| Literature DB >> 34948998 |
Rezwan Ullah1, Muhammad Zada2, Imran Saeed3, Jawad Khan4, Muhammad Shahbaz1, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz5, Guido Salazar-Sepúlveda6.
Abstract
This study examines the impact of negative workplace gossip (NWG) on employee political acts (PA) and the role of ego depletion (ED) as a mediator. We also examined the indirect impact of NWG on PA through ED controlled by emotional intelligence (EI). A three-wave time-lagged study (paper-pencil based) was performed with 277 employees from various private organisations in Islamabad, Pakistan. The current data were gathered in three phases to reduce common method bias. Study results indicate that NWG positively affects employees' PA. The authors also found ED as a potential mediator in the association between NWG and PA. In addition, the results also indicate the indirect effect of NWG on targets' PA via ED is reduced by targets' EI, with the result that this connection is weak when targets' EI is high. Because this research is limited to a single region of Pakistan, particularly Islamabad, its findings cannot be comprehensive. Future studies should use a larger sample size to accomplish the same study. Future studies may include more organisations (that is, Public) to conduct a comparative analysis of the public and private sectors. This article, based on the affective events theory (AET), argues that EI should be utilised to mitigate the effects of NWG. Along with our significant and relevant theoretical contributions, we provide novel insights into the body of knowledge on how managers may prevent or minimise such PA. The current study results support all direct and indirect hypothesised connections, with important implications for theory and practice. A review of the existing literature indicates that EI may be associated with a reduction in employees' ED; however, EI has not been used as a moderator in mitigating the influence of NWG, ED, and PA in the past.Entities:
Keywords: AET; ego depletion; emotional intelligence; negative workplace gossip; political acts
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34948998 PMCID: PMC8704814 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413389
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Gossip triad [2,34]. Note: The gossip triangle has three “actors”: sender, target, and receiver.
Figure 2The Conceptual Model.
Sample Characteristics.
| Demographic Variables | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 229 | 82.67 |
| Female | 48 | 17.32 |
| Age (yrs) | ||
| 21–30 | 43 | 15.52 |
| 31–40 | 103 | 37.18 |
| 41–50 | 98 | 35.37 |
| 51–60 | 33 | 11.91 |
| Tenure | ||
| 1–7 years | 203 | 73.28 |
| 8–15 years | 61 | 22.02 |
| 16–25 years | 07 | 2.52 |
| Over 25 years | 06 | 2.16 |
| Qualifications | ||
| High school | 13 | 4.69 |
| HSSC | 34 | 12.27 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 167 | 60.28 |
| Master’s degree or above | 63 | 22.7 |
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.
| Model | χ2/df | RMR | GFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline model (four-factor model) | 1.03 | 0.02 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.03 |
| 4-factor model a | 4.39 | 0.08 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.09 |
| 3-factor model b | 2.54 | 0.04 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.07 |
| 2-factor model c | 4.69 | 0.05 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.05 |
| 1-factor model d | 5.42 | 1.03 | 0.44 | 0.34 | 0.15 |
a Combining NWG and ED; b Combining NWG, ED, and PA; c Combining NWG, ED, and EI; d Combining all items.
Mean, standard deviation, reliability and correlations of this study (n = 277).
| Variables | Mean | S.D | CR | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | 2.44 | 0.84 | −0.001 | |||||||||
| 2. Gender | 1.38 | 0.49 | −0.024 | |||||||||
| 3. Education | 2.78 | 0.54 | −0.004 | −0.199 ** | 0.056 | |||||||
| 4. Tenure | 1.99 | 0.68 | 0.189 ** | −0.039 | −0.042 | 0.071 | (0.81) | |||||
| 5. Negative workplace gossip | 3.47 | 0.50 | 0.89 | 0.53 | 0.097 | 0.120 * | 0.112 | −0.066 | 0.441 ** | (0.83) | ||
| 6. ED | 3.10 | 0.47 | 0.91 | 0.56 | 0.079 | −0.055 | −0.122 * | 0.029 | 0.490 ** | 0.437 ** | (0.77) | |
| 7. PA | 3.12 | 0.54 | 0.93 | 0.53 | −0.010 | 0.051 | 0.004 | 0.060 | 0.035 | −0.082 | −0.119 * | (0.84) |
| 8. EI | 1.52 | 0.35 | 0.88 | 0.51 | −0.001 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Results of hierarchical regression analyses (n = 277).
| Ego Depletion | Political Acts | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | |
| Control Variables | ||||||||
| Age | −0.009 | −0.007 | 0.008 | 0.054 | 0.051 | 0.024 | 0.047 | −0.004 |
| Gender | −0.040 | 0.037 | 0.131 | 0.119 | 0.119 | −0.121 | 0.113 | −0.023 |
| Education | −0.102 | 0.004 | 0.114 | 0.098 | −0.122 | −0.174 | 0.099 | −0.106 |
| Tenure | −0.005 | 0.030 | −0.068 | −0.043 | 0.029 | 0.046 | −0.057 | −0.003 |
| Independent Variable | ||||||||
| NWG | 0.44 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.13 *** | |||||
| Mediator | 0.19 *** | |||||||
| ED | ||||||||
| Moderator | ||||||||
| EI | 0.007 | |||||||
| Interaction | ||||||||
| Negativeworkplacegossip | 0.014 * | |||||||
| x EI | ||||||||
| F | 2.59 | 33.08 *** | 31.83 *** | 27.08 *** | 31.05 *** | 31.63 *** | 33.72 *** | 31.07 *** |
| ΔF | 2.60 | 62.98 *** | 23.82 *** | 1.63 | 4.82 | 4.66 | 4.66 | 4.89 |
| R2 | 0.009 | 0.195 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.31 |
| ΔR2 | 0.006 | 0.189 | 0.23 | 0.004 | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
Note(s): n = 277; *** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed) and * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Figure 3The interactive effects of NWG and EI on ED.
Results of moderation mediation (n = 277).
| Moderator Variable | NWG (X) → ED (M) → PA (Y) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage | Effect | ||||
| First | Second | Direct Effect | Indirect effect | Total Effect | |
| PMX | PYM | PYX | (PYM PMX) | (PYX + PYM PMX) | |
| Simple paths for low EI | 0.41 ** | 0.13 ** | 0.39 ** | 0.05 | 0.44 ** |
| Simple paths for high EI | 0.28 ** | 0.09 | 0.31 ** | 0.02 | 0.33 ** |
| Differences | 0.13 ** | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.09 |
| Index of moderated mediation | |||||
| Index | BootSE | BootLLCI | BootULCI | ||
| EI | −0.1142 | 0.0557 | −0.2380 | −0.0212 | |
PMX: NWG → ED; PYM: ED → PA; PYX: NWG → PA. One standard deviation below the mean value of ED is referred to below EI. High EI refers to one standard deviation above the mean value of ED. Bias-corrected confidence intervals derived from bootstrapping estimations were used for direct, indirect, and total effects tests. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4Hierarchy wise NWG comparison.