Boundaries of ethical leadership in mitigating workplace bullying: the moderation effect of team power distance orientation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed model.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables.

Variables	Mean/ median	SD	CR	AVE	MSV	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	3.00	.94	-	-	-	1
2. Job tenure	4.00	1.08	-	-	-	.46***	1
3. Gender	1.00	.50	-	-	-	−.05	.02	1
4. Education	5.00	.76	-	-	-	.08	.06	−.07	1
5. Ethical leadership	3.78	.71	.90	.57	.27	.07	.04	−.16**	−.02	.76
6. Workplace bullying	1.47	.76	.94	.64	.07	−.16**	−.18**	.13*	−.25***	−.14*	.81
7. PD orientation	3.11	1.19	.86	.55	.05	.10	.21***	.00	.09	−.22***	.15**	.74
8. Affective commitment	3.67	.99	.90	.61	.27	.11	.08	−.23***	−.00	.52***	−.27***	−.09	.78

Note: N = 289, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; Bold and italic numbers are the square root values of AVE. Median for control variables.

Table 2. Hierarchical linear modelling results.

Individual-level effect (NL1 = 289)
	Workplace bullying				Affective commitment
Main Effects	β(SE)	t	β(SE)	t	β(SE)	t	β(SE)	t
Gender	.08(.07)	1.11	.04(.06)	.59	−.19(.09)	−2.07*	−.17(.09)	−1.91
Age	.02(.05)	.41	.02(.04)	.41	−.01(.09)	−.08	−.02(.08)	−.22
Job tenure	−.09(.05)	−2.04*	−.11(.04)	−.24*	−.02(.05)	−.48	−.04(.05)	−.84
Education	.09(.07)	−1.34	−.06(.06)	−.98	−.03(.09)	−.30	−.04(.08)	−.52
Ethical leadership	-	-	−.16(.07)	−2.44*	.70(.08)	9.26***	.74(.06)	11.3***
Workplace bullying	-	-	-	-	-	-	−.26(.05)	−4.76***
R^2L1	.10		.18		.29		.47
Cross-level effect (NL2 = 59)	β (SE)	t
Gender	.06(.07)	.81			−.33(.11)	−3.12**
Age	.01(.05)	.22			.05(.08)	.64
Job tenure	−.10(.05)	−1.95			−.03(.07)	−.52
Education	−.15(.09)	−1.62			.02(.10)	.18
Ethical leadership	−.16(.07)	−2.27*
PD orientation	.10(.08)	1.19			-.03(.06)	-.56
ELxPD orientation	−.16(.07)	−2.29*
Workplace bullying					−.32(.10)	−3.18**
Workplace bullyingxPD orientation					−.09(.03)	−2.44*
R^2L1	.11				.20
R^2L2	.06				.40

Note: PD=power distance, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Indirect effect of workplace bullying on the relationship between EL and affective commitment.

Figure 3. Simple slopes of EL on workplace bullying at levels of team power distance orientation.

Figure 4. Simple slopes of workplace bullying on affective commitment at levels of team power distance orientation.