Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose Although work engagement has been widely studied, limited research has explored the psychological mechanisms underlying engagement in developing countries. This study examines how first-order psychological capital (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience) mediates the relationship between psychological empowerment and work engagement among construction engineers in Myanmar. Amid evolving political and socio-economic challenges, enhancing engagement through psychological resources is crucial for sustaining productivity. This study addresses a gap by exploring how these resources support engagement in unstable contexts. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative, cross-sectional research design was used to assess psychological empowerment, psychological capital, and work engagement. Data were collected from 266 construction engineers in Yangon, Myanmar using a structured questionnaire. Participants were required to have a minimum of two years of construction experience and at least six months in their current organization. Path analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with AMOS, was used to test the research hypotheses. Findings The results indicate a significant positive impact of psychological empowerment on work engagement, with optimism and resilience serving as notable mediators. In contrast, self-efficacy and hope showed limited predictive power in this context. These findings suggest that socio-economic challenges may influence how specific psychological resources affect engagement. Originality/value This study contributes to construction management by testing the mediation of specific PsyCap dimensions (self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resilience) in the relationship between psychological empowerment and work engagement in Myanmar's developing construction sector. The finding also suggests that the different components of PsyCap have unequal effects on engagement under uncertainty.
Zaw et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: