How Ethical Leadership Impacts Deviant Normative Conduct? The Role of Trait Affect, Voice Behaviour, and Social Support

Figures & data

Figure 1. Ethical leadership and deviant normative conduct at work model showing hypothesize relationships

Table 1. Intercorrelations of variables

Variables		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Supervisor education	1
2	Subordinate tenure	.01	1
3	Ethical leadership	.07*	.06	1
4	Positive affect	.00	.03	.31**	1
5	Negative affect	−.02	.01	−.24**	−.05	1
6	Voice behaviour	.01	.04	.11*	.43**	−.51**	1
7	Social support	.07*	.00	.05	−.03	−.06	.22**	1
8	OCB	.15**	−.07*	.22**	.12*	−.12*	.57**	.19**	1
9	CWB	−.08*	.11*	−.18**	−.09*	.22**	−.31**	−.25**	−.55**	1

*p < .05; **p < .0

Table 2. Results of models fit indexes

Type of models tested	χ^2/df	GFI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
Hypothesized model	2.11	.97	.98	.02	.04
Alternative model 1: EL to VB (direct link)	3.48	.88	.89	.08	.09
Alternative model 2: EL to OCB (direct link)	3.72	.86	.87	.09	.10
Alternative model 3: EL to CWB (direct link)	3.99	.81	.83	.11	.14
Alternative model 4: deleted direct link from VB to OCB	4.34	.78	.80	.14	.15
Alternative model 5: deleted direct link from VB to CWB	4.89	.76	.77	.15	.16

Figure 2. Results of SEM analysis. All the paths reported standardized values of beta

Table 3. Results of hierarchical linear modelling

Variables	OCB			CWB
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Control variables
Supervisor education	.11 (.14)	.12 (.15)	.12 (.15)	−.01 (.07)	−.01 (.07)	−.03 (.08)
Subordinate tenure	−.06 (.09)	−.07 (.10)	−.07 (.11)	.08 (.10)	.08 (.11)	.09 (.12)
Predictors
Voice behaviour (VB)		.39 (.19)**	.18 (.22)*		−.45 (.23)**	−.22 (24)*
Social support (SS)		.04 (.09)	.09 (.12)		.01 (.10)	−.12 (.14)
Interaction
VB × SS			.27 (.15)**			.59 (.17)**
∆R^2		.08	.19		.12	.24

Note. Parentheses indicate standard errors. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Figure 3. Moderation of social support (SS) in the link between voice behaviour (VB) and OCB

Figure 4. Moderation of social support (SS) in the link between voice behaviour (VB) and CWB