Leader effectiveness – the missing link in the relationship between employee voice and engagement

Figures & data

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results

Scale items	Mean	SD	SFL	t-value	SMC	AVE	CR	α
Employee voice behaviour (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) I get involved with issues that affect the quality of life here in this group I speak up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to this work group I speak up and encourage others in this group to get involved in issues that affect this group I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this group even if my opinion is different and others in this group disagree with me.	4.81 4.98 4.82 4.91 5.02 4.06	1.48 1.45 1.50 1.46 1.55 1.52	0.76 0.71 0.64 0.60 0.75 0.88	Fixed 4.22 4.05 3.92 4.55 4.72	0.58 0.51 0.41 0.36 0.56 0.77	0.51	0.72	0.86
Leader effectiveness (Hassan et al., 2013; Yukl et al., 2013)
Overall effectiveness of your manager in carrying out his/her job responsibilities	3.97	1.24	0.62	Fixed	0.39	0.52	0.71	0.71
Overall effectiveness of your manager	3.98	0.97	0.79	5.14	0.63
Employee engagement (Soane et al., 2012) I focus hard on my work I pay a lot of attention to my work I feel positive about my work	3.08 3.08 3.93	1.25 1.27 0.97	0.82 0.63 0.84	Fixed 4.45 5.30	0.67 0.39 0.71	0.57	0.80	0.83

Notes: Model fit statistics: χ² = 61.17; df = 51; χ²/df = 1.20; RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR = 0.07; NNFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.91. All loadings are significant at the 0.05 level. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; NNFI = Non-normed fit index; CFI = Comparative fit index; GFI = Goodness of fit index; SFL = Standardized factor loading; AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations of latent constructs

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Gender	1.27	0.45	--
Age	33.09	7.66	0.03	--
Marital status	1.59	0.60	0.06	0.57***	--
Tenure	6.02	4.41	0.09	0.86***	0.47***	--
EVB	4.91	1.03	-0.03	-0.13	-0.05	-0.11	--
LE	4.00	0.76	0.04	-0.13	-0.04	-0.10	0.43***	--
EE	3.99	0.80	0.04	-0.26**	-0.16	-0.13	0.29**	0.39***	--

Notes: n = 106; EV = Employee voice; LE = Leader effectiveness; EE = Employee engagement.

Figure 1. Research framework with hypotheses.

Figure 2. Results of structural equation model.

Table 3. Model comparison for mediation analysis

Fit indices	Partial mediation model	Full mediation model	Antecedent model
χ^2(df) ∆χ^2(∆df) RMSEA SRMR NNFI CFI AIC	61.17(51) -- 0.04 0.07 0.94 0.96 115.17	61.24(52) 0.07(1) 0.04 0.07 0.95 0.96 113.24	70.54(52) 9.37(1) 0.06 0.08 0.90 0.92 122.54

Note. n = 106, RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; CFI, comparative fit index; AIC, Akaike’s information criterion.

Table 4. Bootstrapping results for the direct and indirect effect of LE on EV-EE relationship

Hyp.	Paths	Std. Estimates	SE	t-value	Bootstrapping		p-value
					LLCI	ULCI
H1 H2 H3	Direct effect EV → EE EV →LE LE→ EE	0.106 0.309 0.327	0.076 0.067 0.103	1.397 4.599 3.172	-0.045 0.176 0.122	0.257 0.442 0.531	0.165 0.000 0.002
H4	Indirect effect EV → TM→EE	0.101	0.042	2.391	0.037	0.209	0.000

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(2), 133–146. doi:10.1108/02683941311300252

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 38–48. doi:10.1177/1548051811429352

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soane, E., Truss, K., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA engagement scale. Human Resource Development International, 15(5), 529–547. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.726542

 Google Scholar