How to cite:
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui (2022). The
Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and
Personality Traits on Employee Engagement PTA. Journal Eduvest. Vol
2(7): 1.384-1.396
E-ISSN:
2775-3727
Published by:
https://greenpublisher.id/
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July, 2022
p- ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
THE EFFECT OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYEE
DEVELOPMENT, AND PERSONALITY TRAITS ON
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT PTA
Evelina Debora Damanik
1
, Moch. Asmawi
2
, IGK Agung Ulupui
3
Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: e[email protected]m
1
, mochasmawi@unj.ac.id
2
, igka-
ulupui@unj.ac.id
3
ABSTRACT
This study aims to obtain an overview of employee
engagement level at PTA and examine the influence of
leadership factors, particularly empowering leadership,
employee development, and personality traits on employee
engagement in the company. The research was designed
using a quantitative approach with a correlational type of
research, while the research sample was selected using a
purposive sampling technique. Data collection was carried
out using questionnaires compiled with a Likert scale.
Furthermore, the statistical data obtained were analyzed
using the Structural Equation Modeling Partial Least Square
(SEM-PLS) approach using the SmartPLS application (v.3.2.9).
The results showed that the predictive accuracy level of the
structural model of this study was categorized as moderate
(Adjusted R
2
= 0.428, referring to Chin, 1998). It also
represents the total variance of employee engagement
variables that can be explained by all exogenous variables
simultaneously, which is 42.8%, and 57.2% influenced by
other variables that were not discussed in this research
model. The three exogenous variables were found positively
affect employee engagement. The personality traits factor
has a more significant influence than other variables (0.362).
The following factor is employee development (0.241), and
the slightest effect is empowering leadership (0.231).
KEYWORDS
Employee Engagement, Empowering Leadership, Employee
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui
The Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and Personality Traits
on Employee Engagement PTA 1.385
Development, Personality Traits
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
INTRODUCTION
Every company seeks to optimize profits by increasing productivity by managing
strategic assets, including developing human resources (employees) (Purce, 2014).
However, these development initiatives will not succeed without employees’
involvement, commitment, and engagement. There are various definitions of employee
engagement, and up to now, there is no consensus regarding the theoretical meaning and
measurement. (Saks & Gruman, 2014) explains that employee engagement is "a distinct
and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components
associated with individual role performance". (Kunnanatt, 2016) express a similar
definition, who argue that employee engagement is "an individual employee's cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes". Thus
in this research, employee engagement is defined as the cognitive, emotional, and
physical involvement of employees towards work and the company that makes them
willing to exert extra effort to carry out their work roles to achieve company success.
Many researchers have found that employee engagement has positive consequences for
the company, such as a positive correlation with customer satisfaction and loyalty,
profitability, productivity, employee turnover and job security. Then, many practitioners
and academics have attempted to identify the effect of various antecedents on employee
engagement, including leadership style, employee development and personality traits.
The role of the leader is essential and crucial in creating highly engaged
employees. In some studies, empowering leadership behavior has a positive effect on
various variables such as commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, in-role
performance, creativity, citizenship behavior, and employee engagement. According to
(Hendri, 2019), empowering leadership is a leadership style in which subordinates are
targeted to develop self-control, are encouraged to participate in decision-making, are
charged to innovate and act independently. (Wong, 2013) conveyed the same thing.
According to them, the empowering leader encourages subordinates’ self-leadership, not
just giving orders. They delegate responsibilities and create contexts for subordinates to
optimize capabilities and develop self-influence to push themselves to achieve high
performance. In connection with employee engagement, (Crocetta et al., 2021) explain
that companies require empowering leaders to create a supportive working environment
and conditions and motivate subordinates to work more optimally. (Rothwell, Jackson,
Ressler, Jones, & Brower, 2015) support this opinion and explain that empowering
leaders’ behavior will affect employees' perceptions of their work environment and
experiences. When the leader empowers, subordinates feel more competent and have
control over their work, so they feel meaningful. A similar view was conveyed by
(Dusek, Yurova, & Ruppel, 2015). According to them, work meaningfulness positively
affects work engagement, where the task of empowering leaders is to create meaningful
jobs through providing job resources and autonomy. Employees who feel their work is
meaningful will be more enthusiastic, strive to complete their work and more focused on
work. Furthermore, found empowering leader behaviors, such as: working harder than
team members, coaching teams to be more self-reliant, encouraging high-performing
teams by showing confidence in their competence, providing opportunities to participate
in decision making, sharing new information, showing concern, and interacting with the
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July 2022
1.386 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
team will increase psychological empowerment which in turn increases employee
engagement.
Some consultants and researchers explained that employee development factors
also affect employee engagement (Qatrunnada & Parahyanti, 2019) defined employee
development as an effort to increase an employee’s technical, theoretical, conceptual, and
moral abilities that are relevant to the needs of the job or position through education and
training. Employees feel more engaged when the company provides opportunities and
support for employee development through job rotation, on-the-job learning, or training
programs to improve their current job skills. Also, to develop the skills needed to handle
the greater work responsibilities, which in turn impacts company performance.
Several studies also found the effect of personality traits on employee engagement.
According to (Josefsson et al., 2013), personality traits are a stable set of characteristics,
tendencies, and temperaments that determine the commonalities and differences in the
individual’s behavior. Organizational researchers most often study the common model of
personality traits, known as the 'Big-five' (Langford, Dougall, & Parkes, 2017). Five
indicators that shape a person's behavioral tendencies, namely extraversion (E),
agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), emotional stability or commonly labeled with
the opposite neuroticism (N) and openness to new experiences (O).
This research was conducted to get an insight into the level of employee
engagement at PTA and examine the factors that become the employee engagement
drivers in the company. It is hoped that the findings of this research can be used as a
reference in constructing the intervention actions to optimize employee engagement
levels, which will ultimately impact the company’s success (Schaufeli, 2017).
RESEARCH METHOD
This study was designed using a quantitative approach with a correlational type of
research. The research sample determines by using the purposive sampling technique by
setting the criteria of the respondents who will be studied on specific considerations. This
study defines permanent employees who have worked for 3 (three) years as a research
sample.
The primary data collection of the research was carried out through a questionnaire
submitted online. Demographic data was collected through alternative questions with a
nominal scale, where respondents only chose one answer that was appropriate to their
condition. All research instruments were prepared using a higher-order construct
approach with a reflective-formative model. The questionnaire items are in the form of a
preference statement with a Likert scale of 1-5, where respondents are asked to determine
one answer option that fits their opinion.
Considering the analytical method in this study is Structural Equation Modeling
Partial Least Square (SEM-PLS), the quantitative data obtained were statistically
processed using the SmartPLS application (v.3.2.9). Furthermore, because the research
instrument was prepared using the higher-order construct with a reflective-formative
model, the measurement model (outer model) is evaluated using the disjoint two-stage
approach (Sarstedt et al., 2019), which is described in the following chart:
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui
The Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and Personality Traits
on Employee Engagement PTA 1.387
After evaluating the outer (measurement) model, the next step is to assess the inner
(structural) model to analyze the relationship between latent variables. The evaluation
includes the collinearity between latent variables, path coefficient for estimating the
structural model relationship, Coefficient of Determination (R
2
and Adjusted R
2
), Effect
Size (f
2
), and Model Fit evaluation. The evaluation results are next used for testing the
research hypothesis.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Result
1. Characteristics of Respondents
Researchers distributed online questionnaires to 371 employees of PTA who were
categorized as research samples. There are 326 completed questionnaires, so in the
following analysis, the number of data used is 326. Thus the total respondents of this
study were 87.9% of the research sample.
Table 1. Respondents Profile
Demographic Data
Percentage
Gender
Man
69.9%
Woman
30.1%
Age
< 30 years old
21.5%
31 - 40 years old
38.7%
41 - 50 years
33.7%
> 50 years
6.1%
Years of service
3 - 8 years
54.9%
9 - 14 years old
23.3%
15 - 20 years
10.7%
> 21 years old
11.0%
Education
High school or equivalent
39.3%
DI / DII / DIII
16.0%
DIV / S1
43.3%
S2
1.5%
1. Convergent Validity 1. Collinearity amongs indicators
-
Outer Loading > 0.70 - VIF < 5
- AVE > 0.50
2. Significance & relevance of
2. Internal Consistency outer weights
-
Composite Reliability > 0.70 - Outer Weights : P-values < 0.05
-
Cronbach Alpha > 0.70, in explora- - If coefficient is not significant, outer
tory researach > 0.60 is acceptable loading > 0.50
3. Discriminant Validity
-
Cross Loading tinggi
Stage 1 (Low Order Components )
Stage 2 (Higher-Order Components )
Reflective Model
Formative Model
Outer Model Evaluation
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July 2022
1.388 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
The majority of samples were male (69.9%), aged between 31-50 years (72.4%).
More than half of the sample had a year of service between 3 to 8 years (54.9%), and the
education level of the majority sample was DIV/S1 (43.3%) and SMA or equivalent
(39.3%).
2. Outer (Measurement) Model Evaluation
Considering that the measurement model (outer model) is evaluated using the
disjoint two-stage approach, the evaluation is carried out in two stages:
a. Validity Testing and Reliability Calculation of Lower-Order Components (LOC)
The initial calculation results show that the outer loading value of item EE3 on the
Employee Engagement instrument, item ED5 on the Employee Development
instrument and item PT2 on the Personality Traits instrument have not met the
requirements (< 0.70). Then the items are dropped, while the other items are valid and
maintained because of the outer loading value > 0.70, as shown in Table 2. In addition,
the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value for each dimension on all variables has
also met the requirements (> 0.50).
Table 2. Convergent Validity Evaluation of Lower-Order Components (LOC)
Variable
Dimension
Indicator
Validity
(HOC)
(LOC)
(items)
Loadings
Result
AVE
Employee
Engagement
Y1_Cognitive
Involvement
EE1
0.775
Valid
EE2
0.777
Valid
EE3
0.680
Invalid
EE4
0.767
Valid
Y2_Emotional
Involvement
EE5
0.803
Valid
0.577
EE6
0.771
Valid
EE7
0.703
Valid
Y3_Physical
Involvement
EE8
0.731
Valid
0.570
EE9
0.799
Valid
EE10
0.734
Valid
Empowering
Leadership
X1.1_Leading by
Example
EL1
0.899
Valid
0.750
EL2
0.885
Valid
EL3
0.810
Valid
X1.2_Participative
Decision Making
EL4
0.826
Valid
0.738
EL5
0.887
Valid
EL6
0.862
Valid
X1.3_Coaching
EL7
0.863
Valid
0.706
EL8
0.754
Valid
EL9
0.897
Valid
X1.4_Informing
EL10
0.873
Valid
0.748
EL11
0.875
Valid
EL12
0.846
Valid
X1.5_Showing Concern
EL13
0.879
Valid
0.696
EL14
0.884
Valid
EL15
0.732
Valid
Employee
Development
X2.1_Job Redesign
ED1
0.739
Valid
0.561
ED2
0.786
Valid
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui
The Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and Personality Traits
on Employee Engagement PTA 1.389
Variable
Dimension
Indicator
Validity
(HOC)
(LOC)
(items)
Loadings
Result
AVE
ED3
0.730
Valid
ED4
0.739
Valid
X2.2_Task Delegation
ED5
0.682
Invalid
0.658
ED6
0.810
Valid
ED7
0.787
Valid
ED8
0.756
Valid
X2.3_Skill Training
ED9
0.765
Valid
0.691
ED10
0.800
Valid
ED11
0.886
Valid
ED12
0.867
Valid
X2.4_Career
Development
ED13
0.916
Valid
0.834
ED14
0.915
Valid
ED15
0.909
Valid
Personality
Traits
X3.1_Extraversion
PT1
0.836
Valid
0.777
PT2
0.557
Invalid
PT3
0.853
Valid
X3.2_Agreeableness
PT4
0.836
Valid
0.652
PT5
0.848
Valid
PT6
0.752
Valid
PT7
0.790
Valid
X3.3_Conscientiousness
PT8
0.782
Valid
0.626
PT9
0.777
Valid
PT10
0.846
Valid
PT11
0.758
Valid
X3.4_Emotional
Stability
PT12
0.796
Valid
0.644
PT13
0.783
Valid
PT14
0.811
Valid
PT15
0.818
Valid
X3.5_Openness to New
Experience
PT16
0.876
Valid
0.720
PT17
0.875
Valid
PT18
0.828
Valid
PT19
0.813
Valid
Likewise, the discriminant validity value of each item has met the requirements
where the Fornell-Larcker criterion shows the square root of the AVE of each reflective
construct is larger than the correlations with the remaining constructs in the model.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July 2022
1.390 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Table 3 . Discriminant Validity Evaluation of Lower-Order Components (LOC)
X1.1
X1.2
X1.3
X1.4
X1.5
X2.1
X2.2
X2.3
X2.4
X3.1
X3.2
X3.3
X3.4
X3.5
Y1
Y2
Y3
X1.1
0.866
X1.2
0.751
0.859
X1.3
0.737
0.779
0.840
X1.4
0.747
0.749
0.794
0.865
X1.5
0.711
0.723
0.750
0.777
0.834
X2.1
0.351
0.371
0.374
0.375
0.401
0.749
X2.2
0.398
0.470
0.443
0.414
0.424
0.477
0.811
X2.3
0.375
0.385
0.419
0.458
0.391
0.410
0.527
0.831
X2.4
0.333
0.332
0.315
0.398
0.361
0.417
0.486
0.569
0.913
X3.1
0.222
0.255
0.222
0.238
0.206
0.280
0.280
0.287
0.254
0.882
X3.2
0.149
0.198
0.223
0.192
0.164
0.309
0.340
0.310
0.298
0.653
0.807
X3.3
0.236
0.259
0.258
0.285
0.248
0.299
0.382
0.303
0.257
0.536
0.596
0.791
X3.4
0.229
0.253
0.237
0.235
0.230
0.320
0.320
0.284
0.247
0.548
0.607
0.608
0.802
X3.5
0.185
0.229
0.204
0.200
0.195
0.309
0.352
0.309
0.253
0.549
0.594
0.694
0.693
0.849
Y1
0.289
0.299
0.307
0.260
0.252
0.340
0.301
0.232
0.215
0.262
0.205
0.327
0.318
0.248
0.805
Y2
0.398
0.433
0.405
0.392
0.371
0.386
0.351
0.363
0.305
0.342
0.296
0.350
0.416
0.406
0.589
0.760
Y3
0.358
0.367
0.359
0.331
0.327
0.384
0.392
0.376
0.356
0.390
0.366
0.418
0.449
0.400
0.591
0.582
0.755
The value of the reliability calculation in Table 4 shows Cronbach's Alpha per
dimension > 0.60 and Composite Reliability per dimension > 0.70. Thus, the reliability
requirements for the lower-order components of all variables have been fulfilled so they
can be analyzed further.
Table 4. Reliability Evaluation of Lower-Order Components (LOC)
Variable
Dimension
Reliability
(HOC)
(LOC)
Cronbach's
Alpha
Composite
Reliability
Employee
Engagement
Y1_Cognitive Involvement
0.728
0.847
Y2_Emotional Involvement
0.632
0.803
Y3_Physical Involvement
0.624
0.799
Empowering
Leadership
X1.1_Leading by Example
0.832
0.900
X1.2_Participative Decision Making
0.822
0.894
X1.3_Coaching
0.793
0.878
X1.4_Informing
0.831
0.899
X1.5_Showing Concern
0.784
0.872
Employee
Development
X2.1_Job Redesign
0.746
0.836
X2.2_Task Delegation
0.741
0.852
X2.3_Skill Training
0.850
0.899
X2.4_Career Development
0.901
0.938
Personality
Traits
X3.1_Extraversion
0.713
0.875
X3.2_Agreeableness
0.821
0.882
X3.3_Conscientiousness
0.802
0.870
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui
The Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and Personality Traits
on Employee Engagement PTA 1.391
Variable
Dimension
Reliability
(HOC)
(LOC)
Cronbach's
Alpha
Composite
Reliability
X3.4_Emotional Stability
0.816
0.878
X3.5_Openness to New Experience
0.871
0.911
b. Validity Testing of High-Order Components (HOC)
Collinearity evaluation shows the VIF value of each dimension on all variables < 5.
Thus there is no interdimensional collinearity in the measured variables. Next, the
dimensions Y1_Cognitive Involvement, X1.1_Leading by Example, X1.3_Coaching,
X1.4_Informing, X1.5_Showing Concern, X2.4_Career Development, X3.2_
Agreeableness, and X3.5_ Openness to New Experience are not significant. However, the
value of their outer loadings is > 0.50, so these dimensions are maintained, while the
other dimensions are significant (p values < 0.05). Therefore, with the fulfillment of
collinearity requirements and the significance of outer weights and outer loadings, all
these dimensions are valid in compiling the measured construct and can be used in further
data analysis. VIF values, Outer Weights, T-Statistics, p values and outer loadings for
each dimension as presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Evaluation of Higher-Order Components (HOC)
LOC
VIF
Outer
Weights
T-
Statistics
P
Values
Outer
Loading
Result
Y1_Cognitive
Involvement
1,754
0.082
0.852
0.197
0.701
Valid
Y2_Emotional
Involvement
1,732
0.514
5.884
0.000
0.880
Valid
Y3_Physical Involvement
1,771
0.548
6.101
0.000
0.895
Valid
X1.1_Leading by Example
2,968
0.286
1.370
0.085
0.891
Valid
X1.2_Participative
Decision Making
3.305
0.434
2.274
0.011
0.941
Valid
X1.3_Coaching
3,702
0.271
1.435
0.076
0.904
Valid
X1.4_Informing
3.766
0.049
0.239
0.406
0.850
Valid
X1.5_Showing Concern
3.082
0.062
0.324
0.373
0.819
Valid
X2.1_Job Redesign
1.469
0.461
5.248
0.000
0.827
Valid
X2.2_Task Delegation
1,835
0.307
2.365
0.009
0.821
Valid
X2.3_Skill Training
1,769
0.317
2,622
0.004
0.779
Valid
X2.4_Career Development
1,636
0.172
1.335
0.091
0.701
Valid
X3.1_Extraversion
1972
0.340
2,929
0.002
0.791
Valid
X3.2_Agreeableness
2.239
-0.094
0.760
0.224
0.687
Valid
X3.3_Conscientious-ness
2.222
0.268
1963
0.025
0.808
Valid
X3.4_Emotional Stability
2.280
0.470
3,653
0.000
0.899
Valid
X3.5_Openness to New
Experience
2,592
0.188
1.234
0.109
0.832
Valid
3. Inner (Structural) Model Evaluation
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July 2022
1.392 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Based on the evaluation of collinearity, it was found that the values of inner VIF
are < 5, as shown in Table 6, which means that the correlation between constructs (latent
variable) is not high. Thus, it is proven that there is no collinearity in the inner model
under study.
Table 1. Inner VIF
Y_ Employee Engagement
X1_ Empowering Leadership
1,448
X2_ Employee Development
1,629
X3_ Personality Traits
1.256
Referring to Table 7, all exogenous variables significantly affect employee
engagement (p value < 0.05 and T-Statistic > 1.96) with a positive influence.
Table 2. Path Coefficient Evaluation
Path Relationship
Original
Sample (O)
T Statistics
(|O/STDEV|)
P Values
X1_Empowering Leadership ->
Y_Employee Engagement
0.231
4.448
0.000
X2_Employee Development ->
Y_Employee Engagement
0.241
4.105
0.000
X3_Personality Traits ->
Y_Employee Engagement
0.362
7.297
0.000
Calculation of statistical data shows the value of R
2
= 0.433 with Adjusted R
2
=
0.428. It represents the total variance of employee engagement variables that can be
explained by all variables, namely empowering leadership (X1), employee development
(X2), and personality traits (X3), simultaneously is 0.428 or 42.8%. It means that the
three exogenous variables influence 42.8% of changes in employee engagement, and
57.2% are influenced by other variables not discussed in this research model. Referring to
the reference R
2
by
Chin (1998), the predictive accuracy level of the structural model of
this study is categorized as moderate (> 0.33), where the effect of exogenous variables on
the endogenous variable is as described in Table 8.
Table 8. Effect Size (f
2
) Evaluation
Variable
Y_Employee
Engagement
Effect Size
X1_Empowering Leadership
0.065
Small
X2_Employee Development
0.063
Small
X3_Personality Traits
0.183
Moderate
Since this measurement model is formative, the blindfolding procedure to measure
cross-validated redundancy (Q
2
) was not applied (Henseler et al., 2009). Evaluation of the
model fit shows that the SRMR (estimated model) value has met the requirements (<
0.08), in fact indicating an acceptable fit because the SRMR value is 0.030 (< 0.05). In
addition, the value of the NFI (Normed Fit Index) has also met the requirements = 0.969
(> 0.90). Thus, it can be concluded that the structural model and data are fit to test the
effect of the variables studied. The results of the evaluation of the fit model are as
presented in the following table:
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui
The Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and Personality Traits
on Employee Engagement PTA 1.393
Table 3. Fit Model Evaluation
Saturated Model
Estimated Model
SRMR
0.030
0.030
d_ULS
0.141
0.141
d_G
0.092
0.092
Chi-Square
106.364
106.364
NFI
0.969
0.969
4. Hypothesis Testing
Table 4. Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis
Path Relationship
Original
Sample
(O)
Standard
Deviation
(STDEV)
T Statistics
(|O/STDEV|)
P
Values
Decision
H1
X1_Empowering
Leadership ->
Y_Employee
Engagement
0.231
0.052
4.448
0.000
Accepted
H2
X2_Employee
Development ->
Y_Employee
Engagement
0.241
0.059
4.105
0.000
Accepted
H3
X3_Personality
Traits ->
Y_Employee
Engagement
0.362
0.050
7.297
0.000
Accepted
In this study, three hypotheses will be tested through the analysis of data
processing, as described below:
a. Empowering leadership (X
1
) positively and significantly affects employee
engagement (Y).
The first hypothesis formulated is H0 : There is a negative effect of Empowering
Leadership (X
1
) on Employee Engagement (Y) and H1 : There is a positive influence
of Empowering Leadership (X
1
) on Employee Engagement (Y).
Statistically, the hypothesis is written as follows:
H 0 : y 1 ≤ 0
H 1 : y 1 > 0
Referring to Table 10, the p value = 0.000, significant (< 0.05) and T-Statistic is
4,448 (> 1.96) so H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. The magnitude of the effect is
+0.231. From the results, it can be concluded that Empowering Leadership (X
1
)
positively and significantly affects Employee Engagement (Y).
b. Employee development (X
2
) positively and significantly affects employee
engagement (Y).
The second hypothesis formulated is H0 : There is a negative effect of Employee
Development (X
2
) on Employee Engagement (Y) and H1 : There is a positive
influence of Employee Development (X
2
) on Employee Engagement (Y).
Statistically, the hypothesis is written as follows:
H 0 : y2 ≤ 0
H1 : y2 > 0
Referring to Table 10, the p value = 0.000, significant (< 0.05) and T-Statistic is
4.105 (> 1.96), so H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. The magnitude of the effect is
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July 2022
1.394 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
+0.241. From the results, it can be concluded that Employee Development (X
2
)
positively and significantly affects Employee Engagement (Y).
c. Personality traits (X
3
) positively and significantly affects employee engagement (Y).
The third hypothesis formulated is H0 : There is a negative influence of Personality
Traits (X
3
) on Employee Engagement (Y) and H1 : There is a positive influence of
Personality Traits (X
3
) on Employee Engagement (Y).
Statistically, the hypothesis is written as follows:
H 0 : y3 ≤ 0
H 1 : y 3 > 0
Referring to Table 10, the p value = 0.000, significant (< 0.05) and T-Statistic is
7,297 (> 1.96), so H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. The magnitude of the effect is
+0.362. From the results, it can be concluded that Personality Traits (X3) positively
and significantly affects Employee Engagement (Y).
B. Discussion
This study aimed to examine the impact of empowering leadership, employee
development and personality traits on employee engagement at PTA. The data processing
found that the total variance of the employee engagement variable explained
simultaneously by exogenous variables was 0.428. Therefore, these three factors have
42.8% influence on changes in employee engagement, while the other 57.2% were
influenced by other factors not examined in this research model. Therefore, all of H0 was
rejected and H1 was accepted. It proved a positive effect of the three exogenous variables
on the endogenous variable of the study.
Empowering leadership is proven significantly and positively affect employee
engagement with path coefficients +0.225. It means that the better empowering
leadership is applied, the higher employee engagement will be achieved in the company.
This finding is in line with the results of research by Alotaibi et al. (2020), who found
employees who felt empowered by their superiors would be motivated to be more
engaged with their work and company. The same finding was found in the research of
Qatrunnada and Parahyanti (2019). Empowering leaders’ behavior, such as: working
harder than a team member, coaching teams to be self-reliant, encouraging high-
performing teams by showing confidence in their competence providing opportunities to
participate in decision making, sharing new information, showing concern, and
interacting with teams can increase employee psychological empowerment, which in turn
increases their employee engagement. Employees who are empowered dare to take
responsibility. They also actively find solutions without always asking for superiors’
approval, work without supervision and always look for learning opportunities to develop
their capabilities (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2013). In other words, they are more cognitively,
emotionally and physically involved with their work.
Employee development, including job redesign, task delegation, skill training or
career development, was also found significantly and positively affect employee
engagement with path coefficients +0.241. It means that the better employee development
efforts are carried out, the more employee engagement in the company will increase. It is
in line with the findings (Elnaga & Imran, 2013) that training makes employees
understand the importance of their work role in the company. It also makes them feel
more valued and supported, so that they will increase their engagement with work and the
company. While in the study by Kim et al. (2014), job rotation can increase employee
engagement and reduce burnout. The results of this study strengthen the views of
Evelina Debora Damanik, Moch. Asmawi, IGK Agung Ulupui
The Effect of Empowering Leadership, Employee Development, and Personality Traits
on Employee Engagement PTA 1.395
Schaufeli and Salanova (2008), which explain that training in the company will increase
efficacy belief or self-confidence that employees can demonstrate behaviors that are
relevant to their work, which in turn affects employee engagement with their work. In
addition, they also argue that by doing a work redesign, employees have the opportunity
to be rotated and experience changes in position that make them more challenged and
more motivated to work, stimulating professionalism development and providing learning
opportunities for employees. Meanwhile, through career planning and development,
employees have the chance to be placed in assignments that allow them to learn and
develop professionally and personally. This condition keeps employees engaged with
their work and the company.
Furthermore, personality traits were also found to have a significant positive effect
on employee engagement with path coefficients +0.362, where emotional stability (outer
weights = 0.470) and extraversion (outer weights = 0.340) became the dominant traits
affecting employee engagement. It is in line with the findings of Inceoglu and Warr
(2011) in their research which found emotional stability and extraversion as predictors of
job engagement. Likewise, Langelaan et al. (2006) found that engaged employees tend to
have high positive and low negative emotions compared to burnout employees.
CONCLUSION
Based on data processing and discussion, it concluded that the empowering
leadership, employee development and personality traits have a positive and significant
effect on employee engagement at PTA. Thus, the empowerment of superiors, especially
involving team members in decision making necessary to be developed by leaders in the
company because by actively participating in work-related decision making, employees
are more engaged in their work. Likewise, employee development activities through job
redesign, task delegation and skill training need to be improved so that employees can be
more engaged in their work. Furthermore, considering that employees who have strong
personality attributes, especially extraversion and emotional stability, are found to be
more engaged at work, in the selection process for new employees at PTA, it is necessary
to consider more about accepting candidates who have an extraversion personality profile
and high emotional stability.
REFERENCES
Chin, Wyne W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach to Structural Equation
Modeling. In George A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research
(pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crocetta, Corrado, Antonucci, Laura, Cataldo, Rosanna, Galasso, Roberto, Grassia, Maria
Gabriella, Lauro, Carlo Natale, & Marino, Marina. (2021). Higher-order PLS-PM
approach for different types of constructs. Social Indicators Research, 154(2), 725–
754.
Dusek, Gary, Yurova, Yuilya, & Ruppel, Cynthia P. (2015). Using social media and
targeted snowball sampling to survey a hard-to-reach population: A case study.
International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 279.
Elnaga, Amir, & Imran, Amen. (2013). The effect of training on employee performance.
European Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 137–147.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 7, July 2022
1.396 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Hendri, Muhammad Irfani. (2019). The mediation effect of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment on the organizational learning effect of the employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Henseler, J., Ringle, Christian M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least
squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International
Marketing, 20, 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Josefsson, Kim, Jokela, Markus, Cloninger, C. Robert, Hintsanen, Mirka, Salo, Johanna,
Hintsa, Taina, Pulkki-Råback, Laura, & Keltikangas-Järvinen, Liisa. (2013).
Maturity and change in personality: developmental trends of temperament and
character in adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 25(3), 713–727.
Kunnanatt, James Thomas. (2016). 3D leadership–Strategy-linked leadership framework
for managing teams. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 11(3), 30–
55.
Langford, Peter H., Dougall, Cameron B., & Parkes, Louise P. (2017). Measuring leader
behaviour: evidence for a “big five” model of leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 126–144.
Purce, John. (2014). The impact of corporate strategy on human resource management.
New Perspectives on Human Resource Management (Routledge Revivals), 67.
Qatrunnada, Rizqi Zulfa, & Parahyanti, Endang. (2019). Empowering leadership and
work engagement: The role of psychological empowerment as a mediator. 2nd
International Conference on Intervention and Applied Psychology (ICIAP 2018),
954–964. Atlantis Press.
Rothwell, William J., Jackson, Robert D., Ressler, Cami L., Jones, Maureen Connelly, &
Brower, Meg. (2015). Career planning and succession management: Developing
your organization’s talent—for today and tomorrow: Developing your
organization’s talent—for today and tomorrow. ABC-CLIO.
Saks, Alan M., & Gruman, Jamie A. (2014). What do we really know about employee
engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.
Schaufeli, Wilmar B. (2017). Applying the job demands-resources model. Organizational
Dynamics, 2(46), 120–132.
Wong, Ken Kwong Kay. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32.