Content uploaded by Syed Tahir Rizvi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Syed Tahir Rizvi on Aug 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Effect of Core Self-Evaluation on Employee's Outcomes: The Role
of Mentorship
Dr. Syed Tahir Hussain Rizvi1
Abdul Wajid2
ABSTRACT
The study aims to examine the relationship between Core self-evaluation on employee’s outcomes (Work
engagement, Work Success and Intention to leave) with moderation role of mentorship. The study investigates the
relationship in Pakistani environment, particularly the employees in public sector universities of twin cities
(Rawalpindi & Islamabad) of Pakistan. Data was collected through the questionnaire distributed among the 440
employees of different universities in capital city (Rawalpindi and Islamabad) of Pakistan. The responses obtained,
their assessment done, passed through the statistical programs by using SPSS (23 version) to obtain the findings.
Descriptive statistical methods (e.g. frequency, average, standard deviation) have been utilized during the appraisal
of the data. The consequences explored that CSA is intensely linked to employee’s outcomes, the current research
also empirically investigated that mentorship has moderating effect in the relationship between CSA and employee’s
outcomes. This research is amongst those rare studies conducted in Pakistani environment that have inspected effect
of CSA on employee’s outcome and also inspected the moderating effect of mentorship between the relationship of
core self-evaluation and employee’s outcomes.
JEL Classification: J00, J28, J29,
Keywords: Core self-evaluation; Work Engagement; Work Success; Intention to Leave, Mentorship
1,2-Faculty of Management Sciences International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
*-Corresponding Author’s: Email:proffsyed@iiu.edu.pk
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
INTRODUCTION
Organizations are gradually taking interest in developing their employee’s personality because without getting the assistance
of highly motivated employees/ workers it is very difficult and challenging to obtain the organizations required objectives/
outcomes and to fulfill the organization’s needs and objectives/ goals (Dai, Hou, & Zhuang, 2019; Tran et al., 2020; Hsieh &
Huang, 2017). According to the Judge, Lock & Durham, (1997) Core Self-evaluation characterizes a single high- order factor
comprising of four settled variables: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability. Core
self-evaluation is particularly significant because they represent a personality trait that will be consistent over time. Moreover,
the manner in which individuals assess themselves utilizing core self-evaluation can anticipate positive work results,
particularly work commitment and work achievement. To satisfy the various needs (organizational outcomes/ objectives) are
very challenging, and can only be achieved with extremely inspired employees (Dai, Chen, & Zhuang, 2016).
Studies in the field of organizations are occupied with the analysis that describes behaviors (trait) and attributes that can lead
to many consequences i.e work engagement and success (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2014). According to the
Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, and Ta,n (2012) there is significant confident connection amongst core self-evaluation and
employees work engagement and also with work success. Previous researchers also investigated that there is constructive
relationship between core self-evaluation and work engagement and success (job satisfaction and performance) (Wu and
Griffin 2012; Rode et al. 2012; Han, 2020). Employees Personality/ trait (Core self-evaluation) also influences the intention
to leave. Due to this trait (core self-evaluation) employees stay engaged with their employers (Bothma and Roodt 2012, Chan,
2015). When an individual find himself in negative or difficult situation the core self-evaluated ability of such employee’s
provide a protective/ shielding effect to deal with this situation, high core self-evaluators overturn their mistakes and
highlights encouraging beliefs and strengthen the beliefs to enhances their Job related outcomes like job engagement and
work success (Dai, Chen, & Zhuang, 2018; Bono & Judge, 2003).
In the study the association amongst core self-evaluation and work success also investigated with moderation role of
mentorship. In current research mentorship used as a moderation variable between the relationship of core self-evaluation and
employees work outcomes like work engagement, work success and intention to leave. According to the researcher supervisor
behavior (mentor) increases the employees engagement in work and help in success, On the other hand low core self-
evaluation employees under bad supervision (mentors) show deviance behavior and increase the intention to leave (McKay;
Frieder; Brees; & Martink, 2017; Shin & Grant, 2019). All these positive outcomes (higher
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
work engagement and work success, and decrease the intention of leave the organization) of employee’s personality/ trait
(core self-evaluation) are great importance at individual level and organizational level as well. Accordingly, it can be
concluded that these all outcomes are great importance for organizations in today’s global business world.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Core Self-Evaluation
Core self-evaluation is “Fundamental assessments that people make about their competence, worthiness and capabilities”
(Judge, Bono Erez Locke, E.A, 2005. p. 257). Researcher Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger, (1998) defined in his past
investigations that core self-evaluation is “Fundamental premises that individuals about themselves and their functioning in
the world” (p. 168). Core self- evaluation is a fundamental assessment that makes an individual make about them.
Researchers investigated that core self-evaluation is most needed, basic assessment of one’s own value, achievement and
potential as a person (Hsieh & Huang, 2017).
As per the Judge & Bono (2001, p.80) Core self-assessment is a "Fundamental or primary concern assessments that people
make about themselves”. Progressive organizations and institutions are taking interest in personality trait. CSE is comprises
of four higher-order thoughts, which are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability (Judge
& Bono, JE,1998). Self-esteem is referring to how people evaluate their own strengths, and generalized self-efficacy It
ensures that individuals depend and trust on their ability to perform and deal successfully in life situations (Judge et al.,
1998). Locus of control, It’s indicates that a person's perception, he is capable of influencing the situation to reach the
preferred results. And lastly, emotional stability “it reflects a tendency to feel secure calm, and sensitive to confident
emotional situations” (Ferries et al., 2011). Collectively, these personal traits enhance the predictability of work outcomes
(business success, engagement, and performance). Because they reflect a wide range of measure how people see themselves.
As such, Core Self-evaluation (CSA) is argued to additional and many features of an individual's self-worth. (Judge et al.,
2011).
Core self-evaluation and Employee’s Outcomes (Work Engagement)
Work engagement is deliberated as “an indicators of the affective work-related well-being of employees" (Cropanzano
&Wright 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Work Engagement is a constructive resource that is used to increasing the interest in
the fields of "organizational psychology and occupational health psychology" (Bakker &Scheufeli 2008; Suffuelli &Salanova
2007; Sonnentag, 2011). Suffuelli et al., S (2002) showed that "commitment" refers to an extra settled and pervasive
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
affective-cognitive state that is defined as a “positive, satisfying, and practical situation characterized by passion, devotion,
and understanding/absorption”.
According to the researchers, people who undergo a higher self-examination (core self-evaluation) should look themselves
and their environment positively. Organizations are concerned with employee personalities like basic self-assessment (core
self-evaluation) because work excellence has become a model for human resource management practice and research (Guest,
2017). In the age of this knowledge-based economy, personality/traits such as basic self-assessment (core self-evaluation) and
creativity are important to success (better performance) and organization survival and development (George 2007; Lee et al.,
2017, Tran et al., 2020).
However some previous researcher also investigated the pessimistic and uncooperative of Core Self- evaluation on employees
work results/ outcomes. According to Heller & Hambrick, (2005) high levels of CSE may occur associated with negative and
suboptimal decision making, researcher has also argued that high levels of CSE might makes people ignore negative
information, take undue risks, or underestimate and misjudge their capabilities. The previous researchers also argued that
employees with high core self-evaluation (CSE) usually evaluate and take the situations in a positive manner, as evidenced by
discovering a negative association with occupational stress (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012). People with low
core self-evaluation (CSE) have big concerns with the negative aspects of the environment whereas, Individuals with high
level of CSE are less interested in the negative aspects of their work conditions (Chang At, 2012), However comprehensive
research links the positive relationship between basic self-clinical (core self-evaluation) work outcomes (work engagement)
(Perry Smith & Mannuci, 2017, Chang et al., 2012).
It can be said on the bases of past researchers that this can happen when an employee (core Self- evaluated) evaluates
themselves well and finds the job pleasant. Based on logical thinking and most of the researcher's assessments, it can be
hypothesized that:-
H1: Core self-evaluation has significant positive relationship with work engagement.
Core Self-Evaluation and Work Success:-
As indicated by Campbell (1990), "Job performance represents conduct of employees participates in while at work that
contributes to organizational goals”. One another researcher also defined the employee’s job performance as “all the behavior
employees participate in while at work” (Jex 2002 p. 88). Job performance is also stated as the achievement of job outcomes.
Rotundo, (2002) explained that employee’s work performance is activities that valued to institution’s objectives & goals and
these are in control of employees. Employee’s work outcomes, performance can be influenced by the supervisor’s good and
bad behaviors.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
According to the researchers individuals having high core self-evaluation seeing themselves and their surrounding positively.
Researchers have also investigated that personality concepts are now documented as playing an important role in
organizational psychology (George, 1992; Hogan and Roberts, 2001; Staw & Cohen-Charash, 2005). Personality construct
such as core self-evaluation have been related to such consequences such as satisfaction, motivation, and connection, job
related behaviors such as work success (performance) (Han, 2020; Tran et al., 2020; Barrick &Mount, 1991; Brown, Ferris,
Heller, & Keeping, 2007; Brown, Cooper, Kane, Levy, & Chalhoub, 2006; Hogg, Eaton, Donnet, Camp & McClough, 1990;
Heller, Watson, & Ellis, 2004; Judge, Heller & Mount 2002; Judge and Ellis, 2002; NJ, Sorrenson, & IBE, 2006; Tait et al.,
1991). Organizations are taking interest in employee’s personalities such as core self-evaluation because excellence work has
become a model for human resource management practice and research (Guest, 2017). In this regard, the HR field is
increasingly focusing on the "softer" but measurable aspect of human capital as a personality/ character (Crush, 2015). Core
self-evaluation play very vital role in getting organizational objective according to researchers great efforts have been
finalized to detect the vital features of individual originality and visibility/ vision (George & Zhou 2001; Berry Smith &
Manussi, 2017). In the period of this information-based economy, workers personality/ trait (Core Self Evaluation) and
creativity are very crucial to organization’s success (better performance), existence, and development (George 2007; Lee et
al., 2017). Past researchers have investigated that Core self-evaluation is connected for an assortment of work/things results,
for example, work achievement (success) (Debuscher et al., 2016; O'Neill et al., 2016), satisfaction (Ferris et al., 2013; Judge
et al., 1998; Tran et al., 2020). Personal traits such as core self-evaluation are probably most important and playing vital role,
because these trails shows better constancy than factors such as inspiration and intellectual patterns and work success such as
performance etc (Betey & Furnham 2006; Perry Smith & Mannuci 2017).
This could be because when employee is core self-evaluated and feel fun to perform the job. On the basis of logical reasoning
and most of the researcher’s investigations, The following hypothesis has been proposed through this study:-
H2: Core self-evaluation has significant positive relationship with work success.
Core self-Evaluation and Intention to leave
Intention to leave is defined as an “Employee’s self-assessment of the likelihood of an employee leaving the organization in
the short term" (Thorne, Barkhuizen, &du Plessis, 2014). Scholars of previous studies have advised when people find itself in
a difficult or unpleasant situation, core self- evaluation (CSE) provides a guiding and buffering impact to manage
circumstances, and higher evaluators smother their shortcomings and reflect positive thoughts and results and outcomes of
their
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
work (Bono & Judge 2003, Perry Smith & Manucci 2017). Individuals who evaluate themselves positively, are more
persistent and interested in the workplace and will have great confidence in their actions, abilities and competencies, he/she
believe in their skills and consider themselves more successful, and in themselves confidence increases the performance of
these people and reduces their intention to leave the organization (Judge, Locke et al., 1998). In this respect, the research
examined whether employees with a high inward locus of control, when given negative input, improve or increment their
exhibition, include in work to eliminate the disparities among genuine and standard execution. (Kacmar, Collins, Harris &
Judge 2009, Perry Smith & Manucci, 2017). Whereas, individuals with low self-esteem use their negative input to lower their
standards of performance or with the intention of withdrawing from the task or in the face of increase in intention to leave
(Kacmaretal,2009; Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway &Gallagher, 2010). As indicated by the standard of self-
determination (Deki & Ryan, 2002) as well as the concept of trait activation theory (Tate & Burnett 2003; Tate &
Gutman,2000), this study concluded that quitting intention would be influenced by efficiency and independence and situation
cue. The greater the core self-evaluation, the greater their ability to overcome negative feedback experiences and the more
resilient they are in the Fluctuating atmosphere. Consequently, they show lot confidence in dealing with the external
environment or monitoring individual / personal behaviors. This perception suggests that in order to increase their efficiency
and independence, those employees with strong core self-evaluations will decide to remain in his/her position and do the
work that the organization has identified. Their Intention to leave the organization will be decreased and work success and
performance will increment likewise. In view of the above mentioned arguments, the following hypothesis has been proposed
through this examination:-
H3: There is a significant negative relationship between core self-evaluation and intention to leave.
Moderating Role of Mentorship between core self- evaluation (CSA) and Employees Outcome (Work Engagement)
In this rapidly changing world, mentoring is most important and essential in workplace (organizations) in today's rapidly
changing business environment, which includes a large number of executive’s departures, increased in the use of technology,
and global competition. Firms often use mentoring/ mentorship programs as a structured solution to improve employee
outcomes performance (work success) and work engagement (Lisa, 2011). Mentors provide insight and guidance, enabling
them to achieve expected goals, such as work success (performance) and work engagement (Thomas, 2011). A well-
structured and developed mentoring program/ mentoring can maintain good performance and improve performance of the
employees as well as organization/ firms by improving employee
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
visibility, productivity, and employee engagement (Orth, Wilkinson & Binfari, 2009). The advantages of a mentor/trainer
include helping the mentee (employees/individuals) improve upkeep, build self- confidence, have a deeper understanding of
the Organizational culture, and permit the trainer/mentee to identify their strengths and weaknesses so that they can learn as
soon as possible and improve employee performance (Ritchie & Genoni, 2002). According few past researchers that bad
mentorship/ supervision are destructively correlated to numerous of work behavior such as institutional dedication (Duffy et
al., 2002; Taper, 2000) employee’s work success (performance) and work engagement (Tepper et al., 2004) and confidently
correlated with intention toward left (Schyns &Schilling, 2013). This creates the cause of hopeless relationship between
employee’s and supervisor (mentor). This disgruntled employee may not fulfill the required objectives of organization and
even may quit the job. Tepper (2007), have practically inspected the influence of disgrace supervision/ mentorship on, many
others people and as well as directorial consequences like work engagement and work success (job performance),
organizational commitments and job satisfactions (McKay et al., 2017; Martinko et al., 2013; Tipper, 2007). According to the
researchers core self-evaluated (CSE) employees may become unwelcome due to misconduct or abuse; their actions or
behavior toward supervisors/mentor may lead to direct abuse (cf. Henle &Grass 2014). Dissatisfied/ unhappy workforces are
more likely to adopt destructive behaviors towards individuals, organizations and as well as toward their supervisors (McKay
Mac, 2016, 2017; Taylor et al. 2012; Taylor & Cluemper 2012).
On the basis of previous researcher it can be said that the high degree of mentorship will increase the employee’s outcomes
like work success (job performance) and work engagement. Therefore on the basis of available literature, it is investigated
that the mentorship moderates the relationship amongst core self-evaluation and employee’s work engagement and work
success (performance), therefor it is hypothesized that:-
H4. Mentorship moderates the between the core self- evaluation and work engagement; The relationship will be stronger
when mentorship is higher.
Moderating Role of Mentorship between the core of self-evaluation (CSA) and Employees Outcomes (Work
Success)
Mentoring is commonly characterized as "the connection between a senior or more experienced employee (mentor) and a
lesser and less experienced representatives (protégé ), to upgrade career growth and job consequences” (Cram, 1983). A
mentor is someone who is considered to be knowledgeable and more experienced in their subject area or subject related task
and directs someone with little knowledge and less experience (Murray, 2006). Mentoring or Mentorship is defined as the
ability to assist people with acquiring the skills/ gain expertise necessary to accomplish their work and
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
potentially improve their profession through inspiration, self-awareness, and individual change (Cameron, 2007). Most of
the past researchers have argued that mentoring can be beneficial for core self-evaluated employees (CSE) to guide them in
their ethical practices and other potential benefits for getting the better organizational outcomes. A culture of learning is
created where knowledge is exchanged (Francis, 2009). Counseling/ mentoring experience creates a positive environment
that increases job satisfaction. A higher level of satisfaction is associated with lower employee turnover (intention to leave
the organizations), better retention, and positive patient outcomes (Zachary, 2012).
On the basis of previous researcher it can be said that the high degree of mentorship will increase the employee’s outcomes
like work success (job performance) and work engagement. Therefore on the basis of available literature, it is investigated
that the mentorship moderates the relationship among core self-assessment and employee’s work engagement and work
success (performance), therefor it is hypothesized that:-
H5. Mentorship moderates the relationship between core self-evaluation and and work success; The relationship will be
stronger when mentorship is higher.
Moderating Role of Mentorship between CSA and Intention to Leave:-
Organizations often use mentorship programs as an organized solution to improve employee performance and make it more
beneficial to retain employees. (Lisa, 2011). Mentors provide insights and guidance to achieve expected goals such as
performance and participation, mentoring is also useful to hold employees with organizations (Thomas, 2011). A well-
established and well-managed mentorship program can improve performance of employees by improving staff attendance
(Orth, Wilkinson & Binfari, 2009). Few researchers agreed to the main role that mentors are responsible for retaining
employees and supervisors who work on employee development morale raises interest rates and lowers exchange rates
(Jayarante & Chess, 1984; Rycraft, 1994; Samantri, 1992; Ritchie & Genoni, 2002). According few past researchers that bad
mentorship/ supervision are destructively correlated to numerous of work behavior such as institutional dedication (Duffy et
al., 2002. Taper, 2000) employee’s work success (performance) and work engagement (Tepper et al., 2004) and confidently
correlated with intention toward left (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). According to the researchers core self-evaluated (CSE)
employees may become unwelcome due to misconduct or abuse; their actions or behavior toward supervisors/mentor may
lead to coordinate mistreatment (cf. Henle & Gross, 2014). Dissatisfied/ unhappy employees are more likely to adopt
adverse behaviors towards persons, organizations and similarly as toward their bosses (Taylor et al. 2012; Taylor &
Kluemper 2012; McKay Ma,. 2016, 2017). This creates the cause of hopeless relationship between employee’s and
supervisor (mentor). This disgruntled employee may not fulfill the required objectives of
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Core%Self-Evaluation%
Mentorship%
organization and even may quit the job. Tepper, (2007) have practically inspected the influence of disgrace supervision/
mentorship on, many others people and as well as directorial consequences like work engagement and work success (job
performance), organizational commitments and job satisfactions (Tipper, 2007; Martinko et al., 2013; Mackey et al., 2017).
On the basis of earlier investigators it can be believed that the high degree of mentorship will weaker the effect of core self-
evaluation and intention to leave the organization. Therefore on the basis of majority existing literature, it is suggested that
the mentorship moderates the relationship between core self-evaluation and aim to leave the organizations, thus it is
hypothesized that:-
H6. Mentorship moderates the relationship core self- evaluation and intention to leave. The relationship will be
weaker when mentorship is higher.
Proposed Research Model
Work Engagement
Employees Outcomes
Work Success
Intention to leave
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Research Design
The current investigation is empirical and quantitative based examination. Information was gathered by convenience
sampling techniques and information was gathered from public sectors universities of capital city (Rawalpindi and
Islamabad) of Pakistan. Confidentiality was confirmed and participation was voluntary. Data was conducted on
questionnaire, distributed among different levels of universities employees. 440 questionnaires were distributed among the
respondent however 355 were completed, 85 questionnaires were return incomplete (having missing value, outliers &
unactioned and rough used) which were not able to use. The response rate of the respondents was 81% response rate.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Population
The targets population/ contestants of this study were the different levels of employees of public sector universities of capital
city (Rawalpindi and Islamabad) of Pakistan.
Sampling Technique and Sample Size
A total of 440 questionnaires were distributed to the contestants to collect data. convenience sampling technique will be used
to collect the data. Individual contacts and an introductory letter were utilized to get the information easily. Confidentiality
was guaranteed, and participation was voluntarily participated.
Data Collection Procedure
Major source of collection of data was questionnaire. A cover letter was utilized to guarantee voluntary participation and
confidentiality along-with the importance of responses for the investigation attempt. Information was gathered from various
public sector universities and diverse level of employees of universities.
Sample Characteristics and Demographics
Data was collected from employees of different universities of twin cities (Rawalpindi and Islamabad) of Pakistan at different
hierarchical levels. Both male and female were included. Gender, Age, Marital Status, Designation’s Level, Qualification,
and experience were inquired in Demographics.
Measures
All variables were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with “1” strongly disagrees and "5" strongly agree.
Core Self-Evaluation
Core Self-Evaluation has been estimated by utilizing a 12-thing scale created by Judge at el. (2003).
One Sample Item is "I am confident I get the success I deserve in life”. Cronbach alpha was (.87).
Work Engagement
Work Engagement has been estimated by utilizing 9 things scale set up by Schaufeli, W.B. Bakker, A.B., and Salanova, M.
(2006). One Sample Item "At my work, I feel bursting with energy”. Cronbach alpha was (.90).
Work Success (Performance)
Work success (performance) has been measured by using a 5 items scale settled by Cedwyn Fernandes, and Raed Awamleh,
(2006). One Sample Item is "I always reach my performance targets”. Cronbach alpha was (.87).
Intention to Leave
Intention to leave has been measured by using a 4 items scale established by Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). One Sample Item is "I
often think about quitting”. Cronbach alpha was (.92).
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Mentorship
Mentorship has been measured by using a 14 items scale established by D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I.
(2003). One Sample Item is "Provided me with opportunities to network and increase my visibility”. Cronbach alpha was
(.73).
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1:
Descriptive Statistics for main variables of interest in the study
N
Minimu
m
Maximu
m
Mean
Std.
Erro
r
Std.
Deviation
Kurtosi
s
skewnes
s
CSA
355
1.00
5.00
2.3484
.0479
7
.90389
.4150
.8680
WE
355
1.00
5.00
4.2654
.0445
9
.84021
1.785
-1.441
MS
355
1.00
5.00
1.9602
.0508
1
.95738
.725
1.047
WS
355
1.00
5.00
2.2997
.0686
1
1.29269
-.5678
.8270
ILT
355
1.00
5.00
3.4676
.0563
4
1.06150
-.6754
-.3950
Valid N
(listwise)
355
Table 1, depicted the descriptive statistics of the main variables of the study. The SPSS version 23 was used for the analysis
of the data. The mean of core self-evaluation (CSA) is 2.34 (SD = 0.903). The work engagement (WE) has 4.26 mean (SD =
0.840). Moreover, the mean value of mentorship (MS) is
1.96 with (SD = 0.957). In addition, the mean scores of work success (WS) is 2.29 with (SD = 1.292). Intention to leave
(ITL) has 3.46 mean with (SD = 1.061). The WE has higher mean stands at ‘Agree’ position. Following table skewness and
kurtosis value at the range of ±1.96 which is acceptable that’s means our data is reliable.
Bi-Variate Correlation Analysis
Table 2:
Correlation analysis for main variables of interest in the study
CSA
WE
MS
WS
WE
Pearson Co -relationship
-
0.050
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.345
N
355
MS
Pearson Co -relationship
0.625
-
0.026
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.000
0.626
N
355
355
WS
Pearson Co -relationship
0.161
0.043
0.242
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.002
0.417
0.000
N
355
355
355
ITL
Pearson Co -relationship
-
0.247
0.029
-
0.185
-0.143
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.000
0.589
0.000
0.000
N
355
355
355
355
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
CSA= Core self-evaluation WE= Work Engagement, MS= Mentorship, WS= Work
Success, ITL= Intention to Leave
The table 2 showed the zero order bi-variate Pearson correlations between constructs. The most of the results found
significant in expected directions. The correlation between core self-evaluation and work engagement found negative non-
significant (r = 0.050, p = 0.345). The mentorship and core self- evaluation has positive significant relationship (r = 0.625, p
= 0.000). Mentorship and work engagement has negative non-significant relationship (r = 0.026, p = 0.626). Moreover, core
self-evaluation and work success has positive significant relationship (r = 0.161, p = 0.002). Correlation found negative non-
significant between work success and work engagement (r = 0.043, p = 0.417). In contrast, work success with mentorship has
positive significant relationship (r = 0.242, p = 0.000). In addition, the correlation found negative significant of Intention to
leave with core self-evaluation (r = -0.247, p = 0.000); Intention to leave with mentorship (r = -0.185, p = 0.000) and
Intention to leave with work success (r = -0.143, p = 0.000). But the correlation found positive non-significant between
Intention to leave with work engagement (r = 0.029, p = 0.589).
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was used to test the main effects as well as the moderation effects of the variables.
Table 3:
Predictors
Work Engagement
Work Success
Intention to leave
Beta
Value
β
R
Square
R2
Adjacent R
Square
∆R2
Beta
Value
β
R
Square
R2
Adjacent R
Square
∆R2
Beta
Value
β
R
Square
R2
Adjacent R
Square
∆R2
CSA
-0.047
0.003
0.000
0.231**
0.026
0.023
-0.29**
0.061
0.058
In regression analysis hypothesis 1 is rejected that performance CSA has insignificant relationship with WE. (β = -0.047, p =
0.345). Hypothesis 2 is accepted that CSA has insignificant relationship with WE (β = 0.231, p<=0.001). Hypothesis 3 has
also accepted that CSA has negative and significant relationship with Intention to leave (β = 0.023, p<=0.001).
4.3.
Moderation Analysis
The advance technique for analysis has been used in the current study. The proposed moderated model that included direct
links, moderation links along with hypotheses respectively in the preceding chapter. The moderation regression analysis has
been used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Table 4:
Moderation Analysis Table with Work Engagement Predicted by Core Self-Evaluation Moderated by Mentorship
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Predictor
s
B
SE
t
p-value
LLCI
ULC
I
Step 1: Simple Effects Model (Intercept)
0.0737
0.708
1
0.5907
Step 2: Non-Interaction Model
Core self-evaluation
-
0.0578
0.063
7
-
0.9082
0.3644
-
0.183
0.067
Mentorship
-
0.0212
0.066
5
-
0.3183
0.7504
-
0.152
0.109
Step 3: Interaction Model (Intercept) Core
Self- Evaluation: Mentorship
0.412
0.041
1
1.0026
0.3167
-
0.039
0.122
The simple mediator investigation was performed utilizing PROCESS. The outcome variable for examination was work
engagement. The predictor variable for the examination was core self- evaluation. The moderator variable for the
investigation was mentorship. The non-interaction model found statically non-significant. Moreover, the interaction model
failed to explained variance of work engagement, thus, the moderation is not supported (β = 0.412, p = 0.3167, CI = -0.03 to
0.12). This suggests that mentorship did not moderate the relationship between core self-evaluation and work engagement.
The relationship found stronger when mentorship is weaker.
Table 5:
Moderation Analysis Table with Work Success Predicted by Core Self-Evaluation Moderated by Mentorship
Predictor
s
B
SE
t
p-value
LLCI
ULC
I
Step 1: Simple Effects Model (Intercept)
0.2660
1.566
1
0.000
Step 2: Non-Interaction Model
Core self-evaluation
0.0051
0.947
0.544
0.9567
-0.181
0.191
Mentorship
0.2216
0.990
2.2394
0.0258
0.027
0.416
Step 3: Interaction Model (Intercept)
-
0.1188
0.115
7
-1.0268
0.3052
-0.346
0.108
Core self-evaluation
0.0051
0.094
7
0.0544
0.9567
-0.181
0.191
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Mentorship
0.1291
0.106
7
1.210
8
0.2268
-0.080
0.338
Core self-evaluation: Mentorship
0.1295
0.061
1
2.119
9
0.0347
0.0094
0.2497
The simple mediator investigation was performed utilizing PROCESS. The outcome variable for examination was work
engagement. The predictor variable for the examination was core self- evaluation. The moderator variable for the
investigation was mentorship. The non-interaction model of core self-evaluation found statically non-significant. Moreover,
the interaction model explained significantly more variance of work engagement then the non-interaction model, thus, the
moderation is supported (β = 0.1295, p = 0.0347, CI = 0.00 to 0.24). This suggests that mentorship moderate the relationship
between core self-evaluation and work success. The relationship found stronger when mentorship is higher.
Table 6:
Moderation Analysis Table with Intention to Leave Predicted by Core Self-Evaluation Moderated by Mentorship
Predictor
s
B
SE
t
p-value
LLCI
ULCI
Step 1: Simple Effects Model (Intercept)
0.2506
1.065
0
0.000
Step 2: Non-Interaction Model
Core self-evaluation
-
0.2509
0.078
1
-
3.2134
0.0014
-
0.404
-
0.097
Mentorship
-
0.0437
0.081
6
-
0.5352
0.5929
-
0.115
0.082
Step 3: Interaction Model (Intercept) Core
self- evaluation: Mentorship
-
0.0167
0.050
4
-
0.3323
0.7399
-
0.115
0.082
The simple mediator investigation was performed utilizing PROCESS. The outcome variable for examination was work
engagement. The predictor variable for the examination was core self-
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
evaluation. The moderator variable for the investigation was mentorship. The non-interaction model of core self-evaluation
found statically significant. Moreover, the interaction model explained non- significant variance of work engagement then the
non-interaction model, thus, the moderation is not supported (β = -0.0167, p = 0.7399, CI = -0.11 to 0.08). This suggests that
mentorship didn't moderate the relationship between Core self-evaluation and Intention to leave. The relationship found
stronger when mentorship is weaker.
2
Figure 4
DISCUSSION
In this study trait activation theory was used to explain the whole mechanism, i.e how employees tend to increase their
outcomes by using Core self-evaluation trait.
The study investigated that Core self-evaluation have adverse association with work engagement (H1) which is not supported.
Most of the prior research/ studies have analyzed the positive connotation between Core self-assessment and work
engagement (Hsieh & Huang, 2017). However there are few studies in previous literature in which researchers have also
investigated the negative association of Core self-evaluation, i.e. according to Heller and Hambrick (2005) significant levels
of Core self-evaluation may be related to sub-modern/ suboptimal and negative decision making. The researchers have also
argued that higher levels of core self- evaluation (CSE) can lead people to disregard negative data/information, face
unapproved challenge, as well as overestimate/err their abilities. The results of this study coincide with previous studies on
similar relationships.
The study investigated that core self-evaluation have significant and encouraging connotation with work success (H2) which
is supported. The examination are predictable/comparative with the consequences of past investigations conducted on the
similar relationship, i.e to satisfy the various needs (organizational
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
outcomes/ objectives) are very challenging, and can only be achieved with extremely inspired employees individuals with
advanced/high Core Self-Evaluation tend to be highly themselves, and also have confidence in their capacity to satisfy the
ideal work/task/objective, and have strong control over personal life. (Dai, Chen, & Zhuang, 2016). Individuals/ peoples
having high core self-evaluation are generally positive and self-assured/ confident in their abilities and also satisfied with
their jobs and do very well. (Judge, Timothy A, 2009).
The current study also investigated that core self-evaluation have adverse association with intention to leave (H3) which is
supported. Most of the previous studies have examined the destructive/ negative connotation among core self-evaluation and
intention to leave the organizations. According to the scholars of previous studies have advised that when somebody winds
up in a troublesome or undesirable circumstance, the trait (Core self-evaluation) provide a protective/defensive effect to cope/
handle with the situation, high level of evaluators defeat their shortcomings and highlight positive thoughts and qualities that
influence their occupation applicable results. (Bone &Judge, 2003; Perry-Sith & Manushi 2017), this confidence increases
the level of performance of these individuals and decrease their intention to leave the organization (Judgeet al., 1998).
Proposed hypothesis has been tested by using the moderation regression analysis. The results shows that mentorship didn't
moderate the connection between core self-evaluation and work engagement (β = 0.412, p = 0.3167, CI = -0.03 to 0.12) (H4).
The relationship found stronger when mentorship is weaker. The findings of this examination are not accordance with the
results/ consequences of majority studies examined on this relationship however there are few studies in previous research
which have also not found significant relationship. When individuals experience harmful treatment (abused mentorship or
bad supervision), they might respond with negative, unhelpful and damaging actions not only of their supervisor/leaders or
mentors, but also to other members of the organization or to the organization itself, but other organizational members or the
organization itself (e.g., Penney & Spector 2005, Shin & Grant 2019, McKay et al., 2017). Hence, we expect people with low
core self-evaluation (abused by mentor/supervisor) levels to feel more arbitrary control over participating and to engage in a
range of divergent activities/behaviors. Abused employees are known to react negatively (McKay et al. 2017). Some past
investigations have indicated that mentoring/coaching regularly upset by large numbers of issues, for example, dread of
retirement, dread of the obscure, dread of losing control, dread of death, and premiums outside of work, absence of a solid
feeling of individual connection to the organization (Ibrahim, Safani, &Lam, 2001 Handler & Karam, 1988).
Projected hypothesis “Mentorship moderates the relationship between the core self- evaluation and work success; the
relationship will be stronger when mentorship is higher” has been tested by using the
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
moderation regression analysis. The results shows that mentorship moderate the connection between the core self-evaluation
and work success (β = 0.1295, p = 0.0347, CI = 0.00 to 0.24) (H5). The relationship found stronger when mentorship is
stronger. According to the literatures mentor provides understanding and direction to help the employees to achieve their
desired goals such as work success/ performance (Thomas, 2011).
In the study mentorship as a moderate also tested in the relationship between the core self- evaluation and intention to leave,
the organizations. The result shows that mentorship didn't moderate the connection between the center self-assessment and
intention to leave (β = - 0.0167, p = 0.7399, CI = -
0.11 to 0.08) (H6) which is not supported. The relationship found stronger when mentorship is weaker. The results are not
same with the previous studies showed on the similar relationship. These conclusions are not accordance with the results of
majority studies examined on this relationship however there are few literatures is available in previous studies which have
also not found significant relationship. According to the few of past researchers when lower core self-evaluation (CSA)
subordinates/ employees will experience abusive mentors/supervisor, which leads to a large number of workplaces deviation
and intention to leave the organizations (cf. Wei & Si 2013). The research supports the association between core self-
evaluation (CSE) and thug behavior, suggesting that individuals in low CSE are demonstrating sad practices at work, the
researchers also investigated that divergent responses to insulting supervision (mentorship) by employees are risky not only
for supervisors/ mentors also for organization (Thau & Mitchell 2010).
IMPLICATIONS
The consequences of this research have numerous of implications for implementation. The leading and most understandable
implication is that destructive supervision/ mentorship is associated to low level of employee outcomes (Schat, Frone, &
Kelloway, 2006) entirely drives required making to overcome the destructive mentors and supervisors in all type of
organization. All the available resources of organization are required to utilize for the welfare of the employees, unfair
utilization of resources leads the employees to negative behavior toward the work outcomes and increase the employees
intention to leave the organizations (Hobfoll, 1989), these resources are also required use for educating the supervisors and
hiring of quality mentors and also for employees. Organizational resources are also utilized to observer/ check the behavior
and conduct of supervisors/mentors and core self-evaluated employees to make sure that supervisors/mentors are involve in
suitable, useful and strong actions while performing work through their subordinates. Furthermore, HR/ managers should
check the mentorship style according to the perception of organization’s employee for the attaining the maximum
organizational objectives.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
As per the trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett 2003; Tett & Guterman 2000), in some cases, personality traits i.e (core
self-evaluation) are more likely to be activated in employees, researchers said that employees are more active in their work
behaviors under certain conditions, which leads the employee for the beneficial of organization. Individual characteristics
depend on the symptoms of the situation
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Despite of applied and theoretical implications of this study, it is not the research without limitations. First this study was
conducted on limited sample size; data for the study were collected from public sector universities in Rawalpindi and
Islamabad. Furthermore research depended on very limited areas of Rawalpindi/Islamabad. Third most of the sample size was
comprised of male participant that comprised the generalizability of findings.
This study provides some important insights for future researchers. First, future researchers are advised to do the same in
other areas such as banks, telecommunications companies and hospitals etc. In this research convenience sampling technique
was used. To ensure research generalizability, it is recommended that future researchers use larger and more diverse sample
sizes. To avoid general methodological bias, future studies should also consider the use of multi-source data collection and
vertical design, probability or sample random sampling techniques. The model of this study can be replicated in other culture
and country. In this study Mentorship used as moderator variable between core self-evaluation and employees outcomes and
employee’s intentions to leave the organization, future researchers may examine the appraisal system and distributive justice
mediator and moderator in the relationship used in this study. The future researchers may also use salary as a moderation
variable in the relation used in this study.
Conclusion:
In this study trait activation theory was used to clarify the whole mechanism, i.e how employees of any organizations
increase their outcomes by using core self-evaluation trait and how it put impact on organization’s performance and
profitability in presence of moderator mentorship. This study will contribute effectively in the available literature by focusing
its positive outcomes with strong empirical evidence. Most of the results provided support to proposed hypothesis, through
moderating mechanism. This study attempted to open new bits of knowledge for future examination. The current
investigation contributed to existence body of knowledge both empirically and theoretically.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
REFERENCES
Anjum, M., & Shah, S.Z.A. (2017). Indirect Effects of FNE and POP on Emotional Exhaustion: The Role of Facades of
Conformity. Bysiness & Economic Review, 9(2), 225-254.
Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli,W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147–154.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35(2), 135–153.
Cho, S., Woods, R. H.,
Bothma, F. C., and G. Roodt. 2012. “Work-Based Identity and Work Engagement as Potential Antecedents of Task
Performance and Turnover Intention: Unravelling a Complex
Relationship.” SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 38 (1): 27–44.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job
performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5–S18.
Brown, M. E., & Trevin˜o, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Cameron, M. (2007). Learning to teach: A literature review of induction theory and practice.
Wellington: New Zealand Teachers Council.
Chang, C.-H., D. L. Ferris, R. E. Johnson, C. C. Rosen, and J. A. Tan. 2012. “Core Self-
Evaluations: A Review and Evaluation of the Literature.” Journal of Management 38 (1): 81– 128.
Cedwyn Fernandes, and Raed Awamleh, (2006) "Impact of organizational justice in an expatriate work
environment", Management Research News, Vol. 29 Issue: 11,pp. 701-712.
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a Bhappy^ worker is really a Bproductive^ worker: a review and
further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting psychology journal: practice and.
Research, 53(3), 275–294.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,
31(6), 874–900.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based approach to understanding
mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe developmental interactions. Human Resource Development
Review, 2(4), 360–384.
Dai, Y. D., Hou, Y. H., Chen, K. Y., & Zhuang, W. L. (2018). To help or not to help: Antecedents of hotel
employees' organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1293–1313.
Dai, Y. D., Hou, Y. H., & Zhuang, W. L. (2019). Engage or quit? The moderating role of abusive supervision between
resilience, intention to leave and work engagement. Tourism Management Volume 70, February 2019, Pages 69-77
Dai, Y. D., Chen, K. Y., & Zhuang, W. L. (2016). Moderating effect of work–family conflict on the
relationship between leader–member exchange and relative deprivation: Links to behavioral
outcomes. Tourism Management, 54, 369–382.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–
268.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. New York, NY: University Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44: 350–383.
Francis, L. M. (2009). Shifting the Shape of Mentoring. T+D, 63(9), 36-40.
Guest, D. (2017). ‘Human resource management and employee well
being: To
wards
a ne
w
analytic framework’,
Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38.
Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait-activation theory for evaluating the
construct validity of assessment center ratings.Personnel Psychology, 55, 137–163.
Handler, W. C., &Kram, K. E. (1988). Succession in family firms: The problem of resistance.
Family Business Review, 1(4), 361-381.
Han, J. H. (2020). The Effects of Personality Traits on Subjective Well-being and Behavioral Intention Associated with
Serious Leisure Experiences. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics
and Business, 7(5), 167-176.
Hiller, N.,& Hambrick, D.C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-) core self- evaluations in strategic
decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 297–319.
Hsieh, H. H., & Huang, J. T. (2017). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: the mediating and moderated
mediating role of job insecurity. The Journal of Psychology, 1- 7.
Ibrahim, A. B., Soufani, K., & Lam, J. (2001).A study of succession in a family firm .Family
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Business Review, 14(3), 245-258.
J. Shin, A.M. GrantBored by interest: How intrinsic motivation in one task can reduce performance
on other tasks Academy of Management Journal, 62 (2) (2019), pp. 415-436
Jayaratne, S. & Chess, W. A.(1984). Job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover: A national study. Social
Work, 29(5), 448-453.
Jex, S.M. (2002) Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). “Dispositional effects on job
and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations.” Journal of applied psychology, 83(1), 17-34.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2003). “Core Self-Evaluations: A Review of the Trait and its Role in Job Satisfaction and
Job Performance.” European Journal of Personality, 17, 5-18.
Judge, T. A., &Bretz, R. D. (1994).“Political influence behavior and career success. ”Journal of Management, 20, 43– 65.
Judge, Timothy A. (2009) Core Self-Evaluations and Work Success Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A. and Bono, J.E. (1998), “The power of being positive: the relationship
between positive self-concept and job performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3, pp. 167-87.
Judge et al. (2003) Personnel Psychology 56(2):303 - 331 · June 2003 (Article – 1, Page 13) Judge, T.A., Locke,
E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
a core evaluations approach”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 151-88.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, T.J. (2003), “The core self-evaluations scale: development of a measure”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 303-31.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–
625.
Kram KE. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.Glenview,
IL: Scott Jx)resman.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B A. (2009).“The Role of Core Self- Evaluations in the
Coping Process.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 177–195.
Law KS, Wong CS, Mobley WH. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs.
Academy of Management Review, 23,741-755.
Levinson DJ. Darrow CN. Klein EB, Levinson MA. McKee B. (1978). Seasons of a man'slife. New
York: Knopf.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Li, J., Kim, W. G., & Zhao, X. (2017). Multilevel model of management support and casino employee
turnover intention. Tourism Management, 59, 193–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.006.
Lisa, K. P. (2011). Mentoring: What Organizations Need to Know to Improve Performance in the 21st Century Workplace. A
Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
Degree in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Toledo.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017) Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and
empirical review Journal of Management, 43, 1940–1965.
Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn, M., Martinko, M.J., & Harvey, P. (2016). Victim and culprit? The effects
of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying.
Journal of Business Ethics. https
://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-016-3348-7.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-
analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940–1965.
Murray, M. (2006). Innovations in Performance Improvement with Mentoring. In J. Pershing (Ed.),
Handbook of Human Performance Technology (pp. 455-477). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Orth, C.D., Wilkinson, H.E., & Benfari, R.C. (2009). The Manager’s Role as Coach and Mentor.
Organizational Dynamics 15(4), 66-74.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The
moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.
Ritchie, A., & Genoni, P. (2002). Group Mentoring Professionalism: A Programme Evaluation.
Library Management 23(1/2), 78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Rycraft, J. R. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare
caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75-80.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and
burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A
cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implications
for organizations. In S.W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in
management (volume 5): managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135–177). Greenwich:
Information Age Publishers.
10.31384/jisrmsse/2020.18.2.12
Shrauger j. Sidney (1975) Self-evaluation and reactions to evaluations from others, (2),225-254.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross- situational
consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34,3 97–423.
Tran, D. T., Lee, L. Y., Nguyen, P. T., & Srisittiratkul, W. (2020). How Leader Characteristics and
Leader Member Exchange Lead to Social Capital and Job Performance. Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, 7(1).
Schat, A.C.H., Desmarais, S. and Kelloway, E.K. (2006), “Exposure to workplace aggression
from multiple sources: validation of a measure and test of a model”, Unpublished manuscript McMaster University,
Hamilton, Canada.
Thomas, D. A. (2011). The Truth about Mentoring Minorities: Race Matters. Harvard Business
Review, April Issue.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A.
L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader- member
exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.
Wei, F., & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors:
The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 30, 281–296.
Zachary, L. J. (2012). Creating a Mentoring Culture. Washington, DC: Center for Association Leadership.
