Do job characteristics mediate the effects of leadership behaviour on employee wellbeing?

Five multiple mediator models were analyzed to test the hypothesis that job charac-teristics mediate the effects of leadership on employee wellbeing and health. This hypothesis has been presented, as leaders have been seen able to make changes in employees’ working conditions, and this way affect employee wellbeing. The varia-bles selected to the mediator analyses follow the causal order in terms of time, so that leadership behaviour (independent variable) was measured at T1, job character-istics (mediators) at T2, and wellbeing (dependent variable) at T3. Further criteria for the selection of the variables were as follows: First, we identified leadership variables

that predicted change in job characteristics between T1 and T2. Second, we identi-fied job characteristics that predicted change in wellbeing between T2 and T3. Thus, preconditions were set to both a-paths (from leadership behaviour to potential media-tors), and b-paths (from mediators to wellbeing outcomes). Finally combing infor-mation on these two regression paths, we aimed to form models including as many as possible mediators which fulfilled the mentioned criteria with respect to both a- and b-paths.

With this procedure, we ended up to five multiple mediator models. In the analyses we utilized the multiple mediation approach proposed by PREACHER and HAYES (2008) with bootstrapped estimates for the indirect effects. The five models were in-vestigated with bootstrap estimates and 95 % confidence intervals for the indirect effects based on 1000 resamples. The specific indirect effect is significant if no zero occurs in the confidence interval. The advantage of multiple mediator models is that we are able to examine the unique effect of each mediator, that is, the effect of that mediator taken the other proposed mediators into account. It follows from this that if a variable is not a significant mediator in a multiple mediator model, it does not mean that this variables would not serve as a mediator at all in that given relationship. In-stead, it means that the variable does not have a mediating effect controlling for the other proposed mediators in the model.

All the constructed models have health-promoting leadership as an independent var-iable. This leadership construct predicted change in several job characteristics while the other leadership behaviours were each related to only one or two of the job char-acteristics. Regression coefficients, point estimates and 95 % confidence intervals of all the multiple mediator models are provided in table 6.25.

The first model included health-promoting leadership at T1 as a predictor, work en-gagement at T3 as an outcome, and mediation was examined through job insecurity, role clarity, and meaning of work at T2. Health-promoting leadership at T1 predicted low job insecurity and high levels of meaning of work at T2, which in turn predicted high work engagement at T3. Indirect effect was found through meaning of work and job insecurity, but not through role clarity. The relationship from health-promoting leadership at T1 to work engagement at T3 remained significant in the model with the mediators (path c’).

Tab. 6.25 Summary of the mediation analyses

Regression co-efficient

a path (leadership – job)

Regression coef-ficient b path (job–wellbeing)

Specific indirect effect (ab) (point estimate)

95%

confidence in-terval

Regression coefficient Total effect c

Model 1: Work engagement .76***

Role clarity .18*** -.04 -.01 -.04, .02

Meaning .41*** 1.12*** .46 .37, .56 Job insecurity -.34*** -.15*** .05 .02, .09

Model 2: Commitment .31***

Role clarity .19*** .03 .00 -.01, .02

Autonomy .47*** .02 .01 -.02, .04

Meaning .41*** .34*** .14 .10, .19 Cognitive demands .16*** .07 .01 -.00, .03

Model 3: Self-efficacy .30***

Autonomy .46*** .10* .04 .01, .09

Meaning .42*** .29*** .12 .08, .17 Cognitive demands .16*** .12** .02 .00, .04

Job insecurity -.33*** -.18*** .06 .04, .09

Model 4: Team climate .28***

Role clarity .17*** .24*** .04 .02, .07

Meaning .41*** .20*** .08 .05, .12 Cognitive demands .15*** .10** .01 .00, .03

Model 5: Depressive symptoms -.27***

Autonomy .47*** -.11** -.05 -.10, -.02

Meaning .41*** -.22*** -.09 -.13, -.05 Job insecurity -.34*** .17*** -.06 -.09, -.03

The second model consisted of health-promoting leadership at T1 as a predictor, or-ganizational commitment at T3 as an outcome, and the proposed mediators were cognitive demands, role clarity, autonomy, and meaning of work at T2. The results revealed that only meaning of work mediated the effect of health-promoting leader-ship on organizational commitment. The relationleader-ship between health-promoting lead-ership and organizational commitment remained significant when the mediators were included in the model.

In the third model we examined whether the health-promoting leadership at T1 would increase occupational self-efficacy at T3 through decreasing job insecurity and in-creasing cognitive demands, autonomy, and meaning of work at T2. It turned out that all the four mediators made a unique contribution in the relationship between health-promoting leadership and self-efficacy (see figure 6.3). When the mediators were in the model, there was not anymore a direct relationship from health-promoting leader-ship to occupational self-efficacy.

The fourth model included health-promoting leadership at T1 in relation to good team climate at T3 with proposed mediators cognitive demands, role clarity, and meaning of work at T2. Significant indirect effects were found through all these three media-tors.

Finally, in the fifth model we examined whether health-promoting leadership at T1 would decrease depressive symptoms at T3 through decreasing job insecurity and increasing autonomy and meaning of work at T2. Indirect effects through all these three mediators were found. The direct relationship from health-promoting leadership to depressive symptoms was not significant after introducing the mediators. Concern-ing all the models, the total indirect effect was significant in each of them.

In conclusion, the mediator analyses revealed that health-promoting leadership be-haviours can have an effect on work-related wellbeing through job characteristics. As stated previously, job resources like meaning of work, autonomy and role clarity are more likely than job demands to be affected by leadership behaviour. Yet job insecu-rity and cognitive demands as job demands may also be affected by leadership. Sur-prisingly, health-promoting leadership seems to enhance cognitive demands which in turn have positive effects on wellbeing-related constructs like self-efficacy and team climate. Thus, at least in the current sample, cognitive demands seem to function like job resources. Furthermore, meaning of work was a significant mediator in all the five models independent of the outcome variable. Hence meaning of work has a lot to do with leadership while also showing unique predictive value in relation to wellbeing constructs. In relation to health-promoting leadership, meaning of work was found to be an important mediator for work engagement, organizational commitment, self-efficacy, team climate and (low-level) depressive symptoms. Meaning of work is es-pecially a prominent factor in relation to organizational commitment, as the other pro-posed mediators role clarity, autonomy and cognitive demands were not significant when meaning of work was taken into account.

Fig. 6.3 Multiple mediation model on health-promoting leadership and occupa-tional self-efficacy via job resources and demands