Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving and Flourishing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Linking Perceived Organizational Support and Work Engagement
2.2. Linking Perceived Organizational Support and Thriving
2.3. Linking Thriving and Work Engagement
2.4. Linking Perceived Organizational Support and Flourishing
2.5. Linking Flourishing and Work Engagement
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and Procedure
3.2. Measures
4. Results
4.1. Correlation Matrix
4.2. Measurement Validation
4.3. Hypotheses Testing Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Limitations and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
POS | Perceived organizational support |
OST | Organizational support theory |
COR | Conservation of resource theory |
Appendix A. Questionnaire
- My organization strongly considers my goals and values.
- My organization really cares about my well-being.
- My organization shows very little concern for me. ®
- My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part.
- My organization cares about my opinions.
- If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me. ®
- Help is available from my organization when I have a problem.
- My organization is willing to help me when I need a special favor.
- I find myself learning often.
- I continue to learn more and more as time goes by.
- I see myself continually improving
- I am not learning.
- I have developed a lot as a person.
- I feel alive and vital.
- I have energy and spirit.
- I do not feel very energetic. ®
- I feel alert and awake.
- I am looking forward to each new day.
- I lead a purposeful and meaningful life.
- My social relationships are supportive and rewarding.
- I am engaged and interested in my daily activities.
- I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others.
- I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me.
- I am a good person and live a good life.
- I am optimistic about my future.
- People respect me.
- At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
- At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
- When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
- I am enthusiastic about my job
- My job inspires me.
- I am proud of the work that I do.
- I feel happy when I am working intensely.
- I am immersed in my work.
- I get carried away when I am working.
References
- Prem, R.; Ohly, S.; Kubicek, B.; Korunka, C. Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 38, 108–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abid, G.; Contreras, F.; Ahmed, S.; Qazi, T. Contextual factors and organizational commitment: Examining the mediating role of thriving at work. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, W.; Busser, J.A. Hospitality career retention: The role of contextual factors and thriving at work. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spreitzer, G.; Sutcliffe, K.; Dutton, J.; Sonenshein, S.; Grant, A.M. A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organ. Sci. 2005, 16, 537–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abid, G.; Sajjad, I.; Elahi, N.S.; Farooqi, S.; Nisar, A. The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement: The mediating role of thriving at work. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1493712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleine, A.K.; Rudolph, C.W.; Zacher, H. Thriving at work: A meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 2019, 40, 973–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elahi, N.S.; Abid, G.; Arya, B.; Farooqi, S. Workplace behavioral antecedents of job performance: Mediating role of thriving. Serv. Ind. J. 2019, 40, 755–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basinska, B.A. Thriving in a multicultural workplace. In Intercultural Interactions in the Multicultural Workplace; Rozkwitalska, M., Sułkowski, Ł., Magala, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
- Shahid, S.; Muchiri, M.K.; Walumbwa, F.O. Mapping the antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, S.A.; Raveeendran, D. Thriving at workplace by bank managers: An empirical study of public and private sector banks. Int. J. Entrep. Dev. Stud. 2017, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Riaz, S.; Xu, Y.; Hussain, S. Understanding employee innovative behavior and thriving at work: A Chinese perspective. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qaiser, S.; Abid, G.; Arya, B.; Farooqi, S. Nourishing the bliss: Antecedents and mechanism of happiness at work. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Q.; Wang, S.; Weadon, H. Thriving at work as a mediator of the relationship between workplace support and life satisfaction. J. Manag. Organ. 2017, 26, 168–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abid, G.; Khan, B.; Hong, M.C.W. Thriving at work: How a fairness perception matter for employee’s thriving and job satisfaction. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 2016, p. 11948. [Google Scholar]
- Walumbwa, F.O.; Muchiri, M.K.; Misati, E.; Wu, C.; Meiliani, M. Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 3, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paterson, T.A.; Luthans, F.; Jeung, W. Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 77, 1026–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porath, C.; Spreitzer, G.; Gibson, C.; Garnett, F.G. Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 250–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.; Oishi, S.; Biswas-Diener, R. New wellbeing measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huppert, F.A.; So, T. Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 110, 837–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abid, G.; Ijaz, S.; Butt, T.; Farooqi, S.; Rehmat, M. Impact of perceived internal respect on flourishing: A sequential mediation of organizational identification and energy. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1507276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janse van Rensburg, C.; Rothmann, S.; Diedericks, E. Supervisor support, flourishing, and intention to leave in a higher education setting. J. Psychol. Afr. 2017, 27, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Gevers, J.M. Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 91, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keyes, C.L.M. The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2002, 43, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2008, 29, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butt, T.H.; Abid, G.; Arya, B.; Farooqi, S. Employee energy and subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 40, 133–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rautenbach, C.; Rothmann, S. Antecedents of flourishing at work in a fast-moving consumer goods company. J. Psychol. Afr. 2017, 27, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Armeli, S.; Rexwinkel, B.; Lynch, P.D.; Rhoades, L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl. Psychol. An Int. Rev. 2001, 50, 337–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hakkak, M.; Ghodsi, M. Investigating the relation between job satisfaction, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. Int. J. Manag. Humanit. Sci. 2013, 2, 513–520. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Byrne, Z.S.; Hochwarter, W.A. Perceived organizational support and performance relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Stinglhamber, F. Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic and Productive Employees; APA Books: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2019, 6, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, F.H.; Rizavi, S.S.; Ahmed, I.; Rasheed, M. Effects of perceived organizational support on organizational citizenship behavior-Sequential mediation by well-being and work engagement. J. Punjab Univ. Hist. Soc. 2018, 31, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
- Murthy, R.K. Perceived organizational support and work engagement. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2017, 3, 738–740. [Google Scholar]
- Abid, G.; Zahra, I.; Ahmed, A. Mediated mechanism of thriving at work between perceived organization support, innovative work behavior and turnover intention. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 982–998. [Google Scholar]
- Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Albrecht, S.L.; Leiter, M.P. Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2011, 20, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Walt, F. Workplace spirituality, work engagement and thriving at work. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2018, 44, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ryan, R.M.; Bernstein, J.H. Vitality. In Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification; Peterson, C., Seligman, M.E.P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halbesleben, J.R.; Harvey, J.; Bolino, M.C. Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1452–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hakanen, J.J.; Perhoniemi, R.; Toppinen-Tanner, S. Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit. J. Vocat. Behav. 2008, 73, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Eldor, L.; Schohat, L.M. Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2013, 43, 518–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredrickson, B.L.; Losada, M.F. Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fredrickson, B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. Spec. Issue 2001, 56, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E.; Freedy, J.; Lane, C.; Geller, P. Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1990, 7, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Cummings, J.; Armeli, S.; Lynch, P. Perceived organizational support 2011, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Methodology in the social sciences. In Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Edmondson, A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carmeli, A.; Spreitzer, G.M. Trust, Connectivity, and Thriving: Implications for Innovative Behaviors at Work. J. Creat. Behav. 2009, 43, 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Jung, K.; Yigitcanlar, T. The Culture for Open Innovation Dynamics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spithoven, A.; Clarysse, B.; Knockaert, M. Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 2010, 30, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Park, K.; Shi, L. Sustainability Condition of Open Innovation: Dynamic Growth of Alibaba from SME to Large Enterprise. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, Z.A.; Abid, G.; Contreras, F.; Hassan, Q.; Zafar, R. Ethical Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Individual Attributes. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatenier, E.D.; Verstegen, J.A.; Biemans, H.J.; Mulder, M.; Omta, O.S.F. Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D Manag. 2010, 40, 271–280. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, J.J.; Lee, M.; Park, K.; Zhao, X. Open innovation and serial entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caesens, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Demoulin, S.; De Wilde, M. Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2017, 26, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayunintyas, R.F.; Do, B.R.; Sudiro, A.; Irawanto, D.W. Organizational justice and effective organizational commitment mediated by organizational trust and perceived organizational support: Study at the largest poultry industry company in Indonesia. Asia Pac. Manag. Bus. Appl. 2018, 6, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Książek, D.; Rożenek, P.; Warmuz, S. The impact of perceived organizational support on trust. A case study of a state university. World Sci. News 2016, 48, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
- Del Líbano, M.; Llorens, S.; Salanova, M.; Schaufeli, W.B. About the dark andbright sides of self-efficacy: Workaholismand work engagement. Span. J. Psychol. 2012, 15, 688–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kinnunen, U.; Feldt, T.; Makikangas, A. Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: The role of perceived organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2008, 13, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.; Lim, D.H.; Kim, W.; Kang, H. Organizational Support and Adaptive Performance: The Revolving Structural Relationships between Job Crafting, Work Engagement, and Adaptive Performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, A.; Thanacoody, R.; Hui, W. The impact of employee perceptions of training on organizational commitment and turnover: A case of multinationals in the Chinese service sector. Pers. Rev. 2012, 41, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spreitzer, G.; Porath, C.L. Self-Determination as a nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. In Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory; Gagne, M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez-Morales, M.G.; Kernan, M.C.; Becker, T.E.; Eisenberger, R. Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2016, 23, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Mean | S.D | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Marital Status | 1.47 | 0.52 | - | |||||||
2. Age | 2.50 | 0.73 | 0.62 ** | - | ||||||
3. Education | 15.74 | 1.43 | 0.10 ** | 0.12 ** | - | |||||
4. Tenure | 1.44 | 0.84 | 0.45 ** | 0.71 ** | −0.02 | - | ||||
5. Perceived Organizational Support | 3.78 | 0.69 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.07 | −0.03 | (0.90) | |||
6. Thriving at Work | 4.16 | 0.53 | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.04 | 0.39 ** | (0.89) | ||
7. Flourishing | 4.61 | 0.79 | −0.03 | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.13 ** | 0.29 ** | (0.91) | |
8. Work Engagement | 4.57 | 0.96 | 0.02 | 0.04 | −0.07 | 0.03 | 0.38 ** | 0.55 ** | 0.27 ** | (0.89) |
Factor 1—Perceived Organizational Support | Factor Loading | Factor 3—Flourishing | Factor Loading |
---|---|---|---|
POS1 | 0.768 | FLO1 | 0.753 |
POS2 | 0.791 | FLO2 | 0.764 |
POS3 | 0.798 | FLO3 | 0.742 |
POS4 | 0.706 | FLO4 | 0.801 |
POS5 | 0.755 | FLO5 | 0.786 |
POS6 | 0.690 | FLO6 | 0.798 |
POS7 | 0.760 | FLO7 | 0.779 |
POS8 | 0.763 | FLO8 | 0.755 |
Eigenvalue | 3.15 | Eigenvalue | 4.35 |
% of Total Variance Explained | 9.56 | % of Total Variance Explained | 13.20 |
Factor 2—Thriving at Wok | Factor Loading | Factor 4—Work Engagement | Factor Loading |
T1 | 0.741 | WE1 | 0.563 |
T2 | 0.717 | WE2 | 0.727 |
T3 | 0.731 | WE3 | 0.696 |
T5 | 0.677 | WE4 | 0.789 |
T6 | 0.682 | WE5 | 0.749 |
T7 | 0.693 | WE6 | 0.761 |
T9 | 0.678 | WE7 | 0.770 |
T10 | 0.680 | WE8 | 0.787 |
Eigenvalue | 2.16 | WE9 | 0.513 |
% of Total Variance Explained | 6.54 | Eigenvalue | 9.98 |
% of Total Variance Explained | 30.24 | ||
Total Variance (%) 59.55 |
Models | χ2 | df | χ2/df | TLI | IFI | CFI | AGFI | SRMR | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hypothetical Model | 1441.06 | 487 | 2.95 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
Model 1 a | 4268.57 | 492 | 8.67 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.88 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.11 |
Model 2 b | 5648.11 | 494 | 11.43 | 0.53 | 0.89 | 0.56 | 0.41 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
Model 3 c | 6919.97 | 496 | 13.98 | 0.42 | 0.85 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
Constructs | Convergent Validity | Discriminant Validity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CR | AVE | MSV | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
1. | POS | 0.91 | 0.55 | 0.19 | 0.74 | |||
2. | Work Engagement | 0.90 | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.72 | ||
3. | Flourishing | 0.91 | 0.56 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.75 | |
4. | Thriving | 0.89 | 0.51 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 0.61 | 0.32 | 0.71 |
Direct Effect | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thriving (M) | ||||||
Β | S.E | T | P | LLC1 | ULCI | |
POS (X) | 0.30 | 0.03 | 10.61 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.35 |
R2 = 0.15 | ||||||
Flourishing (M) | ||||||
0.16 | 0.05 | 3.45 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.24 | |
Direct Effect | ||||||
Work Engagement (Y) | ||||||
Β | S.E | T | P | LLC1 | ULCI | |
POS (X) | 0.27 | 0.05 | 5.62 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.37 |
Thriving (M) | 0.86 | 0.06 | 13.55 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.99 |
R2 = 0.34 | ||||||
Flourishing (M) | 0.27 | 0.06 | 6.11 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.35 |
R2 = 0.19 | ||||||
Indirect Effect of X on Y | ||||||
Effect | S.E | Boot LLC1 | Boot ULC1 | |||
Thriving | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.20 | 0.32 | ||
Flourishing | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.09 | ||
Normal Theory Tests for Indirect Effect | ||||||
Value | SE | Z | P | |||
Sobel (Thriving) | 0.26 | 0.03 | 8.34 | 0.00 | ||
Sobel (Flourishing) | 0.04 | 0.02 | 2.98 | 0.00 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Imran, M.Y.; Elahi, N.S.; Abid, G.; Ashfaq, F.; Ilyas, S. Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving and Flourishing. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030082
Imran MY, Elahi NS, Abid G, Ashfaq F, Ilyas S. Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving and Flourishing. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020; 6(3):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030082
Chicago/Turabian StyleImran, Muhammad Yasir, Natasha Saman Elahi, Ghulam Abid, Fouzia Ashfaq, and Sehrish Ilyas. 2020. "Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving and Flourishing" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, no. 3: 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030082
APA StyleImran, M. Y., Elahi, N. S., Abid, G., Ashfaq, F., & Ilyas, S. (2020). Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving and Flourishing. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030082