A prior study found that authentic leadership has a positive influence on proactive personality (Guenter et al., 2017). To motivate proactive behavior in employees, leadership plays an influential role (Černe et al., 2013). Authentic leadership style provides a constructive and supportive working atmosphere that could manipulate the proactive behavior of individuals (Song and Lee, 2020). Psychological features advocate stable change in personality due to behavior sets to see a situation in a more hopeful way. Authentic leadership being an affirmative type of behavior come from leaders; produce activist thoughts in employees that help to alter their habit and behavior, resultantly personality changes. To positively affect a subordinate’s emotion and psychological ability is the illustration of authentic leadership (Alessa et al., 2021). Authentic leadership and proactive personality are positively associated with each other because authentic leaders are apt to transform and proactive personality is a trait that belongs to change the environment through leadership styles that may encourage leader’s follower’s relation (Hu et al., 2021).

In addition, authentic leadership manipulates individual various personality elements and traits that include but are not limited to psychology state, awareness of self, regulation, and moral building (Kim, 2019). Previous research by Velez and Neves (2018) argues that individuals working under the command of authentic leadership along with proactive personality positively shares new ideas. Similarly, in a work setting, the authentic leader is a role model for their subordinate declared, leader of legitimate wish to support employees self-determining philosophy for their decisions (Sengupta et al., 2020). Authentic leadership is liable to make an environment of faith and cultivate support in employees to improve self-efficacy and assure for self-competence needs. In brief, authentic leaders support employee by their words and actions and build a work environment that satisfies employee psychology and motivate them intrinsically (Wijaya, 2018). Authentic leaders are helpful toward employees to improve their proactive behavior and work-related position (Elsaied, 2018). Additionally, a positive work setup promotes employee personality traits and impacts their emotions. Thus, based on the above discussion this study posits that authentic leadership could alter the proactive behavior of employees in the workplace (Afsar et al., 2020b). So, the following hypothesis is predicted;

According to prior studies, it was deduced that authentic leadership has a positive impact on the innovative work behavior of employees (Černe et al., 2013; Niu et al., 2018); because genuine leaders provide psychological assistance and psychological safety through being open, sharing, and supportive of their employees which are deemed to be critical variables in employee voice behavior. In specific, authentic leadership objectively clears data, organizes high standards of moral behavior, and fosters transparency in engaging with subordinates (Sengupta et al., 2020). By having these characteristics, leaders can reinforce their subordinates’ trust, leading to the promotion of psychological assistance and safety, and hence followers will feel free to take risks (Schuckert et al., 2018). This commitment promotes employees to convey unconventional thoughts freely and to express any view without fear. Yamak and Eyupoglu (2021) underlined that employee voice behavior, which was previously assumed to be a significantly arbitrary behavior, is proof of positive challenge that contributes to the voluntary expression of problems and propositions for innovative behaviors. Therefore, the following hypothesis is predicted;

Proactive personality is measured as a stimulus to adjust as per change and one’s capability to take action in advance according to environmental needs (Kumar and Shukla, 2019). Being proactive is associated with the constructive outcome of work, the reason being proactive personality exhibit proactive behavior (Li et al., 2020). Employees who are not proactive unsuccessful to see threats and opportunities. On the other hand, individuals with a proactive approach always search for self-improvement and other views (Neneh, 2019). A proactive personality plays a central role to motivate employees at their workplace. Individuals with proactive personalities acquire challenging tasks that give them the opportunity for novel ideas at work and other such behavior (McCormick et al., 2019). To cope with different complex situations at workplaces, proactive behavior supports a better decision, solving problems, handling a situation in advance, and offering new ideas for problem-solving. Work stress gives them sources and opportunities to develop and exercise to reduce tension (Hu R. et al., 2018).

Past researches argued that employees with proactive personalities manage work stresses and thrive in the workplace (Steinmann et al., 2018). Individuals having an active approach engaged in risk-taking and inventive so yielding innovative work behavior. Organizational competitive performance and success is aligned to proactive personality and innovative work behavior (Yamak and Eyupoglu, 2021). Build innovative work environment, proactive personality is a noteworthy attribute, on the basis of proactiveness is capable of being able to handle change business atmosphere after analyzing a complex situation or change in advance (Mubarak et al., 2021). Thus, this study proposed the following hypothesis;

The past research verified the association between proactive personality and innovative work behavior (Li et al., 2016; Mubarak et al., 2021). Proactive personality as a mediator between authentic leadership and innovative work behavior is empirically less examined in the prior literature. Existing studies examined the mediating roles such as creativity (Černe et al., 2013), psychological capital (Schuckert et al., 2018) to investigate the relationship between authentic leadership and innovative work behavior. Proactive personality is a suitable mediator as it indicates a significant trait of personality that improves employee behavior (Thomas et al., 2010). Moreover, due to the volatile and changing requirement of every business especially, the manufacturing sector needs and strive to take proactive and risk-taking behavior to stay viable.

The relationship between authentic leadership and proactive personality contribute to numerous behavior and qualities that required meeting the changing demands (Wijaya, 2018). Authentic leadership promotes such personality traits in a leader’s followers’ relation. A proactive individual in a work setting holds active participation. According to Bateman and Crant (1993) proactive personality provides support, confidence, trust, hope, and spirit yielding innovative work behavior both in organizational leaders and employees. Moreover, Seibert et al. (1999) argued individuals with proactive behavior are able to handle the problem more effectively and also prepare themselves for unknown challenges (Elsaied, 2018). Individuals who hold high proactive personalities might be more innovative in the workplace (Kim, 2019). On the basis of the above discussion this study implicit that proactive personality mediates in the relationship between authentic leadership and innovative work behavior. Thus, this study hypothesized;

Chong et al. (2021) demonstrated that individuals having proactive personalities able to replenish personal energies to handle the situation in advance. Work engagement is defined as helpful, rewarding, job-related mind status that illustrates by vigor (energy), devotion, and absorption (interest) (Wang et al., 2017). Active and engaged workforce gives their power in form of energy to a job for getting enjoyment and activation. Being activated is a basic component of energized in a way that is alike to work engagement. Individuals having proactive behavior could be more engaged in work, due to refilling energy that helps to motivated and animated at work (Lv et al., 2018). Additionally, engagement is defined by Bakker et al. (2012) as an emotional drive that represents an employee’s mindset about the job. Work engagement is associated with the individual job satisfaction to stay connected with the organization for a longer period of time (Yang et al., 2017). Accordingly, this study predicted the following hypothesis;

There is a positive relationship between innovation and engagement, particularly engaged individuals to exhibit innovative work behavior (Agarwal, 2014a). It is suggested by Koroglu and Ozmen (2022) for extra-role performance, the first moment is for employees to be engaged in their current role and organization. To perform in the extra role, they act in experimental view which leads them for novel idea generation and solution to complex problems in an innovative manner, called innovative work behavior (Afsar et al., 2020a). Innovative and creative individuals are able to offer new ideas for self-motivation by realizing the work environment. Support from the employer is required for the realization of ideas. The prior study argued that to generate new ideas for innovative work and engaged employees provide better support and worth to their work (Agarwal, 2014b). Innovative work behavior is inclined with employee engagement as they are well aware regarding the workplace psychologically, physically, and cognitively (Černe et al., 2013).

Innovative work behavior introduces, application and understanding of novel ideas, products, procedures, processes to the individual role, group, and organization (Li et al., 2016). The association between work engagement and innovative work behavior is acknowledged in previous research that explained individuals with a high level of engagement are more likely to perform efficient work, involve in innovative ideas, and exhibit new kinds of solutions to overcome problems (Afsar et al., 2020a; Slåtten and Mehmetoglu, 2011) found that to get new ideas at the workplace, innovative work behavior is an appropriate function. Engaged employees tend to be more active with a greater level of power and more passionate regarding jobs. Work engagement is greatly linked to innovative work behavior. A diverse sample of work engagement among members along with innovative ideas recognized by Seppälä et al. (2018). Thus, employee innovation and innovative work behavior boost a high degree of engagement and reduce short engagement altitude. Hence, the proposed hypothesis is predicted;

For any organization, employees are valuable resources and concerned about their well-being for establishing a healthy and conducive work atmosphere (Yamak and Eyupoglu, 2021). Numerous studies confirmed that work engagement contains a degree of motivation and enthusiasm, with commitments toward job tasks (Buil et al., 2019). According to Lai et al. (2020) work engagement hold engagement in various shapes (e.g., trait engagement, behavior engagement, and state engagement), to confirm that engagement characteristic is unlocked for different theoretical and practical research.

To achieve extra performance in an organization, proactive individuals face challenges in representing their novel initiatives and struggle to see barriers and problems as an opportunity (Young et al., 2018). Improvement in engagement gives proactive behavior at work in form of personal initiatives. Buil et al. (2019) remarked that individuals with proactive personalities are vigorously engaged in assigned duty and citizenship behavior. Prior studies argued that proactive personalities tend to be more passionate regarding work, complex job duties, and handling of resources in a more effective manner with new ideas to establish work engagement (Koroglu and Ozmen, 2021; Mubarak et al., 2021). Moreover, existing studies discovered that performance at a job and personal behavior (i.e., proactive personality, self-efficacy) are best predictors regarding employees’ work engagement because it wraps every aspect of employee effort for goal achievement (Cai et al., 2018; Sengupta et al., 2020).

Behavioral engagement is a character of work engagement, considered the most significant trait obligatory to be successful in business, magnifies innovative work behavior amongst employees (Wang et al., 2017). Therefore, organizations take special concern regarding the work engagement of employees to get an acceptable stage to accomplish innovative work behavior. According to Koroglu and Ozmen (2022) for an organization’s sustainability in the long term, innovative work behavior is crucial, hence reflecting the need to get employee innovative work behavior via proactive personality and work engagement. In a global market, an organization can add value and competitiveness by establishing achieving innovative work behavior. Innovation could give chance to every employee to offer their creative thoughts for the enhancement in work setting engagement (Agarwal, 2014b). Thus, based on the discussion, this study predicted the following hypothesis;

The conceptual model depicting the relationships and hypothesis is given in Figure 1.

The nature of this study was cross-sectional and the target population was included the high-tech manufacturing industries of Shenzhen province of China. This study applied non-probability judgment sampling technique to determine the samples. This study used primary data with the help of open and close ended questionnaire. The data was collected from top, middle and lower level employees of high-tech manufacturing industries of China. Before going to collect data from respondents some procedures were adopted. Firstly, we sent the permission letter to all the manufacturing industries that are currently involved in making high-tech machinery and products. Secondly, we clearly discussed the aim and importance of this study among respondents to engage them in data collection process. After the approval from the industries, top, middle and lower management employees were invited to participate in this study. The original draft of the questionnaires was in English language and translation was checked by using the translation and back-translation process through the two language experts who have good command on Chinese and English language.

The employees were free to respond, and no incentive was offered. Initially, 400 paper-pencil questionnaires were distributed among employees and 331 responses were returned by the respondents and the participation rate was 82.5%. Moreover, 20 responses were incomplete and then discarded. Thus, the final response size compromised of 311 questionnaires. Among the valid responses, 275 (88%) respondents were male, and the remaining 36 (12%) were females. 127 (41%) respondents had a graduation degree which is the highest and 4 (1.3%) respondents had post-graduate education which was the lowest whereas the other 180 (57.8%) fall in between. The 95 (31%) respondents belong to the age group (20-31) which are the highest and 59 (19%) are belong to the age group (41–50) which are the lowest where the others 157 (50%) age group. Respondents 125 (40%) had experience range (0-5) which were highest and 10 (3.2%) which are lowest and others 176 (57%) belong to another experience group.

Furthermore, Harman’s single factor was applied to test common method bias CBM in the data. According to this methodology, all the factors are merged in factor analysis and the first factor explained more than 50% of the total variance that means there is an issue of CBM in the data. The findings from factor analysis indicate that, the first factor explained 32.82% (< 50%) of the total variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus, there is no issue of common method bias in the data.

This study adopted the measurement scales from the already published work of prior researchers on the constructs such as authentic leadership, proactive personality, work engagement and innovative work behavior. Moreover, a five-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree 1, to 5 strongly agree) except control variables was used to assess the response of participants.

This study analyzed confirmatory factor analysis, reliability and validity analysis and structural model analysis with the help of statistical SPSS and AMOS software’s. As suggested by prior researcher SPSS and AMOS software’s were provided suitable results to test the direct and indirect hypotheses relationships (Hayes and Preacher, 2013).

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed through AMOS software and findings were shown in Table 1.

Moreover, Table 2 findings indicate that four measurement constructs have acceptable reliability results, because all the values of Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.70 and the composite reliability ranged from (0.933 to 0.950) surpassed the recommended benchmark of 0.80 (Bagozzi, 1977). Furthermore, regarding the validity test, the entire item loadings ranged from (0.737 to 0.926). The values of the AVE’s were also acceptable and ranged from (0.680 to 0.736). Additionally, to evaluate the discriminant validity, we used criteria given by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Table 2 results depict that the measurement model has satisfactory outcomes because square root of the AVE were greater than the values of its corresponding row and columns. For the goodness-of-fit index results showed as follows; The values for (Chi-square X² = 929.912; df = 344; X² = /df = 2.701; CFI, 0.942; NFI = 0.911; GFI, 0.857; RMSEA, 0.052 and RMR, 0.033) as recommended values by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Hayes (2013). Thus, all the measurement values were acceptable.

To test the hypothesis we applied structural equation modeling technique for testing the direct and mediation effect suggested by Hayes (2013). The results were shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. Findings show that authentic leadership had a positive and significant effect on proactive personality (β = 0.287^***, Z = 5.524, p < 0.002). Therefore, H1 was supported. Moreover, results indicate that authentic leadership had a significant impact on innovative work behavior (β = 0.097^***, Z = 1.999, p < 0.047). So, H2 was supported. Meanwhile, we found that proactive personality had a significant influence on innovative work behavior (β = 0.155^***, Z = 2.672, p < 0.008). Therefore, H3 was accepted. Furthermore, findings indicate that proactive personality had a significant impact on work engagement (β = 0.300^***, Z = 5.696, p < 0.000). Thus, H5 was supported. Additionally, we found that work engagement had an insignificant effect on innovative work behavior (β = −0.070, Z = −1.276, p < 0.202). Therefore, H6 was not accepted.

Besides, Table 4 presented the results of the mediation analysis. To assess the indirect effect of proactive personality and work engagement, the bootstrap method was applied at a 95% confidence interval with 5000 bootstrap samples. We followed the recommendations by Hayes and Preacher (2013) to evaluate the confidence interval of the lower and upper bounds of percentile method to analyze whether indirect effect was significant or not. The standardized indirect effect show that proactive personality partially mediates in the relationship between authentic leadership and innovative work behavior (β = 0.038^***, p < 0.000). Therefore, H4 was significant. Lastly, the standardized indirect effect show that work engagement partially mediates in the relationship between proactive personality and innovative work behavior (β = 0.086^***, p < 0.000). Hence, H7 was also supported and mediation was significantly proved.