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

AuthorWilmar B. Schaufeli,Evgeny N. Osin,Tatiana Y. Ivanova,Vivi Gusrini Rahmadani
Published date01 December 2019
Date01 December 2019
DOIhttp://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;30:453471. 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 hasat least partlyto 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 isto some extentrelated 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.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT