Determinants of Proactive Work Behavior of Employees During the COVID-19 Crisis
A Perspective on Toxic Leadership in the Virtual Work Setting
Abstract
Abstract. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations have been forced to use social media and digital applications to carry out routine tasks. This posed several complications and challenges that hindered harmonic interaction between managers and their subordinates. This study investigates the indirect association between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior via psychological safety (PYS). We also investigate the role of perceived insider status (PIS) as a moderator in the association between toxic leadership and PYS as well as the indirect connection between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior. The work is based on the timelag results of 282 supervisor-employee dyads from different small and mid-sized information technology (IT) firms. The results show that toxic leadership has a significant impact on employee PSY and proactive work behavior as well as revealing that PIS substantially mitigated the negative effects of toxic leadership on employee PYS. Similarly, PIS influences the mediating role of PYS in the association between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior of employees. This research is helpful for academics and practitioners involved in human-resource practices in the IT industry.
Information technology (IT) enterprises have an advantage over other organizations in terms of fostering work activities during the COVID-19 pandemic by more effectively employing online or virtual platforms. In the literature on leadership, there is a growing trend to investigate the dark and negative sides of leadership behavior in relation to employee behaviors (Khoo & Burch, 2008). Several previous studies underlined the need to investigate the negative sides of leadership, such as disruptive leadership (Bhandarker & Rai, 2019; Goldman, 2009), abusive leaders (Tepper, 2000), and tyrannical leaders (Allio, 2007) in the normal work setting. Toxic leadership is one of the dark sides of leadership, and it has an impact on staff performance and motivation (Labrague, 2020). According to Matos et al. (2018), toxic leadership is characterized by aggressive behaviors used to coerce or dominate people. Such strategies enhance and safeguard the leader’s ego and immediate career success while destroying the autonomy and confidence of future rivals and lie at the heart of this leadership style. The IT industry is not immune to toxic leadership.
This form of leadership is unconcerned with other people or the environment in which the organization operates, which has both short- and long-term negative implications (Wilson, 2014). Managers must construct strategically adaptive firms to respond to increasingly competitive marketplaces (Khan, Khan, & Soomro, 2020; Nawaz Khan et al., 2020). Leaders put pressure on staff because of this, which can contribute to toxicity in the workplace, particularly during the corona crisis, when profits are low (Kim et al., 2020). The COVID 19 pandemic compelled businesses to adopt digital working styles. Executives are increasingly opting for virtual employment (Weberg & Fuller, 2019), and the delicate nature of digital work can cause toxicity among employees (Khan & Khan, 2021).
Proactive work behavior, which refers to behaviors that are performed to improve or generate new opportunities in the workplace (Zheng et al., 2020), is significantly hampered in organizations when the work environment is toxic and politicized. Individuals who are proactive rather than passive strive to achieve their goals (Zheng et al., 2020). Several previous studies have emphasized various factors that play a critical role in determining proactive work behavior among employees. For example, past studies found that the proactive work behavior of employees is influenced by their own willingness and desire to learn, raising the institution’s status (Marques & Janik, 2016; Somech, 2016). Leaders who do not encourage proactive work behavior are more likely to have lower employee achievement and effectiveness (Srivastava, 2017).
The link between a leader’s toxicity and proactive work behavior was largely overlooked in earlier research, particularly in the context of remote/virtual work. This study differs from previous studies for several reasons. First, it looks into the impact of toxic leadership on proactive work behavior among employees of the service sector (IT companies). Second, it is unique in looking at the impact on employees who work remotely or virtually rather than in traditional office settings. Finally, it looks into the effect of toxic leadership on proactive work behavior among employees compelled to work remotely or virtually during the COVID-19 outbreak.
This study determines the impact of toxic leaders on employees’ proactive work behavior in the IT industry. Proactive work behavior is vital to know from a Chinese perspective because most Chinese workers have a high-power distance orientation, which suppresses the proactive work behavior of employees focused on work-related issues (Liu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). Employees in organizations with a high-power distance orientation are aware of their lower status and show respect and courtesy to their superiors in such workplaces (Rauniyar et al., 2017). According to an anthropological notion used in cultural studies, this term refers to the relationship between higher-ranking and lower-ranking individuals established by how the latter reacts to the former (Rauniyar et al., 2017).
Moreover, this study examines the mediating impact of psychological safety (PYS) – the idea that showing toxic leadership behavior negatively affects employee behavior – to better explain why toxic leadership is associated with proactive work behavior. Although past studies linked problematic leadership with work behavior using job satisfaction, strain, and creativity (Khan, Khan, Bodla, et al., 2020; Khan, Khan, Moin, et al., 2021; Weberg & Fuller, 2019), such mediating mechanisms cannot completely explain the effect of toxic leadership on proactive work behavior.
Furthermore, Ferris et al. (2002) suggest that employees can have a buffer to minimize the negative impacts of organizational toxicity in the toxic leadership framework; as a result, toxic leadership does not equally influence all workers. The question is whether the impacts of toxic leadership on PYS and proactive work behavior are synchronized for employees forced to work remotely during the COVID-19 outbreak. This buffering effect may be provided by perceived insider status (PIS), which refers to a person’s sense of insider (versus outsider) status within a company, reflecting on the association between employees and the company and showing how much personal space and appreciation they have earned (Masterson & Stamper, 2003). PIS mitigates the negative effects of toxic leadership on PYS and proactive work behavior. This study proposes a moderated mediation model to examine whether toxic leadership is associated with proactive work behavior by looking at the intervening role of PSY as well as how the relationship advances by looking at the PIS boundary condition (see Figure 1).
This research adds to the body of knowledge on organizational toxicity and proactive work behavior in several ways. First, it expands toxic leadership research to include proactive work behavior, providing a theoretical basis for evaluating a key toxic environment antecedent of proactive work behavior from an affect-laden cognitive perspective. PYS research can help researchers and managers to better understand how toxic leadership affects employee proactive work behavior and the fundamental process by which workers assess their highly toxic climate and change their proactive work behavior. Second, this study investigates how PIS influences the impact of toxic leadership and proactive employee work behavior, which aids in recognizing that the negative effects of toxic leadership can be mitigated to some extent by improving employee PIS. Several scholars have investigated the mediating impact of PIS (Hui et al., 2015; Wang & Kim, 2013), and a few have found that PIS has a significant moderating role (Khan, Khan, & Gul, 2019) in employee behavioral outcomes in the normal work setting. Finally, this study used a timelag approach and focused on remote/virtual work settings during the COVID-19 outbreak. A key feature of the timelag approach is the use of a multiple-source sample (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) from China to investigate the impact of toxic leadership on proactive work behavior.
Theory and Hypothesis
Toxic leadership is a form of leadership found in several industries, including the transportation industry. According to a previous study, 94% of survey respondents said they had worked with someone toxic in the past, and 64% said they are currently working with someone with a toxic personality (Kusy & Holloway, 2009). There have been various and varied attempts to describe toxic leadership. According to Einarsen et al. (2007), disruptive behavior directed at both leaders and subordinates should be accounted for to understand destructive leadership. With a focus on the beneficiaries or victims of toxic leadership, Einarsen et al. (2007) developed the following general definition:
“systemic and repeated behavior by a supervisor or leader that paradises the legitimate interests of the globalization by undermining and/or compromising the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and efficiency, as well as the company’s reputation.”
Schmidt’s (2008) research, on the other hand, took a different approach, systematically seeking to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the topic by defining what toxic leadership is and is not as well as developing and evaluating a new measure called the Toxic Leadership Scale. According to Schmidt, toxic leadership involves a much broader concept than authoritarian supervision and management, encompassing a wide range of behaviors, including authoritarianism, narcissism, abusive supervision, unpredictability, and self-promotion. Arrogance, pettiness, hostility, indifference to the corporate environment, and interpersonal malice are other examples of such behavior (Hochwarter & Thompson, 2012; Jehan et al., 2020). According to Heppell (2011), toxic leaders have three major detrimental characteristics: a high level of inadequacy, selfish values, and deceit. Kusy and Holloway (2009) provided an accurate summary of the literature, discussing both the leader and the subordinate, cause and effect, and suggesting that toxic leadership is defined by a pattern of unhealthy work behavior that accumulates over time in individuals, teams, and even whole organizations. The fundamental tenet of toxic leadership is that it is seen as a detriment to the inspiration, cohesion, and adherence to organizational objectives that are the key components of successful leadership (Cao et al., 2019; Reed & Bullis, 2009).
The belief that engaging in potentially dangerous activities, such as using one’s extra-role conduct, will help or damage the institution is known as psychological safety (PYS; Edmondson, 1999). PYS can be found at both the individual (Detert & Burris, 2007; Law et al., 2011) and group levels, according to studies (Li et al., 2014). This study only looked at the individual-level PYS since the study model highlights individual costs associated with proactive work behavior. In severely toxic environments, workers are unable to get crucial cues for understanding behavior and prospective outcomes, and the behavior-outcome relationship is often a “black box” marked by incompatibility (Khan, Khan, Bodla, et al., 2020). Employees are less likely to pick up on helpful hints that could help them decipher the nuances, and they neglect their capacity to forecast future consequences, deeming the scenario a negative and uncontrollable danger (Weberg & Fuller, 2019). Employees can perceive extra-role performance to be risky when faced with this challenge. According to a study, having limited access to information about corporate culture increases vulnerability and defensiveness (Edmondson, 1999).
Furthermore, employees who lack courage are less likely to add to the company’s performance if they believe their voluntary efforts would be ignored (Hornstein & Wapner, 1986). Leadership literature has studied the influence of toxic leadership on employee behavioral outcomes and performance in a stable context. The current study, on the other hand, focused on the impact of toxic leadership on the proactive behavior of employees compelled to work remotely during the COVID-19 outbreak. There is a lack of research into the impact of toxic leadership on remote workers during the pandemic crisis. Employees may perceive a substantial risk of proactive work behavior when organizations are particularly toxic and full of uncertainties, especially during times of crisis (i.e., COVID-19). Employees may perceive low risk and assume that toxic leadership has little impact on PSY because of the certainty and harmony in traditional office settings (Matos et al., 2018). Thus, this research assumes the following hypothesis:
Toxic leadership negatively impacts PYS in the virtual work setting.
Psychological comfort promotes positive work behavior because psychological empowerment increases motivation (Cao et al., 2019). Extra-role behavior is not rewarded under a formal incentive scheme, and in a toxic work environment, it might result in negative work outcomes because it provides lesser opportunities for advancement (Li et al., 2014; Zhu, 2013). There are numerous more aspects to consider other than in-role work behavior, which enables employees to maintain a specific level of success to maintain their positions (Chen et al., 1988). Employee proactive work behavior may increase the likelihood of employee backfire, because if employees believe that their proactive work behavior activities are a dangerous investment in highly toxic organizations, they may withdraw their normal proactive work behavior (Khan, Khan, & Gul, 2019). On the other hand, employees with a high PYS level have a low risk of expressing proactive work behavior in their own interests (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).
Furthermore, PYS denotes employee trust and commitment to the organization, which motivates them to engage in additional tasks (Li et al., 2014). According to the social exchange theory, the nature of the leader-employee association has a profound influence on human behavior in an organization (Blau, 1964). Employees who perceive their workplaces are psychologically safe are more likely to view their relationship with their employer as relational rather than purely economic and respond by volunteering for responsibilities within the organization (Zhao & Zhou, 2019). This indicates a constructive association between PYS and employee behavior related to performing extra roles. Researchers have long advocated studying the toxic leadership–outcome nexus in its totality, including all mediating factors, to better understand the dynamics of toxic leadership impact (Khan & Khan, 2019). Therefore, this study investigates the relevance of PYS in better understanding the link between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior. Employees must assess the organizational climate while deciding whether or not to engage in employee behavior (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).
People who work in extremely hazardous environments are more likely to dwell on the negative and uncontrollable aspects of a crisis (Ferris et al., 2002), resulting in even less PYS. Thus, in a less psychologically safe business environment, people are more likely to engage in activities relating to resource conservation and strict regulation systems, which are linked to activity limitation and revealed in the status quo (Staw et al., 1981). Employees who perceive PYS arising because of a toxic work environment, on the other hand, are less likely to challenge the organization because insufficient PYS is a concern for them (Webster et al., 2016). As a result, toxic leadership becomes a major impediment to IT industry staff using PYS to express their experiences and other voluntary actions at work. The evidence for the PYS mediating effect is mounting. For example, PYS was established as mediating the effects of change-oriented leadership (Detert & Burris, 2007) and ethical leadership (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) on the proactive work behavior of followers. Several researchers focused on positive leadership, though none has looked at the effect of a toxic workplace environment on PYS and employee proactive work behavior in the IT field. Toxicity is pervasive in the workplace and jeopardizes workers’ psychological well-being, so that toxic leadership could be the most potentially applicable construct for relating a toxic work atmosphere to decreased PYS and proactive work behavior. Hence, we propose the following:
PYS mediates the association between toxic leadership and the proactive work behavior of employees during the COVID-19 crisis.
The mediation role of PIS in various work contexts was highlighted by numerous scholars. For example, Wang and Kim (2013) found that PIS had a significant mediating effect on the links between proactive socializing behavior and socialization outcomes. Hui et al. (2015) also investigated the mediating effect of PIS and found that organizational inducements such as perceived supervisor support and engagement resulted in higher levels of PIS, which in turn boosted organizational citizenship behavior. The moderating influence of PIS was examined in only a few studies in the disciplines of psychology and organizational behavior. According to the current study, PIS can act as a buffer against the negative impacts of toxic leadership. Companies can increase workers’ perceptions of power while also minimizing the negative impacts of confusion that come with toxic leadership (Miller et al., 2008). Similarly, we propose that employees’ perceptions of insiders can help them recognize decision rules and retain more resources to lessen the uncertainty that comes with tough situations (Li et al., 2014). The detrimental impacts of toxic leadership on employee morale and proactive work behavior can be reduced by strengthening PIS. Organizational management can use bonuses to signal to focused employees that they have achieved insider status, encouraging organizational identification and distinguishing insiders from outsiders (Li et al., 2014). Management studies and organizational psychology employ the term “organizational identification,” which alludes to a person’s proclivity to identify with the organization in which they are a member (Rousseau, 1998).
Organizational insiders have more faith in the organization than outsiders, and insiders also receive more organizational help after building a close relationship with the company, which can shield them against organizational toxicity (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). Insider status can work as a buffer, shielding employees from a hostile workplace while also encouraging proactive behavior. Social support and trust in coworkers buffer the harmful impacts of toxic leadership on employment results, which has been supported by research. (Vigoda-Gadot & Talmud, 2010).
Employees who identify as insiders are less likely to see toxic leadership as a threat, reducing the detrimental impact of toxic leadership on PYS and proactive work behavior. The negative relationships between toxic leadership, PSY, and proactive work behavior are projected to be minimized when PIS is strong, resulting in a more favorable atmosphere for workers’ PYS to proactive work behavior. We propose the following hypothesis because the amount of PIS can influence the relationship between toxic leadership and PSY, and a higher level of PIS is thought to buffer the negative effects of toxic leadership on PSY:
PIS moderates the negative association between toxic leadership and PYS such that this association becomes weak with a high level of PIS and vice versa during the COVID-19 crisis.
The above statements are part of a larger context in which PYS mediates the association between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior, and PIS moderates both toxic leadership and PYS as well as toxic leadership and proactive work behavior in the association between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior. PIS may also moderate the efficacy of the mediating mechanism for PYS – a moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). Insiders are more likely to have appropriate information and social reinforcement, which can contribute to PYS and, ultimately, proactive work behavior. Thus, PIS is crucial to reducing the indirect effect of toxic leadership on proactive work behavior by PYS. When the PIS of workers is strong, it is expected that the indirect associations between toxic leadership and extra-role actions will be decreased. Toxic leadership is more likely to suffocate PYS and proactive work behavior when employees perceive themselves as strangers, especially when outsiders have less experience clarifying the globalization situation than insiders. As a result, PSY’s indirect impact on proactive work behavior should be greater. Taking these arguments into consideration:
PIS moderates the mediating effect of PYS on the relationship between toxic leadership and proactive employee work behavior, with the mediating effect becoming weaker when PIS is higher rather than lower.
Method
The data for this study were collected online from matched employees and their immediate supervisors at various small and mid-sized IT companies in China’s Anhui Province between March and July 2020. Employee proactive behavior is particularly significant in IT firms because these companies want their employees to develop proactive behavior and volunteer passions to help enhance quality and service processes (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). This study used the timelag approach, which is famous among management scholars. Data were collected in two timewaves at a 3-month interval. On the one hand, the timelag approach reduces the risk of common method biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003), whereas, on the other hand, it allows respondents adequate time to observe and respond to the questionnaire (Detert & Burris, 2007).
The IT firm’s personnel departments were engaged to administer online questionnaires to 226 randomly selected employees, who were then asked to nominate their immediate supervisors as part of the data-collection process. For this reason, a group of volunteers from various universities were recruited to contact HR staff to collect online data from small IT firms in major cities across Anhui provinces, which were chosen at random. A group of five volunteers who participated in the online data collection were paid a lump sum of 3,000 RMB as a stipend. We asked 366 matched employees and their immediate supervisors for permission to participate in the survey in the first wave and received 452 responses. Employees provided demographic information as well as information on toxic leadership and PIS. Employee PYS data were collected from employees in the second wave, while employee proactive work behavior data were collected from immediate supervisors.
Employees’ and supervisors’ questionnaires both have a code that can be used to align the employee with their immediate supervisor. The code and personal response were just accessible to the research team. Each respondent’s identity was kept hidden to invade their identity, and all responses were collected online through email, WeChat, and Google Docs. There was a 2-month gap between the two waves. According to the survey, the final study sample consisted of 282 employee-supervisor dyads after removing missing and unmatched surveys. 64% of respondents were men, 43% were between the ages of 31 and 35, and 40% were between the ages of 25 and 30. Similarly, 43% held a bachelor’s degree, and 38% had 6–10 years of experience (see Table 1).
Measurement Scale
All construct statements were altered in this study to account for the virtual work environment. The Toxic Leadership Scale was that developed by Schmidt (2008) and used by Matos et al., (2018), which we also used to assess toxic leadership. Respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). Sample item included: “Acts only in the best interest of his/her next promotion in the context of a virtual work environment.” Five items of this measurement were excluded from this study because of a factor loading issue. The Cronbach’s α value is 0.951. To assess PIS, we used a 5-item scale developed by Stamper and Masterson (2002). The response options ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. A sample item was “I feel I am an ‘insider’ in my work organization in a virtual work setting.” The Cronbach’s α value is 0.959. To assess PYS, we used a 3-item scale developed by Detert and Burris (2007). The response options ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. A sample item was “It is safe for me to speak up around virtual work setting.” The Cronbach’s α value is 0.953. We also used a 4-item measurement scale of Proactive Work Behavior adapted by Al-Tit (2020). A sample item was “Commitment to save organization’s resources.” All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= Strongly disagree) to 5 (= Strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α value is 0.952.
Data Analysis
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA)
We used AMOS version 24.0 for CFA testing in this study to ensure the validity of the proposed study variables (see Table 2).
Specifically, the items in each construct with the highest and lowest factor loads are combined first, then the items with the highest and lowest factor loads are combined, and all items are allocated to one of the indicators based on the factor analysis findings. The CFA model was put to the test in this analysis with four variables: toxic leadership, employee PYS, PIS, and employee proactive work behavior. The TLI, CFI, and RMSEA tests were used to assess model fit in this analysis. The findings showed that the model fit was acceptable: χ2(395) = 656.966, CFI = .985, TLI = .983; RMSEA = .041 (see Table 2).
The findings demonstrate that all variables loading have a significant impact on latent constructs after confirming the convergent validity. The discriminant validity of the four proposed constructs was then assessed by applying multiple models to the study’s 4-factor model. The findings of the fit index suggest that the data fits the impact of the 4-factor model better (see Table 2). As a result, the outcomes of the study’s key constructs are more unique and inclusive of the findings. Four constructs were investigated further based on the findings.
Tests of Hypotheses
The hypotheses presented in this study were investigated using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. As demonstrated in Correlation Table 3, H1 predicts that toxic leadership is associated with employee PYS. H1 was supported by the findings, which demonstrated a significant relationship between toxic leadership and employee PYS (r = −.45, p < .001).
In the current study, all items were loaded on their latent components during CFA testing on the full model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As Table 3 indicates, the psychometric properties of the measurement model are satisfactory. Furthermore, to account for CFA, Harman (1976) single-factor test was performed, in which all variables were allowed to load onto one factor; the model reflects a poor fit. This indicates that no single factor accounts for most of the variance (Alfes et al., 2013). As Table 3 indicates, the full measurement of all latent constructs was compared to a range of diverse models. The results of the various tests reveal that the proposed model with four distinct variables (toxic leadership, PYS, PIS, and proactive work behavior) is better than the others. These findings demonstrate the originality and relevance of research variables.
Mediation Analysis
The current study used the approach by Baron and Kenny (1986) to evaluate mediating effects. Four conditions must be met for this approach to consider the full mediation effect: first, a significant relationship between independent variables (toxic leadership) and mediators (PYS); second, a significant interaction between the independent variable (toxic leadership) and the dependent variable (proactive work behavior); third, a significant interaction between the mediator (PSY) and the dependent variable (proactive work behavior); fourth, the independent variable (toxic leadership) and the dependent variable (proactive work behavior) should have no significant relationship in the presence of a mediator.
Table 4 shows that there is a significant interaction between toxic leadership and PYS (r = −.40; p < .001; M1), implying that the first condition was met. Table 4 further shows that toxic leadership and employee proactive work behavior have a significant interaction (r = −.21; p < .01; M4), showing that the second condition is met. The third condition was satisfied by finding a significant relationship between PYS and proactive work behavior (r = .33; p < .001; M5). Table 4 also shows that, in the presence of PSY, the link between toxic leadership and employee proactive behavior was not significant (r = −.07; ns; M6), indicating that the fourth condition was met. This method demonstrates that employee PYS played a significant role in mediating the link between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior among employees, hence supporting H2.
Moderating Analysis
According to H3, PIS is expected to moderate the link between toxic leadership and PYS. PYS was found to be significantly linked with the interaction between toxic leadership and PIS (r = .20; p < .01; M3), supporting H3.
Aiken and West’s (1991) approach was used to map the interactive effect of PIS to evaluate whether it had a moderating effect. The interaction patterns (seen in Figure 2) agree with the prediction of H3. Figure 2 shows that there was a negative correlation between toxic leadership and PYS when the PIS was weak (r = −.31, p < .001), but when the PIS was strong (r = .40, p < .001), the association became significant and positive (r = .40, p < .001).
Preacher et al. (2007) created a process macro that called for a bootstrapping test to assess the indirect effects of mediation on various levels of moderators. The confidence interval is considered to be distinct from other traditional methods because it relies on bootstrapping to moderate the normality of the mediation effect distribution (Preacher et al., 2007). The bootstrapping method replaces the original dataset with an observational estimate of the numbers and estimates the effect of the resulting dataset. This method yields the predictor’s direct effect on the outcome variable. It also has an indirect effect on the outcome variable, which is transferred into the interviewing variable (MacKinnon et al., 2004).
Table 5 shows the bootstrapping test confidence intervals (CIs) for three PIS values: one standard deviation below the mean, one standard deviation at the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean. If there are values between the low and high CIs that are not 0, the CIs are statistically significant (Hayes, 2013). Table 5 shows the bootstrapping CIs for the indirect influence of PYS, where insider status values are one SD above mean (−.17 to −.06), at mean (−.21 to −.10), and below mean (−.27 to −.12). Toxic leadership has a significant moderating indirect impact on employee proactive work behavior via PYS because it does not include 0. It can detect a significant moderated mediation effect under the conditions of one SD above mean, at mean, and below mean, supporting H4.
Discussion
This study differs from previous studies (Weberg & Fuller, 2019) by examining the impact of toxic leadership on employee extra-role behavior in a virtual work environment rather than a traditional work environment during the COVID19 pandemic. Companies acknowledge the value of proactive work behavior, and some studies have identified leadership immaturity as a barrier to individual and organization growth and development. Proactive behavior is becoming increasingly crucial in the IT business, especially in remote work settings, to solve the difficulties of digital safety and harmonious online interaction between IT professionals (Pitafi et al., 2020).
However, there are apparent gaps in our understanding of the impact of toxic leadership on employee proactive behavior and the consequences of its detrimental effects on employees (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) who are obligated to work remotely during a crisis (i.e., COIVD-19 outbreak). In this context, the current study produced unique findings that explore the impact of toxic leadership on proactive work behavior among employees. The outcomes of this study add to our knowledge of the negative effects of toxic leadership on employee PYS and proactive work behavior. Moreover, this research provides insightful findings on curtailing the detrimental effects of toxic leadership on employee well-being and proactive behavior. Furthermore, the use of a timelag approach (Detert & Burris, 2007) and the introduction of moderators and mediators allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of toxic leadership on employee proactive work behavior, particularly in the service sector.
Theoretical Implications
This article contributes to the growing body of knowledge on toxic leadership and proactive work behavior, particularly in the context of virtual work during the COVID-19 crisis. The results of this research back up the notion that PYS and proactive work behavior are more than just a tool for leader-member exchange, job happiness, and positive affectivity – although these three control variables have a strong link to PSY. The PYS model for organizational toxicity used in this study has the benefit of being a generative model for future studies on organizational toxicity outcomes. PYS is a crucial underlying mechanism that provides multiple insights into company proactive work behavior and can be applied to potential organizational toxicity. As a result of organizational toxicity, PYS allows people to challenge the status quo (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), which could contribute to other unexplored job outcomes, such as innovative behavior. Consequently, psychological protection is a vital mechanism by which one may demonstrate other work behavior aside from encouraging proactive work behavior.
The moderating effects lead to a more nuanced image of how toxic leadership–PSY–proactive work behavior is affected by PIS. We predicted that insiders are less vulnerable to toxic leadership because they are more likely to be rewarded with advice, intelligence, preparation, and influence to work out the laws of reward distribution. As a result, they are more likely to develop interpretative experiences directing their future behavior. Insiders, on the other hand, are more likely than outsiders to have a high degree of PYS and to exhibit extra-role behavior in a highly toxic organization. This study is one of the pioneering studies that use the PYS perspective to describe the association between leadership toxicity and proactive work behavior in the IT industry.
This study contributes to hypothesis formation by identifying PYS as a mediator (a cognitive mechanism) in the interaction between toxic leadership and proactive work behavior as part of a more generally moderated mediation model. We found that PYS for workers is a key psychological factor in proactive work behavior. Thus, by combining mediation and moderation, this study model better explains how toxic leadership affects proactive work behavior as well as who is most affected by toxic leadership in terms of their PYS and proactive work behavior. The findings not only support and explain arguments that the IT industry has a special association with proactive work behavior, they also contribute to our knowledge of how such an association operates.
Finally, the current research replicates previous findings in the Western context (Detert & Burris, 2007) in the Chinese context, examining the association between PYS and proactive work behavior, demonstrating the extra-role customer behavior’s cross-cultural external validity.
Managerial Implications
In terms of practical implications, we think the findings of this study are beneficial to IT industries because they help us to better understand the factors that influence proactive work behavior. IT sectors are environmentally conscious, and workers’ extra-role behavior is critical to making this field environmentally and socially friendly. According to my findings, extra-role behavior is a psychological phenomenon that reflects situational factors (i.e., toxic leadership, PIS) through PYS. Thus, my investigation indicates the first step to take to avoid toxic leadership. Individuals react to organizational toxicity based on their experiences, so organizations need to encourage a certain environment, consistent procedures, and success for an additional function (Ferris et al., 2002).
Individuals react to organizational toxicity based on their experiences, so organizations need to encourage a certain environment, consistent procedures, and success for an additional role (Khan, Khan, Bahadur et al., 2021; Lapalme et al., 2009). Mentoring and training services, for example, should be encouraged by managers to help employees to better understand their workplace and enhance their sense of insider status (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). My findings also have implications for recruiting: People with a positive proactive personality have a high PIS even in intensely politicized and hostile work environments (Kim et al., 2009). Accordingly, organizations should hire workers who are dedicated to their jobs and able to volunteer for additional responsibilities when and where they are needed.
Finally, since PYS is a mediator, organizations may promote extra-role behavior by encouraging PYS. This inference is important because toxic leadership is common, and not all employees should consider themselves insiders. Managers can reduce the negative association between toxic leadership and PYS by improving insider status. Some leadership approaches (such as change-oriented leadership and ethical leadership) have been shown to improve PYS at higher levels (Detert & Burris, 2007). Thus, this research points to a strategy for organizations to address the downturn in PYS: maintaining good policies and change-oriented leadership.
Limitations and Future Research
This study has two significant advantages. It used a timelag approach to gather online data in two waves to offer concrete evidence of causal interactions, something a cross-sectional study design cannot provide. Second, having immediate bosses evaluate employee proactive work behavior rather than employees eliminates the issue of common method bias. Nevertheless, there are a few limitations in my study that should be noted.
First, since the evidence on toxic leadership and PYS come from the same source, the new results could be tainted by common-method variance. To reduce bias, we collected online data at various time intervals and accounted for demographic factors, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Insiders retain extra-role efficiency as a result, and common method bias has little to no impact on my empirical findings.
Second, the current findings are restricted in their generalizability because of the use of the IT industrial sector. The outcomes of future research should be compared to those of other sectors. Furthermore, the data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, so that my findings may differ from those obtained in a normal work environment.
Third, while there are numerous measures of proactive work behavior tailored to various occupational specialties, this study relied on a generic measure of employee proactive work behavior. Employee proactive work behavior can be linked to toxic leadership and PYS in a variety of ways, both positively and negatively. However, according to Liang et al. (2012), PYS is positively linked to both positive and negative proactive work behavior temporal variation to the same degree, dispelling concerns that it has different effects on positive and negative proactive work behavior. In the future, more research into the effect of toxic leadership on all aspects of proactive work behavior is needed.
Finally, there is concern that, in comparison to China, the findings would be unpopular in Western societies. PIS can have a stronger influence on Chinese people than on Western people because of their high level of collectivism and reliance on established associations.
Conclusion
Organizational effectiveness depends on proactive work behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007). The current study illuminates important concerns surrounding toxic leadership and proactive work behavior, revealing PIS as a key contingent factor and PYS construct for being a successful mediator in the toxic leadership-proactive work behavior association. This research has significant organizational consequences since it provides many strategies for reducing the negative effects of toxic leadership and encouraging workers to participate in the extra-role activity. As a result, the findings of this study can be used to initiate further research into other variables and the underlying mechanisms that enable proactive work behavior.
References
(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions (2nd ed.). Sage.
(2020). The impact of AMO-HR systems on proactive employee behavior: The mediating contribution of leader-member and team-member exchange. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 12, 1–13.
(2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.679950
(2007). Bad leaders: How they get that way and what to do about them. Strategy & Leadership, 35(3), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570710745785
(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
(2019). Toxic leadership: Emotional distress and coping strategy. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 22(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-0027
(1964). Exchanges and power in social life. Wiley.
(2019). The stimulators of social media fatigue among students: Role of moral disengagement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1083–1107.
(1988). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 922–931.
(2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–8.
(2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216.
(2002).
Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions . In F. J. YammarinoF. DansereauEds., The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179–254). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2(2009). Destructive leaders and dysfunctional organizations: A therapeutic approach. Cambridge University Press.
(1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press.
(2011). Toxic leadership: Applying the Lipman-Blumen model to political leadership. Representation, 47(3), 241–249.
(2012). Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic supervision and work outcomes. Human Relations, 65(3), 335–366.
(1986). Modes of experiencing and adapting to retirement. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21(4), 291–315.
(2015). Organizational inducements and employee citizenship behavior: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of collectivism. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 439–456.
(2020). Relationship between organisational virtue and perceived role of ethics and perception of social responsibility in business: Testing a mediation model. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 14(2), 166–180.
(2020). Impact of psychopathy on employee creativity via work engagement and negative socioemotional behavior in public health sector. Personnel Review, 49(8), 1655–1675.
(2020). The impact of moral leadership on construction employees’ psychological behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–9.
(2019). What followers are saying about transformational leaders fostering employee innovation via organisational learning, knowledge sharing and social media use in public organisations? Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101391.
(2021). Exploring the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ voice behavior in Chinese construction industry: A moderated mediation analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0829
(2021). Mobile payment adoption: A multi-theory model, multi-method approach and multi-country study. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 19(4), 467–491.
(2019). Relationship between perception of organizational politics and organizational citizenship behavior: Testing a moderated mediation model. Asian Business & Management, 18(2), 122–141.
(2020). A trail of chaos: How psychopathic leadership influence employee satisfaction and turnover intention via self-efficacy in tourism enterprises. Journal of Leisure Research, 52(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1785359
(2008). The “dark side” of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 86–97.
(2020). Revenue collapses and the consumption of small business owners in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. National Bureau of Economic Research.
(2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 93–103.
(2009). Toxic workplace! Managing toxic personalities and their systems of power. Wiley.
(2020). Influence of nurse managers’ toxic leadership behaviors on nurse‐reported adverse events and quality of care. Journal of Nursing Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13228
(2009). Bringing the outside in: Can “external” workers experience insider status? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 919–940.
(2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 782–1793.
(2014). Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 853–874.
(2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–92.
(2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014
(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
(2016). The teacher who goes the extra (s)mile: A study among primary school teachers in Namibia. Journal for Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, 5, 139–155.
(2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee–organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 473–490.
(2018). Toxic leadership and the masculinity contest culture: How “win or die” cultures breed abusive leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12284
(2008). Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 209–222.
(2020). Influence of ethical leadership in managing human resources in construction companies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(11), Article 04020125.
(2020). Using enterprise social media to investigate the effect of workplace conflict on employee creativity. Telematics and Informatics, 55, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101451
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
(2017). Understanding the role of creative self-efficacy and power distance orientation for examining the consequences of abusive supervision on employee creativity: A case study from Nepal. Open Journal of Leadership, 6(2), 61–81.
(2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 5–18.
(1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 217–233.
(2008). Development and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Digital Repository at the University of Maryland. http://hdl.handle.net/1903/8176
(2016). The cost of going the extra mile: The relationship between teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior, role stressors, and strain with the buffering effect of job autonomy. Teachers and Teaching, 22(4), 426–447.
(2017). Teachers’ extra-role behaviour: Relation with self-efficacy, procedural justice, organisational commitment and support for training. International Journal of Management in Education, 11(2), 140–162.
(2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 875–894.
(1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524.
(2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1189–1203.
(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
(1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895–922.
(2010). Organizational politics and job outcomes: The moderating effect of trust and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2829–2861.
(2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015848
(2013). Proactive socialization behavior in China: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of supervisors’ traditionality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3), 389–406.
(2019). Toxic leadership: Three lessons from complexity science to identify and stop toxic teams. Nurse Leader, 17(1), 22–26.
(2016). Fight, flight or freeze: Common responses for follower coping with toxic leadership. Stress and Health, 32(4), 346–354.
(2014). Toxic leaders and the social environments that breed them. Forbes Online. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darwinatwork/2014/01/10/toxic-leaders-and-the-social-environments-that-breed-them/?sh=410475bcdac5
(2011). Work-to-family enrichment and voice behavior in China: The role of modernity. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 5, 199–218.
(2019). Exploring the impact of responsible leadership on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A leadership identity perspective. Sustainability, 11(4), 944–959.
(2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and digital higher education: Exploring the impact of proactive personality on social capital through internet self-efficacy and online interaction quality. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 1–12.
(2013). Individual behavior: In-role and extra-role. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(1), 23–27.
