Methodology

Measures
As this study is quantitative in design, five-point likert scale based questionnaires were utilized
as the primary method for data collection purpose. This questionnaire consisted of series of items
related to each construct and participants were asked to rate each statement on scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree, while the midpoint of scale denoted neutrality. A 20-
items questionnaire has been used to measure E-leadership (EL), Employee well-being (WW),
diversity management (DM) and innovative work behavior (IWB) constructs. The variable, E-
leadership, which has been studied as an independent variable in this study was measured
through six-item scale designed by Tahirkheli (2022). E-leadership refers to a social influence
process which occurs in organization when a considerable number of daily work activities are
done through information technology (Tahirkheli, 2022). A sample item which has been included
in this six-item scale is “Your leader empowers you to use technology in innovative ways to
enrich work”. This construct has α reliability of 0.869. The mediator, Employee well-being was
measured using six-item scale adapted from Alkhayyal & Bajaba (2023). Employee well-being is
an extensive level of wellness that includes physical, mental, and social health and allows
employees to reach their full potential in work and life (Grawitch et al., 2013). A sample item
from this scale is “I feel basically satisfied with my work achievements in my current job”. α
reliability of this construct is 0.874. Moreover, this study includes another mediator, diversity
management, which has been measured using three-items scale developed by Ashikali &
Groeneveld (2015). Diversity management involves transforming organizational culture and
values to prioritize differences among employees and encourage an environment that fosters the
development of diversity to serve organizational goals. A sample item from this scale is
“Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds”. This
three-items construct has α reliability of 0.738. The study framework included a dependent
construct, innovative work behavior, which was measured through five-item scale adapted from
Ma Prieto & Pilar Pérez-Santana (2014). Innovative work behavior refers to actions taken by an
individual to initiate and introduce new and useful ideas, processes, products, or procedures in
their work position, group, or organization (Helmy et al., 2020). A sample item used in this scale
is “I am able to search for new working methods, techniques or instruments”. This construct has
α reliability of 0.766.

The data has been collected through an online instrument because this research focuses on
freelancers; a widespread and rapidly growing group of individuals who execute variety of task
from anywhere at any time (Kitching & Smallbone, 2012). Before proceeding for data collection,
his online instrument was pretested. The questionnaire was pretested on seven individuals from
target population which were freelancers. The pre-testing was done with an intent to identify any
questions which could cause possible confusion or could either be interpreted as offensive
(Cooper & Schindler, 2013). The respondents who participated in pre-testing phase were
observed during completion of questionnaire and researchers later debriefed them about
questionnaire. The debriefing phase involved inquiring from respondents whether there were any
issues faced by them while rating the statements/items from questionnaire. Few concerns were
highlighted by respondents regarding font size of response points. Resultantly, the size of
onscreen fonts was increased according to recommended size by respondents.
Sample and Data Collection
The data for the present study has been collected through snowball sampling technique and target
population was gig-economy (mainly freelancers) through snowball sampling technique. The
reason behind using this form of data collection technique is that detailed list indicating specific
number of freelancers could not be obtained and freelancers operate from various geographical
location around the globe due to which accessibility issue arises. This sampling technique was
helpful due to its flexible nature and possession of networking characteristics (Parker et al.,
2019). The hypothesis were tested using the data which had been collected from freelancers. The
data collection started off with distribution of questionnaires to the initial references (freelancers)
who were a fit for the research criteria. The participants who agreed to participate in data
collection were asked to recommend their colleagues. The questionnaire were developed
digitally through Google forms and a hyperlink was created and distributed to respondents
through email, survey platforms and social media platforms such as LinkedIn etc. In general, the
online questionnaire was distributed to approximately 350 freelancers and a total of 175
responses were received indicating the response rate of 58 percent. From these 175 responses,
four of the sample were excluded due to suspicious patterns such as identical answers in
response points which is indicator of straight lining (Hair et al., 2016). The criteria for inclusion
of responses was focused on freelancers. Therefore, a total number of 171 responses were
submitted as sample for data analysis.

Results
The hypothesis of this research have been tested using Partial least squares structural equation
modelling (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM is most widely used analysis technique across multiple
discipline and according to Hooper et al. (2008) analyzing research data using SEM is a “must”
for researchers in social sciences. PLS-SEM is used for data analysis of this study for two
distinct purposes; the first, this study was primarily focused on predicting dependent variable
(Roldán & Sánchez-Franco, 2012), secondly, due to addition of two incremental constructs in
this study (i.e Employee well-being and diversity management act as mediators between e-
leadership and innovative work behavior) (Nitzl et al., 2016; Richter et al., 2016). SEM is
comprised of two stages; measurement model and structural model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Measurement model is the first stage in which internal consistency reliability, convergent and
discriminant validity (DV) were measured while assessment of structural model involves
hypotheses testing. The latest version of SmartPLS which is version 4.0, was utilized for the
purpose of data analysis.

Measurement Model
Assessment of measurement model included examining internal consistency, convergent validity
(CV) and discriminant validity (DV) of variables and mediators used in this study. Internal
consistency reliability assesses to what extent the items reflect the latent variables (Ramayah et
al., 2017). Internal consistency was determined by measuring composite reliability (Hair et al.,
2016). A measurement model is considered to be consistent if the value of composite reliability
is greater than the threshold value of 0.7 for each construct (Nunnally, 1978; Richter et al.,
2016). The findings from data analysis showed that all constructs’ composite reliability exceeded
the cut-off value of 0.7 such that e-leadership (0.902), Employee well-being (0.906), diversity
management (0.851) and innovative work behavior (0.848), therefore, the measurement model of
this study indicates high internal consistency of constructs.
Convergent validity was measured to assess “the extent to which a measure correlates positively
with alternative measures of the same construct” (Memon et al., 2017). CV is measured by
assessing the values of outer loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). A general rule of
thumb is that outer loadings for each items of relevant constructs should be 0.708, however,
according to Avkiran (2018), if the constructs have 0.5 AVE it is considered satisfactory score.
As per the results of the study, all the items, except IWB01, had sufficient outer loadings.
Therefore, IWB01 which is “I try to solve problems in different ways”, was excluded from the
model due to weak outer loading. Upon the exclusion of IWB01, the constructs ha adequate
AVE such that E-leadership (0.606), diversity management (0.656), Employee well-being
(0.616) and Innovative work behavior (0.557). These results confirm the convergent validity
(CV) of all the constructs. The results of internal consistency reliability and convergent validity
are represented in Table II.

Table I Internal Consistency Reliability and Convergent Validity

Construct Items Loadings AVE CR

E-Leadership EL1 0.791 0.606 0.606
EL2 0.814
EL3 0.824
EL4 0.786
EL5 0.725
EL6 0.723
Employee Well-Being WW1 0.706 0.616 0.616
WW2 0.818
WW3 0.834
WW4 0.808
WW5 0.777
WW6 0.759
Diversity Management DM1 0.805 0.656 0.851
DM2 0.832
DM3 0.793
Innovative Work
Behavior IWB1 0.591 0.557 0.557
IWB2 0.731
IWB3 0.855
 IWB4 0.784
  IWB5 0.746
Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, variance extracted. IWB01 was deleted due to low
loading

Discriminant validity (DV) was measured to ensure that each variable is distinct from others.
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) was used to confirm DV. Henseler et al., (2017) suggested
cut-off value for HTMT is 0.85 while values above 0.90 indicate lack of DV (Hair et al., 2015).
The results of DV for this study were confirmed through method HTMT 0.85. This indicates that
the measurement model had adequate value thus confirming discriminant validity as shown in
Table III.
Table II Discriminate validity HTMT criterion

Diversity Innovative Work Employee

  Management E-Leadership Behavior Well-Being
Diversity _
Management
E-Leadership 0.507
Innovative Work
Behavior 0.467 0.416
Employee Well- _
Being 0.575 0.668 0.572

Structural Model
Structural model assessment was used to test the validity of hypotheses. To evaluate the
statistical significance of the proposed model, the bootstrapping approach with resampling
(5,000 resamples) was used. The result P values for each Hypotheses confirmed their validity
such that p value < 0.05 (Hair et al., 2017). The structural model along with the results of p
values and R2 which refers to ability of independent variable to explain the results of their related
dependent variables has been explained in Figure 1 below.
 Figure 1 Structural Model

The results of analysis of structural model indicate that E-leadership (H1: β =0.574, p< 0.01) is
significantly positively associated with Employee well-being. Moreover, E-leadership (H2: β
=0.416, p< 0.01) is positively associated with diversity management as was hypothesized earlier.
The hypothesis after mediation analysis were also supported such that Employee well-being
(H3: β =0.241, p< 0.01) mediated the relationship between E-leadership and Innovative work
behavior in a way that increased Employee wellbeing through effective e-leadership leads to
innovative work behavior. Additionally, diversity management (H4: β =0.083, p< 0.01), as it was
hypothesized, mediated the relationship between e-leadership and innovative work behavior. The
last hypothesis, E-leadership (H5: β =0.354, p< 0.01) E-leadership is positively related to
innovative work behavior has also been supported.
Table III Structural Model Assessment Results

Hypothesi T P
s Path Beta STDEV values values Decision

H1 E-Leadership -> Employee Well-Being 0.574 0.07 8.165 0.000 Supported

E-Leadership -> Diversity

H2
Management 0.416 0.089 4.649 0.000 Supported

E-Leadership -> Employee Well-Being

H3
-> Innovative Work Behavior 0.241 0.048 4.915 0.000 Supported

H4 E-Leadership -> Diversity 0.083 0.04 2.017 0.022 Supported

Management -> Innovative Work
 Behavior

E-Leadership -> Innovative Work

H5
Behavior 0.354 0.08 4.435 0.000 Supported

Therefore, to summarize the structural model assessment, the hypothesis H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5
entirely were supported. The results of the structural model assessment has been explained in
Table IV.

Alkhayyal, S., & Bajaba, S. (2023). The Impact of E-Leadership Competencies on Workplace

Well-Being and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of E-Work Self-Efficacy.

Sustainability, 15(6), 4724. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064724

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review

and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Ashikali, T., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Diversity management for all? An empirical analysis of

diversity management outcomes across groups. Personnel Review, 44(5), 757–780.

https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2014-0216

Avkiran, N. K. (2018). An in-depth discussion and illustration of partial least squares structural

equation modeling in health care. Health Care Management Science, 21(3), 401–408.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-017-9393-7

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2013). Business Research Methods Eleventh, 11th Edition.

MC GRAW HILL INDIA.

Grawitch, M.J., Barber, & Coovert. (2013). Worksite wellness: A practical approach to

promoting healthy behaviors at work. American Psychological Association.

Helmy, I., Adawiyah, W. R., & Setyawati, H. A. (2020). Fostering Frontline Employees’

Innovative Service Behavior: The Role of Workplace Friendship and Knowledge Sharing

Process. Organizacija, 53(3), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2020-0012

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines

for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1),

Article 1.

Jr, J. F. H., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least

Squares Structural Equation Modeling (2nd edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kitching, J., & Smallbone, D. (2012). Are freelancers a neglected form of small business?

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(1), 74–91.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211196415

Ma Prieto, I., & Pilar Pérez-Santana, M. (2014). Managing innovative work behavior: The role

of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43(2), 184–208.

https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0199

Memon, M. A., Sallaeh, R., Baharom, M. N. R., Md Nordin, S., & Ting, H. (2017). The

relationship between training satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviour, and

turnover intention: A PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness:

People and Performance, 4(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0025

Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path

modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial

 Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-

2015-0302

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2d ed). McGraw-Hill.

Parker, C., Scott, S., & Geddes, A. (2019). Snowball Sampling. SAGE Research Methods

Foundations. http://methods.sagepub.com/foundations/snowball-sampling

Ramayah, T., Hwa, C., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. (2017). PLS-SEM using SmartPLS

3.0: Chapter 13: Assessment of Moderation Analysis.

Richter, N. F., Sinkovics, R. R., Ringle, C. M., & Schlägel, C. (2016). A critical look at the use

of SEM in international business research. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 376–

404. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-04-2014-0148

Roldán, J. L., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling:

Guidelines for Using Partial Least Squares in Information Systems Research. In

Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering

and Information Systems (pp. 193–221). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-

0179-6.ch010

Tahirkheli, S. K. (2022). E-Leadership theory – A more than ever virtually connected world

needs a virtually theorized leadership in a globally cross-cultural network space. Social

Sciences & Humanities Open, 6(1), 100299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100299