Skip to main content
×
Home

Self-Sacrificial Leadership and Followers’ Affiliative and Challenging Citizenship Behaviors: A Relational Self-Concept Based Study in China

  • Wei He (a1), Ru-Yi Zhou (a2), Li-Rong Long (a3), Xu Huang (a4) and Po Hao (a5)...
Abstract
ABSTRACT

Drawing from self-concept and implicit leadership theories, we propose a multilevel model to examine whether, why, and when self-sacrificial leadership motivates followers’ affiliative and challenging citizenship behaviors in China. Data from 329 full-time employees in 83 work groups provide support for the hypothesized model. Specifically, we demonstrated that self-sacrificial leadership was positively related to followers’ relational self-concept constructs of leader identification and leader-based self-esteem, which had differential, downstream implications for followers’ two types of citizenship behavior. Whereas leader identification was found to mediate the positive relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and affiliative citizenship behavior only, leader-based self-esteem mediated the positive relationships of self-sacrificial leadership with both affiliative and challenging citizenship behaviors. We further demonstrated individual power distance orientation as a significant cultural contingency in the above mediation relationships, which were found to exist among followers with low rather than high power distance orientations. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

摘要:

借鉴自我概念和隐性领导力理论, 我们提出了一个多层次的模型来研究是否, 为什么, 及何时自我牺牲型领导力在中国激励跟随者的亲和及挑战性的公民行为。来自83个工作组329名全职员工的数据提供了对假设模型的支持。具体而言, 我们证明, 自我牺牲型领导力与跟随者的领导识别关系自我概念构造及基于领导的自尊呈正相关, 这对跟随者的两种类型公民行为有不同的下游启示。领导识别仅仅调解自我牺牲型领导力与亲和公民行为之间的正相关关系, 而基于领导的自尊调解自我牺牲型领导力与亲和及挑战性公民行为之间的正相关关系。我们进一步证明, 在上述调解关系中作为显著文化偶然性的个人权力距离导向被发现存在于有低而不是高权力距离导向的跟随者中。我们最后讨论了这些研究结果的理论和实践启示。

आत्म-अवधारणा व निहित नेतृत्व सिद्धांत के आधार पर हमने चीन के सम्बन्ध में यह आदर्श प्रस्तुत किया है कि किंवा तथा कब और क्यों आत्मत्यागपरक नेतृत्व अनुयायियों में संबंधपरक व चुनौती-केंद्रित नागरिकता व्यवहार उत्प्रेरित करता है. प्राप्त 329 पूर्णकालिक कर्मचारियों के 83 कार्य समूहों के आकड़ों से हमारे आदर्श को बल मिलता है. विशिष्ट तौर पर हमारा शोध यह दिखता है कि आत्मत्यागपरक नेतृत्व का अनुयायियों के नेतृत्व अभिज्ञान व नेतृत्व आधारित आत्माभिमान जैसी संबंधपरक अस्मिताजनित अवधारणाओं पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव था, जिनका अनुयायियों के दो प्रकार के नागरिकता व्यवहारों पर विभक्त और अनुप्रवाही प्रभाव था. जहाँ नेतृत्व अभिज्ञान केवल आत्मत्यागपरक नेतृत्व व सम्बन्धनिहित नागरिकता व्यवहार का सकारात्मक संबंधों में मध्यस्थ दिखा, वहीं नेतृत्वपरक आत्माभिमान आत्मत्यागपरक नेतृत्व के चुनौतीपरक और संबंधपरक-दोनों ही व्यवहारों के संबंधों में मध्यस्थ दिखा. इसके आगे हमने दिखाया कि वैयक्तिक प्रभावपरक दूरत्व उपरोक्त मध्यस्थता संबंधों में एक महत्त्वपूर्ण सांस्कृतिक संयोग/करक हैं, जो अल्प प्रभावपरक दूरत्व अनुस्थिति वाले अनुयायियों में दर्शित हुआ. अंततः हमने अपने परिणामों के सैद्धांतिक तहत व्यावहारिक पक्षों पर चर्चा की है.

Sumário:

Com base em teorias de autoconceito e liderança implícita, propomos um modelo multinível para examinar se, por que, e quando a liderança autosacrificial motiva os comportamentos de cidadania de filiação e desafiadores de seguidores na China. Dados de 329 funcionários em tempo integral em 83 grupos de trabalho fornecem suporte para o modelo hipotetizado. Especificamente, demonstramos que a liderança autosacrificial está relacionada positivamente com os construtos de autoconceito relacionais dos seguidores de identificação do líder e autoestima baseada no líder, que tinha diferenciais e consequentes implicações para os dois tipos de comportamento de cidadania dos seguidores. Embora a identificação do líder tenha sido identificada como mediadora da relação positiva entre a liderança autosacrificial e o comportamento de cidadania do afiliado somente, a autoestima baseada no líder mediou as relações positivas de liderança autosacrificial com ambos os comportamentos de filiação e cidadania desafiadora. Demonstramos ainda que a orientação a distância de poder individual é uma contingência cultural significativa nas relações de mediação acima, que se verificou existir mais entre seguidores com orientações a distância baixa do que de alta. Concluímos discutindo as implicações teóricas e práticas dessas descobertas.

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Исходя из теорий самосознания и имплицитного руководства, мы предлагаем многоуровневую модель для изучения как, почему и когда самоотверженное руководство вызывает аффилиативно-вызывающее поведение подчиненных в Китае. Данные, собранные у 329 штатных сотрудников в 83 рабочих группах, поддерживают нашу гипотетическую модель. В частности, мы продемонстрировали, что самоотверженное лидерство положительно взаимосвязано с реляционными концепциями самосознания у подчиненных относительно идентификации лидера и лидерской самооценки, которые имеют особое значение для двух типов поведения подчиненных. Мы обнаружили, что если идентификация лидера влияет только на позитивную взаимосвязь между самоотверженным руководством и аффилиативным поведением, то самооценка лидера регулирует позитивные отношения самоотверженного лидерства как с аффилиативным, так и с вызывающим поведением подчиненных. Кроме того, мы также показали, что индивидуальная дистанцированность от власти является значимым культурным аспектом в вышеупомянутых соотношениях, которые, как было установлено, особенно проявляются среди подчиненных с низкой – а не с высокой – дистанцированностью от власти. В заключение, мы обсуждаем теоретическое и практическое значение этих выводов.

RESUMEN:

Partiendo de auto-concepto y las teorías de liderazgo implícito, proponemos un modelo multinivel para examinar si, por qué, y cuando el liderazgo de auto-sacrificio motiva a los comportamientos afiliativos y desafiantes de los seguidores en China. Datos de 329 empleados de tiempo completo en 83 grupos de trabajo proporcionaron apoyo para el modelo que se planteó como hipótesis. Específicamente demostramos que el liderazgo de auto-sacrificio estaba positivamente relacionado con los constructos de auto-concepto relacional de los seguidores de la identificación del líder y de la auto-estima basada en líderes, los cuales tuvieron implicaciones diferenciales hacia abajo para los dos tipos de comportamiento de ciudadanía de los seguidores. Además, demostramos la orientación de distancia de poder individual como una contingencia cultural en las relaciones de mediación mencionadas, que se encontraron existentes entre los seguidores con orientaciones de distancia al poder baja en lugar de alta. Concluimos discutiendo las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas de estos hallazgos.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author: Wei He (heweiglxy@163.com)
References
Hide All
Aiken L. S., & West S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Antonakis J., Bendahan S., Jacquart P., & Lalive R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (6): 10861120.
Avolio B. J., Walumbwa F. O., & Weber T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421449.
Baron R. M., & Kenny D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 11731182.
Bliese P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein K. J. & Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer M. B., & Gardner W. 1996. Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1): 8393.
Brislin R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 (3): 185216.
Brown D. J., & Lord R. G. 2001. Leadership and perceiver cognition: Moving beyond first order constructs. In London M. (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations: 181202. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burris E. R. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4): 851875.
Burris E. R., Detert J. R., & Chiaburu D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (4): 912922.
Chattopadhyay P. 1999. Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (3): 273287.
Chen C. C., Zhang A. Y., & Wang H. 2014. Enhancing the effects of power sharing on psychological empowerment: The roles of management control and power distance orientation. Management and Organization Review, 10 (1): 135156.
Chen Z. X., & Aryee S. 2007. Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 226238.
Choi Y., & Mai-Dalton R. R. 1998. On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 9 (4): 475501.
Choi Y., & Mai-Dalton R. R. 1999. The model of followers'responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (3): 397421.
Choi Y., & Yoon J. 2005. Effects of leaders’ self-sacrificial behavior and competency on followers’ attribution of charismatic leadership among Americans and Koreans. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11 (5): 5169.
Coleman V. I., & Borman W. C. 2000. Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10 (1): 2544.
De Cremer D. 2002. Charismatic leadership and cooperation in social dilemmas: A matter of transforming motives? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (5): 9971016.
De Cremer D. 2006. Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (1):7993.
De Cremer D., Mayer D. M., van Dijke M., & Schouten B. C. 2009. When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (4): 887899.
De Cremer D., & van Knippenberg D. 2002. How do leaders promote cooperation?The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5): 858866.
De Cremer D., & van Knippenberg D. 2004. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95 (2): 140155.
De Cremer D., & van Knippenberg D. 2005. Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26 (5): 355369.
De Cremer D., van Knippenberg D., van Dijke M., & Bos A. E. R. 2006. Self-sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10 (3): 233245.
Den Hartog D. N. 2015. Ethical leadership. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2: 409434.
Dorfman P. W., & Howell J. P. 1988. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership in patterns. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3: 127150.
Eden D., & Leviatan U. 1975. Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (6): 736741.
Farh J. L., Hackett R. D., & Liang J. 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3): 715729.
Farh J. L., Zhong C. B., & Organ D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15 (2): 241253.
Gardner W. L., Avolio B. J., Luthans F., May D. R., & Walumbwa F. 2005. Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3): 343372.
Gecas V. 1982. The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8: 133.
Grant A. M., & Mayer D. M. 2009. Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (4): 900912.
Hagedoorn M., Van Yperen N. W., Van de Vliert E., & Buunk B. P. 1999. Employees’ reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (3): 309321.
Hofmann D. A., & Gavin M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24 (5): 623641.
Hofstede G. 1980. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1): 4263.
Hofstede G. 1991.Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-hill.
Jia L. D., You S. Y., & Du Y. Z. 2012. Chinese context and theoretical contributions to management and organization research: A three-decade review. Management and Organization Review, 8 (1): 173209.
Judge T. A., Piccolo R. F., & Ilies R. 2004. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (1): 3651.
Kark R., & Shamir B., & Chen G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2): 246255.
Kim Y. J., Van Dyne L., Kamdar D., & Johnson R. E. 2013. Why and when do motives matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121 (2): 231245.
Kirkman B. L., & Shapiro D. L. 1997. The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22 (3): 730757.
Kirkman B. L., Chen G., Farh J. L., Chen Z. X., & Lowe K. B. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4): 744764.
Korman A. K. 1970. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (1): 3141.
Lam C. F., & Mayer D. M. 2014. When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, 67 (3): 637666.
Lam L. W., Huang X., & Lau D. C. 2012. Leadership research in Asia: Taking the road less traveled? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29 (2): 195204.
Landry G., & Vandenberghe C. 2009. Role of commitment to the supervisor, leader–member exchange, and supervisor-based self-esteem in employee-supervisor conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149 (1): 527.
Lee J. 2003. An analysis of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between its antecedents and consequences. The Korean Personnel Administration Journal, 27 (2): 2550.
Li S. L., He W., Yam K. C., & Long L. L. 2015. When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32 (3): 64670.
Liang J., Farh C. L. C., & Farh J. L. 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (1): 7192.
Liu W., Zhu R., & Yang Y. 2010. I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1): 189202.
Lord R. G., & Brown D. J. 2001. Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12 (2): 133152.
MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Hoffman J. M., West S. G., & Sheets V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7 (1): 83104.
McAllister D. J., Kamdar D., Morrison E. W., & Turban D. B. 2007. Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (5): 12001211.
Morrison E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 373412.
Morrison E. W., & Phelps C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extra role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4): 403419.
Mulder L. B., & Nelissen R. M. A. 2010. When rules really make a difference: The effect of cooperation rules and self-sacrificing leadership on moral norms in social dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (1): 5772.
Pierce J. L., & Gardner D. G. 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30 (5): 591622.
Pierce J. L., Gardner D. G., Cummings L. L., & Dunham R. B. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (3): 622648.
Podsakoff P. M., Mackenzie S. B., Paine J. B., & Bachrach D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3): 513563.
Preacher K. J., Curran P. J., & Bauer D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral, 31 (4): 437448.
Preacher K. J., & Selig J. P. 2012. Advantages of monte carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6 (2): 7798.
Preacher K. J., Zyphur M. J., & Zhang Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15 (3): 209233.
Qu R., Janssen O., & Shi K. 2015. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. Leadership Quarterly, 26 (2): 286299.
Raudenbush S., Bryk A., Cheong Y. F., & Congdon R. 2004. HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Rosenberg M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schaubroeck J., Lam S. S. K., & Cha S. E. 2007. Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4): 10201030.
Shamir B. 1991. The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (2): 81104.
Shamir B., House R. J., & Arthur M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4 (4): 577594.
Sluss D. M., & Ashforth B. E. 2007. Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1): 932.
Tang T. L. P., & Ibrahim A. H. S. 1998. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Workers in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27 (4): 529550.
Tyler T. R., & Blader S. L. 2003. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4): 349361.
Van Dyne L., Cummings L. L., & McLean Parks J. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddled waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 215285.
Van Dyne L., & LePine J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1): 108119.
Van Dyne L., & Pierce J. L. 2004. Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (4): 439459.
van Knippenberg D., & Hogg M. A. 2003. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 243295.
van Knippenberg B., & van Knippenberg D. 2005. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (1): 2537.
van Knippenberg D., van Knippenberg B., De Cremer D., & Hogg M.A. 2004. Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6): 825856.
Whetten D. A. 2009. An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5 (1): 2955.
Yaffe T., & Kark R. 2011. Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4): 806826.
Zhang G., Bai Y. T., Caza A., & Wang L. 2014. Leader integrity and organizational citizenship behaviour in China. Management and Organization Review, 10 (2): 299319.
Zhang S., Chen G., Chen X. P., Liu D., & Johnson M. D. 2014. Relational versus collective identification within workgroups: Conceptualization, measurement development, and nomological network building. Journal of Management, 40 (6): 17001731.
Zhang Y., & Chen C. C. 2013. Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 24 (4): 534543.
Zhang Y., Lepine J. A., Buckman B. R., & Wei F. 2014. It's not fair . . . or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (3): 675697.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Management and Organization Review
  • ISSN: 1740-8776
  • EISSN: 1740-8784
  • URL: /core/journals/management-and-organization-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

He et al supplementary material
He et al supplementary material 2

 Word (14 KB)
14 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

He et al supplementary material
He et al supplementary material 1

 Word (14 KB)
14 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

He et al supplementary material
He et al supplementary material 4

 Word (14 KB)
14 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

He et al supplementary material
He et al supplementary material 3

 Word (28 KB)
28 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

He et al supplementary material
He et al supplementary material 5

 Word (14 KB)
14 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 26 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 71 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st November 2017 - 14th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.