| Literature DB >> 33299363 |
Qiao Wang1, Jianmin Wang2, Xiaohu Zhou1, Fangyuan Li1, Mengze Wang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Leaders try to stimulate follower taking charge to promote organizational change and effectiveness in current increasingly complex and changing environment. Based on social identity theory, we developed a mediated moderation model in which affective commitment was theorized as a mediating mechanism underlining why followers feel motivated to taking charge with the supervision of inclusive leadership. Furthermore, traditionality should be a relevant boundary condition to moderate such a relationship in China.Entities:
Keywords: affective commitment; follower taking charge; inclusive leadership; social identity theory; traditionality
Year: 2020 PMID: 33299363 PMCID: PMC7720287 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S280911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Hypothesized research model.
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
| Variables | IFI | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor model | 594.618 | 399 | 1.490 | 0.934 | 0.927 | 0.933 | 0.045 |
| Three-factor model | 802.137 | 402 | 1.995 | 0.864 | 0.851 | 0.863 | 0.064 |
| Two-factor model | 1129.988 | 404 | 2.797 | 0.754 | 0.732 | 0.751 | 0.086 |
| One-factor model | 1819.452 | 405 | 4.492 | 0.520 | 0.479 | 0.515 | 0.119 |
Notes: Four-factor model: inclusive leadership, affective commitment, traditionality, and follower taking charge. Three-factor model: combining inclusive leadership and affective commitment. Two-factor model: combining inclusive leadership and affective commitment, and traditionality. One-factor model: combining all four constructs into one factor.
Abbreviations: IFI, incremental fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation.
Results of Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
| Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 1.47 | 0.50 | 1 | |||||||||
| 2. Age | 1.40 | 0.63 | −0.138* | 1 | ||||||||
| 3. Education | 2.98 | 0.84 | −0.040 | −0.08 | 1 | |||||||
| 4. Team tenure | 2.15 | −1.043 | −0.023 | 0.351** | −0.007 | 1 | ||||||
| 5. Income | 2.39 | 1.05 | 0.033 | −0.019 | 0.325** | 0.204** | 1 | |||||
| 6. Duty | 1.25 | 0.49 | −0.08 | 0.233** | −0.10 | 0.411** | 0.119 | 1 | ||||
| 7. Inclusive leadership | 4.68 | 0.73 | 0.003 | −0.065 | 0.109 | −0.121 | −0.062 | −0.077 | 1 | |||
| 8. Affective commitment | 4.43 | 0.73 | −0.045 | −0.041 | 0.101 | −0.088 | −0.047 | −0.019 | 0.587** | 1 | ||
| 9. Traditionality | 3.61 | 0.97 | −0.024 | 0.07 | −0.124 | 0.137* | −0.019 | 0.082 | −0.367** | −0.265** | 1 | |
| 10. Follower taking charge | 4.08 | 0.63 | 0.037 | 0.107 | −0.042 | 0.119 | −0.046 | 0.19** | 0.167** | 0.285** | 0.404** | 1 |
Notes: Gender: 1 = “male”, 2 = “female”. Age: 1 = “30 years and below”, 2 = “31 years to 40 years”, 3 = “41 years to 50 years”, 4 = “51 years and above 51 years”. Education: 1 = “high school and below”, 2 = “Junior college”, 3 = “Bachelor degree”, 4=“Master degree and above”. Team tenure: 1 = “below 3 years”, 2 = “3 years to 5 years”, 3 = “6 years to 8 years”, 4 = “9 years to 11 years”, 5 = “12 years and above”. Income: 1 = “below 5000 RMB”, 2 = “5001 RMB to 10,000 RMB”, 3 = “10,001 RMB to 15,000 RMB”, 4 = 15,000 RMB to 20,000 RMB”, 5 = “above 20,001 RMB”. Duty:1= “Ordinary employee”, 2= “Low management”, 3= “Middle management”, 4= “Top management”. N=246, *P<0.05, **P<0.01.
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
| Affective Commitment | Follower Taking Charge | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Mode 7 | Model 8 | |
| Gender | −0.045 | −0.062 | 0.080 | 0.079 | 0.095 | 0.083 | 0.110 | 0.076 |
| Age | −0.041 | −0.006 | 0.060 | 0.064 | 0.065 | 0.056 | 0.064 | 0.058 |
| Education level | 0.101 | 0.041 | 0.006 | −0.013 | −0.022 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.003 |
| Team tenure | −0.088 | −0.021 | 0.028 | 0.038 | 0.042 | 0.023 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Income | −0.047 | −0.017 | −0.048 | −0.038 | −0.034 | −0.034 | −0.021 | −0.028 |
| Position | −0.019 | 0.066 | 0.225 | 0.228* | 0.211* | 0.158* | 0.202** | 0.164* |
| Inclusive leadership | 0.589*** | 0.165** | 0.166** | 0.181** | ||||
| Affective commitment | 0.256*** | 0.361*** | 0.278*** | 0.268*** | ||||
| Traditionality | 0.293*** | 0.355*** | 0.321*** | |||||
| Affective commitment | −0.189*** | −0.196*** | ||||||
| ∆F | 1. 021 | 119.152*** | 2.104 | 9.078** | 24.207*** | 20.872*** | 43.3*** | 41.365*** |
| R2 | 0.025 | 0.350 | 0.050 | 0.085 | 0.138 | 0.417 | 0.387 | 0.443 |
| ∆R2 | 0.025 | 0.325 | 0.050 | 0.035 | 0.088 | 0.367 | 0.337 | 0.392 |
Notes: N = 246; *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001.
Results of Mediation and Mediated Moderation Analysis
| Mediation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Path | Indirect Effect | Boot SE | LLCI | ULCI | |
| Inclusive leadership → affective commitment → follower taking charge | 0.144 | 0.042 | 0.068 | 0.233 | |
| 95% Bias-corrected Confidence Intervals | |||||
| Dependent variable | Level of traditionality | Effect | Boot SE | LLCI | ULCI |
| Follower taking charge | Low (–1 SD) | 0.270 | 0.049 | 0.179 | 0.371 |
| Mean | 0.158 | 0.036 | 0.094 | 2342 | |
| High (+1 SD) | 0.046 | 0.041 | –0.034 | 0.123 | |
Abbreviations: LLCL, lower limit of confidence interval; ULCL, upper limit of confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2Interactive effect of affective commitment and traditionality on follower taking charge.