The Double-Edged Sword Effect of Paradoxical Leadership to Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1 Research model.

Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Models	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Six-factor model	2.409	0.922	0.918	0.055	0.038
Five-factor model	4.127	0.827	0.819	0.081	0.103
Four-factor model	4.851	0.787	0.777	0.090	0.112
Three-factor model	5.868	0.730	0.718	0.101	0.124
Two-factor model	6.679	0.684	0.671	0.110	0.134
One-factor model	7.735	0.625	0.610	0.119	0.214

Table 2 Correlations and Reliabilities of Variables

Variables	Gender	Age	Edu	Indus	PL	PIS	PE	C	LMX	OCB
Gender	–
Age	−0.054	–
Edu	−0.066	−0.206**	–
Indus	0.177**	−0.117*	0.195**	–
PL	0.075	−0.066	0.156**	0.117*	0.746
PIS	−0.128**	0.025	0.199**	0.177**	0.175**	0.794
PE	−0.174**	−0.072	0.187**	0.089	0.145**	0.058	0.729
C	−0.127**	−0.129**	0.083	0.092*	0.206**	0.367**	0.115**	0.779
LMX	0.071	−0.164**	0.087	0.113*	0.481**	0.069	0.020	0.135**	0.775
OCB	−0.168**	0.078	0.192**	−0.064	0.211**	0.326**	−0.094**	0.185**	0.103**	0.712
LMXD	−0.073	0.073	0.054	−0.076	−0.406**	−0.074	0.041	−0.116*	−0.321**	−0.150**

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Abbreviations: PL, is paradoxical leadership; PIS, is perceived insider status; PE, is psychological entitlement; C, is collectivism; LMX, is leader-member exchange; OCB, is organizational citizenship behavior; LMXD, is leader-member exchange differentiation.

Table 3 The Mediating Role of Perceived Insider Status

	Relations	b	SD	95%
Direct	PL→ PIS	0.187**	0.054	[0.082,0.292]
	PIS →OCB	0.351**	0.050	[0.253,0.448]
Indirect	PL → PIS → OCB	0.058**	0.022	[0.015,0.104]

Note: **p<0.01.

Table 4 The Mediating Role of Psychological Entitlement

	Relations	b	SD	95%
Direct	PL→PE	0.124*	0.050	[0.027,0.222]
	PE→OCB	−0.152**	0.056	[−0.263,-0.042]
Indirect	PL →PE→OCB	−0.024**	0.012	[−0.055,-0.007]

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Table 5 The Moderating Role of Collectivism Between Paradoxical Leadership and Perceived Insider Status

	Relations	b	SD	95%
Moderating	PL X C→PIS	0.115*	0.058	[0.002,0.227]

Note: *p<0.05.

Figure 2 The moderating role of collectivism between paradoxical leadership and perceived insider status.

Table 6 The Moderating Role of Leadership Member Exchange Differentiation Between Paradoxical Leadership and Psychological Entitlement

	Relations	b	SD	95%
Moderating	PL X LMXD→PE	0.143**	0.047	[0.051,0.234]

Note: **p<0.01.

Figure 3 The moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation between paradoxical leadership and psychological entitlement.

Table 7 Collectivism Moderates the Indirect Effect of Paradoxical Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior via Perceived Insider Status

	Relations	b	SD	95%
Moderating	PL X C→PIS→OCB	0.035**	0.019	[0.002,0.078]

Note: **p<0.01.

Table 8 Leader-Member Exchange Differentiation Moderates the Indirect Effect of Paradoxical Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior via Psychological Entitlement

	Relations	b	SD	95%
Moderating	PL X LMXD→PE→OCB	−0.028**	0.012	[−0.057,-0.009]

Note: **p<0.01.