How and when does follower’s strengths-based leadership contribute to follower work engagement? The roles of strengths use and core self-evaluation

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the relationship of follower’s strengths-based leadership (FSBL) with follower work engagement. Additionally, this study also examined the mediational effect of employee strengths use and the moderating effect of core self-evaluation (CSE) on the relationship between FSBL and follower work engagement. Data were garnered at two points in time with a time lag of 2 months. Moderated-mediation path analysis with a total of 238 employees working in a research and design institute in Beijing was deployed to examine our hypotheses. As hypothesized, FSBL was a statistically significant predictor of work engagement, and strengths use acted as a mediator in the FSBL-work engagement relationship. In addition, we also found that CSE significantly and negatively moderates the direct effect of FSBL on strengths use and the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement through strengths use. This study advances the FSBL theory and research and provides a new insight into the driving force of work engagement.

Keywords

Core self-evaluation follower’s strengths-based leadership path analysis strengths use work engagement

Introduction

In recent two decades, strengths-based approach has increasingly garnered more attention from scholars in the domain of human resource and organizational behavior (van Woerkom et al., 2016b) in that it has been suggested to be closely correlated with sustainable performance (Bouskila-Yam and Kluger, 2011; Van Woerkom and De Bruijn, 2016; Van Woerkom and Meyers, 2015). Given the importance of leadership for facilitating performance of employees and organizations (Ceri-Booms et al., 2017), follower’s strengths-based leadership (FSBL) as a crucial construct of strengths-based approach has triggered scholars’ interest (Rath and Conchie, 2008).

FSBL refers to the behaviors that leaders execute to promote followers’ strengths identification, development, and deployment (Ding and Yu, 2020). Its basic assumption is that the greatest area of individual’s growth and development is the area of individual’s strengths (Van Woerkom et al., 2016b). Previous research has shown that FSBL can lead followers to experience higher levels of well-being or other positive outcomes such as innovative behavior, organizational citizenship behavior and task performance (Burkus, 2011; Ding and Yu, 2020; Rath and Conchie, 2008). Yet, we have limited knowledge on the relationship between FSBL and work engagement. As work engagement is of great importance to improvement in performance (Bakker and Bal, 2010; Carter et al., 2018), it is essential to investigate the FSBL-work engagement linkage. Therefore, the first purpose of this study is to test this relationship.

In essence, FSBL influences followers primarily by promoting followers’ strengths use (Ding et al., 2020b). FSBL differs from followers’ strengths use, the former obviously focuses on the use of strengths by the leader and the latter one on the use of strengths by the follower, specifically the initiative to use their strengths. FSBL has been found to relate positively to follower strengths use (Ding and Yu, 2021), and strengths use might be the proximal predictor of individuals’ outcomes such as work engagement (van Woerkom et al., 2016c). Accordingly, the present study introduces strengths use as a mediator in the FSBL and work engagement relation. As such, the second purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of follower strengths use in the relationship between FSBL and work engagement.

In addition, core self-evaluation (CSE) as a higher-order personality trait was demonstrated to mitigate the positive effect of FSBL on employees’ outcome as CSE can substitute for FSBL in promoting positive outcome such as follower innovative behavior (Ding and Yu, 2020). In a similar vein, CSE might lessen the direct effect of FSBL on strengths use and the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement through strengths use. Hence, the third purpose of the present study is to examine the moderating role of CSE in the relationship between FSBL, follower strengths use, and work engagement.

This study aims to make three aspects of contributions. First, this study provides a piece of robust evidence for the effect of FSBL and a new insight into the driving force of work engagement by examining the effect of FSBL on work engagement. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the FSBL-work engagement linkage. Second, by investigating the mediational role of strengths use in the FSBL-work engagement link, this study contributes to a better understanding of how FSBL promotes work engagement. Essentially, in terms of FSBL theory, stimulating follower to capitalize on his/her strengths at work is the primary pathway through which FSBL brings about various outcomes (Ding and Yu, 2020) such as work engagement, but this proposition has not received empirical support. Third, by testing the moderating effect of CSE, this study contributes to revealing that when FSBL has stronger effect on strengths use and when the mediational effect of strengths use on the FSBL and work engagement relation is stronger.

The proposed conceptual model was depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The proposed conceptual model.

Theory and hypotheses

FSBL and work engagement

Work engagement has been defined “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Employees who have a high level of work engagement tend to experience higher levels of energy, enthusiasm, significance, and mental resilience, are more likely to persist when they face difficulties, can be fully involved in one’s work, always have the feeling of time passing quickly, and fail to detach themselves from work (Seppälä et al., 2009). A large majority of research has found that work engagement plays an important role in boosting commitment to organization (Yalabik et al., 2015), employees’ life satisfaction (Meynhardt et al., 2020), innovation (Bhatnagar, 2012), proactive behavior (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008), and performance (Bakker and Bal, 2010). Given the great importance of work engagement to employees’ positive outcomes, it becomes quite important to investigate the antecedents to work engagement.

Particularly, leadership style as one of crucial driving forces of work engagement has received considerable attention (Xu and Cooper Thomas, 2011). Previous research has suggested that authentic leadership (Hsieh and Wang, 2015), charismatic leadership (Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010), servant leadership (De Clercq et al., 2014), and empowering leadership (Tuckey et al., 2012) contributes to work engagement. However, the association of FSBL, a relatively new and critical leadership construct, with work engagement has yet to receive due appreciation.

The present study assumes FSBL to lead to an improvement in work engagement. From theoretical perspective, three aspects of reasons can be utilized to shed light on this phenomenon. First, when leaders provide opportunity to identify and develop strengths for followers and encourage followers to use their own strengths at work, followers will experience higher levels of support from leader, which in turn leads to an increase in work engagement (Swanberg et al., 2011). This notion is consistent with supervisor support theory suggesting the positive correlation of supervisor support with work engagement (Biggs et al., 2014). Second, employees who follow leaders appreciating their strengths are more likely to have higher levels of psychological capital, creativity (Wang et al., 2018), and proactivity (Chen et al., 2018). Such positive experiences induced by FSBL contribute to enhanced work engagement (Choi et al., 2015; Dikkers et al., 2010; Paek et al., 2015). Third, prior research has indicated that FSBL is positively related to employee well-being (Ding and Yu, 2020) and work engagement is an important component of employee well-being (Narainsamy and Van der Westhuizen, 2013). As such, it is feasible to believe that FSBL can predict work engagement. From practical perspective, Rath and Conchie (2008) also pointed out that FSBL can bring about an improvement in employees’ work engagement. Collectively, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 1: FSBL has a positive influence on work engagement.

The mediating effect of strengths use

Strengths use as the core construct of strengths theory was defined as “the initiative that employees may take to use their strengths at work” (Van Woerkom et al., 2016b: 962). When employees deploy their strengths at work, they are more confident in successfully accomplishing work tasks (van Woerkom et al., 2016c) and are more likely to achieve greater work performance (Dubreuil et al., 2014). Additionally, employees high in strengths use can experience higher levels of satisfaction, are more willing to help colleagues (Lavy and Littman-Ovadia, 2017), tend to craft their job (Ding et al., 2020a), and can experience lower levels of stress and negative affect (Wood et al., 2011).

Strengths use differs from strengths knowledge (Govindji and Linley, 2007). More specifically, possessing strengths is a prerequisite of strengths use, whereas strengths use is the direct way to achieve positive outcomes (Zhang and Chen, 2018). That is, if employee’s strengths cannot be used in work settings, it is difficult to yield the due effect. For example, when an individual has strong curiosity, but never applies to this strength, he/she is unlikely to benefit more from the curiosity strength in terms of work-related positive outcomes. Conversely, when the individual makes the most of this curiosity strength, he/she is likely to show more innovative behaviors, thereby gaining more benefits. Although previous empirical studies have demonstrated that both strengths knowledge and strengths use are significantly and positively related to individual well-being, they have a clear difference in predicting well-being.

A great deal of research has demonstrated the positive effect of strengths use on work engagement. In a weekly diary study conducted by van Woerkom et al. (2016c), they found that weekly strengths use could promote weekly work engagement through the mediating mechanism of weekly self-efficacy. In a cross-sectional research design, Stander et al. (2014) revealed the positive association of strengths use with work engagement. In addition, Botha and Mostert (2014) also found that strengths use positively relates to work engagement by structural equation modeling analysis. This positive relationship between strengths use and work engagement can be explained by job demands-resources theory (Botha and Mostert, 2014; Stander et al., 2014; Van Woerkom et al., 2016c). Specifically, strengths use which can be regarded as personal resource offers employees necessary condition for exhibiting higher levels of work engagement (Bakker and Van Woerkom, 2018).

To optimize the function of strengths use, scholars have attempted to investigate how to facilitate employees to leverage their strengths at work. For example, CSE has been found to predict strengths use through its influence on emotion (Ding and Lin, 2020). Kong and Ho (2016) demonstrated that supervisor’s autonomy support and independent self-construal of employee have significant positive effect on strengths use. In addition, organizational support for strengths use is also a crucial precursor of strengths use (Van Woerkom et al., 2016c).

From the FSBL theory’s perspective, FSBL will positively affect employees’ outcomes through its impact on strengths use. According to the definition of FSBL, leaders focusing followers’ strengths can promote followers’ positive subjective experience by helping them identify, develop, and use their strengths at work (Ding and Yu, 2020). Since strengths use is the ultimate purpose of strengths intervention compared to strengths identification and development, it will be the core path through which FSBL influences employees’ outcomes. The argument can be explicated by the fact that when leaders provide support for followers’ strengths identification, development, and deployment, followers are more likely to execute higher levels of strengths use (Van Woerkom et al., 2016c), which in turn will lead to an increase in work engagement by triggering followers’ motivation process (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Thus, based on the above outlined rationale and empirical findings, we formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Strengths use mediates the effect of FSBL on work engagement.

The moderating effect of CSE

CSE refers to “the fundamental appraisals individuals make about their self-worth and capabilities” (Chang et al., 2012), it is a higher-order construct composed of four dimensions, namely, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control (Bono and Judge, 2003). A vast majority of studies have indicated that CSE can result in a wide variety of outcomes including work success (Judge, 2009), stronger task motivation (Erez and Judge, 2001), higher levels of job and life satisfaction (Judge et al., 2005), positive voice behavior (Aryee et al., 2017), higher salary attainment (Cheung et al., 2016), decreased job burnout (Peng et al., 2016), lower levels of turnover intentions (Vîrga et al., 2017), emotional exhaustion (Anand and Mishra, 2021), and counterproductive work behavior (Debusscher et al., 2016).

In addition to research on the effects of CSE, investigating the moderating effect of CSE has increasingly received scholarly attention. For example, Hu et al. (2021) found that CSE positively moderates the relationship between mentorship quality and personal skill development. More importantly, CSE have been confirmed to act as a vital substitute for leadership (Nübold et al., 2013). According to substitute for leadership theory, subordinates’ characteristics such as ability, experience, and knowledge can substitute for relationship- or task-oriented leadership (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). A considerable body of research have provided support for this notion (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012; Howell et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). For example, followers’ CSE can decrease the influence of transformational leadership on followers’ performance, that is, the positive relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance is more positive when followers’ CSE is low rather than high (Nübold et al., 2013).

In the present study, we anticipate that CSE will lessen the impact FSBL has in terms of improved strengths use. This prediction is consistent with substitute for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). Specifically, when employees have a high level of CSE, they tend to express lower levels of sensitivity to FSBL behaviors; on the contrary, employees scoring low on CSE will be more sensitive to FSBL (Ding and Yu, 2020). CSE has been revealed to positively predict strengths use (Ding and Lin, 2019, 2020), which will lead followers to benefit less from FSBL in terms of enhanced strengths use. A recent empirical study of Ding and Yu (2020) confirmed the substitute of CSE for FSBL in improving psychological well-being. In sum, based on the above arguments, it is reasonable to expect that CSE will mitigate the positive effect of FSBL on strengths use. Therefore, the following hypothesis was obtained:

Hypothesis 3: CSE moderates the effect of FSBL on strengths use in such a way that the relationship is more positive for employees with low CSE than for employees with higher CSE.

The previous claims represented an integrative framework in which strengths use mediates the linkage between FSBL and work engagement and the positive effect of FSBL on strengths use is contingent on CSE. Building on this, we proposed the moderated mediation model, namely, CSE also moderates the mediational effect of strengths use on the influence of FSBL on work engagement. Thus, we postulated:

Hypothesis 4. CSE moderates the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement via strengths use such that the indirect effect is more positive when CSE is low than high.

Methods

Sample and data collection

The current study is part of a large project regarding research on the effects of FSBL on employee work-related outcomes. A convenience sample of 423 employees working in a research and design institute in Beijing was recruited for the current study. Self-administrated questionnaires were used to gather data at two points in time, spaced by a 2-month interval. After obtained consent from participants and this organization, we asked participants to complete online questionnaires and promised that all information obtained would be treated as strictly confidential. At Time 1, we asked participants to complete questionnaire involving demographic variables, FSBL scale, CSE scale and strengths use scale. About 336 participants responded to the questionnaire (79.43% response rate). After 2 months, the 336 participants were asked to complete work engagement scale (Time 2). About 254 participants responded to the second phase survey (75.60% response rate). Ultimately, 238 valid paired sample data were received. Of the 238 samples, 54.20% were male, 96.20% had a bachelor’s degree or above, and 68.90% had been employed for >7 years. Besides, the average age was 35.76 years (SD = 7.11).

Measures

All focal variables were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

FSBL

FSBL was measured with Ding and Yu’s (2020) five-item FSBL scale. An example item was “My leader provides me with the opportunity to let me know what I am good at.” Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.92.

CSE

CSE was rated using Judge et al.’s (2003) 12-item scale. An example item was “When I try, I generally succeed.” Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.83.

Strengths use

We adopted five items of Strengths Use and Deficit Correction (SUDCO) questionnaire developed by van Woerkom et al. (2016b) to evaluate strengths use. An example item was “In my job, I try to apply my talents as much as possible.” Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.93.

Work engagement

We measured work engagement using nine-item version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). An example item was “I am enthusiastic about my job.” Cronbach’s α of UWES was 0.96.

Control variables

In line with previous research (Inceoglu and Warr, 2011), age, gender, and education level were regarded as control variables. Participants were asked to indicate their age in years. Gender was coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. Education level was coded as 1 = College Graduated, 2 = bachelor’s degree, 3 = master’s degree, and 4 = doctor’s degree. We examined the proposed research model both with and without these control variables (Becker, 2005), which showed that control variables do not alter results of the current study. To offer a conservative estimate of our results (Koopman et al., 2019), control variables were retained in our research model.

Discriminant validity

To examine the discriminant validity between FSBL, CSE, strengths use, and work engagement, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Four-factor measurement model was viewed as baseline model. Since item parcels could make models become more parsimonious, enable parameter estimates to be more efficient, and effectively control for inflated measurement errors originated from multiple items for the latent variable (Nasser-Abu Alhija and Wisenbaker, 2006; Schmitt et al., 2016), we used item parcels to define the constructs of work engagement and core self-evaluation. Consistent with work of Leroy et al. (2013), we created three item parcels for work engagement according to its three dimensions, namely, vigor, dedication, and absorption. In line with work of Yan et al. (2018), we created three item parcels for core self-evaluation. Analytical results showed that four-factor measurement model exhibits the best fit to the data compared to alternative models. Table 1 presented the results of comparison of measurement model.

Table 1.

Results of CFAs: comparison of measurement models.

Models	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	IFI	Δχ² (Δdf)
Baseline model	223.81	98	2.28	0.07	0.96	0.95	0.96	—
Three-factor model^a	745.53	101	7.38	0.16	0.79	0.75	0.79	521.72*** (3)
Two-factor model^b	960.51	103	9.33	0.19	0.72	0.67	0.72	736.70*** (5)
One factor model^c	1437.47	104	13.82	0.23	0.57	0.50	0.57	1213.66*** (6)

FSBL: follower’s strengths-based leadership; CSE: core self-evaluation.

FSBL and strengths use combined into one factor.

FSBL, CSE, and strengths use combined into one factor.

All combined into one factor.

***

p < 0.001.

Common method variance (CMV) testing

Although the current study adopted two-wave research design to gather data, self-report survey might result in serious CMV. A single unmeasured latent method factor method was employed to test the degree of CMV of the current research data (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The common method factor was loaded on all indices of four-factor measurement model. Results indicated that the measurement model including the common method factor (χ² = 162.87, df = 97, χ²/df = 1.68, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, IFI = 0.98) reported a better fit to the data than four-factor measurement model. However, only 21.72% of variance were interpreted by the common method factor, <25.00% (Williams et al., 1989). Thus, in the current study, there does not exist serious CMV.

Results

Descriptive analysis results

The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations between research variables were reported in Table 2. As can be seen in Table 2, FSBL is positively related to CSE (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), strengths use (r = 0.63, p < 0.01), and work engagement (r = 0.45, p < 0.01). Strengths use is positively related to work engagement (r = 0.43, p < 0.01). Results of correlational analysis provided preliminary evidence for our hypotheses.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Gender	1.46	0.50	—
2. Age	35.76	7.11	−0.09	—
3. Education	3.41	0.65	−0.16**	0.04	—
4. FSBL	3.84	0.76	−0.02	−0.05	−0.17**	—
5. CSE	3.43	0.53	−0.12	0.01	−0.04	0.37**	—
6. Strengths use	4.05	0.63	−0.20**	0.04	−0.07	0.63**	0.51**	—
7. Work engagement	3.66	0.71	−0.19**	0.07	−0.02	0.45**	0.41**	0.43**

FSBL: follower’s strengths-based leadership; CSE: core self-evaluation.

p < 0.01, two-tailed.

Hypotheses testing results

Moderated-mediation path model based on Hayes’ Process Model 7 was carried out in AMOS 23.0 to test our hypotheses. Indirect effects were evaluated using bootstrapping analysis with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) based on 2000 iterations. Figure 2 displayed the standardized paths coefficients. The proposed path model showed a good fit to the data (χ² = 38.73, df = 16, χ²/df = 2.42, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.93), interpreting 26.30% of variance in work engagement and 48.70% of variance in strengths use. As predicted, FSBL had a positive effect on work engagement (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), Hypothesis 1 received support. The standardized indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement via strengths use was 0.10, CI [0.02, 0.20], which was supportive of Hypothesis 2.

Figure 2.

Results of the moderated mediation path model analysis.

Hypothesis 3 postulated that CSE moderates the effect of FSBL on strengths use. Consistent with this hypothesis, the standardized coefficient of the interaction for FSBL and CSE was −0.12, p < 0.05. To further explain the significant interaction effect, the impact of FSBL on strengths use at high and low levels of CSE was depicted in Figure 3. The effect of FSBL on strengths use was 0.29 (p < 0.01, CI [0.11, 0.47]) at a low level of CSE; the effect of FSBL on strengths use was 0.16 (p > 0.05, CI [−0.04, 0.38]) at a high level of CSE. Accordingly, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Hypothesis 4 assumed that CSE moderates the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement through strengths use. The moderated mediation effect was −0.02, p < 0.05, 95% CI [−0.04, −0.001]. Further, the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement via strengths use was .09 (p < 0.05, CI [0.04, 0.16]) at a low level of CSE; the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement via strengths use was 0.05 (p > 0.05, CI [−0.01, 0.13]) at a high level of CSE. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 received support.

Figure 3.

The interaction plot of FSBL and CSE on strengths use.

Discussion

This study of 238 Chinese employees working in various enterprises investigated the relationship between FSBL and work engagement and the mediating role of strengths use and the moderating role of CSE in the relationship. As predicted, all hypotheses received support in anticipated directions. First, our findings showed a positive effect of FSBL on work engagement. The result is similar to previous research suggesting that perceived organizational support for strengths use (POSSU) is positively related to work engagement (Meyers et al., 2020; van Woerkom et al., 2016c) in that FSBL and POSSU are important job resources of employees (Ding and Yu, 2020; van Woerkom et al., 2016a). The phenomenon can be elucidated by JD-R theory demonstrating that job resources can ignite motivational process of employees, thereby leading to an increase in work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Given that FSBL is a relatively new leadership construct, to date, little is known about whether FSBL can positively boost employees’ work engagement. Therefore, the present study not only extends our knowledge on the effect of FSBL, but also provides a new insight into antecedents to work engagement.

Second, the present study found the significant mediating effect of strengths use on the relationship between FSBL and work engagement. This finding is consistent with FSBL theory suggesting that leaders focusing on followers’ strengths facilitate followers’ positive outcomes mainly through the mediational mechanism of strengths use (Ding and Yu, 2020). In addition, this finding is also line with previous research indicating that when employees receive higher levels of support for strengths use, the level of their strengths use will be enhanced, which in turn results in an improvement in work engagement (Van Woerkom et al., 2016c). Similarly, JD-R theory provides a crucial theoretical foundation for the result (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Specifically, when leaders promote followers to identify, develop, and capitalize on their strengths use, followers will experience a high level of resources support for strengths use, which in turn will motivate followers to use their strengths at work. Such enhanced strengths use will further lead to higher work engagement. Therefore, the present study contributes to better understanding of how FSBL predicts work engagement by investigating the mediational effect of strengths use. Besides, this study also provides a piece of empirical evidence for FSBL theory.

Third, our results suggested that followers can benefit more from FSBL in terms of increased strengths use when CSE is low rather than high. This finding dovetails with study of Ding and Yu (2020) revealing the negative moderating role of CSE in the relationship between FSBL and psychological well-being. Substitute for leadership theory can be applied to shed light on the argument (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). When follower’s CSE is high, they have a low level of sensitivity to FSBL (Ding and Yu, 2020). As a result, the positive influence of FSBL on strengths use will be lowered. In other words, CSE as a vital personal personality trait substitutes FSBL in boosting strengths use. More importantly, our study also revealed that CSE negatively moderates the mediational effect of strengths use on the FSBL and work engagement relation. In a similar vein, this finding can be understood in the light of substitute for leadership theory. Taken together, the present study contributes to our understanding of the boundary condition under which FSBL affects work engagement via strengths use.

Managerial suggestions

Practical implications of the present study are threefold. First, since FSBL has a significant positive effect on followers’ work engagement, the employer organizations should promote employees with higher levels of characteristics of FSBL to the leadership positions. To this end, the employer organizations can assess the candidates of leadership positions by FSBL scale used in the present study. Second, this study revealed the mediational effect of strengths use on the FSBL-work engagement linkage. That means that improving deployment of strengths of employees is also an important pathway to motivate employees to engage in work. In addition to FSBL, organizational support for strengths use has been demonstrated to positively relate to strengths use (Meyers et al., 2020; Van Woerkom et al., 2016c). Therefore, the employer organizations can develop and implement strengths-based human resource management practices to cultivate employees’ perception of organizational support for strengths use (van Woerkom and Meyers, 2015), thereby improving employees’ strengths use. Third, the present study found that CSE can lessen the positive effect of FSBL on work engagement via strengths use. That implicitly means that leaders should treat employees low in CSE with more strengths intervention rather than employees high in CSE, because employees with a low level of CSE are more sensitive to FSBL and tend to benefit more from FSBL, whereas employees with a high level of CSE have lower levels of sensitivity to FSBL.

Limitations and directions for future research

The present study is not without its limitations. First, this study utilized self-report questionnaires to collect data. Although test of CMV showed that there was no serious CMV in the current study, it is essential to collect research data from different sources to improve the robustness of our results in the future research. Second, a cross-sectional research design was applied in the current study, which inhibits causal inferences of the current study. Future research should adopt experimental design or cross-lagged research design to further test our results. Third, the present study examined the proposed hypotheses using a sample of Chinese employees, which limits the cross-cultural applicability of our findings in that employees working in different culture might have different perceptions of leadership (Ding and Lin, 2020). Therefore, future research should conduct this study in different culture to replicate our findings. Fourth, according to substitute for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978), characteristics of followers, tasks, and organizations are believed to substitute for leadership in promoting positive outcomes. However, the present study only investigated the moderating role of CSE in the effects of FSBL. As such, from the perspective of substitute for leadership, future research should expand research on the effects of FSBL by exploring the moderating role of characteristics of tasks and organizations in the effects of FSBL. For instance, strengths-based psychological climate (Van Woerkom and Meyers, 2015) might mitigate the effects of FSBL, primarily because strengths-based psychological climate and FSBL has similar role in facilitating follower positive attitudes and behaviors such as well-being and strengths use. According to substitute for leadership, when strengths-based psychological climate is high, the positive effects of FSBL might be lowered. Finally, prior research has pointed out that FSBL is similar to other positive leadership constructs such as transformational leadership, humble leadership, and authentic leadership (Ding et al., 2020b). However, this study did not control these leadership constructs. As such, future research should view these positive leadership constructs as control variables to test the incremental predictive validity of FSBL.

Conclusion

With the development of positive psychology, strengths-based approach has increasingly received considerable attention from researchers in the domain of organizational psychology. From the perspective of FSBL, this study investigated the driving force of work engagement. Findings of this study indicated that FSBL has a positive influence on work engagement, and strengths use acts as a mediator in the relationship between FSBL and work engagement. In addition, CSE was found to negatively moderate the direct effect of FSBL on strengths use and the indirect effect of FSBL on work engagement via strengths use. The present study advances the FSBL theory and research and provides a new insight into the driving force of work engagement. Future research should further investigate other mechanisms of the relationship between FSBL and work engagement.

Supplemental Material

sj-sav-1-gjh-10.1177_23970022211053284 – Supplemental material for How and when does follower strengths-based leadership contribute to follower work engagement? The roles of strengths use and core self-evaluation

Supplemental material, sj-sav-1-gjh-10.1177_23970022211053284 for How and when does follower strengths-based leadership contribute to follower work engagement? The roles of strengths use and core self-evaluation by He Ding and Enhai Yu in German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the employees who participated in this study.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2020MS046).”

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from HD (believedh@126.com), upon reasonable request.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the North China Electric Power University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID iD

He Ding

References

Anand

Mishra

(2021) Linking core self-evaluation and emotional exhaustion with workplace loneliness: Does high LMX make the consequence worse? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 32(10): 2124–2149.

Aryee

Walumbwa

Mondejar

, et al. (2017) Core self-evaluations and employee voice behavior: Test of a dual-motivational pathway. Journal of Management 43(3): 946–966.

Babcock-Roberson

Strickland

(2010) The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Psychology 144(3): 313–326.

Bakker

Bal

(2010) Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(1): 189–206.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2017) Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(3): 273–285.

Bakker

Van Woerkom

(2018) Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. The Canadian Psychologist 59(1): 38–46.

Becker

(2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods 8(3): 274–289.

Bhatnagar

(2012) Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(5): 928–951.

Biggs

Brough

Barbour

(2014) Strategic alignment with organizational priorities and work engagement: A multi-wave analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(3): 301–317.

10.

Bono

Judge

(2003) Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality 17(1 Suppl): S5–S18.

11.

Botha

Mostert

(2014) A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 40(1): 1–11.

12.

Bouskila-Yam

Kluger

(2011) Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Human Resource Management Review 21(2): 137–147.

13.

Burkus

(2011) Building the strong organization: Exploring the role of organizational design in strengths-based leadership. Journal of Strategic Leadership 3(1): 54–66.

14.

Carter

Nesbit

Badham

, et al. (2018) The effects of employee engagement and self-efficacy on job performance: A longitudinal field study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29(17): 2483–2502.

15.

Ceri-Booms

Curşeu

Oerlemans

LAG

(2017) Task and person-focused leadership behaviors and team performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review 27(1): 178–192.

16.

Chang

Ferris

Johnson

, et al. (2012) Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management 38(1): 81–128.

17.

Chen

Liu

Zhang

, et al. (2018) Can leader “humility” spark employee “proactivity”? The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 39(3): 326–339.

18.

Cheung

Herndon

Dougherty

(2016) Core self-evaluations and salary attainment: The moderating role of the developmental network. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(1): 67–87.

19.

Choi

Tran

TBH

Park

(2015) Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 43(6): 931–943.

20.

Debusscher

Hofmans

De Fruyt

(2016) The effect of state core self-evaluations on task performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, and counterproductive work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(2): 301–315.

21.

De Clercq

Bouckenooghe

Raja

, et al. (2014) Servant leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader–follower social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly 25(2): 183–212.

22.

Den Hartog

Belschak

(2012) When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(1): 194–202.

23.

Dikkers

JSE

Jansen

PGW

De Lange

, et al. (2010) Proactivity, job characteristics, and engagement: A longitudinal study. Career Development International 15(1): 59–77.

24.

Ding

Lin

(2019) Can core self-evaluations promote employee strengths use? Journal of Psychology in Africa 29(6): 576–581.

25.

Ding

Lin

(2020) Exploring the relationship between core self-evaluation and strengths use: The perspective of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences 157: 1–5.

26.

Ding

(2020) Follower strengths-based leadership and follower innovative behavior: The roles of core self-evaluations and psychological well-being. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 36(2): 103–110.

27.

Ding

(2021) Followers’ strengths-based leadership and strengths use of followers: The roles of trait emotional intelligence and role overload. Personality and Individual Differences 168: 1–5.

28.

Ding

Chu

, et al. (2020a) Humble leadership affects organizational citizenship behavior: The sequential mediating effect of strengths use and job crafting. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 65.

29.

Ding

(2020b) Strengths-based leadership and its impact on task performance: A preliminary study. South African Journal of Business Management 51(1): 1–9.

30.

Dubreuil

Forest

Courcy

(2014) From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology 9(4): 335–349.

31.

Erez

Judge

(2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6): 1270–1279.

32.

Govindji

Linley

(2007) Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review 2(2): 143–153.

33.

Howell

Bowen

Dorfman

, et al. (1990) Substitutes for leadership: Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynamics 19(1): 21–38.

34.

Hsieh

Wang

(2015) Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership influence employee work engagement through employee-perceived authentic leadership and employee trust? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(18): 2329–2348.

35.

Wang

Kwan

, et al. (2021) Mentorship quality and mentors’ work-to-family positive spillover: The mediating role of personal skill development and the moderating role of core self-evaluation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 32(9): 1899–1922.

36.

Inceoglu

Warr

(2011) Personality and job engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology 10(4): 177–181.

37.

Judge

(2009) Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(1): 58–62.

38.

Judge

Bono

Erez

, et al. (2005) Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(2): 257–268.

39.

Judge

Erez

Bono

, et al. (2003) The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology 56(2): 303–331.

40.

Kerr

Jermier

(1978) Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22(3): 375–403.

41.

Kong

(2016) A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work: Examining its determinant and performance implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology 11(1): 15–25.

42.

Koopman

Scott

Matta

, et al. (2019) Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 104(9): 1103–1116.

43.

Lavy

Littman-Ovadia

(2017) My better self: Using strengths at work and work productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development 44(2): 95–109.

44.

Leroy

Anseel

Dimitrova

, et al. (2013) Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior 82(3): 238–247.

45.

Meyers

Kooij

Kroon

, et al. (2020) Organizational support for strengths use, work engagement, and contextual performance: The moderating role of age. Applied Research in Quality of Life 15(2): 485–502.

46.

Meynhardt

Brieger

Hermann

(2020) Organizational public value and employee life satisfaction: The mediating roles of work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(12): 1560–1593.

47.

Narainsamy

Van der Westhuizen

(2013) Work related well-being: Burnout, work engagement, occupational stress and job satisfaction within a medical laboratory setting. Journal of Psychology in Africa 23(3): 467–474.

48.

Nasser-Abu Alhija

Wisenbaker

(2006) A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 13(2): 204–228.

49.

Nübold

Muck

Maier

(2013) A new substitute for leadership? Followers’ state core self-evaluations. The Leadership Quarterly 24(1): 29–44.

50.

Paek

Schuckert

Kim

, et al. (2015) Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. International Journal of Hospitality Management 50: 9–26.

51.

Peng

Zhang

, et al. (2016) How can core self-evaluations influence job burnout? The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Health Psychology 21(1): 50–59.

52.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Bommer

(1996) Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(4): 380–399.

53.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

54.

Rath

Conchie

(2008) Strengths-Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

55.

Salanova

Schaufeli

(2008) A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19(1): 116–131.

56.

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

(2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4): 701–716.

57.

Schaufeli

Martinez

Pinto

, et al. (2002) Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(5): 464–481.

58.

Schmitt

Den Hartog

Belschak

(2016) Transformational leadership and proactive work behaviour: A moderated mediation model including work engagement and job strain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 89(3): 588–610.

59.

Seppälä

Mauno

Feldt

, et al. (2009) The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies 10(4): 459–481.

60.

Stander

Mostert

De Beer

(2014) Organisational and individual strengths use as predictors of engagement and productivity. Journal of Psychology in Africa 24(5): 403–409.

61.

Swanberg

McKechnie

Ojha

, et al. (2011) Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? Journal of Vocational Behavior 79(3): 613–624.

62.

Tuckey

Bakker

Dollard

(2012) Empowering leaders optimize working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17(1): 15–27.

63.

Van Woerkom

Bakker

Nishii

(2016a) Accumulative job demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 101(1): 141–150.

64.

Van Woerkom

De Bruijn

(2016) Why performance appraisal does not lead to performance improvement: Excellent performance as a function of uniqueness instead of uniformity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 9(2): 275–281.

65.

Van Woerkom

Meyers

(2015) My strengths count! Effects of a strengths-based psychological climate on positive affect and job performance. Human Resource Management 54(1): 81–103.

66.

Van Woerkom

Mostert

Els

, et al. (2016b) Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(6): 960–975.

67.

Van Woerkom

Oerlemans

Bakker

(2016c) Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(3): 384–397.

68.

Vîrga

De Witte

Cifre

(2017) The role of perceived employability, core self-evaluations, and job resources on health and turnover intentions. The Journal of Psychology 151(7): 632–645.

69.

Wang

Liu

Zhu

(2018) How does humble leadership promote follower creativity? The roles of psychological capital and growth need strength. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 39(4): 507–521.

70.

Williams

Cote

Buckley

(1989) Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology 74(3): 462–468.

71.

Wood

Linley

Maltby

, et al. (2011) Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences 50(1): 15–19.

72.

Cooper Thomas

(2011) How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32(4): 399–416.

73.

Yalabik

Van Rossenberg

Kinnie

, et al. (2015) Engaged and committed? The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(12): 1602–1621.

74.

Yan

Yang

, et al. (2018) Mediating role of emotional intelligence on the associations between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, work engagement as indices of work-related well-being. Current Psychology 37(3): 552–558.

75.

Zhang

Chen

(2018) Character strengths, strengths use, future self-continuity and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1040.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB