Abstract

 Based on a social identity approach, present research intends to investigate the impact of identity-based leadership on employee engagement, through the mediating role of employee core-self evaluations. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the measurement model. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized model. The proposed model was supported empirically by data collected from 327 employees who work in the telecom sector of Pakistan.  The result indicated that employees’ core self-evaluations act as a mediator between four dimensions of identity leadership and employee engagement. Identity-based leadership also showed a direct positive relationship with employee engagement.

Key Words

Social Identity Approach, Identity Leadership, Core Self-Evaluations, Employee Engagement.

Introduction

One of the biggest challenges that the business leaders and Chief Executive officers (CEOs) of organizations face today is to ensure the physical, mental and emotional presence of employees at work. It means that organization leaders want their employees to be fully engaged in their work. It is necessary for every organization to measure employee engagement at least once a year by conducting anonymous surveys where their employees feel safe to speak their minds (Welch, 2011). Though employee engagement is a highly researched construct from the last two decades, still little research has been done so far on its antecedents (Saks 2006; Wollard & Shuck, 2011; Bailey, Madden, Alfes and Fletcher, 2017). 

The dearth of literature was found on investigating the relationship of identity leadership with employee engagement. Only a single study (Steffen et al., 2014) was reported from the literature that looked at the relationship of identity leadership with employee engagement. Thus, the present research intends to contribute to identity leadership literature by investigating how identity leadership influences employee’s engagement via the mediating role of employee core self-evaluation. . 

The basic research framework of the study is based on a social identity approach that laid its foundation on two intertwined but distinctive theories; one  is social identity theory while other is self-categorization theory (Turner, 1991; Haslam, 2001). Tajfel (1972) defined social identity in terms of individual knowledge about their belongingness to the definite group in a society to which they attach emotional significance being a member of that group. Self-categorization theory characterizes perception about one's self with different level of generalization. One concept of self is related to personal identity (unique individual) like “I & me, while another concept of self is related to group membership, that is, social identity like “we & us” (Turner, 1985). Personal identity and social identity together enable individuals to answer the question “Who am I?”. The social identity approach deals with thinking of people about themselves and about the groups from which they belong. A social identity approach considers leadership as comprehensive progression emphasizing on leaders competence to signify shared or mutual sense of social identity (Turner & Haslam, 2001). 

The current study intends to develop a good understanding of the mediation path that facilitates the link of identity leadership to employee engagement through employees’ core self- 

evaluation. Based on this strong theoretical foundation the present research intends to provide useful implications to researchers, policymakers, managers and target readers.

Literature Review

Social identity approach and its influence on various organizational phenomena including various fields of leadership have been studied from past few decades (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Haslam et al., 2011). Social identity has been claimed to influence significant forms of group behavior. The social identity approach involves leaders influencing their followers based on shared group membership. The approach claims that the process of leadership can be made possible when followers categorize themselves and their leader with reference to shared group membership (Steffen et al., 2014).  According to Turner (2005), leaders are responsible for developing a shared sense of ‘us’ to galvanize followers’ idiosyncratic motivations and to mobilize employees’ coordinated energies. A social identity approach considers leadership as part of the social identity management process focused towards management and control of “sense of us” (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2011; Haslam et al., 2011). In order to bring into play a social identity approach to leadership, a new instrument named “Identity Leadership Inventory” was corroborated by Steffen et al. (2014). The rationale for devising a new instrument was to reflect on leadership dimensions concerned with the social identity process. An identity leadership inventory was devised to evaluate and assess identity leadership along with its dimensions that include identity prototypicality which is concerned with the “being one of us” approach (van Knippenberg, 2011; Steffens et al,, 2014), identity advancement which relates to “Doing it for us” notion (Haslam & Platow, 2001), and identity entrepreneurship that is concerned with “crafting a sense of us” (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001) and the fourth one identity impresario-ship that promotes the “Making us matter” notion (Steffens et al., 2014).




Identity Leadership and Employee Engagement

Identity leadership inventory was developed and validated by Steffen et al. (2014) to effectively utilize leaders' shared identity of “us” with their respective group/team members. While taking into account representational matter in the form of perceived identity prototypicality, identity leadership also encompasses allegorical, realistic, and structural concerns in the form of identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship, and impresarioship.  Steffen et al., (2014) carried out research on employees employed in the solar business of China, to examine their engagement levels at their workplace. Engagement of employees is considered as optimistic and fulfilling mind state and is considered to have aspects of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Employee engagement was established in the course of social exchange theory and considered as a unique and distinct construct containing emotional, cognitive and behavioral elements that have a complementary relationship with role performance (Saks, 2006). 

Employees demonstrate greater engagement when they work in the form of teams or groups and also betrothed in job crafting and enthusiastically shape their work environment (Tims, Bakker, Derks & van Rhenen, 2013). The extent to which leaders craft a follower-centered work environment, and in return followers are expected to show more engagement into their work after they perceive that their leaders conduct, promotes a “shared sense of us” (Haslam et al., 2011). Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H1: Identity leadership (perceived by employees) is likely to have a positive impact on employee engagement.




Leadership and Employee Core Self-evaluations 

There are several mechanisms by which leader behavior can influence followers/employees self-motivation (Tischler, Giambatista, McKeage & McCormick, 2016). Research on Leadership from a few past decades has implied that the coalition employees build up with their respective leaders is important in understanding the mode by which leadership influences self-motivation of employees (Manz & Sims, 1987). Shamir, House, & Arthur, (1993) suggested that when a leader tries to nurture self-motivation and self-efficacy of employees then they show positive workplace behavior (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Previous studies show that dynamics of leadership have positive effect on employees personal resources like for example  transformational leadership, influence  follower self efficacy, and self development (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir (2002), authentic leadership (which stimulates self-awareness in followers) (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumba (2005) and charismatic leadership, which encourages self-esteem and self-efficacy of followers (Shamir, House, and Arthur, 1993). These studies reflect the dynamics of leadership to have a positive effect on employees’ personal resources, thus the second hypothesis is hypothesized as follows.

H2: Identity based leadership ((perceived by employees)) is likely to have a positive influence on Core self-evaluations of employees

Employees Core Self-Evaluation and Employee Engagement

Judge, Locke, & Durham (1997) considered Core self-evaluation (CSEs) as a continuous measurement of a person’s own value and proficiency. Core self-evaluation was defined in terms of individual’s deep-seated evaluation of oneself (Judge & Bono, 2001). CSE has considered higher-order construct as it contains overlapping sections of four well-known variables that include self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, internal locus of control and neuroticism(Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012). Rosenberg (1965) considered self-esteem as an overall assessment of self-worth. Generalized self-efficacy is personnel estimated competency to execute in a dynamic state of affairs (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001). Rotter (1966) conceptualized the locus of control in terms of an individual’s certainty that the required outcome resulted from their behavior instead of resulting from outside pressures. Emotional steadiness is conceptualized in terms of an individual's predisposition to feel tranquil (Eysenck, 1990)

Four traits of CSE showed their independent association with employee engagement: for example, organizational based self-esteem was found as a predictor of employee engagement (Rotich, 2016). Xanthopuolou et al. (2007) found organizational based self-esteem, self-efficacy and optimism to have a significant impact on employee engagement. Internal and external locus of control was found strongly linked with employee engagement (Myers, 2014; Paramanandam & Sangeetha, 2015; Laat, 2016). The fourth trait of CSE, neuroticism, also found associated with employee engagement (Shukla, Parul, Adhikari & Singh, 2014; Ziapour & Kianipour, 2015; Gulamali, 2017).

The reviewed literature suggested that workers with positive CSEs show greater job and life satisfaction, are highly committed and show extraordinary performance (Crawford et al., 2010). The direct relationship of CSEs with employee engagement is also evident from the literature (Karatepe et al., 2010; Karatepe & Demir, 2014). CSEs alleviate the negative impact of burnout on workers well being (Karatepe, 2011). Based on the reviewed literature following hypotheses were proposed:

H3: Employee core self-evaluation is likely to have a positive impact on employee engagement

H4: Employee core self-evaluation is likely to mediate the relationship between identity leadership and employee engagement

Figure 1

Research Framework of the Study



Methodology

Research methodology of the study used a deductive approach and was concerned with testing the theory that identity leadership influences employee engagement. Mediation of employee core self-evaluations between identity leadership and employee engagement was also tested in the study. 




Participants and Procedure

The cross-sectional research design was embraced in the present research and data was obtained from telecom sector of Pakistan. Employees working in Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), Telenor Pakistan, Mobilink, and Ufone, participated as respondents in the data collection process. The survey questionnaire was employed as a data collection tool and was administered among the employees of the telecom sector. In the research, convenience sampling was used. The reason for using such sampling technique was its convenience to be carried out with only a few rules governing about how the sample is supposed to be collected. Also, convenience sampling is helpful in achieving the sample size of one’s own choice in a quick and inexpensive manner. 

Sample Size

The sample of 500 employees was devised for data collection from the telecom sector. 327 responses were obtained, and the effective response rate was 84.8%. Out of the 424 obtained, 97 responses were either incomplete or answers were found to be unreliable. Subsequently, data analyses were conducted on the 327 usable responses, yielding a usable response rate of 77 %. Respondent profile is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Respondents Demographic-Profile for Telecom Sector (N=327)

	Mean	SD		Sample	Percent
Gender	3.20	.822	Male	186	56.9
			Female	141	43.1
Age	1.43	.496	25-29	65	19.9
			30-34	150	45.9
			35-39	93	28.4
			40 and above	19	5.8
Education	2.56	.873	Bachelor	22	6.7
			Master	305	93.3
Experience	2.33	.599	1-5years	34	10.4
			6-10years	125	38.2
			11-15years	118	36.1
			>15years	50	15.3

Instrument and Scales

Identity Leader Inventory Scale

To measure identity leadership a measure developed and validated by Steffen et al. (2014) called Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) was used. ILI evaluate leaders effectiveness in sharing a social identity with its group by representing, advancing,  crafting and embedding a shared sense of ‘us’. These four identities include identity prototypicality  associated with “being one of us” approach, identity advancement employing “doing it for us” notion, identity entrepreneurship promoting “crafting a sense of us” impression and identity impresarios adhering “making us matter” conception. A five-point Likert scale was employed to evaluate each statement. The identity leadership inventory scale showed a reliability of 0.913.

 

Core Self Evaluation Scale

Core self-evaluations are a fundamental assessment of one’s worth, usefulness, and competence. CSEs contains 12 items and employed a five-point Likert scale to attain responses. The core self-evaluation scale showed a reliability of 0.957

 

Employee Engagement Scale

Employee engagement was evaluated with Utrecht work-engagement scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Statements of UWES were divided into subscales i.e. vigor, dedication and absorption. Totally, 9 items were included in the scale of employee engagement, among them three items measured the vigor, three statements assess dedication and three items measures absorption. Five-point Likert scale was employed to attain reply from respondents. Employee engagement scale showed the reliability of 0.944.

Result and their Interpretation

Using AMOS 20. software the validity and reliability of the instrument were tested first. CFA was performed to examine the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. Convergent validity of survey instrument was assessed using factor loading, variance extracted, and composite reliability (Hair et al., 1998). Each item factor loading was found above 0.5, AVE of each construct was above 0.6 and composite constructs reliability for each latent construct was found above 0.7. The measurement model is presented in Figure 2. Result of convergent validity internal reliability is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Internal Reliability and Convergent Validity of Measuring Instrument

Items	Internal Reliability	Convergent Validity
	Cronbach’s ?	Factor Loadings	AVE	CR
ILP	.913	.838	.70	.74
ILA		.844
ILE		.851
ILI		.837
CSEs1	.957	.769	.64	.70
CSEs2		.757
CSEs3		.823
CSEs4		.840
CSEs5		.858
CSEs6		.828
CSEs7		.920
CSEs8		.844
CSEs9		.871
CSEs10		.670
CSEs11		.688
CSEs12		.736
EEV1	.944	.825	.66	.70
EEV2		.786
EEV3		.840
EED2		.693
EED3		.868
EED4		.898
EEA3		.817
EEA4		.860
EEA5		.705

Fitness Indexes of measurement and structural model shows how each model is fitted to the data and are divided into three categories, i.e., absolute, incremental and parsimonious.. Chi-square. RMR, GFI and RMSEA represent absolute fit measures; CFI, TLI, NFI and AGFI reflects incremental fit measure; and Normed Chi-square and Chisq/df represents parsimonious fit measures.

Figure 2

. Measurement Model



Figure 3

Structural Model



To have a good model-fit, the value of CFI and TLI ought to be above .90, root mean square error must be below .08 and ?2/df value  needs to be below 5 (Henry and Stone 1994). Results from CFA showed good model-fit for measurement model with indices of CFI = .928, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07, and ?2/df (806.359/264) = 3.05.

Discriminant validity of each construct was calculated by comparing square root of each construct AVE by inter-construct correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Findings of the current study confirm discriminant validity of each construct  (Table.3).

Table 3. Correlation-Matrix

	Mean	SD	1	2	3
1.Employee_engagement	4.43	.566	0.81
2.Identity Leadership	4.43	.586	0.40	0.83
3. CSEs	4.40	.588	0.50	0.79	0.80
*Diagonal blocks show the square root of the AVE.

Structural equation modeling was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the mediation model. MLE (Maximum likelihood estimation), that is considered as the most common SEM procedure was used to analyze the data. The MLE required sample size is at least 10 times the total number of instrument items (Hair et al., 2010). Consequently the present research sample size (327) was sufficient for MLE to analyze data. The model ?t indices demonstrated fine model-?t connecting observed data with hypothesized structural model with a highly acceptable values of CFI = .994, TLI = .988, NFI = .987, GFI = .983, AGFI = .955, RMSEA =.055 and ?2/df =1.97 (15.78/8) with p-value of 0.046. Result of structural model indices is summarized in Table 5.

Table 4. Model-fit Indices for Structural Model

Model-Fit Indices	Obtained Value	Recommended Cut-off Values
Absolute Fit Measures
Chi-Square RMR	15.78 (p = 0.046) .007	The lower, the better <0.08
RMSEA	.055	<0.08
GFI	.983	>0.9
Incremental Fit Measures
AGFI	.95	>0.9
CFI	.99	>0.9
TLI	.98	>0.9
NFI	.98	>0.9
Parsimonious fit
Chi Square /df	1.97 (15.78/8)	< 5

 

Regression analysis was performed in SPSS 20., to assess criterion and incremental validity of identity leadership. Regression Results are summarized in Table 6. Findings from analysis are consistent with the research objectives of the study. Impact of identity leadership (as perceived by employees) on employee engagement was found significant for employees working in PTCL. The association of identity leadership (as perceived by employees) and employees core self-evaluations were found significantly acceptable for employees working in PTCL. Moreover, the influence of CSEs on employee engagement was also proved empirically.

Table 5. Regression Analysis for Telecom Sector

	Employee Core Self-Evaluations      Model-1             Model-2		Employee Engagement Model-1                Model-2
Age.	.121	.110**	.134*	.129*
Gender	.185	.080*	-.084	-.139*
Experience	-.031	.007	-.002	.018
Qualification	.060	.100**	.011	.033
Identity Leadership		.728**		.368**
R2	.053	.569	.022	.167
?R2	.053	.569	.022	.167
F change	4.48	84.7	1.84	12.88**
*p<.05, **p<.01

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study calls for careful consideration regarding the relationship between employees perception about identity leadership of their superiors, employees CSEs and employee engagement. The present paper investigates the impact of identity leadership on the engagement of employees working in the telecom sector of Pakistan by taking employees’ core self-evaluation as a mediator. Findings from the present research confirm the mediation of employees’ CSEs between identity leadership and employee engagement. Thus, the present research contributes to theoretical insights of social identity approach to leadership and employees’ CSEs as critical antecedents of employee engagement. Furthermore, the research provides crucial insights on the role of employees’ core self-evaluations as a partial mediator between the relationship of identity direction and employee engagement. 

Findings from the present research provide significant and practical directions to organizational practitioners who ought to effectively deploy available resources in order to compete successfully in a dynamic marketplace. Moreover, the results of the study serve as motivation to organizational scholars who can follow the present study with newly developed concepts relating to identity leadership, CSE and other work-related outcomes.

References

• Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(1), 7-35.
• Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764-784.
• Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22, 187-200.
• Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 31-53.
• Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi‐source feedback: The role of core self‐ evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 171-203.
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223.
• Best, R. G.; Stapleton, L. M.; Downey, R. G. (2005).
• Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of management, 38(1), 81-128.
• Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational research methods, 4(1), 62-83
• De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). Cooperating when
• Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 580.
• Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of management journal, 45(4), 735-744.
• Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality.
• Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 86(6), 1270.
• Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C. H. D., & Tan, J. A. (2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 342.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.
• Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005).
• Gerhart, B. (2005). The (affective) dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Sorting out the policy implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(1), 79-97.
• Gajdzik, P. K. (2005). Relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and socio-cultural adjustment of international graduate students and American graduate students (Doctoral dissertation).
• Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008).
• Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W., & Sleebos, E. (2013). Team-oriented leadership: The interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 658-667.
• Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Bipp, T., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2015). The job demands and resources decision making (JD-R-DM) model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(1), 44-58.
• Huizing, R. L. (2015). Who's controlling locus of control? Cross-cultural LOC usage. Identifying Primary Characteristics of Servant Leadership: 1 Delphi Study, 9(1), 33.
• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general psychology, 6(4), 307.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513
• Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469-1479.
• Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. London & New York: Psychology Press.
• Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., & Hayes, B. K. (1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 1: The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 3-20..