Structural Equation Model on Workplace Well-Being of Workers in the Contexts of Self-Efficacy at Work, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Ethical Leadership of Supervisors

Structural Equation Model on Workplace Well-Being of Workers in the Contexts of Self-Efficacy at Work, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Ethical Leadership of Supervisors

Alex C. Diambrang, Jr., Alger P. Dura

Faculty of the Professional Schools, The University of Mindanao, Davao City

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8110129

Received: 31 October 2024; Accepted: 08 November 2024; Published: 09 December 2024

ABSTRACT

This quantitative non-experimental study determines the best-fit structural model for the workplace well-being of workers in the contexts of self-efficacy at work, organizational citizenship behavior, and ethical leadership of supervisors. The study’s respondents were four hundred employees selected through stratified random sampling from a mining company. They responded to a standardized 86-item, four-part survey questionnaire. The descriptive statistics show high levels of self-efficacy, organizational citizenship behavior, ethical leadership, and workplace well-being. Significant Correlation tests discovered a significant and positive relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Through the R2 and F-value, the regression analysis showed how well the explanatory variables predicted workplace well-being. The model showed that sealf-efficacy directly affected workplace well-being. Organizational citizenship behavior had an indirect impact on workplace well-being. Ethical leadership had both direct and indirect effects on workplace well-being. The structural equation model revealed the relevant independent variables and their respective indicators. These are latent variables and observed variables left in the model after SEM: social self-efficacy and occupational self-efficacy for self-efficacy at work, civic virtue, and helping behavior for organizational citizenship behavior, fairness, sustainability concerns, ethical guidance, and integrity for ethical leadership, and work satisfaction and respect for the employee for workplace well-being. This study’s findings apply to workplace conditions in the mining industry. The administrators ought to use these results as yardsticks to achieve workplace well-being.

Keywords: workplace well-being, self-efficacy at work, organizational leadership behavior, ethical leadership of supervisors, structural equation model, mining industry, public administration, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

The neglect of well-being at work in the organization leads to issues like stress, burnout, demotivation, bullying, conflict, substance abuse, and mental disorders (ILO, 2009). In this pandemic, over 60 percent of companies expect a negative impact of COVID-19 on their business. Companies in the country are implementing various measures, including furloughs (20%), reducing the workforce (24%), delaying merit increases (23%), and freezing salaries (18%) (Willis Towers Watson, 2020). These company measures impact workers’ well-being.

There is a close association between workplace well-being and productivity (Adams, 2019); thus, companies ought to take it seriously. Research proved that workplace well-being promotes workers’ better physical, mental, emotional, and physical health conditions that empower them to deliver optimum performance than those who are not (Davis, 2019; Mental Health Foundation of Australia, State of Victoria, 2018).

Workplace well-being is not only the truancy of accidents or injuries at work. The overall condition of Occupational Safety and Health in the workplace boosts performance and productivity (Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, 2013; Institute for Health and Productivity Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2015). Parker and Hyett (2011) described the drivers of workplace well-being as work satisfaction, organizational respect for the employee, employer care, and intrusion of work into private life.

Research consistently shows a strong link between ethical leadership and well-being, organizational citizenship behavior, and self-efficacy. For instance, studies by Kelloway et al. (2013) and Gillet et al. (2018) have confirmed the positive influence of ethical leadership on employee well-being. Ethical leaders promote positive behaviors and contribute to high employee work satisfaction (Fu et al., 2020). Singh et al. (2019) found that organizational citizenship behavior, which refers to discretionary actions that benefit the organization, is positively associated with workplace well-being. Employees who engage in such behaviors experience high levels of well-being (Huang et al., 2021). Yurcu et al. (2015) have shown that self-efficacy, which denotes self-reliance to succeed, relates positively to workplace well-being. Employees with high levels of self-efficacy experience well-being in their work environments (Ashfaq et al., 2021).

Research confirms a close association between ethical leadership and well-being at work (Kelloway et al., 2013; Gillet et al., 2018); organizational citizenship behavior and workplace well-being (Singh et al., 2019); and self-efficacy and workplace well-being (Yurcu et al., 2015).

However, the researcher has not found a study that combined these four variables in one setting, specifically in the local mining industry. Therefore, a research gap exists in the mining industry area. Given this information, this study has now become urgent. The researcher feels that identifying the factors necessary for workplace well-being in the mining industry is crucial, considering the dangerous nature of work in mining. Employers will benefit from the results. Currently, companies are striving towards survival. Workers are the company’s front liners whose well-being will influence the company’s outcome. This study will offer them better ideas.

This study aims to develop structural model of workplace well-being from the exogenous variables, namely, ethical leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, and self-efficacy at work. Moreover, this study wants to explore the following objectives: first, to assess the level of workplace well-being of workers in the mining industry in terms of work satisfaction, respect for the employees, employer care and the intrusion of work into private life; second, to assess the level of self-efficacy of workers in the mining industry in terms of social self-efficacy, emotional self-efficacy and occupational self-efficacy; third, to ascertaion the level of organizational citizenship behavior of workers in mining in terms of helping behavior, civic virtue and compliance; fourth, to describe the level of ethical leadership of supervisors in the mining industry in terms of people orientation, fairness, power-sharing, sustainability concerns, ethical guidance, role clarification and integrity; fifth, to determine the significance of the relationship between self-efficacy at work, organizational citizenship behavior, supervisors’ ethical leadership, and workers’ workplace well-being; sixth, to determine the significance of the independent latent variables’ influence on workers’ workplace well-being; The final step is to establish the best-fit structural model of workplace well-being of workers in the context of independent latent variables of the study.

A significance level of 0.05 was used to assess the research hypothesis. First, no significant relationship exists between ethical leadership and workplace well-being, organizational citizenship behavior and workplace well-being, and self-efficacy at work and workplace well-being. Second, the exogenous variables have no significant influence on the endogenous variable in their singular or collective capacities. Third, the mining industry has no best-fit structural model of workplace well-being.

The literature review wants to establish knowledge and understanding of the current research that would enable the researcher to determine the research already done in the field and the unknown elements. This literature review will help plan, develop, and refine this study. Ethical leadership involves employees to build relationships on respect and trust. Influential leaders believe that acting with compassion, justice, integrity, equity, honesty, and fairness results in sustainable success (Duggan, 2018). To many, ethical leadership equates to moral leadership or leading with a sense of extraordinary fairness. It means doing the right thing (Berghofer, 2019; Plante, 2009). Ethical leadership acts according to moral principles in everyday business life and decision-making (Blackman, 2018).

Ethics is supposed to be the dogma of leadership. However, the challenge of moral leadership is enormous. Leaders and managers are often confronted with pressures on ethical work problems. Elvin and Howard (2019) noted that 63% of managers operate contrary to their moral code at some stage in their careers. Forty-three percent have violated their organization’s values, and 9% have broken the law. In recent years, several high-profile ethical breaches have placed values and ethics firmly in the public eye. Thus, company decisions and actions are increasingly subject to intensified customer, shareholder, and stakeholder attention (Elvin & Howard, 2019).

Studies on ethical leadership have increased in importance as unethical leadership behaviors have begun to surface—for example, analysts said that the shutdown of ABS-CBN by the Philippine solons was due to unfair labor practices and many other alleged violations (Gutierrez, 2020).

In the international scene, high-profile corporate CEO scandals have shocked the world. These CEOs have gravely violated ethical leadership principles that brought them to prison: Kenneth Lay of Enron, Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom, Dennis Kozlowski and Scott Thompson of Tyco, and Conrad Black of Hollinger Inc. (Segal, 2019).

Researchers have investigated ethical leadership using various indicators. In this study, ethical leadership deals with ethical guidance, fairness, integrity, people orientation, powersharing, role clarification, and sustainability (Kalshoven, Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2011). People orientation as an indicator of ethical leadership means emphasizing the team’s involvement, respect, and development (Wilson, 2017).

People-oriented leaders build strong relationships with their members. They are best known for motivating their subordinates. They coach, affiliate, and participate. Their purpose is to build relationships with workers in the operation processes of the organization (Leonard, 2020). People-oriented leadership is effective in operating team efforts. The leader executes a supporting role to subordinates to motivate them to become productive and friendly employees (Management Consultancy International, 2015). Workers want to be part of a fair organization.

Fairness and justice are parallels. Justice is evident in the promotion of goodwill and harmony among workers. Fairness involves giving workers equal recognition opportunities and establishing acceptable standards for mutually effective outcomes (Legacy Business Cultures, 2016). Fair leaders earn the respect of subordinates as they play by the rules. These leaders put a premium on modeling workers’ practices and expected behaviors. Workers under this leadership feel secure and at ease (Reh, 2019).

Fairness makes the work environment worthwhile and meaningful (Lips-Wiersma, Haar & Wright, 2020). It makes for an effective manager and worker. Fair managers can motivate workers to engage in their work with conscious care and constancy. More than this, just leadership is significantly associated with effective leadership (Gutierrez, 2019). Power-sharing usually applies to government operations. It is a common practice in leadership and management today, and organizations use it in their management initiatives. The perspective is to share the power to let democracy operate in the organization (Agarin & McCulloch, 2020; Cardinali, 2019).

One hindrance to power-sharing is the reluctance of senior workers to share their powers with the new workers because of distrust issues (Feenstra, Jordan, Walter & Stoker, 2020). Senior employees do not trust junior employees can do the job well enough, resulting in power instability and conflict (Feenstra et al., 2020). The idea of power-sharing is the inclusion of all workers. All employees, including junior employees, need recognition as part of the organization and are credited for their contributions.

Organizations lacking power-sharing must review their policies to smooth the process (Agarin & McCulloch, 2020; McCulloch, 2020). Ethical leadership concerns itself with sustainability in all aspects of the organization. Companies demonstrate this concern through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Ata Ujan, 2019). For example, in the mining industry, sustainability concerns involve taking care of the environment and the people directly and indirectly affected by the organization.

The company’s preservation requires conserving the environment upon which it stands. Some professions and organizations embed sustainability in their codes of ethics (Bowles, Boetto, Jones & McKinnon, 2018), resulting in responsible leadership and ethical decision-making for the sustainability of the organization and the employees as well (Breakey, 2017; Vihari & Rao, 2018). Issues of unethical practices threaten the existence of organizations, especially those with poor legal enforcement, regulations, and institutional frameworks (Gupta, 2017; Shah & Alotaibi, 2018). Ethical guidance promotes integrity, professionalism, and respect for diversity. Integrity makes decision-making transparent.

Professionalism results in pride in teamwork and high standards of competencies. Respect for diversity destroys discrimination and promotes tolerance in the workplace (UNESCO, 2016). These guidance principles serve as guiding principles upon which all employees base their actions. Moreover, these ethical guidelines protect the employees and the organization (Pratt et al., 2017; Schick-Makaroff & Storch, 2019).

Role clarification is vital in organizations to avoid overlapping functions and prevent stress and turnover of workers (Hassan, 2020). Role clarity promotes a clear job description for employees, resulting in orderliness in the workplace (Mañas et al., 2018; Shin, Hur, Park & Hwang, 2020). Role clarification ends perplexity and promotes collaboration among workers and teams (Hudson et al., 2017). Therefore, the administration must establish a clear employee job description to maintain order in the workplace. Without role clarification, workers will become emotionally exhausted, which may result in turnover (Shin et al., 2020). Integrity is vital in building ethical organizations (Huberts & van Montfort, 2020). Integrity is the exercise of truthfulness, whether in words or actions (Merriam-Webster, 2019). Integrity is always a hot topic, especially concerning government actions, because of questions on corruption and good governance (Huberts, 2018).

Almost all organizations, private or public, have the concept of integrity in their mission statements, but not all can keep them in their actual operations (Du, Li, Lin & Wang, 2018). Many corporations failed to deliver truthful actions. Workers and customers look for reliable transactions to develop loyalty and genuine relationships (Sosik, Chun, Ete, Arenas & Scherer, 2019) and organizational trust (Nešić, Veljković, Meško & Bertoncel, 2020).

On the other hand, Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) were the first to introduce the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) construct. They postulated altruism and general compliance as the two dimensions of OCB that can improve the effectiveness of organizations. The same authors introduced revisions, resulting in a five-factor model that included altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship.

However, further investigations by other authors on OCB have developed psychometric properties of the organizational citizenship behavior scale within the Asian context, with three factors: helping, civic virtue, and compliance (Kumar & Shah, 2015). Helping behavior is workplace behavior of helping colleagues with their tasks at work. These behaviors are optional, depending on the desire of the worker to help. Employees can help each other, their leaders, and their clients (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Helping behavior is a prosocial behavior intended to help other people. A concern for other people’s rights, feelings, and welfare characterizes these actions. Other examples are empathy and concern for others (Cherry, 2010). Civic virtue is a political philosophy centered on personal qualities associated with effectively functioning the civil and political order or preserving its values and principles. One example of civic virtue is paying taxes. Citizens must participate in society by performing activities supporting the state.

Political theorists agree that the total of a person’s well-being is a product of social cooperation, or civic virtue, taking part in ruling and being ruled (Banyan, 2021). In the organizational context, civic virtue denotes workers’ positive involvement in the organization’s sustainability and longevity (Law, Wong, & Chen, 2005; Organ et al., 2006). Compliance behavior demands workers to follow the rules and end counterproductive work behaviors that damage employees and the organization (Organ et al., 2006). Compliance behavior in organizations leverages competition (Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Organ, 1990, 1997). Cherry (2021) restricted behavioral compliance from obedience. Compliance does not rely upon being in a position of authority over others, but obedience does. Behavioral compliance is a relatively new way of thinking that tackles the ethics-driven transformation of corporate culture (Cherepanova, 2018).

Self-efficacy determines how a person thinks, behaves, and feels about a situation. The person can produce what he wants based on his beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Watts, 1996). It is the belief that a person can succeed despite the circumstances. This belief can elevate a person’s determination to succeed (Cherry, 2020). Health institutions use self-efficacy as a health belief model to achieve or restore health conditions (LaMorte, 2019). Research shows that self-efficacy influences achieving positive workplace behavior (Loeb, Stempel & Isaksson, 2016). Accordingly, self-efficacy is domain-specific (Bandura, Freeman & Lightsey, 1999) and changes depending on the individual’s exposure to different environments (Cherry, 2020). Thus, in the organizational context, leaders must monitor the working environment to correct it and influence desirable human behavior immediately.

Moreover, Loeb (2016) has identified some determinants of self-efficacy, such as social efficacy, emotional self-efficacy, and occupational self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy denotes interpersonal relationships, particularly the individual’s confidence in his capability for social tasks that initiate and sustain interpersonal relationships (Loeb, 2016). A person with social self-efficacy can create social contacts based on his previous experiences, accomplishments, social persuasion, and psychological and emotional situations (Loeb, Stempel & Isaksson, 2016).

Emotional self-efficacy denotes beliefs in managing negative emotional states, especially when facing hardships or misfortune. High emotional self-efficacy makes a person an overcomer of negative emotions (Bandura et al., 2003). A person with high emotional self-efficacy has less anxiety, worry, and depression (Muris, 2002; Tahmassian & Moghadam, 2011). In the context of the workers, their exposure to positive environments can help develop and boost their self-efficacy. With a high level of self-efficacy, workers become more connected to other people and are happier (Nowland & Qualter, 2020; Jin, Zhang, Wang & An, 2020). Occupational self-efficacy denotes individuals’ perceived ability to perform their jobs positively and effectively (Hartman & Barber, 2020; Loeb, 2016).

Occupational self-efficacy is related to professionalism, skills development, job engagement, and positive organizational attitudes (Hartman & Barber, 2020).

Workplace well-being is a hot issue in mining industries because of the dangerous nature of work. Howden Group (2021) stated that 8% of all fatal accidents happened in the mining industry. Mine cave-ins, explosions, poor air quality, and extreme temperatures are just a few of the dangers that miners face daily. These significantly affect miners’ work-life balance and well-being (Mathew & Natarajan, 2014). Suggestively, companies and organizations, not only mining industries, should concern themselves with workplace well-being to keep their workers and employees emotionally, economically, and physically healthy and motivated (Cerrone & Manna, 2018; Martin, 2020; McGregor & Doshi, 2018).

Fundamentally, workplace well-being includes employer care intrusion of work into private life questions, respect for the employee, and work satisfaction (Parker & Hyett, 2011). Workers experiencing these changes become happy and productive (Nielsen, Nielsen, Chidiebere, Marja, Evelina, & Isaksson, 2017). Work satisfaction is workers’ contentedness with their job based on how they like it. Work satisfaction is a well-researched topic in human resource management as it impacts job performance (Eliyana, Sawitri & Bramantyo, 2018).

Besides affecting job performance, researchers also investigated the drivers of work satisfaction, and they found leadership as a driver of work satisfaction (Al-Asadi, Muhammed, Abidi & Dzenopoljac, 2019; Baptiste, 2019; Ilham, 2017; Saleem, 2015). Work satisfaction prevents worker turnover and, thus, produces longevity and success in the organization (Ahmed, 2018). Several factors influence work or job satisfaction, such as supervisor-subordinate relationship, adherence to the duty roster, and personal development opportunities of workers are the crucial drivers of work satisfaction (Heimerl, Haid, Benedikt & Scholl-Grissemann, 2020). Other drivers of work satisfaction are regular wages, employment, respect for the rights of employees, communication and relations with colleagues, and a fair work atmosphere (Janicijević, Kovacević & Petrović, 2015).

Respect is one of the most important values in the workplace. It creates a better work environment that increases collaboration and productivity, a fair environment, and employee satisfaction (Khan, 2020; Villanova University, 2019). Respect does not discriminate (Villanova University, 2019). Despite the rank, all workers deserve the same respect (Glade, Koch, Zaandam, Simon, Manno, Rumril & Rosen, 2020). The government mandates employer care for employees. Employer care is a must for all organizations. For example, in the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8282, or the Social Security Law, mandates statutory contributions for all employees such as Phil. Health, Social Security System, and Pag-ibig contribution.

Besides these, employees need other forms of care to uplift well-being, such as a positive work environment and sound communication systems and channels to bring comfort, happiness, and understanding (Tober, 2019). The intrusion of work into private life questions- although this is a negative construct within the context of well-being, researchers investigated how much interference work and the workplace have on the worker’s private life. Parker and Hyett (2011) enumerated the indicators for the intrusion of work into personal life questions: work eating into the intimate life of workers, feeling exhausted in organizing work time to meet demands, excessive pressure for meeting targets, finding it difficult to wind down, negative thoughts about work, and weak work attachment. Work-life balance is the essence of well-being; thus, it is imperative to watch the encroachment of work into the personal lives of workers to prevent irreparable damage in the physical, mental, emotional, familial, and social aspects that could affect well-being (Eldor et al., 2020; Fan, Mustard & Smith, 2019; Mathew et al., 2014; Cerrone et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2020; McGregor et al., 2018).

Ethical leadership can augment the ethical behavior of employees through wielding role models and setting forth the reward punishment and mechanisms, laying the foundation of high-quality leader-member relationships, extending to employees support, care, trust, and resources, and lastly, urging employees to reward them with their positive attitudes and behaviors that based on the principle of reciprocity (Fu, Long, He & Liu, 2020). With this, employees who follow ethical leadership are anticipated to face higher expectations about their work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior (Bedi, Alpaslan, Green, 2016).

Moreover, ethical leadership can influence the wellbeing of employees by providing a positive work climate (Kaffashpoor & Sadeghian, 2020). On the other hand, organizational citizenship behavior is positively related to psychological health (Kumar, Jauhari & Singh, 2016). Garg, Rastogi, and Kataria (2013) also found that OCB can cultivate a worthwhile life among workers. Furthermore, research indicated a positive relationship between workplace well-being and self-efficacy, with a stronger relationship among executives with sustainability practices and vice versa (Singh, Pradhan, Panigrahy & Jena, 2019).

This study is anchored on the Workplace of Well-being (WoW) framework developed by Brand, Fleming and Wyatt (2015). The authors adopted complex adaptive system theory principles to explore the eight interrelated workplace characteristics that allow a workplace system to self-organize into more health-promoting behavior patterns. These characteristics are physical self-care, family and loved ones, social network, spirituality, community engagement, recreation and hobbies, work, and learning and self-development.

This framework was an output of a study on Tailoring Healthy Workplace Interventions to Local Healthcare Settings: A Complexity Theory Informed Workplace of Well-being Framework. The WoW framework is also applicable in this study. The WoW framework proposes that system-level behavior change in a complex adaptive system is feasible when the system can delve into new ways of behaving. Encouraging the workplace’s tendency to self-organize into new behaviors will help workers adapt to an evolving environment with new and suitable ways of behaving without becoming overwhelmed by change. This would directly lessen workers’ stressors and give way to new and healthier workplace behavior patterns.

Understanding this particular workplace enabler and the barriers to its self-organization would likely emerge and promote healthy behaviors that emphasize new ways of behaving in a particular workplace condition. Healthy workplace interventions must consider the actors that either limit or enable the work dynamics to function by putting into a new perspective of interacting updated dynamic properties with the current one, ensuring that it will be embodied in the workplace system.

Instilling a healthy workplace intervention will only ensure that sustainable behavior is changed if it can self-organize and consider new behavior patterns. In a workplace, an intervention should target on “us versus them” culture and provide feedback loops to support it, encouraging better quality and quantity of communication within parts of the system, addressing the physical environment issues such as limited time off, unease feeling of unheard and uncared by the organization, and finally, observing the social rules that create a current workplace behavior. In these ways, an intervention assures an enabling system of self-organization, which supports staff behavior to be changed at a system level and thus produces a conducive workplace environment that caters to healthy behavior as a result of an intervention.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Legend:

This study is socially valuable because it could enhance the well-being of workers within the mining industry. Improving worker well-being has positive ripple effects beyond the workplace, contributing to healthier communities and families. Notably, this study is significant to the following: First is for mining industry executives and managers. The results of this study are crucial to executives and managers in mining companies responsible for overseeing workforce management, safety protocols, and organizational culture. They can use the insights from the study to implement strategies that promote employee well-being, ethical leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior within their organizations. The second is for supervisors and team leaders. Supervisors and team leaders play a crucial role in day-to-day operations within mining companies. They can benefit from understanding how their leadership style and behavior impact the well-being and performance of their teams. By fostering ethical leadership practices and promoting a supportive work environment, supervisors can contribute to a safer and more engaged workforce. The third is for supervisors and team leaders. Supervisors and team leaders play a crucial role in day-to-day operations within mining companies. They can benefit from understanding how their leadership style and behavior impact the well-being and performance of their teams. By fostering ethical leadership practices and promoting a supportive work environment, supervisors can contribute to a safer and more engaged workforce.

Fourth is for human resources professionals. Human resources professionals are tasked with recruiting, training, and retaining talent within mining companies. They can leverage the findings of this study to design employee development programs, performance management systems, and wellness initiatives that address the factors influencing workplace well-being and organizational behavior. The Fifth is for government agencies and regulators. Government agencies and regulators overseeing the mining industry are vested in promoting worker safety, health, and ethical business practices. They can use the insights from this study to inform policy decisions, regulations, and enforcement efforts aimed at improving working conditions and reducing risks within the mining sector and lastly, the cademic researchers and scholars. Academic researchers and scholars in the fields of organizational psychology, management, and industrial-organizational psychology can draw upon the findings of this study to expand upon existing theories, develop new research questions, and impart knowledge to elevate in such areas. Future research can build upon the framework established by this study to explore additional variables, contexts, and outcomes corresponding to well-being within the workplace and its organizational behavior.

METHODS

Research Respondents

The respondents in this study were 400 workers at AMCI. A stratified random sampling method was employed. Stratified random sampling divides a population into subgroups (Zhao et al., 2019). Random samples are taken in the same proportion to the population from each group or stratum. The members in each stratum must have similar characteristics and attributes (Rahman et al., 2022). Stratified random sampling occurs when a researcher selects a small group for the study (Iliyasu & Etikan, 2021). This subset represents the larger population. Organizing a population into groups with similar characteristics assists the researcher in saving time and money whenever the population being studied is too large to analyze individually. Stratified random sampling helps by allowing the researcher to organize the groups based on similar characteristics, whereby a random sampling is then taken from a stratum or group (Nickolas, 2021). In addition, the researcher used the natural division of the workers at the AMCI. Divisions are the existing departments in the company. The sample selection criterion was years of service. Those chosen worked in the company for three years, irrespective of their employment status.

This study employed quantitative methods to explore the relationships between different variables. Moreover, the study uses descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation, to provide an overview of the levels of the variables under investigation. Additionally, inferential statistics, including Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Pearson r), were used to find out the significance of relationships between variables. Multiple regression analysis assessed the importance of predictor variables in the relationship (Ligan, 2022; Ligan, 2018; Poliquit, Ligan, & Bandiola, 2022). Furthermore, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to develop the most suitable model for understanding workplace well-being. By utilizing SEM, the researcher aimed to capture the complex relationships and interactions among the variables, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the factors influencing the workplace well-being of workers in the mining industry. The combined use of descriptive and inferential statistics and SEM ensured a robust analysis and enhanced the validity of the study’s findings.

Studies that aim to build structural models employ Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) as a suitable analytical approach (Manuel et al., 2022; Plaza-Saligumba et al., 2022). SEM enables examining relationships between the observed and unobserved variables, generating meaningful, valid results (Gana & Broc, 2019; Martynova, 2018; Mueller & Hancock, 2018; Palma-Alicer et al., 2022). Furthermore, SEM facilitates the identification of factors that contribute to causal relationships between dependent and independent variables, utilizing mathematical models and relevant theories (Verma & Pearl, 2022). Researchers can achieve consistency in their research endeavors by employing SEM, ensuring a good fit between their theoretical framework and empirical data (Fan et al., 2019; Raposo & Barceló, 2021). This analytical approach enhances the reliability and robustness of the study’s findings, offering valuable insights into the complex relationships and mechanisms that underpin the variables of interest.

Moreover, regression analysis was conducted to determine workplace well-being predictors, considering the three independent variables: ethical climate, innovative work behavior, and work engagement. The analysis identified the variables that had the most substantial predictive power. In both Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and regression analysis, the standard outer loading requirement, as outlined by Hair Jr et al. (2021) and Hair et al. (2021), dictates outer loading should exceed 0.70. This study adhered to this requirement to ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement models utilized.

The locale of the study is Davao de Oro, particularly at the Apex Mining Company, Incorporated (AMCI), situated in Masara, Maco. AMCI is owned and run by Filipinos. The mining company is located at the municipalities of Maco and Mabini. The AMCI mines and mills the gold, silver, ores, metals, and minerals and has been conforming to ISO 14001:2015, ISO 9001, and OHSAS 18001.

Material and Instrument

Four instruments were used in this study: the ethical leadership questionnaire by Kalshoven et al. (2011), the organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire by Kumar et al. (2015), the self-efficacy questionnaire by Loeb (2016), and the workplace well-being by Parker & Hyett(2011). The ethical leadership questionnaire has 26 questions, organizational citizenship behavior has 12, self-efficacy at work has 19, and workplace well-being has 29 questions. Overall, there were 86 questions. In answering the instrument, the respondents will respond using a five-point Likert scale: 5(strongly agree), 4(agree), 3(neither agree nor disagree), 2(disagree), and 1(strongly disagree). Each variable has its interpretation of the descriptive data.

With the assistance of knowledgeable validators, the questionnaire was created in a highly detailed manner to make it easy and comfortable for respondents to answer all of the questions and comprehend the purpose of the study. The pilot study outcomes, which involved calculating the Cronbach alpha coefficient to determine the accuracy of the scales, were 0.929 for organizational citizenship behavior, 0.965 for ethical leadership, and 0.953 for workplace well-being. The Cronbach Alpha values demonstrated the instrument’s validity and reliability for all three variables.

A 5-point Likert scale assessed employees’ ethical leadership, self-efficacy at work, organizational citizenship behavior, and workplace well-being. The results were broken down into the following categories: 4.20–5.00, or Very High, meaning that measures are always manifested; 3.40–4.19, or High, meaning that measures are often manifested; 2.60–3.39, or Moderate, indicating that measures can sometimes be manifested; 1.80–2.59, or Low, meaning that measures are seldom manifested; and 1.00–1.79, or Very Low, meaning that measures are never manifested.

Design and Procedure

The researcher followed the standards when conducting this survey. First, the researcher sought the Dean’s endorsement of the Professional Schools to conduct this research. Then, the researcher wrote AMCI management and attached the endorsement from the Dean of the Professional Schools to seek permission to conduct the study. Once approved, the researcher sought the assistance of the human resource manager to determine and identify respondents. After this, the researcher sent notification letters to AMCI department heads, attaching approval from the head office and the list of names of those randomly selected employees. Although it was during the COVID-19 pandemic that the gathering of data happened, workers still reported to their respective workplaces by skeletal scheduling. Therefore, the researcher was able to gather the data with much care and followed the company protocol. Since the movements and close contacts were limited, the researcher has attached the informed consent form (ICF) on the first page of the questionnaire. In that document, respondents could read the aim of the study and the purpose of their participation. The ICF emphasized the voluntary participation of respondents and that they could cancel their participation at any time without penalty. The moment the respondents signed the ICF, they could answer the questionnaire. Encoding, analysis, and interpretation followed. The data analysis used statistical tools to answer the study’s objectives. Mean was used to measure levels of ethical leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, work self-efficacy, and workers’ workplace well-being. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to determine the relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables. Multiple Regression was used to determine significant predictors of workplace well-being. Structural Equation Modeling was used to explore the best-fit model of workplace well-being.

The researcher observed all the assessment points in the research ethical considerations stipulated by UMERC. The researcher sought consent from the department heads to conduct this research. Participation was voluntary, and respondents could choose to participate or withdraw their participation should they have changed their minds. No undue force or pressure was applied to make employees participate. Participation was a voluntary and free decision. The researcher informed the respondents fully about the process and overall nature of the study before starting the data collection. Respondents could withdraw from the study anytime they wished. Recruitment of respondents began once the researcher obtained the administration’s approval. Respondents were asked to fill out the Informed Consent Form (ICF) as evidence of their consent before the data gathering.

The informed consent outlined the purpose of the study, as well as the potential risks and benefits. However, the survey did not pose a risk to the respondents because the questions asked were not incriminatory. The questionnaire did not require the respondents’ names or identifying data or profiles. This technique helped address confidentiality issues. The respondents did not receive any direct benefit from this study; however, they could benefit from its organizational changes. The researcher had no conflict of interest in conducting this study, except that it was required to complete a doctoral degree. The study did not have an outside sponsor that might influence the data and conclusions. The researcher ensured the readers of the study’s originality by acknowledging all authors of related pieces of literature and adequately citing the results of studies. Additionally, the research office will test the similarity index of the final research output using the Turnitin plagiarism checker.

Furthermore, the researcher will submit the study protocol to UMERC for further ethical evaluation of the paper. The researcher honestly disclosed the study’s objectives to the respondents, and data were properly collected and analyzed. Additionally, the research office will thoroughly examine the paper for quality control. The researcher has acknowledged those who contributed to the success of the study. In publishing this paper, the researcher would be the primary author, and the adviser would be the secondary author. No one is allowed to publish this paper without the consent and inclusion of the author’s name.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered are presented in this section. The order of presentation follows that of the study objectives. The independent latent variables are self-efficacy at work, organizational citizenship behavior, and ethical leadership of supervisors. In contrast, the latent dependent variable is workplace well-being. They are latent variables because their inference relies on the measured or observed variables. The observed variables are called indicators, manifest variables, or dummies that take a value that denotes a significant categorical effect, thus shifting the outcome.

In addition, Tables 1 to 4 indicate the mean scores and standard deviations: the former describes the level of both latent and observed variables and the latter indicates the dispersion of data from the mean and quantifies the variability of the data. A lesser standard deviation denotes the clustering of data around the mean, while a high standard deviation signifies the dispersion of data away from the mean. For example, one S.D. indicates that 68% (value of one standard deviation) of the scores from the survey are within the normal (standard) curve (more of the responses in the survey were the expected answers). However, an S.D. larger than 1 indicates that the responses are much more varied than the expected answers. For example, an SD of 3 denotes that the scores are three standard deviations from the mean. Therefore, a standard deviation (S.D.) precisely summarizes descriptive data.

Meanwhile, the rest of the tables in this section display the results of the hypothesis testing: Correlation test results using the Pearson correlation coefficient, which measured the linear association between variables. The multiple regression analysis analyzed the connection between one dependent and several independent variables. Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) analyzed structural relationships between latent constructs and the observed or measured variables using the combination of factor and multiple regression analyses.

Self Efficacy at Work

Presented in Table 1 is the data on the workers’ self-efficacy in the mining industry. The overall mean score is 3.94, with a standard deviation of 0.47, derived from the high mean scores of all three indicators: social self-efficacy (M=3.94; SD=0.56), emotional self-efficacy (M=3.84; SD=0.54), and occupational self-efficacy (M=4.04; SD=0.53). The results signify that respondents often manifest the behaviors stated in the survey regarding the variables measured.

Table 1. Level of Self-Efficacy at Work of Workers in the Mining Industry

For example, social self-efficacy involves behaviors or acts such as starting a conversation with an acquaintance, asking someone at work for help, getting people in to listen to opinions, cooperating with people at work with different perceptions of things, and managing conflict situations with people at work. On the other hand, emotional self-efficacy involves correctly identifying, examining and tackling the causes of negative emotions at work and getting into the mood that best suits the situation. Finally, occupational self-efficacy involves remaining calm amidst difficulties, confronting problems on the job, handling whatever comes on the job, meeting the goals set for the job, and feeling prepared for most of the job demands. Descriptive statistics show that the respondents often manifested these behaviors.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Presented in Table 2 is the data on the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of workers in the mining industry. Again, the overall mean score is high (M=4.15; SD=0.48), meaning the respondents often manifest the indicators under OCB. The standard deviation suggests that there is less variability in the sample. The table also shows that the indicator, helping behavior, has a Very High mean score of 4.39 and a standard deviation of 0.46. The result means the respondents always manifest the behaviors or values stated in the survey under that indicator. Also, the S.D. score shows that responses are more or less the same. The respondents always willingly help fellow professionals with work-related problems, are always willing to help newcomers get oriented toward their job and are always ready to lend a helping hand, always avoid creating.

Table 2. Level of Organization Citizenship Behavior of Workers in the Mining Industry

Problems with coworkers include always being mindful of their behaviors and respecting others’ rights.

On the other hand, civic virtue has a mean score of 3.88 and an SD of 0.74. These values denote high civic virtue, with less variability in the responses. Civic virtue means keeping abreast of organizational changes, updating with organizational announcements and memos, and attending meetings that help the department even if attendance is not compulsory.

On compliance behavior, the mean score is 4.18, with an SD of 0.56. Again, these values indicate the high compliance behavior of the respondents with less variability in their responses. This means that they demonstrate the behaviors stated in the survey. Compliance behavior means that respondents often obey organizational rules, do not take long breaks while on duty, and work attendance is above the norm.

Ethical Leadership of Supervisors

Table 3 presents the data on the ethical leadership of supervisors in the mining industry. The overall high mean score of 3.97 and an SD of 0.54 denote that the respondents have often observed their supervisors manifesting ethical behaviors at the workplace. These behaviors include ethical guidance, fairness, integrity, people orientation, power sharing, role clarification, and sustainability concerns. All of these indicators got high mean scores as well.

Table 3. Level of Ethical Leadership of Supervisors in the Mining Industry

Items in the survey for people orientation (M=3.88; SD=0.66) include the supervisor’s genuine concern for the employee’s development, interest in how an employee feels and work-related emotions, personal contact with employees, and attention to personal needs. On the other hand, items on fairness (M=.94; SD=0.66) include the supervisor’s actions to hold employees accountable and responsible for problems over which employees are at fault or have control.

Survey items on power-sharing (M=3.97; SD=0.63) include supervisors allowing subordinates to participate and influence critical decisions and seeking advice from subordinates concerning organizational strategies. As for concern for sustainability (M=4.04; SD=0.62), items include the supervisor’s liking to work in a friendly environment, showing concerns about sustainability issues, and motivating subordinates to recycle items and materials.

The items for ethical guidance (M=3.99; SD=0.63) are as follows: supervisors clearly explain integrity-related codes of conduct, expectations from employees, and integrity guidelines, as well as consequences for unethical behaviors. As for role clarification (M=3.99; SD=0.61), the statements include each group member’s expected performance and an explanation of each member’s expectations. Finally, integrity (M=3.98; SD=0.69) has these statements in the survey: supervisors keep their promises, can be trusted to do things, and honor their words and commitments.

Workplace Well-being

Table 4 displays the data on the workplace well-being of workers in the mining industry. Like the other latent variables, workplace well-being obtained a high mean score of 3.72 and a standard deviation of 0.49. In addition, all four measured variables also got high mean scores. For example, work satisfaction has a mean score of 3.79 with a standard deviation of 0.62. Statements under work satisfaction are the following: fulfilling salary, activities that give a sense of direction and meaning, work increases the sense of self-worth, freedom and independence to re-craft jobs according to needs, work that makes employees feel flourishing as a person, effectiveness at work daily, challenges at work that advance skills, and personal connections to the organizational values at work.

Table 4. Level of Workplace Well-being of Workers in the Mining Industry

Moreover, respect for the employees has a high mean score of 3.87 with a standard deviation of 0.70. The mean score means that the respondents often trust senior people, believe in the organization’s principles, and are satisfied with how the employers respect their staff. In addition, employer care also got a high mean score (M=3.94; SD=0.65). The mean score signifies that respondents often feel their boss is caring and willing to hear them, is empathetic, understands employees’ work concerns, and believes their employer cares about staff wellbeing.

On the other hand, the intrusion of work into private life has a high mean score of 3.27 and a standard deviation of 0.78. The mean score reveals that employees’ work eats into their private lives, and they feel stressed meeting their work-time demands. In addition, they often feel excessively pressured to meet targets, so they find it difficult to wind down and think negatively about outside work hours. However, despite these circumstances in their work, they still felt they could separate easily from their work for a day’s leave.

Relationship between the Independent Latent variables and Workplace Well-being

This study used Pearson’s correlation coefficient to determine the magnitude of the association, or correlation, and the direction of the relationship between two continuous variables. The Pearson r test limits or defines the degree of correlation. For example, there is a perfect correlation if the value is near ±1. In a perfect correlation, there is a lock-in relationship in that both variables increase with the pace (for positive relationships) or decrease (for negative relationships). Also, the degree of correlation is high or strong if the coefficient value is between ±0.50 and ±1. In another case, there is a medium correlation between variables if the coefficient value is between ±0.30 and ±0.49. A low or slight degree of correlation lies below +.29. Finally, there is no correlation for a zero value. Meanwhile, the two asterisks symbolize that the relationship is significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Tables 5.1 to 5.3 display the results of correlation tests of the exogenous latent variables: self-efficacy at work, organizational citizenship behavior, and ethical leadership of supervisors. The endogenous latent variable is workers’ workplace well-being. These are latent variables because they cannot be measured directly but are measured only through their manifest or observed variables. For example, the manifest/observed/measured variables of self-efficacy at work are social, emotional, and occupational self-efficacy. At the same time, the manifest/observed/measured variables for workplace wellbeing are employer care, intrusion of work into private life, respect for the employees, and work satisfaction.

Table 5.1. Significant Relationship between Self-efficacy and Workplace Well-being

The Table 5.1 data is the relationship between self-efficacy at work (SEW) and workers’ workplace well-being (WPWB). The correlation test yielded a linear relationship with a coefficient of .667 (66.7%) and a p-value of 000 (p ≤ 0.01). The result means a high/strong relationship exists between SEW and workers’ WPWB. Therefore, the increase in SEW (66.7%) would lead to a proportional increase in workplace well-being.

Furthermore, examining the specific relationships between the manifest or observed variables, the data show positive and significant relationships between all variables. For example, the relationship between social self-efficacy and all the manifest variables of workplace well-being yielded a correlation coefficient of .479, significant at p ≤ 0.01. The degree of relationship is medium or moderate, which means the 47.9% increase in workers’ social self-efficacy at work can also increase their well-being by 47.9%. Likewise, the relationship of emotional self-efficacy at work and workplace well-being is high (r=.656; p ≤ 0.01). The same applies to occupational self-efficacy and workplace well-being (r=.604; p ≤ 0.01). Therefore, increasing self-efficacy would lead to a proportional increase in workplace well-being.

The results imply that social, emotional, and occupational types of self-efficacy have linear relationships with workplace well-being. This relationship does not state any cause and effect (because correlation tests do not measure cause and effect), but the two variables, self-efficacy and workplace well-being, move in tandem and change together at a constant rate.

Table 5.2 displays the correlation data between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and workplace well-being (WPWB). Again, the data show a high-level relationship between the two variables (r=.587; p= ≤ 0.01). This means that WPBP will also increase by 58.7% because the increase in OCB is 58.7%, and their relationship is linear and proportional.

Table 5.2. Significant Relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Well-being

The specific manifest variables of OCB are helping behavior (H.B.), civic virtue (CV), and compliance (C). In contrast, the manifest variables of workplace well-being (WPWB) are work satisfaction (W.S.), respect for employees (RE), employer care (E.C.), and the intrusion of work into private life (IWPL).

Data show medium correlations between helping behavior and WPWB at r=.423, p= ≤ 0.01, and compliance and WPWB (r=.476; p= ≤ 0.01). However, the relationship between civic virtue and WPWB is high (r=511; p= ≤ 0.01).

Table 5.3 shows the correlation between supervisors’ ethical leadership and workplace well-being. The table shows that all the relationships between the manifest variables of ethical leadership of supervisors and workplace well-being are high. The test yielded an overall result of r=.752; p= ≤ 0.01, which means that the ethical leadership of supervisors is strongly associated with workers’ workplace well-being. This means that an increase of 75.2% in the ethical leadership of supervisors will result in a proportional increase of 75.2% in workers’ workplace well-being.

Table 5.3. Significant Relationship between Ethical Leadership of Supervisors and Workplace Well-being

These results have implications for institutional leadership. In this study, respondents are sensitive to their supervisors being people-oriented, fair, share power, concerned with sustainability, guided by ethics, clear role, and integrity.

Influence of the Exogenous Latent Variables on Workplace Well-being

Table 6 presents multiple regression analysis results. Multiple regression analysis aims to model the relationship of several independent (regressor) variables and a single dependent (response) variable. Moreover, the objective is to use the values of independent variables to predict the value of the only dependent variable. The coefficients’ size and sign show how much each predictor variable contributes to the variance in the dependent variable after the statistical removal of all the effects of other predictor variables in the model. The standardized form (β) signifies the relative importance of each predictor variable. Both unstandardized and standardized coefficients convey that for each one-unit increase in the predictor or explanatory variable, the response or criterion variable will be one unit higher. For example, in Table 6, the unstandardized coefficient for self-efficacy at work is B=.278. This means that for every .278 unit increase in self-efficacy at work (SEW), workers will report a .278 unit increase in workplace well-being (WPWB).

Table 6. Influence of the Independent Latent Variables on Workplace Well-being

Similarly, for every .079 unit increase in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), workers will report a .079 unit increase in workplace well-being (WPWB). Moreover, .472 units increase in ethical leadership of supervisors; workers will report .472 units higher in workplace well-being.

The t-test determines the significance of the linear (direct) relationship between the predictor and the response variables. Of the three predictors in this study, the linear (direct) relationship between self-efficacy at work and workplace well-being (t=5.983; p=.000) and ethical leadership of supervisors and workplace well-being (t=11.723; p=.000) are statistically significant. However, the linear relationship between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and WPWB is nonsignificant. In other words, if taken per predictor variable, only self-efficacy at work and ethical leadership of supervisors are predictors of workplace well-being in the mining industry.

Nevertheless, the goodness-of-fit statistics (coefficient of determination or R2 [R-squared]) revealed that each independent (explanatory or exogenous) variable (SEW, OCB, and ELS) could predict workplace well-being by 61.9% (R2=.619). Data in the table implies that the influence of the combined exogenous latent variables is 61.6% (∆R=.616). The R-square is necessary because the model has three independent variables. The more variables in the model, the more the value of the r-squared will be adjusted. The adjusted R2 (∆R) is always equal to or lesser than the R2 value. Essentially, the F-statistic (F=214.377), which is significant at p= ≤ 0.01, shows the predictive capacity of the combined predictor variables on workplace well-being.

The Best Fit Structural Model of Workplace Well-being

Five models were generated in this study. Among the generated models of five, Model 5, designated as Figure 3, is the best-fit model for workplace well-being. Table 7 presents the summary of the measures of goodness of fit of the five generated models. These are the criteria for the basis of the best-fit model: P-value (>0.05), Chi-Square/ Degrees of Freedom(CMIN/DF, 0<value<2), Goodness of FitIndex(GFI, >0.95), Comparative Fit Index (CFI, >0.95), Normed FitIndex(NFI, >0.95), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, >0.95), Root Mean Square of Error Approximation(RMSEA, <0.05), and P-close(>0.05).

The values of each model are seen in the table. Models 1 to 4 did not meet the criteria because their values were too big or too small. So far, only Model 5 met the measures of goodness of fit with a p-value greater than 0.05 (p=.077), a CMIN/DF <2 (1.320), GFI >0.95 (.978), CFI >0.95 (.994), NFI >0.95 (.979), TLI >0.95 (.991), RMSEA <0.05 (.031), and P-close >0.05 (.950).

Table 7. Summary of Goodness of Fit Measures of the Five Generated Models

Figure 2. Best Fit Structural Model of Workplace Well-being

Legend:

Below are the standard criterion indices used to determine the model’s goodness of fit.

Chi-square large value P value > 0.05 Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom (CMIN/DF) < 0.05 Normative Fit Index > 0.95 Comparative Fit Index > 0.95 Goodness of Fit Index > 0.95 Tucker-Lewis Index > 0.95 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.05 P close > 0.05

Table 8 is showing both direct and indirect effects of the independent latent variables on workplace well-being. Looking at Figure 3 as the reference, Table 9 shows that work self-efficacy directly affects workplace well-being by .49.5 or 49.5%. In addition, organizational citizenship behavior indirectly affects .558, or 55.8% of workplace well-being. Finally, supervisors’ ethical leadership, directly and indirectly, affects workplace well-being. The total effect is .719 or 71.9% (derived from its direct effect of .489 or 48.9% and indirect effect of .230 or 23%. Looking at this data, the ethical leadership of supervisors has the most influence on workplace well-being. The findings imply the importance of supervisors being mindful in dealing with the workers because their leadership significantly affects workers’ well-being.

Table 8. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Independent Latent Variables on Workers’ Workplace Well-being in the Best Fit Model

Table 9 presents the estimates, standard errors(S.E.), beta coefficients (B), critical ratios(C.R.), and p-values for the confirmatory structural analysis (CFA). The CFA is a multivariate statistical procedure that identifies the measured variables related to the specific latent variable and specifies the required number of factors. For example, the critical ratio (-.254) and the p-value (.799) in path analysis from supervisors’ ethical leadership to self-efficacy are nonsignificant. Also, intrusion of work into private life (IWL) is not a significant measured variable for workplace well-being (p-value=.076). However, the rest of the estimated parameters are statistically significant.

The data in Table 10 confirms the interrelationships of latent variables and the measured variables belonging to each latent construct. For example, significant relationships between the latent variables are as follows: ethical leadership of supervisors and organizational citizenship behavior, ethical leadership and workplace well-being, organizational citizenship behavior and self-efficacy at work, and self-efficacy at work and workplace well-being.

Table 9. Estimates of Variable Regression Weights in Generated Best Fit

Legend:

On the other hand, the latent variables have the following measured variables: self-efficacy at work (social self-efficacy and occupational self-efficacy), organizational citizenship behavior (helping behavior and civic virtue), ethical leadership of supervisors (integrity, ethical guidance, sustainability concerns, and fairness), and in workplace well-being (work satisfaction, and respect for the employee).

Self-efficacy at Work, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Ethical Leadership of Supervisors and Workplace Well-being of Workers in the Mining Industry

The study’s results showed that all latent variables had high mean scores. The results indicate that the miners in the sample frequently exhibited self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior at work. Additionally, the miners reported that their supervisors often demonstrated ethical leadership, contributing to high workplace well-being. The study results imply that workers in the mining industry who have high self-efficacy and engage in organizational citizenship behavior are anticipated to be more committed to the organization and have a higher level of job satisfaction. Additionally, the positive impact of ethical leadership on employee engagement suggests that supervisors who demonstrate ethical behavior can cultivate a positive work environment and promote well-being among workers. However, it is essential to note that this study was conducted in the mining industry and may not necessarily be generalizable to other industries or contexts (Liu, 2019; Kumar Pradhan, 2021; Na-Nan, 2021; Sarwar, 2020).

Individuals with high self-efficacy strongly believe in their ability to succeed in various areas of life. They are more likely to realize the positive result described by these authors. Bandura (1997) and Bandura & Watts (1996) explain that self-efficacy is the belief that a person can succeed despite challenging circumstances. This belief can influence a person’s thoughts, behaviors, and feelings about a situation and increase their determination to succeed (Cherry, 2020). LaMorte (2019) claimed that self-efficacy positively affects restoring health. Loeb, Stempel, and Isaksson (2016) noticed positive behaviors of workers with high self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is domain-specific (Bandura, Freeman & Lightsey, 1999) and can change depending on an individual’s exposure to different environments (Cherry, 2020). So, leaders in organizations must monitor the working environment to influence desirable human behavior. There are several determinants of self-efficacy, emotional self-efficacy, occupational self-efficacy, and social efficacy (Loeb, 2016).

Social self-efficacy can help initiate and sustain interpersonal relationships. A person with high social self-efficacy can create social contacts based on their previous experiences, accomplishments, social persuasion, and psychological and emotional states (Loeb et al., 2016). Emotional self-efficacy can help manage negative emotional states when facing hardships or misfortunes. A person with high emotional self-efficacy can better overcome negative emotions (Bandura et al., 2003) and experience less anxiety, worry, and depression (Muris, 2002; Tahmassian & Moghadam, 2011). On the other hand, occupational self-efficacy can help workers perform their jobs effectively and positively. It is associated with professionalism, skills development, job engagement, and positive organizational attitudes (Hartman & Barber, 2020). People with high self-efficacy can be more successful compared to those without it.

On the other hand, the typical characterization of people with high OCB is being selfless, courteous, and conscientious (Verlinden, 2020). They tend to go above and beyond expectations in their job roles. They are often motivated to contribute to the organization’s success (Florea, 2015). However, it is essential to note that the characteristics of people with high OCB may vary depending on the organization’s context and the job roles.

Alternatively, supervisors’ high-level ethical leadership can positively impact employees and the working environment. Supervisors who lead ethically set a positive example for their employees, increasing trust, respect, and job satisfaction. Ethical leadership can also promote a culture of fairness and accountability, which can help reduce conflicts and unethical behavior in the workplace, and employees tend to engage more in their work (Schaubroeck et al., 2023). Ethical leadership can lead to a more positive and productive work environment (Adıgüzel et al., 2021; Páez Gabriunas, 2017).

Finally, workplace well-being can positively impact workers. Studies have found that workplace well-being is critical to employee engagement, job satisfaction, and overall organizational success. Organizations with a strong focus on employee well-being had higher employee retention and productivity, suggesting that prioritizing employee well-being will give organizations favorable returns (Aryanti et al., 2020; Kooij et al., 2013).

Relationship between the Independent Latent Variables and Workplace Well-being

This study shows a high degree of correlation between self-efficacy and well-being. This result is congruent with the other results by different authors. For instance, research has shown that self-efficacy can influence positive behavior in the workplace (Loeb, Stempel & Isaksson, 2016). Specifically, occupational self-efficacy refers to an individual’s ability to perform their job effectively and positively and directly affects organizational commitment (Hartman & Barber, 2020; Loeb, 2016). Workers with high self-efficacy exhibit positive workplace behavior with a solid dedication to the organization, resulting in improved work performance, increased motivation, and greater job satisfaction (Guarnaccia et al., 2018; Na-Nan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021).

Similarly, organizational citizenship behavior also has a high correlation with workplace well-being. Duan et al. (2019) found that helping behavior in the workplace is not a one-dimensional concept but has two dimensions: proactive and reactive. Proactive helping behavior is when an employee takes the initiative to help others before being asked. In contrast, reactive helping behavior is when an employee helps others respond to a request or need (Belleville et al., 2020). The study also found that these two dimensions of helping behavior affect employees’ well-being differently. Specifically, proactive helping behavior was more strongly related to positive well-being outcomes like job satisfaction and engagement. In contrast, reactive helping behavior was more strongly related to negative well-being outcomes such as emotional exhaustion. The study’s authors demonstrated that these two dimensions of helping behavior are distinct and have unique relationships with employees’ well-being, which supports the idea of discriminatory validity.

Conversely, despite both being high, Abun et al. (2021) found no relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and workplace well-being. This finding offers a different perspective on the dynamics within organizations. This result implies several key considerations. It suggests that OCB and workplace well-being can exist independently of each other. If both OCB and well-being are high, a ceiling effect might be at play, where the benefits of increased OCB do not significantly impact well-being because it is already at a high level. This research by Abun et al. (2021) highlights the complexity of the relationship between OCB and workplace well-being. It underscores the importance of considering various factors when examining workplace dynamics.

Lastly, this study found a high relationship between ethical leadership and workplace well-being. This study is also congruent with the study of Fu et al. (2020), who found a positive correlation between ethical leadership and employee well-being at work. Fu et al. (2020) pointed out that ethical leadership, characterized by fairness, integrity, and concern for employees, strongly correlates with employee well-being. This suggests that leaders acting ethically create a good working environment where employees feel respected, supported, and valued, thereby enhancing their overall well-being. Ethical leaders likely create an organizational culture that supports employee well-being through direct actions and setting standards for behavior throughout the organization. This creates a ripple effect where ethical practices become ingrained in the organizational fabric, benefiting employee well-being (Ashfaq et al., 2021; Yousaf et al., 2019).

Influence of the Exogenous Latent Variables on Workplace Well-being

This study found a significant influence of Self-efficacy, ethical leadership, and OCB on workplace well-being. Indeed, the interplay between these variables can significantly influence workplace well-being. Each of these elements contributes uniquely, and their combination can create a particularly effective environment for enhancing employee well-being.

Self-efficacy’s role in the workplace, particularly its influence on stress management, job satisfaction, and overall well-being, is particularly important in organizational psychology and management studies. As highlighted in recent research, including Kondratowicz et al.(2022), Singh et al.(2019), Chudzicka-Czupała et al.(2020), and Marshall et al.(2020), self-efficacy is not merely a personal trait but a pivotal factor influencing various dimensions of employee performance and workplace dynamics.

The concept of self-efficacy, originally proposed by Bandura (1977), centers on believing in individual ability to accomplish and attain tasks. This belief fundamentally shapes how employees perceive and respond to stressors in the workplace. Individuals with high self-efficacy have different perspectives on tasks and define them as good opportunities that must be avoided. This perspective is crucial in stress management, as it influences employees’ coping strategies and resilience in work-related stress. Furthermore, high self-efficacy can mitigate the effects of job demands, as individuals with a strong belief in their capabilities are more likely to employ effective problem-solving strategies and seek support when needed, thereby reducing the psychological strain associated with workplace challenges (Kondratowicz et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2019).

The link on self-efficacy and job satisfaction is well-established in the literature. High self-efficacy employees often have a more positive outlook on their job roles and responsibilities. They are more confident in meeting job demands and less likely to feel overwhelmed by job-related challenges. This confidence translates into a greater sense of job control and autonomy, key factors in job satisfaction. It also fosters a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment, as employees are more likely to set and achieve challenging goals, further enhancing well-being and job satisfaction (Chudzicka-Czupała et al., 2020; Marshall et al., 2020).

Ethical leadership, as a construct, plays a transformative role in shaping organizational culture and employee behavior. Such leadership’s impact extends beyond compliance with ethical standards; it fundamentally alters how employees perceive their work environment and their roles. Sharma et al. (2019) emphasize this by highlighting how ethical leadership fosters trust, fairness, and respect, which are crucial elements in creating a positive work environment. When leaders exhibit ethical behaviors, they set standards and expectations for the entire organization. This standard permeates through various levels, influencing how decisions are made, how conflicts are resolved, and how success is defined and achieved. Stress and workplace conflict are often minimized in environments where employees feel valued and treated fairly, leading to enhanced well-being. The trust engendered by ethical leadership also encourages open communication and collaboration, which are vital for a healthy workplace dynamic.

Furthermore, the influence of ethical leadership extends to promoting and reinforcing Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB). Sarwar et al. (2020) and Shafique et al. (2020) provide insight into how ethical leaders inspire and cultivate ethical behaviors and OCB among employees. This occurs as employees observe and internalize the ethical practices modeled by their leaders, heading to a heightened sense of moral responsibility and commitment to the organization. Such a culture encourages employees to go beyond their formal job responsibilities, engaging in behaviors that support their colleagues and the organization. These behaviors, in turn, contribute to a cooperative and supportive work environment, enhancing overall organizational effectiveness. Importantly, this dynamic creates a virtuous cycle: as ethical leadership promotes OCB, the resulting positive work environment further reinforces the value of ethical conduct, benefiting both individual well-being and organizational performance.

OCB involves discretionary behaviors that are not part of formal job requirements but help create a positive social and working environment. This can include helping colleagues, volunteering for additional tasks, or supporting organizational initiatives (Belleville et al., 2020; Na-Nan et al., 2021). OCB involves discretionary behaviors that are not part of formal job requirements but help create a positive social and working environment. This can include helping colleagues, volunteering for additional tasks, or supporting organizational initiatives. Positive OCB can improve morale and better team dynamics, key components of workplace well-being (Verlinden, 2020).

Combining self-efficacy, ethical leadership, and OCB creates a synergistic effect that can significantly enhance workplace well-being. Each component contributes to creating an environment where employees feel capable, motivated, and supported to contribute positively, leading to a healthier, more productive, and satisfying work experience.

The Best Fit Structural Model of Workplace Well-being

There is a model of workplace well-being, as prove by the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). The structural equation modeling using AMOS rejected the null hypothesis that there is no model for workplace well-being. This current study proved that workers’ self-efficacy, organizational citizenship behavior, and ethical leadership are predictors of workplace well-being.

The proposed model in Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) involves observed variables related to self-efficacy (Social Self-Efficacy – SSE, Occupational Self-Efficacy – OSE), ethical leadership (Fairness – FAI, Integrity – INT, Power-sharing – POS, Sustainability Concerns – SUC, Respect for the Employee – RFE, Ethical Guidance – ETG), and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (Helping Behavior – HEB, Civic Virtue – CIV) with work satisfaction (WOS) and the intrusion of work into private life (IWL) as outcome variables, presents a comprehensive framework to understand the interplay between these constructs in an organizational context.

These represent the belief in one’s ability to function effectively in social settings and occupational tasks. High levels of SSE and OSE have been linked to increased job satisfaction and lower work-life conflict. Research by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002) emphasizes the relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction, while Bandura (1977) highlights the role of self-efficacy in effective workplace functioning (Gerbino, 2020).

Variables such as Fairness (FAI), Integrity (INT), Power-Sharing (POS), Sustainability Concerns (SUC), Respect for the Employee (RFE), and Ethical Guidance (ETG) underpin the construct of ethical leadership. Ethical leadership has been positively correlated with increased employee satisfaction and engagement. Studies by Brown, Treviño, & Harrison(2005), and Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, and Salvador(2009) highlight the importance of ethical leadership in fostering positive workplace outcomes, including reduced work-life conflict and enhanced job satisfaction.

OCB, as represented by Helping Behavior (HEB) and Civic Virtue (CIV), refers to discretionary behaviors that are not formally recognized by the formal reward system but contribute to organizational effectiveness. Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, and Blume (2009) discuss how OCB contributes to better team dynamics and overall job satisfaction.

The SEM model suggests a complex relationship where self-efficacy and ethical leadership could, directly and indirectly, influence work satisfaction (WOS) and the intrusion of work into private life (IWL). High self-efficacy can lead to better job performance and satisfaction, while ethical leadership likely enhances employee morale and reduces work-life conflict. OCB, encouraged by these factors, further contributes to job satisfaction and potentially mitigates negative aspects of work intruding into personal life.

WOS is a direct indicator of employee morale and productivity. The variables in the model, particularly ethical leadership and self-efficacy, are expected to impact WOS positively. On the other hand, IWL is an indicator of work-life balance, and the model could provide insights into how self-efficacy and ethical leadership might help reduce the negative intrusion of work into personal life.

Therefore, the SEM model provides a holistic view of how self-efficacy, ethical leadership, and OCB interact and influence key workplace outcomes. Understanding these relationships is crucial for organizational leaders and HR professionals to foster environments that enhance employee satisfaction and work-life balance. Further empirical research, particularly in diverse organizational settings, would be valuable in validating and refining this model.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the conclusions of the study.

First, on high levels of self-efficacy, OCB, ethical leadership, and workplace well-being in the mining industry point towards a positive and supportive work environment. This environment promotes employee well-being and job satisfaction and contributes to the organization’s effectiveness and success. It highlights the importance of ethical leadership and a supportive work culture, especially in industries with challenging work conditions.

Second, a positive and strong correlation between self-efficacy, OCB, ethical leadership, and workplace well-being in the mining industry indicates a robust and healthy organizational environment. This environment not only supports the individual growth and satisfaction of employees but also contributes to the overall effectiveness, safety, as well as the success of the organization. It underscores the importance of nurturing these interrelated factors to foster a positive and productive workplace, especially in industries with challenging working conditions.

Third, the model demonstrates a strong and statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy at work, organizational citizenship behavior, ethical leadership, and workplace well-being. The high R-squared value indicates that these factors can explain a significant portion of the variability in workplace well-being. The proximity of the adjusted R-squared to the R-squared value reaffirms the importance of each of these predictors in explaining workplace well-being. Overall, the results suggest that interventions or strategies aimed at enhancing self-efficacy, promoting OCB, and cultivating ethical leadership within organizations are likely to have a significant positive impact on workplace well-being, especially in settings similar to the context of this study.

The study will contribute to the mining industry and government agencies that issue mining permits, like the MGB or Mines and Geosciences Bureau, by identifying the drivers of the workplace well-being of workers. The study also addresses the organizations’ shortage in recognizing well-being at work, which gives rise to issues such as stress, burnout, alcohol and drug abuse.

Lastly, the study confirms the anchor theory to the findings due to its social and organizational relevance to the researcher. This research benefits the respondents of this study as the findings will shed light on workplace conditions in the mining industry vis-à-vis leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, self-efficacy at work, and workplace well-being. Second, the organization will also benefit from this study. They may use the findings of this study to enhance or improve the company’s workplace conditions, including the human resource policies for the betterment of workers. Policymakers may also use this as a guide in crafting a policy on the mining industry.

Based on the conclusion that Self-Efficacy at Work (SEW), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), and Ethical Leadership of Supervisors (ELS) significantly predict workplace well-being, several recommendations can be made to enhance these factors in organizational settings:

Strengthening Self-Efficacy at Work. Implement targeted training and development programs that build individual competencies and confidence in job-related tasks. Encourage a positive feedback and recognition culture, where employees’ achievements and efforts are acknowledged, thus reinforcing their sense of self-efficacy.

Promoting Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Foster a workplace environment that values and recognizes OCB. This can be achieved through reward systems that acknowledge individual achievements and contributions toward team support and organizational well-being. Create opportunities for employees to engage in voluntary, extra-role activities that benefit the organization or their colleagues, enhancing their engagement and sense of belonging.

Cultivating Ethical Leadership. Develop leadership training programs that emphasize ethical decision-making, integrity, and moral leadership. This includes training on handling ethical dilemmas and fostering an ethical work culture. Ensure that organizational policies and practices align with ethical standards and values. Leaders should model these values consistently to set a precedent for the rest of the entire organization.

Creating Supportive Work Environment. Encourage open communication and transparency within the organization. Employees must be comfortable in voicing concerns and ideas without fear. Implement well-being programs that address both physical and mental health aspects, recognizing that employee well-being is multifaceted.

Regular Monitoring and Feedback. Regular surveys and assessments should gauge employee well-being, self-efficacy, and leadership and citizenship behavior perceptions. Use the feedback to make informed decisions and continuously improve organizational practices and policies.

Leadership Accountability. Hold leaders accountable for fostering ethical practices and supporting employee well-being. Leadership performance evaluations should include metrics related to ethical behavior and promoting a positive work culture.

Future researchers. Future research in this area has the potential to significantly contribute to both academic knowledge and practical applications in organizational settings. By expanding the scope, methodology, and depth of research, scholars can provide valuable insights that help organizations foster environments where employee well-being and organizational effectiveness are synergistically enhanced.

These recommendations can help organizations enhance workplace well-being by focusing on key predictive factors. Strengthening self-efficacy, encouraging OCB, and cultivating ethical leadership is integral to creating a productive, satisfying, and ethically sound work environment. These strategies will benefit employees individually and contribute to the organization’s success and reputation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher wishes to express his heartfelt gratitude to the following people who have extended their full support in realizing this piece of work.

Dr. Alger Dura, his adviser, who has been persistent in his supervision and guidance towards the completion of this study, for the patience, motivation, time, knowledge, and effort he had shared from the start of its making;

Joel B. Tan, DPA, the chairman of the thesis committee, and the panel members Dr. Alberto Bandiola, Dr. Glenne Lagura, Dr. Lorraine Grace Ugsang, and Dr. Jed Acero, for their noteworthy suggestions, which guided the researcher in the course of his study;

Dr. Rinante Genuba, his statistician, for helping him find out statistical results;

Engr. Uldarico Relenete, Vice-President/ Resident Manager and Engr. Frank Fermin for encouraging the researcher to continue and pursue his studies;

Engr. Fianza Lab-oyan, Geology Division Manager, Engr. Isaias Cabatana, Mine Asst. Division Manager, and Ernesto Javier, Mine Division Manager for the support and approval to conduct the study;

The underground Miners and Supervisors, who were the respondents of the study, for extending their dynamic participation in filling up the questionnaire, which greatly contributed to coming up with a successful study;

To Dr. Victoria Ligan for being his exceptional mentor from the beginning of his Doctorate studies.

To ma’am Munria Lauban-Banto, ma’am Glo Sillote, doctoral classmates, and Apex Mining officemates for the moral and spiritual support.

His Family, his source of strength and inspiration, for their love and understanding;

Most of all, I to the most loving Divine Creator for the wisdom, good health, and strength that helped and guided him from the conceptualization to the realization of this study.

ACD

DEDICATION

This piece of work is heartily dedicated to my dad Alex Sr. and mom Arcelita; sisters; tata, lailai, kenken, jamjam and brother koikoi; to my six little nephews tamtam, timtim, tomtom, matmat, bb koi and bb kz and most of all to the Heavenly Father who gives wisdom and strength to make this very possible.

APPROVAL SHEET

This dissertation entitled, “STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL ON WORKPLACE WELL-BEING OF WORKERS IN THE CONTEXTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AT WORK, ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND ETHICAL LEADERSHIP OF SUPERVISORS ” prepared and submitted by ALEX DIAMBRANG, JR., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in Doctor in Public Administration, has been examined and is hereby endorsed for approval and acceptance.

ALGER P. DURA, DPA

Adviser

__________________________________________________________

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

APPROVED by the Panel of Examiners on Oral Examination with a grade of PASSED.

GLENNE B. LAGURA, DPA                                  JOEL B. TAN, DBA

Chairperson                                                               Member

JED P. ACERO, DPA                                        LORRAINE GRACE UGSANG, PhD

Member                                                                                         Member

______________________________________________________________

ACCEPTED in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in Master in Public Administration.

Comprehensive Exam: PASSED

MA. LINDA B. ARQUIZA, EdD

VP-RPC

May 2024

REFERENCES

1. Adams, J. M. (2019). The value of worker well-being. Public Health Reports, 134(6), 583–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354919878434
2. Agarin, T., & McCulloch, A. (2020, January 1). How power-sharing includes and excludes non-dominant communities: Introduction to the special issue. International Political Science Review. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119873075
3. Ahmed, M. N. (2018). The Essence of Ethical Leadership and Its Influence in Achieving Employees’ Job Satisfaction. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2(3), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.2(3).53-66.2018
4. Al-Asadi, R., Muhammed, S., Abidi, O., & Dzenopoljac, V. (2019). Impact of servant leadership on intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 40(4), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2018-0337
5. Ata Ujan, A. (2019, January 1). CSR symbolic potential and business sustainability. Cogent Business and Management. Cogent OA. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1699299
6. Banyan, M. E. (2021). Civic virtue. political philosophy. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/civic-virtue
7. Baptiste, M. (2019). No Teacher Left Behind: The Impact of Principal Leadership Styles On Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Success. Journal of International Education & Leadership, 9(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eue&AN=135154244&site=eds-live
8. Bedi A., Alpaslan C. M., Green S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. J. Bus. Ethics 139 517–536. 10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1
9. Berghofer, D. (2019). Doing the right thing. Retrieve from http://www.ethicalleadership.com/DoingRightThing.htm
10. Blackman, A. (2018). What is ethical leadership? How to be a more ethical leader? Retrieved from https://business.tutsplus.com/tutorials/what-is-ethical-leadership–cms-31780
11. Bowles, W., Boetto, H., Jones, P., & McKinnon, J. (2018). Is social work really greening? Exploring the place of sustainability and environment in social work codes of ethics. International Social Work, 61(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872816651695
12. Brand, S. L., Fleming, L. E., & Wyatt, K. M. (2015). Tailoring Healthy Workplace Interventions to Local Healthcare Settings: A Complexity Theory-Informed Workplace of Well-being Framework. Scientific World Journal. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/340820
13. Breakey, H. (2017). Responsible Leadership and Ethical Decision-making. Research in Ethical Organizations, 17, 21–35. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/book/10.1108/S1529-2096201717
14. Cardinali, D. (2019, December 5). Equity, power-sharing, and renewal of civil society. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/equity power sharing and renewal of civil society#
15. Cerrone, C., & Manna, E. (2018). Pay for Performance with Motivated Employees. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2017-0190
16. Cherepanova, V. (2018, July 20). Behavioral compliance: Training and communications. Complianceandethics.org. https://complianceandethics.org/behavioral-compliance-training-and-communications/
17. Cherry, K. (2010, December 30). The basics of prosocial behavior. Verywell Mind; Verywellmind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-prosocial-behavior-2795479
18. Cherry, K. (2021, June 22). The psychology of compliance. Verywell Mind; Verywellmind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-compliance-2795888
19. Davis, T. (2019). What is well-being? Definition, types, and Well-being skills. https://bit.ly/32V9pyg
20. Du, J., Li, W., Lin, B., & Wang, Y. (2018). Government integrity and corporate investment efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Research, 11(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2017.03.002
21. Duggan, T. (2018). What are the key elements of ethical leadership? Retrieved from https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/key-elements-ethical-leadership-organization-8819.html
22. Eliyana, A., Sawitri, D., & Bramantyo, H. (2018). Is Job Performance Affected By Job Motivation and Job Satisfaction? KnE Social Sciences, 3(10). https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i10.3435
23. Elvin, C. & Howard, S. (2019). Added values: The importance of ethical leadership. https://www.ibe.org.uk/userimages/20130610bitcilmaddedvaluestheimportanceofethicalleadership.pdf
24. Fan, J. K., Mustard, C., & Smith, P. M. (2019). Psychosocial work conditions and mental health: Examining differences across mental illness and well-being outcomes. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 63(5), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxz028
25. Fan, Y., Brown, R., Das, K., & Wolfson, J. (2019). Understanding trip happiness using smartphone-based data: the effects of trip-and person-level characteristics. Findings.
26. Feenstra, S., Jordan, J., Walter, F., & Stoker, J. I. (2020). Antecedents of leaders’ power sharing: The roles of power instability and distrust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 157, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.005
27. Fu, J., Long, Y., He, Q., & Liu, Y. (2020). Can Ethical Leadership Improve Employees’ Well-being at Work? Another Side of Ethical Leadership Based on Organizational Citizenship Anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01478
28. Garg, P., Rastogi, R., & Kataria, A. (2013). Promoting Citizenship Behaviors in Workplace: The Relevance of Organizational Justice and Psychological Well-being of Employees. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 2(2), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/2278682115593439
29. Glade, R., Koch, L. C., Zaandam, A., Simon, L. S., Manno, C. M., Rumril, P. D., & Rosen, C. C. (2020). Recommendations from employees with disabilities for creating inclusive workplaces: Results from a grounded theory investigation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 53(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201087
30. Gupta, K. (2017). Are oil and gas firms more likely to engage in unethical practices than other firms? Energy Policy, 100, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.009
31. Gutierrez, J. (2020, July 10). Philippine congress officially shuts down leading broadcaster. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/asia/philippines-congress-media-duterte-abs-cbn.html
32. Gutierrez, S. (2019). The mediational roles of engagement and LMX in the relationship between leadership fairness and leadership effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 79(7-A(E)), http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc14&NEWS=N&AN=2018-21179-227Kal
33. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021a). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook (p. 197). Springer Nature.
34. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., Ray, S., … & Ray, S. (2021b). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook, 1-29.
35. Harvard Business Review Analytic Services. (2013). The impact of employee engagement on performance. https://hbr.org/resources/pdfs/comm/achievers/hbr_achievers_report_sep13.pdf.
36. Hassan, S. (2020). An Evaluation of the Effects of Work Stress, Work Load and Work Environment on Employee’s Turnover: The Role of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 73(5), 716–725. https://doi.org/10.7176/jrdm/64-03
37. Heimerl, P., Haid, M., Benedikt, L., & Scholl-Grissemann, U. (2020). Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction in Hospitality Industry. SAGE Open, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020982998
38. Howden Group. (2021). We need to talk about mining: Death, dangers & prevention. Www.howden.com. https://www.howden.com/en-us/articles/mining/we-need-to-talk-about-mining
39. Huberts, L. W. J. C. (2018). Integrity: What it is and Why it is Important. Public Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1477404
40. Hudson, C. C., Gauvin, S., Tabanfar, R., Poffenroth, A. M., Lee, J. S., & O’Riordan, A. L. (2017). Promotion of role clarification in the Health Care Team Challenge. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31(3), 401–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1258393
41. Ilham, R. (2017). The Impact of Organizational Culture and Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 50–53. https://doi.org/10.18178/joams.6.1.50-53
42. Iliyasu, R., & Etikan, I. (2021). Comparison of quota sampling and stratified random sampling. Biom. Biostat. Int. J. Rev, 10(1), 24-27. Institute for Health and Productivity Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2015). From evidence to practice: workplace wellness that works. https://www.transamericacenterforhealthstudies.org/docs/default-source/wellness-page/from-evidence-to-practice—workplace-wellness-that-works.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
43. International Labor Organization (ILO). (2009, June 15). Workplace well-being. Ilo.org. https://www.ilo.org/safework/areasofwork/workplace-health-promotion-and-well-being/WCMS_118396/lang–en/index.htm
44. Janicijević, N., Kovacević, P., & Petrović, I. (2015). Identifying organizational factors of job satisfaction: The case of one Serbian company. Economic Annals, 60(205), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.2298/EKA1505073J
45. Kaffashpoor, A., & Sadeghian, S. (2020). The effect of ethical leadership on subjective well-being, given the moderator job satisfaction (a case study of private hospitals in Mashhad). BMC Nursing, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00496-w
46. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007
47. Khan, S. A. (2020, October 26). What is the importance of Respect in the Workplace & How it Affects Employees (Explained). Legacy Business Cultures. https://legacycultures.com/importance-of-respect-in-the-workplace-and-how-it-affects-employees/
48. Kumar, M., Jauhari, H., & Singh, S. (2016). Organizational Citizenship Behavior & Employee Well-being. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev., 51(4), 594–608.
49. Legacy Business Cultures. (2016, February 9). Dimensions of leadership: Fairness. Legacy Business Cultures. https://legacycultures.com/dimensions-of-leadership-fairness/
50. Leonard, K. (2020, July 2). Advantages & disadvantages of people-oriented leadership styles. CHRON. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-peopleoriented-leadership-styles-10299.html
51. Ligan, V. O. (2022). The condition of Joji Ilagan Career Center Foundation’s partner community: a hierarchical regression analysis. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 7(4), 110-114.
52. Ligan, Victoria O. (2018). “Organizational Politics, Leadership Style Preference, and Public Service Motivation: A Structural Model on Organizational Commitment of Government Employees in Davao City.” Asian Intellect Research and Education Journal 6, 116-127
53. Lips-Wiersma, M., Haar, J., & Wright, S. (2020). The Effect of Fairness, Responsible Leadership and Worthy Work on Multiple Dimensions of Meaningful Work. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3967-2
54. Loeb, C. (2016). Self-efficacy at work: Social, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. DIVA. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A963036&dswid=6307
55. Loeb, C., Stempel, C., & Isaksson, K. (2016). Social and emotional self-efficacy at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12274
56. Management Consultancy International. (2015, October 22). People-orientated leadership is effective leadership. MCI. https://mci.edu.au/people-orientated-leadership/
57. Mañas, M. A., Díaz-Fúnez, P., Pecino, V., López-Liria, R., Padilla, D., & Aguilar-Parra, J. M. (2018). Consequences of team job demands: Role ambiguity climate, affective engagement, and extra-role performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02292
58. Manuel, G. C., Ligan, V. O., & Bandiola, A. N. (2022). “A causal model on work engagement of police commissioned officers in Region 11 concerning leadership, personality traits, and organizational commitment.” International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 10(10), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v10.i10.2022.4835
59. Martin, L. (2020). How to retain motivated employees in their jobs? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 41(4), 910–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X17741528
60. Mathew, R. V., & Natarajan, P. (2014). Work Life Balance: A short review of the theoretical and contemporary concepts. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332072697 work life balance a short review of the theoretical and contemporary concepts
61. McCulloch, A. (2020). Power-sharing: A gender intervention. International Political Science Review, 41(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119861021
62. McGregor, L., & Doshi, N. (2018, August 30). How to motivate frontline employees. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/08/how-to-motivate-frontline-employees
63. Mental Health Foundation of Australia, State of Victoria. (2018). Well-being. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/well-being
64. Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00027-7
65. Nešić, A., Veljković, S. M., Meško, M., & Bertoncel, T. (2020). Correlation of Trust and Work Engagement: A Modern Organizational Approach. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(14), 1283–1300. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/S14/1283
66. Nickolas, S. (2021, May 1). How stratified random sampling works. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032615/what-are-some-examples-stratified-random-sampling.asp
67. Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M. B., Chidiebere, N., Marja, O., Evelina, K. S., Isaksson, K. (2017). Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463
68. Nowland, R., & Qualter, P. (2020). Influence of social anxiety and emotional self-efficacy on pre-transition concerns, social threat sensitivity, and social adaptation to secondary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12276
69. Palma-Alicer, M., Ligan, V. O., & Bandiola, A. N. (2022). A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL ON THE JOB PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES IN A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN REGION XI. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 7(12), 158-167.
70. Parker, G. B., & Hyett, M. P. (2011). Measurement of well-being in the workplace: The development of the work well-being questionnaire. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(6), 394–397. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e31821cd3b9
71. Plante, T. G. (2009). Do the right thing: Whatever it means. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Ptyrk7
72. Plaza-Saligumba, L., Ligan, V. O., Dura, A. P. (2022). “Individual work performance, public leadership, and public service motivation: a causal model on professionalism among the pacification committee (Lupong Tagapamayapa) in the barangays.” EPRA International Journal of Research & Development (IJRD), 7(11), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra11722
73. Poliquit, L. Q., Ligan, V. O., & Bandiola, A. N. (2022). Public Leadership Roles, Professional Identity, and Quality of Work-life: A Structural Equation Model on Satisfaction of Employees in the Local Government. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 7(11), 76-86.
74. Pratt, B., Paul, A., Hyder, A. A., & Ali, J. (2017, July 1). Ethics of health policy and systems research: A scoping review of the literature. Health Policy and Planning. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx003
75. Rahman, M. M., Tabash, M. I., Salamzadeh, A., Abduli, S., & Rahaman, M. S. (2022). Sampling techniques (probability) for quantitative social science researchers: a conceptual guidelines with examples. Seeu Review, 17(1), 42-51.
76. Raposo, F., & Barcelo, D. (2021). Assessment of goodness-of-fit for the main analytical calibration models: Guidelines and case studies. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 143, 116373.
77. Saleem, H. (2015). The Impact of Leadership Styles on Job Satisfaction and Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 563–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.403
78. Schick-Makaroff, K., & Storch, J. L. (2019, March 1). Guidance for Ethical Leadership in Nursing Codes of Ethics: An Integrative Review. Nursing Leadership (Toronto, Ont.). NLM (Medline). https://doi.org/10.12927/cjnl.2019.25848
79. Segal, T. (2019). 5 most publicized ethics violations by CEOs. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/5-most-publicized-ethics-violations-by-ceos.aspx
80. Shah, R. K., & Alotaibi, M. (2018). A Study of Unethical Practices in the Construction Industry and Potential Preventive Measures. Journal of Advanced College of Engineering and Management, 3, 55. https://doi.org/10.3126/jacem.v3i0.18905
81. Shin, Y., Hur, W. M., Park, K., & Hwang, H. (2020). How managers’ job crafting reduces turnover intention: The mediating roles of role ambiguity and emotional exhaustion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113972
82. Singh, S. K., Pradhan, R. K., Panigrahy, N. P., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: moderating role of sustainability practices. Benchmarking, 26(6), 1692–1708. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0219
83. Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., Ete, Z., Arenas, F. J., & Scherer, J. A. (2019). Self-control puts character into action: Examining how leader character strengths and ethical leadership relate to leader out-comes. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 765–781
84. Tahmassian, K., & Moghadam, N. J. (2011). Relationship between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety, depression, worry and social avoidance in a normal sample of students. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 5(2), 91–98.
85. Tober, C. (2019, February 1). How to take care of employees. CHRON. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/establish-maintain-good-relationships-workplace-22396.html
86. UNESCO. (2016, November 30). Ethics Guidance. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/about-us/ethics-office/guidance
87. Verma, T. S., & Pearl, J. (2022). Equivalence and synthesis of causal models. In Probabilistic and causal inference: The works of Judea Pearl (pp. 221-236).
88. Villanova University. (2019, October 17). How Important is Job Satisfaction in Today’s Workplace? Villanova University. https://www.villanovau.com/resources/hr/importance-of-job-satisfaction-in-the-workplace/
89. Willis Towers Watson. (2020, July 27). Employees’ health and well-being top-of-mind for Philippine employers as they operate in the new normal. Willis Towers Watson. https://www.willistowerswatson.com/en-PH/News/2020/07/employees-health-and-well-being-top-of-mind-for-Philippine-employers
90. Wilson, G. (2017). What is people-oriented leadership and why is it important? Thesuccessfactory.co.uk. https://www.thesuccessfactory.co.uk/blog/what-is-people-oriented-leadership-and-why-is-it-important
91. Yurcu, G., Çolakoğlu, Ü., & Atay, H. (2015). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on subjective well-being. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(8). https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol 6 No 81 August 2015/12.pdf
92. Zhao, X., Liang, J., & Dang, C. (2019). A stratified sampling based clustering algorithm for large-scale data. Knowledge-Based Systems, 163, 416-428

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Appointment of Adviser

APPENDIX B

Survey Questionnaire

Questionnaire on

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL ON WORKPLACE WELLBEING OF WORKERS IN THE CONTEXTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AT WORK, ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR, AND ETHICAL

LEADERSHIP OF SUPERVISORS

Instructions: Kindly circle the number that corresponds to your agreement or disagreement of each statement.

Rating Scale for answering the instruments:

RATING SCALE AND DESCRIPTION:

5 STRONGLY AGREE (The statement is always true)

4 AGREE (The statement is often true)

3 MODERATELY AGREE (The statement is sometimes true)

2 DISAGREE (The statement is seldom true)

1 STRONGLY DISAGREE (The statement is almost never true)

Part 1. SELF-EFFICACY AT WORK

Part 2. ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Part 3. ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Part 4. WORKPLACE WELL-BEING

-End of Questionnaire-

APPENDIX C

Letters to the Validators

APPENDIX D

Validation Sheets

APPENDIX E

Cronbach’s Alpha/Pilot Testing Result

Part I – SELF-EFFICACY AT WORK

Part II – ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Part III – ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Part IV-WORKPLACE WELL-BEING

APPENDIX F

Letter to Conduct the Study

APPENDIX G

UMERC’s Certification

APPENDIX H

Public Forum Certificate

APPENDIX I

Turnitin (Plagiarism Checker) Result

APPENDIX J

Editor’s Certificate

APPENDIX K

Grammarly Report

APPENDIX L

Certificate of Publication

APPENDIX M

Specific Item per indicator in Table 1,2,3,4 and 6

Table 1. Level of Self-Efficacy at Work of Workers in the Mining Industry

Table 2. Level of Organization Citizenship Behavior of Workers in the Mining Industry

Table 3. Level of Ethical Leadership of Supervisors in the Mining Industry

Table 4. Level of Workplace Well-being of Workers in the Mining Industry

Table 5. Influence of the Independent Latent Variables on Workplace Well-being