https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0369-4082
Figures
Abstract
This cross-sectional study investigated the effects of value-based leadership and growth mindset on the intrinsic work motivation of Chinese lecturers. In addition, this study used age as a categorical moderator to investigate generational differences between the effects of Millennials and their predecessors. A sample of 518 lecturers from various Chinese universities was used to collect data, and SEM-PLS was used to analyse the data. The results showed that value-based leadership and growth mindset had a significant positive impact on both younger and older lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation, with the effect of value-based leadership on younger lecturers’ intrinsic motivation being significantly stronger than on older lecturers’ intrinsic motivation, whereas the effect of growth mindset on intrinsic work motivation did not differ significantly between the younger and older groups. This study contributes to the existing research literature by contrasting the value-based leadership and growth mindset in relation to lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation across younger and older groups in Chinese higher education settings, where greater heterogeneity between age groups was identified. The findings also provided university administrators with recommendations for boosting the intrinsic work motivation of lecturers, influencing future education policy.
Citation: Zhao X, Wider W, Zhang X, Fauzi MA, Wong CH, Jiang L, et al. (2024) Triggering Chinese lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation by value-based leadership and growth mindset: Generation difference by using multigroup analysis. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0297791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297791
Editor: Ali B. Mahmoud, St John’s University, UNITED STATES
Received: June 21, 2023; Accepted: January 12, 2024; Published: March 27, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Zhao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All dataset files are available from the Zenodo database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8404991).
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
In higher education, lecturers’ work motivation is critical to their engagement in teaching, academic research, and the university’s long-term development [1,2]. The term "lecturer" used in this study refers to individuals who hold full time teaching positions at universities [3]. To clarify, in this context, we include both non tenure-track and tenure-track lecturers. Lecturers’ primary responsibilities in China’s universities usually include teaching (i.e., delivering lectures, conducting seminars, and leading discussions to impart knowledge and skills to students in their respective subject areas), research (i.e., conducting research projects, publishing academic papers, and contributing to the advancement of knowledge in their field of expertise), academic advising (i.e., provide guidance and support to students, helping them with their academic and career development), curriculum development (designing and updating curriculum materials, ensuring that they align with the latest academic standards and industry requirements), and service to the institution (i.e., various administrative duties within the university, such as serving on committees, participating in faculty meetings, and contributing to the overall academic governance of the institution).
Motivated lecturers would undoubtedly result in improved student performance, higher educational quality, and even help the country grow [4]. Intrinsic motivation, which is supported by ingrained values like personal satisfaction, interest, enjoyment, or challenge, is thought to have a longer-term effect on engagement, performance, and psychological well-being than extrinsic motivation, which is fueled by outside, financial or immaterial factors like cash, promotion, or verbal praise [5,6]. However, strategies for increasing intrinsic motivation are context and culturally specific [1,7]. In contrast to Western developed countries, China is a fast rising developing country with a long history of Confucianism and values that emphasise group orientation, interpersonal harmony, submission of authority, and benevolence, but no explicit autonomy [8]. Key motivators for lecturers may differ significantly between China and Western countries [9]. It is thus critical to investigate the factors that influence lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation in Chinese cultural contexts.
Furthermore, people’s motives are quite complex, and they are likely to change in tandem with changes in social cultures, economic conditions, working environments, working attitudes, and values [10]. As a result, previous research has found some differences in work motivation across generations or age groups [4,11–13]. Universities should therefore consider generational differences when motivating lecturers to work. Since 1978, China’s economy, culture, and society have been rapidly changing, resulting in significant shifts in personal and social values; thus, some generational differences in motivational factors are to be expected [14]. In China, those who were born and raised following 1978 economic reforms and the ’one-child policy’ (now stated to be phased out as of 2016) in the 1980s and 1990s are referred to Millennials or new generation in China (see [15]). They have a stronger demand for participation as well as a different set of perspectives and preferences than prior generations of employees due to the influence of shifting economic, political, and social contexts [16]. Such demographic changes in the workplace have called into question long-held management practises [17]. However, few studies have looked at the impact of influencing factors on Chinese lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation across generations, with a particular lack of focus on Millennial lecturers, who now form a substantial portion of the university workforce.
This study seeks to fill these gaps by investigating the impact of motivational factors (such as value-based leadership and a growth mindset) on Chinese lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation, as well as the differences across age groups. The partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) method was applied to evaluate the measurement model and structural model for different generations of lecturers, and the results were compared using multigroup analysis (MGA). By providing a comprehensive examination of the motivational factors and generational differences affecting Chinese lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation, this study contributes to enriching existing knowledge in the field. The findings will not only enhance our understanding of how to effectively motivate lecturers but also inform management strategies in response to the changing workforce demographics in Chinese universities.
Underpinning theory
Numerous theoretical developments that fall into three categories have emerged as a consequence of the research on intrinsic motivation [18]. The first category, characterized as need-motive-value, emphasises the importance of individual needs, motives, and values in generating specific behaviours [1], using guidelines from Maslow’s need-hierarchy theory [19], Alderfer’s [20]’s existence-relatedness-growth (ERG) theory, [21]’s equity-theory, [22]’s three-needs-theory of achievement, and [23]’s two-factor theory. These theories share similarities in their focus on understanding what motivates individuals to engage in specific behaviors, and they recognize that individuals have varying needs, motives, and values that influence their actions. Maslow’s need-hierarchy theory suggests that individuals are motivated by a hierarchy of needs, starting from basic physiological needs and progressing to higher-level needs such as self-actualization. Alderfer’s ERG theory proposes three core needs: existence, relatedness, and growth, asserting that individuals can be motivated by multiple needs simultaneously and that frustration of one need may lead to the emergence of another need. Adams’ equity theory highlights the importance of perceived fairness in motivating behavior, suggesting that individuals compare their inputs and outcomes with those of others and strive for fairness in these exchanges. McClelland’s three-needs theory focuses on the three innate needs of achievement, affiliation, and power, stating that individuals vary in their dominant need, which influences their motivation and behavior. Herzberg’s two-factor theory distinguishes between hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors, such as work conditions and salary, are necessary to prevent job dissatisfaction, while motivators, such as recognition and growth opportunities, lead to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.
The second category, emphasising cognitive choice theories, focuses on how people recognise and sustain their values, develop intrinsic motivation, and make wise judgements and logical choices, as demonstrated by [24]’s expectancy-value theory and [25]’s attribution theory. Vroom’s expectancy-value theory suggests that people’s motivation to engage in a certain behavior is determined by two factors: expectancy and value. Expectancy refers to an individual’s belief that their efforts will lead to successful performance, while value represents the subjective importance or desirability of the outcomes associated with the behavior. According to this theory, individuals are more likely to be intrinsically motivated if they believe that their efforts will result in a successful outcome, and if they perceive the outcomes to be valuable and rewarding. Weiner’s attribution theory focuses on how individuals attribute causality to their successes or failures. According to this theory, people’s intrinsic motivation can be influenced by how they explain the reasons behind their performance outcomes. Weiner’s theory proposes three dimensions of attributions: locus of control (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable), and controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable). For example, if individuals attribute their success to internal factors (e.g., effort, ability) rather than external factors (e.g., luck, task difficulty), they are more likely to maintain and enhance their intrinsic motivation.
The third category, emphasising self-regulation or metacognition theories, highlights the significance of attentive goals and plans on people’s intrinsic motivation, based on [26]’s control theory, [27]’s cognitive evaluation theory, [28]’s goal-setting theory, and [29]’s social learning theory. The Self-Determination Theory [SDT), developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan in 1985 [30], is central to our investigation. This comprehensive framework elucidates the nature and dynamics of human motivation, with a particular emphasis on the circumstances that foster the inherent human tendencies for proactive engagement and personal growth. Three fundamental psychological needs are prioritized within the SDT framework: competence, autonomy, and relatedness [27]. Competence addresses an individual’s desire to effectively influence desired outcomes and achieve task mastery. Autonomy refers to an individual’s intrinsic desire for volitional action and self-regulation that is unfettered by external constraints [31]. Finally, relatedness emphasizes the desire for meaningful connections, emphasizing the significance of mutual understanding and care. SDT recognizes the universality of these needs, though their prominence and expression may vary depending on individual experiences, cultural contexts, and temporal factors [32]. When these needs are met adequately, intrinsic motivation increases. On the contrary, if these needs are not met, it can lead to decreased intrinsic motivation, leaving people feeling externally motivated or even unmotivated.
Motivation is further classified within SDT’s paradigm as amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation [27]. Extrinsic motivation is further classified as controlled (actions influenced by external pressures) and autonomous (actions influenced by personal values and autonomy) motivations [30]. Internalization is a distinct feature of SDT, denoting the incorporation of external regulations into self-regulation, culminating in intrinsic motivation when behaviors are entirely aligned with personal interests and values [32].
SDT’s theoretical foundation serves as a pivotal lens for our research. Given the emphasis on shared values and ethical grounding in value-based leadership, it is hypothesized that such a leadership approach can enhance the internalization processes inherent in SDT, with significant implications for intrinsic work motivation, particularly among distinct generational cohorts.
Literature review
Intrinsic work motivation of Chinese lecturers
Intrinsic motivation is frequently defined as the desire to accomplish a job or activity because one is interested in or enjoys it rather than because of any external factor [33]. Lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation can be defined as a multitude of factors that motivate lecturers to choose careers as educators, keep them there, and succeed at their jobs [1]. Lecturers in China were found to be unmotivated at work and unsatisfactorily devoted to their teaching jobs [34–36]. Universities and colleges in China rely more on financial and institutional incentives to motivate lecturers, but the motivating effect is not significant and/or sustainable [37,38], partly due to the Chinese cultural context rooted in Confucianism, which emphasises human virtues, and faculty are thus expected to commit to education with a spirit of utter devotion, rather than for money [39,40].
China has a rich culture with a five-thousand-year history that is distinct from western and other eastern cultures [41]. Confucianism, as the dominant thought, is at the heart of Chinese traditional culture, shaping Chinese norms and beliefs, including work-related values [42]. In Chinese culture, Confucianism lays the groundwork for collectivism by encouraging individuals to prioritise group benefits when there is a conflict between group and individual benefits [43]. As a result, lecturers are expected to work hard to achieve the university’s goals, even if this means foregoing personal benefits [38]. Furthermore, Confucianism places a premium on human virtues, and people are encouraged to act like gentlemen at all times [44]. One of the most important qualities a gentleman should possess is a disregard for wealth, which may explain why Chinese people always value morality over material gains [45]. Educators, in particular, who are regarded as having moral integrity, are expected to devote themselves to education with zeal rather than for financial gain [39,40]. As a result, in China, educators are always associated with high moral character and a fairly low requirement for wealth [38]. [46] discovered in their case study of 20 Chinese teachers that the most significant aspect impacting teachers’ intrinsic motivation is the meaning they create in their teaching practice. It should not only satisfy their personal needs but also adhere to external standards. However, some recent studies on the intersection of Confucianism and modern values, particularly in the context of the rapidly developing Chinese economies, revealed some changes of Chinese millennials values. They found Chinese millennials shared values with their Western counterparts, such as individualism and self-realization, and exhibited a more assertive Western-like style [47]. In contrast to past generations, who were more collective and more inclined to adhere to Confucianism, they were also more independent and less likely to do so [48]. Therefore, more research on effective solutions to boost lecturers’ work intrinsic motivation in Chinese sociocultural contexts, particularly focusing on millennials’ work motivation, is still highly anticipated [9,36,49].
Influencing factors of intrinsic work motivation
Prior empirical studies have explored the associations between various variables and intrinsic work motivation. Leadership has been identified as a significant variable linked to intrinsic work motivation [50–52]. However, leadership styles have been observed to vary across cultures [53], and national culture can play a role in determining leadership attributes and perceived effectiveness [54]. Within China, where Confucian ideas about education exert a major influence [53], leadership values hold notable prominence, suggesting that value-based leadership might resonate well within the Chinese cultural milieu. [55] described value-based leadership as interactions founded on organizational values and ethical standards, emphasizing congruence between organizational, leader, and follower values [56]. Such alignment of values can be associated with motivating lecturers, as an alignment between individual and organizational values can lead lecturers to perceive their work as socially valuable, potentially enhancing work satisfaction [57]. As proposed by [58], Confucian-based Chinese cultural traditions could potentially complement the development of value-based leadership in educational spheres. Historically, China has placed emphasis on moral preparation for leaders, with expectations centering on qualities such as service, honesty, fairness, truth-seeking, and receptivity to criticism [59]. Nonetheless, there is limited empirical research within China examining the association between value-based leadership and lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation [60].
Another variable that has garnered attention in recent years is the growth mindset [61]. Mindset reflects an individual’s predominant attitudes and typical problem-solving approaches [62]. The growth mindset, in particular, represents the belief in the potential for development and enhancement of human traits, including intellect, through effort and the right strategies [63]. An individual with a growth mindset tends to exhibit a disposition towards improvement and development, aligning closely with the principles of intrinsic motivation [61,62]. Such a mindset can be particularly resonant in educational environments valuing continuous learning. Yet, limited research has probed the association of growth mindset with intrinsic work motivation among Chinese lecturers. Moreover, scarce studies have endeavored to explore the joint associations of value-based leadership and growth mindset with intrinsic work motivation for lecturers.
Generation differences in intrinsic work motivation
Past research has indicated that age might act as a moderator, suggesting potential variations in the association between influential factors and work motivation across different age groups or generations [64,65]. Additionally, generational differences seem to be more pronounced predictors of work values than age alone [14]. There has been a growing body of research in recent years exploring the role of generational differences as moderators in various cognitive and behavioral associations within organizational and institutional contexts [66]. Furthermore, it is essential to consider recent literature on cognition and the development of cultural norms and attributes, as it offers valuable insights into the subsequent behavioral outcomes that may arise [67]. While some Western studies have explored generational distinctions in work values [68,69], the distinct historical, social, and cultural experiences of China imply generational classifications distinct from Western paradigms. This results in differing definitions and operationalizations of generational cohorts, leading to diverse findings across studies [70]. Western research often identifies four primary generations: Traditionalists or the Silent generation (1925–1945), Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1981), and Millennials or Generation Y (1982–1999) [71]. In contrast, Chinese classifications discern three generations: the Cultural Revolution generation (born between 1949 and 1966), the Transitional generation (born between 1967 and 1978), and the Millennial generation (born between 1979 and 1990) [14,72].
Among consistent observations, younger faculty members seem to align more closely with value-based leadership emphasizing teamwork, communication, and innovation, whereas older faculty appear to resonate with traditional leadership anchored in hierarchy and convention [73–75]. Millennials, relative to older generations, seem to be more associated with environments fostering both personal and professional development [76,77] and exhibit a pronounced desire for recognition and respect [78]. The Socio-emotional Selectivity Theory [79], suggests that younger individuals, having a broader future outlook, might prioritize goals conducive to growth, while older individuals may lean towards goals enhancing immediate emotional satisfaction. However, prior research presents varied outcomes regarding age-associated differences in the relationship of growth mindset with intrinsic work motivation. Some studies suggest a more notable association among younger employees [75,80], while others find no discernible difference [81,82]. Furthermore, limited research has ventured into this domain within the context of Chinese academic institutions.
In summary, considering the aging workforce and the evolving generational landscape, understanding potential generational variations in response to distinct leadership styles and mindsets becomes imperative. This is especially relevant for China, experiencing rapid expansion in its higher education sector and notable generational transitions among faculty. Yet, the associations between value-based leadership, growth mindset, and intrinsic work motivation across varying generational groups within Chinese universities remain underexplored. Engaging in multigroup analyses could offer insights into potential generational variations in these relationships, facilitating more generation-specific interventions in academic settings.
Based on the preceding discussions, two hypotheses are proposed in this study:
- H1: There is a significant difference between Millennials and their predecessors in the effect of value-based leadership on intrinsic work motivation.
- H2: There is a significant difference between Millennials and their predecessors in the effect of growth mindset on intrinsic work motivation.
Methodology
Sample and population
In accordance with the information released by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China in 2021, there were 2,740 regular Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in China, employing a total of over 1.83 million full-time lecturers. As a result, the population of this study is 1.83 million Chinese lecturers. Using [83]’s sample size calculator, with a population of 1.83 million, a confidence level of 95%, and a confidence interval of 5, the minimum sample size for this study should be 384. As a result, the sample size of 518 completed questionnaires answered by 278 younger lecturers (40 years old) and 240 older lecturers (> = 40 years old) was more than sufficient for the analysis. Because this study aims to investigate the generation gap between Millennials (younger group) and their predecessors (older group), who are considered generations with different work values influenced by changing economic, political, and social environments in China, the age group was divided at 40 years old [17].
Table 1 depicts the demographic profile of respondents, divided into younger and older respondents. According to the findings, younger respondents were 55.2% male and 44.8% female, whereas older respondents were 51% male and 49% female. Participants’ academic affiliations ranged across a variety of university types. Universities in China are composed of public and private ones. Among them, public universities can be further divided into “985 universities”, “211 universities”, and "non-985/non-211" universities. “985/211 universities” are considered top universities in China. The younger group from 985/211 universities made up 9.8% of the total, while the older group from the same category made up 3.9%. There are 39 “985 universities” and 112 “211 universities” in total. The younger group made up 33.2% of the None-985/None-211 universities, while the older group made up 53.0%. Finally, 10.6% of younger respondents and 5.0% of older respondents attended private universities. The respondents were divided into four academic disciplines: formal science (mathematics, statistics, logic, etc.), 10.1% in the younger group and 2.9% in the older group; natural science (physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc.), 28.8% in the younger group and 21.7% in the older group; applied science (engineering, medicine, etc.), 20.1% in the younger group and 22.5% in the older group; and social science (economics, business, law, education, history, linguistics, etc.), 41.0% in younger group and 52.9% in older group.
Procedure
We employed a cross-sectional design in this study. The questionnaire survey was conducted in February 2021 using a convenience sampling technique on wjx.cn, China’s most popular free online survey platform. Initially, we informed the respondents about the research objectives, their rights as participants, the potential risks and benefits of participation, and the measures taken to protect their privacy and confidentiality. The requirement for ethical approval was waived by the ethics committee due to the low-risk nature of the study and the anonymized method of data collection, ensuring that no personal identifiers were collected or stored. Before proceeding with the questionnaire, they were required to give their written consent. The survey received 565 responses, and 518 cases were retained for data analysis after removing straightliners during data cleaning, because straight lining responses were thought to reduce variability and cause undetected (or detected but underestimated) moderating effects in multigroup analysis [84]. Furthermore, comparable sample sizes for each group were recommended in order to maximise sample variance, since imbalanced sample sizes across moderator-based subgroups would limit statistical power and cause underestimation of moderating effects [85].
Measures
Intrinsic work motivation was measured using a 3-item scale modified from the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS) by [86]. To assess value-based leadership, an updated 19-item scale by [87] was used. A three-item scale by [63] was used to assess the growth mindset of lecturers. All of the aforementioned measures in this study scored responses on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Translation was needed because the targeted population of this study was lecturers in Chinese universities. In order to enhance the translation validity, the translated questionnaire was sent to three Chinese professors in the domain of English Linguistics, who were asked to do a translation test and fill in a comment form by responding to the statements: (a) Do you think the Chinese version accurately conveys the original meaning of the English version? (b) Is the phrasing and terminology in Chinese clear and easy to understand? (c) Is there any important background information that may be missing? (d) Please include any other comments relevant to the improvement of survey translation. Overall, they gave consistent response in the translation test, confirming the Chinese version accurately conveyed the original meaning of the English version and the phrasing and terminology in Chinese are clear and easy to understand without missing any important background information.
Data analysis
SmartPLS 3.2.9 was used to evaluate both measurement and structural models, as well as to conduct a multi-group analysis (MGA) to compare the effects of value-based leadership and growth mindset on intrinsic work motivation in younger and older age groups. PLS-SEM was used because non-parametric SEM is better suited for MGA [85]. This study evaluated the measurement model by assessing the reliability and validity of reflective constructs, as well as the structural model by evaluating the R2, Q2, and path coefficients [88]. Following the assessment of the measurement and structural model, MGA was performed using two different nonparametric methods, Henseler’s MGA [89], and the permutation test [90]. Furthermore, measurement invariance was assessed prior to performing the MGA using the measurement invariance for composite (MICOM) approach [89].
The Common Method Variance (CMV) was checked in this study using the full collinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) [91]. When using the PLS-SEM to check the CMV, the literature recommends using full collinearity VIF and a threshold of 5 [92]. The full collinearity VIF of all constructs in the current study was 1.354, indicating a model free of CMV.
Results
Measurement model assessment
We evaluated the measurement and structural models for both younger and older groups of lecturers using PLS-SEM. This study’s conceptual framework comprised three reflective constructs: intrinsic work motivation (IWM), value-based leadership (VBL), and growth mindset (GM). To evaluate the measurement model, the indicator and construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of these three reflective constructs for lecturers of both younger and older ages were evaluated [85]. To establish indicator reliability, the outer loading of the indicators for each construct must exceed 0.70. To demonstrate construct reliability and convergent validity, the Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha must be greater than 0.7, and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) must be higher than 0.5. [85]. Table 2 demonstrates that the reliability and convergent validity of all three constructs in this study were acceptable for lecturers of all ages. To prove discriminant validity, we used the most conservative approach, the hetero-trait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio, which must be less than 0.90 [93]. The most recent research suggests that studies should rely solely on the HTMT criterion and use bootstrapping to determine whether its values significantly deviate from a predetermined threshold [94]. The results of HTMT 0.90 are presented in Table 3, indicating that discriminant validity is acceptable for both younger and older groups of lecturers.
Structural model assessment
To evaluate the structural model, the R2 and Stone-Geisser criterion (Q2) for intrinsic work motivation, as well as the significance of the path coefficients for the two groups, must be calculated [85]. The results revealed R2 values of 0.43 for younger lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation and 0.26 for older lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation. Compared to the criterion proposed by [90], predictive power values of approximately 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 are regarded as substantial, moderate, and weak, respectively. Therefore, the R2 values indicated the structural model’s moderate quality. To demonstrate the predictive capability of a structural model, the value of Q2 must be greater than zero [85]. In this instance, we observed Q2 values of 0.344 and 0.201 for younger and older groups, respectively, indicating the model’s predictive validity. In addition, it is essential to determine the significance of the path coefficient using bias-corrected (BCa) confidence intervals [88]. Table 5 demonstrates the positive and statistically significant effects of value-based leadership and growth mindset on the intrinsic motivation of younger and older lecturers. The path coefficient of value-based leadership on intrinsic work motivation was 0.541 for younger lecturers and 0.291 for older lecturers. Similarly, the path coefficients of growth mindset on intrinsic work motivation were 0.172 and 0.307 for younger and older lecturers respectively.
Multigroup analysis (MGA)
Recent methodological research has paid considerable attention to the detection and handling of heterogeneity [95,96], but few studies focusing on categorical moderators have used the MICOM procedure to address the measurement invariance issue [94]. This practise was deemed troublesome because establishing measurement invariance is a prerequisite for multigroup analysis and ensures that group differences in model estimates are not caused by group-specific response patterns [97]. MICOM procedure [89], consists of three steps: (a) configural invariance, (b) compositional invariance, and (c) the equality of the mean value and variance of a composite across groups. In this study, configural invariance is established with the same indicators in both younger and older groups when evaluating the reliability and validity of the data, data preparation, and SmartPLS algorithm settings (e.g., path weighting with a maximum of 300 iterations and a stop criterion of 10−7). Concerning the evaluation of compositional invariance, the results of correlation between the composite scores of the younger and older groups were compared with the 5% quantile, which revealed that the quantile was less than (or equal to) correlation for all constructs, indicating that compositional invariance was established. The establishment of partial measurement invariance was indicated by the fulfilment of both the configural and compositional invariance assessment criteria. In light of the MICOM results in Table 4, MGA can be used to compare the path coefficients for both groups and test the hypotheses. Table 5 displays the results of MGA using both nonparametric methods: Henseler’s MGA [89], and the permutation test [90], which are considered the most conservative PLS-SEM techniques for assessing differences in path coefficients between two groups [94]. In hypothesis 1, the path coefficient shows that both are significant, with the younger group (0.541) having a higher value compared to the old group (0.291). This resulted in a difference of 0.251 path coefficient. This empirical evidence suggests that the younger group have a substantial positive relationship between value-based leadership and intrinsic work motivation. On the other hand, hypothesis 2 suggests that the path coefficient of growth mindset on intrinsic motivation is higher in the old group (0.307) compared to the younger group (0.172), resulting in 0.135 differences. This indicates that the younger group are more affected by value-based leadership, whereas the older group are more affected by a growth mindset towards intrinsic motivation. Age as a moderating variable has shown a considerable impact on variables that can consequently produce a generation gap, such as leadership and mindset, as shown by this study. The younger generation needs leaders who can guide them and act as role models in academia. In contrast, the older generation is well-equipped with a strong mindset that can spearhead changes and advancement.
Discussion
PLS-SEM and MGA results supported H1, suggesting an association between Millennials and their predecessors in terms of how value-based leadership relates to intrinsic work motivation. Specifically, the findings indicate a stronger association of value-based leadership with intrinsic work motivation for younger lecturers than for older lecturers. This is consistent with previous research discussing the values and preferences of Millennials, who prioritize finding meaning and purpose in their work and tend to align more closely with leaders reflecting these values [48]. Raised in an era of ubiquitous information and technology, Millennials tend to gravitate towards work environments congruent with their values and beliefs and have shown a lower tolerance for leaders not resonating with their values [16,78]. They often exhibit confidence, feeling unthreatened by superiors, and find satisfaction in sharing their ideas with management, fostering a sense of belonging [12]. Hence, leaders and workplaces valuing their perspectives might have a stronger association with motivating Millennials. Value-based leadership, described as leaders embodying and promoting organizational core values [56], seems to have a more pronounced association with intrinsic motivation among Millennials, possibly due to their emphasis on congruence between individual and organizational values.
Previous research suggested that Millennials, being better educated and more receptive to challenges than older cohorts in this study [14,17], would exhibit a stronger association with growth-oriented beliefs (H2). However, H2 was not supported as there was no notable distinction in the association of growth mindset with intrinsic work motivation between younger and older lecturers. This could be attributed to the overarching value placed on a growth mindset among educators of all ages, especially within the Chinese context that prioritizes continuous learning as a pathway for personal enhancement [58,98]. This observation underscores the importance of integrating cultural contexts when analyzing motivational theories and their relevance across different demographics. It hints that in cultures, such as China, emphasizing lifelong learning, the association of age with goal orientation might be less distinctive than in regions influenced by different dynamics.
Implications and limitations
Theoretically, this study adds to existing motivation literature by demonstrating that value-based leadership and a growth mindset have significant effects on the intrinsic work motivation of both younger and older lecturers in the Chinese socio-cultural context. Furthermore, the identification of generational differences in the effects of value-based leadership on intrinsic work motivation suggests that when examining motivational factors, more attention should be paid to the heterogeneity of different age groups. However, the explanations for generational differences in leadership are fragmented and mostly prescriptive [99], necessitating more systematic future research.
In practise, this research contributes to a better understanding of how to boost lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation in higher education settings. The findings suggest that university administrators can increase the intrinsic motivation of lecturers by developing value-based leadership and lecturers’ growth mindset. This necessitates the leaders’ ability to effectively communicate the organisational values to members, ensuring that the organisational values are widely accepted by members and serve as the foundation for a harmonious working environment. University leaders should also make an effort to develop lecturers’ growth mindsets, giving them more opportunities to expand their capabilities at work and grow through regular reflection. To maintain a consistent and meaningful routine, one solution is to incorporate reflection activities into professional development or faculty meetings [100]. Particularly for Millennial lecturers, their leaders should be more concerned with their work values, serve as a guide for them at all levels, and foster supportive relationships among them with a united, open-hearted, and shared vision [101,102], so that they can be more intrinsically motivated and achieve long-term development.
While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between value-based leadership, growth mindset, and intrinsic work motivation among Chinese lecturers, there are several limitations that should be noted. Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that other demographic variables may also have moderating effects on the relationship between value-based leadership, growth mindset, and intrinsic work motivation among Chinese lecturers. For example, recent studies by [103] have shown that gender can play a significant role in influencing cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Therefore, future research could explore the potential influence of gender as a moderating variable in this context. Furthermore, considering the impact of individuals’ self-efficacy on managerial behaviors in higher education, as highlighted by [103], could provide valuable insights into the dynamics between value-based leadership, growth mindset, and intrinsic work motivation among lecturers. Incorporating self-efficacy as a determinant in future studies could enhance our understanding of the complex interplay of factors affecting lecturers’ motivation. It is also worth noting that the convenience sampling method used due to the COVID-19 pandemic may limit the generalizability of the research findings [104]. Additionally, the study’s narrow focus on Chinese universities, which are influenced by China’s governmental system, bureaucratic mode, and Confucius-rooted values [105], may restrict the generalizability of the results to other nations with different cultural contexts.
Conclusion
This study was motivated by a significant challenge faced by lecturers, specifically the rapid development of higher education in China. Due to the intense, high-pressure, and rapid work environment, many lecturers report physical and mental exhaustion, which correlates to a decline in their work motivation [106]. This study sought to empirically explore the relationships between value-based leadership (an organizational factor) and growth mindset (an individual factor) with lecturers’ intrinsic work motivation, with an emphasis on potential differences across age groups. The observed significant difference in the association between value-based leadership and intrinsic work motivation across millennials and their preceding generations highlighted the potential moderating role of generational factors. Yet, this study primarily emphasized the contrast between millennials and their predecessors, even though there’s extensive literature pointing to Generation Z (born post-1995) as a noteworthy emerging demographic [64,107]. In China, while Generation Z lecturers currently represent a minority, it would be intriguing for future research to investigate the motivational aspects as their representation increases. Beyond age, additional variables like gender, income, and discipline could be explored as potential moderators in upcoming studies. This might provide insights into variations in the associations of interventions with lecturers’ work motivation, possibly merging them to discern intricate variations. Through such exploration, strategies to engage lecturers’ work motivation might be crafted more specifically, enhancing their potential effectiveness.
References
- 1. Bukhari SGAS, Jamali SG, Larik AR, Chang MS. Fostering intrinsic motivation among teachers: Importance of work environment and individual differences. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. 2023;11(1):1–19.
- 2. Malinowska D, Tokarz A, Wardzichowska A. Job autonomy in relation to work engagement and workaholism: Mediation of autonomous and controlled work motivation. International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health. 2018;31 4:445–58. pmid:29410554
- 3. Wong TA, Cheah WC, Dorai BJ. Emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the Covid-19 pandemic: a case study of experiences and challenges of lecturers. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 2023;13(3):575–86.
- 4. Ahluwalia AK. Age-wise differences in relation to Work Motivation, Organizational Commitment and Locus of Control: A Study of University teachers. Envision Journal of Commerce Department of ACFA. 2017;11:24–31.
- 5.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford library of psychology. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 13–32.
- 6. Vansteenkiste M, Lens W, Deci EL. Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational psychologist. 2006;41(1):19–31.
- 7. Osman DJ, Warner JR. Measuring teacher motivation: The missing link between professional development and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020;92:103064.
- 8. Liem AD, Nie Y. Values, achievement goals, and individual-oriented and social-oriented achievement motivations among Chinese and Indonesian secondary school students. International Journal of Psychology. 2008;43(5):898–903. pmid:22022795
- 9. Han J, Yin H. Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Education. 2016;3(1):1217819.
- 10. Inglehart RF. Cultural Evolution: People’s Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Social Forces. 2019;98(4):1–3.
- 11. Mahmoud AB, Berman A, Grigoriou N, Solakis K. Investigating gender as a moderator of extreme-context perception effects on behavioural tendencies towards fashion brands on Instagram in West Africa. Journal of Marketing Communications.1–23.
- 12. Mahmoud AB, Reisel WD, Grigoriou N, Fuxman L, Mohr I. The reincarnation of work motivation: Millennials vs older generations. International Sociology. 2020;35(4):393–414.
- 13. Yusoff WFW, Kian TS. Generation differences in work motivation: From developing country perspective. International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences. 2013;2(4):97–103.
- 14. Chen J, Lian R. Generational differences in work values in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 2015;43(4):567–78.
- 15.
Leaders. Two little, too late: The Economist; 2015 [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/11/05/two-little-too-late.
- 16. Warner M, Zhu Y. The challenges of managing ‘new generation’employees in contemporary China: Setting the scene. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2018;24(4):429–36.
- 17. Ren S, Xie Y, Zhu Y, Warner M. New generation employees’ preferences towards leadership style in China. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2018;24(4):437–58.
- 18. Kanfer R, Frese M, Johnson RE. Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017;102(3):338–55. pmid:28150980
- 19.
Maslow AH. A Dynamic Theory of Human Motivation. Understanding human motivation. Cleveland, OH, US: Howard Allen Publishers; 1958. p. 26–47.
- 20. Alderfer CP. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1969;4(2):142–75.
- 21.
Adams JS. Inequity In Social Exchange. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2: Academic Press; 1965. p. 267–99.
- 22. McClelland DC. How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist. 1985;40(7):812–25.
- 23.
Herzberg F, Mausner B, Snyderman B. The motivation to work, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: John Wiley; 1959. xv, 157–xv, p.
- 24.
Vroom VH. Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley; 1964.
- 25. Weiner B. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review. 1985;92(4):548–73. pmid:3903815
- 26. Carver CS, Scheier MF. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review. 1990;97(1):19–35.
- 27.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior: Springer Verlag; 2013.
- 28. Locke EA, Shaw KN, Saari LM, Latham GP. Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin. 1981;90(1):125–52.
- 29.
Bandura A. Social Learning Theory: Prentice Hall; 1977.
- 30. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology. 2000;25(1):54–67. pmid:10620381
- 31. Deci EL, Vansteenkiste M. Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia. 2004;27(1):23–40.
- 32. Gagné M, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2005;26(4):331–62.
- 33.
Malone TW, Lepper MR. Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Routledge; 2021. p. 223–54.
- 34. Lu H. Facing English lecturers’ teaching motivation. Education and Occupation. 2004;30(3):60–1.
- 35.
Ma, Wen-ying, Liu, Xi, editors. A Case Study on Lecturers’ Motivation Under the Self-Determination Theory2015.
- 36. Munyengabe S, Haiyan H, Yiyi Z, Jiefei S. Factors and levels associated with lecturers’ motivation and job satisfaction in a Chinese university. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2017;13(10):6415–30.
- 37.
Gonzalez C, Liu Y, Shu X. The Faculty Promotion And Merit System In China And The United States: The Cases Of Wuhan University And The University Of California, Davis. Center for Studies in Higher Education Research and Occasional Paper Series, University of California Berkeley. 2012;13.
- 38. Zhang H. Motivating Teaching Staff in Times of Change in Chinese Universities. Canadian Social Science. 2009;2:37–45.
- 39. Bush T, Haiyan Q. Leadership and Culture in Chinese Education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2000;20(2):58–67.
- 40. Gu M. An analysis of the impact of traditional Chinese culture on Chinese education. Frontiers of Education in China. 2006;1(2):169–90.
- 41. Li J, Huang M-T, Hedayati-Mehdiabadi A, Wang Y, Yang X. Development and validation of work ethic instrument to measure Chinese people’s work-related values and attitudes. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2020;31(1):49–73.
- 42. Jaw BS, Ling YH, Yu-Ping Wang C, Chang WC. The impact of culture on Chinese employees’ work values. Personnel Review. 2007;36(1):128–44.
- 43.
Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.;: Sage Publications; 2001.
- 44. Fan Y. A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 2000;7(2):3–10.
- 45. Pye LW. China and the United States: A New Phase. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1972;402(1):97–106.
- 46. Liu W-s, Li X-W, Zou Y-m. The Formation of Teachers’ Intrinsic Motivation in Professional Development. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2019;53(3):418–30. pmid:30338438
- 47. Yi X, Ribbens B, Morgan CN. Generational differences in China: Career implications. Career Development International. 2010;15(6):601–20.
- 48. Chuang S, Wang GG. Confucian philosophy and influence on perceived values and behavioural orientations by Taiwan’s millennials. Human Resource Development International. 2018;21(4):362–81.
- 49. Lim SC, Thien LM. Chinese academic leadership from the perspective of confucian virtues and its effects on teacher commitment. International Online Journalof Educational Leadership. 2020;4(1):37–51.
- 50. Evans L. Leadership for professional development and learning: enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2014;44(2):179–98.
- 51. Astuti SD, Shodikin A, Ud-Din M. Islamic Leadership, Islamic Work Culture, and Employee Performance: The Mediating Role of Work Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business. 2020;7:1059–68.
- 52. Webb K. Motivating peak performance: Leadership behaviors that stimulate employee motivation and performance. Christian Higher Education. 2007;6(1):53–71.
- 53. Mingzheng X, Xinhui W. Chinese Leadership. Public Integrity. 2014;16(2):165–72.
- 54. Gu Q, Tang TL-P, Jiang W. Does Moral Leadership Enhance Employee Creativity? Employee Identification with Leader and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) in the Chinese Context. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015;126(3):513–29.
- 55.
Murdock TBA. Value-based Leadership in Public Professions: Red Globe Press; 2014.
- 56.
Copeland MK, editor The Emerging Significance of Values Based Leadership: A Literature Review2014.
- 57. Parks L, Guay RP. Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and individual differences. 2009;47(7):675–84.
- 58. Wong K-C. Chinese culture and leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2001;4(4):309–19.
- 59. Whitehead GE, Brown M. Authenticity in Chinese leadership: A quantitative study comparing western notions of authentic constructs with Chinese responses to an authenticity instrument. International Journal of Leadership Studies. 2011;6(2):162–88.
- 60. Liu S, Hallinger P. Principal Instructional Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, and Teacher Professional Learning in China: Testing a Mediated-Effects Model. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2018;54(4):501–28.
- 61. Ng B. The neuroscience of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Brain sciences. 2018;8(2):20. pmid:29373496
- 62.
Dweck CS. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY, US: Random House; 2006. x, 276–x, p.
- 63.
Dweck CS. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press; 1999. xiii, 195–xiii, p.
- 64. Mahmoud AB, Fuxman L, Mohr I, Reisel WD, Grigoriou N. “” workplace motivation across X, Y and Z generations. International Journal of Manpower. 2021;42(1):193–209.
- 65. North MS. A GATE to understanding “older” workers: Generation, age, tenure, experience. Academy of Management Annals. 2019;13(2):414–43.
- 66. Mahmoud AB, Berman A, Reisel W, Fuxman L, Grigoriou N, Tehseen S. Entrepreneurial Marketing Intentions and Behaviours among Students: Investigating the Roles of Entrepreneurial Skills, Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy, and Family Business Exposure. International Review of Entrepreneurship. 2023;21(1):123–48.
- 67. Berman A, Mudambi R, Shoham A. Linguistic structures and innovation: A behavioral approach. Journal of International Management. 2022;28(4):100943.
- 68. Twenge JM, Campbell SM, Hoffman BJ, Lance CE. Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of management. 2010;36(5):1117–42.
- 69. Weeks KP, Schaffert C. Generational differences in definitions of meaningful work: A mixed methods study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;156:1045–61.
- 70. Rudolph CW, Rauvola RS, Zacher H. Leadership and generations at work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly. 2018;29(1):44–57.
- 71. Schullery NM. Workplace engagement and generational differences in values. Business Communication Quarterly. 2013;76(2):252–65.
- 72.
Liao X-P. Division and integration-A study of vicissitude of intergenerational values in transition Beijing, China: Higher Education Press; 2007.
- 73. Steven H. Appelbaum AB, Mitchell Goodyear, Ting Gong, Aravindhan Balasubramanian Sudha P W. A Study of Generational Conflicts in the Workplace. European Journal of Business and Management Research. 2022;7(2):7–15.
- 74. Delgado D, Hill N, Regalado A, Waldman N. Millennials Leading the Workforce. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly. 2020;10(2):35–42.
- 75. Schroth H. Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review. 2019;61(3):5–18.
- 76.
Calk R, Patrick A, editors. Millennials Through The Looking Glass: Workplace Motivating Factors2017.
- 77. Kim M, Knutson BJ, Choi L. The Effects of Employee Voice and Delight on Job Satisfaction and Behaviors: Comparison Between Employee Generations. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. 2016;25(5):563–88.
- 78. Weyland A. Engagement and talent management of Gen Y. Industrial and commercial training. 2011;43(7):439–45.
- 79. Carstensen LL. The Influence of a Sense of Time on Human Development. Science. 2006;312:1913–5. pmid:16809530
- 80. Stiglbauer B, Penz M, Batinic B. Work values across generations: Development of the New Work Values Scale (NWVS) and examination of generational differences. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:1028072. pmid:36420391
- 81. Heslin PA, Burnette JL, Ryu NG. Does a Growth Mindset Enable Successful Aging? Work, Aging and Retirement. 2021;7(2):79–89.
- 82. Sheffler P, Kürüm E, Sheen AM, Ditta AS, Ferguson L, Bravo D, et al. Growth Mindset Predicts Cognitive Gains in an Older Adult Multi-Skill Learning Intervention. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2023;96(4):501–26. pmid:35726166
- 83. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30(3):607–10.
- 84. Cheah JH, Thurasamy R, Memon MA, Chuah F, Ting H. Multigroup Analysis using SmartPLS: Step-by-Step Guidelines for Business Research. Asian Journal of Business Research. 2020.
- 85.
Hair J, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)2022.
- 86. Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, van den Broeck A, Aspeli AK, et al. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2015;24(2):178–96.
- 87.
Garg G, Krishnan VR, editors. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Structure: The Role of Value-Based Leadership2003.
- 88. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 2019;31(1):2–24.
- 89. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review. 2016;33(3):405–31.
- 90.
Chin WW, Dibbern J. An Introduction to a Permutation Based Procedure for Multi-Group PLS Analysis: Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated Data and a Cross Cultural Analysis of the Sourcing of Information System Services Between Germany and the USA. In: Esposito Vinzi V, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H, editors. Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2010. p. 171–93.
- 91. Kock N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. Int J e-Collab. 2015;11(4):1–10.
- 92. Kock N, Lynn GS. Lateral Collinearity and Misleading Results in Variance-Based SEM: An Illustration and Recommendations. Econometrics: Multiple Equation Models eJournal. 2012.
- 93. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015;43(1):115–35.
- 94. Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Pick M, Liengaard BD, Radomir L, Ringle CM. Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing. 2022;39(5):1035–64.
- 95. Memon MA, Cheah J-H, Ramayah T, Ting H, Chuah F, Cham TH. Moderation analysis: issues and guidelines. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling. 2019;3(1):1–11.
- 96. Sarstedt M, Radomir L, Moisescu OI, Ringle CM. Latent class analysis in PLS-SEM: A review and recommendations for future applications. Journal of Business Research. 2022;138:398–407.
- 97. Hult GTM, Ketchen DJ, Griffith DA, Finnegan CA, Gonzalez-Padron T, Harmancioglu N, et al. Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines. Journal of International Business Studies. 2008;39(6):1027–44.
- 98. Zeng G, Chen X, Cheung HY, Peng K. Teachers’ growth mindset and work engagement in the Chinese educational context: Well-being and perseverance of effort as mediators. Frontiers in psychology. 2019;10:839. pmid:31057463
- 99. Anderson HJ, Baur JE, Griffith JA, Buckley MR. What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly. 2017;28(1):245–60.
- 100. Hanson J, Bangert AW, Ruff WG. Exploring the Relationship between School Growth Mindset and Organizational Learning Variables: Implications for Multicultural Education. Journal of Electronic Imaging. 2016;2:222–43.
- 101.
Chan KWC, editor Servant Leadership Cultivates Grit and Growth Mindset in Learners2016.
- 102. van Niekerk M, Botha J. Value-based leadership approach: A way for principals to revive the value of values in schools. Educational Research and Reviews. 2017;12(3):133–42.
- 103. Mahmoud AB, Berman A, Reisel W, Fuxman L, Hack-Polay D. Examining generational differences as a moderator of extreme-context perception and its impact on work alienation organizational outcomes: Implications for the workplace and remote work transformation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2024;65(1):70–85. pmid:37596807
- 104.
Ragab MAF, Arisha A, editors. Research Methodology in Business: A Starter’s Guide2017.
- 105. Ong Y, Yue W. Relationship between organization culture and managers’ performance: Empirical study of a Chinese university. Business Ethics and Leadership. 2018;2(2):97–105.
- 106. Zhang J, Cao C, Shen S, Qian M. Examining effects of self-efficacy on research motivation among chinese university teachers: Moderation of leader support and mediation of goal orientations. The Journal of psychology. 2019;153(4):414–35. pmid:30668282
- 107.
Baldonado AM, editor Leadership and Gen Z: Motivating Gen Z Workers and Their Impact to the Future2018.