Basic psychological need satisfaction mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement: A cross‐national study

• Author: Wilmar B. Schaufeli,Evgeny N. Osin,Tatiana Y. Ivanova,Vivi Gusrini Rahmadani
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21366

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Basic psychological need satisfaction mediates

the relationship between engaging leadership

and work engagement: A cross-national study

Vivi Gusrini Rahmadani

1,2

| Wilmar B. Schaufeli

1,3

|

Tatiana Y. Ivanova

4

| Evgeny N. Osin

4

1

Research Unit, Occupational &

Organizational Psychology and Professional

Learning, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

2

Faculty of Psychology, University of

Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

3

Department of Psychology, Utrecht

University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

4

International Laboratory of Positive

Psychology of Personality and Motivation,

National Research University Higher School

of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Correspondence

Vivi Gusrini Rahmadani, Research Unit

Occupational & Organizational Psychology

and Professional Learning, KU Leuven,

Dekenstraat 2, 3000-Leuven, Belgium.

Email: vivigusrini.rahmadani@kuleuven.be

Funding information

Russian Academic Excellence project, Grant/

Award Number: 5-100; Indonesia Endowment

Fund for Education (LPDP) Scholarship

Abstract

The current study investigates the mediating role of basic

psychological need for satisfaction at work (i.e., autonomy,

relatedness, and competence) in the relationship between

engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring, strengthening, empow-

ering, and connecting) and work engagement. Also, we are

proposing and testing an additional need for meaningful-

ness that plays a similar mediating role. Data were collected

from two independent samples from Indonesia (n= 607

state-owned company employees) and Russia (n= 384 civil

servants). Results of both samples confirmed that basic psy-

chological need satisfaction (autonomy, relatedness, compe-

tence, and meaningfulness) mediated the relationship

between engaging leadership and work engagement.

Multigroup analysis revealed that the parameters of the

mediation model were invariant across both national sam-

ples, supporting the cross-national validity of the model.

When the mediating role of the satisfaction of the need for

meaningfulness was tested separately, this appeared only

the case in the Russian and not in the Indonesian sample.

KEYWORDS

basic psychological need satisfaction, cross-national validity,

engaging leadership, work engagement

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21366

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2019;30:453–471. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 453

1|INTRODUCTION

Research and practices of work engagement are growing as it has a positive impact on employees as well as organi-

zations (Schaufeli, 2012). The most widely used scholarly definition of work engagement describes it as “a positive,

fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova,

Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002; p. 74).”The vigor component refers to high levels of energy and perseverance, the

dedication component refers to a sense of significance, inspiration, and involvement and the absorption component

refers to being focused, fully concentrated, and attentive to one's work. By employing engaged workers, organiza-

tions may increase not only the performance at the individual and team level, but also at the organization and busi-

ness unit level (Salanova, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Schaufeli, & Cifre, 2014; Schneider, Marcey, & Barbera, 2009;

Schneider, Yost, Kropp, Kind, & Lam, 2018; Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2012). Thus, employees with

high levels of work engagement constitute the organizations' most valuable competitive advantage (Schaufeli, 2012).

Despite the importance of work engagement, the prevalence of highly engaged workers in organizations world-

wide seems to decline (Czarnowsky, 2008), which necessitates human resource development (HRD) scholars and

practitioners to develop research agendas and practical strategies to nurture engaged workers (Shuck, Rocco, &

Albornoz, 2011). Previous studies emphasized the role of the leaders in increasing employees' work engagement

(Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & van den Heuvel, 2015; Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011). Leaders are impor-

tant agents to nurture and manage work engagement among their employees. A recent meta-analysis found that var-

ious leadership styles are positively related to work engagement, such as ethical leadership (k=9;ρ= .58),

transformational leadership (k= 36; ρ= .46), servant leadership (k=3;ρ= .43), authentic leadership (k= 17; ρ= .38),

and empowering leadership (k=4;ρ= .35) (DeCuypere & Schaufeli, 2018). Although these leadership styles are

related to work engagement, in-depth knowledge about the underlying mechanism is still lacking. It remains unclear

how certain leadership styles may increase work engagement. This has—at least partly—to do with the lacking theo-

retical foundation of current leadership concepts such as transformational leadership (van Knippenberg & Sitkin,

2013). Thus, there is a need for developing an alternative, theory-based, specific leadership conceptualization that

may be inherently linked to work engagement.

The current study attempts to address this need by proposing and testing the novel concept of engaging leader-

ship, which was developed by Schaufeli (2015) and was firmly rooted in self determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan,

2000). Based on the systematic review by Bormann and Rowold (2018) on construct proliferationin leadership style

research, it can be argued that engaging leadership differs from other existing leadership concepts. First, while trans-

formational leadership is categorized as a change-oriented leadership style, servant leadership, authentic leadership,

and ethical leadership are categorized as relations-oriented leadership styles (cf., Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002). Con-

trary to transformational leadership, engaging leadership is relations-oriented because engaging leaders are support-

ive and promote their followers' well-being. Second, Bormann and Rowold (2018) posited that the core of “narrow”

leadership constructs “bases on a single pillar”(p. 163), and they predict narrow outcomes, such as ethical leadership.

Clearly, the concept of engaging leadership is narrow because it focuses on leadership behaviors that foster work

engagement, which differs from broad leadership constructs, such as transformational or transactional leadership.

The main difference between engaging leadership and the other leadership concepts is, however, that the former

is firmly rooted in a well-established theory, whereas previous leadership concepts are criticized because they lack a

detailed theoretical description of the underlying processes (Bormann & Rowold, 2018), most notably transforma-

tional leadership (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Moreover, Bormann and Rowold (2018) suggested that leader-

ship concepts might use SDT because this motivational theory allows a more parsimonious description of the

mechanisms underlying leadership behaviors. In line with this suggestion, the engaging leadership concept explicitly

builds on that theory (SDT), and therefore, constitutes a positive exception, for instance, compared to authentic lead-

ership or ethical leadership. In sum, even though each leadership concept is—to some extent—related to any other,

engaging leadershi p can be seen as a distinct (narrow), rel ationship-oriented, and theor y-based leadership concept.

454 RAHMADANI ET AL.