Next Article in Journal
Towards Net Zero: Modeling Approach to the Right-Sized Facilities
Previous Article in Journal
How Do Consumer Innovation Characteristics and Consumption Value Shape Users’ Willingness to Buy Innovative Car Safety Seats?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010170
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Subordinate Moqi to Work Engagement: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange in the Sustainability Context

by
Bin Du
1,
Bin He
2,
Luxiaohe Zhang
3,4,
Nan Luo
5,
Xuan Yu
3,* and
Ai Wang
6
1
Recruitment and Employment Office, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
2
School of National Governance, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
3
School of Economics and Management, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
4
School of Foreign Languages, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China
5
Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China
6
Foreign Language Department, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan 618307, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 170; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010170
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 16 December 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022 / Published: 22 December 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In search of sustainable strategies to improve employees’ work engagement without harming their long-term performance in the VUCA era, this study examines the impact path of subordinate moqi on employees’ work engagement based on leader–member exchange theory and organizational support theory. A total of 322 R&D staff from high-tech enterprises in Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and other cities participated in the study. The data analysis reveals that the leader–member exchange partially mediates between subordinate moqi and work engagement. Moreover, both supervisor’s organizational embodiment and perceived organizational support can positively moderate the impact of subordinate moqi on leader–member exchange. The empirical results enrich the intermediary mechanism between subordinate moqi and work engagement. Employees with subordinate moqi have better chances of meeting their supervisors’ implicit expectations, leading to a higher relationship quality with followers and increasing enthusiasm for work. The current study clarifies the theoretical and practical significance of subordinate moqi in establishing high-quality work relationships and sustainable development of organizations’ human resources.

1. Introduction

In a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) era, where organizations constantly face the unknown, employees are the most reliable source for enterprises to improve their core competitiveness. According to the 2020 Global Human Capital Trends report released by Deloitte, work engagement ranks in the top three human capital trends [1]. Some scholars have proposed that work engagement is one of the most robust predictors of employee performance [2]. Despite work engagement’s tremendous value in producing positive employee, team, and organizational outcomes, it should be noted that employees should not invest their dedication at the cost of their capability and health in the future. Engaging at work costs energy, which could develop a health-impairment process for employees without sufficient replenishment of resources [3]. Such health complaints undermine employees’ motivation and performance and harm the organization’s sustainable development [4]. Given the unpredictable risks of maintaining competitiveness and the grand challenge of facilitating sustainable human resource management in the VUCA era, neither supervisors nor staff can work alone. They must work together to enrich work resources that benefit employees’ sustainable development and meet the new era’s challenges.
In practice, cooperation between supervisors and subordinates often displays different characteristics. For example, some employees cannot correctly interpret supervisors’ intentions based on their tone of voice, gestures, or eye movements. Their execution of tasks depends on explicit instructions from the top. In contrast, others can accurately comprehend their supervisors’ unspoken messages regarding work. After studying this phenomenon in depth, scholars have defined moqi as a tacit shared understanding between two parties [5]. Specifically, subordinate moqi is a tacit understanding of supervisors’ work-related requirements, expectations, and intentions [5]. This unspoken agreement between supervisors and their followers is one of the essential factors influencing job attitudes and work performance [6].
Drawing on the social information processing theory, Li and Zheng [7] indicated that subordinate moqi has a positive effect on work engagement. However, their study focuses on illustrating how subordinates acquire and process information and neglects the role of supervisory interactions in promoting work engagement. The current study aims to fill this gap by investigating the mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX) in the moqi–engagement relationship. The leader–member exchange theory states that time and resource constraints limit the opportunities for high-quality exchanges between supervisors and employees to flourish, so supervisors can only exchange resources with selected subordinates [8]. When employees can tacitly understand the supervisors’ true intentions, expectations, and requirements, they might be treated as insiders and secure valuable resources and support. In return, employees might be more motivated to pour their effort into work [9]. Therefore, this paper clarifies how subordinate moqi can improve work engagement from the perspective of a social exchange relationship between supervisors and followers.
At the same time, organizational factors also play a role in the cooperation between supervisors and employees. According to the organizational support theory, perceived organizational support provides employees with positive resources and the obligation to assist the organization in pursuing its goals [10]. The support increases the chance of employees reciprocating through a higher commitment or performance [11,12] and is essential to construct a healthy workplace that utilizes employees’ expertise in an effective and sustainable manner [13]. This social exchange mechanism can reveal the critical conditions under which subordinate moqi promotes the exchange quality between supervisors and employees. In addition, the organizational support theory proposes that employees believe that evaluations from their supervisors represent that of the organization [14]. By associating various organizational characteristics with their supervisors, employees attribute positive leadership behaviors to the organization, thus amplifying supervisors’ support into perceived organizational support [15]. When employees perceive their supervisors’ encouragement as the organization’s treatment, they are more likely to gain a sense of belonging [16], developing more cooperation with their supervisors. Therefore, this study will combine perceived organizational support and supervisor organizational embodiment to clarify the boundary conditions between subordinate moqi and the leader–member exchange relationship.

Knowledge Gaps and Contributions

Management practices on the organization’s sustainable development are more likely to generate a long-term impact [17]. This is because sustainable development not only meets the needs of the current generation but also fully considers the needs of future generations, which often revolves around the economy, ecological environment, and society. At present, the sustainability of human resources is highly prominent in the face of the dilemma between work demands and employee well-being, workplace inequalities, and ecological challenges [18]. Therefore, only through promoting sustainable management practices can organizations achieve desired economic, environmental, and social performances [19]. However, previous research on sustainable human resources management focused on green activities specifically for environmental and economic sustainability [20,21]. As a result, social sustainability has become the least explored area [22] and the mechanism for boosting work engagement without causing enduring burnout requires further investigation.
The social aspect of sustainable development refers to working conditions within an organization that ensures employees’ thriving and safety [23]. To support long-term human resources development, energy and work resources consumed during fulfilling work demands should be evaluated and managed. For instance, although it has been validated that job crafting can produce psychological needs satisfaction [24], such a relentless effort could also result in the deprivation of work resources and thus hurt work engagement [25]. Furthermore, research has shown that the consistent uncertainty that employees experience could undermine work engagement and impede the social sustainability of the organization [26]. In contrast, resources acquired, such as a work–life balance, can alleviate stress and emotional exhaustion, contributing to the sustainable development of human resources [27]. Hence, the employees’ reservoir of work resources is essential in predicting their ability to cope with various stressors and sustain their long-term commitment.
In the current study, subordinate moqi entails a shared contextualized understanding between supervisors and employees, and LMX represents dyadic relationships between the two. They both concur with the proposition of sustainability that involves preserving, regenerating, and developing resources in a given system [19]. Accurately perceiving supervisors’ unspoken intentions can be considered a sustainable use of resources. It improves the communication efficiency between the two parties, since supervisors do not need to over-explain or constantly repeat their instructions. Human resources can be put to better use with meanings of salient, and yet often overlooked, cues starting to emerge during interactions. This meaning-making and sharing process in the presence of organizational support prompts regenerative exchange relationships between subordinates and their immediate supervisors, which helps employees demonstrate a stronger commitment and dedication to work without depleting their work resources. Specifically, the mutually beneficial connections embedded in LMX provide pathways to generate resources that could assist employees with confronting draining experiences at work. The positive resource-generating cycle stemming from LMX could be a critical factor in converting subordinate moqi into work engagement without harming employee performance and commitment in the long run.
In summary, this study uses the leader–member exchange theory and the organizational support theory as the core theoretical bases to elaborate on the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of subordinate moqi that drives work engagement. Specifically, the current study examines the mediating role of social exchanges between supervisors and followers as well as the moderating effect of supervisors’ organizational embodiment and perceived organizational support. Seeking a balance among organizations’ economic, environmental, and social performance, the researchers of this study aim to provide a new theoretical framework for the work engagement literature concerning social sustainability in the VUCA era. It incorporates employee, supervisor, and organizational factors in constructing the moqi-engagement research model that adopts resources to offset uncertainty and stress at work. Accordingly, employees can continuously contribute to the organization while maintaining their optimal value. The results can shed light on management strategies to encourage moqi-fostering and create a sustainable and responsible workplace to stimulate high personal investment. This series of human resource management practices can be valuable to the organizations’ sustainable competitive advantages.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Subordinate Moqi and Work Engagement

Work engagement refers to a positive and fulfilling state of mind regarding work, which encompasses employees’ emotional experience, cognition, and motivated physical state [28]. People with high levels of engagement are willing to invest discretionary effort in their work and are fully immersed in what they do [29]. Engaged employees tend to achieve better task performance [30] and exhibit more organizational citizenship behaviors due to their high commitment and dedication to their work [31].
Bakker and Demerouti [32] argue that job resources can motivate employees through performance feedback and supervisor support. These resources could also satisfy individuals’ internal or external needs, stimulating a positive mental state, such as work engagement. On the one hand, subordinate moqi reflects a shared understanding without verbal explanations, which stimulates employees’ trust in their supervisors and employee empowerment [7]. The accurate interpretation of supervisors’ expectations serves as a valuable job resource that enables employees to achieve their goals at work. In this case, decoding supervisors’ intended meanings without saying a word is a resource-gaining process since an accurate interpretation of their implied messages requires continuous learning of contextual cues. The resource gains concern the distribution and preservation of human resources inside the organization [18]. Accordingly, as job resources are a significant predictor of work engagement, the deep understanding reflected in subordinate moqi should establish meaning for employees’ work and inspire them to stay dedicated [33].
On the other hand, work engagement fluctuates based on changes in personal resources [34]. As an essential source of social information, supervisors can influence employees’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors [35]. Supervisors may imply their expectations during interactions with their subordinates. Such information conveys social messages that support employees in completing their work [36]. When employees accurately interpret supervisors’ implicit messages, they develop a greater sense of security and job satisfaction [37]. In other words, information about job expectations and requirements implied by supervisors can alleviate employees’ uncertainty about the work environment and acquire a sense of self-efficacy [34]. With adequate information and interchange of thoughts, employees are more productive, willing to contribute, and more likely to demonstrate extra effort at work [32]. Therefore, the study argues that subordinate moqi will help to improve work engagement.
Hypothesis 1.
Subordinate moqi has a positive impact on employees’ work engagement.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Leader–Member Exchange

LMX refers to the quality of the exchange relationship developed between employees and supervisors [38]. Due to time and resource constraints, supervisors need to select a core group of employees in exchange for social and emotional resources that can encourage mutual trust and respect between the dyad in the long term [39]. In high-quality exchange (higher-LMX) relationships, employees gain their supervisors’ trust, recognition, and resources [40,41].
Accurately interpreting a supervisor’s true intentions, expectations, and requirements enhances work effectiveness [5]. By decoding supervisors’ intended messages, employees with subordinate moqi are qualified to receive enhanced resources from their supervisors [8]. Specifically, when employees can decipher the implied requirements and instructions from above, they are more likely to provide innovative suggestions and are often rewarded with higher performance appraisals [42]. Thus, such an implicit bond could result in employees’ perceived insider status and greater trust [9]. When they share a degree of moqi, employees are more likely to take the initiative at work and produce results that meet their supervisors’ requirements. Such cooperative interactions between two parties are mutually beneficial, forming a high-quality exchange relationship.
In addition, different qualities of the exchange relationships can influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors [43,44]. For example, employees with higher LMX relationships with their supervisors are more likely to access various resources and promotion-related opportunities [45], which motivates them to devote their energy to work beyond the scope of job descriptions [46]. Therefore, moqi between supervisors and followers enables a sense of reciprocity and creates the best conditions for mutually beneficial exchange relationships to thrive where employees can be more engaged in their work.
Hypothesis 2.
LMX plays a mediating role between subordinate moqi and work engagement.

2.3. The Moderating Role of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment

A supervisor’s organizational embodiment describes the degree to which employees view supervisors as organizational representatives [8]. By comparing a supervisor’s characteristics to those of the organization, employees subconsciously perceive the supervisor as the embodiment of the organization rather than simply an individual agent [47]. With high supervisor’s organizational embodiment, care from supervisors is regarded as affirmation from the organization. It strengthens employees’ emotional commitment to the organization and reinforces their identification with organizational purpose and values [48]. Therefore, supervisor’s organizational embodiment plays a crucial role in shaping work behaviors.
When employees associate trust from supervisors with recognition from the organization, they will be more emotionally committed to the organization and respond with sincerity. Supervisors’ implicit instructions are now treated as organizational expectations [8]. Employees are more motivated to understand and exceed their supervisors’ expectations, which are seen as assigned from the organization, thereby building higher-LMX relationships [46]. Therefore, supervisor’s organizational embodiment plants a sense of definitiveness in supervisors’ messages. Moqi established with their supervisors can motivate employees to expend discretionary effort on tasks and become recognized insiders.
In contrast, when supervisors are seen as acting on their behalf, employees fail to detect the connection between their supervisors’ intended meanings and the organization’s expectations. Although employees could still interpret implicit messages from their supervisors, they are content to fulfill only the requirements within contracts, because the interactions with their immediate supervisors could not indicate their exchange relationships with the organization. With a low supervisor’s organizational embodiment, employees have a poor awareness of responsibility for the organization. Their work outcomes cannot meet the broader requirements behind the supervisors’ verbal messages, which is not conducive to earning supervisory support, causing damage to the quality of the exchange relationships between supervisors and followers. Therefore, the researchers propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3.
Supervisor’s organizational embodiment can positively moderate the influence of subordinate moqi on LMX such that the relationship is stronger when supervisor’s organizational embodiment is higher.

2.4. The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived organizational support reflects employees’ perceived extent to which the organization values their contributions and well-being [14]. Such perception can influence employees’ judgments and work behaviors [49]. As an essential work resource, perceived organizational support helps employees cope with work stress and challenges, maintains a positive attitude toward work [50], and facilitates communication and cooperation among members [10].
Perceived organizational support provides organizational members emotional support, positive self-esteem, recognition, and a sense of belonging [51]. Supported by the organization, employees who share moqi with their supervisors are more likely to be acknowledged for their work attitudes and contributions, which generates further enthusiasm to repay the organization [10]. Thus, a workplace full of organizational support encourages employees to reciprocate organizational care. With high organizational support, employees who understand their superiors’ implicit work expectations and preferences are more likely to engage in hard work and quality exchange relationships.
Conversely, with a low level of organizational support, employees do not experience a sense of community and cohesion. As a result, employees lack the obligation to assist the organization in achieving its objectives [8]. Even those who share certain moqi with their supervisors would find it challenging to work beyond their responsibilities for an organization that cannot fulfill their socio-emotional needs. Thus, work becomes a fulfillment of duties rather than a mutual achievement with the organization, severely threatening the quality of the exchange relationship between supervisors and followers. Therefore, the researchers of this study argue that perceived organizational support could regulate the positive effect of subordinate moqi on the leader–member exchange relationship. Hence, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4.
Perceived organizational support will positively moderate the influence of subordinate moqi on LMX such that the relationship is stronger when the level of perceived organizational support is higher than lower.
The conceptual model of this study is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedures

With cluster sampling, the research sample was drawn from R&D personnel in high-tech industries. The researchers chose to examine subordinate moqi among R&D personnel because their moqi can be potentially practical to maintaining the stability of the team and their overall innovation capabilities. The scope of the sample is mainly in Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and other cities with a higher degree of innovation.
Questionnaires were distributed to the subjects at three points in time to mitigate common method bias. A total of 515 questionnaires were distributed at Time 1 to collect employees’ demographic information, subordinate moqi, supervisors’ organizational embodiment, and perceived organizational support, with 467 completed questionnaires returned. One month later, questionnaires were distributed to those who had participated in the first round to collect data about LMX, with 403 completed questionnaires returned. Another month later (at Time 3), questionnaires were sent out again to those who had responded at Time 2 to capture work engagement, with 355 completed questionnaires returned. Data were collected by a combination of electronic and paper questionnaires and all study variables were self-reported by the employees. The last four digits of the cell phone number were used to match responses from the three time points. In the end, 322 valid questionnaires were obtained, representing an effective rate of 62.52%.
The demographic information of participants is provided in Table 1.

3.2. Measures

Apart from subordinate moqi, all items were first translated into Chinese by two bilingual experts and then translated back to English using translation and back-translation procedures [52]. All responses were reported on a 5-point Likert scale range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Subordinate moqi. An eight-item moqi scale [5] was selected to measure subordinate moqi. One sample item included: “I can usually understand any ambiguities and concerns about work for my supervisor”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.917.
LMX. The scale developed by Liden and Maslyn [53] was used to measure LMX, with a total of twelve items. One sample item included: “I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s work goals”. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.903.
Supervisor’s organizational embodiment. The nine-item scale developed by Eisenberger et al. [8] was used to measure supervisor’s organizational embodiment. One sample item included: “When my supervisor is pleased with my work, I feel that (name of organization) is pleased”. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.912.
Perceived organizational support. The nine-item scale developed by Wayne et al. [54] was adopted to measure perceived organizational support. One sample item included: “The organization cares about my opinions”. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.892.
Work engagement. The five-item scale Saks [55] developed was used to measure work engagement. One sample item included: “I really ‘throw’ myself into my job”. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.865.
Control variables. Based on previous studies related to work engagement and the leader–member exchange relationship [56,57,58], the researchers selected gender, age, marital status, education, tenure, job level, company size, and years of working with supervisors as control variables.

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias Test

Harman’s single-factor test was applied to test for common method biases. Six factors were obtained by performing unrotated principal axis factoring analysis with a cumulative variance of 67.835%. A single factor explains 37.830% of the total variance, less than 50%, which indicates there is no threat of common method biases in this study.

4.2. Model Validity Test

The researcher performed a confirmatory factor analysis in Mplus 8.0 to test the overall fitness of the study model. A series of structural equation models were developed to test the discriminate validity between the five conceptual models: subordinate moqi, LMX, work engagement, supervisor’s organizational embodiment, and perceived organizational support. Supervisor’s organizational embodiment and LMX are constructs related to supervisors, and supervisor’s organizational embodiment and perceived organizational support both captured perceptions related to the organization. Thus, they were examined in Model 2 and Model 3 to establish their discriminate validity. The result of the five-factor model showed a better fit with the data (χ2/Df = 754.557, RMSEA = 0.081, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.962, SRMR = 0.071), compared with the alternative models in Table 2, indicating discriminant validity of these variables.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics Analysis

Correlation analysis was conducted using SPSS on all study variables. Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlation among the variables.
There was a positive correlation between subordinate moqi and LMX (β = 0.592, p < 0.01), supervisor’s organizational embodiment (β = 0.430, p < 0.01), perceived organizational support (β = 0.432, p < 0.01), and work engagement (β = 0.382, p < 0.05). There was also a positive correlation between LMX and work engagement (β = 0.371, p < 0.01), so Hypothesis 1 was preliminarily supported. In addition, the correlation coefficients between all variables were below 0.700, which indicates that the study does not have problems with multicollinearity.

4.4. Mediator Analyses

The Baron and Kenny method [59] was used to test the mediating effect in three steps. First, the influence of subordinate moqi on LMX was tested. The second step was to test the influence of the LMX on work engagement. The last step was to include subordinate moqi, LMX, and work engagement into the model for regression. The regression coefficient of subordinate moqi on work engagement was significantly lower, with LMX added to the regression model. Additionally, the regression coefficient of LMX on work engagement was significant. The specific regression results are shown in Table 4.
In Table 4, Model 1 suggests that the influence of control variables on LMX was insignificant (F = 1.316, p = 0.208). Results in Model 2 indicates that subordinate moqi can positively affect LMX (β = 0.600, p < 0.01). Model 3 shows that control variables had no significant relationship with work engagement (F = 1.587, p = 0.095). Model 4 reveals that subordinate moqi could positively impact work engagement (β = 0.361, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 1. In Model 5, after LMX was added to the model, the effect of subordinate moqi on work engagement was reduced (β = 0.226, p < 0.01). Thus, as Hypothesis 2 predicted, LMX partially mediated the relationship between subordinate moqi and work engagement.

4.5. Moderator Analyses

4.5.1. The Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment

This study first centered subordinate moqi and supervisor’s organizational embodiment to reduce multicollinearity. Then, the interaction term was constructed by multiplying centered subordinate moqi and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Finally, regression analyses were conducted on the control variables and centered predictors. Models 1, 2, 3, and 4 were established, as shown in Table 5.
The results of these models suggests that the control variable did not significantly influence LMX (F = 1.1316, p = 0.359). Subordinate moqi positively affected LMX (β = 0.509, p < 0.01) and supervisor’s organizational embodiment also had a positive impact on LMX (β = 0.216, p < 0.01). In Model 4, when subordinate moqi, supervisor’s organizational embodiment, and the interaction term were added to the model, the moderator significantly impacted LMX (β = 0.130, p < 0.01). Furthermore, the moderating effect of the interaction term strengthened the positive correlation between subordinate moqi and LMX, supporting Hypothesis 3. As shown in Figure 2, when there is a higher level of perceived supervisor’s organizational embodiment, subordinate moqi has a more decisive role in promoting LMX.

4.5.2. The Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support

In the same way, this study first centered subordinate moqi and perceived organizational support separately to reduce multicollinearity and constructed the interaction term by multiplying the centered variables. Regression analyses were conducted on the control variables and centered predictors. Models 1, 2, 3, and 4 were established, as shown in Table 6.
The results of these models suggests that subordinate moqi positively affected LMX (β = 0.479, p < 0.01) and perceived organizational support also had a positive impact on LMX (β = 0.295, p < 0.01). In Model 4, when subordinate moqi, perceived organizational support, and the interaction term were all added to the model (β = 0.120, p < 0.01), perceived organizational support significantly impacted the exchange relationship. The moderating effect of the interaction term strengthened the positive correlation between subordinate moqi and LMX, supporting Hypothesis 4. As shown in Figure 3, the greater the organizational support subordinates perceive, the stronger the effect of the supervisor’s organizational embodiment on leader–member exchange becomes.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on leader–member exchange theory and organizational support theory, this study introduces LMX as a mediating variable, perceived organizational support, and supervisor’s organizational embodiment as moderating variables and explores the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions of subordinate moqi driving work engagement. The results show that subordinate moqi can significantly impact work engagement through employees’ mutually beneficial exchanges with their supervisors. On the one hand, an accurate interpretation of supervisors’ implicit messages demonstrates employees’ capabilities in deciphering task-related nonverbal cues and supervisors’ willingness to coordinate their thoughts with subordinates [5]. It requires effort from both communicators to achieve shared understanding between employees and supervisors without explicit explanations. On the other hand, the findings validate that successfully decoding supervisors’ implied meanings can make employees feel valued and that they belong to supervisors’ insider groups. In this case, employees are willing to give back to their supervisors’ affirmation and support, thereby increasing their investment in work.
At the same time, employees who have cultivated moqi with their supervisors share higher qualities of exchange relationships in a supportive environment and, when supervisors have strong organizational representativeness, the sense of organizational support can elicit employees’ trust in their organizations, so they are more motivated to take advantage of nonverbal cues to facilitate relationships with their supervisors. Moreover, when the supervisor’s organizational embodiment level is high, employees are more likely to believe that supervisors’ unspoken expectations indicate the organization’s will. Driven by an acknowledgment from the organization, employees might maximize the value of their tacit understanding of supervisors’ implicit communication for promising team outcomes. Their diligence could ultimately increase the opportunities to be recognized as insiders by supervisors.

5.1. Theoretical Significance

First, this paper highlights leader–member exchange as an essential mechanism for subordinate moqi to improve work engagement. Li and Zheng’s research has examined the effect of subordinate moqi through employees’ trust in their supervisors [7]. Based on their findings, the current study explores the impact of subordinate moqi in a bilateral approach, where contributions from supervisors and followers are necessary for moqi to take effect. With moqi fostered, employees have better chances of fulfilling performance expectations and engaging in reciprocal relationships. Previous studies have taken a subordinate-centric view on analyzing the behavior outcomes of subordinate moqi [6,7,60]. In contrast, this study contributes to the literature by inspecting supervisor–subordinate interactions, which are imperative to enable the sustainable development of human resources. The results offer an understanding of the outcomes of subordinate moqi as a two-way relationship.
Secondly, this paper incorporates two situational factors, namely supervisor’s organizational embodiment and perceived organizational support, into the research framework to clarify under what circumstances the positive effect of subordinate moqi on the leader–member exchange relationship can be stronger. Interpreting supervisors’ implied meanings at all costs might not result in mutually beneficial relationships. Organizations’ and supervisors’ responsibility for sustainable and supportive practices plays a role in facilitating a positive gain spiral of deep understanding and constructive relationships. When supervisors are seen as sharing many characteristics with the organization, their instructions can be treated as the organization’s orders and can guide employees’ behaviors [8]. Such a finding also concurs with those of Zheng [61], who found that employees with subordinate moqi are more likely to perceive themselves as insiders if they respect power differentials. Moreover, when employees perceive strong organizational support, moqi established between employees and their supervisors in the workplace will reflect their conscious effort in processing implicit messages for the organization’s benefit. Accordingly, the current study increases the understanding of the complex dynamics between a state of shared understanding between supervisors and followers, their perception regarding the work environment, and the quality of their social exchanges. It also highlights the accountability that organizations and supervisors hold to utilize human resources responsibly or to create a healthy and resourceful work environment to stimulate employees’ dedication.

5.2. Practical Significance

As job feedback and team empowerment are two significant resources that mitigate the impact of overwhelming demands [3], supervisors and organizations need to be aware of their role in eliciting enduring work engagement and developing social sustainability. Employees’ dedication requires regenerative support to counterbalance the threat of resource depletion. The results of this study reveal implicit means of maintaining employees’ continuing engagement at work and proposes sustainable management practices to address problems regarding communication and relationship quality with supervisors and a scarcity of work resources and support.
First, managers should equip themselves with more essential communication skills to respond positively to employees’ various requests. Such feedback offers more contextual cues for employees and ultimately benefits the cultivation of moqi. Specifically, transparent conversations disclose critical information about the rationale behind a supervisor’s actions, work style, and expressions. The additional clarity helps to unpack the undertone or the unspoken from supervisors’ verbal messages. The lack of barriers could improve employees’ accuracy in decoding nonverbal cues from their supervisors and assist them in making the best choices in semantically ambiguous situations. Therefore, managers taking the initiative to adapt their communication style lays the foundation for empowering work dynamics and positive outcomes.
Second, managers should be cautious about building strict hierarchies in the workplace. High-quality exchange relationships are critical to the growth of individuals and organizations. For instance, managers could foster a work climate filled with mutual understanding and trust so that everyone feels safe to share and collaborate. A reciprocal instead of hierarchical relationship with employees can also build acknowledgment amongst the team [62]. The mutuality stemming from social exchanges between managers and their employees possesses the potential to maximize benefits for both sides since it enables employees to unleash their potential without damaging their ability to perform in the long run.
Finally, the organization must clarify the legitimacy of the supervisors’ power to reinforce their influence. Representing an organization creates role models for employees, so ensuring an alignment of manager and organizational values is salient to consolidate managers’ credibility. In addition, optimizing employees’ perception of a supportive environment could benefit organizational members to experience the positive effect of moqi. Organizations should emphasize offering their employees individualized benefits, development opportunities, and assistance services [63].

5.3. Limitations and Prospects

This study also has some limitations. First, in exploring the boundary mechanism between subordinate moqi and work engagement, this study only considers employees’ subjective perceptions, such as supervisor’s organizational embodiment and perceived organizational support. Objective factors in the organization can also potentially impact the moqi–engagement relationship. Future studies may explore whether objective indicators such as promotion opportunities [64] or job design [65] interact with subordinate moqi. In addition, scholars have highlighted the need to examine supervisors’ perceptions of LMX relationships [66]. Since moqi can only be fostered when both parties engage in a shared contextualized understanding [67], examining the role of supervisors’ perception of their exchange relationships might be necessary.
Second, the research sample in this study was drawn from China, so the generalizability of these results to other cultural contexts remains ambiguous. The concept of moqi was initially proposed based on the Chinese cultural context that is often characterized by high context, high power distance, and face consciousness [5]. Scholars should extend the findings of this study to other cultural contexts in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.D. and X.Y.; methodology, B.D.; software, B.H.; validation, X.Y., L.Z. and N.L.; formal analysis, B.H.; investigation, B.D.; resources, B.D.; data curation, B.H.; writing—original draft preparation, B.H. and N.L.; writing—review and editing, L.Z., X.Y. and A.W.; visualization, B.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number: 71802033), 2022 Annual Project of Regional Public Management Informatization Research Center (Number: QGXH22-05), and Chengdu social Science Planning project (Number: 2022CS053).

Institutional Review Board Statement

An ethics approval was not required as per institutional guidelines and national laws and regulations because no unethical behavior was demonstrated in this study. We merely conducted a questionnaire test and were exempted from further ethical board approval because this research did not involve human clinical trials or animal experiments. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Research respondents were ensured confidentiality and anonymity. All participation was voluntary.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 2020 Global Human Capital Trends Report. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/human-capital/articles/global-human-capital-trends-2020.html (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  2. Borst, R.T.; Kruyen, P.M.; Lako, C.J.; de Vries, M.S. The attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes of work engagement: A comparative meta-analysis across the public, semipublic, and private sector. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2020, 40, 613–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hakanen, J.J.; Bakker, A.B.; Turunen, J. The relative importance of various job resources for work engagement: A concurrent and follow-up dominance analysis. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zheng, X.; Li, N.; Harris, T.; Liao, H.; Chiaburu, D. Unspoken yet understood: An introduction and initial framework of subordinates’ moqi with supervisors. J. Manag. 2017, 45, 955–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mao, W.; Sun, L.; Hu, Y.; Wang, D. The relationship between subordinates’ moqi and employees’ safety behavior—A moderated mediation model. Aust. J. Psychol. 2022, 74, 2090279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, L.; Zheng, X. The influence of subordinates’ moqi with supervisors on employees’ work engagement: The role of Trust-in-supervisor and error aversion culture perception. Hum. Resour. Dev. China 2020, 37, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eisenberger, R.; Karagonlar, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Neves, P.; Becker, T.; González-Morales, M.G.; Steiger-Mueller, M. Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1085–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1986; ISBN 978-0-88738-628-2. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. El-Kassar, A.-N.; Dagher, G.K.; Lythreatis, S.; Azakir, M. Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The roles of HR practices, organizational support for creativity, creativity, innovative work behavior, and task performance. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 140, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saadeh, I.M.; Suifan, T.S. Job stress and organizational commitment in hospitals: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2019, 28, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Singh, S.K.; Pradhan, R.K.; Panigrahy, N.P.; Jena, L.K. Self-Efficacy and Workplace Well-Being: Moderating Role of Sustainability Practices. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 1692–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stinglhamber, F.; Vandenberghe, C. Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Costa, S.; Daher, P.; Neves, P.; Velez, M.J. The interplay between ethical leadership and supervisor organizational embodiment on organizational identification and extra-role performance. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2022, 31, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Di Fabio, A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Chams, N.; García-Blandón, J. On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ehnert, I.; Parsa, S.; Roper, I.; Wagner, M.; Muller-Camen, M. Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 27, 88–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bombiak, E.; Marciniuk-Kluska, A. Green human resource management as a tool for the sustainable development of enterprises: Polish young company experience. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Järlström, M.; Saru, E.; Vanhala, S. Sustainable human resource management with salience of stakeholders: A top management perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 703–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amrutha, V.N.; Geetha, S.N. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Staniškienė, E.; Stankevičiūtė, Ž. Social sustainability measurement framework: The case of employee perspective in a CSR-committed organisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 708–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van Wingerden, J.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. Fostering employee well-being via a job crafting intervention. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017, 100, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bakker, A.B.; Oerlemans, W.G.M. Daily Job crafting and momentary work engagement: A Self-Determination and Self-Regulation Perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 112, 417–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karatepe, O.M.; Rezapouraghdam, H.; Hassannia, R. Job insecurity, work engagement and their effects on hotel employees’ non-green and nonattendance behaviors. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Slowiak, J.M.; DeLongchamp, A.C. Self-care strategies and job-crafting practices among behavior analysts: Do they predict perceptions of work–life balance, work engagement, and burnout? Behav. Anal. Pract. 2022, 15, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gerpott, F.H.; Rivkin, W.; Unger, D. Stop and go, where is my flow? How and when daily aversive morning commutes are negatively related to employees’ motivational states and behavior at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 107, 169–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Christian, M.S.; Garza, A.S.; Slaughter, J.E. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 89–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ng, L.-P.; Choong, Y.-O.; Kuar, L.-S.; Tan, C.-E.; Teoh, S.-Y. Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour amongst health professionals: The mediating role of work engagement. Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 2021, 14, 797–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2008, 13, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tripathi, P.M.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, L.B.; Kapoor, V.; Solanki, U. A JD-R perspective for enhancing engagement through empowerment: A study on Indian hotel industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 46, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Fischbach, A. Work Engagement among Employees Facing Emotional Demands: The Role of Personal Resources. J. Pers. Psychol. 2013, 12, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. A Social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 23, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhong, J.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, H.; Wen, Q. Antecedents and consequences of follower moqi: Leader humility, follower humility, and knowledge hiding. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gregory, B.; Albritton, M.; Osmonbekov, T. The mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationships between P–O Fit, job Satisfaction, and in-role performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liden, R.; Sparrowe, R.; Wayne, S. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1997, 15, 47–119. [Google Scholar]
  39. Erdogan, B.; Liden, R. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. Leadership 2002, 65, 175–186. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liu, S. Authoritarian leadership and task performance: The effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader. Front. Bus. Res. China 2019, 13, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zhao, D.; Wu, J.; Gu, J. Higher-quality leader-member exchange (LMX), higher-level voice? The impact of LMX differentiation and LMX mean on promotive and prohibitive team voice. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 4692–4710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhou, X.; Zheng, X. The relationship between subordinate’ moqi and supervisor’s overall management evaluation: The mediating effect of voice and the moderating effect of personal power distance orientation. Shanghai Manag. Sci. 2019, 41, 52–56. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Nazir, S.; Qun, W.; Hui, L.; Shafi, A. Influence of social exchange relationships on affective commitment and innovative behavior: Role of perceived organizational support. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Brown, O.; Paz-Aparicio, C.; Revilla, A.J. Leader’s communication style, LMX and organizational commitment: A study of employee perceptions in Peru. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wood, S.; Van Veldhoven, M.; Croon, M.; de Menezes, L.M. Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Hum. Relat. 2012, 65, 419–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Graen, G.B.; Uhl-Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 Years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Eisenberger, R.; Shoss, M.; Karagonlar, G.; González-Morales, M.G.; Wickham, R.; Buffardi, L. The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 635–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stinglhamber, F.; Marique, G.; Caesens, G.; Hanin, D.; De Zanet, F. The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment. Career Dev. Int. 2015, 20, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, X.; Guchait, P.; Paşamehmetoğlu, A. Why should errors be tolerated? Perceived organizational support, organization-based self-esteem and psychological well-being. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Côté, K.; Lauzier, M.; Stinglhamber, F. The relationship between presenteeism and job satisfaction: A mediated moderation model using work engagement and perceived organizational support. Eur. Manag. J. 2021, 39, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, J.; Peccei, R. Perceived organizational support and affective commitment: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem in the context of job insecurity. J. Organ. Behav. 2007, 28, 661–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brislin, R.W. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liden, R.; Maslyn, J. Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 43–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wayne, S.; Shore, L.; Liden, R. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 82–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saks, A. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Brummelhuis, L.; Hetland, J.; Keulemans, L. Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema 2012, 24, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Deluga, R.J. Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1994, 67, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, M.; Zhang, P.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; Hu, K.; Du, M. Influence of perceived stress and workload on work engagement in frontline nurses during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Clin. Nurs. 2021, 30, 1584–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Baron, R.; Kenny, D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, L.; Zheng, X.; Sun, S.; Diaz, I. Does subordinate moqi affect leadership empowerment? Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 1015–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zheng, X.; Li, L.; Zhang, F.; Zhu, M. The roles of power distance orientation and perceived insider status in the subordinates’ moqi with supervisors and sustainable knowledge-sharing. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Dutton, J.; Heaphy, E. The power of high quality connections. In Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, 1st ed.; Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Eds.; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 263–278. [Google Scholar]
  63. Eisenberger, R.; Malone, G.P.; Presson, W.D. Optimizing perceived organizational support to enhance employee engagement. Soc. Hum. Resour. Manag. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2016, 2, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  64. De Lange, A.; De Witte, H.; Notelaers, G. Should I stay or should I go? Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers versus movers. Work Stress 2008, 22, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Freeney, Y.; Fellenz, M.R. Work engagement, job design and the role of the social context at work: Exploring antecedents from a relational perspective. Hum. Relat. 2013, 66, 1427–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Richter-Killenberg, S.; Volmer, J. How leaders benefit from engaging in high-quality leader-member exchanges: A daily diary study. J. Manag. Psychol. 2022, 37, 605–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, X.-P.; Cole, B.M. Achieving Mutual Understanding Without Saying a Word: The Conceptualization of Moqi and a Nomological Network. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2022, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 00170 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 00170 g001
Sustainability 15 00170 g002 550
Figure 2. The moderating effect of supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
Sustainability 15 00170 g002
Sustainability 15 00170 g003 550
Figure 3. The moderating effect of perceived organizational support.
Figure 3. The moderating effect of perceived organizational support.
Sustainability 15 00170 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (N = 322).
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (N = 322).
DemographicCategoryQuantityPercentage (%)
GenderMale16049.7%
Female16250.3%
AgeUnder 2511134.5%
25–30 years old17052.8%
Over 30 years old4112.7%
Marital statusMarried8225.5%
Unmarried24074.5%
EducationSpecialist and below144.3%
Undergraduate15447.8%
Postgraduate15447.8%
Tenure1 year or less11134.5%
3 years or less12538.8%
5 years or less5416.8%
5 years and above329.9%
PositionStaff24877.0%
Operative management4514.0%
Middle and senior management299.0%
Years with supervisors1 year or less16049.7%
3 years or less14043.5%
5 years or less206.2%
5 years and above20.6%
Company sizeLess than 20 people195.9%
20–50 people257.8%
51–100 people268.1%
101–200 people257.8%
More than 200 people22770.5%
Table
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
ModelFactorχ2/DfCFITLIRMSEASRMR
Baseline modelSubordinate moqi, LMX, work engagement, supervisor’s organizational embodiment, and perceived organizational support4.3770.9190.9090.0820.071
Model 1Single factor11.2560.7120.9100.1500.090
Model 2Supervisor’s organizational embodiment and LMX5.1240.8900.8860.0960.078
Model 3Supervisor’s organizational embodiment and perceived organizational support5.3100.8960.8830.0950.072
Note: N = 322; CFI—comparative fit index; TLI—Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA—root mean square error of approximation; LMX—leader–member exchange.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and variable correlation.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and variable correlation.
VariableMeanStandard Deviation1234567891011121314
1. Gender0.5000.5011
2. Age1.7900.6420.131 *1
3. Education2.4300.5910.0180.0081
4. Tenure2.0030.9570.0470.561 **−0.367 **1
5. Years with supervisors1.570.6420.0420.408 **−0.283 *0.724 **1
6. Position1.3200.631−0.0040.453 **−0.143 *0.470 **0.279 **1
7. Company size4.3301.2140.035−0.0450.144 *−0.066−0.101−0.1001
8. subordinate moqi3.9340.561−0.0050.082−0.0050.0790.0230.154 **0.0021
9. LMX3.7120.601−0.0580.0520.069−0.0420.0000.146 *0.0430.592 **1
10. SOE3.6510.601−0.0350.005−0.0250.1100.0430.1140.0490.430 **0.415 **1
11. POS3.5390.606−0.034−0.0290.062−0.053−0.0440.137 *0.0470.432 **0.506 **0.488 **1
12. Interaction Item 10.4281.412−0.0050.183 **−0.0240.1090.0260.0540.022−0.239 **−0.039−0.129 *0.0441
13. Interaction Item 20.4371.2070.0090.065−0.0360.0670.0650.0730.066−0.0610.1030.0510.0530.473 **1
14 Work engagement3.6640.674−0.0610.0840.0720.017−0.0040.120 *0.0210.382 **0.371 **0.332 **0.344 **−0.0110.0271
Note: N = 322; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed); LMX—leader–member exchange; SOE—supervisor’s organizational embodiment; POS—perceived organizational support; interaction item 1 = subordinate moqi X supervisor’s organizational embodiment; interaction item 2 = subordinate moqi X perceived organizational support.
Table
Table 4. Regression results of the mediation effect of the leader–member exchange relationship.
Table 4. Regression results of the mediation effect of the leader–member exchange relationship.
VariableLeader–Member RelationshipEmployee Work Engagement
M 1M 2M 3M 4M 5
Gender−0.063−0.053−0.072−0.066−0.054
Age0.0470.0480.0540.0550.045
Marital status0.020−0.0080.0990.0820.084
Education0.0390.0230.0590.0490.044
Tenure−0.228−0.277 **−0.052−0.081−0.019
Position0.205 **0.139 *0.0910.0500.019
Years with supervisor0.1000.135 *−0.0100.011−0.019
Company size0.0540.0480.0160.0120.001
Subordinate moqi 0.600 *** 0.361 ***0.226 **
LMX 0.225 **
Fit indices
F1.31614.004 ***1.5874.947 ***5.536 ***
R20.0540.3960.0640.1880.219
∆R20.0130.3670.0240.1500.179
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; LMX—leader–member exchange.
Table
Table 5. Results of the moderating effect of supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
Table 5. Results of the moderating effect of supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
VariableLeader–Member Exchange
M 1M 2M 3M 4
Gender−0.063−0.053−0.046−0.044
Age0.0470.0480.0700.047
Marital status0.020−0.0080.010−0.014
Education0.0390.0230.0150.023
Tenure−0.228 *−0.277 **−0.320 ***−0.322 ***
Position0.205 **0.139 *0.127 *0.132 *
Years with supervisors0.1000.135 *0.143 *0.160 *
Company size0.0540.0480.0360.039
Subordinate moqi 0.600 ***0.509 ***0.543 ***
SOE 0.216 ***0.217 ***
Interaction item 1 0.130 **
Fit indices
F1.31614.004 ***15.076 ***14.864 ***
R20.0540.3960.4320.447
∆R20.0130.3670.4040.417
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; SOE—supervisor’s organizational embodiment; interaction item 1 = subordinate moqi X supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
Table
Table 6. Results of the moderating effect of perceived organizational support.
Table 6. Results of the moderating effect of perceived organizational support.
VariableLeader–Member Exchange
M 1M 2M 3M 4
Gender−0.063−0.053−0.045−0.046
Age0.0470.0480.0740.071
Marital status0.020−0.008−0.031−0.040
Education0.0390.0230.0110.016
Tenure−0.228 *−0.277 **−0.230 **−0.226 **
Position0.205 **0.139 *0.0960.092
Years with supervisors0.1000.1350.1220.118
Company size0.0540.0480.0420.051
Subordinate moqi 0.600 ***0.479 ***0.492 ***
POS 0.295 ***0.285 ***
Interaction item 2 0.120 **
Fit indices
F1.31614.004 ***16.984 ***16.697 ***
R20.0540.3960.4620.476
∆R20.0130.3670.4350.447
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; POS—perceived organizational support; interaction item 2 = subordinate moqi X perceived organizational support.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Du, B.; He, B.; Zhang, L.; Luo, N.; Yu, X.; Wang, A. From Subordinate Moqi to Work Engagement: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange in the Sustainability Context. Sustainability 2023, 15, 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010170

AMA Style

Du B, He B, Zhang L, Luo N, Yu X, Wang A. From Subordinate Moqi to Work Engagement: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange in the Sustainability Context. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010170

Chicago/Turabian Style

Du, Bin, Bin He, Luxiaohe Zhang, Nan Luo, Xuan Yu, and Ai Wang. 2023. "From Subordinate Moqi to Work Engagement: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange in the Sustainability Context" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010170

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop