Influence of Self-Sacrificial Leadership on the Pro-Organizational Unethical Behavior of Employees: A Moderated Mediating Model

Figures & data

Figure 1 Theoretical framework.

Table 1 Results of Validation Factor Analysis

Model	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	∆χ^2(∆df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Four-Factor Model	627.160	224	2.800		0.931	0.922	0.079
Three-Factor Model^a	1041.263	227	4.587	414.103***(3)	0.861	0.845	0.112
Three-Factor Model^b	1381.685	227	6.087	754.525***(3)	0.803	0.780	0.134
Two-Factor Model	2813.761	229	12.287	2186.601***(5)	0.559	0.512	0.199
Single-Factor Model	3959.849	230	17.217	3332.689***(6)	0.363	0.300	0.239
Zero Model	6110.462	253	24.152

Notes: ***p<0.001; The three-factor model ^aself-sacrificing leadership + organizational identity, power distance, employee pro-organizational unethical behavior. Three-factor model ^bself-sacrificing leadership + power distance, organizational identity, employee pro-organizational unethical behavior; Two-factor model: self-sacrificing leadership + organizational identity + power distance, employee pro-organizational unethical behavior. One-factor model: self-sacrificing leadership + organizational identity + power distance + employee pro-organizational unethical behavior. “+” indicates integration.

Table 2 Results of Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Variables

Variable Name	Mean	Standard Deviation	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.Gender	0.500	0.501
2.Age	2.213	1.016	−0.100
3.Education Degree	2.647	0.840	0.121*	−0.080
4.Self-Sacrificing Leadership	4.187	0.654	0.013	−0.183**	0.148*
5.Organizational Identity	3.805	0.587	−0.053	0.084	0.086	0.503**
6.Power Distance	3.093	1.123	−0.020	−0.051	−0.092	−0.065	−0.095
7.Employee Pro-Organizational Unethical Behavior	3.873	0.833	−0.056	0.052	0.061	0.223**	0.414**	0.099

Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, two-tailed test. Gender: male (0), female (1); age: 30 years old and below (1), 31–40 years old (2), 31–50 years old (3), 51 years old and above (4); education: high school (1), college (2), undergraduate (3), graduate (4).

Table 3 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Variable Name	Organizational Identity		Employee Pro-Organizational Unethical Behavior				Organizational Identity
	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8
Gender	−0.056	−0.045	−0.060	−0.055	−0.037	−0.037	−0.046	−0.043
Age	0.086	0.179*	0.052	0.093	0.017	0.022	0.175*	0.166*
Education Degree	0.100	0.027	0.073	0.041	0.032	0.030	0.023	0.013
Self-Sacrificing Leadership		0.533**		0.235**		0.025	0.529**	0.519**
Organizational Identity					0.408**	0.395**
Power Distance							−0.051	−0.008
Self-Sacrificing Leadership × Power Distance								−0.216**
R^2	0.019	0.288	0.011	0.063	0.174	0.174	0.290	0.335
∆R^2	-	0.269	-	0.052	0.163	0.163	0.279	0.324
F	1.798	28.395**	1.001	4.720*	14.760**	11.800**	22.920**	23.396**

Note: *p<0.01, **p<0.001.

Figure 2 Moderating effect of power distance on the relationship between self-sacrificing leadership and organizational identity.

Table 4 Results of the Total Effect Moderation Model Analysis

Moderating Variables	Phase I	Phase II	Direct Effect	Indirect Effects	Total Effect
Low Power Distance	0.740**	0.375**	0.041	0.278**	0.319**
	[0.594, 0.911]^b	[0.186, 0.558]^b	[−0.169, 0.249]^a	[0.135, 0.452]^b	[0.095, 0.56]^b
High Power Distance	0.323**	0.252**	−0.002	0.081**	0.079
	[0.155, 0.480]^b	[0.057, 0.423]^b	[−0.16, 0.137]^a	[0.021, 0.177]^b	[−0.081, 0.232]^a
Difference	−0.417**	−0.124	−0.043	−0.196**	−0.24*
	[−0.642,-0.220]^b	[−0.328, 0.079]^a	[−0.318, 0.198]^a	[−0.377, -0.027]^b	[−0.497, -0.011]^a

Notes: ^a,bIndicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals, respectively. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.