The effect of empowering leadership practices on employees performance with the mediating role of work engagement: the case of ethio-telecom

Figures & data

Table 1. Construct level descriptive analysis result.

Construct variable	Mean	Std. dev
Empowering leadership	3.35	.995
work Engagement	2.52	.841
Employee Performance	3.51	.794

Source: Own computation-using SPSS, (2023).

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables.

	Mean	Std. dev	Empowering leadership,	work Engagement,	Employee Performance
Empowering leadership,	3.35	.995	1
Work Engagement,	2.52	.841	.0.496**	1
Employee Performance	3.51	.794	.0.576**	0.601**	1

**p < .05.

Source: Own computation-using SPSS, (2023).

Figure 1. Test of overall final measurement model.

Table 3. Model fit measures: re-specified final measurement model.

Measure	Estimate	Threshold	Interpretation
CMIN/DF	2.609	>3	Excellent
Goodness‐of‐Fit Index (GFI)	0.943	>0.90	Acceptable
comparative fit index (CFI),	0.957	>0.90	Excellent
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)	0.951	>0.90	Excellent
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	0.059	<0.07	Excellent

Sources for the Threshold (Hair, 2009; Kline, 2011).

Source: Own computation-using SPSS and Amos (2023).

Table 4. Convergent and discriminate validity test.

Constructs	Items	Sta. Loading	Square of SL	Sum of SL	No of items	AVE	Square of AVE
Empowering Leadership	EML_11	0.6662	0.4438
	EML_9	0.877	0.7691
	EML_1	0.8127	0.6605
	EML_2	0.919	0.8446
	EML_3	0.9003	0.8105
	EML_4	0.9121	0.8319
	EML_6	0.9312	0.8671
	EML_7	0.834	0.6956
	EML_19	0.7584	0.5752
	EML_20	0.7402	0.5479
	EML_24	0.6854	0.4698
	EML_21	0.7248	0.5253	8.0413	12	0.6701	0.818
Work engagement	WOE_3	0.9433	0.8898
	WOE_4	0.9117	0.8312
	WOE_6	0.8499	0.7223
	WOE_8	0.6081	0.3698
	WOE_9	0.6613	0.4373
	WOE_1	0.7331	0.5374	3.7879	6	0.6313	0.795
Employee Performance	EMP_18	0.7331	0.5374
	EMP_24	0.7518	0.5652
	EMP_23	0.9493	0.9012
	EMP_22	0.9368	0.8776
	EMP_21	0.9314	0.8675
	EMP_20	0.8875	0.7877
	EMP_19	0.6853	0.4696
	EMP_15	0.727	0.5285
	EMP_13	0.6643	0.4413
	EMP_1	0.6165	0.3801
	EMP_17	0.8095	0.6553	7.0114	11	0.6374	0.798

Source: Own computation-using SPSS and Amos, (2023).

Table 5. Summary of Hypotheses on the direct effect.

			Standardized Estimate	t-Value	P	Decision
Employee Performance	<—	Empowering leadership	.1277	5.3715	***	Supported
Employee Performance	<—	work engagement	.1319	8.4237	***	supported

****p <.000.

Source: Own computation-using SPSS and Amos, (2023).

Table 6. Summary of Hypotheses on the mediation effects.

Relationship	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Confidence Interval
			Lower Bound	Upper bound	P-value	Decision
empowering leadership→ work Engagement → Employee Performance	.1002 (6.342)	.0442	.0194	0802	<.001***	Partial Mediation

Note: Unstandardized coefficients reported. Values in parentheses are t-values.

Bootstrap sample = 5,000 with replacement.

Source: Own computation-using SPSS and Amos, (2023).

Hair J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.

 Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

 Google Scholar