A CAUSAL MODEL ON WORK ENGAGEMENT OF POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN REGION 11 CONCERNING LEADERSHIP, PERSONALITY TRAITS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

 

Georby Cawaling Manuel ¹ , Dr. Victoria Onyot Ligan ²,  Alberto Noble Bandiola ³

 

¹ Admin Officer IV & Acting College Administrator, Altavas College, Altavas, Aklan, Philippines

² Corporate Research and Development Director, Joji Ilagan International Schools, Davao City Philippines, Professor, Davao del Sur State College, Digos, Davao del Sur, Philippines

³ Professor, Professional Schools, University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO), DENR, Davao del Sur, Philippines

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

The work engagement of police officers is of enormous importance as it affects performance Cho (2021). It refers to all the employees' behaviours at work that affects the motivational state, proficiency, and task commitment state of the person to become dedicated and more work-focused Bakker and Albrecht (2018), Fogaça et al. (2018), Wood et al. (2020). Besides, highly engaged employees are highly creative, task performers, and satisfy customers with their outputs, making work engagement highly desirable for public and private organizations Bakker et al. (2014). So, if police commissioned officers are not engaged in their work, criminality will rise, and disorder will set in, affecting the socio-economic setup of the country and the lives of many.

Many factors affect work engagement. For example, authors claimed that a robust positive relationship exists between leadership and employee engagement and performance Novitasari et al. (2021), Schaufeli (2015), Winarno and Hermana (2019). In addition, personality traits such as openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, positively correlate with work engagement Caniëls et al. (2018), Kong and Li (2018), Perera et al. (2018), Tisu et al. (2020), Young et al. (2018). Also, organizational commitment positively correlates with performance Khan et al. (2021). It increases work engagement and is one of the most fundamental concepts explored concerning employee motivation and productivity. Employees with organizational commitment become engaged in their work, doing their jobs well, with precision and efficiency Ligan (2018), Suharto et al. (2019).

Several researchers have studied the above-stated topics but not structural equation modeling with these variables in a single model. Moreover, the researcher has not come by a study that delved into the determinants of the police commissioned officers' work engagement, specifically in the Davao Region. These research gaps prompted the researchers to conduct this study to benefit the police agency because they can use the data to design a work engagement enhancement program for the whole organization in the Davao region and the whole country.

 

1.1.    STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The study intended to determine the best model for work engagement. In addition, the study wanted to establish which indicators of the exogenous variables influence the work engagement of the PNP commissioned officers. The following particular research objectives guided this study.

·        To describe the leadership factors, personality traits, organizational commitment, and work engagement of the police commissioned officers in region 11. 

·        To ascertain the significance of the relationship between leadership factors and work engagement, personality traits and work engagement, and organizational commitment and work engagement.

·        To determine the significance of the influence of leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment on work engagement.

·        To determine the best-fit causation model for work engagement.

 

 

 

2. hypothesis

1)    There is no significant relationship between leadership factors, personality traits, organizational commitment, and work engagement.

2)    Leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment have no significant influence on work engagement.

3)    There is no best-fit model for work engagement

 

3. methodology

This quantitative study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the structural relationships between the measured variables and the latent constructs. SEM combines factor analysis and multiple regression, a multivariate statistical analysis technique. Civelek (2018) and Tarka (2018) claimed that among researchers in the social sciences, SEM is becoming popular, even among dissertation writers. Besides SEM, descriptive statistics, like the mean and standard deviation, were also used to describe the levels of leadership factors, personality traits, organizational commitment, and work engagement. Finally, Pearson r and multiple regression analysis tested the statistical hypotheses.

 

3.1. ENVIRONMENT AND PARTICIPANTS

Davao Region is the setting of this study, comprised of the provinces of Compostela Valley, Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, and Davao Occidental. Davao Region is in the southeastern portion of Mindanao with six cities: Davao, Digos, Mati, Panabo, Samal, and Tagum, with 43 municipalities grouped into 11 congressional districts and 1,162 barangays. The region of Davao has a total land area of 20,357 sq. km., with Davao City as the primer city.

The study used stratified random sampling in selecting 400 police commissioned officers from all local units. Samples of this study were police officers with ranks from Police Inspector to Police Senior Inspector, with the exclusion of the non-commissioned officers and the non-uniformed personnel. Respondents voluntarily participated in the survey. Although they signed the Informed Consent Form (ICF), they could opt to cancel their participation at any time without penalties or fines.

 

4. RESULTS

Table 1

Table 1 Levels of Leadership Factors, Personality Traits, Organizational Commitment, and Work Engagement of Police Commissioned Officers in Region XI
Variables	Mean	SD	Descriptive Level
1.1 Leadership Factors	4.08	0.35	High
1.2 Personality Traits	4.01	0.37	High
1.3 Organizational Commitment	4.05	0.37	High
1.4 Work Engagement	3.91	0.44	High
Overall Mean	4.01	0.07	High

 

In all four variables in Table 1, the overall mean scores are high, which means that respondents often exhibited leadership factors (M=4.08, SD=0.35), personality traits (M=4.01, SD=0.37), organizational commitment (M=4.05, SD=0.37), and work engagement (M=3.91, SD=0.44). Similarly, all standard deviations are small values, indicating the homogeneity of responses in all four variables. The standard deviation tells the dispersion of the data from the mean, and it reports the skewness of the data in measuring the central tendencies.

The mean scores of both the exogenous (leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment) and the endogenous (work engagement) variables were high, indicating that the respondents have often exhibited the things stipulated in the survey. By the way, the manifest variables for leadership factors are charismatic/inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and passive/avoidance. Personality traits are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. Organizational commitment includes affective, normative, and continuance commitments, whereas vigor, dedication, and absorption for work engagement. 

The high mean scores have significant implications. For example, research showed leadership factors, whether styles and skills correspond to employee outcomes at work. One researcher observed that passive (laissez-faire) leadership did not positively affect work engagement Gemeda and Lee (2020). Perhaps the reason is that leaders are hands-off in laissez-faire leadership, allowing group members to make decisions resulting in the lowest productivity Cherry (2020). One vital aspect of leadership is a crucial management function that allows organizations to realize their mission, vision, and goals.

There is no universal meaning of leadership, and leaders can approach it from various perspectives. Leaders perform depending on their capabilities. Some leaders are better than others; this belief also depends on members' perspectives. However, there are five roles that most leaders perform. They motivate, mentor, learn, communicate, and navigate USI Web Services. (2018). In other words, leadership factors, such as those covered in this study, are vital aspects for achieving the vision, mission, and goals of the Philippine National Police. The respondents agreed that they have often experienced or observed these aspects of leadership demonstrated by their superiors: charismatic, inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and passive/avoidance.

Moreover, personality traits also yielded high mean results, which means that the police commissioned officers often demonstrated these traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. Personality traits make people unique; their thought patterns, behaviors, and feelings reflect their personality Diener et al. (2019), Diener and Lucas (2019a). For example, a person exhibiting extraversion shows sociability and can handle every situation differently. Thus, each person differs depending on their location in the personality dimensions Pappas (2017).

Research showed that people with higher extroversion have low rational decision-making. Conversely, those with higher agreeableness and conscientiousness have higher rational decision-making. In addition, those with higher extroversion and openness are more intuitive than those with higher agreeableness and conscientiousness, demonstrating higher dependent decision-making El Othman et al. (2020). These findings suggest that a person's decision-making depends upon his type of personality. Therefore, drawing from the findings suggests that the respondents have well-balanced decision-making skills about their work, considering their all-high mean scores in all the types of personalities.

Similarly, organizational commitment is the component that glues employees to their organization. Research showed that those with high affective commitment have a high sense of accomplishment and reduced job stress. On the other hand, high continuance commitment can trigger emotional and depersonalization burnout because of intense stress or traumatic episodes, affecting work productivity Lambert et al. (2018), Ligan (2018). In other words, continuance commitment moderates affective commitment and job engagement because the thought of staying in the job for life tires them Hayat Bhatti et al. (2019).

The above findings revealed a contrasting effect of affective and continuance commitment. That affective commitment reduces stress and burnout; however, continuance commitment can trigger emotional stress and moderates affective commitment and productivity Lambert et al. (2018), Ligan (2018), Hayat Bhatti et al. (2019). Comparing these findings in this study's results would mean that the all-high results in affective, normative, and continuance commitment have balanced the stress and work productivity of the police commissioned officers. Thus, they have no problem with stress and productivity.

As for work engagement, the result was high, indicating that respondents were often engaged in their work, resulting in better job performance. This finding supported that a high work engagement led employees to be creative to the satisfaction of employers and customers. However, this could occur better when leaders are effective enough to let their people engage in their work Bakker and Albrecht (2018).

While it is true that employees have their job descriptions, leaders can help employees to achieve more by empowering them, such as giving them access to information, opportunities, adequate resources, and support Amor et al. (2020), Ariyani and Hidayati (2018). Empowering and providing employees with these will improve their work-life balance Wood et al. (2020). Significantly, the resultant effect of work engagement is self-efficacy which would, in turn, result in higher job performance Ligan (2018), Lisbona et al. (2018). In other words, police leadership can result in a more productive police force.

 

5. HYPOTHESES

Table 2

Table 2 The Significant Relationship between the Exogenous and Endogenous Variables
	Work Engagement (Endogenous Variable)
Exogenous Variables	Vigor	Dedication	Absorption	Sig.
Leadership Factors	.198** (.000)	.470** (.000)	.600** (.000)	.518** (.000)
Personality Traits	.649** (.000)	.632** (.000)	.525** (.000)	.769** (.000)
Organizational Commitment	-.082 (.100)	.175** (.000)	.347** (.000)	.167** (.001)

 

Table 2 shows the significant correlation of all three exogenous variables with work engagement. Although, of all three exogenous variables, personality traits have the strongest association with all the manifest variables of work engagement, with all the coefficients of correlation over a .50 mark. Thus, a total of .769 at a p-value of .000 signifies a compelling relationship between the variables. Therefore, the rise in personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) will increase work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption).

In addition, the linear relationship between leadership factors (charismatic, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and passive) is moderate, as denoted by its correlation coefficient of .518, with a p-value of .000. The values mean that the increase in the leadership factors can moderately increase work engagement.

This study revealed a significant relationship between leadership factors, personality traits, organizational commitment, and work engagement. This result confirmed the findings of other authors discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Leadership exists because of a need for headship, control, and direction Oc (2018). Leadership comes in various styles, and research shows they are significantly related to employees' work engagement. For example, Gemeda and Lee (2020) found a significant relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. The same significant relationship between transactional leadership and task performance. Although charismatic leadership does not reward followers for their involvement, followers perform because of the shared vision of charismatic leaders Meslec et al. (2020). Still, leadership that gives rewards makes the lives of both leaders and members more satisfying Nassif et al. (2021).

On the other hand, personality traits were also significantly related to work engagement. This finding validated other research findings that personality traits are associated with work engagement Caniëls et al. (2018), Kong and Li (2018), Tisu et al. (2020). In addition, Gwal and Gwal (2019) found a significant correlation between the two variables in a study on personality traits and work engagement of married and single women. Additionally, Teng et al. (2019)have similar findings. They discovered that extroverted employees have a positive relationship with work engagement, while neurotic personality and work engagement have a negative relationship. This finding led them to suggest a combined grouping of extroverts and those with neurotic personalities at work to help the latter tolerate challenging tasks and achieve a positive vibe that could change their work engagement.

Finally, this study found that organizational commitment and work engagement are correlated. Studies have shown that organizational commitment increases work engagement and performance, mediated by job satisfaction Loan (2020). Loan observed that job satisfaction reduced the impact of organizational commitment on work engagement. Thus, Loan suggested improving organizational commitment for better work engagement and performance. In another scenario, Suharto et al. (2019) revealed a direct influence of organizational commitment on work engagement in that it can improve employees' skills, efforts, and work conditions resulting in better work engagement and job performance.

Table 3

Table 3 The Significant Influence of the Exogenous Variables on Work Engagement
	Work Engagement (Endogenous Variable)
Exogenous Variables	B	β	t	Sig.
Constant	.084		.428	.669
Leadership Factors	.261	.209	4.672	.000
Personality Traits	.795	.675	18.037	.000
Organizational Commitment	-.106	-.089	-2.304	.002
	R	.782
	R2	.612
	∆R	.609
	F	208.377
	ρ	.000

 

Table 3 presents the influence of leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment on work engagement. The data in the table suggests that the combined influence of the exogenous latent variables is 60.9 percent (∆R=.609). The adjusted R-square becomes necessary because the model has three independent variables for a more detailed correlation view. In addition, more variables in the model adjust the value of the r squared. Notably, the adjusted R² (∆R) is always lesser than or equal to the coefficient of determination (R²).

Moreover, the coefficient of determination (R²) suggests that each independent variable can explain the variation of work engagement by 61.2 percent (R²=.612). R-squared helps analyze data with slight or no bias, usually with a single independent and dependent variable. The coefficient of correlation (R=.782) affirms the solid linear relationship of the independent variable with work engagement. Essentially, the F-value of 208.377, with a p-value of .000, ensures the predictive capability of the exogenous latent variables (leadership factors, personality traits, organizational commitment) in influencing work engagement among commissioned police officers. The F and p-values also reject the null hypothesis of no significant influence of the exogenous variables over the endogenous variable, work engagement.

This study revealed a significant influence of leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment on work engagement congruent with other research findings. Leadership influences work engagement in several ways. For example, leaders influence employees' work engagement by changing the working conditions, connecting with their employees, inspiring them, and strengthening their weak points Schaufeli (2015). In addition, a charismatic leader can change how employees perceive things by working on a shared vision and guiding them toward it Novitasari et al. (2021).

Similarly, personality traits also influence work engagement. Several studies have proved that personality traits influence how employees engage in theory work Caniëls et al. (2018), Kong and Li (2018), Perera et al. (2018), Tisu et al. (2020), Young et al. (2018). For example, employees with either of these personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism [OCEAN]) can have their work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) impacted by these behaviors Caniëls et al. (2018), Gwal and Gwal (2019), Teng et al. (2019). Therefore, building upon these arguments, recruiting police officers with these personality types is vital. Also, police leaders with these personality types can significantly influence the work engagements of the men under their watch.

In another scene, regression analysis shows that organizational commitment could influence work engagement. Research claims that emotionally attached employees to the organization do their jobs efficiently and precisely Suharto et al. (2019). They decide to stay with the organization because they do not want to lose whatever they benefit from such an organization. In doing so, they imbibe the standards of the organization as part of their norm Asif et al. (2019), Galanaki (2019), Han et al. (2018), Meyer et al. (1989), San-Martín et al. (2020), Sariwulan et al. (2019), Towler (2020).

 

Figure 1

Figure 1 The Best Fit Structural Model for Work Engagement

 

There were five generated models in this study. Among the five, Model 5 is the best-fit model for work engagement. These are the criterion values for the goodness of fit: P-value (>0.05), Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom (CMIN/DF, 0<value<2), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI, >0.95), Comparative Fit Index (CFI, >0.95), Normed Fit Index (NFI, >0.95), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, >0.95), Root Mean Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA, <0.05), and P-close (>0.05).

The study's findings rejected the null hypothesis, which states that there is no structural model of work engagement. Instead, the five hypothesized models and those generated in the AMOS program revealed that developed Model 5 is the best-fit structural model. However, not all manifest variables in the hypothesized model came out as predictors because the program removed some of these indicators during the statistical analysis for not meeting the standard outer loading requirement of greater than 0.70 Hair et al. (2021a), Hair et al. (2021b). Thus, the best-fit structural model of job performance is the combined effect of exogenous variables with specific manifest variables.

For example, in leadership factors, the manifest variables are passive/avoidance, management by exception, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. For personality traits, these are the manifest variables: agreeableness and openness. For organizational commitment, the manifest variables that remained in the model are affective commitment and normative commitment. Finally, the manifest variables for work engagement are vigor and dedication. Therefore, for the PNP to motivate their personnel to be vigorous and dedicated in their work, the agency should ensure that they demonstrate these manifest variables.

Finally, the findings affirmed the theories purported in this study. The Great Man theory purports that some men are born with leadership traits that make them lead on instincts. These police commissioned officers are born with leadership factors that could make them become great leaders in their time. Moreover, the findings also affirmed the Theory of Commitment used as support in the theoretical framework. This theory helps employees understand the significance of the cost of losing something when someone discontinues what he has started. This idea is essential, especially for police officers, as they make life or work decisions because these will decide their fate.

 

6. CONCLUSION

The high levels of exogenous (leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment) and endogenous variables (work engagement) suggest that the police commissioned officers can still work on these aspects of their personality. For example, they can improve leadership factors through observation and practice. They can also improve their personality, and they can reconsider commitment. Therefore, they still have room to improve themselves in these aspects.

Moreover, understanding the significance of the relationships between leadership factors and work engagement, personality traits and work engagement, and organizational commitment and work engagement is crucial. Police officers should know what they lack to do something about them, especially in improving their work engagement. Work is life. Thus, when they fail to improve the things that can augment their work performance and productivity, they may face harsh consequences in their work. Significantly, there is a relatively strong influence of leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment on work engagement, suggesting the critical roles these variables play in work engagement.

Incidentally, the model revealed that leadership factors, with these manifest variables: intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, management-by-exception, and passive leadership, are predictors of work engagement. In the same fashion, personality traits, with manifest variables, namely, agreeableness and openness, as well as affective and normative for organizational commitment. These are all predictors of work engagement. As for work engagement, the manifest variables left in the model are vigor and dedication, suggesting the importance of these manifest variables concerning work engagement.

Finally, the study concludes that in commissioning police officers, the agency should investigate leadership factors, personality traits, and organizational commitment as vital qualifications. Again, a questionnaire is necessary for this.

 

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and conclusions, the researcher recommends more exposure of the police Commissioned officers on the following: authentic leadership training, personality development seminars, values formation (commitment) activities, and revisiting of the Police Code of Ethics to enhance work engagement.

The PNP should give the police commissioned officers time for rest and recreation, especially after exposure to a traumatic situation, for a well-balanced life and better work engagement. In addition, the PNP should engage them in more civic community involvement to cultivate their leadership skills and nurture personality traits and commitment to the agency and the community. Finally, future researchers may replicate this study in a different locale to validate the results of this study.

 

 

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

None. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

 

REFERENCES

Amor, A. M., Vázquez, J. P. A., and Faíña, J. A. (2020). Transformational Leadership and Work Engagement: Exploring The Mediating Role of Structural Empowerment. European Management Journal, 38(1), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.06.007.

Ariyani, N., and Hidayati, S. (2018). Influence of Transformational Leadership and Work Engagement on Innovative Behavior. Etikonomi, 17(2), 275-284. https://doi.org/10.15408/etk.v17i2.7427.

Asif, M., Qing, M., Hwang, J., and Shi, H. (2019). Ethical Leadership, Affective Commitment, Work Engagement, and Creativity: Testing A Multiple Mediation Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4489. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164489.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement : The JD-R Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235.

Bakker, A. B., and Albrecht, S. (2018). Work Engagement : Current Trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207.

Caniëls, M. C., Semeijn, J. H., and Renders, I. H. (2018). Mind The Mindset! The Interaction Of Proactive Personality, Transformational Leadership and Growth Mindset for Engagement at Work. Career Development International. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2016-0194.

Cherry, K. (2020). What is Laissez-Faire Leadership ? Verywell Mind; Verywellmind.

Cho, H. (2021). Power of Good Old Days: How Leisure Nostalgia Influences Work Engagement, Task Performance, and Subjective Well-Being. Leisure Studies, 40(6), 793-809. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2021.1931415.

Civelek, M. E. (2018). Essentials of Structural Equation Modeling. Essentials of Structural Equation Modeling (2018). https://doi.org/10.13014/K2SJ1HR5.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., and Cummings, J. A. (2019). 16.1 Personality Traits. Openpress.Usask.Ca ; University of Saskatchewan Open Press.

Diener, E., and Lucas, R. E. (2019a). Personality Traits. General Psychology : Required Reading, 278.

El Othman, R., El Othman, R., Hallit, R., Obeid, S., and Hallit, S. (2020). Personality Traits, Emotional Intelligence and Decision-Making Styles in Lebanese Universities Medical Students. BMC Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4.

Fogaça, N., Rego, M. C. B., Melo, M. C. C., Armond, L. P., and Coelho Jr, F. A. (2018). Job Performance Analysis: Scientific Studies in the Main Journals of Management and Psychology From 2006 To 2015. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(4), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21248.

Galanaki, E. (2019). Effects of Employee Benefits on Affective and Continuance Commitment During Times of Crisis. International Journal of Manpower. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2018-0270.

Gemeda, H. K., and Lee, J. (2020). Leadership Styles, Work Engagement and Outcomes Among Information and Communications Technology Professionals: A Cross-National Study. Heliyon, 6(4), E03699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03699.

Gwal, R., and Gwal, A. (2019). Personality Dimensions as a Correlate of Work Engagement : A Study of Working Women in Indore City. NMIMS Journal of Economics and Public Policy, 4(4), 37-47.

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2021a). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., and Ray, S. (2021b). Evaluation of Reflective Measurement Models. in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R, Springer, Cham.,75-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_4.

Han, H., Kiatkawsin, K., and Kim, W. (2018). Traveler Loyalty and its Antecedents In The Hotel Industry: Impact of Continuance Commitment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0237.

Hayat Bhatti, M., Ju, Y., Akram, U., Hasnat Bhatti, M., Akram, Z., and Bilal, M. (2019). Impact of Participative Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating Role of Trust And Moderating Role of Continuance Commitment: Evidence From The Pakistan Hotel Industry. Sustainability, 11(4), 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041170.

Khan, A. J., Bashir, F., Nasim, I., and Ahmad, R. (2021). Understanding Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment Through the Lens of Training and Development. Irasd Journal of Management, 3(2), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.52131/jom.2021.0302.0030.

Kong, Y., and Li, M. (2018). Proactive Personality and Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Job-Related Affect and Work Engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6618.

Lambert, E. G., Qureshi, H., Frank, J., Klahm, C., and Smith, B. (2018). Job Stress, Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment and Their Associations With Job Burnout Among Indian Police Officers : A Research Note. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 33(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9236-y.

Ligan, Victoria O. (2018). Organizational Politics, Leadership Style Preference, and Public Service Motivation : A Structural Model on Organizational Commitment of Government Employees in Davao City. Asian Intellect Research And Education Journal 6, 116-127.

Lisbona, A., Palaci, F., Salanova, M., and Frese, M. (2018). The Effects of Work Engagement and Self-Efficacy on Personal Initiative and Performance. Psicothema, 30(1), 89-96.

Loan, L. (2020). The Influence of Organizational Commitment On Employees' Job Performance : The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Management Science Letters, 10(14), 3307-3312. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.007.

Meslec, N., Curseu, P. L., Fodor, O. C., and Kenda, R. (2020). Effects of Charismatic Leadership and Rewards on Individual Performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(6), 101423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101423.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., and Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational Commitment and Job Performance : It's The Nature of The Commitment That Counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.152.

Nassif, A. G., Hackett, R. D., and Wang, G. (2021). Ethical, Virtuous, and Charismatic Leadership : An Examination of Differential Relationships With Follower and Leader Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(3), 581-603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04491-8.

Novitasari, D., Haque, M. G., Supriatna, H., Asbari, M., and Purwanto, A. (2021). Understanding The Links Between Charismatic Leadership, Intrinsic Motivation and Tacit Knowledge Sharing Among MSME Employees. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 2(3), 1-13.

Oc, B. (2018). Contextual Leadership: A Systematic Review of How Contextual Factors Shape Leadership and Its Outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.004.

Pappas, S. (2017). Personality Traits and Personality Types : What Is Personality? Live Science ; Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/41313-personality-traits.html.

Perera, H. N., Granziera, H., and Mcilveen, P. (2018). Profiles of Teacher Personality and Relations With Teacher Self-Efficacy, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034.

San-Martín, S., Jiménez, N., Rodríguez-Torrico, P., and Piñeiro-Ibarra, I. (2020). The Determinants of Teachers' Continuance Commitment To E-Learning in Higher Education. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3205-3225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10117-3.

Sariwulan, T., Agung, I., Sudrajat, U., and Atmadiredja, G. (2019). The Influence of Job Expectation, Job Satisfaction, and Government Policy Towards the Work Stress, Job Enthusiasm and Continuance Commitment of the Honorarium Teacher. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 38(2), 305-319. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i2.24380.

Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging Leadership In the Job Demands-Resources Model. Career Development International, 20(5), 446-463. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025.

Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and Measuring Work Engagement : Bringing Clarity To The Concept. Work Engagement : A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, 12, 10-24. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047-6.

Suharto, Suyanto, and Hendri, N. (2019). The Impact of Organizational Commitment on Job Performance. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 7(2), 189-206. https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/227.

Tarka, P. (2018). An Overview of Structural Equation Modeling : Its Beginnings, Historical Development, Usefulness and Controversies In the Social Sciences. Quality and Quantity, 52(1), 313-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8.

Teng, M., Hassan, Z., and Kasa, M. (2019). The Relationship Between Personality and Turnover Intention Among Academicians of Private Higher Education Institutions In Malaysia : Boredom At Workplace as Mediator. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 19(3), 262-269.

Tisu, L., Lupșa, D., Vîrgă, D., and Rusu, A. (2020). Personality Characteristics, Job Performance and Mental Health: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109644.

Towler, A. (2020). Workplace and Organizational Commitment: What It Is and Why It Matters as a Management Tool. CQ Net.

USI Web Services. (2018). Five Roles of A Leader - University of Southern Indiana. Usi.Edu.

Winarno, A., and Hermana, D. (2019). Commitment, Work Engagement, and Research Performance of Lecturers, In Indonesia Private Universities. MOJEM : Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 7(4), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.22452/mojem.vol7no4.3.

Wood, J., Oh, J., Park, J., and Kim, W. (2020). The Relationship Between Work Engagement and Work-Life Balance in Organizations : A Review of the Empirical Research. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 240-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320917560.

Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Wang, W., and Joseph, D. L. (2018). Who Are the Most Engaged At Work? A Meta‐Analysis of Personality and Employee Engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1330-1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2303.