The “Double-Edged Sword” Effects of LMX Ambivalence———An Integrated Model of Two Approaches Based on Cognitive Flexibility and Job Anxiety

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual model.

Table 1 Sample Characteristics

Characteristics		Employee		Supervisor
		N	%	N	%
Gender	Male	239	61.8%	82	74.5%
	Female	148	38.2%	28	25.5%
Age	Below 25 years	60	15.6%	8	7.3%
	26–30 years	98	25.3%	18	16.4%
	31–40 years	149	38.6%	25	22.7%
	41–50 years	67	17.3%	42	38.1%
	Over 51 years	13	3.2%	17	15.5%
Education	Associate degree or below	162	41.9%	20	18.2%
	Bachelor’s degree	184	47.6%	56	50.9%
	Master’s degree and above	41	10.5%	34	30.9%

Notes: For employee sample, sample size = 387; For supervisor sample, sample size = 110.

Table 2 Model Fit

Model	χ^2	df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
Five-factor model	556.61	242	0.942	0.933	0.043	0.061
Five-factor model, CMV	387.72	219	0.969	0.961	0.231	0.047
Four-factor model	635.72	246	0.898	0.909	0.046	0.069
Three-factor model	832.34	249	0.735	0.758	0.047	0.132
Two-factor model	1346.51	252	0.512	0.556	0.050	0.193
Single-factor model	2857.31	253	0.436	0.412	0.053	0.208

Notes: The five-factor model is the measurement model; four-factor model means LMX ambivalence and cognitive flexibility combined; three-factor model means LMX ambivalence, cognitive flexibility, and job anxiety combined; two-factor model means LMX ambivalence, cognitive flexibility, job anxiety, and bootleg innovation combined.

Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation Coefficient of Variables

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1 Gender	0.62	0.49
2 Age	2.78	1.03	0.12
3 Education	2.34	0.68	−0.05	−0.28**
4 LMX ambivalence	4.50	0.98	−0.02	−0.22*	0.06	0.79
5 Cognitive flexibility	4.37	0.56	−0.13	−0.15	0.07	0.36***	0.76
6 Job anxiety	3.65	0.96	−0.04	−0.05	0.10	0.45***	−0.06	0.91
7 Integrative complexity	3.72	1.06	−0.15	−0.18	0.07	0.06	0.14	−0.03	0.87
8 Bootleg innovation	4.92	0.79	−0.07	−0.15	0.16	0.19**	0.39***	−0.19*	−0.11	0.78

Notes:*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. All coefficients are standardized; The diagonal is the square root of AVE.

Table 4 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Variables	Mediation Effect Moderation Effect								Moderation Effect
	CF		JA		Bootleg Innovation				CF		JA
	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
Gender	−0.07	−0.10	−0.09	−0.04	−0.06	−0.03	−0.03	−0.09	−0.05	−0.06	−0.07	−0.07
Age	−0.12	−0.09	0.03	0.06	0.02	−0.04	−0.02	−0.05	−0.04	−0.10	−0.05	0.08
Education	0.04	0.03	0.05	0.07	0.11	0.16	0.15	0.08	0.05	0.03	0.04	0.07
LMXA		0.31***		0.46***		0.18**	0.16*	0.27***	0.28***	0.33***	0.38***	0.43***
CF							0.14***
JA								−0.17**
IC									−0.11**	−0.12**	−0.21**	−0.10**
LMXA×IC										0.24**		−0.26**
R^2	0.20	0.23	0.28	0.24	0.25	0.28	0.22	0.18	0.27	0.29	0.28	0.31
ΔR^2	0.06	0.02	0.04	0.22	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.08
F	3.97***	6.68***	11.38***	8.47***	8.66***	11.10***	4.35***	3.28***	11.32***	12.89***	11.45***	16.42***

Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. All coefficients are standardized; Standard errors are in parentheses.

Abbreviations: LMXA LMX ambivalence; CF, Cognitive flexibility; JA, Job anxiety; IC, Integrative complexity.

Figure 2 Moderating effect of integrative complexity on the relationship between cognitive flexibility and LMX ambivalence.

Figure 3 Moderating effect of integrative complexity on the relationship between job anxiety and LMX ambivalence.

Table 5 Bootstrap Test Results of the Moderating Mediation Effect

Paths	Moderators	Coeff	SE	Bootstrap (95% CI)
Cognitive flexibility	High integrative complexity	0.21	0.05	[0.07, 0.28]
	Low integrative complexity	0.04	0.03	[−0.13, 0.27]
Job anxiety	High integrative complexity	−0.04	0.05	[−0.12, 0.04]
	Low integrative complexity	−0.20	0.04	[−0.23, −0.06]