Self-Sacrificial Leadership and Employee Behaviours: An Examination of the Role of Organizational Social Capital

Abstract

Drawing on social exchange theory, this study examines a mechanism, namely organizational social capital (OSC), through which self-sacrificial leadership is related to two types of employee behaviours: organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) and counterproductive behaviours (CPBs). The results of two different studies (a field study and an experimental study) in Egypt showed that self-sacrificial leadership is positively related to OSC which, in turn, is positively related to OCBs and negatively related to CPBs. Overall, the findings suggest that self-sacrificial leaders are more likely to achieve desirable employee behaviours through improving the quality of social relationships among employees.

How and When Does Inclusive Leadership Curb Psychological Distress During a Crisis? Evidence From the COVID-19 Outbreak

“…Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86. Coworkers’ self-sacrificial behavior was measured with a five-item Self Sacrifice scale adopted and modified from Mostafa and Bottomley (2020) . A sample statement is “My coworkers are willing to make personal sacrifices in the team’s interest”.…”

“…Social exchange theory not only posits reciprocity between leadership support and employee behavior, but also applies to peer-support among employees with respect to the principle of moral indebtedness ( Mostafa and Bottomley, 2020 ). Employees take inspiration and give back to the organization through job tasks as well as interpersonal relationships within the workplace, and this give and take is not merely between management and employees but also from employees to other colleagues ( Ancarani et al, 2017 ).…”

“…Nurses in China, especially those who were at the epicenter, Wuhan, sacrificed their Spring Festival holiday, wedding ceremonies, and family celebrations in the greater interest of the nation. Self-sacrifice has been studied in its broader form from a patriotic and social angle ( duPreez, 1996 ; Belanger et al, 2014 ) or from a mere leadership perspective ( Choi and Mai-Dalton, 1998 ; Mostafa and Bottomley, 2020 ). Less is known about the self-sacrificial behavior of nursing and healthcare staff.…”

Identifying with How We Are, Fitting with What We Do: Personality and Dangerousness at Work as Moderators of Identification and Person–Organization Fit Effects

“…In fact, most recent studies argue that the condition necessary to clearly demonstrate and justify the presence of a mediating effect between two variables of interest, is to confirm the significance of an indirect effect between the two, regardless of the presence of “an effect to be mediated” ( Hayes, 2009 , 2013 ; Preacher et al, 2007 ; Zhao et al, 2010 ). This approach has been gaining increasing popularity in the organizational and psychology literature (e.g., Mostafa & Bottomley, 2018 ; Romani, Grappi, & Bagozzi, 2013 ; Santos, Zanette, Kwok, Heyman, & Lee, 2017 ) as it allows for more rigorous testing of mediating effects.…”

Sense of belonging to an industrial district and knowledge acquisition: The role of strong and trusting interorganizational relations

“…The network analysis would be another way to measure them that would allow us to obtain more objective information, but due to the scope of the study, aimed not at a specific network of companies, but at the study of all the companies belonging to the Spanish footwear sector, the questionnaire is the methodology that allows us to fulfil our objective. Additionally, we can find numerous examples of studies that use also our same methodology to measure relational variables (Chang, Liu, & Chang, 2019; García‐Villaverde, Elche, Martínez‐Pérez, & Ruiz‐Ortega, 2017; Mostafa & Bottomley, 2020: Rodrigo‐Alarcón, García‐Villaverde, Ruiz‐Ortega, & Parra‐Requena, 2018; Ruiz‐Ortega, Parra‐Requena, García‐Villaverde, & Rodrigo‐Alarcon, ; Sani, Mohd‐Khan, & Noorv, 2019, among others).…”