The present study aimed to investigate the relationship of follower’s strengths-based leadership (FSBL) with follower work engagement. Additionally, this study also examined the mediational effect of employee strengths use and the moderating effect of core self-evaluation (CSE) on the relationship between FSBL and follower work engagement. Data were garnered at two points in time with a time lag of 2 months. Moderated-mediation path analysis with a total of 238 employees working in a research and design institute in Beijing was deployed to examine our hypotheses. As hypothesized, FSBL was a statistically significant predictor of work engagement, and strengths use acted as a mediator in the FSBL-work engagement relationship. In addition, we also found that CSE significantly and negatively moderates the direct effect of FSBL on strengths use and the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement through strengths use. This study advances the FSBL theory and research and provides a new insight into the driving force of work engagement.
AnandPMishraSK (2021) Linking core self-evaluation and emotional exhaustion with workplace loneliness: Does high LMX make the consequence worse?The International Journal of Human Resource Management32(10): 2124–2149.
2.
AryeeSWalumbwaFOMondejarR, et al. (2017) Core self-evaluations and employee voice behavior: Test of a dual-motivational pathway. Journal of Management43(3): 946–966.
3.
Babcock-RobersonMEStricklandOJ (2010) The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Psychology144(3): 313–326.
4.
BakkerABBalMP (2010) Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83(1): 189–206.
5.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2017) Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology22(3): 273–285.
6.
BakkerABVan WoerkomM (2018) Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. The Canadian Psychologist59(1): 38–46.
7.
BeckerTE (2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods8(3): 274–289.
8.
BhatnagarJ (2012) Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management23(5): 928–951.
9.
BiggsABroughPBarbourJP (2014) Strategic alignment with organizational priorities and work engagement: A multi-wave analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior35(3): 301–317.
10.
BonoJEJudgeTA (2003) Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality17(1 Suppl): S5–S18.
11.
BothaCMostertK (2014) A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology40(1): 1–11.
12.
Bouskila-YamOKlugerAN (2011) Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Human Resource Management Review21(2): 137–147.
13.
BurkusD (2011) Building the strong organization: Exploring the role of organizational design in strengths-based leadership. Journal of Strategic Leadership3(1): 54–66.
14.
CarterWRNesbitPLBadhamRJ, et al. (2018) The effects of employee engagement and self-efficacy on job performance: A longitudinal field study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management29(17): 2483–2502.
15.
Ceri-BoomsMCurşeuPLOerlemansLAG (2017) Task and person-focused leadership behaviors and team performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review27(1): 178–192.
16.
ChangCHFerrisDLJohnsonRE, et al. (2012) Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management38(1): 81–128.
17.
ChenYLiuBZhangL, et al. (2018) Can leader “humility” spark employee “proactivity”? The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal39(3): 326–339.
18.
CheungYHHerndonNCDoughertyTW (2016) Core self-evaluations and salary attainment: The moderating role of the developmental network. The International Journal of Human Resource Management27(1): 67–87.
19.
ChoiSBTranTBHParkBI (2015) Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal43(6): 931–943.
20.
DebusscherJHofmansJDe FruytF (2016) The effect of state core self-evaluations on task performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, and counterproductive work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology25(2): 301–315.
21.
De ClercqDBouckenoogheDRajaU, et al. (2014) Servant leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader–follower social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly25(2): 183–212.
22.
Den HartogDNBelschakFD (2012) When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology97(1): 194–202.
23.
DikkersJSEJansenPGWDe LangeAH, et al. (2010) Proactivity, job characteristics, and engagement: A longitudinal study. Career Development International15(1): 59–77.
24.
DingHLinX (2019) Can core self-evaluations promote employee strengths use?Journal of Psychology in Africa29(6): 576–581.
25.
DingHLinX (2020) Exploring the relationship between core self-evaluation and strengths use: The perspective of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences157: 1–5.
26.
DingHYuE (2020) Follower strengths-based leadership and follower innovative behavior: The roles of core self-evaluations and psychological well-being. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology36(2): 103–110.
27.
DingHYuE (2021) Followers’ strengths-based leadership and strengths use of followers: The roles of trait emotional intelligence and role overload. Personality and Individual Differences168: 1–5.
28.
DingHYuEChuX, et al. (2020a) Humble leadership affects organizational citizenship behavior: The sequential mediating effect of strengths use and job crafting. Frontiers in Psychology11: 65.
29.
DingHYuELiY (2020b) Strengths-based leadership and its impact on task performance: A preliminary study. South African Journal of Business Management51(1): 1–9.
30.
DubreuilPForestJCourcyF (2014) From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology9(4): 335–349.
31.
ErezAJudgeTA (2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology86(6): 1270–1279.
32.
GovindjiRLinleyPA (2007) Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review2(2): 143–153.
33.
HowellJPBowenDEDorfmanPW, et al. (1990) Substitutes for leadership: Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynamics19(1): 21–38.
34.
HsiehCCWangDS (2015) Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership influence employee work engagement through employee-perceived authentic leadership and employee trust?The International Journal of Human Resource Management26(18): 2329–2348.
35.
HuYWangMKwanHK, et al. (2021) Mentorship quality and mentors’ work-to-family positive spillover: The mediating role of personal skill development and the moderating role of core self-evaluation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management32(9): 1899–1922.
36.
InceogluIWarrP (2011) Personality and job engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology10(4): 177–181.
37.
JudgeTA (2009) Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science18(1): 58–62.
38.
JudgeTABonoJEErezA, et al. (2005) Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology90(2): 257–268.
39.
JudgeTAErezABonoJE, et al. (2003) The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology56(2): 303–331.
40.
KerrSJermierJM (1978) Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance22(3): 375–403.
41.
KongDTHoVT (2016) A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work: Examining its determinant and performance implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology11(1): 15–25.
42.
KoopmanJScottBAMattaFK, et al. (2019) Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology104(9): 1103–1116.
43.
LavySLittman-OvadiaH (2017) My better self: Using strengths at work and work productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development44(2): 95–109.
44.
LeroyHAnseelFDimitrovaNG, et al. (2013) Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior82(3): 238–247.
45.
MeyersMCKooijDKroonB, et al. (2020) Organizational support for strengths use, work engagement, and contextual performance: The moderating role of age. Applied Research in Quality of Life15(2): 485–502.
46.
MeynhardtTBriegerSAHermannC (2020) Organizational public value and employee life satisfaction: The mediating roles of work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management31(12): 1560–1593.
47.
NarainsamyKVan der WesthuizenS (2013) Work related well-being: Burnout, work engagement, occupational stress and job satisfaction within a medical laboratory setting. Journal of Psychology in Africa23(3): 467–474.
48.
Nasser-Abu AlhijaFWisenbakerJ (2006) A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal13(2): 204–228.
49.
NüboldAMuckPMMaierGW (2013) A new substitute for leadership? Followers’ state core self-evaluations. The Leadership Quarterly24(1): 29–44.
50.
PaekSSchuckertMKimTT, et al. (2015) Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. International Journal of Hospitality Management50: 9–26.
51.
PengJLiDZhangZ, et al. (2016) How can core self-evaluations influence job burnout? The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Health Psychology21(1): 50–59.
52.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBBommerWH (1996) Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology81(4): 380–399.
53.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
54.
RathTConchieB (2008) Strengths-Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
55.
SalanovaMSchaufeliWB (2008) A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management19(1): 116–131.
56.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABSalanovaM (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–716.
57.
SchaufeliWBMartinezIMPintoAM, et al. (2002) Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology33(5): 464–481.
58.
SchmittADen HartogDNBelschakFD (2016) Transformational leadership and proactive work behaviour: A moderated mediation model including work engagement and job strain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology89(3): 588–610.
59.
SeppäläPMaunoSFeldtT, et al. (2009) The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies10(4): 459–481.
60.
StanderFWMostertKDe BeerLT (2014) Organisational and individual strengths use as predictors of engagement and productivity. Journal of Psychology in Africa24(5): 403–409.
61.
SwanbergJEMcKechnieSPOjhaMU, et al. (2011) Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs?Journal of Vocational Behavior79(3): 613–624.
62.
TuckeyMRBakkerABDollardMF (2012) Empowering leaders optimize working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology17(1): 15–27.
63.
Van WoerkomMBakkerABNishiiLH (2016a) Accumulative job demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology101(1): 141–150.
64.
Van WoerkomMDe BruijnM (2016) Why performance appraisal does not lead to performance improvement: Excellent performance as a function of uniqueness instead of uniformity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology9(2): 275–281.
65.
Van WoerkomMMeyersMC (2015) My strengths count! Effects of a strengths-based psychological climate on positive affect and job performance. Human Resource Management54(1): 81–103.
66.
Van WoerkomMMostertKElsC, et al. (2016b) Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology25(6): 960–975.
67.
Van WoerkomMOerlemansWBakkerAB (2016c) Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology25(3): 384–397.
68.
VîrgaDDe WitteHCifreE (2017) The role of perceived employability, core self-evaluations, and job resources on health and turnover intentions. The Journal of Psychology151(7): 632–645.
69.
WangYLiuJZhuY (2018) How does humble leadership promote follower creativity? The roles of psychological capital and growth need strength. Leadership & Organization Development Journal39(4): 507–521.
70.
WilliamsLJCoteJABuckleyMR (1989) Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?Journal of Applied Psychology74(3): 462–468.
71.
WoodAMLinleyPAMaltbyJ, et al. (2011) Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences50(1): 15–19.
72.
XuJCooper ThomasH (2011) How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?Leadership & Organization Development Journal32(4): 399–416.
73.
YalabikZYVan RossenbergYKinnieN, et al. (2015) Engaged and committed? The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management26(12): 1602–1621.
74.
YanXYangKSuJ, et al. (2018) Mediating role of emotional intelligence on the associations between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, work engagement as indices of work-related well-being. Current Psychology37(3): 552–558.
75.
ZhangYChenM (2018) Character strengths, strengths use, future self-continuity and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Frontiers in Psychology9: 1040.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
