Understanding the initiative paradox: the interplay of leader neuroticism and follower traits in evaluating the desirability of follower proactivity

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and correlations between the variables (Study 1)

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Age leader	40.1	8.2	-
2. Gender leader	0.3	0.5	−.15*	-
3. Age follower	30.7	8.8	.30**	.14*	-
4. Gender follower	0.5	0.5	−.06	.28**	.18*	-
5. Years leader and follower working together	3.3	3.3	.34**	−.19**	.22**	−.09	-
6. Leader-member exchange	5.5	0.8	−.04	−.02	−.01	−.03	−.13	(.78)
7. Leader neuroticism	2.9	1.1	−.10	−.09	−.14*	−.04	−.04	−.19**	(.78)
8. Evaluation of the desirability of proactive behaviour	5.7	0.9	−.06	−.13	−.13	.08	−.13	.47**	−.05	(.89)
9. Follower conscientiousness	5.0	1.1	−.03	.03	.08	.15*	.00	.22**	−.08	.21**	(.78)
10. Follower agreeableness	5.1	1.1	.04	.03	.04	.21**	−.14*	.19**	.00	.21**	.34**	(.85)

N = 205 leader–follower dyads. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female. Age follower, gender follower, and follower conscientiousness and agreeableness were follower ratings. The other variables were leader ratings. Reliability estimates (α) are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. *p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 2. Results of Regression Analysis with the Evaluation of the Desirability of Proactive Behaviour as Dependent Variable Testing Hypothesis 2 (Study 1)

Predictor variable	B	SE	95% CI	t	p
Age leader	0.00	0.01	[–0.01, 0.02]	0.25	.800
Gender leader	–0.33	0.12	[−0.57, −0.09]	-2.70	.008
Age follower	–0.01	0.01	[−0.02, 0.00]	-1.49	.138
Gender follower	0.22	0.12	[−0.00, 0.45]	1.97	.051
Years leader and follower working together	–0.02	0.02	[–0.06, 0.01]	-1.18	.241
Leader-member exchange	0.47	0.08	[0.32, 0.67)]	6.25	.000
Leader neuroticism	0.04	0.05	[–0.06, 1.40]	0.76	.448
Follower conscientiousness	0.06	0.06	[–0.05, 0.17]	1.14	.138
Follower agreeableness	0.03	0.06	[–0.08, 0.14]	0.53	.599
2-way interaction effects
Leader neuroticism x Follower conscientiousness	0.08	0.05	[–0.02, 0.17]	1.61	.109
Leader neuroticism x Follower agreeableness	0.03	0.05	[–0.07, 0.13]	0.55	.584
Follower conscientiousness x Follower agreeableness	0.01	0.05	[–0.08, 0.10]	0.29	.770
3-way interaction effect
Leader neuroticism x Follower conscientiousness x Follower agreeableness	-0.08	0.04	[–0.15, –0.01]	-2.34	.021
Total R^2	.328

Note. N = 205. B = Unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = Standard error. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female. Total R² = Proportion of variance explained in the criterion associated by all the variables in the model. Variables that are used to calculate the interaction terms and the control variables are mean-centred. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Figure 2. Three-way interaction of leader neuroticism, follower conscientiousness and agreeableness predicting the evaluation of proactive behaviour in followers (Study 1).

Table 3. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and correlations between the variables (Study 2)

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Age	39.8	10.8	-
2. Gender	0.5	0.5	.12*	-
3. Tenure leader position (in years)	7.3	6.9	.61**	.03	-
4. Liking	3.1	0.8	−.04	−.08	−.01	(.84)
5. Leader neuroticism	2.7	0.9	−.08	.13**	−.08	−.08	(.82)
6. Worry	1.8	0.9	.04	−.01	−.02	−.39**	−.06	(.91)
7. Threat	1.5	0.7	−.07	−.03	−.10*	−.25**	.13*	.55**	(.80)
8. Evaluation of the desirability of proactive behaviour	4.8	1.1	−.07	.05	−.04	.62**	−.00	−.43**	−.30**	(.85)
9. Follower conscientiousness^a	-	-	−.05	.02	−.02	.35**	−.04	−.21**	−.06	.26**	-
10. Follower agreeableness^b	-	-	−.06	−.08	−.10*	.43**	−.00	−.21**	−.09	.36**	.02	-

N = 380. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female.

^aExperimental factor 0 = low conscientiousness, 1 = high conscientiousness.

^bExperimental factor 0 = low agreeableness, 1 = high agreeableness. Reliability estimates (α) are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 4. Results of the Conditional Process Analysis Testing Hypothesis 3 with Worry as Mediator (Study 2)

Predictor variable	B	SE	95% CI	t	p
DV: Worry
Age leader	0.00	0.01	[–0.02, 0.01]	0.80	.426
Gender leader	–0.07	0.08	[−0.23, 0.10]	-0.78	.434
Tenure leader position (in years)	–0.01	0.01	[–0.00, 0.01]	-1.13	.258
Liking	–0.36	0.06	[–0.48, –0.25]	–6.01	.000
Leader neuroticism	–0.08	0.04	[–0.16, 0.01]	–1.79	.075
Follower conscientiousness	–0.15	0.09	[–0.32, 0.03]	–1.67	.096
Follower agreeableness	–0.11	0.09	[–0.29, 0.07]	1.22	.224
2-way interaction effects
Leader neuroticism x Follower conscientiousness	0.13	0.09	[–0.04, 0.30]	1.46	.145
Leader neuroticism x Follower agreeableness	0.13	0.09	[–0.05, 0.30]	1.43	.154
Follower conscientiousness x Follower agreeableness	–0.10	0.16	[–0.42, 0.22]	–0.63	.529
3-way interaction effect
Leader neuroticism x Follower conscientiousness x Follower agreeableness	0.12	0.18	[–0.23, 0.47]	0.68	.499
Total R^2	.186
DV: Evaluation of the desirability of proactive behaviour
Age leader	–0.00	0.01	[–0.01, 0.01]	–0.70	.482
Gender leader	0.21	0.09	[0.03, 0.38]	2.27	.024
Tenure leader position (in years)	–0.00	0.01	[–0.02, 0.01]	–0.37	.716
Liking	0.76	0.06	[0.65, 0.88]	12.82	.000
Leader neuroticism	0.01	0.05	[–0.09, 0.11]	0.23	.821
Worry	–0.28	0.06	[–0.39, –0.17]	–5.06	.000
Total R^2	.439
Conditional indirect effect at +/- 1 SD
Moderators	Unstand. boot indirect effect		Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Low C., low A.	0.05		0.03	–0.02	0.13
Low C., high A.	0.03		0.02	–0.01	0.08
High C., low A.	0.03		0.03	–0.02	0.09
High C., high A.	–0.02		0.02	–0.06	0.02

Note. N = 380. B = Unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = Standard error. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female. DV = dependent variable. C. = follower conscientiousness, A. = Follower agreeableness. Total R² = Proportion of variance explained in the criterion associated by all the variables in the model. Variables that are used to calculate the interaction terms and the control variables are mean-centred. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 5. Results of the Conditional Process Analysis Testing Hypothesis 3 with Threat as Mediator (Study 2)

Predictor variable	B	SE	95% CI	t	p
DV: Threat
Age leader	–0.00	0.00	[–0.11, 0.01]	–0.50	.621
Gender leader	–0.11	0.08	[−0.25, 0.04]	–1.45	.149
Tenure leader position (in years)	–0.01	0.01	[–0.02, 0.01]	–1.12	.264
Liking	–0.25	0.05	[–0.36, –0.14]	–4.61	.000
Leader neuroticism	0.09	0.04	[0.01, 0.16]	2.19	.029
Follower conscientiousness	0.06	0.08	[–0.09, 0.22]	0.80	.425
Follower agreeableness	0.03	0.08	[–0.13, 0.20]	0.41	.682
2-way interaction effects
Leader neuroticism x Follower conscientiousness	0.06	0.08	[–0.09, 0.22]	0.81	.421
Leader neuroticism x Follower agreeableness	0.01	0.08	[–0.15, 0.16]	0.08	.937
Follower conscientiousness x Follower agreeableness	0.10	0.15	[–0.18, 0.39]	0.74	.482
3-way interaction effect
Leader neuroticism x Follower conscientiousness x Follower agreeableness	0.41	0.16	[0.10, 0.72]	2.59	.010
Total R^2	.109
DV: Evaluation of the desirability of proactive behaviour
Age leader	–0.01	0.01	[–0.02, 0.01]	–0.98	.325
Gender leader	0.20	0.09	[0.02, 0.38]	2.19	.029
Tenure leader position (in years)	–0.00	0.01	[–0.02, 0.01]	–0.37	.716
Liking	0.83	0.06	[0.72, 0.94]	14.49	.000
Leader neuroticism	0.05	0.05	[–0.04, 0.15]	1.10	.270
Threat	–0.24	0.06	[–0.36, –0.11]	–3.71	.000
Total R^2	.423
Conditional indirect effect at +/- 1 SD
Moderators	Unstand. boot indirect effect		Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Low C., low A.	–0.05		0.02	–0.09	-0.01
Low C., high A.	0.01		0.02	–0.03	0.05
High C., low A.	0.00		0.02	–0.04	0.03
High C., high A.	–0.05		0.02	–0.10	–0.01

Note. N = 380. B = Unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = Standard error. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female. DV = dependent variable. C. = follower conscientiousness, A. = Follower agreeableness. Total R² = Proportion of variance explained in the criterion associated by all the variables in the model. Variables that are used to calculate the interaction terms and the control variables are mean-centred. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Figure 3. Three-way interaction of leader neuroticism, follower conscientiousness and agreeableness predicting leaders’ feelings of threat (Study 2).