The impact of corporate governance, internal control and corporate reputation on employee engagement: a moderating role of leadership style

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Description of the data collection process.

Population and Sample	Total	Percentage
Questionary sent to target population	3412	100%
Questionary return and completed	802	23,5% of total population
Invalid Questionary	37	4,6% of total returned questionary
Questionary used for analysis (Sample)	765	95,4% of total returned questionary

Table 2. Variable description.

Variables	Variable Role	Indicators of measurement	References
Employee Engagement	Dependent Variable	Emotional engagement Behavioral engagement Feeling valued and Involved Engaged leadership team Trust and Integrity Job Nature Connection of employees Corporate performance Growth opportunity Stress-free environment Change management	Imandin et al. (2015)
Corporate governance	Independent Variable	Transparency Accountability Responsibility Independence Fairness	KNKG (2019)
Internal Control	Independent Variable	Control environment Risk assessment Control activities Information and communication Monitoring	Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) (2013)
Corporate Reputation	Independent Variable	Emotional Attraction Products And Services The Working Environment Financial Performance Vision, And Leadership Set Social Responsibility.	Morsing et al. (2008)
Leadership Style (Democratic, Bureaucratic, Laissez-faire, Authoritarian)	Moderating Variable	Decision-making Interactions Employee motivation	Kelly and MacDonald (2019)

Table 3. Respondents profile.

Characteristics	Total	Percentage
Working Position:
Supervisory	323	42.22%
Managerial	348	45.49%
General Managerial	46	6.01%
Director	37	4.84%
Commissioner	11	1.44%
Total	765	100%
Working Experiences
Less than two years	23	3.01%
2 to 5 Years	477	62.35%
Above 5 Years	265	34.64%
Total	765	100%
Education Level
Vocational	125	16.34%
Undergraduate	388	50.72%
Master/Doctorate	252	32.94%
Total	765	100%

Table 4. Sample’s geographic location.

Region	Total	Percentage
Bali and Java	308	84.38%
Borneo	18	4.93%
Sumatra	20	5.48%
Celebes	12	3.29%
Others	7	1.92%
Total	365	100.00%

Table 5. Leadership style of sample firm.

Leadership Style	Total	Percentage
Democratic	277	75.89%
Laissez-faire	18	4.93%
Bureaucratic	49	13.42%
Authoritarian	21	5.75%
Total	365	100.00%

Table 6. Convergent validity and reliability test.

Construct Validity				Construct Reliability
Construct (s)	Item (s)	Loadings	Sig. Loadings	CA	CR (rho_a)	CR (rho_c)	AVE
Corporate Governance (CG)	X1.1	0.811	0.000	0.869	0.871	0.905	0.657
	X.1.2	0.795	0.000
	X.1.3	0.809	0.000
	X.1.4	0.850	0.000
	X.1.5	0.786	0.000
Internal Control (IC)	X.2.1	0.807	0.000	0.925	0.926	0.944	0.771
	X.2.2	0.883	0.000
	X.2.3	0.913	0.000
	X.2.4	0.885	0.000
	X.2.5	0.897	0.000
Corporate Reputation (CR)	X.3.1	0.816	0.000	0.907	0.909	0.928	0.683
	X.3.2	0.843	0.000
	X.3.3	0.853	0.000
	X.3.4	0.861	0.000
	X.3.5	0.851	0.000
	X.3.6	0.730	0.000
Employee Engagement (EE)	Y.1.1	0.783	0.000	0.940	0.942	0.948	0.626
	Y.1.2	0.720	0.000
	Y.1.3	0.778	0.000
	Y.1.4	0.805	0.000
	Y.1.5	0.781	0.000
	Y.1.6	0.779	0.000
	Y.1.7	0.776	0.000
	Y.1.8	0.819	0.000
	Y.1.9	0.841	0.000
	Y.1.10	0.850	0.000
	Y.1.11	0.766	0.000

Table 7. Fornell lacker criterion test.

	Employee Engagement	Internal Control	Corporate Reputation	Corporate Governance
Employee Engagement	0.891
Internal Control	0.855	0.878
Corporate Reputation	0.806	0.779	0.827
Corporate Governance	0.780	0.736	0.736	0.811

Figure 2. Bootstrapping results.

Table 8. PLSpredict (Q-Square).

Observed Variables	PLS		LM		PLS-LM		Q²_predict
	RMSE	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE	MAE
Main Model
Y1.1	0.680	0.485	0.699	0.493	−0.019	−0.009	0.465
Y1.10	0.716	0.519	0.727	0.528	−0.010	−0.009	0.385
Y1.11	0.680	0.484	0.688	0.485	−0.008	−0.001	0.481
Y1.2	0.650	0.487	0.654	0.487	−0.004	0.000	0.507
Y1.3	0.688	0.503	0.697	0.503	−0.009	−0.001	0.488
Y1.4	0.615	0.438	0.692	0.511	−0.077	−0.073	0.466
Y1.5	0.659	0.474	0.675	0.482	−0.017	−0.008	0.465
Y1.6	0.596	0.328	0.600	0.418	−0.004	−0.090	0.554
Y1.7	0.520	0.386	0.613	0.470	−0.093	−0.085	0.605
Y1.8	0.541	0.393	0.563	0.401	−0.022	−0.009	0.584
Y1.9	0.607	0.445	0.707	0.535	−0.100	−0.091	0.476
Interaction Model
Y1.1	0.682	0.486	0.701	0.495	−0.019	−0.008	0.462
Y1.10	0.716	0.518	0.728	0.529	−0.012	−0.011	0.385
Y1.11	0.679	0.484	0.689	0.487	−0.010	−0.003	0.483
Y1.2	0.651	0.487	0.656	0.488	−0.005	−0.001	0.507
Y1.3	0.688	0.502	0.698	0.504	−0.010	−0.002	0.487
Y1.4	0.716	0.539	0.794	0.613	−0.078	−0.074	0.465
Y1.5	0.660	0.475	0.676	0.483	−0.016	−0.008	0.463
Y1.6	0.602	0.432	0.602	0.620	0.000	−0.188	0.547
Y1.7	0.526	0.390	0.614	0.672	−0.089	−0.282	0.595
Y1.8	0.543	0.396	0.565	0.403	−0.022	−0.007	0.580
Y1.9	0.612	0.448	0.708	0.657	−0.096	−0.209	0.467

Table 9. Model fit.

	Cut off	Saturated Model	Estimated Model	Conclusion
Main Model
SRMR	< 0.08 – 0.10	0.075	0.075	Good Fit
d_ULS	na	2.135	2.135	na
d_G	na	1.020	1.020	na
Chi-Square	na	1989.655	1989.655	na
NFI	0.90	0.982	0.982	Good Fit
Interaction Model
SRMR	< 0.08 – 0.10	0.073	0.073	Good Fit
d_ULS	na	2.176	2.178	na
d_G	na	1.038	1.038	na
Chi-Square	na	2021.532	2021.700	na
NFI	0.90	0.979	0.979	Good Fit

Table 10. Hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Path Direction	Path Coefficient	t-value	P-Values	Conclusion
H1	CG → EE	0.231	4.375	0.000	Accepted
H2	IC → EE	0.488	10.292	0.000	Accepted
H3	CR → EE	0.251	4.754	0.000	Accepted
H4	CG × DLS → EE	0.273	4.545	0.000	Accepted
H5	IC × DLS → EE	0.441	8.911	0.000	Accepted
H6	CR × DLS → EE	0.265	4.386	0.000	Accepted
H7	CG × BLS → EE	0.148	1.205	0.114	Rejected
H8	IC × BLS → EE	0.533	4.005	0.000	Accepted
H9	CR × BLS → EE	0.298	2.035	0.021	Accepted
H10	CG × LLS → EE	−0.011	0.043	0.483	Rejected
H11	IC × LLS → EE	0.655	2.011	0.022	Accepted
H12	CR × LLS → EE	0.323	1.727	0.042	Accepted
H13	CG × ALS → EE	0.465	2.186	0.014	Accepted
H14	IC × ALS → EE	0.486	1.747	0.040	Accepted
H15	CR × ALS → EE	0.010	0.043	0.483	Rejected

Imandin, L., Bisschoff, C. A., & Botha, C. J. (2015). Measuring employee engagement of South African managers. Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09764224.2015.11885529

 Google Scholar

KNKG. (2019). The Indonesian codes of corporate governance. https://knkg.or.id/publikasi/

 Google Scholar

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (2013). COSO Internal Control—Integrated Framework Principles. https://www.coso.org/guidance-on-ic

 Google Scholar

Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608

 Google Scholar

Kelly, S., & MacDonald, P. (2019). A look at leadership styles and workplace solidarity communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(3), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416664176

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data is available upon request.