Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and employee engagement

Ansong, Abraham; Owusu, Sylvester Ansah; Ansong, Linda Obeng; Andoh, Raphael Papa Kweku Article Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and employee engagement Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Ansong, Abraham; Owusu, Sylvester Ansah; Ansong, Linda Obeng; Andoh, Raphael Papa Kweku (2024) : Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and employee engagement, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2358166 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326300 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and employee engagement Abraham Ansong, Sylvester Ansah Owusu, Linda Obeng Ansong & Raphael Papa Kweku Andoh To cite this article: Abraham Ansong, Sylvester Ansah Owusu, Linda Obeng Ansong & Raphael Papa Kweku Andoh (2024) Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and employee engagement, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2358166, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2358166 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2358166 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 31 May 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2278 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2358166 Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and employee engagement abraham ansonga , sylvester ansah Owusub, linda Obeng ansongc and Raphael Papa Kweku andohd aDepartment of Management studies, university of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, ghana; bDirectorate of Human Resource, university of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, ghana; cDepartment of Physician assistant studies, university of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, ghana; dResearch innovation and Consultancy, university of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, ghana ABSTRACT the study examined leader humility (lh) and organisational citizenship behaviour (OcB) with the mediating roles of job satisfaction (Js) and employee engagement (ee) among employees in a public university in ghana. a cross-sectional research design was used in carrying out the study. the study used stratified sampling to sample 246 respondents and data garnered using a questionnaire while structural equation modelling was utilised in testing the hypotheses. this study demonstrated that lh has a positive and significant relationship with OcB, Js and ee. the results of the study further showed that Js and ee have significant positive link with OcB. Finally, the study established that Js and ee played partial mediation roles in the link between lh and OcB. the results of this study indicate that employees whose supervisors have humble leadership traits tend to be satisfied, engaged and ultimately, are able to exhibit OcB. this implies that humble leaders are assets to their organisations. thus, organisations seeking to have satisfied and engaged employees as well as employees who indulge in OcB should ensure that their supervisors have humble leadership traits. Introduction the majority of workers are aware that their main responsibility is to complete the tasks given to them and produce work that is both acceptable and helpful to the organisation as a whole. OcB is an optional behaviour; that is, a behaviour which is not required as part of an employee’s official work duties. nonetheless, it helps the organisation to function well (Robbins et al., 2013; tashtoush & eyupoglu, 2020). although it supports the efficient operation of the organisation, this type of personal discretionary behaviour is not openly or immediately acknowledged by the formal incentive system (Organ, 2006). People who are consistently willing to go above and beyond their official job duties and invest more time and effort in their work are found in world-class organisations (Kashif et al., 2011). the concept of OcB is explained by social exchange theory in the sense that people feel obliged to reciprocate when they have benefited from an individual or entity’s action (coyle-shapiro et al., 2004; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-lara et al., 2023). according to empirical research, leader-Member exchange (lMX) predicts OcB because employees who have positive relationships with their leaders also frequently exhibit behaviours that help others at work and, as a result, improve organizational performance (Martin etal., 2016; Organ, 1988; O’grady, 2018). this makes leaders central in any organisational setup. the centrality of leaders is echoed by Jiménez-estévez et al. (2023) in their report that leaders are authority figures who work closely with subordinates and represent the organisation. nazir et al. (2021) added that as authority figures, they © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Raphael Papa Kweku andoh [email protected]om Directorate of Research innovation and Consultancy, university of Cape Coast, Private Mail Bag, uCC Post office, Cape Coast, ghana https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2358166 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 15 October 2023 Revised 9 May 2024 accepted 16 May 2024 KEYWORDS humble leadership; extra-role behaviour; work engagement; job satisfaction; family supportive supervisor behaviour; trust in supervisor REVIEWING EDITOR Pablo Ruiz, Universidad de castilla-la Mancha, spain SUBJECTS leadership; human Resource Management; Work & Organizational Psychology 2 a. ansOng etal. influence the attitudes of employees. scholars have touted leader humility as a fundamental organisational virtue because of the advantages associated with this type of leadership (hassan et al., 2023; hendijani & sohrabi, 2019; li etal., 2022; Maldonado etal., 2022; Qiuyun etal., 2020). the first theoretical model of humility in organisational leadership was created by Owens and hekman (2012). it outlines the behaviours, procedures, contingencies, and consequences of organisational processes. subsequently, lh like other positive leadership styles that are other-centred has been acknowledged as a promoter of employee positive work behaviours that improve productivity (hu et al., 2018; Jeung & Yoon, 2016; Jiménez-estévez et al., 2023; lin et al., 2019; Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2023). in the view of hassan et al. (2023) and Wang etal. (2017), humble leaders do not believe that they are the centre of everything and adopt a bottom-up approach to things. leader humility refers to ‘an interpersonal characteristic that emerges in social contexts that connotes a manifested willingness to view oneself accurately, a displayed appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, and teachability, or openness to new ideas and feedback’ (Owens et al., 2013). Further, Owens etal. (2013) stipulated that lh influences perceptions, attitudes, and behavioural reactions by significantly influencing the interactions between leaders and their followers. employees immensely benefit from a leader’s humility, which can also create reciprocal circumstances that make them engage in constructive behaviour in return. given that a leader represents the organisation, followers often see a humble leader’s actions as an expression of organisational support, which in turn causes OcB (andiyasari et al., 2017). according to abdullah (2020), even though some organisations, especially those in the public sector, confront egocentric and arrogant leaders who have ruined corporate culture and driven valuable people to perform poorly or leave, humility as a leadership trait among public sector leaders is not examined as frequently as other character traits in the leadership literature. as widely acknowledged, employees leave their supervisors and not the organisation (han & Bai, 2020) and so studying leader humility because of its characteristics could be beneficial to employees and organisations alike. Moreover, public sector organisations face challenges of absenteeism, not assisting co-workers, misusing time and other resources, and theft of property (hassan et al., 2014; Vishwakarma et al., 2015). Further, studies have asserted that a humble leader is a model for employees’ positive work behaviour which helps employees to engage in OcB through Js and ee (Owens etal., 2013, Owens etal., 2015, Ou et al., 2017). Despite the importance of lh to OcB, little research exists in terms of the direct effects of lh on followers’ extra-role behaviours (Mao et al., 2017; Qiuyun et al., 2020). also, Qin et al. (2020) posited that scholarly works on humble leadership are in their infancy while Wang et al. (2017) indicated that lh has received little attention from scholars. this shows more research is needed on this subject matter. in addition, the characteristics of lh could affect Js and ee which could in turn transmit OcB. however, there are limited empirical studies that consider the mediating roles of Js and ee in the lh – OcB nexus. to address this shortcoming, there is a need to conduct empirical research on lh and OcB considering the mediating roles of Js and ee in the relationship. it is on this basis that the current study examined the effect of lh on OcB through the mediating roles of Js and ee in a public university. Public universities are most of the time challenged with resource deficits. as such, lh and OcB are significant to these universities. For instance, a public university noted for a humble leadership reputation could have a leverage to attract talented faculty members, support staff and students. Besides, humble leaders could influence faculty members and support staff to go beyond the requirements of their job description and as well, go the extra mile for students and colleagues alike which would result in increased knowledge sharing, supportive learning environment and collaboration. Overall, lh would lead to a more positive service experience for students and the larger university community. Theoretical backing and hypotheses Leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour lMX is a theory that hinges on relationships between social actors with unequal status in organisations (Obeng et al., 2021; shin & Park, 2021) and that it significantly affects work-related outcomes (sunaryo etal., 2024). lMX predicts that humble leaders could stimulate OcBs since employees who have positive relationships with their managers are also likely to exhibit behaviours that help others in their workplace and ultimately improve performance (Martin et al., 2016; Organ, 1988; O’grady, 2018; Qin et al., 2020). cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 thus, humble leaders cause their followers to exhibit extra-role behaviours. according to chon and Zoltan (2019), it is undisputed that a humble leader’s exemplary integrity attributes inspire their subordinates to reciprocate independent, positive, extra-role behaviour in the workplace, which leads to OcB on the part of the workforce. Bradley and Klotz (2018) found that lh has a positive link with OcB. additionally, empirical studies also show that OcB is often exhibited by the backing and effort of humble leaders (Khan & Malik, 2017; Organ, 2018). it is, therefore, hypothesised that: H1: LH is positively related to OCB. Leader humility and job satisfaction humble leaders have a positive influence on their followers (li et al., 2022). among these are the influence on employee Js (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Yang and Xu (2022) opined that humble leaders frequently listen before speaking, which fosters a pleasant environment for interactions and in the long term, this breeds satisfaction among employees. also, workers will most likely be satisfied with their jobs when their leaders have the humility to recognise their qualities, accept their shortcomings, and focus on their personal development (Owens & hekman, 2012). through the lMX relationship, team members who have strong relationships with their leaders are given the chance to speak out and also communicate due to the humility of their supervisor (Botero et al., 2009). employees who work in favourable social exchange relationships in teams with humble and supportive leaders are highly expected to develop a positive attitude toward their jobs (Flynn, 2005). empirically, Owens et al. (2013) found that lh was positively related to follower Js. similarly, Ou et al. (2017) found that lh was positively related to follower Js. Oga and Worlu (2022) findings revealed that lh significantly and influences workers’ Js. On this basis, it is hypothesised that: H2: LH is positively related to JS. Leader humility and employee engagement according to Qiuyun et al. (2020), recent research highlight leader humility as a core organisational virtue, with empirical evidence linking it to factors such as higher employee engagement. Wright et al. (2016), posit that humble leaders tend to be interested in employee growth and development which invokes a positive exchange with employees. as reported by Yang and Xu (2022), the approach of a humble leader affects employees’ desirable attitudes such as work engagement. in turn, this fosters a shared interpersonal process that results in team members who are driven to reach their full potential (Owens & hekman, 2016). Owens and hekman further added that leaders who exhibit humility inspire followers to do the same. Kahn (1990) posits that when employees have confidence in their leaders who are humble and supportive, they will be more willing to devote themselves to their work because they feel psychologically safe and available. empirical evidence indicate that lh enables employees to reduce stress by providing support to employees and motivates employees to exert more effort to perform their tasks and engagements in the workplace (Wang et al., 2018). Rich et al. (2010) also indicated that humble leaders make subordinates feel energetic and inspire them to become more focused and motivate to devote themselves to the work, which aligns with the connotation of engagement. in their meta-analytic study, luo et al. (2022) found humble leadership to be related to employee engagement. consequently, it is hypothesised that: H3: LH is positively related to EE. Job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour Js, according to luthans et al., (2010), is an attitude developed by employees all the time regarding various aspects of work such as wages, supervisory style, co-workers, promotions and the job itself. satisfied employees pride themselves on their affiliation with the organisation, support its objectives, and exhibit higher levels of OcB as a result (awang et al., 2010; steinhaus & Perry, 1996). Yee et al. (2010) 4 a. ansOng etal. stated that satisfied employees represent the true worth of their company resulting in OcB as their satisfaction is considered an important driver of firms’ improvements. some scholars have found a nexus between Js and OcB. For instance, Unal (2013) found a significant relationship between Js and four dimensions of OcB (altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue). Mohammad (2016) found Js to have a positive effect on OcB. additionally, gunay (2018) in a study also evinced a significant link between Js and OcB. Furthermore, hemakumara (2020) in a related study found that Js had a positive significant connection with the OcB of employees. as a result, it is postulated that: H4: JS is positively related to OCB. Employee engagement and organisational citizenship behaviour employee work engagement involves positive definitions of employee health and encourages the best possible functioning of employees within an organisational setting (adnan et al., 2020). it is a positive mental state at the workplace that is expressed by employees as vigour, dedication and absorption (schaufeli et al., 2002). to put it in another way, engaged workers feel a connection to their workplaces on a physical, cognitive, and emotional level (albrecht, 2010). Uddin et al. (2018) opined that rising ee creates a more productive workforce and leads to high performance levels. empirically, the study of ariani (2013) showed that ee is significantly and positively related to OcB. amadi etal. (2017) discovered that ee has a positive significant connection with OcB. a study by Macey and schneider (2008) found that higher levels of ee were associated with greater OcB. additionally, a meta-analytic study by christian et al. (2011) found a significant and positive correlation between ee and OcB. a significant association between ee and OcB was similarly established by Byaruhanga and Othuma (2016). in this regard, the hypothesis formulated is: H5: EE is positively related to OCB. Mediation of job satisfaction in the relationship between leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour employees express job satisfaction through building relationships, cooperation and events occurring in the workplace with the personality of their supervisors as a contributing factor (hajdukova et al., 2015). humble leaders enhance the Js levels of their subordinates. For instance, Farrington and lillah (2019) found that lh has a connection with employee Js that is positive. sabir etal. (2012) asserted that organisational performance is a combined effort of the leader and the employees. luo etal. (2022) found that humble leadership influences job satisfaction. given that Js is also deemed as a predictor of OcB (gunay, 2018; hemakumara, 2020; Mohammad, 2016), it is hypothesised that: H6: JS mediates the relationship between LH and OCB. Mediation of employee engagement in the relationship between leader humility and organisational citizenship behaviour From the social exchange theory, workers are inclined to show their leaders’ good intentions in the workplace by having positive attitudes (Blau, 1964). Workers will be engaged in their work when they sense that their leader cares about their well-being and can carry out the organisation’s values in their behaviour itself (Kahn, 1990). also, nielsen et al. (2010) showed that humble leaders positively impact employees’ attitudes and emotions which contribute to ee. agreeably, humble leaders acknowledge the efforts of their subordinates and assist them in understanding the value of their work which leads to OcB (chen et al., 2018). a study by aboramadan and Dahleez (2020) found that employee engagement mediated the link between transformational and transactional leadership styles, which are positive leadership styles like leader humility, and OcB. Ozturk et al. (2021) in their study also found that the links between servant leadership and extra-role performances were mediated by ee. Moreover, an indirect cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 relationship was established between leader humility and proactive behaviour by el-gazar et al., (2022). therefore, it is hypothesised that: H7: EE mediates the relationship between LH and OCB Control variables Family supportive supervisor behaviour (FssB) and trust in supervisor (tis) were controlled in this study because of the potential they have in affecting the variables generally and OcB specifically. For instance, O’grady (2018) revealed that employees’ trust in their supervisor leads them to engage in OcB. alam etal. (2021) also indicated that supportive supervisors enhance the effectiveness of leadership and foster high ee. again, trust is believed to affect the Js of employees (hassan et al., 2016). Moreover, according to Vermeulen et al. (2022), the lMX theory suggests that high-exchange relationships are characterised by trust and encourage employees to perform beyond their role description. controlling FssB and tis was, therefore, essential in isolating the confounding effect they have on the lh – OcB nexus through Js and ee. Conceptual framework the framework of the study is presented in Figure 1. it is premised on the seven hypotheses developed in the preceding section of this paper. the paths from lh to OcB; lh to Js; and lh to ee reflect h1; h2; and h3 respectively. the Js – OcB and ee – OcB links reflect h4 and h5 respectively. the connection from lh → Js → OcB and lh →ee→OcB respectively, reflect the mediation hypotheses labelled h6 and h7. FssB and tis are the control variables used in the study. Research methods Research design the researchers adopted for this study, the cross-sectional survey design. this research design was adopted because the study involved individual employees as the unit of analysis and also, used a standardised questionnaire to collect the data at a particular point (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Ofori & Dampson, 2011). also, it allowed the collection of quantitative data which was analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics making it possible to generate findings that are representative of the population. (saunders et al., 2012). Sampling procedure a total number of 246 administrators in a public university in ghana were sampled out of a target population of 640 based on Yamane’s (1967) method for determining sample size to serve as respondents in gathering data for the study. in order to ensure a proportionate representation of the various staff categories, a sample for each category was chosen according to their proportion in the population. specifically, the stratified random sampling technique was used to select samples from each stratum to ensure representativeness of the population. the lottery method was used by the researcher to select Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 6 a. ansOng etal. samples in each stratum. table 1 shows the complete sampling frame grouped by the various strata and the required sample size to ensure representativeness of the respondents. it is worthy to note that the respondents had enough knowledge to respond to the questionnaire which was essential in reducing common method bias (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015). Instrument and data collection a self-completing structured questionnaire was developed for the study. the questionnaire comprised two main sections; sections for the sample characteristics and the variables used in the study. the variables were measured on a seven-point likert scale with the endpoints being; 1 (least form of agreement) and 7 (highest level of agreement). in measuring lh, the scale developed by Owens et al. (2013) was adapted. a sample measure is ‘My supervisor actively seeks my feedback even if it is critical’. in measuring OcB, the scale developed by Podsakoff etal. (1990) was adapted. an example of the measure is ‘i help others who have heavy work load’. in measuring Js, items including ‘i am satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment i get from the job’ were adapted from the Minnesota satisfaction Questionnaire (MsQ) developed by Weiss et al. (1977). to measure ee, items such as ‘i work with intensity on my job’ developed by Rich et al. (2010) were adapted. in measuring FssB, items developed by hammer et al. (2009) were adapted. a sample measure is ‘My supervisor is willing to listen to my problems in juggling work and non-work life’. tis, was measured by items such as ‘i can depend on my supervisor to meet his/her responsibilities’. the measures were adapted from Yang et al. (2009). the measures were adapted to suit the local context. the questionnaire included an introduction section outlining the study’s goals, guaranteeing the anonymity and confidentiality of the responses, and offering instructions on how to complete it as a procedural remedy for common method bias (chang etal., 2010; Jordan & troth, 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2012). all the questionnaire items are in the appendix. ethical clearance was provided by the University of cape coast institutional Review Board (UcciRB/chls/2023/05). Prior to the data collection, written informed consent was obtained from the respondents. Data processing and analysis the data from questionnaires were processed and analysed utilising sPss and smartPls. the data analysis included descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics were computed on the demographic variables and presented using frequencies and percentages via sPss. Partial least square structural equation modelling (Pls-seM) through smartPls was used to analyse the hypotheses. Following appropriate assessment criteria for the measurement and structural models, the results were presented and discussed. in Pls-seM, the assessment of the measurement model is done based on assumptions that the model achieves indicator reliability (factor loadings), construct reliability (cronbach’s alpha (ca) and composite reliability (cR)), convergent validity (average variance extracted-aVe) and discriminant validity (htMt). the structural model assessment follows by assessing the coefficient of determination (R2), predictive relevance (Q2), variance inflation factors (ViF) effect size (f2) and significance of the hypothesised paths (β). Results Sample characteristics the characteristics of the sample are presented in table 2. From the table, it is observed that the majority (50.8%) were females. Most of the respondents (42.7%) were aged between 31 and 40 years, while 23.2% were aged between 18 and 30 years. concerning the level of education, 75.2% representing the majority had a bachelor’s degree. When it comes to rank, the largest proportion of respondents (36.6%) were Principal administrative assistants and 43.1% of respondents had worked for 2-5 years. Table 1. Population and sample. stratum Population sample administrative assistants 177 68 senior administrative assistants 184 71 Principal administrative assistants 233 90 Chief administrative assistants 46 17 Total 640 246 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 Measurement model the results displayed in table 3 show that the data gathered from the respondents were not contaminated with common method bias issues. By observing the scores of the ViF which according to Kock (2015) is used to assess common method bias, it can be said that the required threshold was met. the various indicators had scores below the 5.0 cut-off point proposed in hair et al. (2019). concerning the indicator reliability, table 3 revealed that loadings for the constructs have met the requirements. By extension, the t values for the corresponding indicators also showed that they are significant and met all logic to be retained in the model. henseler et al. (2009) posited that when the loadings of each item are larger than or equal to 0.70, the indicators of a construct can accurately assess that construct. this means that factors that load below this threshold should be removed. however, indicator loadings as low as 0.50, according to Benitez etal. (2020) should be kept as long as the model’s overall reliability and validity aren’t compromised by the addition of such indicators. as a result, some indicators with loadings below 0.70 were maintained. For the internal consistency reliability of the constructs, the ca and cR values were considered and are displayed in table 4. a cursory look at the scores of all the measures proved that the internal consistency reliability of the variables was achieved since the values obtained were > 0.70. additionally, the convergent validity of the components was evaluated using the aVe. according to the established criteria (aVe ≥ 0.50), the results in table 4 demonstrated that the constructs achieved the appropriate mutual relationship. the discriminant validity (DV) of the model was checked using the htMt ratio criterion due to its efficacy in assessing the distinctiveness of constructs to the study. according to the values in table 5, DV issues were not detected. this is because the values did not exceed both the conservative (0.85) and liberal (0.9) cut-off points for concluding the non-existence of DV problems (henseler et al., 2015). therefore, the variables were retained to analyse the phenomenon under investigation. Structural model the structural model assessment followed. table 6 provides interpretations of vital parameters like the R2 and Q2. With regards to the R2, the study upheld that 58.6 percent of changes in the scores of OcB were accounted for by the joint contribution of lh, Js, ee, FssB and tis. Premised on the suggestions of hair et al. (2019), this change moderately explained the variation of OcB. also, 10.7 percent of the variation in Js was explained by lh. in addition, the results depict that a percent of 10.8 of changes in the ee were caused by the traits of lh. in light of the predictive relevance, Q2, the table demonstrates that while OcB (Q2 = 0.515) made a substantial predictive relevance, Js (Q2 = 0.098) and ee (Q2 = 0.098) respectively had small predictive relevance in the model. Table 2. Characteristics of sample. Characteristic Category Frequency Percent gender Female 125 50.8 Male 121 49.2 age 18–30 years 57 23.2 31–40 years 105 42.7 41–50 years 52 21.1 51–60 years 32 13 Level of education Bachelor’s degree 185 75.2 Master’s degree 58 23.6 PhD 3 1.2 Rank administrative assistant 68 27.6 senior administrative assistant 71 28.9 Principal administrative assistant 90 36.6 Chief administrative assistant 17 6.9 number of years worked in the university Less than one year 25 10.2 2–5years 106 43.1 6–10years 51 20.7 over 10 years 64 26 total 246 100 14 a. ansOng etal. hu, J., erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, t. n., & liu, s. (2018). leader humility and team creativity: the role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323. https://doi. org/10.1037/apl0000277. Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.997906 Jeung, c., & Yoon, h. (2016). leader humility and psychological empowerment: investigating contingencies. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2015-0270 Jiménez-estévez, P., Yáñez-araque, B., Ruiz-Palomino, P., & gutiérrez-Broncano, s. (2023). Personal growth or servant leader: What do hotel employees need most to be affectively well amidst the turbulent cOViD-19 times? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 190, 122410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122410 Jordan, P. J., & troth, a. c. (2020). common method bias in applied settings: the dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976 Kahn, W. a. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287 Kashif, M., Khan, Y., & Rafi, M. (2011). an exploration of the determinants of organisational citizenship behaviour in telecommunication sector of Pakistan. Asian Journal of Business Management, 3(2), 91–97. Khan, M. n., & Malik, F. M. (2017). “My leader’s group is my group”: leader member exchange and employees’ behaviours. European Business Review, 29(5), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1108/eBR-01-2016-0013 Kock, n. (2015). common method bias in Pls-seM: a full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101 li, R., Wang, s., & Wang, h. (2022). leader humility and team creativity: the role of team creative efficacy and task interdependence. Journal of General Management, 47(4), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063070211035766 liden, R. c., & graen, g. (1980). generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.5465/255511 lin, X., chen, Z., tse, h., Wei, W., & Ma, c. (2019). Why and when employees like to speak up more under humble leaders? the roles of personal sense of power and power distance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3704-2 luo, Y., Zhang, Z., chen, Q., Zhang, K., Wang, Y., & Peng, J. (2022). humble leadership and its outcomes: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 980322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980322 luthans, F., avey, J. B., avolio, B. J., & Peterson, s. J. (2010). the development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ hrdq.20034 Macey, W. h., & schneider, B. (2008). the meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x Maldonado, t., Vera, D., & spangler, W. D. (2022). Unpacking humility: leader humility, leader personality, and why they matter. Business Horizons, 65(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.032 Mao, J., liao, J., han, Y., & liu, W. (2017). the mechanism and effect of leader humility: an interpersonal relationship perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(9), 1219–1233. https://doi.org/10.3724/sP.J.1041.2017.01219 Martin, R., guillaume, Y., thomas, g., lee, a., & epitropaki, O. (2016). leader-member exchange (lMX) and performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100 Mohammad, J. (2016). the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour of non-academic staff in a Malaysian public university. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 356–362. nazir, s., shafi, a., asadullah, M. a., Qun, W., & Khadim, s. (2021). linking paternalistic leadership to follower’s innovative work behavior: the influence of leader–member exchange and employee voice. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1354–1378. https://doi.org/10.1108/eJiM-01-2020-0005 nielsen, R., Marrone, J. a., & slay, h. s. (2010). a new look at humility: exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 33–43. https://doi. org/10.1177/1548051809350892 nitzl, c., Roldan, J. l., & cepeda, g. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modelling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https:// doi.org/10.1108/iMDs-07-2015-0302 O’grady, s. (2018). Organisational citizenship behaviour: sensitization to an organisational phenomenon. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(7), 795–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12622 Obeng, a. F., Zhu, Y., azinga, s. a., & Quansah, P. e. (2021). Organizational climate and job performance: investigating the mediating role of harmonious work passion and the moderating role of leader–member exchange and coaching. SAGE Open, 11(2), 215824402110084. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211008456 Ofori, R., & Dampson, D. g. (2011). Research methods and statistics using SPSS. Payless Publication ltd. Oga, V. n., & Worlu, R. e. (2022). the nexus between leader humility, productive behaviour, job satisfaction and work happiness among workers in nigeria. International Journal of Business and Society, 23(1), 107–126. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome (1st ed.). lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (2006). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 5, 295–306. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 15 Ou, a. Y., seo, J., choi, D., & hom, P. W. (2017). When can humble top executives retain middle managers? the moderating role of top management team fault lines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 1915–1931. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2015.1072 Owens, B. P., & hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: an inductive examination of humble leader behaviours, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787–818. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441 Owens, B. P., & hekman, D. R. (2016). how does leader humility influence team performance? exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1088–1111. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2013.0660 Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, t. R. (2013). expressed humility in organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795 Owens, B. P., Wallace, a. s., & Waldman, D. a. (2015). leader narcissism and follower outcomes: the counterbalancing effect of leader humility. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038698 Ozturk, a., Karatepe, O. M., & Okumus, F. (2021). the effect of servant leadership on hotel employees’ behavioral consequences: Work engagement versus job satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 97, 102994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102994 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, s. B., Moorman, R. h., & Fetter, R. (1990). transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, s. B., & Podsakoff, n. P. (2012). sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-psych-120710-100452 Qin, X., chen, c., Yam, K. c., huang, M., & Ju, D. (2020). the double-edged sword of leader humility: investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000456 Qiuyun, g., liu, W., Zhou, K., & Mao, J. (2020). leader humility and employee organizational deviance: the role of sense of power and organizational identification. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(3), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1108/lODJ-07-2019-0287. Rich, B. l., lepine, J. a., & crawford, e. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 Robbins, s. P., Judge, t. a., & Vohra, n. (2013). Organizational behaviour (15th ed) Pearson education services. Ruiz-Palomino, P., linuesa-langreo, J., Rincón-Ornelas, R. M., & Martinez-Ruiz, M. P. (2023). Putting the customer at the center: Does store managers’ ethical leadership make a difference in authentic customer orientation? Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 36(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/aRla-11-2022-0201 sabir, i., Zia-Ur-Rehman, M., & ahmad, n. (2012). impact of leadership style on organizational performance: a case study of Pakistani banks. African Journal of Business Management, 6(21), 6373–6383. saunders, M., lewis, P., & thornhill, a. (2012). Research methods for business students (6th ed.). Pearson education ltd. schaufeli, W. B., salanova, M., gonzález-Romá, V., & Bakker, a. B. (2002). the measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi. org/10.1023/a:1015630930326 shin, n., & Park, s. (2021). supply chain leadership driven strategic resilience capabilities management: a leader-member exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 122, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.056. steinhaus, c. s., & Perry, J. l. (1996). Organizational commitment: Does sector matter? Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380575 sunaryo, sinto, Rahardian, Reza, suyono, Joko, ekowati, Dian, Risgiyanti, (2024), “leader-member exchange and glass ceiling: the effects on career satisfaction and work engagement”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 11 no. 1, p. 2336285, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336285 tashtoush, l., & eyupoglu, s. Z. (2020). the relationship between human resource management practices and organisational citizenship behaviour. South African Journal of Business Management, 51(1), a1726. https://doi.org/10.4102/ sajbm.v51i1.1726 Uddin, M. J., luva, R., & hossain, M. a. (2018). employee engagement and organizational performance: an empirical investigation. Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 6(1), 1–13. Unal, F. (2013). the effect of job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behaviours: a research on hotel enterprises in nevsehir, turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 99, 844–852. Vermeulen, M., Kreijns, K., & evers, a. t. (2022). transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and school learning climate: impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour in the netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(3), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220932582 Vishwakarma, R. K., shukla, a., & nougriaya, s. (2015). Job satisfaction and its impact on absenteeism: a case study related to teachers in private engineering colleges. International Journal of Engineering Technology & Management Research, 3(1), 10–15. Wang, l., Owens, B. P., li, J., & shi, l. (2018). exploring the affective impact, boundary conditions, and antecedents of leader humility. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9), 1019–1038. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000314 16 a. ansOng etal. Wang, J., Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2017). Understanding how leader humility enhances employee creativity: the roles of perspective taking and cognitive reappraisal. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 5–31. https://doi. org/10.1177/0021886316678907 Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., england, g. W., & lofquist, l. h. (1977). Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire – Short form. University of Minnesota. Wright, B. e., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, s. K. (2016). Pulling the levers: transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 405–417. Yamane, t. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.), harper and Row. Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, t. K. (2009). supervisory procedural justice effects: the mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.009 Yang, W., & Xu, s. (2022). the indirect effect of leader humility on employee creativity through a growth mindset for creativity. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 16, 183449092211136. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221113642 Yee, R. W., Yeung, a. c., & cheng, t. c. (2010). the effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 89–111. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-lara, P., Ruiz-Palomino, P., & linuesa-langreo, J. (2023). compassion in hotels: Does person–organization fit lead staff to engage in compassion-driven citizenship behavior? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 64(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655231178267 Appendix Questionnaire items Leader humility 1. My supervisor acknowledges when i have more knowledge and skills than him or her 2. My supervisor actively seeks my feedback even if it is critical 3. My supervisor admits to me when he or she does not know how to do something 4. My supervisor compliments me on my strengths 5. My supervisor is open to my advice 6. My supervisor is open to my ideas 7. My supervisor is willing to learn from me 8. My supervisor shows appreciation for my unique contributions 9. My supervisor takes notice of my strengths Organizational citizenship behaviour 1. i help others who have heavy work load 2. i try to avoid creating problems for coworkers 3. i keep abreast of changes in the organisation 4. i consider the impact of my actions on coworkers 5. i am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me 6. i do not abuse the rights of others 7. i attend functions that are not required, but help the organisation’s image 8. i help others who have been absent 9. i willingly help others who have work related problems 10. i obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching 11. i help orient new people even though it is not required Job satisfaction i am satisfied with: 1. the chance to do things for other people 2. the chance to tell people what to do 3. the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 4. the way company policies are put into practice cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 17 5. My pay and the amount of work i do 6. the chances for advancement on this job 7. the working conditions 8. the feeling of accomplishment i get from the job Employee engagement 1. i work with intensity on my job 2. i devote a lot of energy to my job 3. i strive as hard as i can to complete my job 4. i am enthusiastic in my job 5. i feel positive about my job 6. i am excited about my job 7. i am absorbed by my job 8. i focus a great deal of attention on my job Family supportive supervisor behaviour 1. My supervisor is willing to listen to my problems in juggling work and non-work life 2. My supervisor takes the time to learn about my personal needs 3. My supervisor makes me feel comfortable talking to him or her about my conflicts between work and non-work 4. My supervisor and i can talk effectively to solve conflicts between work and non-work issues 5. My supervisor is a good role model for work and non-work balance. 6. My supervisor demonstrates effective behaviours in how to juggle work and non-work balance 7. My supervisor asks for suggestions to make it easier for employees to balance work and non-work demands Trust in supervisor 1. i can depend on my supervisor to meet his/her responsibilities 2. given my supervisor’s track record, i see no reason to doubt his/her competence 3. My supervisor follows through with commitments (s)he makes 4. i can rely on my supervisor to show good judgment when making work-related decisions 5. i can rely on my supervisor to do what is best at work