The Double-Edged Sword Effect of Leaders’ Fear of Missing Out on Leaders’ Creativity: An Experience Sampling Method Study

Figures & data

Figure 1 Research model.

Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Models	χ2	df	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR Within	SRMR Between
Six-factor model	944.282	672	1.405	0.971	0.966	0.022	0.035	0.041
Five-factor mode (best fitting model)	1003.710	723	1.388	0.970	0.967	0.022	0.037	0.045
Four-factor mode	2258.343	730	3.094	0.837	0.823	0.050	0.150	0.353
Three-factor mode	2737.966	733	3.735	0.787	0.768	0.057	0.157	0.401
Two-factor mode	3384.785	737	4.593	0.718	0.696	0.066	0.189	0.471
One-factor mode	4277.688	739	5.788	0.624	0.594	0.076	0.183	0.364

Notes: One-factor mode: leader’s FoMO + challenge stress + hindrance stress + leader’s creativity + role breadth self-efficacy; Two-factor mode: leader’s FoMO + leader’s creativity + role breadth self-efficacy, challenge stress + hindrance stress; Three-factor mode: leader’s FoMO + role breadth self-efficacy, challenge stress + hindrance stress, leader’s creativity; Four-factor mode: leader’s FoMO, challenge stress + hindrance stress, leader’s creativity, role breadth self-efficacy; Five-factor mode: leader’s FoMO, challenge stress, hindrance stress, leader’s creativity, role breadth self-efficacy; Six-factor model with common method factors.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.LF	1	0.481**	0.419**	0.407**	0.007	−0.114**	0.106**	−0.144**	0.082*	0.074*
2.CS	0.420**	1	−0.008	0.681**	0.254**	−0.061	−0.045	−0.044	−0.061	−0.005
3.HS	0.379**	0.014	1	−0.298**	−0.271**	−0.014	−0.043	0.053	−0.099**	0.029
4.LC	0.366**	0.555**	−0.250**	1	0.244**	−0.052	0.001	−0.118**	0.019	−0.095**
5.RS					1	−0.223**	0.257**	−0.095**	0.359**	0.271**
6.Gender						1	−0.065	0.154**	−0.044	0.058
7.Age							1	−0.252**	0.678**	0.284**
8.Edu								1	−0.152**	0.357**
9.LS									1	0.385**
10.PL										1
M	2.996	3.143	2.596	3.268	4.203	1.406	3.268	2.416	4.890	3.169
SD Within	0.908	0.945	0.898	0.826
SD between	0.704	0.745	0.678	0.627	0.680	0.491	1.349	0.742	1.630	1.652

Note: N=102 participants and N=836 data points; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. The diagonal line is the dividing line, the lower part indicates the within correlation coefficient; the upper part indicates the between correlation coefficient.

Abbreviations: LF, is leader’s FoMO; CS, is challenge stress; HS, is hindrance stress; LC, is leader’s creativity; RS, is role breadth self-efficacy; LS, is length of service; PL, is position level.

Table 3 The Mediating Role of Challenge Stress and Hindrance Stress

Effect	Paths	Estimate	SE	95%
Direct	LF→CS	0.385	0.032	[0.322, 0.448]
	CS→LC	0.274	0.032	[0.211, 0.326]
	LF→HS	0.318	0.033	[0.254, 0.382]
	HS→LC	−0.285	0.031	[−0.346, −0.234]
Indirect	LF→CS→LC	0.105	0.016	[0.074, 0.137]
	LF→HS→LC	−0.091	0.014	[−0.118, −0.064]

Abbreviations: LF, is leader’s FoMO; CS, is challenge stress; HS, is hindrance stress; LC, is leader’s creativity.

Figure 2 Model path coefficient.

Notes: Full model primary path coefficients are unstandardized. N=836, ***p< 0.001.

Figure 3 The moderating role of role breadth self-efficacy between leaders’ daily FoMO and challenge stress.

Figure 4 The moderating role of role breadth self-efficacy between leaders’ daily FoMO and hindrance stress.

Table 4 Effect of Moderator Variables on the Mediating Process

Mediating Variables	Level of Moderating Variables	Estimate	SE	95%
Challenge stress	High role breadth self-efficacy	0.189	0.025	[0.140, 0.238]
	Low role breadth self-efficacy	0.022	0.014	[−0.005, 0.049]
Hindrance stress	High role breadth self-efficacy	−0.019	0.016	[−0.052, 0.013]
	Low role breadth self-efficacy	−0.162	0.019	[−0.200, −0.124]