Entrepreneurial leadership and employee performance; the role of innovative work behavior among employees in the food and beverages industry

The contemporary business landscape is “characterized by competition” for critical resources (Salhab et al., 2023; Hayden, 2020). Within this environment, traditional strategic approaches are increasingly proving ineffective, prompting calls for an entrepreneurial paradigm shift (Thrassou, Chebbi, & Uzunboylu, 2021; Ahmed & Harrison, 2022). According to a report by the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), a significant number of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the food and beverages industry fail within their first five years of operation. The GSS report from 2020 indicates that approximately 60% of SMEs do not survive beyond this period, reflecting inefficiencies in entrepreneurial leadership (EL), such as poor business planning, inadequate financial management and insufficient market research (GSS, 2020). Also, data from the Bank of Ghana reveal that only 15% of businesses in the food and beverages sector have access to formal financial services (BoG, 2020). This limited access to finance is a major barrier to growth and innovation. Entrepreneurs in this industry often struggle to secure the necessary capital to scale their operations, invest in modern technology or expand their product lines. Further, the Food and Beverages Manufacturing Survey conducted by the Ghana National Association of Small Scale Industries (GNASSI) in 2021 reported low productivity levels among firms in this sector. The survey found that the average productivity rate was 35%, significantly lower than the regional average of 50% (GNASSI, 2021). This low productivity can be attributed to outdated production techniques, insufficient investment in technology and a lack of skilled labor, all pointing to leadership deficiencies in fostering innovation and efficiency. A study by the African Development Bank (AfDB) highlighted that 70% of food and beverage businesses in Ghana face significant infrastructure and supply chain challenges (AfDB, 2021). Issues such as unreliable electricity supply, inadequate transportation networks and poor storage facilities lead to high operational costs and product spoilage. Entrepreneurial leaders often lack the strategic foresight to mitigate these risks and improve logistical efficiency. On this note how does EL significant to job performance (JP) among employee in the food and beverages industry?

It is argued that organizations must embrace entrepreneurial practices to not only enhance performance but also fortify their capacity for adaptation and long-term survival (Vătămănescu, Gazzola, Dincă, & Pezzetti, 2017). Scholars like Metallo, Agrifoglio, Briganti, Mercurio, and Ferrara (2021) and Watson, Dada, López-Fernández, and Perrigot (2020) have provided empirical evidence linking entrepreneurial behavior within established firms to superior performance, with suggestions that this enhanced performance is sustainable over time. Consequently, there is a growing sentiment toward adopting EL as a means to elevate organizational effectiveness (Troise, Jones, Candelo, & Sorrentino, 2023; Sawaean & Ali, 2020). Entrepreneurial leadership (EL) combines the principles of entrepreneurship as outlined by D'Souza (2023), entrepreneurial orientation by Meekaewkunchorn et al. (2021) and Bernoster, Mukerjee, and Thurik (2020) and entrepreneurial management proposed by Li et al. (2020), within the framework of leadership. It advocates for a strategic approach to entrepreneurship, enabling entrepreneurial initiatives to foster the development of enhanced capabilities geared towards continuously creating and appropriating value within the organization.

Entrepreneurial leaders must establish clear performance metrics and measurement systems to evaluate the effectiveness of their leadership approach and its impact on JP (Corvello, De Carolis, Verteramo, & Steiber, 2022). This may involve tracking key performance indicators (KPIs), conducting regular performance reviews and soliciting feedback from employees and stakeholders (Islam et al., 2024). In a global context, performance metrics may need to be tailored to account for cultural differences, market dynamics and regional variations in business practices (Mohsni, Otchere, & Shahriar, 2021). EL positions entrepreneurship as a basis for competitive advantage and technological advancement across diverse organizational contexts that prioritize leadership and excellence in the evolving global economy (Saksa, 2021). Instilling an entrepreneurial mindset within the organizational culture would cause leaders to drive innovation, adaptability and sustainable growth, positioning their firms for success amidst the challenges and opportunities of the modern business landscape (Islam et al., 2024; Corvello, Belas, Giglio, Iazzolino, & Troise, 2023).

“In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape”, the imperative for organizations, particularly, to embrace innovation as a survival strategy is shown (Moreo, Woods, Sammons, & Bergman, 2019; Mohamad, Nor, Fikry, & Aziz, 2023). Extensive research highlights that employees constitute a key source of innovation, spearheading approximately 80% of the implementation of novel ideas within organizational frameworks (Awan, Dunnan, Jamil, & Gul, 2023; Newman, Herman, Schwarz, & Nielsen, 2018; Newman, Neesham, Manville, & Tse, 2018). It is through the innovative contributions of employees that organizations can cultivate the necessary capacity to attain their objectives and foster developmental trajectories (Moreo et al., 2019; Ambos & Tatarinov, 2022). Consequently, scholarly interest has surged in examining the factors that cultivate and facilitate employees' innovative work behaviors (IWB), particularly within the realm of high-technology Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) (Bagheri, 2017).

The central role of leadership in igniting and guiding employees' IWB has increasingly captured the attention of both researchers and practitioners (Islam et al., 2024; Troise et al., 2023; Troise, Ben-Hafaïedh, Tani, & Yablonsky, 2022; Bagheri, 2017). Leadership, characterized as a multifaceted cognitive and behavioral effort unfolding within dynamic social contexts, hinges on leveraging social influence mechanisms to coordinate, motivate and steer the actions of others (McCormick, 2001). At its core, effective leadership entails the ability to inspire individuals to understand and align with organizational objectives, while also reuniting collective efforts toward shared goals (Leitch & Volery, 2017). In recent years, scholarly exploration into EL has burgeoned, reflecting a recognition of its profound impact on IWB (Bagheri, 2017; Bagheri, Newman, & Eva, 2020; Bagheri & Akbari, 2018; Khaola & Coldwell, 2019; Kim, Koo, & Han, 2021) and innovation management (Fontana & Musa, 2017). Notably, EL has been found to significantly restore and enhance employees' IWB, particularly within high-technology organizational settings (Bagheri, 2017). However, despite acknowledging the influence of EL on IWB, a critical gap remains in understanding how entrepreneurial leaders effectively shape and guide employees' innovative behaviors (Cai, Lysova, Khapova, & Bossink, 2018), especially within developing economies.

Despite the interest in the area of EL, several notable research gaps remain to be addressed. While there is acknowledgment of the potential mediating role of IWB (Shanker, Bhanugopan, Van der Heijden, & Farrell, 2017; Van Zyl, Van Oort, Rispens, & Olckers, 2021; Javed, Anas, Abbas, & Khan, 2017) there is a dearth of research unpacking the specific mechanisms through which EL influences IWB, subsequently impacting employee task and contextual performance (CP). Further study is needed to explain the interactions involved in this process. The existing literature predominantly focuses on EL and its impact on employee outcomes in Western contexts (Hubner & Baum, 2018; Newman, Herman et al., 2018; Newman, Neesham et al., 2018; Mehmood et al., 2020; Supriyanto, Ekowati, Wekke, & Idris, 2018), overlooking the influence of contextual factors such as institutional frameworks, and industry-specific dynamics. In light of the identified gaps, this research seeks to examine the mediating role of IWB in the relationship between EL and JP. By focusing on the mediating role of IWB in the relationship between EL and JP, this study will explore the relationship between EL and JP, EL and IWB, finally and IWB and JP utilizing quantitative research approach. This research is expected to contribute to literature by providing valuable insights into expected outcomes. Ultimately, the study would help to advance understanding in the area of organizational behavior and offer practical implications for Ghana’s food and beverages industry.

Transformational leadership theory (TLT), as proposed by Bass (1990) and subsequently refined by Burns (2004), emphasizes the leader’s capacity to not only inspire but also motivate followers to attain remarkable outcomes that transcend mere self-interests. This leadership paradigm investigates the details of human motivation, vision casting and empowerment, aiming to engender profound positive change within individuals and organizations alike (Korejan & Shahbazi, 2016). TLT revolves around the notion of visionary inspiration (Rolfe, 2011). Leaders in this style possess a compelling vision of the future, one that resonates deeply with the aspirations and values of their followers. Through communication and charismatic influence, these leaders urge their teams, reuniting them with a shared sense of purpose that transcends individual goals and fosters collective commitment to a greater cause (Ladkin & Patrick, 2022).

EL shares many characteristics with transformational leadership, such as vision, innovation, risk-taking and the ability to empower and inspire employees (Ravet-Brown, Furtner, & Kallmuenzer, 2023). Entrepreneurs often exhibit transformational leadership behaviors by articulating a compelling vision, creating a culture of innovation, encouraging employees to think creatively and providing them with autonomy and support to achieve their goals (Fauzi, Martin, & Ravesangar, 2021). According to TLT, when employees are led by transformational leaders who exhibit entrepreneurial traits, they tend to experience higher levels of job satisfaction, motivation and engagement (Thamrin, 2012). These positive psychological states, in turn, are associated with higher levels of JP, as employees are more committed to organizational goals, willing to exert extra effort and more likely to engage in innovative behaviors to achieve desired outcomes. Therefore, TLT provides a theoretical framework for understanding how EL behaviors influence employee JP by nurturing a motivational climate, promoting innovation and enhancing organizational effectiveness.

The research is built upon transformative leadership theory since it aligns with the core principles of inspiring and motivating employees to achieve beyond their self-interests, fostering change and innovation and developing followers through individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Transformative leadership theory emphasizes the role of leaders in encouraging creativity and innovation, which is directly examined in this research through the lens of EL (Rolfe, 2011). By exploring how entrepreneurial leaders inspire innovative work behavior (IWB), the research provides empirical evidence on the impact of transformational principles in driving task and CP improvements. This alignment shows the importance of transformative leadership practices in enhancing an environment where employees are motivated to innovate, ultimately enhancing organizational performance in the competitive food and beverages industry.

EL has been described as a leadership approach that envisions scenarios capable of urging and reuniting a team of stakeholders who are inspired by the vision to pursue the identification and exploitation of strategic value (Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004). Amidst the diverse landscape of leadership roles (Leitch & Harrison, 2018; Yukl, 2010), EL offers a framework for investigating leadership’s function and impact within entrepreneurial contexts (Arshi & Viswanath, 2013; Harrison, Paul, & Burnard, 2016). According to Greenberg, McKone-Sweet and Wilson (2013), it constitutes a leadership style employed “…to address business, social, and environmental challenges”. Despite the proliferation of definitions and growing interest, the advancement of this emerging field has been impeded by a lack of conceptual clarity and the absence of adequate tools for assessing leaders' entrepreneurial attributes and behaviors (Renko et al., 2015).

Grobben (2022) says that Individual Work Behavior (IWB) is when someone at work comes up with new and useful ideas, processes, products or ways of doing things, and then tries to make them happen. This is different from just being creative, where you think up new ideas but might not do anything with them. With IWB, the goal is to put those ideas into action to make things better at work. It’s like being creative, but also making sure your ideas make a positive difference. Creativity is an important part of IWB, especially when you’re trying to solve problems or improve how things are done at work (Hong & Zainal, 2022).

Task performance (TP) refers to the caliber and volume of work entailed in the fundamental activities outlined within employees' job descriptions (Díaz-Vilela et al., 2015; Shin, Hur, & Kang, 2016; Aggarwal, Sadhna, Gupta, Mittal, & Rastogi, 2020). It encompasses the primary components of the job executed by the employee and overseen by the manager. Essentially, it involves the employee’s fulfillment of core work responsibilities and associated behaviors (Clarke & Mahadi, 2016; Nemteanu & Dabija, 2021; Pattnaik & Sahoo, 2021). These employee behaviors lend support to the execution of technical activities within the production process. Behaviors linked to TP include planning and organization, prioritization, demonstration of accountability, outcome-oriented approaches and efficient work practices (Harmancı Seren, Tuna, & Eskin Bacaksız, 2018; Van Zyl et al., 2021; Pattnaik & Sahoo, 2021; Arwab, Adil, Nasir, & Ali, 2022). Consequently, TP holds significant importance in achieving both individual and organizational outcomes (Hultin, Jonsson, Härgestam, Lindkvist, & Brulin, 2019; Jonsson, Brulin, Härgestam, Lindkvist, & Hultin, 2021).

CP, conversely, pertains to behaviors that go beyond the formal job descriptions of employees and contribute to the fulfillment of core tasks (Díaz-Vilela et al., 2015). It fosters the development of the organizational social and psychological environment (Kumar, Mohapatra, & Dhir, 2021; Aboagye, Dai, & Bakpa, 2022). Put differently, it involves voluntary extra-role behaviors that support the organizational context (Palenzuela, Delgado, & Rodríguez, 2019). While there is no clear-cut demarcation between CP and TP, TP comprises actions directly related to designated tasks within the organization, whereas CP typically involves actions aimed at enhancing TP (Cleveland, Huebner, Anderson, & Agbeke, 2019). Thus, CP, although not formally mandated, signifies a process of social change involving voluntary behaviors in service of the organization (Elsner, Werner, & Simha, 2021). In this regard, CP denotes positive behaviors that promote activities such as aiding others and collaboration, endorsed by the organization (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1997). These include voluntary engagement in work, assisting colleagues, adherence to organizational rules and procedures and championing organizational objectives (Jiang, Wang, & Yan, 2022).

According to Mamun, Ibrahim, Yusoff, and Fazal (2018) states that EL is a combination of leadership and entrepreneurship concepts. “The birth of this leadership style because it realized that, the importance of a change in leadership style in managing business (Rahim, Zainal Abidin, Mohtar, & Ramli, 2015)”. “According to Ximenes, Supartha, Manuati Dewi, and Sintaasih (2019), Entrepreneurial leaders are innovative entrepreneurs who are skilled at practicing potentially attractive transformations”. “According to Anju and Mathew (2017), EL is defined as leadership that can communicate the vision and develop and utilize opportunities to gain competitive advantage”. EL according to Mamun et al. (2018) is a leadership style that can delegate capable of building employees who behave responsibly, can make and determine decisions, and work independently_. “EL has a character as a leader who is responsive, creative, and proactive toward the competitor’s environment and the direction of changing market opportunities (Anju & Mathew, 2017).”

EL plays a significant role in influencing TP within organizations. Entrepreneurial leaders often possess a clear vision for the future of the organization. They set ambitious yet achievable goals that inspire and motivate employees. Clear direction and purpose enhance task performance by providing employees with a sense of direction and alignment with organizational objectives. Entrepreneurial leaders promote a culture of innovation where employees are encouraged to think creatively, take risks and explore new ideas.

Cai, Lysova, Khapova, and Bossink (2019). This environment influences problem-solving and promotes the development of novel approaches to tasks, leading to improved performance and efficiency. According to Zainol, Daud, Shamsu, Abubakar, and Halim (2018), EL is a leadership that creates a climate of entrepreneurial behavior that is expected to bring the organization towards success. Several studies have found positive results in EL relations with employee performance_. Some studies found a significant positive effect of EL relations on employee performance (Imran & Aldaas, 2020; Paudel, 2019). Based on the literature, the first hypothesis was formulated as.

Entrepreneurs who hold top positions within organizations are often viewed as leaders who possess specific leadership attributes and entrepreneurial characteristics. Previous research studies, such as that by Imran and Aldaas (2020) and Dover and Dierk (2010), has established the notion of entrepreneurs as organizational leaders. Understanding the factors influencing organizational performance has been a focal point of numerous studies, with leadership emerging as one of the most significant contributors to performance (López-Cabarcos, Vázquez-Rodríguez, & Quiñoá-Piñeiro, 2022; Kickul & Neuman, 2000). Hence, entrepreneurs displaying the appropriate leadership styles may serve as the linchpin for organizational success (Herlina, Tukiran, & Anwar, 2021; Dwi Widyani, Landra, Sudja, Ximenes, & Sarmawa, 2020; Imran & Aldaas, 2020). Despite this, little attention has been paid to the connection between EL and CP. However, EL can have a significant influence on contextual performance within organizations. CP refers to behaviors that contribute to the overall functioning and effectiveness of a work environment beyond the formal requirements of the job (López-Cabarcos et al., 2022). These behaviors include helping others, volunteering for additional tasks, being a positive influence on team morale and actively participating in organizational citizenship activities.

Entrepreneurial leaders often encourage a collaborative and inclusive culture where employees feel valued and motivated to contribute beyond their formal job roles. Entrepreneurial leaders encourage teamwork and open communication, as a result, they create an environment conducive to collaborative efforts and mutual support, leading to increased CP. Also, entrepreneurial leaders empower employees to take initiative and be proactive in identifying and addressing organizational needs (Abualoush, Obeidat, Abusweilema, & Khasawneh, 2022). They create opportunities for employees to contribute their ideas, talents and skills to improve processes, solve problems and seize opportunities, thus enhancing CP through proactive behaviors. Entrepreneurial leaders prioritize the development and growth of their employees. They provide mentorship, coaching and learning opportunities that empower employees to enhance their skills, expand their knowledge and take on new challenges. As employees feel supported and invested in their professional development, they are more likely to engage in behaviors that contribute to CP (Akbari, Bagheri, Imani, & Asadnezhad, 2021). Based on the literature, the second hypothesis was formulated as follows:

Numerous empirical studies have firmly established the link between EL and innovation (Bagheri, 2017; Fontana & Musa, 2017; Cai et al., 2018; Bagheri & Akbari, 2018). What distinguishes EL from other leadership styles is its emphasis on driving innovation and seizing opportunities, particularly in volatile and uncertain environments (Yu, Zhang, Huang, Chen, & Chen, 2022; Saksa, 2021; Leitch, McMullan, & Harrison, 2013; Renko et al., 2015). Emerging at the intersection of entrepreneurship and leadership, EL is characterized by its proactive stance toward innovation and its relentless pursuit of entrepreneurial goals (Nguyen, Huynh, Lam, Le, & Nguyen, 2021; Abimiku & Cornelius, 2024). Notably, entrepreneurial leaders play a role in shaping firms' innovation by inspiring entrepreneurial vision, serving as role models for innovative behavior and guiding employees through the ideation and implementation of ideas (Hoang, Luu, Nguyen, Tang, & Pham, 2024; Sarwoko, 2020; Renko et al., 2015).

In their quest to foster innovation within their organizations (Strobl, Bauer, & Matzler, 2020), entrepreneurial leaders devise strategic frameworks aimed at maximizing innovation potential. Entrepreneurial leaders allocate resources, create supportive structures and establish conducive environments that encourage experimentation and risk-taking (Renko et al., 2015). Moreover, entrepreneurial leaders are adept at identifying and capitalizing on emerging opportunities, leveraging their foresight and adaptability to navigate complex market dynamics and stay ahead of the curve (Hoang et al., 2024). By nurturing a culture of innovation and providing the necessary impetus and support, entrepreneurial leaders empower their teams to push boundaries, challenge conventions and drive organizational progress. In doing so, entrepreneurial leaders catalyze a cycle of continuous innovation and growth, positioning their firms at the forefront of industry evolution and fostering sustainable competitive advantage. Thus, EL emerges as a potent catalyst for organizational innovation, driving transformative change and shaping the future landscape of business (Abimiku & Cornelius, 2024).

Research indicates that EL plays a crucial role in promoting innovative employee behavior (Bagheri, 2017). Fontana and Musa (2017) further affirm that EL significantly influences the innovation process, with its impact often moderated by the surrounding environment. From an alternative leadership perspective, Afsar and Umrani (2019) suggest that transformational leadership shapes IWB, a relationship moderated by the climate for innovation. Chen (2007) delved into the connection between EL and innovative capability, revealing that a high level of EL coupled with team creativity enhances innovative capability. Based on the literature, the third hypothesis was formulated as follows:

The theoretical literature emphasizes the relationship between IWB and JP due to the role innovation plays in determining organizational effectiveness (Shanker et al., 2017; Palladan, 2018). IWB enhances creativity, facilitates the implementation of generated ideas and ultimately enhances JP. Hence, organizations that cultivate a culture of creativity and innovation among employees in their production processes tend to achieve superior performance (Nasir et al., 2019). Additionally, innovative behavior is crucial for organizational innovation and long-term competitive advantage, given that employees are often the primary sources of innovation within many organizations (Zeb et al., 2021). This recognition of IWB’s role in enhancing JP has prompted scholars to explore the primary determinants of innovative behavior in the workplace (Bowen, Rostami, & Steel, 2010; Supriyanto & Ekowati, 2020).

“For example, Mehmood, Jian, and Gilal (2020) identified various factors influencing innovative behavior, including employees' psychological factors, organizational climate, job characteristics, and leadership styles.” “Empirical studies further support the positive relationship between IWB and JP. Yuan and Woodman (2010) demonstrated that the attributes of IWB positively influence employees' performance outcomes”. “Similarly, Leong and Rasli (2014) found a positive relationship between IWB and work performance among employees in the automotive industry in Malaysia.” Palladan (2018) showed a positive relationship between IWB and JP among lecturers in tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Moreover, Nasir et al. (2019), focusing on lecturers in public universities, found that JP is positively influenced by IWB and intrinsic motivation. Santoso, Zuniawan, Wijayanti, and Hadi (2020) demonstrated a positive relationship between IWB and JP among employees in the telecommunications industry in Indonesia.

While previous studies suggest a positive relationship between IWB and TP (Dörner et al., 2012), it is important to note that traditional TP metrics typically focus on explicit job descriptions and may overlook employees' non-explicit contributions to the organization. Also, the results of the study by Van Zyl et al. (2021) established a positive relationship between IWB and TP. Employees in roles where innovativeness is not explicitly required may be less motivated to apply new ideas if they do not perceive them as beneficial to their work. Given these insights, we propose the following hypotheses:

The mediating role of IWB in the relationship between EL and JP is a topic of growing interest in organizational research (Abualoush et al., 2022; Li et al., 2020). EL, characterized by vision, risk-taking and innovation, is known to positively influence various organizational outcomes, including JP (Leitch & Harrison, 2018). Similarly, IWB, which involves generating and implementing novel ideas to improve work processes and outcomes (Hong & Zainal, 2022), is closely linked to enhanced JP. Entrepreneurial leaders often promote a culture of innovation and encourage employees to think creatively, take risks and explore new ideas (Fontana & Musa, 2017). By providing a supportive environment and empowering employees to experiment and innovate, entrepreneurial leaders ensure IWB among their teams. Employees under EL are more likely to engage in behaviors such as generating new ideas, experimenting with new approaches and proactively seeking opportunities for improvement (Renko et al., 2015). As employees demonstrate higher levels of IWB, they contribute to organizational success through enhanced JP. IWB promotes efficiency, effectiveness and adaptability in work processes, leading to better outcomes and higher levels of JP (Nasir et al., 2019). Employees who actively engage in innovative behaviors tend to be more productive, creative and resilient, thus delivering superior performance in their roles (Dörner et al., 2012).

IWB mediates the relationship between EL and both TP and CP by serving as the conduit through which EL influences these performance outcomes. Entrepreneurial leaders, characterized by their vision, proactiveness and risk-taking, foster an environment that encourages employees to engage in creative problem-solving, experimentation and the implementation of ideas. This IWB enhances TP by enabling employees to find more efficient and effective ways to accomplish their specific job responsibilities. Simultaneously, it improves CP by promoting a culture of adaptability, collaboration and continuous improvement, which positively impacts the broader organizational environment. Thus, IWB acts as a mechanism that translates the inspirational and strategic aspects of EL into tangible performance gains both in individual tasks and overall organizational contributions. Therefore, IWB acts as a mediator in the relationship between EL and JP. EL influences JP both directly and indirectly through its impact on IWB. The more entrepreneurial leaders encourage and support innovation within the organization, the more likely employees are to exhibit innovative behaviors that ultimately enhance their JP.

Empirical studies have provided support for this mediated relationship. Research findings have demonstrated that the positive effect of EL on JP is partially or fully mediated by IWB. For example, a study by Zhang and Bartol (2010) found that IWB mediated the relationship between transformational leadership (which shares similarities with EL) and employee creativity and performance. Furthermore, recent research by Al Wali, Muthuveloo, and Teoh (2022) sheds light on the positive mediating role of IWB in various organizational contexts. For instance, their study revealed that IWB serves as a mediator in the relationship between creative self-efficacy (CSE) and JP among physicians in Iraq public hospitals. This finding suggests that initiatives aimed at enhancing the JP of healthcare professionals in such settings should consider promoting both IWB and CSE. Similarly, Al Wali et al. (2022) also identified IWB as a positive mediator in the relationship between humble leadership (HL) and JP among physicians in Iraq public hospitals. This implies that strategies aimed at improving the JP of healthcare professionals should integrate both IWB and HL practices, highlighting the importance of leadership styles that emphasize humility and employee empowerment. “Moreover, a study by Van Zyl et al. (2021) provided support for the mediating role of IWB about work engagement and TP within the context of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)”. This shows the versatility of IWB as a mediator across different industries and organizational settings.

Based on these insights, we propose the following hypotheses:

Figure 1 represent the conceptual framework illustrating the hypothesized relationships between EL, IWB, TP and CP. EL serves as the primary independent variable, hypothesized to directly influence TP (H1), IWB (H2) and CP (H3). Additionally, IWB is proposed as a mediator, influencing CP (H4) and TP (H5). The model suggests that EL not only has direct effects on TP and CP but also indirectly impacts these variables through IWB (H6, H7). This framework aims to explore the interconnected roles of EL, IWB and EP (employee performance) such as CP (contextual performance) and TP (task performance).

This research is a quantitative investigation conducted within the food and beverages industry of Ghana, which is aimed at the perceptions regarding EL, IWB, TP and CP within the workplace. Data collection was accomplished through face-to-face questionnaires administered to both managers and employees operating within this industry. The sample drawn utilizing the convenience sampling technique consisted of 405 individuals. The study collected data from employees from various firms within the food and beverages industry of Ghana such as cocoa processing firms, green gold farms, fan milk, homechow and Africa Goodnest, however, after screening for eligibility, only 344 responded questionnaires were deemed suitable for analysis.

To analyze the relationships among the variables in the model, this study utilized SmartPLS 4 software, specifically employing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Several factors influenced the choice of PLS-SEM in this research. Firstly, our model aims to predict and explain the variances in target constructs, aligning with the approach advocated by prior scholars (Morin et al., 2017; Chin, 2010). Secondly, the variables under investigation, including IWB, CP and TP, are in the developing stages of theoretical development, indicating the potential for insights and further exploration (Richter, Cepeda-Carrión, Roldán Salgueiro, & Ringle, 2016). Thirdly, this study incorporates recent advancements in PLS path modeling, such as the utilization of latent variable scores, goodness-of-fit measures and effect sizes, facilitating a more comprehensive analysis (Latan, 2018). Lastly, due to the complexity of the structural model and the desire to unravel the relative effects of exogenous variables on endogenous ones, PLS-SEM was deemed suitable (Richter et al., 2016). “The application of PLS-SEM entails a two-step process involving the assessment of both the measurement model and the structural model”. “Evaluation of the measurement model entails scrutinizing the validity and reliability of latent variables, as well as examining the connections between these variables and their respective items”. “Conversely, the assessment of the structural model focuses on determining the relationships between latent variables” (Chin, 2010; Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011).

Table 1 provides an overview of the sample distribution across different firm types in the food and beverage industry, based on the number of employees included in the study. Restaurants and Cafes account for the largest sample with 98 employees, followed by Fast-Food Chains (90 employees) and Catering Services (81 employees). Beverage Manufacturers and Supermarkets and Grocery Stores have relatively smaller representations with 69 and 67 employees, respectively. This distribution highlights a balanced focus across various segments of the industry, with a slightly higher emphasis on establishments offering prepared meals and dining experiences.

EL: The EL measuring scale was adapted and modified from past studies and existing entrepreneurship index. EL was measured using Gupta et al. (2004), Waldman, Ramirez, House, and Puranam (2001), In House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004), and eight sample items. “A 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree was used to obtain responses”.

Job Performance: “JP as a construct was assessed as a two-dimensional variable using a ten-item scale developed by Greenslade and Jimmieson (2007) and a ten-item conceptualized scale Çalişkan and Köroğlu (2022)”. “The scale by Greenslade and Jimmieson (2007), measures two dimensions of JP namely; TP (five items) and CP (five items)”. “These scales have been widely used in some prominent research studies due to their reliability and internal accuracy (Awan, Habib, Shoaib Akhtar, & Naveed, 2020; Yang, Chen, Zhao, & Hua, 2020)”. “The scale was deemed relevant for the research hypotheses and hence, the researcher adapted and modified it to meet the specific context of this research study”. “A 5-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree was used to obtain responses.”

“Innovative Work Behavior: IWB was measured using De Jong and Den Hartog (2010). Cronbach’s α for IWB was 0.84. These scales have been widely used in some prominent research studies due to their reliability and internal accuracy (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Yang et al., 2020).” “A 5-point Likert scale where 1 = always to 5 = never was used to obtain responses”.

The researchers employed partial least squares - structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test hypothesized relationships, as well as to assess the validity and reliability of study measures.

To address the issue of CMB the researchers employed multiple techniques to ensure the validity and reliability of our results. The researcher conducted Harman’s single-factor test, a widely used diagnostic tool to assess CMB. All study variables were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis, and the unrotated factor solution was examined. The results indicated that the first factor accounted for 43% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). This indicates that a single factor does not dominate the variance, suggesting that common method bias is not a significant concern. In addition to Harman’s test, the researchers also utilized the inner variance inflation factor (VIF) values from the PLS-SEM analysis. VIF values are used to detect multicollinearity among predictors, which can indicate CMB if values are excessively high. The VIF values for our model ranged from 1.5 to 2.8, which are well below the recommended cut-off value of 3.3 (Kock, 2015). These low VIF values suggest that multicollinearity is not an issue, further confirming that common method bias does not significantly affect our results.

Table 2 presents the outcomes of the confirmatory factor analysis, encompassing factor loadings, average variance extract (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha test (CA) for the study’s conceptual framework. Examining the factor loadings, it is noteworthy that each item exhibited factor loadings surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.4, as suggested by Nunnally (1978). This observation adds to the validity of the study’s measurement model. Cronbach’s alpha test was employed to assess the internal consistency and reliability of the constructs. According to Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, and Kuppelwieser (2014) and Kline (2015), the results in Table 2 indicate that all variables exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.7. Furthermore, the study evaluated composite reliability (CR) as an indicator of reliability. According to established criteria (Hair et al., 2014; Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015), CR values between 0.60 and 0.70 are deemed acceptable in exploratory studies, while values between 0.70 and 0.95 are considered desirable. The composite reliability values for the variables were within the desirable range. Convergent validity was examined through average variance extract (AVE). The findings from Table 2 reveal AVE values exceeding the suggested threshold of 0.50, as recommended by Henseler et al. (2015). These results provide evidence of convergent validity in the study.

As shown in Table 3, “to assess discriminant validity, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio” (HTMT) analysis was employed. As outlined by Afum et al. (2020), discriminant validity of a construct explains its distinctiveness from other constructs. It is asserted that in a well-fitted structural model, the HTMT ratio should not exceed certain thresholds such as 0.85 (considered stringent), 0.90 (slightly more lenient) or significantly less than 1 (Afum et al., 2020; Benitez, Henseler, Castillo, & Schuberth, 2020). The values of the HTMT ratio in Table 3 are found to be below the recommended levels. This observation, coupled with the satisfaction of psychometric requirements for the structural model in this study, implies that further research is warranted.

Furthermore, the Fornell–Larcker approach was utilized to confirm the discriminant validity of the constructs. “As per Fornell and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity refers to the degree to which distinct constructs are measured by specific items”. “This can be verified by comparing the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) of a construct with the correlations between other constructs”. As shown in Table 4, the results obtained through the Fornell–Larcker approach established discriminant validity. “This is evident as the square roots of the AVE coefficients on the diagonals were consistently higher than the corresponding coefficients found in the rows and columns, specifically the squared AVEs”. This pattern was observed across all situations, affirming the discriminant validity of the constructs.

The q-square predict was used to test the predictive relevance of the study. If a q-square value exceeded the threshold of 0 then predictive relevance was established. From Table 5, it can be seen that the q-square values for the endogenous contrast of the study thus CP, IWP and TP was higher than threshold 0 hence, predictive relevance was established.

Based on the results from Table 6, Pearson product of correlation of EL and TP was found to be positive and statistically significant (r = 0.238, p < 0.01). Also, Pearson product of correlation of EL and CP was found to be positive and statistically significant (r = 0.311, p < 0.01). Further, Pearson product of correlation of EL and IWB was also found to be positive and statistically significant (r = 0.215, p < 0.001). The Pearson product of correlation of IWB and TP was found to be positive and statistically significant (r = 0.409, p < 0.01). Finally, the Pearson product of correlation of IWB and CP was also found to be positive and statistically significant (r = 0.440, p < 0.01).

The path coefficient for the inner model was employed to determine the relationship between covariances. In assessing this relationship, it is essential for T-Statistics values to surpass the threshold of 1.96, accompanied by corresponding p-values below the 0.1 threshold. In Table 7, all T-Statistics values, exceed 1.96, and their corresponding p-values are below 0.1. This signifies a significant relationship between covariance. The study specifically examined the indirect effect, focusing on the mediating role of IWB in determining the impact of EL on JP. In accordance with Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for supporting mediation, three conditions must be met. Firstly, the independent variable should significantly affect the dependent variable in the initial regression equation. Secondly, the independent variable must have a significant influence on the mediator in the second regression equation. Lastly, the mediator should significantly impact the dependent variable in the third equation. Complete mediation is affirmed when the independent variable no longer affects the dependent variable after controlling for the mediator and meeting all conditions. Partial mediation is evident when the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable diminishes after mediator control (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Table 7 reveals that IWB served as a partial mediator in the relationship between EL and TP as well as CP. This is evident as the independent variable (EL) exerts a significant influence on the dependent variable (TP, CP).

The path model figure above, derived from PLS-SEM analysis, displays relationships among constructs and their respective indicators (manifest variables). The latent variables (EL, IWB, TP, CP) are connected via structural paths with path coefficients indicating the strength of the relationships (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). From Figure 2 EL has a positive relationship with IWB (p = 0.226), TP (p = 0.197) and CP (p = 0.154). Additionally, IWB is weakly influenced by TP (p = 0.051) but strongly influenced by CP (p = 0.268). Indicator loadings exceed 0.6 for most variables, demonstrating sufficient reliability of measurement items (Henseler et al., 2015). The R² values within the circles (p = 0.051 for IWB) indicate the variance explained in each dependent variable by its predictors (Chin, 1998).

In Table 5, it is evident that EL has a significant influence on CP, as indicated by the T statistics value of 2.591 and the corresponding P value of 0.010. This accepts the hypothesis H2, suggesting that EL significantly impacts CP. Conversely, the results affirm that EL significantly influences TP, with a T statistics value of 2.999 and a P value of 0.003, thereby accepting hypothesis H1, which posits that “EL has a significant influence on TP.” Additionally, the findings show that EL significantly and positively influences IWB (T statistics = 4.605, P value = 0.000), supporting hypothesis H3. Moreover, IWB demonstrates a significant positive influence on CP, as reflected in Table 4, with a T statistics value of 7.034 and a P value of 0.000. This confirms the acceptance of hypothesis H5, stating that “IWB has a significant influence on CP”. It is also evident that IWB has a significant influence on TP, as indicated by the T statistics value of 4.990 and the corresponding P value of 0.000. This accepts the hypothesis H4, suggesting that IWB significantly impact TP.

Table 5 uncovers the mediating role of IWB. The results indicate partial mediation in the relationship between EL and TP as well as EL and CP. The T statistics value of 3.411 is lower than the threshold 1.96, with the corresponding P value of 0.001 exceeding the threshold 0.1 from Table 5 indicating that IWB partially mediates the relationship between EL and TP. Thus, hypothesis H6, asserting that IWB mediates the relationship between EL and TP, is supported.

Furthermore, the results indicate that IWB partially mediates the relationship between EL and CP, as the T statistics value of 2.993 is above the threshold of 1.96, with the corresponding P value of 0.003 exceeding the threshold of 0.1. Consequently, hypothesis H7, stating that “IWB mediates the relationship between EL and CP,” is supported.

The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of EL on TP and CP while concurrently examining the mediating effect of IWB. In summary, the study revealed that IWB positively and significantly mediated the relationship between EL and both contextual and TP. The study found that EL has a significant positive relationship with both TP and CP. Similiary, IWB has a significant positive relationship with both TP and CP based on the result obtained.

The findings of the present study align with previous research by Imran and Aldaas (2020), which reported a significant positive impact of EL on employee JP, as well as Paudel (2019), who established a positive correlation between EL and employee performance. These results are consistent with the significant positive predictive effect of EL on both TP and CP found in the current study. Additionally, the study by Kickul and Neuman (2000) further supports these findings, demonstrating a noteworthy enhancement in employee performance attributable to EL efforts. Overall, the current results affirm the conclusions of these prior studies, highlighting the positive influence of EL on various aspects of employee performance.

The results of the present study, which reveal a significant positive relationship between EL and IWB, are consistent with the findings of Fontana and Musa (2017), who highlighted that EL significantly influences the innovation process, though its impact can be moderated by the environment. This alignment contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the positive link between EL initiatives and IWB. The study further corroborates Bagheri (2017), which identified a robust correlation between EL and employee innovative behavior. Additionally, the conformity with Nguyen et al. (2021), Abimiku and Cornelius (2024), Bagheri and Akbari (2018), Cai et al. (2018), and Newman, Herman et al. (2018), Newman, Neesham et al. (2018) shows a consistent pattern across multiple studies regarding the beneficial impact of EL on IWB. These findings suggest that EL plays a crucial role in fostering an environment conducive to innovation and reinforces the positive influence of EL on employees' capacity for innovation.

The results of the current study, which indicate a substantial and positive impact of IWB on both TP and CP, align closely with prior research, reinforcing the established understanding of this relationship. Studies by Shanker et al. (2017) and Palladan (2018) have consistently demonstrated a positive relationship between IWB and employee performance, corroborating the current findings. This alignment is further supported by Yuan and Woodman (2010), who found that IWB attributes positively influence performance outcomes, and Leong and Rasli (2014), who observed a similar effect within the Malaysian automotive industry. Additional research by Nasir et al. (2019), Dörner et al. (2012) and Van Zyl et al. (2021) contributes to a robust body of evidence highlighting the beneficial impact of IWB on various performance metrics. These consistent results show the value of fostering IWB as a strategic approach for organizations aiming to improve overall workforce performance and effectiveness.

The study found that IWB serves as a partial mediator in the relationship between EL and JP. The study’s finding that IWB serves as a partial mediator in the relationship between EL and JP aligns with previous research, particularly the study by Al Wali et al. (2022), which also found IWB to be a positive partial mediator between Humble Leadership and JP among physicians in Iraq. While both studies highlight IWB as a mediator, they differ in leadership styles and contexts. The previous study focused on humble leadership in the healthcare sector, while the current research emphasizes inclusive leadership in the food and beverages industry. This distinction shows the unique contribution of the present study by exploring the role of IWB within a distinct leadership framework (IL) and in a different cultural and industry setting. This consistency shows the significant role of IWB in enhancing JP through effective leadership practices. In contrast, Van Zyl et al. (2021) highlighted IWB’s full mediating role between work engagement and TP within the ICT sector, indicating that while IWB’s mediation effect is consistent across different contexts, the relationships it mediates may vary. While both studies demonstrate IWB’s mediating effect on performance outcomes, the strength and nature of the mediation differ. In the ICT sector, IWB fully mediates the relationship between engagement and performance, suggesting that IWB completely explains the connection between these variables. However, in the food and beverages industry, IWB only partially mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and JP, indicating that other factors, alongside IWB, also play significant roles in this relationship. The uniqueness of the current study lies in its focus on IL and the food and beverages industry in Ghana, whereas the previous study explored work engagement in the ICT sector. Overall, these findings reinforce the importance of cultivating a supportive work environment through leadership that fosters IWB, suggesting that such an environment can positively influence JP across various sectors.

The study offers several novel contributions to academia by revealing that IWB significantly mediates the relationship between EL and both TP and CP. This dual mediation effect shows the role of IWB in enhancing various performance dimensions through EL, extending the understanding of how EL practices can foster an environment conducive to innovative behaviors that drive overall performance. By examining both TP and CP, the research broadens the scope of performance outcomes influenced by EL and IWB. This dual focus ensures that the findings are comprehensive, addressing both the direct tasks employees are responsible for and the broader, supportive behaviors that contribute to the organizational environment which is significant to academia. Further, insights provided by this study offer a framework for future research to explore additional mediators (such as; employee engagement, psychological empowerment) and moderators (such as; employee trust, team cohesion) in the relationship between EL and performance. It opens avenues for further investigation into other factors (employee engagement, psychological empowerment, employee trust, team cohesion) that might influence or enhance this relationship, thus enriching the academic discourse on leadership and innovation. Additionally, by establishing significant positive relationships between EL and both types of performance, as well as between IWB and both types of performance, the study provides a comprehensive framework that links leadership style, innovative behaviors and performance outcomes. These findings not only validate but also expand upon existing leadership and performance theories, offering practical insights for fostering innovation and improving performance in organizational settings.

This research carries significant implications for human resources managers, highlighting the strategic importance of EL in fostering IWB and enhancing JP. The findings show the importance of cultivating EL qualities within managerial ranks. Managers should invest in leadership development programs that foster entrepreneurial mindsets, behaviors and decision-making strategies among leaders. This can be achieved through training, mentorship and coaching programs aimed at enhancing leaders' abilities to inspire innovation and creativity within their. By focusing on developing these entrepreneurial skills, organizations can cultivate leaders who drive innovative thinking and creative problem-solving in their teams. Managers should actively encourage and support IWB among employees. This could involve creating a conducive work environment that values experimentation, risk-taking and idea generation. Recognizing and rewarding employees who demonstrate innovative thinking can further incentivize IWB and contribute to overall organizational success. Managers should recognize the mediating role of IWB in translating the influence of EL into improved JP. This highlights the importance of nurturing a work environment that empowers employees to explore new ideas, challenge the status quo and contribute to organizational innovation efforts.

The study may suffer from generalizability issues due to its focus on a specific industry, organizational context or geographical location which was the food and beverage industry in Ghana. Future research could replicate the study across different industries, organizational sizes and cultural contexts to assess the robustness of the findings. While the study identified IWB as a partial mediator in the relationship between EL and JP, the assumptions underlying mediation analysis (e.g. temporal precedence, absence of omitted variables) should be carefully considered. Future research could employ alternative statistical techniques (e.g. longitudinal mediation models, experimental designs) to further validate the mediating role of IWB. Future research could investigate potential moderating factors that influence the relationship between EL, IWB and JP. For example, organizational culture, industry dynamism and leadership styles may moderate the effectiveness of EL in fostering IWB and enhancing JP. Comparative studies could compare the effectiveness of different leadership approaches (e.g. EL, transformational leadership and servant leadership) in fostering innovation and improving JP. By identifying the unique contributions and limitations of each leadership style, organizations can tailor their leadership development efforts to better meet their specific needs and objectives.