As the career maturity and self-awareness of new generation employees increase, they seek not only material rewards but also well-being and meaning in their work. Based on the SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) theory, this study takes intellectual humility leadership as the breakthrough point and positive work attitude as the mediating path to construct a model of antecedents for the thriving at work and work performance of new generation employees. To this end, this study adopts a questionnaire survey method to carry out empirical work. By collecting 518 valid questionnaires, an SEM model is established to examine the mechanisms and boundary conditions of the impact of intellectual humility leadership.The study finds that: Firstyly, Intellectual humility leadership can enhance the thriving at work and work performance of new generation employees by fostering a positive work attitude; Secondly, Employee core self-evaluation moderates the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and both positive work attitude and work performance. However, with respect to thriving at work, the moderating effect of employee core self-evaluation on intellectual humility leadership is not significant.This study provides empirical support for a deeper understanding of the impact mechanism of leadership on the thriving at work and work performance of new generation employees. It also offers practical management insights for building a positive, healthy, and efficient work culture, thereby enhancing the overall competitiveness of the organization.
Article
Does Intellectual Humility Leadership Lead to a Win-Win? ---- The impact of leadership style on Thriving at Work and Work Performance of the New Generation Employees
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4801764/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
Intellectual humility
positive work attitude
core self-evaluation
thriving at work
work performance
SOR
organizational management
SEM
In the rapidly developing modern era, some traditional social values are gradually dissolving under the forces of globalization, marketization, and digitization, with instrumental rationality increasingly prevailing over value rationality. Consequently, new generation employees create significant profits for enterprises but fail to achieve happiness. Philosophers like Han Bingzhe, Sandel, and Geertz have analyzed the reasons behind the divergence between work outcomes and employee happiness from perspectives of burnout society, meritocracy, and nihilism, respectively (Han 2021; Sandel 2011; Geertz 1984). While philosophical literature has made considerable progress, organizational behavior research still requires in-depth theoretical explanations and empirical analyses of these viewpoints.
Intellectual humility, defined as the recognition that one’s beliefs might be flawed and an appropriate focus on the limitations of the evidence supporting those beliefs as well as one’s limitations in obtaining and evaluating relevant information (Leary 2017), offers new insights into this issue. Intellectual humility is a virtue often associated with morality, but Baehr (2011) emphasizes that virtues can have an intellectual dimension rather than a moral one. Thus, intellectual humility is categorized as an intellectual or epistemic virtue, promoting the possessor to be a good epistemic agent, akin to the cognitive version of moral humility (Rittberg 2021; Stafford 2010). Samuelson et al. (2014) define intellectual humility as a positive mean between the vices of intellectual arrogance (claiming more knowledge than warranted) and intellectual diffidence (claiming less knowledge than warranted). Poter (2022) defines it as a metacognitive ability to recognize the limitations of one’s beliefs and knowledge. Currently, there is no unified standard for defining intellectual humility, as psychologists and philosophers have different theoretical goals; psychologists aim to operationalize it and study it using psychometric tools (e.g., self and other reports).
Our paper continues Leary’s (2017) research on intellectual humility leadership, wherein leaders exhibiting intellectual humility show respect and value for others, are willing to listen to team members’ suggestions and opinions. This humble attitude helps establish a trusting and cooperative team atmosphere, where leaders prefer to collaborate with team members and leverage collective wisdom for success (Frostenson 2016). Although research on intellectual humility leadership is relatively new, there is consistent evidence linking it with a range of beneficial outcomes for employees and organizations, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and work performance (Porter et al. 2022). However, research on the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and individual follower characteristics remains limited. Therefore, the current study focuses on better understanding the interaction between intellectual humility leadership and followers' core self-evaluation, and how this interaction influences employees’ positive work attitudes.
New generation employees, typically referring to Millennials (born 1981–1996) and Generation Z (born after 1997), have become the main workforce in the labor market. Studies show that new generation employees differ significantly from older generations in work styles, self-identity, and values (Zupan et al. 2015). The key to organizational success lies not only in the quality of its products or services but also in its most valuable asset—employees. While pursuing high performance, organizations are increasingly recognizing the close relationship between employee thriving at work, positive work attitudes, and long-term success. Balancing employee thriving and performance enhancement is not contradictory but requires comprehensive management considerations for overall organizational success. Hence, it is crucial to explore the impact mechanism of intellectual humility leadership on the thriving and performance of new generation employees.
Thriving at work, as a psychological state, is significantly influenced by employees’ perceptions and evaluations of work demands (Tian & Li 2024). Thriving at work refers to a positive psychological state where employees feel both vitality and learning (Spreitzer et al. 2005). Using work performance and employee thriving as dependent variables can comprehensively reflect the impact of intellectual humility leaders on employees and organizations, considering both short-term work output and long-term employee development and organizational health. This has important implications for optimizing management practices, enhancing competitiveness, and improving employee satisfaction.
To explore the mediating mechanism between intellectual humility leadership and the thriving and performance of new generation employees, this study introduces positive work attitude as a mediating mechanism. Positive work attitude is closely related to employee performance, including higher job performance, stronger organizational commitment, and higher job involvement (Susanty & Miradipta 2013). Positive work attitude emphasizes employees’ subjective experiences, including emotions, beliefs, and attachment. This mechanism helps delve into employees’ subjective feelings within organizations and understand how their interactions with intellectual humility leaders affect their emotional experiences. Intellectual humility leadership promotes positive work attitudes, enhancing employees’ thriving and work efficiency, and creating a win-win situation for both employee performance improvement and organizational competitiveness enhancement. Furthermore, based on the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) theory, in organizational contexts, leaders’ behaviors and management styles act as strong stimuli, directly affecting employees’ psychological states and behavioral responses (De & Den 2007). This leads to an in-depth study of the complex relationships between leadership styles, employee attitudes, and organizational performance. Stimuli originate from external situations, organisms form psychological states in response, leading to a series of behavioral responses (Kim et al. 2020).
Notably, our study does not stop at the direct relationship between leadership style and employee attitude but introduces employee core self-evaluation as a moderating variable to understand this relationship's dynamic changes deeply. The moderating variable in this study serves as both a link and a mediation aid, helping to unravel the deep potential impact of intellectual humility leadership on employees. Through this perspective, we hope not only to provide a deeper understanding of intellectual humility leadership research but also to offer more nuanced strategic guidance for organizational management.
2.1 Intellectual Humility Leadership and Positive Work Attitude
One of the ways in which organisations can achieve higher performance is by influencing employees' attitudes towards their work and through the configuration of practices that support intrinsic motivation (Arifin 2020). Judge & Mueller (2012) define work attitude as "an evaluation of the job, expressing one's feelings, beliefs, and attachment towards the work." Bagozzi states that the term attitude often encompasses preferences, feelings, emotions, beliefs, expectations, judgments, appraisals, values, principles, opinions, and intentions. Employee work attitudes can be divided into positive and negative work attitudes, with attitudes likely preceding and predicting behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980), indicating that attitudes are important focal and measurement points for behavior antecedents. Employee work attitudes are influenced by internal factors, including work-related values, self-efficacy, threat assessment, organizational commitment, skill development, employee trust, and career advancement (Aâ 2013; McNatt & Judge 2008; Mathew & Zacharias 2016; Rebeka & Indradevi 2015). External factors include relationships with colleagues, leadership style, and organizational policies or treatments (e.g., work environment and conditions, organizational justice, and compensation) (Ahmad et al. 2020; Khuwaja et al. 2020; Noah 2012; Ramamoorthy & Flood 2002). For decades, leadership practices/styles have been a focus for organizational researchers. The Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) theoretical framework posits that stimuli may come from external contexts, organisms form psychological states in response to stimuli, and after a series of psychological activities, organisms take behavioral actions in response (Warkentin 2019). Leaders' behaviors and styles can be viewed as stimuli sources, which employees receive, undergo psychological activities, and finally react—potentially facing work more positively/negatively.
Many articles discuss the impact of different leadership styles on employee work attitudes, but none consider the perspective of intellectual humility leadership. Intellectual humility qualities, such as avoiding intellectual overconfidence and respecting others' views, may be key components in reflecting another person's subjective state in cognitive processes. This may lead to understanding others' perspectives, potentially resulting in greater employee emotional satisfaction, happiness, and positive work attitudes. Therefore, intellectual humility leaders help employees shape positive work attitudes by fostering a respectful and cooperative environment. Organizational researchers emphasize that leadership approaches and practices significantly influence employee attitudes and organizational performance (Allen et al. 2003). Intellectual humility leaders exhibit moral authority and respect towards others, often being more receptive to employees' suggestions and opinions, creating a collaborative and trusting environment (Frostenson 2016). This encourages employees to form positive work attitudes, promoting a virtuous cycle of enhanced performance and satisfaction.
H1: There is a positive relationship between leaders with intellectual humility and employees' positive work attitudes.
2.2Intellectual Humility of Leaders and the Thriving at Work and Work Performance of New Generation Employees
Intellectual humility is a leadership quality that encompasses both humility and intellectual acumen. In the field of psychology, it reflects a leader's recognition of their own limitations. Interpersonally, intellectual humility is associated with numerous positive and prosocial qualities, such as agreeableness, openness, perspective-taking, helpfulness, generosity, and the quality of social relationships (Poter et al., 2021). Regarding the positive relationship between leaders' intellectual humility and employees' thriving at work, research indicates that intellectual humility leaders can create a positive and uplifting work environment by understanding and respecting their employees, especially when disagreements arise. Individuals with high intellectual humility are more tolerant of differing viewpoints and are less likely to disparage those with whom they disagree (Leary, 2017). More generally, IH correlates with an agreeable, open, and supportive interpersonal style, which leads people who are more intellectual humility to be liked better than those low in IH (Porter & Schumann,2018). In addition, their open, less contentious style leads group leaders who are higher in IH to elicit fuller participation by group members, promoting greater creativity and higher group satisfaction. Leaders with the trait of intellectual humility typically demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of their employees and pay attention to individual differences among them, intellectual humility can promote more diverse groups and organizations where a true sense of belonging results in more voices being heard. Ultimately, this will create safer settings for those with marginalized identities, thereby establishing a relationship of trust and resonance, which plays a positive role in enhancing employees' thriving at work (Krumrei-Mancuso, 2022).
Secondly, research has found that leaders who express humility have been shown to increase team performance. The reason for this is that leaders who recognize the limits of their knowledge and are open to learning are well-positioned to attend to their followers and become better leaders (Rego et al., 2017). They provide a safe work environment that encourages employees to think and act more creatively at work, which in turn improves overall work performance. An intellectual humility leadership style may help reduce conflict and stress in the work environment. A relatively relaxed and cooperative-oriented work environment may help improve employee work performance (Mukhtar et al., 2023). Intellectual humility leadership can lead to higher work engagement and commitment from employees. These positive employee attitudes are typically associated with higher work performance (Meskelis & Whittington).
Based on the above viewpoints, this paper proposes hypotheses H2 and H3:
H2: There is a positive relationship between leaders' intellectual humility and the thriving at work of the new generation employees
H3: There is a positive relationship between leaders' intellectual humility and employees' work performance.
2.3 Positive Work Attitude and Thriving at Work and Work Performance
Research indicates that thriving at work can serve as "happy productivity," bringing transformative benefits to both organizations and individuals. It can increase organizational productivity by an average of 31%, sales performance by an average of 37%, and customer satisfaction by an average of 12%. From the perspectives of employee stability and organizational competitiveness, ensuring employees thrive at work is a crucial task for managers. Despite the importance of enhancing the thriving of new generation employees, many companies still regard it as an insignificant issue. Spreitzer et al. (2005) first introduced the concept of thriving at work, defining it as a psychological state where individuals simultaneously experience vitality and learning. Every employee potentially possesses latent thriving potential, which can be activated and mobilized by leadership and other situational factors. Carmeli & Spreitzer (2009) also contend that thriving is essentially a positive subjective experience that enables individuals to perceive growth and progress at work.
Spreitzer et al. (2005) also developed a theoretical model of thriving at work, explaining how certain individual characteristics (e.g., knowledge and positive affect), interpersonal/relational characteristics (e.g., support and trust), contextual features (e.g., job autonomy and a climate of trust), and agentic work behaviors (e.g., task focus and exploration) lead to thriving at work. Klein et al. (2019) demonstrated that thriving at work positively influences positive work attitudes. However, from both theoretical and empirical research perspectives, positive work attitudes can also significantly affect thriving at work.
Positive work attitude refers to the positive evaluation of the object of thought (Williams, 2016). Studies have shown that work performance and compensation performance are related to the formation of positive work attitudes (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ogbonnaya et al., 2017). However, contingent compensation may exacerbate work pressure, potentially diminishing its positive impact on employee attitudes. Unfortunately, these studies have not explored positive attitudes as a stimulus source for examining their impacts. According to social exchange theory, employees' positive work attitudes and behaviors are influenced by organizational rewards and support. This positive exchange relationship can stimulate employees' work engagement and enthusiasm, thereby enhancing their thriving at work. Positive work attitudes such as high job satisfaction, strong organizational commitment, and occupational confidence can improve employees' psychological states and work motivation, prompting them to exhibit greater focus and dedication in their work (Halepota, 2011; Herman, 2013). Furthermore, employees with positive work attitudes are more likely to seek learning and growth opportunities in their work, enhancing their career development potential and work experience (Weer & Greenhaus, 2020). Therefore, there is a bidirectional interactive relationship between positive work attitudes and thriving at work. Enhancing employees' positive work attitudes is an effective way to boost their thriving at work.
Such positive work attitudes are not merely emotional experiences; they significantly influence individual behaviors. Research indicates that employee attitudes have a guiding and driving function for work efficiency (Susanty & Miradipta, 2013). In this context, work performance, as a key indicator, becomes a primary focus for organizations. Work performance refers to the efficiency and effectiveness with which employees complete tasks in their roles. It is a crucial metric for evaluating how well employees fulfill their job responsibilities over a specific period (Caillier, 2010). Positive work attitudes, including high work engagement, positive emotional experiences, and organizational commitment and identification, encourage employees to fully dedicate themselves to their tasks, thereby improving work efficiency and quality (Somers et al., 2000; Van et al., 2006).
In summary, positive work attitudes make employees more likely to experience satisfaction, achievement, and positive emotions, thereby enhancing their thriving at work. Simultaneously, these positive attitudes drive employees to be more focused and dedicated to their work, improving work performance and creating greater value for the organization. Therefore, we propose the following two research hypotheses:
H4: There is a positive relationship between employees' positive work attitudes and their thriving at work.
H5: There is a positive relationship between employees' positive work attitudes and their work performance.
2.4 The Moderating Role of Employees' Core Self-Evaluation
For a long time, scholars have been interested in understanding the factors that influence employees' positive work attitudes. These factors include not only external elements such as the work environment but also intrinsic factors like personality traits. Consequently, Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) proposed the concept of core self-evaluation (CSE). CSE is manifested through four personality traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. These four specific personality dimensions are unique yet belong to a higher-order factor known as CSE (Kim, 2015). Compared to employees with low CSE, those with high CSE are likely to evaluate their organizational environment more positively. They view themselves as valuable, confident, and proactive, and experience positive events at work, ultimately gaining benefits from the context. This, in turn, can increase their subsequent engagement within the organization, as their positive outlook and experiences make them appreciate any support provided by the organization (Henson & Beehr, 2018).
Most studies on leadership and performance regard subordinate performance as the result of the interaction between leaders and employees, focusing on the causal role in this process. Given that effective leaders can enable followers to realize their optimal capabilities (Bass & Bass, 2008), leaders can amplify the positive relationship between followers' CSE and their outcomes. High-CSE individuals also expect to establish high-quality relationships with their superiors within the organization. Some scholars have examined the relationship between transformational leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, and CSE. Although these studies investigated different dependent, mediating, and moderating variables, they all confirmed the positive correlation between these leadership styles and CSE, with servant leadership and CSE being mutually influential (Resick et al., 2009; Schmidt, 2008; Rodríguez-Carvajal et al., 2010).
However, they overlooked how leaders with intellectual humility affect the relationship between CSE and employees. Intellectual humility leaders help establish positive leader-employee relationships, providing a conducive work environment that influences employees' core self-evaluation and work attitudes. Individuals with high core self-evaluation typically possess high self-esteem and a strong sense of identity. In an environment of intellectual humility leadership, these employees are more likely to feel respected and understood (Leary, 2022), thereby enhancing their job satisfaction and positive work attitudes. Additionally, employees with high core self-evaluation are likely better at regulating their emotions, including maintaining optimism and flexibility when facing challenges. This positive emotional regulation helps manage work-related stress (Neves & Champion, 2015), contributing to the creation of a positive work environment alongside intellectual humility leadership. Therefore, this paper proposes hypothesis H6: intellectual humility leadership positively influences employees' positive work attitudes, with employees' core self-evaluation positively moderating the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and positive work attitudes.
H6: Employees' core self-evaluation positively moderates the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and positive work attitudes.
2.5 The Mediating Role of Positive Work Attitudes
Within organizations, establishing high levels of employee thriving at work and high job performance often lacks top-down prioritization. For instance, impulsive leaders may harm and undermine their followers and organizations, failing to create a psychologically safe work environment, leading to increased work stress for employees. Employees often express frustration, stating, "You either guide me, or you are just adding to my troubles" (Myatt, 2013). In contrast, leadership styles like transformational leadership broaden employees' interests and develop followers' abilities (Baas et al., 2008). Leaders who demonstrate "thriving" behaviors are shown to be 17% more effective than their less thriving counterparts. Unfortunately, these studies have not explored the mediating mechanisms through which different types of leadership influence employee thriving. Based on the SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) theory, intellectual humility leadership can be viewed as a stimulus within the organization. It influences employees' internal states, such as cognition, emotions, and attitudes, which in turn trigger different responses from employees.
Specifically, employees' positive work attitudes can be seen as an organic response to this leadership style, reflecting their recognition of and positive emotional experience with the leadership approach. This positive work attitude is considered an organic reaction formed under the stimulus of intellectual humility leadership. Furthermore, employee well-being and job performance are seen as two significant responses. Intellectual humility leadership indirectly influences employee thriving and job performance by affecting their positive work attitudes. Therefore, this paper proposes hypothesis H7.
H7: Positive work attitudes mediate the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and employee thriving and job performance.
3.1 Survey Process and Participants
The data collection for this study took place from May 2022 to May 2023. The sample selection criteria focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that had been established for more than two years. The survey was conducted using electronic questionnaires, targeting middle and senior managers of SMEs and their subordinates. For convenience, some regions utilized pre-sampling frameworks through university MBA (EMBA) centers and EDP centers to obtain email addresses of corporate executives. These executives were first asked to rate items related to the independent variable—intellectual humility in leadership. Subsequently, their subordinates were invited to answer questions related to the dependent variable, mediating variable, and moderating variable.
The questionnaire design involved translation and back-translation between Chinese and English, ensuring no semantic discrepancies. A pre-survey was conducted using 50 randomly selected questionnaires, and adjustments were made based on the results. To avoid common method bias, data were collected in two waves. The first wave, from May to July 2022, involved 10 participants who answered questions on the moderating variable, dependent variable, and control variables. The second wave, from August to October 2022, involved 20 participants: 10 answered questions on the independent variable, and 10 on the mediating variable. Participants in both waves were required to answer control variable questions. This staggered approach reduced endogeneity concerns related to reverse causality and omitted variables.
In total, 869 managers agreed to participate in the survey and returned questionnaires from both themselves and their subordinates. After excluding invalid questionnaires with obvious errors and missing data, as well as those from employees over 43 years old (since the study focused on new-generation employees), 518 valid questionnaires remained. The effective response rate was 59.61%.
The gender distribution of the participants (Gender) was 47.49% female and 52.51% male. In terms of education background (EB), 14.86% had a high school education or below, 30.89% had an associate degree, 41.7% had a bachelor's degree, and 12.55% had a master's degree or higher. The age characteristics (AGE) showed that the average age of leaders was 47.7 years, while the average age of new-generation employees was 33.1 years. Regarding tenure (SY), the majority of participants had been in their positions for less than one year (61.59%), followed by 1–2 years (29.73%), and more than 2 years (8.69%). The industry distribution (AI) of the participants included 25.32% in manufacturing, 20.18% in information technology, 15.47% in finance, 13.84% in services, 10.26% in education and research, 8.94% in healthcare, and 5.99% in retail.
3.2 Questionnaire Design and Variable Measurement
For the adopted foreign research scales, this study employed a translation-back-translation procedure to avoid the influence of semantic differences. The questionnaires all used a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to represent different levels.
(1) Positive attitude in workplace (PA): Only items with factor loadings above 0.68 from the original scale were selected, such as "Your satisfaction with opportunities to develop your skills."
(2) Core self-evaluation (CSE): Utilizing a scale of 12 items developed by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003), for example, "I am confident in achieving the goals I set for myself." The Chinese translation of this scale has been validated in articles on work values, such as Hou (2014), making it suitable for measuring core self-evaluation among employees in Chinese contexts.
(3) Thriving at work (TaW): This variable uses a scale from literature such as Porath, with items that retained high factor loadings, comprising 3 items including "Today, I feel I am very productive in my learning."
(4) Intellectual humility leadership (IH): Adopting a scale developed by Leary (2017), which includes 6 items like "I question my own views, positions, and opinions because they may be wrong; I reconsider my views when presented with new evidence."
(5) Work Performance (WP): Utilizing a work performance scale developed by Han (2006) to measure outcomes including task performance, relational performance, learning performance, and innovative performance across 6 items with high factor loadings. Examples include "Even when supervisors are not present, I follow instructions."
(6) Control variables: This study selected gender, age, education background, industry affiliation, and years of work experience as control variables. These variables are chosen based on their association with organizational behavior and employee psychological responses, as previous research has shown their impact on employees' sense of thriving at work and work performance (Meng et al., 2011).
3.3 Data Analysis and Results
3.3.1 Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Data processing for this study was conducted using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 28.0 software. Results from the Harman's single-factor test showed that the first principal component explained 34.56% of the variance, indicating no serious common method bias. Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) were all below 6, confirming the absence of multicollinearity issues. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all variables exceeded 0.82, indicating good reliability. The study utilized scales from mature instruments sourced from domestic and international literature, ensuring content validity of the questionnaire. Standardized factor loadings for all items were above 0.75, demonstrating good convergent validity. Composite reliabilities (CR) for each variable exceeded 0.82, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.57, indicating high levels of convergent validity for the questionnaire. The specific questions and factor loadings of the questionnaire are shown in Table 1.
|
Variant |
Measurement item |
payloads |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
IH (\(\:\alpha\:\)=0.895, AVE= 0.589 CR = 0.896) |
I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong. |
0.792 |
|
|
I reconsider my opinions when presented with new evidence. |
0.771 |
||
|
I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own. |
0.801 |
||
|
I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong. |
0.784 |
||
|
In the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions. |
0.756 |
||
|
I like finding out new information that differs from what I already think is true. |
0.747 |
||
|
CSE (\(\:\alpha\:\)=0.961, AVE=0.607 CR = 0.949) |
I am confident I get the success I deserve in life |
0.790 |
|
|
Sometimes I feel depressed(r) |
0.793 |
||
|
When I try, I generally succeed |
0.778 |
||
|
Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless(r) |
0.785 |
||
|
I complete tasks successfully |
0.770 |
||
|
Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work.(r) |
0.785 |
||
|
Overall, I am satisfied with myself |
0.764 |
||
|
I am filled with doubts about my competence.(r) |
0.805 |
||
|
I determine what will happen in my life |
0.782 |
||
|
I do not feel in control of my success in my career.(r) |
0.769 |
||
|
I am capable of coping with most of my problems. |
0.797 |
||
|
There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me(r) |
0.786 |
||
|
PA (\(\:\alpha\:\)=0.925, AVE=0.606 CR = 0.925) |
How satisfied are you with the opportunity to develop your skills. |
0.795 |
|
|
How satisfied are you with the work itself. |
0.775 |
||
|
I share many of the values of my organization. |
0.806 |
||
|
I feel loyal to my organization. |
0.787 |
||
|
I am proud to tell people who I work for. |
0.778 |
||
|
Managers here can be relied upon to keep to their promises. |
0.785 |
||
|
Managers here are sincere in attempting to understand employees' views. |
0.786 |
||
|
Managers here deal with employees honestly. |
0.763 |
||
|
WP (\(\:\alpha\:\)=0.871, AVE=0.575 CR = 0.871) |
Follows orders even when higher management is not present. |
0.754 |
|
|
Finding new work methods, skills or tools through learning. |
0.768 |
||
|
Carry out the duties in the job description. |
0.779 |
||
|
Completes work assignments as required by formal performance appraisals. |
0.772 |
||
|
Value learning to gain experience and improve efficiency. |
0.759 |
||
|
Apply knowledge gained to solve problems encountered in the workplace. |
0.782 |
||
|
TaW (\(\:\alpha\:\)=0.828, AVE=0.616 CR = 0.828) |
Today, I feel like I'm being productive. |
0.897 |
|
|
I am experiencing rapid growth. |
0.895 |
||
|
I see myself improving. |
0.885 |
||
| Note: The abbreviations mentioned above refer to Intellectual Humility Leadership (IH), Core Self-Evaluation (CSE), Positive Attitude in Workplace (PA), Thriving at Work (TaW), and Work Performance (WP). | |||
In this study, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to examine the discriminant validity among variables, and the results are shown in Table 2. According to Table 2, the five-factor model demonstrated the best fit: χ²/df = 1.546; RMSEA = 0.032, SRMR = 0.023, CFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.977. Moreover, these fit indices significantly outperformed those of other models, indicating good discriminant validity among the variables.
 |
RMSEA |
SRMR |
CFI |
TLI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Five-factor model |
1.546 |
0.032 |
0.023 |
0.979 |
0.977 |
|
Four-factor modela |
5.475 |
0.093 |
0.403 |
0.827 |
0.815 |
|
Three-factor modelb |
6.831 |
0.106 |
0.387 |
0.774 |
0.759 |
|
Two-factor modelc |
4.883 |
0.087 |
0.280 |
0.850 |
0.830 |
|
Single-factor model |
3.043 |
0.063 |
0.054 |
0.921 |
0.916 |
| Note:a. Intellectual humility leadership and core self-evaluation are combined into one factor;b. Core self-evaluation and positive attitude in workplace are combined into one factor, thriving at work and work performance are combined into one factor;c. Intellectual humility leadership, core self-evaluation, and positive attitude in workplace are combined into one factor, thriving at work and work performance are combined into a second factor. | |||||
The descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients among variables are presented in Table 3. According to Table 3, Intellectual humility leadership is significantly positively correlated with core self-evaluation (r = 0.916, p < 0.05), positively attitude in workplace among new generation employees (r = 0.908, p < 0.05), work performance (r = 0.887, p < 0.05), and thriving at work (r = 0.878, p < 0.05). Core self-evaluation among new generation employees is significantly positively correlated with positive attitude in workplace (r = 0.927, p < 0.05), work performance (r = 0.898, p < 0.05), and thriving at work (r = 0.893, p < 0.05). Positive attitude in workplace among new generation employees is significantly positively correlated with work performance (r = 0.903, p < 0.05) and thriving at work (r = 0.861, p < 0.05). Work performance among new generation employees is significantly positively correlated with thriving at work (r = 0.849, p < 0.05). There are significant pairwise correlations among the main variables, indicating suitability for regression analysis.
|
Mean |
SD |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gender |
1.47 |
0.500 |
1 |
|||||||||
|
Age |
2.42 |
1.070 |
− .098* |
1 |
||||||||
|
EA |
2.52 |
0.894 |
0.044 |
-0.007 |
1 |
|||||||
|
SY |
2.90 |
1.255 |
-0.050 |
-0.024 |
0.074 |
1 |
||||||
|
AI |
11.66 |
6.269 |
-0.022 |
-0.026 |
0.067 |
0.014 |
1 |
|||||
|
IH |
3.5911 |
1.07600 |
-0.006 |
0.027 |
-0.080 |
0.007 |
-0.056 |
1 |
||||
|
CSE |
3.5230 |
1.08542 |
-0.004 |
0.001 |
-0.062 |
0.032 |
-0.058 |
0.916** |
1 |
|||
|
PA |
3.6260 |
1.06487 |
-0.009 |
0.004 |
-0.069 |
0.028 |
-0.051 |
0.908** |
0.927** |
1 |
||
|
WP |
3.6467 |
1.05942 |
-0.021 |
0.022 |
-0.076 |
0.014 |
-0.045 |
0.887** |
0.898** |
0.903** |
1 |
|
|
TaW |
3.6268 |
1.14766 |
0.027 |
0.012 |
− .098* |
0.016 |
-0.046 |
0.866** |
0.878** |
0.861** |
0.849** |
1 |
| Note: * indicates p < 0.1, ** indicates p < 0.05, *** indicates p < 0.01. The coefficients in the table are standardized coefficients.The abbreviations used are as follows: Intellectual Humility Leadership (IH), Core Self-Evaluation (CSE), Positive Attitude in Workplace (PA), Thriving at Work (TaW), Work Performance (WP), Gender (Gender), Age (Age), Education Background (EA), Years of Work Experience (SY), and Industry Affiliation (AI). | ||||||||||||
3.3.2 Hypothesis Testing
To test the hypothetical model depicted in Fig. 1, this study employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and compared the theoretical model, nested models, and alternative models to identify the best-fit model. Prior to analysis using AMOS 28 software, we conducted parceling of measurement items through a balanced method due to the large number of measurement items; this step resulted in each variable containing 3 items (Wu & Wen, 2011).
The theoretical model assumes no direct effect of intellectual humility leadership on work performance and thriving at work among new generation employees; the nested model adds direct effects based on the theoretical model; the alternative model assumes no mediating effect, with intellectual humility leadership, core self-evaluation, and positive attitude in workplace directly influencing work performance and thriving at work among new generation employees.
Firstly, comparing the theoretical model with the nested model: in terms of fit indices, the theoretical model (χ² = 2.061; RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.015, CFI = 0.972, TLI = 0.991) and the nested model (χ² = 4.002; RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.015, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.976) both demonstrate good fit. Following Anderson's recommended method, the change in chi-square (∆χ²(1) = 0.012, p > 0.05) between the theoretical model and nested model indicates that adding direct paths did not significantly improve the fit of the theoretical model. The alternative model did not fit well, thus confirming that the theoretical model better reflects the data relationships among variables compared to the nested and alternative models.
The results of the theoretical model, depicted in Fig. 2, show that after controlling for demographic variables, intellectual humility leadership significantly positively correlates with positive attitude in workplace among new generation employees (β = 0.343, p < 0.001). Positive attitude in workplace significantly positively correlates with work performance among new generation employees (β = 0.903, p < 0.001) and with thriving at work (β = 0.861, p < 0.001). Positive attitude in workplace significantly mediates the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and work performance (β = 0.496, p < 0.001) among new generation employees, as well as between intellectual humility leadership and thriving at work (β = 0.410, p < 0.001), with Bootstrap = 2000 and 95% confidence intervals [0.432, 0.579] and [0.262, 0.512], respectively, both excluding 0, thus validating hypotheses H1-H5 and H7.
Using Latent Moderated Structural Equations (LMS), the study tested moderated mediation effects. The results indicate that the interaction term between intellectual humility leadership and core self-evaluation significantly influences positive attitude in workplace among new generation employees (β = 0.585, p < 0.001), suggesting that core self-evaluation moderates the relationship between intellectual humility leadership and positive attitude in workplace.
As shown in Table 4, the 95% bias-corrected Bootstrap confidence intervals for a_3 b_1 are [0.137, 0.356] for work performance, excluding 0, and [-0.042, 0.284] for thriving at work, including 0. This indicates that intellectual humility leadership's indirect effect on work performance through positive attitude in workplace is moderated by core self-evaluation, while its effect on thriving at work is not moderated by this process. Specifically, the upper portion of Table 4 pertains to work performance as the dependent variable: under low levels of core self-evaluation, intellectual humility leadership significantly influences positive attitude in workplace (β = 0.324, p < 0.001), but under high levels of core self-evaluation, this relationship is not significant (β = 0.020, p > 0.05). When thriving at work is the dependent variable, under low levels of core self-evaluation, intellectual humility leadership significantly influences positive attitude in workplace (β = 0.386, p < 0.001), but under high levels of core self-evaluation, this relationship is not significant (β = 0.151, p > 0.05), thus confirming hypothesis H6.
|
implicit variable |
Moderator variable |
Effect |
Std,Error |
Confidence Interval |
\(\:{a}_{3}{b}_{1}\) |
Std,Erro |
Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WP |
Low(Mean-1SD) |
0.324 |
0.046 |
[0.234,0.415] |
0.249 |
0.056 |
[0.137,0.356] |
|
Medium (Mean) |
0.172 |
0.047 |
[0.081,0.263] |
||||
|
High(Mean + 1SD) |
0.020 |
0.061 |
[-0.099,0.139] |
||||
|
TaW |
Low(Mean-1SD) |
0.386 |
0.059 |
[0.271,0.502] |
0.121 |
0.085 |
[-0.042,0.284] |
|
Medium (Mean) |
0.269 |
0.06 |
[0.152,0.386] |
||||
|
High(Mean + 1SD) |
0.151 |
0.078 |
[-0.001,0.304] |
4.1 Research Conclusion
This study confirms that intellectual humility leadership serves as a positive mediator between positive attitude in workplace and enhanced thriving at work and work performance among new generation employees. The findings indicate that intellectual humility leadership promotes positive attitude in workplace among employees, thereby enhancing their sense of thriving at work and work performance. This implies that leaders play a profound role in shaping the work environment and driving employee performance. This discovery holds positive implications for organizational management practices, suggesting that leaders can foster thriving at work and enhance work performance among new generation employees by emphasizing the cultivation of positive work attitudes. By focusing on employees' emotional experiences and positive attitudes, organizations can create a conducive work environment that enhances both psychological well-being and overall performance, encouraging employees to be more engaged and achieving a win-win situation. This insight is crucial for building a positive, healthy, and efficient work culture, thereby enhancing the overall competitiveness of the organization.
However, the study did not find complete mediation effects of positive attitude in workplace, indicating that intellectual humility leadership affects thriving at work and work performance among new generation employees not only through positive attitude in workplace but possibly through other mediating variables, such as employee work motivation. Intellectual humility leadership may stimulate intrinsic work motivation among employees by providing challenges, support, and growth opportunities, thereby encouraging them to fully engage in their work. Such work motivation may directly contribute to enhanced thriving at work and work performance among new generation employees (Warren, 2021).
The results of moderated mediation indicate that low levels of core self-evaluation amplify the positive influence of intellectual humility leadership on positive attitude in workplace, while high levels of core self-evaluation diminish this influence. Under low levels of core self-evaluation, intellectual humility leadership significantly influences positive attitude in workplace among employees (β = 0.324, p < 0.001), possibly because employees with lower self-evaluation are more susceptible to leadership behaviors, where intellectual humility leadership may better meet their needs for understanding and respect, thus eliciting more positive work attitudes. Conversely, under high levels of core self-evaluation, the impact of intellectual humility leadership on positive attitude in workplace is not significant (β = 0.020, p > 0.05). This may be because higher levels of core self-evaluation emphasize individual self-awareness and intrinsic motivation, where employees already have a high sense of self-esteem and identity, making the impact of leadership relatively weaker. In such cases, employees' sensitivity to leadership influence may decrease, hence intellectual humility leadership's impact on positive work attitudes among these employees is less pronounced.
As for the moderated mediation effect on thriving at work, it was found to be non-significant, suggesting that thriving at work among new generation employees is influenced by multiple factors including the nature of job tasks, organizational work atmosphere, and individual skill levels. Within this complex network of influences, core self-evaluation may play a minor moderating role in the mediating path of intellectual humility leadership.
This finding provides valuable insights for organizational management practices. Managers need to consider the sensitivity of employee core self-evaluation levels to different leadership influence paths when developing leadership development and training plans. Managers can adjust the emphasis of leadership behaviors according to employees' core self-evaluation levels. For those with lower core self-evaluation, focusing on developing intellectual humility leadership can stimulate their positive work attitudes and enhance their work efficiency. For employees with higher core self-evaluation, managers may need to emphasize challenging job tasks, development opportunities, and recognition to meet their higher levels of self-motivation.
Furthermore, managers should recognize that work efficiency is influenced by multiple factors, and intellectual humility leadership's mediation through positive attitude in workplace is just one aspect. Therefore, to enhance employee work efficiency, organizations need to comprehensively consider multiple factors and develop integrated management strategies.
4.2 Prospect
Despite achieving meaningful findings, there are several aspects that warrant further in-depth research in the future. Firstly, future studies could explore the impact of different leadership styles on thriving at work and work performance among employees to establish a more comprehensive leadership model. Secondly, by introducing more organizational cultural and environmental factors, researchers can delve deeper into the relationships between these factors and intellectual humility leadership to better understand the comprehensive impact of leadership on employee psychological states and performance. This includes factors such as organizational structure, team collaboration atmosphere, etc., which contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms through which leadership affects employee performance. Additionally, future research could consider cross-cultural comparisons to explore similarities and differences in intellectual humility leadership across different cultural backgrounds, providing more targeted management recommendations for international enterprises.
However, this study also has limitations. Firstly, the sample only covered employees from specific industries or regions, which may limit the generalizability of the study findings. Future research can expand the sample scope to enhance the external validity of the study. Secondly, the methods employed in the study primarily focused on quantitative analysis and did not extensively explore qualitative information on individual employee experiences and perceptions. Further mixed-methods research could help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms through which leadership influences employees. Finally, this study did not consider other potential mediating variables, such as organizational identification or employee self-efficacy, which may impact the relationship between leadership and employee performance. Future research could delve deeper into these mediating variables to obtain a more refined explanation.
- Availability of data and material:
The datasets used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
- Competing interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Funding:
This study is supported by Major Project of Science and Technology Innovation of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission(No. 2017-01-07-00-03-E00044) and National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant (No.71874027).
- Authors' contributions:
Aiwen Niu wrote the first draft and revise the details of the article, Changchun Gao determined the direction of the topic. All author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.
- Acknowledgements:
We would like to thank all volunteers who have participated in this study.
- Methods:
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Research Conduct and Ethics Committee（Donghua University) and the approval number is DHUEC-NSFC-2024-54. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
- Han B C. The palliative society: pain today[M]. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
- Sandel M J. The case against perfection: What’s wrong with designer children[J]. Bioethics, 2011: 426.
- Geertz C. Distinguished lecture: Anti anti-relativism[J]. American anthropologist, 1984, 86(2): 263–278.
- Leary M R, Diebels K J, Davisson E K, et al. Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2017, 43(6): 793–813.
- Rittberg, C.J. Intellectual humility in mathematics. Synthese 199, 5571–5601 (2021).
- Stafford, S. P. (2010). Intellectual virtue in environmental virtue ethics. Environmental Ethics, 32(4), 339352. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201032439
- Peter L. Samuelson, Matthew J. Jarvinen, Thomas B. Paulus, Ian M. Church, Sam A. Hardy & Justin L. Barrett (2014): Implicit theories of intellectual virtues and vices: A focus on intellectual humility, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice.
- Porter T, Elnakouri A, Meyers E A, et al. Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility[J]. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2022, 1(9): 524–536.
- Frostenson M. Humility in business: A contextual approach[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2016, 138: 91–102.
- Zupan N, Kaše R, Rašković M, et al. Getting ready for the young generation to join the workforce: A comparative analysis of the work values of Chinese and Slovenian business students[J]. Journal of East European Management Studies, 2015: 174–201.
- Tian Huiqing,Li Lihui. A study of the impact of innovative job requirements on new generation employees' sense of work exuberance - the mediating role of stress evaluation[J/OL]. Frontiers of Engineering Management Science and Technology:1–11[2024-06-24].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/34.1013.n.20240524.1009.002.html.
- Spreitzer G, Sutcliffe K, Dutton J, et al. A Socially Embedded Model of Thriving at Work[J].Organization Science, 2005, 16(5):537–549.
- Susanty A, Miradipta R. Employee’s job performance: The effect of attitude toward works, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction[J]. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 2013, 15(1): 13–24.
- Bardon T, Josserand E, Sferrazzo R, et al. Tensions between (Post) Bureaucratic and Neo-normative Demands: Investigating Employees’ Subjective Positions at EurAirport[J]. British Journal of Management, 2023, 34(1): 57–71.
- De Jong J P J, Den Hartog D N. How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour[J]. European Journal of innovation management, 2007, 10(1): 41–64.
- Kim M J, Lee C K, Jung T. Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model[J]. Journal of travel research, 2020, 59(1): 69–89.
- Arifin K. Factors influencing employee attitudes toward organizational change: literature review[C]//5th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (ACPCH 2019). Atlantis Press, 2020: 188–191.
- Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341–367.
- Ajzen, I., & Fishbien, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Aâ N. The relationships between work values and work-related attitude: The role of social support as moderator[J]. Journal of Social and Development Sciences, 2013, 4(8): 369–375.
- McNatt D B, Judge T A. Self-efficacy intervention, job attitudes, and turnover: A field experiment with employees in role transition[J]. Human Relations, 2008, 61(6): 783–810.
- Mathew G A, Zacharias S D. A conceptual overview on relationship between employee attitude towards training and organizational commitment[C]//Proceedings of International HR Conference. 2016, 3(1).
- Rebeka, E., & Indradevi, R. (2015). A study on perception of employees during change in an organization. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p72.
- Ahmad A, Bilal H, Bibi P, et al. Empirically Investigating the Moderating Impact of Special Peer Support on the Relationship of Management Support and Employee Work Attitude[J]. Review of Education, Administration & Law, 2020, 3(3): 411–419.
- Khuwaja U, Ahmed K, Abid G, et al. Leadership and employee attitudes: The mediating role of perception of organizational politics[J]. Cogent Business & Management, 2020, 7(1): 1720066.
- Noah Y, Steve M. Work environment and job attitude among employees in a Nigerian work organization[J]. Journal of sustainable society, 2012, 1(2): 36–43.
- Ramamoorthy N, Flood P C. Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: A test of the main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations[J]. Human Relations, 2002, 55(9): 1071–1096.
- Warkentin, M., Wu, L.. Understanding Employees` Energy Saving Behavior from the Perspective of Stimulus-Organism-Responses. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019, 140(1):216–223.
- Elizabeth J. Krumrei-Mancuso (2016): Intellectual humility and prosocial values: Direct and mediated effects, The Journal of Positive Psychology.
- Jeanquart Miles, S., & Mangold, G. (2002). The impact of team leader performance on team member satisfaction: The subordinate’s perspective. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 8(5/6), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590210442230.
- Porter T, Baldwin CR, Warren MT, et al. Clarifying the content of intellectual humility: A systematic review and integrative framework. J Pers Assess. 104, Published online September 27, 2021:1–13. doi:10.1080/00223891.2021.1975725
- Porter T, Schumann K. Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self Ident. 2018;17(2):139–162.
- Elizabeth J. Krumrei-Mancuso, Begin M R. Cultivating Intellectual Humility in Leaders: Potential Benefits, Risks, and Practical Tools[J]. American Journal of Health Promotion, 2022, 36(8): 1404–1411.
- Mukhtar I, Rehman M, Lashari B, et al. Impact of Intellectual Humility on Interpersonal Conflicts and Narcissism among Teachers[J]. Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review, 2023, 3(1): 52–63.
- Meskelis S, Whittington J L. Driving employee engagement: how personality trait and leadership style impact the process[J]. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2020, 35(10): 1457–1473.
- Carmeli A, Spreitzer G M. Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work[J]. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2009, 43(3): 169–191.
- Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756
- Kleine A K, Rudolph C W, Zacher H. Thriving at work: A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019, 40(9–10): 973–999.
- Halepota J A. Determinants of work attributes and personality aspects towards employees’ job satisfaction[D]. Brunel University Brunel Business School PhD Theses, 2011.
- Herman C R. Development emotional intelligence for increased work engagement, organisational commitment, and satisfaction with work life[D]. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University, 2013.
- Weer C H, Greenhaus J H. Managers’ assessments of employees’ organizational career growth opportunities: The role of extra-role performance, work engagement, and perceived organizational commitment[J]. Journal of Career Development, 2020, 47(3): 280–295.
- Williams, P., Kern, M. L., and Waters, L. (2016b). Inside-out Outside-in: a dual approach process model to developing work happiness. Int. J. Wellbeing 6, 30–56. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v6i2.3
- Gagné M and Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(4): 331–362.
- Ogbonnaya, C., Daniels, K. and Nielsen, K. (2017) Does contingent pay encourage positive employee attitudes and intensify work? Human Resource Management Journal, 27 (1). pp. 94–112. ISSN 0954–5395.
- Susanty A, Miradipta R. Employee’s job performance: The effect of attitude toward works, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction[J]. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 2013, 15(1): 13–24.
- Caillier J G. Factors affecting job performance in public agencies[J]. Public Performance & Management Review, 2010, 34(2): 139–165.
- Somers, Mark, and Dee Birnbaum. "Exploring the relationship between commitment profiles and work attitudes, employee withdrawal, and job performance." Public Personnel Management 29.3 (2000): 353–366.
- Van Knippenberg, Daan, and Ed Sleebos. "Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes." Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 27.5 (2006): 571–584.
- Judge, Timothy A., et al. "Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations." Journal of applied psychology 83.1 (1998): 17.
- Kim T Y, Liden R C, Kim S P, et al. The interplay between follower core self-evaluation and transformational leadership: Effects on employee outcomes[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2015, 30: 345–355.
- Henson J A, Beehr T. Subordinates’ core self-evaluations and performance predict leader-rated LMX[J]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2018, 39(1): 150–168.
- Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial implications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
- Resick, Christian J., et al. "The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence." Journal of applied psychology 94.6 (2009): 1365.
- Schmidt, Adrian. "Leadership Styles of Information Technology Administrators in Selected Philippine Adventist Educational Institutions." International Forum Journal. Vol. 11. No. 1. 2008.
- Rodríguez-Carvajal, Raquel, et al. "Positive psychology at work: Mutual gains for individuals and organizations." Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 26.3 (2010): 235–253.
- Neves P, Champion S. Core self-evaluations and workplace deviance: The role of resources and self-regulation[J]. European Management Journal, 2015, 33(5): 381–391.
- Myatt, M. (2013). A crisis of leadership - what's next? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2013/10/10/a-crisis-of-leadership-whats-next/.
- Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of moodcreativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806.
- Salas-Vallina A, Simone C, Fernández-Guerrero R. The human side of leadership: Inspirational leadership effects on follower characteristics and happiness at work (HAW)[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2020, 107: 162–171.
- Spreitzer, G., & Porath, C. (2012). Creating sustainable performance. Harvard Business Review, 2, 6.
- Porath C, et al. Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012, 33(2):250–275.
- Han Y. Employee job performance structure model construction and empirical research. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2006.
- MENG Hui, SONG Jiwen, SUN Zhi**, et al. How transformational leadership affects employee outcomes: A mediated moderation analysis[J]. Psychological Science, 2011, 34(5): 1167.
- Warren M A, Warren M T.(2021). The Ethic model of virtue-based allyship development: A new approach to equity and inclusion in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,1–21.
No competing interests reported.