 75. Chiang, Y.; Hsu, C.; Hung, K. Core self-evaluation and workplace creativity. J. Bus. Res. 2014 ,67, 1405–1413. [CrossRef] 76. Karatepe, O.M.; Demir, E. Linking core self-evaluations and work engagement to work-family facilitation: A study in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014,26, 307–323. [CrossRef] 77. Lee, J.; Ok, C. Drivers of work engagement: An examination of core self-evaluations and psychological climate among hotel employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015,44, 84–98. [CrossRef] 78. De Cremer, D.A.; van Knippenberg, B.M.; van Knippenberg, D.; Mullenders, D.; Stinglhamber, F. Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005 ,90, 3–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 79. Kark, R.; Shamir, B.; Chen, G. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003,88, 246–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 80. Liao, H.; Chuang, A. Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007 ,92, 1006–1019. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81. Salanova, M.; Lorente, L.; Chambel, M.J.; Martínez, I.M. Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: The mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011 ,67, 2256–2266. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 82. Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007,14, 121–141. [CrossRef] 83. Karatepe, O.M.; Nejadi, S. Do core self-evaluations mediate the effect of coworker support on work engagement? A study of hotel employees in iran. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2010,17, 62–71. [CrossRef] 84. Nguyen, N.; Borteyrou, X. Core self-evaluations as a mediator of the relationship between person–environment fit and job satisfaction among laboratory technicians. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016 , 99, 89–93. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2018,10, 4109 17 of 17 85. Liu, W.; Li, Z.; Ling, Y.; Cai, T. Core self-evaluations and coping styles as mediators between social support and well-being. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016,88, 35–39. [CrossRef] 86. Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology; Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W., Eds.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1980; pp. 389–444, ISBN 9780205064984. 87. Fletcher, L. How can personal development lead to increased engagement? The roles of meaningfulness and perceived line manager relations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 1–24. [CrossRef] 88. Little, T.D.; Cunningham, W.A.; Shahar, G.; Widaman, K.F. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct. Equ. Model. 2002,9, 151–173. [CrossRef] 89. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988; p. 567, ISBN 9780805802832. 90. Law, K.S.; Wong, C.; Mobley, W.M. Toward A taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998,23, 741–755. [CrossRef] 91. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2010; p. 816, ISBN 9780138132631. 92. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003 ,88, 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 93. Lee, S.; Shin, Y.; Baek, S. Task characteristics and work engagement: Exploring effects of role ambiguity and ICT presenteeism. Sustainability 2017,9, 1855. [CrossRef] 94. Lyons, J.B.; Schneider, T.R. The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 2009 ,20, 737–748. [CrossRef] 95. Messersmith, J.G.; Wales, W.J. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in young firms: The role of human resource management. Int. Small Bus. J. 2013,31, 115–136. [CrossRef] 96. Wegman, L.A.; Hoffman, B.J.; Carter, N.T.; Twenge, J.M.; Guenole, N. Placing job characteristics in context: Cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since 1975. J. Manag. 2018 ,44, 352–386. [CrossRef] 97. Rauch, A.; Hatak, I. A meta-analysis of different HR-enhancing practices and performance of small and medium sized firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 2016,31, 485–504. [CrossRef] 98. Turner, N.; Barling, J.; Zacharatos, A. Positive psychology at work. In Handbook of Positive Psychology; Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 715–728, ISBN 9780195135336. 99. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989 ,44, 513–524. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 100. Halbesleben, J.R.B.; Neveu, J.; Paustian-Underdahl, S.C.; Westman, M. Getting to the “COR”. J. Manag. 2014 , 40, 1334–1364. [CrossRef] 101. Antonakis, J.; Fenley, M.; Liechti, S. Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011,10, 374–396. [CrossRef] 102. Barling, J.; Weber, T.; Kelloway, E.K. Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996,81, 827–832. [CrossRef] 103. Spector, P.E. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organ. Res. Methods 2006 , 9, 221–232. [CrossRef] 104. Zhang, H.; Kwan, H.K.; Zhang, X.; Wu, L. High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. J. Manag. 2014,40, 1151–1174. [CrossRef] © 2018 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/).