Job Outcoms

Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Participative leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating role of work

engagement and the moderating role of fun experienced at work
Simon C.H. Chan,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Simon C.H. Chan, (2019) "Participative leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating role of work
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 02:18 02 April 2019 (PT)
engagement and the moderating role of fun experienced at work", Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0215
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0215
Downloaded on: 02 April 2019, At: 02:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 80 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Participative
Participative leadership and leadership and
job satisfaction job satisfaction
The mediating role of work engagement and

the moderating role of fun experienced at work
Simon C.H. Chan Received 13 June 2018
Department of Management and Marketing, Revised 12 November 2018
17 December 2018
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
7 January 2019
8 January 2019
Accepted 31 January 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to examine the relationships between participative
leadership and employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction; and second, to determine whether the level
of fun experienced at work moderates the effect of participative leadership on job satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – The participants were 177 employees in a retailing store in Hong Kong.
Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with the control variables to ascertain the relationships
among participative leadership, level of fun experienced at work, work engagement and job satisfaction.
Findings – The results indicated that participative leadership was positively related to employees’ work
engagement and job satisfaction. Employees’ work engagement mediated the relationship between
participative leadership and job satisfaction. This positive relationship between participative leadership and
job satisfaction was stronger when employees had more fun at work.
Research limitations/implications – The generalizability of the data was limited, as the characteristics of
participants in a retail store are distinct from others in the service industry.
Practical implications – This paper’s findings imply that participative leaders can engage in role
modeling by providing more fun workplace activities to employees, which will increase their work
engagement and job satisfaction.
Originality/value – The findings help to explain the relationship between participative leadership and job
satisfaction, provide a better understanding of leadership management styles and show that participative
leaders who engage employees in fun activities in the workplace can increase employees’ job satisfaction.
Keywords Work engagement, Experienced fun, Participative leadership
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the past two decades, scholars have paid increasing attention to participative
leadership (Huang et al., 2010; Scully et al., 1995; Smylie et al., 1996; Somech, 2002).
Participative leaders share responsibility for decision making with employees
(Marchington et al., 1994; Parker, 2003; Robert et al., 2000). This type of leadership
behavior aims to involve employees in decision making and problem solving, to pay
particular attention to employees and to provide employees with personalized support
(Nystrom, 1990). It thus ultimately affects employees’ decision-making performance
(Scully et al., 1995), quality of work life (Somech, 2002), organizational commitment
(Huang et al., 2006) and task performance (Locke and Latham, 1990; Smylie et al., 1996).
There is a large volume of research work on participative leadership in the Chinese
context (Huang et al., 2006, 2010). Empirical studies have examined the impacts of
participative leadership on work performance and the mediating processes involved
(Newman et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2014; Tsui et al., 2004). In particular, the impact of
participative leadership on employee job satisfaction has received more attention
(Carlopio and Gardner, 1995; Lam et al., 2015). It is interesting to further examine the
relationship between participative leadership and employee satisfaction in Hong Kong Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
context. Hence, one purpose of this study is to examine the impact of participative © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
leadership on employees’ job satisfaction. DOI 10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0215
LODJ Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) holds that employees model themselves after the
behavior of participative leaders; modeling in this sense is a term that covers observational
learning, imitation and identification. Employees learn from and engage themselves in work
for participative leaders via direct experience and others’ behavioral observation. Work
engagement represents the extent to which employees engage with their work proactively,
take initiative and assume responsibility for their personal development. Employees with
strong work engagement hold positive attitudes toward work; regard it as fulfilling; and
exhibit vigor, dedication and absorption at work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Kahn (1990)
described work engagement as discretionary effort achieved through the investment of
physical, cognitive and emotional energy in work roles. Although research has yielded novel
insights into participative management and empowering leadership (Kark et al., 2003;
Srivastava et al., 2006), the mechanism of the impact of participative leadership on

employees’ job satisfaction is still little understood. The second purpose of this study is thus
to determine whether work engagement mediates the relationship between participative
leadership and job satisfaction.
Different employees have different interpretations of the behaviors of their participative
leaders (Foster-Fishman et al., 1998). A number of studies have explored potential
moderators of the relationship between participative leadership behaviors and employee
outcomes (Balogun, 2003), such as occupational contexts (Cohen, 1992), individual
experiences (Bartunek et al., 1996), information sharing (Lam et al., 2015), organizational
tenure (Huang et al., 2006) and cultural values (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001). Fun and
enjoyable activities at work stimulate and enhance workplace engagement (Karl and
Peluchette, 2006a). Employees who have fun at work are more likely to have enhanced job
satisfaction (Plester and Hutchison, 2016). Hence, having fun at work may alter the effects of
participative leadership on employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction (e.g. Chan and
Mak, 2016). The third purpose of this study is thus to determine whether the level of fun
experienced at work moderates the influence of participative leadership on employees’ work
engagement and job satisfaction.
In examining these relationships, this study adds value to the leadership literature in three
ways. First, researchers are increasingly interested in the impact of participative leadership on
employees’ work attitudes (Agarwal, 2014; Demirtas et al., 2017; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997;
Lashley, 1999; Miao et al., 2014). This study contributes to the literature on the impact of
participative leadership on employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction. Second, this
study further investigates the mechanism of the relationship between participative leadership
and positive work attitudes. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) explains how natural
learning occurs that can change employees’ behavior. The process of learning through
modeling can change employee attitudes (Sims and Manz, 1982). This study examines the
mediating role of work engagement between participative leadership and job satisfaction.
Third, this study contributes to the participative leadership literature by examining how the
level of fun experienced at work moderates between participative leadership and work
engagement, and between participative leadership and job satisfaction (Karl and Peluchette,
2006a, b). It examines the significance of fun experienced at work and participative leadership
behaviors for work engagement and job satisfaction.
Theory and hypotheses

Participative leadership and job satisfaction
Research has highlighted the importance of participative leadership to employees’ work
performance (Bortoluzzi et al., 2014; Wagner and Gooding, 1987; Lam et al., 2002). Participative
leaders share power, giving responsibility and autonomy to employees (Kirkman and
Rosen, 1999) and thus motivating them (Spreitzer, 1995). Participative leaders involve
employees in decision making and problem solving (Kahai et al., 1997; Somech, 2006).
Empowering and participative leadership has been widely shown to enhance the performance Participative
of management teams (Humborstad et al., 2014; Sharma and Kirkiman, 2015; Srivastava et al., leadership and
2006). The results of Eby et al. (1999) meta-analysis indicate that intrinsic motivation job satisfaction
mediates the relationship between supervisors’ participative management behavior and
organizational commitment.
Researchers have shown that positive job beliefs and mood increase employees’ job
satisfaction (Fisher, 2000; Illies and Judge, 2002, 2004; Weiss et al., 1999). Job satisfaction
refers to individuals’ positive affective responses to and attitudes toward their jobs and
workplaces (Rogers et al., 1994). It is a psychological state in which individuals feel
that their needs are fulfilled at work (McShane and Glinow, 2010). Participative leaders
who encourage employees to participate are likely to increase employees’ satisfaction
with their jobs. Lee et al. (2017) meta-analysis revealed that empowering leadership
at both team level and individual level positively impacts performance, organizational
citizenship behavior and creativity. When employees feel that they are performing
meaningful tasks that contribute to the success of their organizations, they are more
motivated to work, and experience greater satisfaction as a result of fulfilling their
responsibilities. Therefore, participative leadership is more likely to enhance employees’
job satisfaction:
H1. Participative leadership is positively associated with employees’ job satisfaction.
Participative leadership, work engagement and job satisfaction

According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), employees with greater workplace
engagement are more likely to be motivated by role modeling. Employees observe and
imitate their leaders. They are more likely to perform well at work if they are engaged by
their participative leaders. The relationship between participative leadership and
employees’ work performance is mediated by work engagement (Rousseau et al., 1998).
Participative leadership behaviors also affect employee job satisfaction, with work
engagement again acting as the mediator. The social learning perspective on participative
leadership argues that it involves a process of learning, by providing employees with
greater intrinsic rewards from work (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Participative leadership
involves welcoming employees into the decision-making process, and spending time
developing positive interpersonal interactions with employees (Kozlowski et al., 1999).
Thus, it influences the work engagement of employees. A participative leader sends an
encouraging message to employees, which allows them to work innovatively. Employees
can develop creative new ideas and solutions by engaging in different work tasks.
Work engagement involves high levels of positive energy and concentration at work
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Work engagement fosters attitudes toward work that
motivate employees to work enthusiastically and energetically and to take on new
responsibilities as part of their job. Fenton-O’Creevy (2001) pointed out that when employees
are engaged in decision making, they are less likely to feel threatened by organizational
change, as participating in decision making increases the predictability of future events.
Conveying leaders’ respect and concern for employees is not the only advantage of
participative leadership behavior. Researchers have provided substantial evidence that
leaders’ display of individualized concern for employees positively affects employees’ justice
perceptions ( Jung and Avolio, 2000; Pillai et al., 1999), and increases their engagement at
work. Participative leadership has a positive effect on employees’ job satisfaction, because it
tends to enhance their work engagement:
H2. Work engagement mediates the relationship between participative leadership and
employees’ job satisfaction.
LODJ Moderating role of fun in the workplace
Researchers investigating the impact of participative leadership on employee outcomes
have obtained inconsistent findings (Tsui et al., 2004; Wong et al., 2001), which indicates that
the relationship between participative leadership and employees’ work attitudes is
moderated by other condition boundaries. Huang et al. (2006) found that participative
leadership makes short-tenure employees feel more involved and competent, increasing
their organizational commitment. Lashley (1999) maintained that employees’ different needs
should be taken into account when examining the impact of participative leadership.
Wagner and Gooding (1987) found that situational factors have moderating effects on the
process of participative management. For example, fun activities at work increase
employees’ enjoyment (Tews et al., 2014; Karl and Peluchette, 2006b). Workplace fun is
described as an environment designed to encourage, initiate, and support a variety of fun,

enjoyable, and pleasurable activities (Karl and Peluchette, 2006b). The relationship between
participative leadership and employees’ job satisfaction is affected by the level of fun
experienced at work.
Participative leadership is based on the belief that employees are more satisfied with
their jobs when they have more fun in the workplace. Employees are likely to be motivated if
they have fun at work (Karl and Peluchette, 2006a). The more fun employees have in the
workplace, the more likely they are to engage with their work (Tang et al., 2017), and
the greater their job satisfaction (Chan and Mak, 2016). Employees supervised by
participative leaders not only enjoy their work, but are also given greater responsibility and
take more care over their job assignments (Depret and Fiske, 1993). The more fun employees
have in the workplace, the stronger the positive relationship between participative
leadership and employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction:
H3. The positive relationships between participative leadership and (a) work engagement
and (b) job satisfaction are stronger when followers have more fun at work.
Building on H3, the level of fun experienced in the workplace may moderate the
relationships between participative leadership and employees’ work engagement and job
satisfaction. Participative leadership is more likely to enhance employees’ work engagement
and job satisfaction when employees have more fun in the workplace. To extend this
argument, this study further argues for the mediating effect of work engagement on the
relationship between participative leadership and employees’ job satisfaction, and between
the level of experienced fun and employees’ job satisfaction. Employees are more engaged at
work when they work under a participative leader and experience high levels of fun at work.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Work engagement mediates the interactive effects of participative leadership and
fun in the workplace on employees’ job satisfaction.
A research model depicting the key theoretical mechanisms underlying the relationships
between participative leadership, employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction, and fun
at work is presented in Figure 1.
Level of Fun
Experienced at Work
Figure 1. Participative Work

Research framework Job Satisfaction
Leadership Engagement
Methodology Participative
Sample and data collection leadership and
Data were collected from 177 employees working at a retail store in Hong Kong. job satisfaction
The researcher explained the purposes and procedures of the study to the participants in
person. Each participant received a cover letter indicating the main purpose of the research,
along with a questionnaire and a return envelope. Each set of materials was assigned a
unique personal code. The participants used the envelopes to return their completed
questionnaires on site. Of 198 questionnaires distributed, 177 usable questionnaires were
returned, with a usable response rate of 89.3 percent. Of these 177 respondents, 64.0 percent
were female and 90.0 percent had a primary level education or above. Their mean age and
organizational tenure were 32.33 and 4.41 years, respectively.
Translation of questionnaire items

As the original questionnaire items were in English, they were translated into Chinese by an
English teacher. The items were translated first from English into Chinese, and then
back-translated into English to ensure that the items were comparable and showed a high
degree of accuracy (Brislin et al., 1973; Cohen and Cohen, 1983).
Measures
Participative leadership (the independent variable), work engagement (the mediator), level of
fun experienced at work (the moderator), job satisfaction (the dependent variable), and
employees’ gender, education level, age, tenure at the organization, tenure of the manager–
employee dyad (control variables) were measured in this study.
Participative leadership. Participative leadership was measured using a six-item scale
developed by Arnold et al. (2000) (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The items are
as follows: “my manager encourages work group members to express ideas/suggestions,”
“my manager listens to my work group’s ideas and suggestions,” “my manager uses my
work group’s suggestions to make decisions that affect us,” “my manager considers my
work group’s ideas even when he/she disagrees with them,” “my manager makes decisions
based only on his/her own ideas” and “my manager gives all work group members a chance
to voice their opinions.” The α coefficient for the scale was 0.88.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using a nine-item scale developed
by Schaufeli et al. (2006) (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The items are as
follows: “I feel full of energy at work,” “while doing my job, I feel strong and vigorous,”
“I am enthusiastic about my job,” “I am inspired by my job,” “when I get up in the morning,
I feel like going to work,” “I feel happy when I am working intensively,” “I am proud
of the work that I do,” “I lose track of time while at work” and “I am immersed in my work.”
The α coefficient for the scale was 0.85.
Level of fun experienced at work. The level of fun employees experienced at work was
measured using a five-item scale developed by Karl et al. (2007) (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
5 ¼ strongly agree). The items are as follows: “this is a fun place to work,” “at my workplace,
we try to have fun whenever we can,” “managers encourage employees to have fun at work,”
“we laugh a lot at my workplace” and “sometimes I feel more like I’m playing than working.”
Job satisfaction. satisfaction was assessed using a three-item scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree) developed by Seashore et al. (1983). The items include “overall,
I like working for this organization” and “I am satisfied with my job.”
Control variables. The control variables were employees’ gender, education level, age,
tenure at the organization and tenure of the manager–employee dyad. These control
LODJ variables were found to directly influence the impact of leadership and employees’ attitudes
(Huang et al., 2006; Somech, 2003). Gender and education level were dummy coded
(0 ¼ female, 1 ¼ male; 0 ¼ primary school or below, 1 ¼ secondary school or above). Age,
tenure at the organization and tenure of dyad were self-reported in years.
Results
Preliminary analysis
Descriptive statistics for and correlations between the variables are presented in Table I.
Tests of hypotheses. H1 predicted that participative leadership would be positively
associated with employees’ job satisfaction. After control variables were added, as shown
in Table II, participative leadership was found to have a significantly positive impact on
employees’ job satisfaction (β ¼ 0.39, p o0.001). Therefore, H1 was supported.
H2 predicted that work engagement mediates the relationship between participative
leadership and employees’ job satisfaction. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step hierarchical
multiple regression was used to test the mediation. Regressions were conducted with the
control variables to determine whether participative leadership was related to employees’
job satisfaction (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). After all of the control variables in Model 1 were
entered, participative leadership was found to be positively related to work engagement as
shown in Model 2 of Table II (β ¼ 0.56; po0.001), meeting the first requirement for
mediation. The results of testing H1 were supported, which meets the second requirement.
To fulfill the third requirement, the mediator (work engagement) was associated with the
dependent variable (job satisfaction) and the dependent variable was regressed on both
the independent variable and the mediator. Finally, for perfect mediation to exist, the
independent variable must also show no effect when the mediator is controlled. When mediator
is controlled before the independent variable is entered into the regression equation, the effect of
the mediator is significant, but the independent variable is not. These results reveal complete or
partial mediation for the dependent variable. As shown in Model 3 of Table II, work engagement
was found to significantly mediate the relationship between participative leadership and
employees’ job satisfaction (β ¼ 0.47, po0.001). After adding the effect of work engagement, the
β of participative leadership was still significantly related to employees’ job satisfaction
(β ¼ 0.28, po0.01), indicating partial mediation. Therefore, H2 was partially supported.
H3 predicted that the positive relationship between participative leadership and employees’
work engagement and job satisfaction would be stronger when employees had more fun at
work. When the mediator is controlled, the independent variable (participative leadership) and
moderating variable (fun experienced) were added, as shown in Table II. The interactive effects
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender 0.64 0.48 –

2. Age 32.33 8.81 −0.30** –
3. Education 2.76 1.13 −0.08 −0.10 –
4. Organization tenure 4.41 4.38 −0.07 0.57** −0.14 –
5. Dyad tenure 2.72 2.96 −0.20** 0.53** −0.08 0.69** –
6. Participative
leadership 3.69 0.88 0.03 −0.16* −0.13 −0.13 −0.14 0.88
Table I.
7. Fun experienced 3.85 0.83 −0.03 −0.03 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.67** 0.93
Means, standard
deviations, 8. Work engagement 3.32 0.67 −0.07 −0.03 0.05 −0.03 0.07 0.52** 0.46** 0.85
correlations and 9. Job satisfaction 4.91 1.19 −0.07 0.14 −0.08 0.08 0.08 0.36** 0.40** 0.52** 0.86
reliabilities Notes: n ¼ 177. Reliability coefficients appear along the diagonal. The correlation coefficients are significant
of measures at *p o 0.05; **p o0.01
Work engagement Job satisfaction

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Control variables
Gender −0.08 −0.04 −0.04 −0.07 −0.06 −0.03 −0.01 −0.03 −0.06 −0.04
Age 0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 0.12 0.18 0.19* 0.19* 0.20* 0.19*
Education 0.05 0.13 0.12 0.11 −0.07 −0.01 −0.07 −0.04 −0.04 −0.09
Organization tenure 0.02 −0.07 −0.07 −0.06 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.06
Dyad tenure 0.03 0.22* 0.19* 0.18* −0.01 0.02 −0.08 −0.05 −0.05 −0.13
Independent variable
Participative leadership 0.56*** 0.48*** 0.45*** 0.39*** 0.28** 0.25** 0.16* 0.10*
Moderator variables
Fun experienced 0.11 0.04 0.27** 0.17* 0.15*
Interactive effects
Participative leadership × Fun experienced 0.20*** 0.27*** 0.19**
Mediator variable
Work engagement 0.47*** 0.41***
n 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177
Overall R2 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.39 0.03 0.18 0.33 0.21 0.27 0.37
Change in R2 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.10
Notes: *p o0.05; **po 0.01; ***po 0.001
Participative
leadership and
for the effect of

job satisfaction
engagement and
experienced on work
leadership and fun
Table II.
job satisfaction
participative
Regression summary
LODJ of participative leadership and the level of fun experienced on employees’ work engagement
( β ¼ 0.20, po0.01) and job satisfaction (β ¼ 0.27, po0.01) were found to be significant. H3 was
supported. The interactive effects on job satisfaction of participative leadership and the level of
fun experienced, and the interactive effects on work engagement of participative leadership and
the level of fun experienced are plotted in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
H4 predicted that work engagement mediates the interactive effects of participative
leadership on employees’ job satisfaction. As shown in Table II, the regression coefficients
of the interactive term of participative leadership on employees’ job satisfaction
(from β ¼ 0.16, p o 0.01 to β ¼ 0.10, p o 0.05) decreased in magnitude after the mediator
(work engagement) was entered in the last model. This decrease suggests that work
engagement partially mediated the interaction effect on employees’ job satisfaction
(β ¼ 0.41, p o 0.001). H4 was partially supported.
Discussion
This study has examined the direct and indirect impact of participative leadership on
employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction. Participative leadership encourages
Interaction Plot
5.5
Low Level of Fun

5 Experienced
Job Satisfaction
4.5
High Level of Fun
Experienced
Figure 2.
The moderating effect 4
of experienced fun at
work on the link
between participative
Low High
leadership and
job satisfaction 3.5
Participative Leadership
Interaction Plot
4.5
Low Level of Fun

4 Experienced
Work Engagement
3.5
High Level of Fun
Experienced
Figure 3.
The moderating effect
of experienced fun at 3
work on the link
between participative
leadership and Low High
work engagement 2.5
Participative Leadership
employees to engage with their work and feel satisfied with their work duties. Participative Participative
leadership thus tends to enhance employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction leadership and
(Cogliser and Schriesheim, 2000; Huang et al., 2006). This study further confirms the positive job satisfaction
effects of participative leadership on work engagement and job satisfaction. The results
support previous explanations of the relationship between participative leadership and
job satisfaction in the workplace.
This study has demonstrated the significant moderating effect of the level of fun
experienced in the workplace on the relationship between participative leadership and
employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction. The results indicate that employees
who have fun at work are more likely to be engaged at work. In short, participative
leadership has a highly important influence on employees’ work engagement and job
satisfaction. The positive relationships between participative leadership and employees’

work engagement and between participative leadership and job satisfaction are stronger
when employees have fun at work.
In addition, work engagement partially mediated the joint effect of participative leadership
and level of fun experienced at work on employees’ job satisfaction. Participative leadership
alone can enhance the job satisfaction level of employees. Employees who have fun at work
are more involved and engaged with tasks and decision making. Employees engage more
closely with work tasks when they regard their participative leaders as offering them
more opportunities to have fun at work. If employees perceive themselves as having high
levels of fun at work, they find it easier to participate in work activities.
Theoretical and managerial implications

The findings have two main theoretical implications. First, this study extends the
participative leadership research literature by showing that participative leadership
enhances employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction. Consistent with the literature,
results indicated a positive relationship between participative leadership and job
satisfaction. Participative leader behavior may encourage employees to engage with
their work under their leader. Employees positively interpret their leaders’ responses to their
organizations and to their work units. Second, this study investigates the moderators that
influence the effect of participative leadership on employee job satisfaction. The level of fun
experienced at work helps to explain the impact of participative leadership behaviors in
enhancing employee job satisfaction. The moderating effects of fun at work strengthen the
relationship between participative leadership and employees’ work engagement, and
between participative leadership and job satisfaction.
In terms of managerial implications, managers should lead in a participative style when
managing their employees. In a good working environment, employees are engaged and
satisfied with their jobs. Managers who wish to engage employees at work may
demonstrate participative leadership behaviors. It is desirable for managers to encourage
employees to participate in decision making and enjoy their time at work. Managers should
also encourage fun activities with employees to make them more satisfied in the workplace.
Practices such as lunch gatherings, game days and friendly activities would help to engage
employees. Managers should act as participative leaders by respecting employees, asking
for their participation and working together with them. Employees’ job satisfaction
increases the likelihood of managers using participative leadership styles when the level of
fun experienced at work is welcome. Managers can become good role models by having fun
with employees.
Limitations and future research

There are several limitations to this study. First, participative leadership behaviors, level
of fun experienced at work, work engagement and job satisfaction were assessed based on
LODJ self-reported data. Results are susceptible to common method variance bias. Future
research should rate the variables according to the different perceptions of raters. Second,
as the data were collected from a retail store in Hong Kong, the findings may not be
generalizable to the whole service sector. Future studies can further examine the impact of
participative leadership on work engagement in the public sector (e.g. Kim, 2002), and
consider aspects of cultural context, such as power distance (Yang et al., 2007). Third, the
findings did not include other relevant control variables in the proposed research model.
The omission of control variables should be re-examined in future research studies.
Fourth, this study examines how work engagement mediates the relationship between
participative leadership and job satisfaction. There may be other mediating mechanisms
for the effect of participative leadership on employee outcomes. Future researchers should
further examine the diverse psychological mechanisms and consequences of participative

leadership (Lam et al., 2015). Finally, this study examined a potential moderating variable,
the level of fun experienced at work. Other moderating variables, such as cognitive or
affective trust (Chua et al., 2008), may enhance or buffer the impact of participative
leadership on job satisfaction. Clearly, future research on how and why participative
leadership influences job satisfaction is necessary.
In sum, this study has examined the relationships between participative leadership and
employees’ work engagement and between participative leadership and job satisfaction.
Work engagement helps to explain the relationship between participative leadership and
job satisfaction. The study enhances understanding of the participative management style
with reference to fun at work, offering useful suggestions for fostering job satisfaction
among employees.
References
Agarwal, U.A. (2014), “Linking justice, trust, and innovative work behavior to work engagement”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 41-73.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership
questionnaires: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Balogun, J. (2003), “From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: creating change
intermediaries”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, F.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bartunek, J.M., Foster-Fishman, P. and Keys, C.B. (1996), “Using collaborative advocacy to foster
intergroup cooperation”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 701-733.
Bortoluzzi, G., Caporale, L. and Palese, A. (2014), “Does participative leadership reduce the onset of
mobbing risk among nurse working teams?”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 643-652.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W.J. and Thorndike, R. (1973), Cross-Cultural Research Methods, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Carlopio, J. and Gardner, D. (1995), “Perceptions of work and workplace: mediators of the relationship
between job level and employee reactions”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 539-558.
Chan, S.C.H. and Mak, W.M. (2016), “Have you experienced fun in the workplace? An empirical study of
workplace fun, trust-in-management and job satisfaction”, Journal of Chinese Human Resource
Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Chua, R.Y.J., Ingram, P. and Morris, M.W. (2008), “From the head and the heart: locating cognition- and Participative
affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks”, Academy of Management Journal, leadership and
Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 436-452.
job satisfaction
Cogliser, C.C. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2000), “Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange:
a multilevel perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 487-511.
Cohen, A. (1992), “Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis”,
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Demirtas, O., Hannah, S.T., Gok, K., Arsian, A. and Capar, N. (2017), “The moderated influence of
ethical leadership, via meaningful work, on followers’ engagement, organizational identification
and envy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 183-199.
Depret, E.F. and Fiske, S.T. (1993), “Social cognition and power: some cognitive consequences of social
structure as source of control deprivation”, in Weary, G., Gleicher, F. and March, R. (Eds),
Control Motivation and Social Cognition, Springer Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 176-202.
Eby, L.T., Freeman, D.M., Rush, M.C. and Lance, C.E. (1999), “Motivational bases of affective
organizational commitment: a partial test of an integrative theoretical model”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 463-484.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001), “Employee involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or scapegoat?”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Fisher, C.D. (2000), “Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1997), “Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational
performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 465-487.
Foster-Fishman, P.G., Salem, D.A., Chibnall, S., Legler, R. and Yapchai, C. (1998), “Empirical support for
the critical assumptions of empowerment theory”, American Journal of Community Psychology,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 507-536.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A. and Gong, Y. (2010), “Does participative leadership enhance
work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial
and non-managerial subordinates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 122-143.
Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z. and Cheng, Y.L. (2006), “The impact of participative leadership behavior
on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned
enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 345-367.
Humborstad, S.I.W., Nerstad, C.G.L. and Dysvik, A. (2014), “Empowerment leadership, employee goal
orientations and work performance: a competing hypothesis approach”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 246-271.
Illies, R. and Judge, T.A. (2002), “Understanding the dynamic relationship between personality, mood,
and job satisfaction: a field experience-sampling study”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 1119-1139.
Illies, R. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its
relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 367-389.
Jung, D. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), “Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating
effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership”,
Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), “Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work
group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 121-146.
LODJ Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 692-724.
Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment
and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
Karl, K. and Peluchette, J. (2006a), “How does workplace fun impact employee perceptions of
customer service quality?”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 2-13.
Karl, K. and Peluchette, J. (2006b), “Does workplace fun buffer the impact of emotional exhaustion
on job dissatisfaction? A study of health care workers”, Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Karl, K., Peluchette, J. and Harland, L. (2007), “Is fun for everyone? Personality differences in healthcare
providers’ attitudes toward fun”, Journal of Health & Human Services Administration, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 409-447.
Kim, S. (2002), “Participative management and job satisfaction: lessons for management leadership”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 231-241.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-74.
Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001), “The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: the mediating role of employee
resistance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 557-569.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Nason, E.R. and Smith, E.M. (1999), “Developing adaptive teams: a
theory of compilation and performance across levels and time”, in Ilgen, D.R. and Pulakos, E.D.
(Eds), The Changing Nature of Work Performance: Implications for Staffing, Personnel Actions,
and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 240-292.
Lam, C.K., Huang, X. and Chan, S.C.H. (2015), “The threshold effect of participative leadership
and the role of leader information sharing”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 836-855.
Lam, S.S.K., Chen, X.P. and Schaubroeck, J. (2002), “Participative decision making and employee
performance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and
efficacy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 905-914.
Lashley, C. (1999), “Employees empowerment in services: a framework for analysis”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 169-191.
Lee, A., Willis, S. and Tian, A.W. (2017), “Empowering leadership: a meta-analytic examination of
incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 1-20.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, P.G. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McShane, S.L. and Glinow, M.A.V. (2010), Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. and Goodman, J. (1994), “Understanding the meaning of
participation: views from the workplace”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 867-894.
Miao, Q., Newman, A. and Huang, X. (2014), “The impact of participative leadership on job performance
and organizational citizenship behavior: distinguishing between the mediating effects of
affective and cognitive trust”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 25 No. 20, pp. 2796-2810.
Newman, A., Rose, P.S. and Teo, S.T.T. (2016), “The role of participative leadership and trust-based
mechanisms in eliciting intern performance: evidence from China”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Nystrom, P.J. (1990), “Vertical exchanges and organizational commitment of American business
managers”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 296-312.
Parker, S.K. (2003), “Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating Participative
of work characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 620-634. leadership and
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for job satisfaction
transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.
Plester, B. and Hutchison, A. (2016), “Fun times: the relationship between fun and workplace
engagement”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 332-350.
Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J.J. (2000), “Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on the
basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 643-658.
Rogers, J.D., Clow, K.E. and Kash, T.J. (1994), “Increasing job satisfaction measurement approach”,
International Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 14-26.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a
cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
́
Schaufeli, W.B., Martınez, I., Marqueś -Pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A. (2002), “Burnout and
engagement in university students: a cross-national study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 464-481.
Scully, J.A., Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1995), “Locus of knowledge as a determinant of the effect
of participation on performance, affect, and perceptions”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H. and Cammann, C. (1983), Assessing Organizational Change,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Sharma, P.N. and Kirkman, B.L. (2015), “Leveraging leaders: a literature review and future lines of inquiry
for empowering leadership research”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 193-237.
Sims, H.P. Jr and Manz, C.C. (1982), “Social learning theory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior
Smylie, M.A., Lazarus, V. and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996), “Instrumental outcomes of school-based
participative decision making”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 181-191.
Somech, A. (2002), “Explicating the complexity of participative management: an investigation of
multiple dimensions”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 341-371.
Somech, A. (2003), “Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a
multi-level perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1003-1018.
Somech, A. (2006), “The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in
functionally heterogeneous teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 132-157.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Tang, J., Liu, M.S. and Liu, W.B. (2017), “How workplace fun influences employees’ performance: the
role of person-organization value congruence”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 45 No. 11,
pp. 1787-1802.
LODJ Tews, M.J., Michel, J.W. and Allen, D.G. (2014), “Fun and friends: the impact of workplace fun and
constituent attachment on turnover in a hospitality context”, Human Relations, Vol. 67 No. 8,
pp. 923-946.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ model
of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 661-681.
Tsui, A.S., Schoonhoven, C.B., Meyer, M.W., Lau, C.M. and Milkovich, G.T. (2004), “Organization and
management in the midst of societal transformation: the People’s Republic of China”,
Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 133-144.
Wagner, J.A. and Gooding, R.Z. (1987), “Shared influence and organizational behavior: a meta-analysis
of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 524-541.
Weiss, H.M., Nicholas, J.P. and Daus, C.S. (1999), “An examination of the joint effects of affective
experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Wong, C.S., Wong, Y.T., Hui, C. and Law, K.S. (2001), “The significant role of Chinese employees’
organizational commitment: implications for managing employees in Chinese societies”, Journal
of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 326-340.
Yang, J., Mossholder, J.W. and Peng, T.K. (2007), “Procedural justice climate and group power distance:
an examination of cross-level interaction effects”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3,
pp. 681-692.
Further reading
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-628.
Durham, C.C., Knight, D. and Locke, E.A. (1997), “Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty,
efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 202-231.
Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C. and Goodman, E.A. (1999), “Antecedents and outcomes of
empowerment: empirical evidence from the health care industry”, Group & Organization
Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M. and Yun, S. (2017), “Never too much? The curvilinear relationship between
empowering leadership and task performance”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 11-38.
Corresponding author
Simon C.H. Chan can be contacted at: mssimon@polyu.edu.hk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Job Outcoms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Job Outcoms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Participative leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating role of work

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The mediating role of work engagement and

Srivastava et al., 2006), the mechanism of the impact of participative leadership on

Theory and hypotheses

Participative leadership, work engagement and job satisfaction

described as an environment designed to encourage, initiate, and support a variety of fun,

Figure 1. Participative Work

Translation of questionnaire items

1. Gender 0.64 0.48 –

Work engagement Job satisfaction

for the effect of

(β ¼ 0.41, p o 0.001). H4 was partially supported.

Low Level of Fun

Low Level of Fun

satisfaction. The positive relationships between participative leadership and employees’

Theoretical and managerial implications

Limitations and future research

further examine the diverse psychological mechanisms and consequences of participative

You might also like