









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
74

American Journal of  Economics and 
Business Innovation (AJEBI)

The Effect of  Workplace Stress on Employee Engagement, 
the Mediation Role of  Leadership Style

Mustafa Mahmoud Alsomaidaee1*, 

Volume 2 Issue 2, Year 2023
ISSN: 2831-5588 (Online), 2832-4862 (Print)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajebi.v2i2.1690
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: May 25, 2023
Accepted: June 12, 2023
Published: July 01, 2023

The aim of  the current study was to investigate the impact of  workplace stress on employee 
engagement within Iraqi universities through the mediator role of  leadership style. Work-
related stress and non-work-related stress were identified as representing workplace stress. 
Employee engagement has been measured through three types: social engagement, affective 
engagement, and intellectual engagement. Two types of  leadership styles have been tested: 
directive and participative leadership. the structural equation Modeling was used to test the 
study model. A sample of  245 employees in Iraqi universities, including university professors, 
was targeted. Only 214 respondents participated in the survey. The results showed that non-
work-related stress is the most influential factor in employee engagement. Furthermore, 
it has been found that the participative leadership style mediates the relationship between 
work-related and non-work-related stress and employee engagement. There is one exception; 
participative leadership did not mediate the impact of  non-work-related stress on intellectual.

Keywords
Workplace Stress, Employee 
Engagement, Directive 
Leadership, Participative 
Leadership, Work-Related 
Stress, Non-Work-Related 
Stress

1 Baghdad Unversity, Iraq
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: mustafa.alsomaidaee@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
Rapid and intense environmental changes have different 
impacts on the various sectors that affect or are affected 
by them. This impact seems evident in the business 
sector, which must respond quickly and effectively to 
environmental changes to ensure success or survival at 
the very least. It is possible that changes in the external 
environment may affect the internal performance of  
organizations, including rediscovering best practices, 
emphasizing efficiency, protecting intellectual property, 
and promoting human creativity and innovation. Yet that’s 
not always the case; there is another undesirable aspect 
left by external environmental changes on the internal 
level of  organizations, such as performance pressures, 
competitive efforts, and the struggle to survive. When 
environmental changes impose new work challenges, this 
is reflected in the efforts of  employees, who ultimately 
try to fulfill their commitment by adapting to external 
changes or perhaps turning them into opportunities 
whenever possible. The acceleration of  events results in 
additional pressures on employees, both physically and 
mentally, which may greatly limit their sense of  well-
being in the workplace. Some jobs add additional burdens 
that are necessary to adapt to the internal and external 
changes of  the organization. As a result, employees have 
difficulties meeting deadlines, leading to higher levels 
of  physical and psychological stress. Things can get 
worse if  the supervisors’ and managers’ dissatisfaction 
is added as additional emotional stress. Regardless of  
the different forms of  workplace stress, its causes 
can be summarized into a set of  factors such as poor 
relationships with colleagues, exposure to bullying or 
exclusion, increasingly challenging job requirements, 

and factors arising from a negative work environment. 
Therefore, monitoring workplace stress is necessary due 
to its direct link to negative outcomes, especially for 
employees, such as high absenteeism rates, decreased 
performance, and reduced participation.
Increasingly, the impact of  workplace stress on various 
aspects of  an organization, including the outcomes of  
human resources, is being observed and monitored. 
Employees are the most valuable asset of  an organization 
and a key reason for its success and prosperity. If  work 
stress has negative effects on employee outcomes, then 
that requires greater attention and control. One of  the 
aspects that is negatively affected by workplace stress 
is employee engagement. One of  the challenges facing 
companies’ nowadays, especially in light of  the difficult 
economic and social conditions, is the problem of  low 
employee engagement levels. Employee engagement is a 
key indicator of  a company’s success, as it significantly 
affects employee performance and company results. 
Employee engagement is the relationship between the 
employee and the company and can be achieved by 
creating an inspiring and motivating work environment, 
providing the necessary support for employees to achieve 
their professional and personal goals, offering continuous 
training and development, providing more opportunities 
for interaction with employees, and improving 
communication between them. Employee engagement is 
important because it improves productivity and quality, 
reduces absenteeism and tardiness, and contributes to 
improving the company’s image and making it a place 
where employees want to work. To achieve employee 
engagement, companies should implement some measures 
such as giving employees more freedom and flexibility at 

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajebi.v2i2.1690
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi
mailto:mustafa.alsomaidaee@gmail.com


Pa
ge

 
75

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

work, providing continuous training and development, 
motivating them in different ways such as offering 
rewards and promotions, and improving the quality of  
communication between employees and management and 
providing a healthy and suitable work environment.
Leadership styles vary from person to person and depend 
on personal culture and values. It is important to know 
leadership styles and apply them in the workplace to 
reduce tension and improve interaction among employees. 
Effective leadership styles encourage employees to 
participate and innovate, and allow them to feel tolerance 
and challenge. For example, democratic leaders use active 
listening and encourage participation to improve employee 
performance. This allows them to easily feel tolerance and 
acceptance, which helps reduce tension in the workplace. 
Additionally, leaders who follow a personal leadership 
style are characterized by their ability to communicate well 
with employees and motivate them to achieve goals. This 
style helps improve interaction and relationships among 
employees and reduces tension in the work environment. 
The main idea here is that effective leadership styles can 
lead to reducing tension in the workplace and improving 
interaction among employees. Leadership is often seen as 
the means to transform a negative work environment into 
a more productive one. Leadership contributes to role 
distribution and encourages creativity and innovation. 
In fact, the most important functions of  leadership are 
to transform the workplace into a positive environment 
that supports employee creativity and, consequently, to 
achieve organizational goals.
In this study, we explore the potential impact of  
workplace stress on employee engagement. We primarily 
focus on the unique role of  leadership style in improving 
the quality of  the workplace and emphasizing positive 
employee outcomes. Thus, the main aim of  the current 
study is to investigate the effect of  workplace stress on 
employee engagement as well as the mediating role of  
leadership in that relationship.

LITERATURE REVIEW 
Workplace Stress 
Stress at the workplace is important because it directly 
affects the health and performance of  employees (Chao et 
al., 2015). If  employees constantly feel stressed, it can lead 
to fatigue, exhaustion, and anxiety, negatively impacting 
their concentration and productivity (Vignoli et al., 2017). 
If  stress continues for a long period of  time, it can lead 
to greater health problems such as high blood pressure, 
heart and cardiovascular diseases, and depression (Xu et 
al., 2019). Therefore, it is important for companies to take 
measures to reduce stress in the workplace and provide a 
healthy and comfortable working environment for their 
employees. The emergence of  workplace stress theories is 
one of  the biological sciences concerned with monitoring 
the health of  employees in the workplace and their 
potential impact on their overall health (Hobfoll, 1989). 
Since then, studies and academic work have continued to 
be interested in monitoring stress in the workplace due 

to its direct relationship with organizational outcomes 
and employee well-being (Badu et al., 2020). According 
to (Anthony‐McMann et al., 2017), employees who 
experience stress are more susceptible to frustration, 
which leads to a lack of  engagement in the workplace. 
This opinion is based on the Conservation of  Resources 
Theory, which suggests that individuals naturally seek to 
preserve valuable resources and experience stress due to 
fear of  losing them. Employees respond poorly to tasks 
and new changes that do not align with their knowledge 
or thinking patterns (Hicks & Caroline, 2007; Nikolaou & 
Tsaousis, 2002). That might become more difficult when 
employees feel unable to adapt, not just unwilling (Çelik, 
2018). When employees feel a lack of  control over task 
accomplishment or a constant fear of  losing good job 
gains, it leads to increased levels of  stress and may result 
in a loss of  control over performance (Wagner & Harter, 
2006). We include here the primary factors that lead to 
stress in the workplace, but this does not mean that they 
are exclusive. Workplace stress can arise from several 
factors, including a toxic work environment (Colligan & 
Higgins, 2006; Hoboubi et al., 2017), conflicting roles and 
responsibilities (Van den Brande et al., 2016), unequal pay 
and benefits (Kakemam et al., 2019), poor leadership style 
(Boyer-Davis, 2018), and so on.
(Kerdpitak & Jermsittiparsert, 2020) acknowledge 
the internal factors within organizations that lead to 
workplace stress, yet, they find that non-work-related 
factors play an equal role in creating stress in the 
workplace. (Kerdpitak & Jermsittiparsert, 2020) base 
their opinions on the ideas of  (Eddy et al., 2016; Foy 
et al., 2019). Therefore, the factors of  workplace stress 
can be discussed in two groups: work-related factors 
and non-work-related factors. Earlier, we discussed the 
factors related to work. The non-work-related factors 
include all other personal, social, and family factors of  
the employees’ own lives. Non-work-related pressures, 
such as financial difficulties, marital problems, personal 
illnesses, and other social demands, can also contribute 
to increased stress in the workplace. According to (Foy 
et al., 2019) opinion, culture, social roles, and change 
requirements also contribute to increased stress levels in 
the workplace, which are directly linked to absenteeism, 
decreased productivity, and engagement. 

Employee Engagement
Emotionally, work engagement is usually described as the 
degree to which employees consider work as an important 
part of  their lives, and think about it even when they 
leave the workplace (Kanungo, 1982). Work engagement 
refers to a set of  relationships between employees and 
the company they work for, which includes elements 
such as loyalty, dedication, interest, and connection to 
the organization and its goals (Arifin et al., 2019; Cesário 
& Chambel, 2017). Work engagement is considered a 
very important aspect for any company, as employees 
who are actively engaged in their work and committed 
to their tasks and the company’s objectives tend to be 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
76

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

more productive and creative (Bakker & Leiter, 2017). 
They also feel satisfied and happy in their work and enjoy 
better mental and physical health, which in turn leads to 
increased profitability and an improved reputation for 
the company, attracting more talented employees (Gill, 
2015; Upadyaya et al., 2016). fostering and achieving work 
engagement is one of  the most important challenges 
facing companies today, and management should work to 
provide an inspiring and motivating work environment, 
provide opportunities for training, development, and 
advancement, as well as improving communication and 
connection between management and employees, and 
recognizing and emphasizing outstanding performance 
(Knight et al., 2017). In line with the principles of  
work engagement, employee engagement is a result 
of  a supportive work environment (Bailey et al., 2017; 
Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). This ultimately depends 
on management’s initiatives and programs aimed at 
supporting and nurturing employees (Pandita & Ray, 
2018). (Chandani et al., 2016) pointed out three levels 
of  employee engagement: (1) active engagement, 
where employees are motivated by their passion to 
perform and participate. (2) Regular engagement, where 
employees perform their main tasks without passion or 
internal drive. (3) Disengaged employees who do not 
feel sufficient satisfaction or happiness to enhance their 
performance. (Soane et al., 2012) developed a model for 
measuring employee engagement based on (Kahn, 1990) 
theory, which addressed employee engagement through 
a set of  essential requirements such as job role, positive 
influence, and activation. The (Soane et al., 2012) model 
focuses on social, affective, and intellectual engagement, 
assuming that each of  these aspects plays a crucial role in 
the overall engagement of  employees. Social engagement 
focuses on the degree of  connection of  the employee 
with their other colleagues and the extent to which they 
possess shared values. (Johnston, 2018) adds that social 
engagement focuses on collective activities within the 
workplace, including attempting to reach a common goal. 
Affective/Emotional involvement at work refers to the 
emotional relationship that connects an individual to 
their job and workplace. It’s the extent of  an employee’s 
passion for their work, the feeling of  belonging and 
commitment to the organization, and experiencing 
positive emotions such as excitement, pride, and loyalty. 
Emotional involvement is an important aspect of  
employee engagement, and it’s critical for organizational 
success and productivity (Mañas et al., 2018; Soane et al., 
2012). Intellectual engagement is concerned with the 
degree of  cognitive comprehension or perception of  the 
employee’s role in the workplace, meaning the extent to 
which perceived knowledge is utilized in performing job 
tasks (Soane et al., 2012). Intellectual engagement in work 
refers to the extent to which an individual participates 
mentally in their work tasks, experiencing the feelings of  
challenge, learning, and growth. It involves the effective 
use of  an individual’s mental potential to solve problems, 
make decisions, and contribute to the development of  

new ideas and strategies (McCormick & McMullen, 2019; 
Strachan, 2015; Ha, & Le, 2023). 

Leadership Style 
Recently, leadership has become a distinctive new 
approach to managing employees and organizations in 
general. The new leadership styles place importance on 
strategic integration in order to improve management and 
follow strategic direction (Manning & Curtis, 2019). An 
effective leader today is described as a good diagnostician 
who has a style that meets the requirements of  the 
situation they are working in (Kumari, 2018). Different 
leadership methods are used for employees based on the 
level of  guidance, empowerment, and decision-making 
authority (Khan et al., 2015). According to (Goleman 
et al., 2002) the common leadership styles range from 
autocratic to democratic to participative. This scale 
focuses on the degree of  involvement of  subordinates in 
decision-making. The more autocratic the leadership style, 
the more the leader monopolizes decision-making without 
active participation from others. (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016) 
outlines five features of  leadership: (1) the presence of  
one or more leaders; (2) the existence of  followers for 
the leadership; (3) a focus on action and directing others 
towards that purpose; (4) the importance of  setting a course 
of  action and working to fulfill it; and (5) establishing the 
primary goals and objectives of  the work.
The leadership styles mentioned in literature differ 
according to the location of  their application, cultural 
and environmental characteristics. Therefore, there are 
no universally agreed-upon leadership styles. (Gandolfi 
& Stone, 2018) opines that leadership has gone through 
different time periods, resulting in various styles. 
Leadership began by focusing on command and control, 
then moved towards empowerment and tracking, and 
finally towards connection and nurturing. (Khan et al., 
2015) include the following leadership styles: autocracy 
style (the leader retains the maximum amount of  power), 
authoritarian style (making decisions unilaterally and 
forcing others to implement them), democratic style 
(considering the opinions of  others in decision-making), 
participative style (discussing the decision with others and 
making it collectively), and laissez-faire style (where the 
responsibility for sub-decision-making is left to others). In 
his discussion of  innovation, (Łukowski, 2017) presents 
leadership styles in several categories, including directive 
versus participative leadership, where creativity increases 
when the leadership style is more participative. Interactive 
leadership, where leaders encourage others to express 
their opinions and engage in strategic participation. 
Charismatic leadership, where leaders are seen as role 
models to be followed. And transformational leadership, 
which can address change and provide more innovation. 
In the current study, we are testing two types of  leadership 
styles: directive and participative leadership, as we believe 
that these are the closest styles to the business environment 
in Eastern societies (Fellows et al., 2003; Galperin et al., 
2017; Nor Amin et al., 2017; Siddiqua et al., 2022).

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
77

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

Hypothesis Development 
Workplace Stress and Employee Engagement
Several experimental studies have shown the existence 
of  a relationship between work stress and employee 
engagement (Dinh, 2020; Rasool et al., 2021; Wang et 
al., 2022). Usually, employee engagement tends to be 
weaker in more stressful work environments, regardless 
of  the causes of  that stress (Winasis et al., 2020). Stress 
in the workplace has a negative impact on employees’ 
performance as well as their productivity and creativity 
(Naseem, 2017; Pandey, 2020). We are investigating the 
relationship between work-related and non-work-related 
stressors and employee engagement. Work-related 
stressors include a toxic work environment, conflicting 
roles and responsibilities, unequal pay and benefits, 
poor leadership styles, and so on. On the other hand, 
non-work-related stressors include all other personal, 
social, and family factors of  the employees’ own lives. 
Thus, we investigate the relationship between workplace 
stress and employees’ engagement through the following 
hypotheses:
H01a: work-related factors of  stress have a negative 

effect on social engagement.
H01b: work-related factors of  stress have a negative 

effect on affective engagement.
H01c: work-related factors of  stress have a negative 

effect on intellectual engagement.
H01d: Non-work-related factors of  stress has a negative 

effect on social engagement.
H01e: Non-work-related factors of  stress has a negative 

effect on affective engagement.
H01f: Non-work-related factors of  stress has a negative 

effect on intellectual engagement.

Mediation Role of  Leadership Style 
Previous literature has discussed various forms of  the 
impact of  leadership style on the relationship between 
workplace stress and employee engagement. Leadership 
style can mitigate the impact of  workplace stress on 
employee engagement. If  leaders adopt an encouraging 
and supportive leadership style and care for their 
employees, they will feel valued and appreciated, and they 
will be more comfortable and satisfied with the work 
environment and the organization as a whole (Lyons & 
Schneider, 2009; Olsen et al., 2023). Leaders who intend 

to use a democratic, directive, or consultative leadership 
style can also alleviate stress by encouraging effective 
participation and shared responsibility for achieving goals, 
providing guidance, training, and the necessary support 
to efficiently and effectively carry out tasks (Bhatti et 
al., 2012; Osazevbaru, & Amawhe 2022). However, 
when leaders follow an autocratic or power-supportive 
leadership style, it will increase stress on employees 
and affect their engagement and satisfaction with 
work (Erskine & Georgiou, 2017). Therefore, the right 
leadership style can play an important role in improving 
employee engagement and reducing the impact of  work 
stress on their performance (Pishgooie et al., 2019; Saad et 
al., 2018). Based on the above discussion, the conceptual 
model is shown in Figure 1. We propose the following 
hypothesis:
As for the work-related stress factors, we propose the 
following hypothesis:
H02a: Directive leadership style mediate the effect of  

work-related stress factors on social engagement.
H02b: Participative leadership style mediate the effect 

of  work-related stress factors on social engagement.
H02c: Directive leadership style mediate the effect of  

work-related stress factors on affective engagement.
H02d: Participative leadership style mediate the effect 

of  work-related stress factors on affective engagement.
H02e: Directive leadership style mediate the effect of  

work-related stress factors on intellectual engagement.
H02f: Participative leadership style mediate the effect of  

work-related stress factors on intellectual engagement.
As for the non-work-related stress factors, we propose 
the following hypothesis:
H03a: Directive leadership style mediate the effect of  

non-work-related stress factors on social engagement.
H03b: Participative leadership style mediate the effect 

of  non-work-related stress factors on social engagement.
H03c: Directive leadership style mediate the effect of  

non-work-related stress factors on affective engagement.
H03d: Participative leadership style mediate the effect of  

non-work-related stress factors on affective engagement.
H03e: Directive leadership style mediate the effect 

of  non-work-related stress factors on intellectual 
engagement.
H03f: Participative leadership style mediate the effect of  

non-work-related stress factors on intellectual engagement.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
78

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

METHODOLOGY 
Instrument 
A questionnaire was used as a tool for data collection 
in the current study. The questionnaire consisted of  28 
sub-items. 4 sub-items were assigned to each dimension 
(Work-related stress WS, Non-work-related stress 
NWS, Directive leadership DL, Participative leadership 
PL, Social engagement SA, Affective engagement AE, 
Intellectual engagement IE,). Items have been assigned 
according to a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagreed, 
5=strongly agreed). Several questionnaire items have 
been modified based on feedback from knowledgeable 
academics and professionals in the Iraqi university sector, 
with the aim of  improving the quality of  measurement.
An electronic version of  the questionnaire has been 
developed to reach the sample effectively from remote 
locations. We used multiple methods in the survey 
to reach the targeted sample, including university 
professor groups through social media platforms such 
as Facebook and Telegram. The reliability and stability 
of  the questionnaire were verified before starting the 
distribution phase.

Sampling and Data Collection 
We targeted employees at the Iraqi universities to 
represent the study sample. There is a wide controversy 
about the continuous work stress experienced by 
employees in Iraqi universities, including professors. In 
the pilot survey, many professors reported that they had 
to complete their work at home, which leads to additional 
stress due to the inability to fulfill family obligations in 
exchange for work obligations. We provided the sample 
with guarantees regarding the confidentiality of  the data 
to be used for research purposes only. The intentionally 
selected sample focused on employees in Iraqi universities, 
including professors who hold administrative positions 
in addition to their work, professors, and administrative 
staff  in important places, including research centers, 
postgraduate studies affairs, and libraries. So far, there is 
no official index about the size of  the study population, 
so we intentionally targeted a sample. 245 responses were 
received. 214 valid responses have been extracted after 
checking and verification.

Variables and Measures
The conceptual model of  the study included three 
variables. Workplace stress was the independent variable, 

the sub-variables were work-related stress and non-work-
related stress. Each sub-variable contained 4 items, so 
the items of  the independent variable are 8. Employee 
engagement represented the dependent variable, with 
three dimensions: social, affective, and intellectual 
engagement. Each sub-variable contained 4 items, so the 
items of  the dependent variable are 12. The leadership 
style is the mediator variable, with two sub-variables: 
directive and participative leadership. Each sub-variable 
contained 4 items, so the items of  the dependent variable 
are 8. Thus, the total items were 28. We adopted the 
(Kerdpitak & Jermsittiparsert, 2020; Soltan et al., 2020) 
scale for measuring workplace stress. Developed by 
(Soane et al., 2012), a dedicated scale was established to 
measure the employees’ engagement, consisting of  three 
parts: social, affective, and intellectual engagement. We 
relied on (Soane et al., 2012) work to measure employee 
engagement in the current study. 8 items of  leadership 
styles, both; directive and participative, have been 
adopted from (Araffat et al., 2020), all of  which have been 
redistributed into a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Preparation and Analysis 
Demographics
Table 1. summarizes the demographic responses. Men 
are the relatively most participating group in the survey. 
116 men responded, with a representation rate of  54% 
compared to 46% for women. Middle- to older-aged 
groups had the most responses. 61% of  the participants 
were aged between 32 and older than 39 years. 39% were 
young. This result is important because older employees 
are more sensitive to work stress due to other factors 
besides age, such as social and family obligations. This 
may increase concerns about reduced work engagement 
due to stress, whether work-related or not. 40% of  the 
respondents were professors who carry out administrative 
tasks in addition to their educational duties. 30% were 
professors with no additional administrative tasks. The 
remaining 30 percent were mostly administrative staff  
and others who held unspecified roles. Additional tasks 
usually increase work-related stress. These data provide 
a better understanding of  work-related stress factors. 
In terms of  work experience, most participants have 
experience exceeding 10 years. Approximately 70% of  
respondents have work experience ranging from 10 to 
more than 14 years.

Table 1: Demographic responses
Variable Category Frequency Percent % Cumulative Percent %
Gander Male 116 54 54

Female 98 46 100
Age 18-24 years 37 17 17

25-31 years 46 22 39
32-38 years 59 27 66
39 or older 72 34 100

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
79

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

Validity and Reliability
Some tests have been applied to ensure the reliability of  
data measures. Table 2 revealed that all factors loading 
were acceptable, indicating that the correlation between 
the items and the components was good enough to 
proceed. For internal consistency analysis, two methods 
were used: Cronbach’s alpha and the split-half  method. 
All values were greater than the generally accepted 0.7 in 

the Cronbach’s alpha test. They ranged between 0.816 and 
0.879. The results were supportive even after splitting the 
data into two halves. All values of  the split-half  analysis 
were supportive.
According to the results of  the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 
(KMO) Test, all values were higher than 0.6, and all of  
them were statistically significant (sig <0.001), indicating 
an adequate sample size.

Role Professor with an A.P. 86 40 40
Professor 64 30 70
Administrative staff 43 20 90
Other 21 10 100

Experiences 0-4 years 25 12 12
5-9 years 41 19 31
10-14 years 89 41 72
Above 14 years 59 28 100

Total 214 100 100

Table 2: Validity and reliability test
Variables Items Loading Alpha KMO Split-half
Workplace 
Stress

Work-Stress WS1 0.965 0.828 0.770 0.777
WS2 0.838
WS3 0.845
WS4 0.895

Non-Work-
Stress

NWS1 0.809 0.817 0.804 0.828
NWS2 0.834
NWS3 0.793
NWS4 0.776

Employee 
Engagement

Social 
Engagement

SE1 0.850 0.848 0.737 0.825
SE2 0.818
SE3 0.793
SE4 0.865

Affective 
Engagement

AE1 0.799 0.820 0.768 0.781
AE2 0.833
AE3 0.883
AE4 0.738

Intellectual 
Engagement

IE1 0.813 0.879 0.821 0.790
IE2 0.877
IE3 0.880
IE4 0.857

Leadership 
Style

Directive   
Leadership

DL1 0.751 0.816 0.769 0.771
DL2 0.702
DL3 0.804
DL4 0.721

Participative 
Leadership

PL1 0.795 0.846 0.760 0.780
PL2 0.830
PL3 0.870
PL4 0.824

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
80

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine 
the reliability and stability of  the items relative to their 
components. Initially, we examined the average variance 
extracted (AVE) of  each item to ensure the convergence 
validity. We also calculated the composite reliability (CR) 
score for each latent variable individually. All values of  
the average variance extracted were greater than the 
generally accepted value, which is 0.5.
Also, the composite reliability values were higher than 
the statistically acceptable value of  0.7, indicating a high 
degree of  reliability and good measurement quality. Based 
on the outputs of  the validity and reliability tests, we used 
structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the research 

model. To assess the model’s fit to the data, we calculated 
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Goodness-
of-Fit Index (GFI). The outputs of  CFI indicated an 
acceptable to excellent fit, ranging from 0.926 to 0.965. 
The GFI values were also good, ranging from 0.950 to 
0.967, This indicates that the study model explains a good 
range of  the observed variance and covariance. The root 
mean square error of  the approximation (RMSEA) was 
highly acceptable. All values were between 0 and 0.08, 
indicating a high level of  fit quality. Thus, the model is 
suitable for testing through structural equation modeling. 
The table 3 summarizes the results of  the factor analysis 
and model fit.

Table 3: Factor analysis and model fit
Items CMIN/DF AVE CR CFI GFI RMSEA
Workplace Stress 2.98 0.759 0.946 0.902 0.950 0.07367
Employee Engagement 1.33 0.719 0.926 0.942 0.962 0.033524
Leadership Style 1.89 0.769 0.945 0.941 0.967 0.055216

Table 3 illustrates descriptive statistics and correlations 
among the items. Among the workplace stresses, work-
related stress was at the highest level within the sample 
(x ̅= 4.340). According to the outputs of  the mean, 
employee social engagement is the most prevalent. The 
intellectual engagement is the least. However, all items 

of  engagement were at a high level. The leadership style 
tends to be participative (x =̅ 4.148) rather than directive 
(x ̅= 3.347), according to the sample responses. However, 
it seems that the characteristics of  directive leadership are 
also present.

Table 4: Descriptive statistics and correlations
Items Mean SD WS NWS SE AE IE DL PL
WS 4.340 0.656 1
NWS 4.314 0.647 0.850** 1
SE 4.261 0.723 0.709** 0.813** 1
AE 4.173 0.748 0.732** 0.762** 0.796** 1
IE 4.060 0.832 0.730** 0.802** 0.697** 0.811** 1
DL 3.347 0.872 0.161 0.212* 0.155 0.189* 0.236* 1
PL 4.148 0.775 0.408** 0.423** 0.436** 0.561** 0.458** 0.119 1

n= 214 Note: Significance level at <0.05*, <0.01**

Hypothesis Testing
The model was tested through structural equation 
modeling (SEM). Nine statistically significant relationships 
were obtained among the items. The remaining nine 
relationships were not significant. Starting with the 
impact of  workplace stress, work-related stress was the 
only item affecting employee engagement, specifically 
affective engagement (p <0.05). Contrary to work-related 
stress, all non-work-related stressors had an impact on 
employee engagement. Non-work-related stress has a 
greater impact on social engagement (Estimate=0.821), 
followed by intellectual engagement (Estimate=0.770), 
and finally affective engagement (Estimate=0.489). 
The output of  the model did not reveal a mediating 
role for the directive leadership style in the relationship 
between work-related stress and employee engagement 
(all its elements), all significant levels were greater than 
0.05. Confirming what we obtained earlier, participative 

leadership mediated the effects of  work-related stress 
on employee engagement at various levels. participative 
leadership mediated the impact of  work-related stress 
on affective engagement to a greater extent than other 
items (p= 0.000). in intellectual engagement (p= 0.008). 
and in social engagement (p= 0.018). Once again, there 
was no mediating role for the directive leadership style 
in the effect of  non-work-related stress on employee 
engagement, including all items. All significance levels 
were greater than 0.05, in the context where the regression 
slope was negative in the relationship between non-work-
related stress and cognitive engagement through directive 
leadership (Estimate=-0.015-). Regarding participative 
leadership, there was a mediating role in the relationship 
between non-work-related stress and employee 
engagement, particularly in terms of  affective (p= 0.000) 
and social engagement (p= 0.023). Table 5 illustrates the 
results of  hypothesis analysis.

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
81

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

DISCUSSION
A healthy work environment is essential for the success 
of  management efforts to improve the satisfaction, 
engagement, and, consequently, productivity of  
employees (Attridge, 2009; Osborne & Hammoud, 
2017). The general trend of  current studies tends to 
focus on linking leadership and management styles 
toward employee performance and productivity (Lim & 
Yazdanifard, 2012; Maida et al., 2017). As noted in the 
descriptive statistics, employee stress at the workplace 
depends on several factors. The results of  the current 
study support (Kerdpitak & Jermsittiparsert, 2020; Soltan 
et al., 2020) insights on two types of  factors influencing 
workplace stress: work-related and non-work-related 
factors. The differences between stress factors are not 
that significant. It seems that they have a similar impact in 
terms of  intensity or strength. Work-related stress affects 
employee engagement; affective engagement in specific. 
There is no significant effect of  work-related stress on 
social and intellectual engagement. The enthusiasm, 
interest and positive emotional response that individuals 
exhibit during their engagement with a specific 
experience or situation could all be influenced by work 
conditions, including the way they have to do the work 
and the support they receive. On the other hand, non-
work-related stress affects employees’ social, affective, 
and intellectual engagement, respectively, in terms of  
intensity. Non-work-related stress is more important for 
monitoring and measurement in this case. It is evident 
that measuring and addressing non-work-related stress is 
more challenging for the internal aspect of  organizations. 
Often, organizational leaders may not be able to take 

direct action, but their care and support for employees 
can mitigate the severity of  this impact. 
Directive leadership style has no mediating role in the 
relationship between work-related stress and employee 
engagement in all its aspects. When leaders’ approach 
focuses on high levels of  control, centralization of  decision-
making authority, strong monitoring, and providing 
specific instructions and guidance to subordinates on how 
tasks should be accomplished, employees find themselves 
facing more stress and lower levels of  engagement 
consequently. The directive leadership style is likely to 
be less effective in several situations, especially when it 
comes to innovation and renewal. That is not the case 
in the university work environment, where employees 
constantly experience more changes and conditions. 
On the contrary, participative leadership mediates the 
relationship between work-related stress and employee 
engagement. Collaborative leadership style and social 
engagement are closely related. In this style, leaders 
encourage employees to participate collectively in general 
and strategic issues, taking all opinions into consideration. 
These practices can enhance team cohesion and foster 
initiative and collaboration within the work environment. 
On the other hand, when leaders involve employees in 
decision-making processes, top-level issues, and value all 
of  their suggestions and opinions, that is a signal of  trust, 
respect, and recognition. This involvement fosters a sense 
of  empowerment and ownership among employees, 
leading to higher levels of  engagement.  The participative 
leadership style enhances employees’ skills and motivates 
them towards active cognitive engagement. There is a 
significant and empirically proven correlation between 

Table 5: Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Path Estimate C.R. P Conclusion
H01a WS → SE 0.047 0.407 0.684 Not Supported
H01b WS → AE 0.292 2.416 0.016* Supported
H01c WS → IE 0.198 1.480 0.139 Not Supported
H01d NWS → SE 0.821 6.800 0.000** Supported
H01e NWS → AE 0.489 3.891 0.000** Supported
H01f NWS → IE 0.770 5.533 0.000** Supported
H02a WS → DL → SE 0.035 0.609 0.554 Not Supported
H02c WS → DL → AE 0.063 1.098 0.275 Not Supported
H02e WS → DL → IE 0.116 1.821 0.071 Not Supported
H02b WS → PL → SE 0.164 2.394 0.018* Supported
H02d WS → PL → AE 0.304 4.760 0.000** Supported
H02f WS → PL → IE 0.206 2.722 0.008* Supported
H03a NWS → DL → IE -0.015 -0.307 0.759 Not Supported
H03c NWS → DL → AE 0.025 0.451 0.653 Not Supported
H03e NWS → DL → SE 0.065 1.155 0.251 Not Supported
H03b NWS → PL  → IE 0.105 1.818 0.072 Not Supported
H03d NWS → PL  → AE 0.281 4.563 0.000** Supported
H03f NWS → PL  → SE 0.156 2.313 0.023* Supported

Note: Significance level at <0.05*, <0.01**

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
82

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

participative leadership style and creativity. Supportive 
leaders encourage employees to solve problems in a 
creative manner and promote the proper sharing and 
utilization of  knowledge within the work environment. 
As long as stress factors are connected to work and 
the work environment encourages participation and 
cooperation, it is natural for leaders to be more capable 
of  understanding and effectively addressing them. Taking 
into consideration the nature of  academic work, which 
focuses on elements of  creativity, dealing with work 
problems, and ways of  success and excellence.
Regarding non-work-related stress, there is no mediating 
role for the directive leadership style. Non-work-related 
stress has negative effects on employee engagement, even 
with the implementation of  directive leadership practices, 
which may focus more on work processes and procedures 
than on employees’ conditions and feelings. Directive 
leadership styles do not help alleviate the effects of  
social and familial problems experienced by employees. 
It is focusing on performance rather than results. This 
reinforces traditional task-oriented performance among 
employees without the desire to improve the process or 
make it more productive. On the other hand, it seems that 
the situation is different in the case of  the participative 
leadership style. There is a mediating role for participative 
leadership in the relationship between non-work-related 
stress, and social and affective engagement. Even when 
the factors causing employee stress are external, meaning 
they are not work-related, the participative leadership 
style will be able to reduce the impact of  that stress 
on employee engagement. Positive relationships and 
collective participation within the work environment 
can improve employees’ morale by providing them with 
a positive space for thinking and guidance on how to 
solve other external challenges. However, participative 
leadership does not help reduce the impact of  non-work-
related stress on intellectual engagement. Employees 
face more challenges in dealing with stress resulting 
from social, personal, or financial problems. This stress 
occupies a significant portion of  employees’ thinking 
and affects their intellectual engagement within the work 
environment. Even with programs and initiatives aimed 
at employee well-being, non-work-related stress depends 
on the employees themselves. It is essential for employees 
to make a decision to resolve this conflict in order to 
mitigate its impact on other areas, including work.

CONCLUSION
In this study, we investigated the impact of  workplace 
stress on employee engagement. We discussed two types 
of  workplace stress: job-related stress and stress resulting 
from various factors unrelated to work, such as social, 
family, and personal factors. In the field of  employee 
engagement, we relied on literature regarding different 
types of  employee engagement and subsequently 
identified three possible types to measure in the current 
study: social engagement, affective engagement, and 
intellectual engagement. According to the nature of  

the sample in which this study was conducted, where 
participants spend more time completing tasks from 
home, we found that non-work-related stress has a 
greater impact on employee engagement. Work-related 
stress only affects affective engagement, while non-work-
related stress affects all types of  employee engagement 
mentioned above.
Two types of  leadership styles have been tested as 
mediators in the relationship between workplace stress 
and employee engagement. Directive leadership is the first 
style, which focuses on authority, delegation, centralized 
decision-making, and continuous guidance. The second 
style is participative leadership, where greater attention 
is given to employees’ opinions and their involvement in 
strategic issues, encouraging teamwork and collaboration 
to enhance creativity and innovation. In the mediation 
analysis, there was no role for the directive leadership 
style in the impact of  workplace stress on employee 
engagement. The directive leadership style is the lowest 
level within the study variables. Its impact is likely to be 
less intense, especially when it comes to work-related 
stress factors. While the presence of  a mediator role for 
the collaborative leadership style in influencing work-
related stress on employee engagement, in all its forms, 
became evident. We concluded that employee stress is at 
its lowest level due to work factors and that the presence 
of  a supportive leadership style for participation and 
teamwork can alleviate the remaining impact. In terms 
of  non-work-related stress, there was no mediating role 
for leadership styles, both directive and participative, 
in the relationship between workplace stress and 
employee engagement. However, with the exception 
of  that, there is a mediating role for the participative 
leadership style in the impact of  non-work-related stress 
on employees’ affective and social engagement. In the 
end, we concluded that the participative leadership style 
is better in the university workplace than the directive 
style. Furthermore, workplace stress factors are mostly 
external, meaning outside the workplace. Perhaps the 
additional tasks performed by participants at home are 
one of  the factors contributing to these results. 
We emphasize giving greater attention to employees’ 
personal issues. These issues are not necessarily work-
related but rather unrelated to work. Employees who 
experience external work pressures need to find support 
and assistance in the work environment. This can help 
mitigate the impact of  external problems not only on 
the employees’ performance but also on their mental 
health in general. Flexible leadership styles seem to be 
the most suitable for the university work environment. It 
is difficult to separate functional boundaries within the 
organizational structure for university professors. Even 
if  it is possible, university professors still enjoy privacy 
and high social status. Supportive leadership styles that 
promote participation and camaraderie can help reduce 
external work pressures and may contribute to their 
resolution in the end. 
Despite the procedural results presented by this study 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
83

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

on practitioners and leaders regarding the most suitable 
leadership styles for the university work environment, 
the current study was not without some limitations that 
need to be taken into consideration. In the beginning, the 
data acquisition phase was somewhat difficult due to the 
official procedures to obtain approvals. Many participants 
did not comply with responding, resulting in a number of  
unhelpful responses. This study was conducted in Iraq 
and targeted a purposive sample of  university employees, 
including professors. Therefore, the results of  the current 
study cannot be generalized to other countries. There are 
also limitations in terms of  sample size, which is considered 
small compared to the overall population. Leadership 
styles are mostly subject to legislation and guidelines that 
determine how to manage university institutions. This 
can be an additional constraint in precisely identifying 
possible leadership styles. Unfortunately, we did not find 
in the literature what specifically supports the results we 
have reached. Therefore, we presented our interpretation 
of  the results in light of  previous international literature, 
including those closest to the Iraqi business environment.
The university work environment is extremely complex 
and constantly subjected to changes and emerging events, 
especially with the activities of  international rankings and 
the accompanying new tasks. It is necessary to identify 
the roots of  workplace stress, both work-related and 
non-work-related. Work-related stress falls under the 
control of  management and can be easily addressed. It is 
important to investigate non-work-related stress factors, 
especially considering the numerous reports highlighting 
the difficulty of  completing job tasks from home. If  it 
is necessary to complete work tasks from home, it is 
essential to consider providing appropriate financial and 
moral compensation. Based on the results of  the current 
study, leadership style can enhance a positive work 
climate and reduce the impact of  workplace stress. There 
is importance in promoting leadership practices based on 
collective participation and actively listening to employees.

REFERENCES
Anthony‐McMann, P. E., Ellinger, A. D., Astakhova, 

M., & Halbesleben, J. R. (2017). Exploring different 
operationalizations of  employee engagement and 
their relationships with workplace stress and burnout. 
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(2), 163-195. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21276 

Araffat, M. Y., Ali, H., Bangsawan, M. I., Diarti, D. K., 
& Budiono, A. (2020). The Influence of  Leadership 
Style and Work Discipline on Employee Performance 
in the Department of  Transportation Dompu 
District. International Journal of  Multicultural and 
Multireligious Understanding, 7(8), 758-767. http://
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v7i8.2187 

Arifin, Z., Nirwanto, N., & Manan, A. (2019). Improving 
the effect of  work satisfaction on job performance 
through employee engagement. International Journal of  
Multi-Discipline Science (IJ-MDS), 2(1), 1-9. https://doi.
org/10.26737/ij-mds.v2i1.948 

Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing 
employee work engagement: A review of  the 
research and business literature. Journal of  workplace 
behavioral health, 24(4), 383-398. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15555240903188398 

Badu, E., O’Brien, A. P., Mitchell, R., Rubin, M., James, 
C., McNeil, K., Nguyen, K., & Giles, M. (2020). 
Workplace stress and resilience in the Australian 
nursing workforce: A comprehensive integrative 
review. International journal of  mental health nursing, 
29(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12662  

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). 
The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of  employee 
engagement: A narrative synthesis. International journal 
of  management reviews, 19(1), 31-53. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijmr.12077 

Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. (2017). Strategic and proactive 
approaches to work engagement. Organizational 
Dynamics, 46(2), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2017.04.002 

Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., 
& Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The impact of  autocratic 
and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. 
International business research, 5(2), 192. https://doi.
org/10.5539/ibr.v5n2p192 

Boyer-Davis, S. (2018). The relationship between 
technology stress and leadership style: An empirical 
investigation. Journal of  Business and Educational 
Leadership, 8(1), 48-65. 

Çelik, M. (2018). The effect of  psychological capital level 
of  employees on workplace stress and employee 
turnover intention. Innovar, 28(68), 67-75.  https://
doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n68.70472 

Cesário, F., & Chambel, M. J. (2017). Linking organizational 
commitment and work engagement to employee 
performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 
152-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1542 

Chandani, A., Mehta, M., Mall, A., & Khokhar, V. (2016). 
Employee engagement: A review paper on factors 
affecting employee engagement. Indian Journal of  Science 
and Technology, 9(15), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.17485/
ijst/2016/v9i15/92145 

Chao, M.-C., Jou, R.-C., Liao, C.-C., & Kuo, C.-W. 
(2015). Workplace stress, job satisfaction, job 
performance, and turnover intention of  health 
care workers in rural Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of  
Public Health, 27(2), NP1827-NP1836. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1010539513506604 

Colligan, T. W., & Higgins, E. M. (2006). Workplace 
stress: Etiology and consequences. Journal of  
workplace behavioral health, 21(2), 89-97. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J490v21n02_07 

Dinh, L. (2020). Determinants of  employee engagement 
mediated by work-life balance and work stress. 
Management Science Letters, 10(4), 923-928. https://
www.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.10.003 

Eddy, P., Heckenberg, R., Wertheim, E. H., Kent, S., & 
Wright, B. J. (2016). A systematic review and meta-

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
84

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

analysis of  the effort-reward imbalance model of  
workplace stress with indicators of  immune function. 
Journal of  psychosomatic research, 91, 1-8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.10.003 

Erskine, J., & Georgiou, G. (2017). Leadership styles: 
Employee stress, well-being, productivity, turnover and 
absenteeism. Understanding Stress at Work, 28-40. 

Fellows, R., Liu, A., & Fong, C. M. (2003). Leadership 
style and power relations in quantity surveying in 
Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 
21(8), 809-818. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461903
2000174521 

Foy, T., Dwyer, R. J., Nafarrete, R., Hammoud, M. S. S., 
& Rockett, P. (2019). Managing job performance, 
social support and work-life conflict to reduce 
workplace stress. International Journal of  Productivity and 
Performance Management, 68(6), 1018-1041. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2017-0061 

Galperin, B. L., Melyoki, L., Senaji, T., Mukanzi, C. 
M., & Michaud, J. (2017). Attributes of  leadership 
effectiveness in East Africa. AIB Insights, 17(1), 15-18. 
https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.16869 

Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2016). Clarifying leadership: 
High-impact leaders in a time of  leadership crisis. 
Revista de Management Comparat International, 17(3), 212. 

Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2018). Leadership, leadership 
styles, and servant leadership. Journal of  Management 
Research, 18(4), 261-269. 

Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of  storytelling 
improves employee engagement and adds value to 
CSR: An integrated literature review. Public relations 
review, 41(5), 662-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pubrev.2014.02.012  

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). The 
New Leaders: Transforming the Art of  Leadership 
Into the Science of  Results. Little, Brown. https://
books.google.iq/books?id=hx2CGwAACAAJ 

Ha, T. T., & Le, B. P. (2023). Influence of  High-
Involvement and High-Commitment HRM Practices 
on Innovation: The Mediating Role of  Knowledge 
Sharing. American Journal of  Economics and Business 
Innovation, 2(2), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.54536/
ajebi.v2i2.1589 

Hicks, T., & Caroline, M. (2007). A guide to managing 
workplace stress. Universal-Publishers. ISBN-10: 
1581129424

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of  resources: A 
new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American 
psychologist, 44(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.44.3.513 

Hoboubi, N., Choobineh, A., Ghanavati, F. K., Keshavarzi, 
S., & Hosseini, A. A. (2017). The impact of  job stress 
and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in 
an Iranian petrochemical industry. Safety and health 
at work, 8(1), 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
shaw.2016.07.002 

Johnston,   K.  A. (2018). Toward a theory of  social engagement. 
The handbook of  communication engagement, 17-32. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119167600.ch2 
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of  personal 

engagement and disengagement at work. Academy 
of  management journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.
org/10.2307/256287 

Kakemam, E., Raeissi, P., Raoofi, S., Soltani, A., 
Sokhanvar, M., Visentin, D. C., & Cleary, M. (2019). 
Occupational stress and associated risk factors among 
nurses: a cross-sectional study. Contemporary nurse, 
55(2-3), 237-249. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/103
76178.2019.1647791 

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of  job and work 
involvement. Journal of  applied psychology, 67(3), 341. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341 

Kerdpitak, C., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). The effects 
of  workplace stress, work-life balance on turnover 
intention: An empirical evidence from pharmaceutical 
industry in Thailand. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 
11(2), 586-594. 

Khan, M. S., Khan, I., Qureshi, Q. A., Ismail, H. M., 
Rauf, H., Latif, A., & Tahir, M. (2015). The styles 
of  leadership: A critical review. Public Policy and 
Administration Research, 5(3), 87-92. 

Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2017). Building 
work engagement: A systematic review and meta‐
analysis investigating the effectiveness of  work 
engagement interventions. Journal of  organizational 
behavior, 38(6), 792-812. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/
job.2167 

Kumari, J. J. (2018). A study on the impact of  leadership 
on organizational performance. International Journal of  
Advanced Educational Research, 3(2), 535-538. 

Lim, J. H., & Yazdanifard, R. (2012). The difference of  
conflict management styles and conflict resolution in 
workplace. Business & Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1). 

Łukowski, W. (2017). The impact of  leadership styles 
on innovation management. Marketing of  Scientific and 
Research Organizations, 24(2), 105-136. https://doi.
org/10.14611/minib.24.06.2017.12 

Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects of  
leadership style on stress outcomes. The Leadership 
Quarterly, 20(5), 737-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2009.06.010 

Maida, M. T., Riyanto, S., & Ali, H. (2017). Effect of  Job 
Satisfaction and Leadership Style towards Employee 
Productivity at PT. Asuransi Umum Bumiputera 
Muda 1967. Saudi Journal of  Business and, 2, 157-168. 
https://www.doi.org/10.21276/sjbms.2017.2.3.7 

Mañas, M. A., Díaz-Fúnez, P., Pecino, V., López-
Liria, R., Padilla, D., & Aguilar-Parra, J. M. (2018). 
Consequences of  team job demands: Role ambiguity 
climate, affective engagement, and extra-role 
performance. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2292. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02292 

Manning, G., & Curtis, K. (2019). The art of  leadership. 
McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN13: 9781264206728

McCormick, K., & McMullen, M. B. (2019). A North 
American perspective on understanding and nurturing 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi


Pa
ge

 
85

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

Am. J. Econ. Bus. Innov. 2(2) 74-85, 2023

professional well-being in the early childhood 
workplace. In Challenging the Intersection of  Policy 
with Pedagogy (pp. 69-84). Routledge. 

Naseem, K. (2017). Job stress and employee creativity: 
The mediating role of  emotional intelligence. 
International Journal of  Management Excellence (ISSN: 
2292-1648), 9(2), 1050-1058. 

Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional 
intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on 
occupational stress and organizational commitment. 
The international Journal of  organizational analysis, 10(4), 
327-342. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028956 

Nor Amin, N. A., Wuen, C. H., & Ismail, A. (2017). 
Leadership style desired by youth in Asia. Journal of  
Management Development, 36(10), 1206-1215. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2017-0028 

Olsen, K. M., Hildrum, J., Kummen, K., & Leirdal, C. 
(2023). How do young employees perceive stress and 
job engagement while working from home? Evidence 
from a telecom operator during COVID-19. Employee 
Relations: The International Journal, 45(3), 762-775. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2022-0230

Osazevbaru, H. O. ., & Amawhe, P. E. (2022). Emerging 
Paradigm of  Employees’ Involvement in Decision 
Making and Organizational Effectiveness: Further 
Evidence from Nigerian Manufacturing Firms. 
American Journal of  Economics and Business Innovation, 
1(3), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajebi.v1i3.374   

Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective 
employee engagement in the workplace. International 
Journal of  Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 4. 
https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2017.16.1.04 

Pandey, D. L. (2020). Work stress and employee 
performance: an assessment of  impact of  work 
stress. International Research Journal of  Human Resource 
and Social Sciences, 7(05), 124-135. 

Pandita, D., & Ray, S. (2018). Talent management and 
employee engagement–a meta-analysis of  their 
impact on talent retention. Industrial and Commercial 
Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-09-2017-0073 

Pishgooie, A. H., Atashzadeh-Shoorideh, F., Falcó‐
Pegueroles, A., & Lotfi, Z. (2019). Correlation 
between nursing managers’ leadership styles and 
nurses’ job stress and anticipated turnover. Journal 
of  Nursing Management, 27(3), 527-534. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jonm.12707 

Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. 
(2021). How toxic workplace environment effects 
the employee engagement: The mediating role of  
organizational support and employee wellbeing. 
International journal of  environmental research and 
public health, 18(5), 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph18052294 

Saad, Z. M., Sudin, S., & Shamsuddin, N. (2018). The 
influence of  leadership style, personality attributes and 
employee communication on employee engagement. 
Global Business and Management Research, 10(3), 743. 

Siddiqua, S. I., Fayezin, T., & Hoque, R. (2022). 
Intermediating Role of  Human Resource 
Management in Organizational Conflict and its 
influence on Organizational Effectiveness–Evidence 
from Bangladesh’s Banking Sector. American Journal of  
Economics and Business Innovation, 1(3), 93–101. https://
doi.org/10.54536/ajebi.v1i3.946 

Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & 
Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application 
of  a new measure of  employee engagement: the 
ISA Engagement Scale. Human resource development 
international, 15(5), 529-547. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13678868.2012.726542 

Soltan, M., Al-Hassanin, S., Soliman, S., & Gohar, S. (2020). 
Workplace-related stress among oncologists: Egyptian 
single-centered observational study. Middle East Current 
Psychiatry, 27, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43045-
020-00026-z 

Strachan, L. (2015). Intellectual Engagement in the 
Workplace: What did you do at work today? Graduate 
Studies.  http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2014 

Upadyaya, K., Vartiainen, M., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2016). 
From job demands and resources to work engagement, 
burnout, life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and 
occupational health. Burnout research, 3(4), 101-108. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2016.10.001 

Van den Brande, W., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Vander 
Elst, T., & Godderis, L. (2016). The role of  work 
stressors, coping strategies and coping resources 
in the process of  workplace bullying: A systematic 
review and development of  a comprehensive model. 
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 61-71. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.004 

Vignoli, M., Muschalla, B., & Mariani, M. G. (2017). 
Workplace phobic anxiety as a mental health 
phenomenon in the job demands-resources model. 
BioMed research international, 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2017/3285092 

Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The elements of  
great managing (Vol. 978). Simon and Schuster. 

Wang, X., Zhang, Z., & Chun, D. (2022). How does 
mobile workplace stress affect employee innovative 
behavior? The role of  work–family conflict and 
employee engagement. Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 2. 
https://www.doi.org/10.3390/bs12010002 

Winasis, S., Wildan, U., & Sutawidjaya, A. H. (2020). 
Impact of  digital transformation on employee 
engagement influenced by work stress on Indonesian 
private banking sector. International Conference on 
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management.

Xu, T., Magnusson Hanson, L. L., Lange, T., Starkopf, 
L., Westerlund, H., Madsen, I. E., Rugulies, R., Pentti, 
J., Stenholm, S., & Vahtera, J. (2019). Workplace 
bullying and workplace violence as risk factors for 
cardiovascular disease: a multi-cohort study. European 
heart journal, 40(14), 1124-1134. https://www.doi 
org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy683 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajebi

