Digital Engagement Ecosystem and Agile Leadership: A Cognitive-Social Buffer Against Rumination Among Remote IT Professionals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajbmi.v1i1.6801Keywords:
Agile Leadership, Digital Engagement, IT Professionals, Mental Well-being, Remote Work, Rumination, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)Abstract
As the Information Technology (IT) sector shifts toward permanent distributed and hybrid work models, traditional engagement metrics often fail to capture the psychological complexities of remote professionals. This study empirically examines the “Digital Engagement Ecosystem” a multi-dimensional framework comprising Emotional, Cognitive, and Behavioral layers and its impact on Agile Leadership and employee Rumination. Utilizing a quantitative research design, data were collected from 350 IT professionals (e.g., Developers, DevOps Engineers, and Product Owners) across remote and hybrid environments. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized pathways and mediation effects. The findings reveal that all three layers of the engagement ecosystem significantly and positively predict the development of Agile Leadership. Specifically, the Emotional Layer (digital empathy and psychological safety) emerged as the strongest predictor (beta = 0.49), followed by the Cognitive (beta = 0.43) and Behavioral (beta = 0.39) layers. Furthermore, the study establishes a strong inverse relationship between Agile Leadership and Rumination (beta = -0.61), demonstrating that adaptive and empowering leadership acts as a critical cognitive-social buffer against work-related mental distress, such as brooding and intrusive thoughts. The results suggest that fostering a psychologically sustainable digital workplace requires organizations to move beyond technical output toward cultivating emotional intelligence and structured collaboration rituals. This research contributes to organizational behavior theory by decomposing engagement into a cohesive ecosystem and providing a practical roadmap for mitigating mental health risks in the remote IT workforce.
Downloads
References
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Anandavalli, A. M. N., & Raj, S. A. (2025a). Bridging technology and belonging: The predictive power of emotional intelligence and IIS satisfaction on workplace inclusivity. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398737452
Anandavalli, A. M. N., & Raj, S. A. (2025b). Creative leadership as a cognitive-social buffer against rumination and organizational anomie: The full mediation role of emotional intelligence and emotional capacity. TPM–Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 32(1), 1288–1302.
Anandavalli, A. M. N., & Raj, S. A. (2025c). Evaluating the role of digitalized compensation practices in enhancing employee motivation: A study in the private healthcare sector. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398561239
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Feitlin, M., Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2021). Leadership and trust in virtual teams: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1440–1469. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211011111
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Goleman, D. (2021). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (25th anniversary ed.). Bantam Books.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use of coefficient alpha and alternatives in estimating reliability for unidimensional measures. Western Journal of Communication, 84(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2020.1749185
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Agile leadership: A leader’s guide to agile mastery. Changewise.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Mark, G., Iqbal, S., Czerwinski, M., & Johns, P. (2014). Bored Mondays and focused afternoons: The rhythm of attention and email use in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1625–1634). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557204
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
Parker, S. K., Bindl, J. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation in the workplace. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Stashevsky, S., Koslowsky, M., & Burke, R. J. (2020). Leadership in remote and distributed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(9), 815–823.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
Vagias, W. M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors (Project report). Clemson University, International Initiative for Tourism & Research Development.
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aishwarya Anandavalli MN, S. Antony Raj (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
