Dear all!
Any comment or help is highly appreciated!
Hypothesis 1 (H1a): Inclusive leadership is positively related to perceived inclusion in diverse teams.
Hypothesis 1 (H1b): Diversity climate is positively related to perceived inclusion in diverse teams.
Hypothesis 2 (H2a): Perceived inclusion mediates the relationships between inclusive leadership and work engagement in diverse teams.
Hypothesis 2 (H2b): Perceived inclusion mediates the relationships between diversity climate and work engagement in diverse teams.
You can see the results in the picture. My question is if I can accept H2b? There is asignificant indirect effect but not a significant total effect.
This is the feedback I have received from my supervisor: '' you talk about a mediated effect that is not there in the first place. In this case, your conclusions should center more strongly on the indirect effect (Diversity Climate predicts inclusion which in turn predicts work engagement ) than on the mediated/explained effect (effect of Diversity Climate on WE is explained by inclusion).
It’s a matter of wording, but it is somewhat important to show some nuance. In mediation analysis, basically there is a distinction between an effect that is mediated (variable that explains X -> Y; in your case, inclusive leadership) and an indirect effect (variable through which X affects Y, but that does not fully explain the effect; in your case, Diversity Climate).''
However, I still don't understand if I can say that H2b confirmed or not? and How to write my conclusion.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education