Demystifying the secret to happiness at work: The role of inclusive leadership,despotic leadership,and job crafting

Abstract

Background

Leadership styles have a big impact on how happy employees are at work, which is important for the success of the company. While despotic leadership can cause tension and discontent, inclusive leadership fosters a supportive and inspiring workplace culture. This study looks at the role that job crafting plays in mediating the link between happiness at work and leadership styles.

Objective

This study aims to explore how employees’ happiness at work (HAW) is affected by both despotic leadership (DL) and inclusive leadership (IL). Additionally, the study reveals the mediating effect of job crafting (JC) through the use of a mediation mechanism.

Method

To test the hypothesized relationships, 348 employees of Indian service sector participated in this cross-sectional survey. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between the components, including Structural equation modeling using AMOS 22.

Results

The results demonstrated that the better leadership approach for fostering employees’ happiness is inclusive leadership. It is discovered that job crafting acted as a mediator in the relationship between inclusive leadership and workers’ overall positive attitudinal outcome (HAW). Furthermore, the data demonstrated that, through job crafting, despotic leadership adversely affects employees’ happiness. Overall, the study demonstrates that inclusive leaders further enhance HAW by fostering inclusion among staff members by treating them fairly.

Conclusions

The study’s conclusions imply that when there is a feeling of inclusivity among employees, leaders can significantly improve workers’ fulfillment with their work through their fair policies and inclusive conduct.

Keywords

inclusive leadership despotic leadership happiness at work job crafting

Introduction

Happiness has been considered by societies and individuals as the end purpose of human life.¹ Happiness has long piqued the interest of academics, and with the advent of positive psychology in the last several years, this concentration has grown even more crucial.^2,3 Given that people spend a significant amount of their lives at work in today’s society, it is imperative that businesses and academics investigate employee happiness at work. As the benefits of happiness for one’s own productivity, well-being, and organizational success become more widely acknowledged,⁴ comprehending the factors that lead to happiness at work has emerged as a crucial field for exploration. As workplace dynamics continue to change, corporate leaders have come to understand that their most valuable resource is their people asset,⁵ organizations have realized that long-term success depends on cultivating a healthy work environment and supporting employees’ well-being. In the post-pandemic era, happiness at work has become even more important due to the changes the worldwide epidemic brought about in the workplace and the reality that remote work is now the standard for several entities.⁶ Workplace happiness has become a crucial component that influences commitment, engagement, and personal fulfillment. Research has demonstrated that joyful employees are more effective, inventive and devoted to their companies.^7,8 They take the initiative to significantly improve their organization’s performance in addition to making contributions to their own well-being.⁹ Owing to the epidemic’s significant effects on the service industry and the shifting nature of business, it is now crucial for academics and organizations to focus on employee happiness at work. Happiness at work is a key idea in the fields of subjective well-being and positive psychology. It influences a number of aspects of the workplace, both directly and indirectly. Contented workers are more likely to be loyal to their employer.¹⁰ Their happiness cultivates a feeling of commitment and loyalty, lowering attrition and raising staff retention.¹¹ Positive effects on performance and production result from happy employees who are more engaged and driven.¹² Moreover, contented workers exhibit an increased ability to learn and develop, being open to new insights and skill development.¹³ To put it another way, encouraging Happiness at work may lead to better productivity, greater creativity, increased loyalty, improved learning capacities, etc. Workers may consequently display a greater degree of extra-role conduct, which advances the organization’s goals.¹⁴ Happiness at work is committed to establishing a welcoming workplace where people feel appreciated and respected and where it is encouraged to priorities and promote their health.^15,16 A manager’s and the organization’s work culture are greatly influenced by their leadership.¹⁷ Leading entails guiding and inspiring a group of people to accomplish company objectives. Managers lead by example and serve as role models for their staff. Their capacity for successful leadership affects goal achievement, staff engagement, and the work environment.¹⁸ Among the most widely recognized leadership styles is transformational leadership, which focuses on inspiring and intellectually stimulating followers to achieve a shared vision. This style has been linked with innovation, job satisfaction, and increased performance across sectors. In contrast, transactional leadership emphasizes a system of structured roles, rewards, and punishments to maintain order and accomplish predefined goals.¹⁹ Another common style is autocratic leadership, where decision-making is centralized, and employee participation is minimal.²⁰ Democratic leadership, on the other hand, promotes participative decision-making and collective goal setting, fostering collaboration and commitment among employees. Lastly, laissez-faire leadership is characterized by a hands-off approach, offering minimal direction or supervision.²¹ In light of these diverse styles, the current study focuses on two contrasting forms—inclusive leadership and despotic leadership—due to their particular relevance in Indian service organizations, where modern participative values often coexist with traditional hierarchical structures. As a leadership style, inclusive leadership involves leaders demonstrating abilities connected to workplace inclusion practices in order to transform and establish an inclusive group environment that can meet employees’ requirements for individuality and belonging.²² Creating an open atmosphere where employees may share their unique thoughts is a key component of inclusive leadership.²³ Despotic leadership is characterized by authoritarian control, dominance, and a lack of empathy or concern for subordinates’ welfare. Despotic leaders often centralize decision-making, demand unquestioning obedience, and may use punitive actions to maintain power.²⁴ “Job crafting” is the proactive behavior of employees in redefining and reshaping their job roles, tasks, and interactions to better suit their interests and strengths.²⁵ Although most of the literature on leadership examines positive leadership,²⁶ studies on leadership’s outcomes have lately begun to examine how it affects employees’ multidimensional outcomes, such as happiness at work. Only a few research studies have demonstrated the impact of positive styles of leadership on workers’ happiness at work. It’s critical to acknowledge the leadership position in organizations that are dedicated to giving their workers a good work environment.²⁷ Fair practices and courteous behavior from leaders inspire and uplift their followers.²⁸ This improves the working environment in the company, which in turn promotes employee growth and enhances their happiness and well-being.²⁹ Relational leadership styles function better in service sector organizations than traditional leadership styles.³⁰ Since inclusive leaders foster a favorable work atmosphere that elicits happy feelings and enhances employee well-being, it has been hypothesized that their approach has an impact on happiness at work.³¹ The study has aimed to highlight the need for more research in this area by focusing on the paucity of studies on happiness at work in the Indian setting. Destructive leadership is still portrayed as an unexplored field, nevertheless. There is still more to be done to test empirically the potential effects of destructive leadership on the workplace, particularly in Asian contexts, and to develop the idea of the dark side of leadership.³² Despite being considered a negative leadership style, despotic leadership is still prevalent in several hierarchical and traditional Indian organizational setups, where authority and control are culturally ingrained.³³

Not enough focus has been placed on examining the impact that dark leadership has on workers’ happiness.³⁴ Given that leadership in the modern era is becoming more immoral, investigating the implications of dark leadership is crucial.³⁵ Given these circumstances, this study explores the consequences of more contemporary kinds of different leadership, such as despotic leadership, in contrast to previous research³⁶ and inclusive leadership, in a single model in response to academic suggestions. Thus, proactive work behaviors (i.e., job crafting) by employees have been proposed in this research to mitigate impacts of both good and negative leadership styles on employees’ happiness. In conclusion, our study aims to contribute to the corpus of studies by clarifying its structure of inclusive leadership, despotic leadership, and job crafting within the Indian service sectors. It also takes into account the role that job crafting plays as a mediator and clarifies the ambiguity surrounding the effects of despotic and inclusive leadership on happiness at work.

Goal of the study

Examining relationship between happiness at work and despotic and inclusive leadership philosophies is the goal of this research. This study uses the concept of conservation of resources (COR) theory,³⁷ to explain how inclusive and despotic leadership styles relate to a multidimensional attitudinal outcome (HAW) that has three dimensions: affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and engagement. Furthermore, this study proposes that job crafting by employees will operate as a mediator between the indirect impacts of inclusive and despotic leadership on employees’ happiness. Figure 1 shows proposed conceptual model of our study.

Figure 1.

Proposed conceptual model.

Literature review and theoretical framework

Inclusive leadership

Term “words and deeds by a leader or leaders that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions” was first used in 2006 by Nembhard and Edmondson³⁸ to describe “inclusive leadership.” Later, this concept was broadened to include leaders who interact with followers in a way that is visible, personable, and accessible.³⁹ Unlike other leader-centric strategies (such servant leadership and transformation), inclusive leaders take into account the range of characteristics that their followers possess^40,41; they meet the need of their workers for individuality; they shape their perspective on life⁴²; they accept failures; and they support their ongoing professional development.⁴³

Despotic leadership

Worst aspects of dark leadership are all included in despotic leadership.⁴⁴ Despotic leadership is thought to be the most harmful and egoistic of the dark leadership philosophies.³⁶ This is due to the fact that leaders who exhibit dictatorial tendencies are extremely cunning, intolerant of criticism, and intent on consolidating their power and control over subordinates, such as followers.⁴⁵ There aren’t many empirical studies on despotic leadership.⁷

Job crafting

The term “job crafting” refers to the “behavioral and physiological adjustments people make to the task or relational parameters of their work.”⁴⁶ Employees use this informal technique to modify their work procedures to align with their values and interests. Contextual elements such as autonomy and work pressure impact job crafting behaviors inside an organization.⁴⁷ Since the term “job crafting” first appeared,⁴⁸ and²⁵ have put out the two most popular conceptualizations of the concept, both of which suggest that workers attempt to modify their workplace. The current study uses the Tims et al.⁴⁸ conceptual framework and focuses on the job crafting observable components, namely, relational and task crafting, which was initially introduced by Wrzesniewski and Dutton²⁵ in their seminal work.⁴⁹ Task crafting describes the extracurricular activities workers perform to meet goals outside of their formal job description.⁵⁰ To cut down on project delivery time, an employee could, for instance, collaborate and communicate with a supervisor and coworker(s) on how to finish assigned duties promptly. When an employee decides to change the nature or scope of their work, it might be said that they are altering the bounds of their position. According to Niessen et al.,⁴⁶ relational crafting suggests that people “decide upon who they will interact with more or less intensely while doing the job. Put differently, an employee uses relational crafting to control how much they interact with their supervisor, coworkers, and/or other employees at work.

Inclusive leadership and workplace happiness

According to Carmeli et al.⁵¹ and Nembhard IM and Edmondson,³⁸ leaders who exhibit openness, accessibility, and availability in their interactions with followers” are seen to be practicing inclusive leadership. According to earlier research, IL is one of the factors that predict employee well-being.⁵² This is due to the fact that inclusive leaders are always encouraging, foster open communication, value members’ contributions, show showing consideration for their goals and needs, as well as being there to assist whenever essential.⁵³ They convey to everyone who is part of their organization that their worries and ideas are appreciated by doing this.⁵⁴ Additionally, a leader who is approachable and transparent enhances role clarity, reduces workplace stress, and increases employee happiness and well-being.^14,54 Furthermore, scholars have demonstrated the significance of various leadership philosophies, including transformational leadership,⁵⁵ inspirational leadership, and spiritual leadership,⁵⁶ in fostering employee happiness. The effect of IL on HAW has not yet been investigated in Indian context though. In light of the aforementioned aspects, this study proposes that IL positively affects workers’ HAW.

H1: Inclusive leadership positively and significantly relates to happiness at work.

Despotic leadership and workplace happiness

This study indicates that employees’ happiness will be badly impacted by despotic leadership, which according to the foundations of the COR theory. Studies have indicated that one of the main causes of workplace stress that exhausts workers’ precious reserves is autocratic leadership, which is characterized by a deeply dishonest, unethical, and egocentric approach to leadership.^57,58 Despotic leadership has a detrimental effect on workers’ HAW.⁵⁹ Following leaders who exhibit autocratic tendencies or other resource-draining circumstances at work reduces followers’ satisfaction with the task itself.⁶⁰ Researchers have previously demonstrated, using the COR theory, that the autocratic tendencies of leaders have a negative impact on a range of employee work-related attitudinal outcomes, such as job satisfaction and engagement.³⁶ Nevertheless, prior research has ignored the effects of despotic leadership on broader attitudes (e.g., HAW) at the employee level. Therefore, our research proposes the following for filling these gaps in the body of existing studies.

H2: Despotic leadership negatively and significantly relates to happiness at work.

Inclusive leadership, despotic leadership, and job crafting

Despite the widespread perception that “job crafting” is a bottom-up process, it actually describes the degree to which people actively plans out their work activities in order to fulfill objectives.²⁵ Even so an employee’s proactive behaviors, such as job crafting, are influenced by the individuals they engage with on a daily basis, such as leaders, and they do not work in isolation at work . For example, it has been demonstrated that job design is greatly influenced by different leadership philosophies, such as servant,⁶¹ empowering,⁶² and transformational leadership.⁶³ Still, there is little data to support the claim that a leader’s disruptive manner deters followers from being motivated to do their jobs well. In contrast to earlier research, which focused mostly on the effects of positive styles,⁶⁴ this study looks at how different leadership philosophies-despotic and inclusive affects employees’ motivation to produce their work using a single model.

People continuously battle to get, keep, maintain, and preserve the resources they value most, according to Hobfoll,³⁷ COR theory. They will gain more from it the more valuable resources they have.⁶⁵ When people acquire resources, they reinvest them to build a reserve of additional funds for when they are needed in the future.³⁷ Adaptation, increased involvement, and improved coping behavior are examples of beneficial behavioral outcomes that may arise from people acquiring resources.⁶⁶ Therefore, leaders give their followers a crucial conditional resource that enables them to modify current job resources in order to obtain new ones through belongingness, flexibility, and open communication.⁶⁷ Thus, leaders inspire their followers by persuading them to proactively save fresh resources for requirements in the future.⁶⁷ Conversely, the principles of COR theory⁶⁸ state that people attempt to safeguard their resources when they are subjected to circumstances that deplete them (such as leaders’ cruel, exploitation, egotistical and deceitful actions).⁴⁵ Thus, in order to stop more resource loss, employees refrain from spending their few resources. Therefore, psychological distress³⁶ and emotional exhaustion⁶⁹ are likely outcomes of operating in an environment that depletes resources (i.e., despotic leadership).

H3: Inclusive leadership positively relates to job crafting.

H4: Despotic leadership negatively relates to job crafting.

Job crafting and happiness at work

Both physical and mental well-being is experienced by employees who actively design their work.⁷⁰ Job creating directly and favorably affects employee engagement and organizational satisfaction.⁷¹ Job crafting improves a number of things, including as contentment at work,⁷² industries job performance.⁷³ Job crating improves employee satisfaction and well-being.⁷⁴ Additionally, Indian study looked into how job creation affected workers’ HAW. However, the study by Moulik and Giri⁷⁵ in (2023) took a limited perspective that often ignores the reality that employees’ attitudes cover a very large spectrum of mental states.⁷⁶ Therefore, in accordance with Fisher’s research proposal, the emphasis is placed “on a higher-order construct, containing a number of positive attitudes and feelings.” This is known as HAW, which is a broad-based attitude concept used to gauge the well-being of employees.⁷⁷ According to COR theory, job crafting activities help employees build and preserve a resource pool.⁷⁰ This, in turn, increases job meaning, contentment and fruitful relationships,⁷⁸ all of which contribute to employees’ improved well-being. Thus, the following hypothesis is drawn from this.

H5: Job crafting positively relates to happiness at work.

Job crafting as a mediator

It makes sense that leaders’ autocratic tendencies will have a detrimental impact on workers’ proactive work behaviors, given the discussion that came before. However, an inclusive leader supports, empowers, and prioritizes the growth of their followers. For this reason, when workers experience inclusive leadership, it favorably affects their proactive behaviors, such as job crafting.⁷⁹ Based on the resource perspective, which is a subset of the COR theory,⁸⁰ workers can obtain a variety of resources from their managers and peers when they actively design their work.⁸¹ Due to the resource gain, people might be more inclined to spend extra money on pursuits that expand their resource base, such as picking up new skills, expanding their knowledge, and developing meaningful relationships.⁶¹ People’s well-being will increase through a resource gain spiral and lead to the development of sentiments such as affective commitment (connection to the organization, i.e., HAW), professional development (work satisfaction), and self-realization (increased vigor and energy, i.e., engagement).⁸² In summary, this study presents the following two hypotheses after examining the connections between inclusive, despotic leadership, job crafting, and employees’ happiness.

H6: Job crafting mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and happiness at work.

H7: Job crafting mediates the relationship between despotic leadership and happiness at work.

Conservation of resources (COR) theory

The conservation of resources (COR) theory³⁷ offers a comprehensive framework to understand the psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship between leadership styles and employee happiness. The theory posits that individuals strive to acquire, maintain, and safeguard valuable resources—such as emotional well-being, autonomy, and supportive interpersonal relationships.⁶⁵ Leadership behaviors play a pivotal role in influencing these resources. Despotic leadership, characterized by authoritarianism and lack of empathy, is likely to threaten or deplete employees’ psychological resources, thereby leading to stress, dissatisfaction, and reduced happiness.^45,83 In contrast, inclusive leadership styles may facilitate resource gain by fostering trust, recognition, and a sense of belongingness.^51,54 Thus, COR theory provides a robust theoretical foundation to explain how different leadership approaches contribute to variations in employees’ happiness levels within organizational contexts.

Methods

Sample and designs

Present research, which is exploratory in nature, looks into the relationships between HAW, job designing, despotic leadership, and inclusive leadership. On the other hand, job crafting acts as a mediator in the relationships that arise between HAW and both despotic and inclusive leadership. In this instance, quantitative methodologies and a cross-sectional approach have been applied. Our study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses, and their participation was entirely voluntary. The current data was gathered from a number of service sector organizations in India’s Delhi National Capital Region area. The National Capital Region (NCR) in India exemplifies substantial regional planning in South Asia, aimed at managing the core’s expansion while regulating the surrounding area’s development for sustainability.⁸⁴ The Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) is crucial to India’s economy, serving as a major economic, political, and cultural hub, contributing significantly to India’s GDP and housing the national government. The study’s cross-sectional sample comprised workers from retail, IT/ITES (information technology/enabled services), and educational institutions. One of the most important industries in India is the services industry, which generates the biggest GDP contribution, draws the most foreign investment, and employs a sizable number of people. It encompasses a broad range of commercial endeavors, including hospitality and dining establishments, banking, retail, financial services, insurance, information technology (IT) and ITES, and education, among others. Data was gathered using the snowball sampling technique and a standardized questionnaire. Given the nature of the study and the targeted respondents (i.e., employees experiencing despotic and inclusive leadership), it was practical to initiate data collection through a few known participants and then use their network to reach others with relevant experiences. This technique helped in gathering a more representative and diverse sample across various organizations, which would have been otherwise challenging using probability sampling. The questionnaire was distributed online through Google Forms. In addition, participants were informed that the survey was voluntary and that the information they provided would only be used for study. 348 of the 360 data that were originally gathered were determined to be appropriate for additional processing for this study.

Measures

General Information Schedule (GIS). Data were gathered about the sample’s age, gender, and work experience, among other demographic characteristics (shown in Table 1). Four standard scales measuring despotic and inclusive leadership, job crafting, and happiness at work were included in the survey in addition to GIS; the study used the following standardized instruments: scale of inclusive leadership: A nine-item scale that was modified from Carmeli et al.⁵¹ is used to quantify the inclusive leadership. The parts were divided into three categories: accessibility (items 6–8), availability (items 4–5), and openness (items 1–3). “The manager is accessible for discussing emerging problems” is an example of a sample item. Each statement is given a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting “not at all” and 5 denoting “great extent” of agreement or disagreement. Cronbach’s alpha for the current study sample was determined to be 0.897.

Table 1.

Demographic profile of respondents.

Variable	Indicator	Frequency	%
Gender	Male	208	59.77
	Female	140	40.22
	Total	248
Age	Less than 25 years	98	28.16
	26-30 years	103	29.59
	31–35 years	67	19.25
	36–40 years	53	15.22
	41 years and above	27	7.75
	Total	348
Experience	Less than 3 years	88	25.28
	3–7 years	95	27.29
	8–11 years	76	21.83
	12–15 years	55	15.80
	16 years and above	34	9.77
	Total	348

Source: Survey data.

Despotic leadership scale: Four questions taken from De Hoogh and De Hartog²⁴ are used to measure this construct. “My manager is punitive; ha has no pity or compassion” is one example of a sample item. The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha is 0.952.

Job crafting: Four items taken from Slemp and Vella-Brodrick⁸⁵ were used to measure this construct. The example items were: “I try to get to know people well at work” (relational crafting) and “I alter the scope or type of tasks that I complete at work” (task crafting). The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.878.

Happiness at work: A nine-item scale that was modified from Salas-Vallina and Alegre’s⁸⁶ conceptual work in 2021 is used to measure the variable HAW. The scale’s items were categorized into three dimensions: engagement (items 1 and 2), satisfaction (items 3 and 4), and affective commitment (items 5 and 6). The current study sample’s Cronbach’s alpha was found 0.929.

Analytic approach

AMOS 22 and SPSS 25 were used for the analyses. The analytical approach was applied in two steps⁸⁷ to assess measurement and structural models. Study variables were evaluated for validity and reliability using CFA,⁸⁸ and indirect and direct effects were evaluated using SEM. Using a 5000 bootstrapping procedure, the mediating effects were examined in AMOS 22. “χ2/df, comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR)” are the metrics that evaluated the measurement model’s fitness.

Results

Table 3 displays the mean, SD, and Pearson’s correlation values. Since the variable correlations were greater than 0.70, a multicollinearity test was carried out. According to Hair et al.,⁸⁹ less than 10 variance inflation factor (VIF) results suggest that multicollinearity is not an issue. Additionally, skewness and kurtosis scores were employed to assess the data’s normalcy. The findings indicated that the skewness and kurtosis scores were less than ±2 and ±3, indicating that the data were likely scattered.⁸⁹

Common method bias

Common method bias may arise from data collected from a single source. The Harman single factor test was employed in the present study to look for evidence of a common method bias. A common variance problem may occur, as noted by Podsakoff et al.,⁹⁰ when significant amount of the overall variance is explained by the first component or when all variables are concentrated under one of the factors. More specifically, Table 4 contrasts the one-factor and four-factor models. The one-factor model’s findings show how poorly the data fit the model. According to the findings, CMV is not likely to be a major problem in study.

Measurement model

Using AMOS 22, a CFA was carried out to assess the data’s fitness and research variables’ uniqueness. Table 3 displays the goods together with their loadings. Additionally, as Table 4 illustrates, the proposed model, which includes job crafting, inclusive leadership, despotic leadership, and HAW showed a good fit between the model and data (χ² = 320, df = 218, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.05). This model outperformed other models, which included a three-factor (Δχ² = 234.42, Δdf = 3), two-factor (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05, χ2 = 320, df = 218, p < 0.01). The composite reliability and average variance extracted are also estimated. The following were the study variables’ CR values: HAW = 0.92, job crafting = 0.94, (0.98), despotic leadership = 0.92 and inclusive leadership = 0.89. AVE scores are for job crafting = 0.78, despotic leadership = 0.80, inclusive leadership = 0.72, and HAW = 0.92. All of the Cronbach’s alpha values above the recommended threshold of 0.70⁹¹ are shown in Table 2. According to Fornell and Larson,⁸⁸ a structure is deemed suitable if its average variance extracted is more than 0.50 and its composite validity is more than 0.60. This indicates that the requirements for reliability and convergent validity are satisfied. Average shared variance (ASV) was used to evaluate the discriminant validity. As can be seen in Table 3, the results demonstrated that the ASV values for every variable were less than the corresponding AVE scores, indicating that the constructs’ discriminant validity requirements are met.⁸⁸

Table 2.

Results for construct validity, factor loadings, and items.

Items	Standardized loadings	AVE	CR	ASV
Inclusive leadership (IL)		0.72	0.89	0.76
IL1	0.82
IL2	0.90
IL3	0.92
IL4	0.95
IL5	0.88
IL6	0.90
IL7	0.89
IL8	0.88
IL9	0.83
Despotic leadership (DL)		0.80	0.92	0.72
DL1	0.87
DL2	0.90
DL3	0.92
DL4	0.95
Job crafting (JC)		0.78	0.94	0.74
JC1	0.91
JC2	0.94
JC3	0.88
JC4	0.90
Happiness at work (HAW)		0.92	0.92	0.76
HAW1	0.86
HAW2	0.92
HAW3	0.94
HAW4	0.90
HAW5	0.89
HAW6	0.81

N=348.

Source: Survey data.

Table 3.

Correlation analysis.

Variables	Mean	S.D.	1	2	3	4
Inclusive leadership	2.32	0.57	-
Despotic leadership	3.60	0.92	−0.82**	-
Job crafting	3.67	0.89	0.73**	−0.79**	-
Happiness at work	2.98	1.12	0.81**	−0.80**	−0.79**	-

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Source: Survey data.

Testing of the hypothesis

Using 5000 bootstrap resample and structural equation modeling in AMOS version 22, hypotheses were evaluated. The results (see Figure 2) demonstrated that there was no significant direct effects of despotic leadership on employees’ HAW (ß = −0.23, p < 0.05), rejecting hypothesis H2, but having inclusive leadership increases HAW (β = 0.44, p < 0.05), which supports H1. Second, the results show a favorable association between job crafting and inclusive leadership. (ß = 0.54, p < 0.001, supporting hypothesis H3), while despotic leadership has a negative and significant correlation with work crafting (ß = −0.49, p < 0.001, supporting hypothesis H4). Third, the results show a positive correlation between job crafting and HAW (ß = 0.45, p < 0.01, confirming hypothesis H5). In terms of the indirect effects, the results of Table 4 demonstrate that job crafting acted as a mediating factor between the negative effects of despotic leadership on HAW (ß = 0.14, 95% CI [LLCI: −0.229, ULCI: −0.056]) and the positive effects of inclusive leadership on HAW (ß = 0.22, 95% CI [lower limit confidence interval (LLCI): 0.073, upper limit confidence interval (ULCI): 0.421]), therefore supporting the hypotheses H6 and H7 (Table 5).

Figure 2.

Structural model with standardized coefficients.

Table 4.

Model’s fit indices.

Model	x²	df	Δx²	Δdf	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Hypothesized four-factor model	320**	218	-	-	0.96	0.05	0.05
Three-factor model: combines IL with DL	523**	221	234.42**	3	0.91	0.08	0.05
Two-factor model: combines IL and DL, JC and HAW	632**	223	375.21**	5	0.86	0.09	0.08
One-factor model	837**	224	485.92**	6	0.81	0.11	0.09

Source: Survey data.

Table 5.

Results of mediation.

Regression model	Effect	Bootstrapped result, 95% CI
Regression model	Effect	LLCI	ULCI
Total effects
IL→ HAW	0.62	0.324	0.766
DL → HAW	−41	−0.521	−0.073
Indirect Effects
IL → JC→ HAW	0.22	0.073	0.421
DL→ JC→ HAW	−0.17	−0.229	−0.056

N = 348.

Source: Survey data.

Discussion

Study’s objective is to investigate the ways in which job crafting and inclusive leadership, despotic leadership support workers’ happiness. The hypothesis was developed based on the conceptual inputs from the existing review and stated that job crafting mediates the association between despotic leadership and happiness and inclusive leadership and happiness at work, with despotic leadership having a negative influence and inclusive leadership having a positive significant impact on happiness at work. The study’s empirical findings confirmed all hypotheses but not H2 (i.e., despotic leadership has a major negative impact on employees’ happiness). These findings also provided empirical support for the proposed model. The study’s empirical results strongly supported the first hypothesis (H1), which proposed that inclusive leadership has a significant impact on employees’ happiness. This finding is consistent with earlier research that shows a positive correlation between inclusive leadership and happiness at work.⁹² This explains why happier and more contented workers are likely to receive positive treatment from managerial leadership. This is due to the fact that a feeling of inclusion gives workers a sense of stability workplace, which boosts engagement, commitment, and job satisfaction.²

Regarding H2, it is assumed under the hypothesis that despotic leadership significantly damages happiness at work. Researchers demonstrated, using the COR theory, leaders that exhibit despotic inclinations negatively affect a number of employee work-related attitudinal outcomes, including engagement and job satisfaction.³⁶ Nonetheless, it was discovered that there was inadequate proof of a negative correlation (direct relationship) between happiness at work and despotic leadership. The large favorable influence of inclusive leadership on job crafting and the detrimental impact of despotic leadership on job crafting were hypothesized in hypotheses H3 and H4. A further layer of empirical support for this concept is provided by the study’s findings, which indicate that inclusive leadership positively affects job crafting. The Results shows a consistency with the earlier study,⁹³ which found that companies may help employees feel like they belong by treating members equally and inclusively.

According to the fifth hypothesis, job crafting significantly and favorably affects employees’ happiness. The results confirmed the hypothesis and showed that job crafting has a beneficial effect on happiness at work, which in turn greatly increases employees' happiness. Job crafting and HAW had a negative bivariate correlation, while the SEM data revealed a substantial positive path coefficient (β = 0.45, p < 0.01). This is due to the reason that SEM provides a more accurate estimation by taking into consideration the influence of other variables in the model. These findings are consistent with earlier studies.⁷⁵ Lastly, JC was thought to be a mediator that mediates the link between inclusive leadership, despotic leadership, and happiness at work in the final two hypotheses, H6 and H7. This claim is predicated on the theoretical framework that earlier scholars⁷⁸ created. The research’s empirical results corroborate the hypotheses and indicate that job crafting has a full mediating impact on the despotic leadership and happiness at work and a partial mediating effect on the inclusive leadership and happiness at work relationship.

Theoretical contribution

In response to scholarly recommendations, this study first looked at the effects on employee happiness of two contrasting and more contemporary leadership styles: inclusive and despotic leadership.³⁶ This study contributes to the literature on leadership by highlighting the variables that either increase or decrease workers’ favorable perceptions of their positions and the company. In particular, this study is distinctive because it pinpoints the factors that influence an extensive employee attitudinal outcome that gauges the quality of life for workers.⁵⁵ The results showed that employee’s happiness is significantly impacted by inclusive leadership. In a culturally diverse country like India, leadership behaviors are often interpreted through the lens of deeply rooted social norms such as power distance, collectivism, and respect for hierarchy.⁹⁴

These findings indicate that employees’ pleasant emotions and contented sentiments towards their jobs and the company as a whole (i.e., HAW) are preceded by the positive behaviors of inclusive leaders. However, has been discovered that the adverse consequences of despotic behavior on happiness at work is negligible, defying the hypothesized relationship. This result implies that there is a complex and distal relationship between these factors. Second, this study highlights the significance of job crafting and pinpoints the elements of workplaces linked to leadership that either reinforce or detract from it. This study addressed the requests of researchers to conduct an empirical investigation into the relationship between employees’ job crafting activities and the effects of constructive and destructive leadership styles.^95,96

Managerial implications

Organizations nowadays must stay socially responsible (by, for example, fostering a healthy and happy work environment) while also developing their capabilities to compete in a highly competitive marketplace. A perspective has recently surfaced suggesting that in order for organizations to stay competitive, they must adopt an employee-centered strategy, encourage proactive work behaviors from their employees (foster an environment that prioritizes the well-being of workers).^70,78 The current study offers several ramifications for decision-makers and management in service sector organizations in India by outlining the function that equitable and standardized practices, together with leaders’ inclusive attitude, play in fostering employee happiness. First this study emphasizes how critical it is for sector organizations to give top priority to the establishment of inclusive leadership practices. This entails elevating leaders who exhibit inclusive behaviors and fostering an environment that appreciates cooperation and diversity. However, a poisonous and unfriendly work environment brought about by an authoritarian boss undermines employees' faith in their boss and prevents them from doing their jobs well, both of which are detrimental to workers’ well-being (i.e., HAW). Given the detrimental repercussions of dictatorial leadership, businesses should priorities terminating the leader’s despotic behaviors at work.

Conclusion

The current study examined the connection between inclusive and despotic leadership styles and happiness at work. Employees’ HAW appears to be favorably correlated with inclusive leadership, according to data gathered from Indian employees. Conversely, the direct and negative correlation between happiness at work and despotic leadership was determined to be negligible. Additionally, job crafting mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and happiness at work (partial mediation) and despotic leadership and happiness at work (complete mediation). Results shows employees are more likely to act proactively at work when they are exposed to inclusive leadership. Employees will then feel positive emotions about their work, its features, and the company overall as a result (i.e., HAW). Indian workplaces, where workers from several linguistic groups, castes, faiths, and cultural backgrounds coexist, are a superb representation of India’s wonderful diverse nation. Therefore, it is the leader’s responsibility to make sure that all members of the diverse workgroup feel included. As a result, it is recommended that higher-level executives and decision-makers in service sector companies priorities the creation of inclusive workplace policies through inclusive leadership, as this promotes a happy work environment and strengthens bonds with employees. As the world begins to recover from the previous pandemic, leaders and companies are under significant pressure to manage employee conduct and foster a positive work environment. It is advised that leaders and organizations create a workplace by being fair to their employees and making them feel welcome, which raises employee happiness. As workplace inclusivity and happiness at work are relatively new concepts in Indian business organizations and academic literature, there hasn’t been much research done on them. This study will help future academics explore this new avenue more thoroughly.

Limitations and future research

Certain limitations arise during the research process, as is commonly encountered when assessing the study. Notwithstanding the fresh perspective this work offers, several restrictions must be noted. Although the current study looks at the Indian service sector in an attempt to close the knowledge gap, examining the concept in other industries and Southeast Asian nations, whose work cultures differ from those in India and are impacted by elements such as power distance and other cultural characteristics, can likewise validate a similar conclusion. First off, there aren’t many empirical studies using working samples in HAW, and the area is still developing and unknown in relation to the Indian subcontinent. Second, due to the lack of in-person interactions with respondents that could have impacted the data quality, an online survey was used to collect the data for this study. Because the current study is cross-sectional and cannot assess how behavior changes over time, more longitudinal research using a multilevel framework may be carried out in order to produce more definitive findings. Second, the fundamental function of workers’ job crafting actions was examined in this study. Subsequent studies should examine additional mechanisms (such as affiliation with the leader, leader-member exchanges, significant labor) by which inclusive and despotic leadership may impact workers' results linked to their jobs. Third, a mediation model of how leadership affects positive attitudes among employees was examined in this study. It is recommended that future academics look into potential boundary conditions including political skill, political will, and personality traits.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the IMSAR, MDU, Rohtak, India, for their invaluable support and resources provided throughout this research.

ORCID iD

Ritu Deswal

Author contributions

Conception: Ritu Deswal. Data Curation: Dr. Karamvir Sheokand. Analysis of data: Ritu Deswal. Preparation of the manuscript: Dr. Karamvir Sheokand and Ritu Deswal. Revision for important intellectual content: Dr. Karamvir Sheokand and Ritu Deswal. Supervision: Dr. Karamvir Sheokand.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Diener

Oishi

Lucas

. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction.

Fisher

. Happiness at work. Int J Manag Rev 2009; 12: 384–412.

Slåtten

Lien

Evenstad

SBN

, et al. Supportive study climate and academic performance among university students: the role of psychological capital, positive emotions and study engagement. Int J Qual Serv Sci 2021; 13: 585–600.

Bhatia

Mohsin

. Determinants of college teachers’ happiness-a comprehensive review. J Criti Rev 2020; 7(9): 9–17.

Behrani

. Organisational justice and employee happiness. Inter J Res 2017; 4: 123–129.

Al-Jubari

Mosbah

Salem

. Employee well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: the role of adaptability, work-family conflict, and organizational response. Sage Open 2022; 12: 215824402210961. DOI: 10.1177/21582440221096142.

De Clercq

Haq

Azeem

, et al. The relationship between workplace incivility and helping behavior: roles of job dissatisfaction and political skill. J Psychol 2019; 153: 507–527.

Singh

Banerji

. Happiness at work, organization citizenship behaviour and workplace diversity: a study on Indian private sector bank employees. Ind Commerc Train 2022; 54: 460–475.

Guest

. Human resource management and employee well‐being: towards a new analytic framework. Human Res Mgmt J 2017; 27: 22–38.

10.

Mert

İS

Sen

Alzghoul

. Organizational justice, life satisfaction, and happiness: the mediating role of workplace social courage. Kidorui 2021; 51: 2215–2232.

11.

Kaur

. Managerial leadership and turnover intentions with the mediating role of employee happiness: an empirical study based on private universities. TQM J 2023; 36: 616–633.

12.

Ravina-Ripoll

Núñez-Barriopedro

Evans

, et al. Employee happiness in the industry 4.0 era: insights from the Spanish industrial sector. In: 2019 IEEE technology & engineering management conference (TEMSCON). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5.

13.

Salas-Vallina

López-Cabrales

Alegre

, et al. On the road to happiness at work (HAW). Pers Rev 2017; 46: 314–338.

14.

Jha

Pal

Sarkar

. Unlocking the secret to happiness at work: the power of inclusive leadership, organizational justice and workplace inclusion. J Manag Dev 2023; 43: 200–221.

15.

Arora

Dhole

. Generation Y: perspective, engagement, expectations, preferences and satisfactions from workplace; a study conducted in Indian context. Benchmark Int J 2019; 26: 1378–1404.

16.

Deswal

Sheokand

. Does workplace happiness lead to organisational citizenship behaviour: a study of faculty in higher education institutions. Int J Work Innovat 2025; 6: 148–166.

17.

Sveningsson

Alvehus

Alvesson

. Managerial leadership: identities, processes, and interactions. In: The work of managers: Towards a practice theory of management, 2012, pp. 69–86.

18.

Jerab

Mabrouk

. The role of leadership in changing organizational culture. SSRN Electron J. Epub ahead of print 1 January 2023. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4574324.

19.

Zareen

Razzaq

Mujtaba

. Impact of Transactional, Transformational and Laissez-Faire leadership styles on motivation: a Quantitative study of banking employees in Pakistan. Public Organ Rev 2014; 15: 531–549.

20.

Arshad

Iqbal

Maqsood

. A review on the effects of leadership styles in shaping organizational culture and employee performance.

21.

Jada

Swain

John

, et al. Does leadership style and HRM practices promote employee well-being post onset of the new normal? a mixed-method approach. South Asian J Hum Res Manage, Epub ahead of print 31 July 2023.

22.

Xiaotao

Yang

Diaz

, et al. Is too much inclusive leadership a good thing? An examination of curvilinear relationship between inclusive leadership and employees’ task performance. Int J Manpow 2018; 39: 882–895.

23.

Randel

Galvin

Shore

, et al. Inclusive leadership: realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum Resour Manag Rev 2017; 28: 190–203.

24.

De Hoogh

AHB

Hartog

DND

. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: a multi-method study. Leadersh Q 2008; 19: 297–311.

25.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manag Rev 2001; 26: 179–201.

26.

Baig

Iqbal

Abrar

, et al. Impact of leadership styles on employees’ performance with moderating role of positive psychological capital. Total Qual Manag Bus Excel 2019; 32: 1085–1105.

27.

Alzghoul

Elrehail

Emeagwali

, et al. Knowledge management, workplace climate, creativity and performance. J Workplace Learn 2018; 30: 592–612.

28.

Khaola

Coldwell

. Explaining how leadership and justice influence employee innovative behaviours. Eur J Innovat Manag 2018; 22: 193–212.

29.

Gilbreath

Benson

. The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. Work Stress 2004; 18: 255–266.

30.

Ahmed

Naqshbandi

Kaur

, et al. Roles of leadership styles and relationship-based employee governance in open service innovation: evidence from Malaysian service sector. Leader Organ Dev J 2018; 9: 353–374.

31.

Atiku

Itembu-Naunyango

Oladejo

. Inclusive leadership and employee engagement as critical drivers of sustainability in telecommunication companies. Adm Sci 2024; 14: 126.

32.

Einarsen

Aasland

Skogstad

. Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and conceptual model. Leadersh Q 2007; 18: 207–216.

33.

Farh

J-L

Cheng

B-S

. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In: Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks, pp. 84–127.

34.

Syed

Naseer

Shamim

. Dealing with the devil: combined effects of destructive leadership and Dark Triad personality on revenge, happiness and psychological detachment. Can J Adm Sci 2022; 39: 213–230.

35.

Boak

. Shining a light on toxic leadership. In: Debating bad leadership: reasons and remedies, 2021, pp. 105–120.

36.

Albashiti

Hamid

Aboramadan

. Fire in the belly: the impact of despotic leadership on employees work-related outcomes in the hospitality setting. Int J Contemp Hospit Manag 2021; 33: 3564–3584.

37.

Hobfoll

. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 1989; 44: 513–524.

38.

Nembhard

Edmondson

. Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Springer eBooks, pp. 77–105.

39.

Arghode

Lathan

Alagaraja

, et al. Empathic organizational culture and leadership: conceptualizing the framework. Europe J Train Dev 2021; 46: 239–256.

40.

Yasin

Jan

. Inclusive leadership and turnover intention: the role of follower–leader goal congruence and organizational commitment. Manag Decis. 2023; 61: 589–609.

41.

Kim

Scullion

Avvari

. Inclusive leadership in times of global crisis: how CEOs of multinational enterprises responded to COVID-19. Crit Perspect Int Bus. 2025; 21(2): 257–287.

42.

Roberson

Perry

. Inclusive leadership in thought and action: a thematic analysis. Group Organ Manag 2021; 47: 755–778.

43.

Zeng

Zhao

. Inclusive leadership and taking-charge behavior: roles of psychological safety and thriving at work. Front Psychol 2020; 11: 62.

44.

Nauman

Fatima

Haq

. Does despotic leadership harm employee family life: exploring the effects of emotional exhaustion and anxiety. Front Psychol 2018; 3(9): 601.

45.

Naseer

Raja

Syed

, et al. Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environment: exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. Leadersh Q 2016; 27: 14–33.

46.

Niessen

Weseler

Kostova

. When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Hum Relat 2016; 69: 1287–1313.

47.

Petrou

Demerouti

Peeters

MCW

, et al. Crafting a job on a daily basis: contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. J Organ Behav 2012; 33: 1120–1141.

48.

Tims

Bakker

Derks

. Development and validation of the job crafting scale. J Vocat Behav 2011; 80: 173–186.

49.

Wingerden

Poell

. Employees’ perceived opportunities to craft and in-role performance: the mediating role of job crafting and work engagement. Front Psychol 2017; 25(8): 1876.

50.

Akkermans

Tims

. Crafting your career: how career competencies relate to career success via job crafting. Appl Psychol 2016; 66: 168–195.

51.

Carmeli

Reiter-Palmon

Ziv

. Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: the mediating role of psychological safety. Creat Res J 2010; 22: 250–260.

52.

Wang

. Promoting employees’ learning from errors by inclusive leadership. Baltic J Manag 2017; 13: 125–142.

53.

Hollander

. Inclusive leadership: the essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge, 2012.

54.

Choi

Tran

TBH

Kang

S-W

. Inclusive leadership and employee well-being: the mediating role of person-job FiT. J Happiness Stud 2016; 18: 1877–1901.

55.

Salas-Vallina

Simone

Fernández-Guerrero

. The human side of leadership: inspirational leadership effects on follower characteristics and happiness at work (HAW). J Bus Res 2018; 107: 162–171.

56.

Srivastava

Mendiratta

Pankaj

, et al. Happiness at work through spiritual leadership: a self-determination perspective. Empl Relat 2022; 44: 972–992.

57.

Rafiq

Sarwar

Rasheed

. Disruption in family life due to despotic leadership and COVID-19: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Kidorui 2022; 52: 2305–2328.

58.

Khizar

Tareen

Mohelska

, et al. Bad bosses and despotism at workplace: a systematic review of the despotic leadership literature. Heliyon 2023; 9(9): e19535.

59.

Hamid

. The effects of servant leadership and despotic leadership on employees’ happiness at work (HAW): the role of job crafting. Asia-Pac J Bus Adm, Epub ahead of print May 1, 2024.

60.

Hancock

Gellatly

Walsh

, et al. Good, bad, and ugly leadership patterns: implications for followers’ Work-Related and Context-Free outcomes. J Manag 2021; 49: 640–676.

61.

Harju

Schaufeli

Hakanen

. A multilevel study on servant leadership, job boredom and job crafting. J Manag Psychol 2018; 33: 2–14.

62.

Chen

Zhang

, et al. Crafting a job among Chinese employees: the role of empowering leadership and the links to work-related outcomes. Behav Sci 2024; 14: 451.

63.

Hetland

Bakker

, et al. Daily transformational leadership and employee job crafting: the role of promotion focus. Eur Manag J 2018; 36: 746–756.

64.

Piwowar-Sulej

Iqbal

. Leadership styles and sustainable performance: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 2022; 382: 134600.

65.

Hobfoll

. The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl Psychol 2001; 50(3): 337–421.

66.

Bakker

Tims

Derks

. Proactive personality and job performance: the role of job crafting and work engagement. Hum Relat 2012; 65: 1359–1378.

67.

Chen

Luo

Zhu

, et al. Inclusive leadership promotes challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behavior through the mediation of work engagement and moderation of organizational innovative atmosphere. Front Psychol 2020; 27(11): 560594.

68.

Halbesleben

JRB

Neveu

J-P

Paustian-Underdahl

, et al. Getting to the “COR”. J Manag 2014; 40: 1334–1364.

69.

Lee

Huang

. Double-edged effects of ethical leadership in the development of Greater China salespeople’s emotional exhaustion and long-term customer relationships. Chin Manag Stud 2020; 14(1): 29–49.

70.

Luu

. Discretionary HR practices and employee well-being. Pers Rev 2020; 49: 43–66.

71.

Ghadi

. Linking job crafting to work engagement: the mediating role of organizational happiness. Manag Res Rev 2024; 47: 943–963.

72.

Cheng

J-C

O-Yang

. Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: the moderating role of perceived organizational support. Int J Hospit Manag 2018; 72: 78–85.

73.

Van Wingerden

Poell

. Employees’ Perceived Opportunities to Craft and In-Role Performance: the mediating role of job crafting and work engagement. Front Psychol 2017; 8. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01876, Epub ahead of print October 25, 2017.

74.

Robledo

Zappalà

Topa

. Job crafting as a mediator between work engagement and wellbeing outcomes: a time-lagged study. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2019; 16: 1376.

75.

Moulik

Giri

. Job crafting for workplace happiness: a study of millennials across Indian service sectors. Busi Perspect Res 2023; 12: 242–260.

76.

Salas-Vallina

Pozo-Hidalgo

Monte

P-G

. High involvement work systems, happiness at work (HAW) and absorptive capacity: a bathtub study. Empl Relat 2020; 42: 949–970.

77.

Zhou

Zhu

. Happiness or trouble? Employee stock ownership plans and employee well-being in new ventures. Curr Psychol 2023; 43: 14470–14484.

78.

Khan

Mubarik

Islam

, et al. How servant leadership triggers innovative work behavior: exploring the sequential mediating role of psychological empowerment and job crafting. Eur J Innovat Manag 2022; 25: 1037–1055.

79.

Zhu

Tan

, et al. Inclusive human resource management and nurses’ innovative behavior during crisis events: the roles of job crafting and shared leadership. J Nurs Manag 2024; 2024: 1–15.

80.

Hobfoll

. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol 2002; 6(4): 307–324.

81.

Khalil

Shah

SMA

Khalil

. Servant leadership, job crafting behaviours, and work outcomes: does employee conscientiousness matters? J Knowl Econ 2023; 15: 2607–2627.

82.

Salas-Vallina

Fernandez

. The HRM-performance relationship revisited: inspirational motivation, participative decision making and happiness at work (HAW). Empl Relat 2017; 39(5): 626–642.

83.

Schmidt

. Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale. College Park: University of Maryland, 2008.

84.

Mookherjee

. The national capital region, Delhi, India: an empirical exploration. In: The Asian megacity region: a conceptual approach, 2020, pp. 149–202.

85.

Slemp

Vella-Brodrick

. The job crafting questionnaire: a new scale to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. Inter J Wellb 2013; 3.

86.

Salas-Vallina

Alegre

. Happiness at work: developing a shorter measure. J Manag Organ 2021; 27(3): 460–480.

87.

Anderson

Gerbing

. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988; 103(3): 411–423.

88.

Fornell

Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981; 18: 39–50.

89.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. Multivariate data analysis. London, UK: Pearson College division, 2010.

90.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88(5): 879–903.

91.

Nunnally

. Psychometric theory. 2.

92.

Liu

Wei

Lee

. A systematic review of work–family enrichment in the hospitality industry. Int J Contemp Hospit Manag 2022; 34: 2884–2913.

93.

Jaleel

Sarmad

. Inclusive leader and job crafting: the role of work engagement and job autonomy in service sector organisations. J Organiz Effectiv Peo Perform. DOI: 10.1108/joepp-12-2022-0361. Epub ahead of print January 22, 2024.

94.

Hofstede

. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Inter Educ Prof 2001.

95.

Tuan

. Tourism employee ambidexterity: the roles of servant leadership, job crafting, and perspective taking. J Hospit Tourism Manag 2022; 51: 53–66.

96.

Masood

Karakowsky

Podolsky

. Exploring job crafting as a response to abusive supervision. Career Dev Int 2021; 26: 174–200.