209 American Journal of Economic and Management Business e-ISSN: 2835-5199 Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 The Effect of Responsible Leadership and Team Work on Workforce Agility Mediated by Work Engagement at PT Hasta Ayu Nusantara Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha1*, Mafizatun Nurhayati 2 Universitas Mercu Buana, Indonesia Emails: marsaditha9@gmail.com Abstract This research aims to evaluate the influence of Responsible Leadership and Team Work on Workforce Agility mediated by Work Engagement at PT Hasta Ayu Nusantara using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS - SEM) analysis method via the SmartPLS 3 application. This research was conducted by collecting data from PT Hasta Ayu Nusantara employees using a structured questionnaire. This research sample consisted of 67 respondents with the sampling technique being non-probability sampling or simple saturated sampling. The results of the analysis show that of the seven hypotheses tested, two hypotheses show a positive and significant influence between the variables studied. Work Engagement shows that it is able to encourage increased Workforce Agility and Work Engagement shows that it is able to mediate the influence of Responsible Leadership on Workforce Agility. However, five other hypotheses show a negative influence, namely that Responsible Leadership is unable to encourage increased Work Engagement and Workforce Agility, Team Work is unable to encourage increased Work Engagement and Workforce Agility, and Work Engagement is unable to mediate the influence of Responsible Leadership on Workforce Agility. Keywords: responsible leadership, smartpls3, team work, work engagement, workforce agility INTRODUCTION After the Covid Pandemic - 19, all companies felt the impact, including Indonesia; companies must make new innovations to continue to survive and be sustainable; according to the Ministry of Labor Survey in 2020, there are 88% of affected companies, including those experiencing a loss situation (Lu et al., 2021). News in CNCB Indonesia, published in 2023, said that the condition of the company after COVID-19 has not fully recovered due to the domino effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian Employers Association (APINDO) DKI Jakarta, Mr. Nurjaman, added that layoffs continue to occur, there are still factories that are closed, the funds owned by the Company have been used during the COVID-19 Pandemic, there is a manufacturing process (input) but not sold (output), so there are more expenses than income. Minister of Finance Mrs. Sri Mulyani Indrawati said in her speech at the Commemoration Ceremony of the 115th National Awakening Day that currently, the global economy has not fully recovered and still has to face many challenges, the condition of the world economy is not at a safe level (Economy, 2021). American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 210 Post Covid Pandemic - 19, the Company must rise to innovate in order to continue to survive and be sustainable, every company wants quality human resources for the development of the Company, so it is also necessary for human resources to have high work productivity. Employees are human resources in the Company which includes important factors to be able to contribute to the Company, employee contributions can determine the development of the Company's future existence (Guest, 2017). Leaders who are agile at work, become assets of the company or organization because they have the skills, knowledge, and abilities so that the entrepreneurial spirit, vision, and spirit of the work team, which results in the company or organization towards or even being the best (Pusenius, 2019). A leader is the spear of employees who can direct their subordinates towards a common goal, leaders who feel close (engagement) with the Company, will be able to lead their subordinates to achieve the goals of the Company. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of leadership and employee engagement in improving work productivity in the post-Covid-19 era, as a strategic effort to support the sustainability and competitiveness of companies in challenging economic conditions (Manroop et al., 2025). Outsourcing companies are companies engaged in providing labor for other companies, or referred to as employers, making it easier for employers to find employees without the need to search, recruit, and train (Lee & Szkudlarek, 2021). From starting wages and instructions to employee guarantees that provide are from Outsourcing Companies. PT NUS is a labor outsourcing company in the field of Marketing Activation, which provides sales promotion girls, merchandisers, sales, and canvassers that have been established since 2004 with clients engaged in the FMCG (Fast Moving Customer Goods) sector. PT NUS, in addition to having outsourced employees, also has in-house employees who handle its clients, where employees must follow PT NUS regulations such as entry hours; PT NUS hopes that employees obey existing regulations and employees can maximize work so as to achieve the goals of PT NUS. The following is secondary data from PT NUS related to employee attendance and turnover: Table 1. Employee Absenteeism Data Year 2022 - 2023 Employee Absence Data Year Month Number of Working Days Number of Employees Attendance Number of Resignations % Absent % Delay % Employee Turnover Pain Permission / Leave Alfa Too late 2022 January 28 137 18 45 3 162 2 1,72% 4,22% 1,46% February 27 135 66 14 0 93 1 2,19% 2,55% 0,74% March 26 133 26 33 3 195 6 1,79% 5,64% 4,51% April 25 129 10 23 0 185 2 1,02% 5,74% 1,55% May 19 127 12 364 0 88 13 15,58% 3,65% 10,24% June 25 133 14 13 1 98 4 0,84% 2,95% 3,01% July 26 125 24 37 4 77 5 2,00% 2,37% 4,00% August 25 122 21 24 4 103 4 1,61% 3,38% 3,28% September 26 125 33 22 7 132 4 1,91% 4,06% 3,20% October 26 126 15 27 5 158 8 1,43% 4,82% 6,35% Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 211 Employee Absence Data Year Month Number of Working Days Number of Employees Attendance Number of Resignations % Absent % Delay % Employee Turnover Pain Permission / Leave Alfa Too late November 26 120 28 47 2 124 3 2,47% 3,97% 2,50% December 27 119 18 41 4 95 1 1,96% 2,96% 0,84% 2023 January 28 121 32 66 3 121 3 2,98% 3,57% 2,48% February 26 121 14 107 6 166 3 4,04% 5,28% 2,48% March 26 122 26 33 3 195 0 1,95% 6,15% 0,00% April 26 128 19 125 3 196 3 4,42% 5,89% 2,34% May 24 122 31 18 1 86 4 1,71% 2,94% 3,28% June 25 120 459 25 28 204 5 17,07% 6,80% 4,17% July 24 121 11 106 6 116 4 4,24% 3,99% 3,31% August 26 115 26 27 3 153 7 1,87% 5,12% 6,09% Average 3,64% 4,30% 3,29% From Table 1. above shows that the average employee absence data for 2022 - 2023 is 3.64%, the average employee tardiness data for 2022 - 2023 is 4.30%, the average employee turnover data for 2022 - 2023 is 3.29%. Table 2. Summary KPI (Key Performance Indicator) Team Team Qty Team Qty Team Acv KPI < 68% Percentage A 100 34 34% B 238 82 34% C 138 43 31% D 50 21 42% E 116 83 72% F 87 84 97% G 253 63 25% H 361 124 34% I 194 165 85% TOTAL 1537 699 45% Average achievement 4 months out of 6 Source: KPI team January - June 2023 The following is KPI data from the team under the Leader of PT NUS the data above shows that Team A, with a total of 100 people, has 34 people whose KPI achievement is below 68%. So the average of the 9 groups, as an average percentage for 6 consecutive months (January - June 2023 period), there are 45% of the 1,537 teams whose achievement is below 68% This situation highlights the urgency of addressing issues related to leadership style and teamwork in driving workforce agility, Researchers conducted research with the title "Responsible American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 212 Leadership and Team Work on Workforce Agility Mediated by Work Engagement at PT Hasta Ayu Nusantara" because Leadership and Team Work in the company plays a role for management in the Company in taking strategies, policies and business decisions to increase agility in the Company so as to achieve a productive work system and produce the best service, if supported by employees who have involvement in their work. Previous studies have supported this line of inquiry. For instance, Afsar et al. (2021) found that responsible leadership positively influences workforce agility through the mediating role of work engagement. Similarly, Breevaart & Bakker (2019) revealed that team dynamics, especially when paired with engaged employees, are significantly associated with proactive and adaptive work behavior. Furthermore, Chowdhury et al. (2023) emphasized that in high-pressure organizational settings, leadership that promotes responsibility and values collaboration enhances team resilience and agility. These findings affirm that investigating the link between responsible leadership, teamwork, and work engagement toward building workforce agility is not only relevant but also critical for organizations facing performance challenges such as those experienced by PT Hasta Ayu Nusantara. RESEARCH METHODS PLS (Partial Least Square) is a component analysis method or equation based structural equation modeling that uses the Partial Least Square (Smart-PLS) program for data processing. PLS (Partial Least Square) is an alternative model to covariance-based SEM. Population refers to all people, events, or objects of interest to researchers who want to investigate. The population of this study are employees who work at PT NUS, PT NUS is an outsourcing company which has leaders at the Jakarta Head Office and at branch offices as many as 67 employees in the leader position and all of them will be used as respondents of this study. Primary data used in this study is data collected directly from research subjects through a list of written statements or closed questionnaires submitted by the author to employees of PT NUS. The primary data collection method uses a survey method, in which the main data and information are obtained from the research sample through the use of a questionnaire or questionnaire. Respondents can fill out the questionnaire using Google Forms, and the carving scale is Likert from 1-5. Model evaluation is carried out by looking at the significant value to determine the effect of variables during the bootsrapping process. By paying attention to the value in the path coeffiecient output, a structural model test can be carried out. The P-value can be used to determine whether there is an effect of endogenous variables on exogenous variables, and the T-statistic can be used to determine the level of significance, with the T table using 1 side, namely 1.645. The Y value of the initial sample can be used to determine how much influence the endogenous and exogenous variables have. Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 213 RESULT AND DISCUSSION PT NUS is an Outsourcing Company or Outsourcing Business is a company that provides labor for other companies. PT NUS was established in 2004 in Jakarta, the first office of PT NUS in the North Jakarta area, with a workforce of less than 100 people. Currently PT NUS has an office in East Jakarta and has 23 representative operational offices throughout Indonesia, from the islands of Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Jayapura, and Bali. PT NUS has clients engaged in FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) where the products sold are needed for daily needs such as milk, staples, kitchen needs and so on. The clients of PT NUS, need sales (Sales Promotion Girl, Merchandiser, Motorist) to be placed in Modern Stores (Hypermart, Lion Super Indo and so on) or Traditional (Markets, Grocery and so on). Table 3. Leader Data of PT NUS No. Position Number of Employees 1 Manager 4 2 Head of division 10 3 Coordinator (Per Client) 23 4 Head of Area 30 Total 67 Analysis of Responsible Leadership Variable Description Table 4. Frequency and Percentage of Responsible Leadership Variable Score Dimensions Indicator SS S CS KS TS STS Total Average Interpretation Awareness RL - 1 0 13 51 1 2 0 67 4,12 High/Good Awareness RL - 2 0 13 47 5 2 0 67 4,06 High/Good Awareness RL - 3 0 34 29 0 4 0 67 4,39 High/Good Awareness RL - 4 0 19 40 2 6 0 67 4,07 High/Good Awareness RL - 5 0 17 44 5 1 0 67 4,15 High/Good Awareness RL - 6 0 17 44 2 4 0 67 4,10 High/Good Average Awareness Score 4,15 High/Good Vision RL - 7 0 9 56 2 0 0 67 4,10 High/Good Vision RL - 8 0 21 43 2 1 0 67 4,25 High/Good Average Vision Score 4,18 High/Good Imagination RL - 9 0 13 53 1 0 0 67 4,18 High/Good Imagination RL - 10 0 17 48 1 1 0 67 4,52 High/Good Average Imagination Score 4,35 High/Good Responsible RL - 11 0 16 48 2 1 0 67 4,51 High/Good Responsible RL - 12 0 24 39 3 1 0 67 4,51 High/Good Responsible RL - 13 0 15 48 2 2 0 67 4,61 High/Good Average Score Responsible 4,54 High/Good Action RL - 14 0 38 24 4 1 0 67 4,48 High/Good American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 214 Dimensions Indicator SS S CS KS TS STS Total Average Interpretation Action RL - 15 0 44 16 5 2 0 67 4,52 High/Good Average Action Score 4,50 High/Good 4,34 High/Good The table above shows that for the questionnaire statement in the Responsible Leadership variable (X1) there are 5 dimensions, namely: Awareness has an average value of 4.15 in the "High / Good" category, Vision has an average value of 4.19 in the "High / Good" category, Imagination has an average value of 4.35 in the "High / Good" category, Responsible has an average value of 4.54 in the "High / Good" category, and Action has an average value of 4.50 in the "High / Good" category. The total average value in this variable statement is 4.34, which means that in the interval interpretation it falls into the "High / Good" category (Chikha & Skorupski, 2022). These results indicate that Responsible Leadership within the scope of its sample is in the "High / Good" category. Team Work Variable Description Analysis Table 5. Frequency and Percentage of Team Work Variable Score Dimensions Indicator SS S CS KS TS STS Total Average Interpretation Cooperating TW 1 0 48 15 4 0 0 67 4,66 High/Good Cooperating TW 2 0 43 12 6 6 0 67 4,37 High/Good Cooperating TW 3 0 48 12 4 3 0 67 4,57 High/Good Average Score Cooperating 4,53 High/Good Coordinating TW 4 0 65 1 1 0 0 67 4,96 High/Good Coordinating TW 5 0 59 5 2 1 0 67 4,82 High/Good Coordinating TW 6 0 52 14 1 0 0 67 4,76 High/Good Average Coordinating Score 4,85 High/Good Communicating TW 7 0 55 10 2 0 0 67 4,79 High/Good Communicating TW 8 0 53 12 1 1 0 67 4,75 High/Good Communicating TW 9 0 50 13 4 0 0 67 4,69 High/Good Average score Communicating 4,74 High/Good Comforting TW 10 0 38 27 1 1 0 67 4,52 High/Good Comforting TW 11 0 37 28 1 1 0 67 4,51 High/Good Comforting TW 12 0 37 28 1 1 0 67 4,51 High/Good Comforting Mean Value 4,51 High/Good Conflict Resolving TW 13 0 45 18 4 0 0 67 4,61 High/Good Conflict Resolving TW 14 0 54 11 2 0 0 67 4,78 High/Good Conflict Resolving TW 15 0 55 8 4 0 0 67 4,76 High/Good Average Conflict Resolving Score 4,72 High/Good 4,67 High/Good Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 215 Based on the table above, it shows that for the questionnaire statement in the Team Work variable (X2) there are 5 dimensions, namely: Cooperating has an average value of 4.53 in the "High / Good" category, Coordinating has an average value of 4.85 in the "High / Good" category, Communicating has an average value of 4.74 in the "High / Good" category, Comforting has an average value of 4.51 in the "High / Good" category, and Conflict Resolving has an average value of 4.72 in the "High / Good" category. The total average value in this variable statement is 4.67, which means that in the interval interpretation it falls into the "High / Good" category (De Baets & Harvey, 2020). These results indicate that Team Work within the scope of the sample is in the "High / Good" category. Work Engagament Variable Description Analysis Table 6. Frequency and Percentage of Work Engagement Variable Score Dimensions Indicator SS S CS KS TS STS Total Average Interpretation Vigor WE 1 0 54 10 3 0 0 67 4,76 High/Good Vigor WE 2 0 53 11 3 0 0 67 4,75 High/Good Vigor WE 3 0 48 16 2 1 0 67 4,66 High/Good Vigor WE 4 0 43 17 6 1 0 67 4,52 High/Good Average Vigor Score 4,67 High/Good Absorption WE 5 0 42 17 8 0 0 67 4,51 High/Good Absorption WE 6 0 52 13 2 0 0 67 4,75 High/Good Absorption WE 7 0 48 13 6 0 0 67 4,63 High/Good Average Absorption Value 4,63 High/Good Dedication WE 8 0 52 9 6 0 0 67 4,42 High/Good Dedication WE 9 0 20 17 22 8 0 67 4,69 High/Good Dedication WE 10 0 41 14 11 1 0 67 3,73 High/Good Average Dedication Score 4,28 High/Good Average Dedication Score 4,53 High/Good Based on the table above, it shows that for the questionnaire statements in the Work Engagement (Z) variable, there are 3 dimensions, namely: Vigor has an average value of 4.67 in the "High / Good" category, Absorption has an average value of 4.63 in the "High / Good" category, and Dedication has an average value of 4.28 in the "High / Good" category. The total average value in this variable statement is 4.53, which means that in the interval interpretation it falls into the "High / Good" category. These results indicate that Work Engagement within the scope of the sample is in the "High / Good" category (Lini et al., 2020). Workforce Agility Variable Description Analysis Table 7. Frequency and Percentage of Workforce Agility Variable Score Dimensions Indicator SS S CS KS TS STS Total Average Interpretation Proactive WA 1 0 31 30 6 0 0 67 4,37 High/Good American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 216 Dimensions Indicator SS S CS KS TS STS Total Average Interpretation Proactive WA 2 0 32 24 10 1 0 67 4,30 High/Good Proactive WA 3 0 34 26 7 0 0 67 4,40 High/Good Average Value Proactive 3,27 Sufficient/Medium Adaptive WA 4 0 33 13 18 3 0 67 4,13 High/Good Adaptive WA 5 0 21 21 23 2 0 67 3,91 Sufficient/Medium Adaptive WA 6 0 33 20 13 1 0 67 4,27 High/Good Adaptive Mean Value 4,10 High/Good Resilience WA 7 0 38 17 11 1 0 67 4,37 High/Good Resilience WA 8 0 45 16 6 0 0 67 4,58 High/Good Resilience WA 9 0 15 16 36 0 0 67 3,69 Sufficient/Medium Average Resilience Score 4,21 High/Good Total Average Score 3,86 Sufficient/Medium Based on the table above, it shows that for the questionnaire statements in the Workforce Agility (Y) variable, there are 3 dimensions, namely: Proactive has an average value of 3.27 in the "Moderate / Fair" category, Adaptive has an average value of 4.10 in the "High / Good" category, and Resilience has an average value of 4.21 in the "High / Good" category. The total average value in this variable statement is 3.86, which means that in the interval interpretation it falls into the "Moderate / Sufficient" category. These results indicate that Workforce Agility within the scope of the sample is in the "Moderate / Adequate" category. Figure 1. Loading Factor Value in Smart PLS Research Model Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 217 Based on the image formed in the Smart PLS application, the loading factor value is below 0.50, namely RL 7 with a value of 0.39, RL 10 with a value of -0.26, WA 3 with a value of 0.45, and WE 9 with a value of 0.39, so the elimination is carried out on the indicator, and the following is the loading factor value after modification (Mallen-Ntiador, 2017): Figure 2. Modified Loading Factor Values in the Smart PLS Research Model Table 8. Loading Factor Value Variable Dimensions Indicator Loading Factor Terms Results Responsible Leadership Awareness RL - 1 0,789 >0.50 Valid Awareness RL - 2 0,618 >0.50 Valid Awareness RL - 3 0,611 >0.50 Valid Awareness RL - 4 0,825 >0.50 Valid Awareness RL - 5 0,809 >0.50 Valid Awareness RL - 6 0,835 >0.50 Valid Vision RL - 8 0,925 >0.50 Valid Imagination RL - 9 0,999 >0.50 Valid Responsible RL - 11 0,505 >0.50 Valid Responsible RL - 12 0,671 >0.50 Valid Responsible RL - 13 0,689 >0.50 Valid Action RL - 14 0,885 >0.50 Valid American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 218 Variable Dimensions Indicator Loading Factor Terms Results Action RL - 15 0,897 >0.50 Valid Team Work Cooperating TW 1 0,833 >0.50 Valid Cooperating TW 2 0,811 >0.50 Valid Cooperating TW 3 0,525 >0.50 Valid Coordinating TW 4 0,651 >0.50 Valid Coordinating TW 5 0,706 >0.50 Valid Coordinating TW 6 0,576 >0.50 Valid Communicating TW 7 0,829 >0.50 Valid Communicating TW 8 0,849 >0.50 Valid Communicating TW 9 0,852 >0.50 Valid Comforting TW 10 0,842 >0.50 Valid Comforting TW 11 0,875 >0.50 Valid Comforting TW 12 0,844 >0.50 Valid Conflict Resolving TW 13 0,861 >0.50 Valid Conflict Resolving TW 14 0,906 >0.50 Valid Conflict Resolving TW 15 0,922 >0.50 Valid Work Engagement Vigor WE 1 0,883 >0.50 Valid Vigor WE 2 0,841 >0.50 Valid Vigor WE 3 0,821 >0.50 Valid Vigor WE 4 0,823 >0.50 Valid Absorption WE 5 0,804 >0.50 Valid Absorption WE 6 0,884 >0.50 Valid Absorption WE 7 0,871 >0.50 Valid Dedication WE 8 0,916 >0.50 Valid Dedication WE 10 0,924 >0.50 Valid Workforce Agility Proactive WA 1 0,743 >0.50 Valid Proactive WA 2 0,872 >0.50 Valid Adaptive WA 5 0,737 >0.50 Valid Adaptive WA 6 0,925 >0.50 Valid Adaptive WA 7 0,650 >0.50 Valid Resilience WA 8 0,802 >0.50 Valid Resilience WA 9 0,642 >0.50 Valid Table 9. Cross Loading Value of Each Variable and Research Indicator Responsible Leadership Team Work Work Engagement Workforce Agility RL-1 0,715 0,149 0,270 0,280 Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 219 Responsible Leadership Team Work Work Engagement Workforce Agility RL-1 0,715 0,149 0,270 0,280 RL-2 0,461 -0,041 0,000 -0,025 RL-2 0,461 -0,041 0,000 -0,025 RL-3 0,613 0,050 0,094 0,103 RL-3 0,613 0,050 0,094 0,103 RL-4 0,810 0,065 0,182 0,224 RL-4 0,810 0,065 0,182 0,224 RL-5 0,720 0,002 0,044 0,009 RL-5 0,720 0,002 0,044 0,009 RL-6 0,765 0,086 0,157 0,224 RL-6 0,765 0,086 0,157 0,224 RL-7 0,203 0,030 0,004 -0,085 RL-8 0,546 0,057 0,079 0,131 RL-8 0,546 0,057 0,079 0,131 RL-9 0,379 0,234 0,176 0,017 RL-9 0,379 0,234 0,176 0,017 RL-11 0,308 0,108 0,090 -0,041 RL-11 0,308 0,108 0,090 -0,041 RL-12 0,645 0,034 0,145 0,185 RL-12 0,645 0,034 0,145 0,185 RL-13 0,569 0,227 0,211 0,114 RL-13 0,569 0,227 0,211 0,114 RL-14 0,577 0,118 0,213 0,180 RL-14 0,577 0,118 0,213 0,180 RL-15 0,597 0,134 0,195 0,071 RL-15 0,597 0,134 0,195 0,071 Responsible Leadership Team Work Work Engagement Workforce Agility WA-1 0,282 0,362 0,318 0,543 WA-1 0,282 0,362 0,318 0,543 WA-2 0,218 0,367 0,541 0,650 WA-2 0,218 0,367 0,541 0,650 WA-4 0,051 0,383 0,518 0,789 American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 220 Responsible Leadership Team Work Work Engagement Workforce Agility WA-4 0,051 0,383 0,518 0,789 WA-5 0,114 0,297 0,457 0,608 WA-5 0,114 0,297 0,457 0,608 WA-6 0,148 0,472 0,682 0,870 WA-6 0,148 0,472 0,682 0,870 WA-7 -0,021 0,269 0,200 0,355 WA-7 -0,021 0,269 0,200 0,355 WA-8 0,190 0,502 0,682 0,661 WA-8 0,190 0,502 0,682 0,661 WA-9 -0,030 0,080 0,243 0,461 WA-9 -0,030 0,080 0,243 0,461 WE-1 0,185 0,620 0,884 0,669 WE-1 0,185 0,620 0,884 0,669 WE-10 0,285 0,600 0,842 0,691 WE-10 0,285 0,600 0,842 0,691 WE-2 0,226 0,598 0,842 0,587 WE-2 0,226 0,598 0,842 0,587 WE-3 0,182 0,469 0,820 0,615 WE-3 0,182 0,469 0,820 0,615 WE-4 0,285 0,605 0,823 0,698 WE-4 0,285 0,605 0,823 0,698 WE-5 0,268 0,621 0,761 0,696 WE-5 0,268 0,621 0,761 0,696 WE-6 0,045 0,535 0,870 0,588 WE-6 0,045 0,535 0,870 0,588 WE-7 0,140 0,629 0,872 0,644 WE-7 0,140 0,629 0,872 0,644 WE-8 0,208 0,599 0,858 0,585 WE-8 0,208 0,599 0,858 0,585 WE-10 0,283 0,600 0,842 0,694 WE-10 0,283 0,600 0,842 0,694 Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 221 Responsible Leadership Team Work Work Engagement Workforce Agility TW-1 0,055 0,600 0,266 0,338 TW-1 0,055 0,600 0,266 0,338 TW-2 -0,091 0,552 0,342 0,385 TW-2 -0,091 0,552 0,342 0,385 TW-3 0,073 0,271 0,171 0,146 TW-3 0,073 0,271 0,171 0,146 TW-4 0,087 0,281 0,500 0,300 TW-4 0,087 0,281 0,500 0,300 TW-5 -0,001 0,453 0,377 0,308 TW-5 -0,001 0,453 0,377 0,308 TW-6 0,257 0,545 0,544 0,457 TW-6 0,257 0,545 0,544 0,457 TW-7 0,110 0,741 0,534 0,417 TW-7 0,110 0,741 0,534 0,417 TW-8 0,147 0,806 0,447 0,224 TW-8 0,147 0,806 0,447 0,224 TW-9 -0,052 0,746 0,372 0,407 TW-9 -0,052 0,746 0,372 0,407 TW-10 0,116 0,644 0,551 0,384 TW-10 0,116 0,644 0,551 0,384 TW-11 0,122 0,576 0,499 0,351 TW-11 0,122 0,576 0,499 0,351 TW-12 0,111 0,767 0,425 0,335 TW-12 0,111 0,767 0,425 0,335 TW-13 0,194 0,758 0,569 0,509 TW-13 0,194 0,758 0,569 0,509 TW-14 0,136 0,727 0,431 0,326 TW-14 0,136 0,727 0,431 0,326 TW-15 0,154 0,722 0,515 0,363 TW-15 0,154 0,722 0,515 0,363 The table above shows that this research can be declared valid based on cross loading analysis compared to other constructs, the cross loading value of the variable on the indicator is greater. The cross loading value, which indicates a strong correlation between the variable and its indicator, is greater than the value of other constructs (Ab Hamid et al., 2017). American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 222 Table 10. AVE Squared Results (Fornell -Lacker) Responsible Leadership Team Work Work Engagement Workforce Agility Responsible Leadership 0,570 Team Work 0,154 0,634 Work Engagement 0,242 0,594 0,805 Workforce Agility 0,207 0,558 0,665 0,611 AVE values greater than 0.5 are considered an indication of good convergent validity. The Responsible Leadership variable has a root AVE of 0.570 greater than its correlation with Team Work (0.154), Work Engagement (0.242), and workforce agility (0.207) so that the discriminant validity of Responsible Leadership is met. The Team Work variable has a root AVE of 0.634 which is greater than its correlation with Workforce Agility (0.558). Work Engagement (0.594), so the discriminant validity of Team Work is met. The Work Engagement variable has a root AVE of 0.805 compared to Workforce Agility (0.665), indicating that the discriminant validity of Work Engagement is met. Table 11. Composite Reliability and Cronbach Alpha values Cronbach's Alpha Terms Composite Reliability Terms Description Responsible Leadership 0,823 ≥0.60 0,860 ≥0.70 Reliable Team Work 0,883 ≥0.60 0,904 ≥0.70 Reliable Work Engagement 0,934 ≥0.60 0,947 ≥0.70 Reliable Workforce Agility 0,769 ≥0.60 0,831 ≥0.70 Reliable Based on Table 11, it can be concluded that the research model is reliable or has reliability in measuring its variables. This is because the Cronbach's Alpha value is more than 0.50 and the composite reliability value is more than 0.7. Table 12. R-square value R Square R Square Adjusted Work Engagement 0,501 0,485 Workforce Agility 0,588 0,568 Based on the coefficient analysis table above, it can be concluded that the R Square value of the joint or simultaneous influence of X1 and X2 on Y is 0.588 with an adjusted R Sqare value of 0.568 and for X1 and X2 on Z of 0.501 with an adjusted R Sqare value of 0.485. So it can be explained that all exogenous constructs (X1 and X2) simultaneously affect Y by 0.568 or 56.8% and for Z by 0.485 or 48.5%. The R Square value indicates that the level of determination of exogenous variables (Responsible Leadership and Team Work) on the endogenous is moderate. Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 223 Table 13. Q² Predictive Relevance SSO SSE Q² (=1-SSE/SSO) Responsible Leadership 1005 1005 Team Work 1005 1005 Work Engagement 670 454 0,323 Workforce Agility 603 482 0,201 Based on the table above, it is known that the Q square value> 0 so that the predictive relevance of the Responsible Leadership and Team Work variables to Work Engagement and Workforce Agility is good and strong. Figure 3. Bootsramping in the Smart PLS Research Model Based on the figure above, it can be seen that each research variable has a dimension that has the greatest influence, namely: a) The Awareness dimension has the greatest influence with a T Statistic value of 44.049 in the Responsible Leadership Variable. b) The Communicating dimension has the greatest influence with a T Statistic value of 31.928 in the Team Work Variable c) The Adaptive dimension has the greatest influence with a T Statistic value of 34.715 in the Workforce Agility Variable. American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 224 d) The Absorption dimension has the greatest influence with a T Statistic value of 119.464 in the Work Engagement Variable. Table 14. Path Coefficient Values, t-Statistics, and P-Values Relationship between constructs Original Sample (O) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P Values Description Direct Relationship Responsible Leadership -> Work Engagement 0,139 0,110 1,259 0,104 No significant effect Responsible Leadership -> Workforce Agility 0,024 0,080 0,296 0,384 No significant effect Team Work -> Work Engagement 0,673 0,130 5,161 0,000 Positive and Significant Team Work -> Workforce Agility 0,051 0,171 0,301 0,382 No significant effect Work Engagement -> Workforce Agility 0,724 0,161 4,497 0,000 Positive and Significant Indirect Relationship Responsible Leadership -> Work Engagement -> Workforce Agility 0,101 0,085 1,186 0,118 Does not play a mediating role Team Work -> Work Engagement -> Workforce Agility 0,487 0,116 4,216 0,000 Play a mediating role CONCLUSION Based on the research results, Responsible Leadership is not able to drive an increase in Work Engagement, even when Awareness is the most dominant aspect. The same thing happened to Workforce Agility at PT NUS, where Responsible Leadership also had no effect even though Awareness remained the dominant factor. In contrast, Team Work proved to be able to increase Work Engagement, with Communicating as the strongest aspect. However, Team Work was unable to improve Workforce Agility, although Communicating remained the most prominent aspect. Meanwhile, Work Engagement positively contributes to increasing Workforce Agility, with Absorption being the strongest aspect in the relationship. However, in the context of mediation, Work Engagement was not able to mediate between Responsible Leadership and Workforce Agility at PT NUS, although on the other hand it was found that Work Engagement was also able to mediate the effect of Responsible Leadership on Workforce Agility. Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati 225 REFERENCES Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. H. M. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 890(1), 012163. Chikha, P., & Skorupski, J. (2022). The risk of an airport traffic accident in the context of the ground handling personnel performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 105, 102295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102295 De Baets, S., & Harvey, N. (2020). Using judgment to select and adjust forecasts from statistical models. European Journal of Operational Research, 284(3), 882–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.028 Economy, E. C. (2021). The world according to China. John Wiley & Sons. Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well‐being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. Lee, E. S., & Szkudlarek, B. (2021). Refugee employment support: The HRM–CSR nexus and stakeholder co‐dependency. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(4), 936–955. Lini, I. Z., Soeling, P. D., & Liestiawati, F. I. D. (2020). Examine the Relationship between Leader’s Emotional Intelligence and Internal Communication of Organization on Employee Engagement. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 12(5), 529– 538. Lu, L., Peng, J., Wu, J., & Lu, Y. (2021). Perceived impact of the Covid-19 crisis on SMEs in different industry sectors: Evidence from Sichuan, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 55, 102085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102085 Mallen-Ntiador, T. N. E. (2017). Green marketing practices and customer satisfaction in selected hotels in Ghana. Master of Philosophy (Marketing Option) Degree. Manroop, L., Zheng, H., Malik, A., Milner, M., Schulz, E., & Banerji, K. (2025). Human resource management in times of crisis: Strategies for a post COVID-19 workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 54(1), 101060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101060 Melanie Pfaff, Y., Judith Wohlleber, A., Münch, C., Küffner, C., & Hartmann, E. (2023). How digital transformation impacts organizational culture – A multi-hierarchical perspective on the manufacturing sector. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 183, 109432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109432 Pusenius, K. (2019). Agile mindset in the workplace: moving towards organizational agility. American Journal of Economic and Management Business Vol. 4 No. 3 March 2025 226 Scharp, Y. S., Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., & van der Linden, D. (2019). Daily playful work design: A trait activation perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103850 Soliman, M., Di Virgilio, F., Figueiredo, R., & Sousa, M. J. (2021). The impact of workplace spirituality on lecturers’ attitudes in tourism and hospitality higher education institutions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 38, 100826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100826 Copyright holders: Paulina Hastayu Marsaditha, Mafizatun Nurhayati (2025) First publication right: AJEMB - American Journal of Economic and Management Business