Neuroleadership Effects on Government Employee Performance: A Work Engagement Mediation Model

  • Authors

    • Yuli Arnida Pohan Doctoral Student, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Indonesia
    • Rosmala Dewi Doctoral Lecturers, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Indonesia
    • Nagian Toni Doctoral Lecturers, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Indonesia
    https://doi.org/10.14419/sfc8wc98

    Received date: November 24, 2025

    Accepted date: December 22, 2025

    Published date: January 4, 2026

  • leader–subordinate relationship quality, neuroscience-informed leadership, work ethic, work engagement, employee performance, public sector

  • Abstract

    This study investigates how the quality of relationships between leaders and subordinates, neuroscience-informed leadership behaviors, and work ethic influence employee performance, with work engagement functioning as a mediating mechanism. Data were collected from 102 public employees in Medan, Indonesia, and analyzed using a variance-based structural equation modeling approach. The findings show that high-quality leader–subordinate relationships, neuroscience-informed leadership practices, and a strong work ethic each have a significant positive effect on employee performance. The results also reveal that leader–subordinate relationship quality and neuroscience-informed leadership enhance work engagement, whereas work ethic does not. Work engagement partially mediates the effects of leader–subordinate relationship quality and neuroscience-informed leadership on employee performance, but does not mediate the influence of work ethic. Overall, the study highlights the importance of relational leadership dynamics and neuroscience-informed leadership behaviors in strengthening work engagement and improving employee performance within the public sector.

  • References

    1. Andrews, R., & Boyne, G. A. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Pub-lic Administration Review, 70(3), 443-454.
    2. Ashkanasy, N. M., Becker, W. J., & Waldman, D. A. (2014). Neuroscience and organizational behavior: Avoiding both neuro‐euphoria and neuro‐phobia. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 909-919.
    3. Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11.
    4. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
    5. Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Thatcher, R. W., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). Differentiating transformational and non-transformational leaders based on neurological imaging. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 244–258.
    6. Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). Organizational neuroscience: Taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of Management, 37(4), 933–961.
    7. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
    8. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Per-formance, 10(2), 99–109.
    9. Boyatzis, R. E., Passarelli, A. M., Koenig, K., Lowe, M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J. K., & Phillips, M. (2012). Examination of the neural substrates activat-ed in memories of experiences with resonant and dissonant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 259–272.
    10. Boyatzis, R. E., Rochford, K., & Jack, A. I. (2014). Antagonistic neural networks underlying differentiated leadership roles. Frontiers in Human Neu-roscience, 8, 114.
    11. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138–157.
    12. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural re-search (pp. 137–164). Sage.
    13. Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Or-ganizational Behavior, 2, 47–74.
    14. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual per-formance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
    15. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.
    16. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
    17. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87–96.
    18. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.
    19. Eisenberger, R., Malone, G. P., & Presson, W. D. (2016). Optimizing perceived organizational support to enhance employee engagement. Society for Human Resource Management and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(2016), 3-22.
    20. Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Ad-ministration Research and Theory, 23(1), 155–187.
    21. Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2011). Understanding employee motivation to innovate: Evidence from front line employees in United States federal agencies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(2), 202–222.
    22. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psy-chologist, 56(3), 218–226.
    23. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leader-ship over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
    24. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
    25. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bak-ker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Psychology Press.
    26. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
    27. Lee, N., Senior, C., & Butler, M. J. R. (2012). Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience: The state of this union. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 213–218.
    28. Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 618–628.
    29. Lindebaum, D., & Zundel, M. (2013). Not quite a revolution: Scrutinizing organizational neuroscience in leadership studies. Human Relations, 66(6), 857–877.
    30. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–349.
    31. MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement: a report to government.
    32. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.
    33. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121.
    34. Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_3), i283–i299.
    35. Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 315–324.
    36. Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimen-sional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(3), 451–489.
    37. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.
    38. Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.
    39. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
    40. Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32.
    41. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
    42. Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), 44–52.
    43. Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130.
    44. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
    45. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). Psychology Press.
    46. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirma-tory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
    47. Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
    48. Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: Ex-ploring the evidence, developing the theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657–2669.
    49. Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Social cognitive neuroscience and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1092–1106.
    50. Walker, R. M., Boyne, G. A., & Brewer, G. A. (2010). Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the UK Labour government's public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 371–393.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Pohan, Y. A., Dewi, R., & Toni, N. (2026). Neuroleadership Effects on Government Employee Performance: A Work Engagement Mediation Model. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(8), 1082-1090. https://doi.org/10.14419/sfc8wc98