Can self‐sacrificial leadership promote subordinate taking charge? The mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of risk aversion

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2068
• Author: Xiao‐Ming Tian,Zi‐Yuan Zhang,Rui Li
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016

Can self-sacrificial leadership promote subordinate

taking charge? The mediating role of

organizational identification and the moderating

role of risk aversion

RUI LI

1

, ZI-YUAN ZHANG

2,3

*AND XIAO-MING TIAN

4

1

School of Business, Soochow University, Suzhou, China

2

Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

3

Business School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

4

Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China

Summary The extant literature on the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and subordinate behavioral

outcomes has primarily focused on the influence of this leadership on subordinate affiliative behaviors.

Our research proposed a theoretical model explaining why and when self-sacrificial leadership might

promote taking charge, an exemplar of challenging behaviors. We tested this model across two studies

conducted in China. In addition, we also examined the differences in the boundary conditions for

self-sacrificial leadership to influence taking charge and affiliative behaviors (cooperation in Study 1

and helping in Study 2). Our results revealed that (i) self-sacrificial leadership was positively related

to subordinate taking charge, with organizational identification acting as a mediator for this relationship,

and (ii) risk aversion moderated both the self-sacrificial leadership–subordinate taking charge relationship

and the mediating effect of organizational identification, such that the relationship and its mediating

mechanism were weaker for subordinates high rather than low in risk aversion. These moderating

effects, however, could not generalize to cooperation and helping. Finally, the theoretical and practical

implications of our results and directions for future research were discussed. Copyright © 2015 John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: self-sacrificial leadership; taking charge; organizational identification; risk aversion

It has long been recognized that by forgoing their self-interest and taking on personal costs for the benefit of the

collective, leaders can effectively motivate and inspire their subordinates and eventually constructively influence

their groups or organizations (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Hoogervorst, De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2012 ;

Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998,

1999) termed such type of leader behavior “self-sacrificial leadership.”It refers to a form of leadership that

involves a leader’s“abandonment or postponement of personal interests and privileges for the collective welfare”

(Choi & Yoon, 2005, p. 52). Empirical evidence indicates that self-sacrificial leaders are attributed more

charisma and legitimacy and perceived to be more effective by their subordinates (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999;

De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges, Weiss, &

Strickland, 1999). Self-sacrificial leadership has also been found to be a crucial precursor of followers’positive

affect, favorable attitudes (e.g., trust in leader, collective identification, and organizational commitment),

improved performance, and increased prosocial behavior (e.g., cooperation and organizational citizenship behav-

ior [OCB]) (De Cremer, 2006; De Cremer, Mayer, van Dijke, Schouten, & Bardes, 2009; De Cremer & van

*Correspondence to: Zi-Yuan Zhang, Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.

E-mail: zyzhang_nju@yeah.net

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 28 July 2014

Revised 14 September 2015, Accepted 07 November 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 758–781 (2016)

Published online 14 December 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2068

Research Article

Knippenberg, 2004, 2005; Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, & Quinones, 2004; van Knippenberg & van

Knippenberg, 2005).

Although results of past research support the fact that self-sacrificial leadership is an important and effective

leadership form, there are still certain critical research gaps to be filled. For instance, as to the relationship between

self-sacrificial leadership and subordinate work-related behaviors, the focus of past studies was mainly ontesting the

effects of self-sacrificial leadership on subordinates’affiliative behaviors, which aligns with and supports organiza-

tional routines and policies (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995).

Affiliative behaviors are definitely vital in relatively stable environments, but if the status quo they support needs

changing, then they might actually be detrimental to performance (Burris et al., 2008). As organizational environ-

ments get more complex and unpredictable and organizational structures become flatter, the survival and success

of an organization are increasingly dependent on employees who can initiate proactive behavior, a challenging ac-

tion that involves actively challenging rather than passively adapting to the status quo (Crant, 2000; Grant, Parker, &

Collins, 2009). As such, can self-sacrificial leadership foster proactive behavior? Unfortunately, little research atten-

tion has been paid to this issue, leaving the theory of self-sacrificial leadership incomplete. Moreover, the answer to

such a question may also determine to some extent the practical value of self-sacrificial leadership in contemporary

organizations.

In the current research, we try to explore this issue in the Chinese context by focusing on taking charge, a

general form of proactive behavior (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2012; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban,

2007). The first purpose of our research is to examine whether self-sacrificial leadership positively predicts

employee taking charge. Taking charge is self-initiated (autonomous) and change-oriented in nature; it empha-

sizes bringing about positive challenge to the status quo (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Although not formally

required by the organization, taking charge can benefit the organization (Kim, Liu, & Diefendorff, 2015).

Self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) differentiates between autonomous and controlled

forms of motivation, and it provides a useful foundation for understanding why individuals engage in

autonomous behavior. Drawing on SDT and in view of extant self-sacrificial leadership and taking charge

research, we argue that by enhancing subordinates’autonomous motivation, self-sacrificial leadership would

prompt subordinate taking charge.

The second purpose of our research is to further investigate the psychological mechanism linking self-

sacrificial leadership to taking charge. We still use SDT as the theoretical basis and posit that organizational

identification might serve as a potential mediator. We choose to concentrate on the mediating role of organiza-

tional identification for three reasons. First, organizational identification explicitly refers to the social aspects of

a person’s self-concept (Pratt, 1998) and has important autonomous motivational implications for proactive be-

havior (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; Parker & Wu, 2014). It differs from other constructs (e.g., role-breadth

self-efficacy and felt responsibility) examined by prior research (e.g., Fuller et al., 2012; Morrison & Phelps,

1999) as psychological mechanisms to catalyze taking charge. Second, the Chinese culture puts great emphasis

on collectivist values, so individuals tend to make descriptions of themselves in terms reflecting their collective

self (Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002). Third, the primary focus of both self-sacrificial leadership and taking

charge is on the collective. Organizational identification rather than personal identification accords well with

this focus.

Finally, McAllister et al. (2007) emphasized that challenging behaviors might not be driven by the same condi-

tions as affiliative behaviors, “because of the risk inherent in questioning the status quo”(p. 1209). We thus posit

that the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and taking charge and the mediating effect of organizational

identification on this relationship might vary depending on contingencies that affect individuals’perceptions and

evaluations of personal risk in taking charge. Accordingly, the third purpose of this research is to examine the

boundary conditions of the impact of self-sacrificial leadership on taking charge and its mediation mechanism.

We identify the individual difference of risk aversion as one potentially important moderating factor. We propose

that high risk-averse subordinates might avoid engaging in personally risky behaviors such as taking charge. Con-

sequently, the tendency of risk aversion would weaken both the self-sacrificial leadership–subordinate taking charge

SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP AND TAKING CHARGE 759

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 758–781 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job