94 Chapter 4 reran all analyses controlling for age, gender, and tenure but none of these analyses altered any of the results (see Figure 1 for a summary).2,3 FIGURE 2 The link between week-level proactive vitality management and week-level work engagement moderated by learning goal orientation. 2 We have tested the direct effect of proactive vitality management on creativity and this was only significant when proactive vitality management was the only predictor in the regression equation (estimate = .30, S.E. = .06, p < .05). When proactive vitality management was added as a predictor in the regression analysis of Table 3, the effect became non-significant (estimate = .07, S.E. = .06, p = .25). We note that our Monte Carlo analytic approach is incompatible with the notion of full vs. partial mediation. Therefore, based on existing methodological literature (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011), we stay away from discussions around partial vs. full mediation and we simply refer to the effect of proactive vitality management on creativity as an indirect effect. 3 We have conducted additional analyses with work engagement being the predictor of proactive vitality management and the effect was significant (estimate = .49, std. error = .06, p < .01). However, findings were non-significant for the two interaction effects on proactive vitality management; the interaction between work engagement and learning goal orientation (estimate = .07, std. error = .08, p = .38), and the interaction between work engagement and performance avoid goal orientation (estimate = -.11, std. error = .06, p = .07).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw