The effect of psychological capital on performance through the role of career engagement: Evidence from Indonesian public organizations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothetical model

Table 1. Mean, standard deviation and bivariate correlations

No.	Variable	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Age	41.93 (9.59)	—
2	Gender	0.52 (0.50)	.12	—
3	Tenure	15.10 (9.36)	.84**	.14	—
4	Job level	1.44 (0.70)	.24**	.08	.21**	—
5	PsyCap	12.85 (11.89)	.10	.09	.04	.30**	—
6	Career engagement	37.56 (5.55)	−.06	.03	−.14	.17*	.64**	—
7	Performance	63.64 (9.46)	−.06	.14	−.06	.19*	.66**	.64**

N = 265, *p < .05, **p < .01, gender was coded 0 = female or 1 = male, and job level was coded 0 = staff, 1 = supervisor, 2 = manager.

Table 2. Hypothesis testing using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

Model	No of Factor	χ^2	df	p	χ^2/df	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
1	Three factors (PsyCap, CE, and Performance)	1726.34	97	.00	1.78	.07	.07	.94	.93
2	Alternative 1: Two factors (PsyCap and CE together, Performance)	1902.58	97	.00	1.96	.08	.07	.85	.82
3	Alternative 2: One factor	2091.31	97	.00	2.16	.08	.08	.77	.75

Table 3. Path coefficients of direct and indirect effects of PsyCap on performance via career engagement

Effect	Path	Standardized Estimate
Direct	PsyCap → career engagement	.72***
	Career engagement → performance	.26***
	PsyCap → performance	.60***
Indirect	PsyCap → career engagement → performance	.19***

N = 265, ***p < 0.01