Self-sacrificial leadership, thriving at work, workplace well-being, and work-family conflict during the COVID-19 crisis: The moderating role of self-leadership

Huang, Danyu; Zhou, Hao Article Self-sacrificial leadership, thriving at work, workplace well-being, and work-family conflict during the COVID-19 crisis: The moderating role of self-leadership BRQ Business Research Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Asociación Científica de Economía y Dirección de Empresas (ACEDE), Madrid Suggested Citation: Huang, Danyu; Zhou, Hao (2024) : Self-sacrificial leadership, thriving at work, workplace well-being, and work-family conflict during the COVID-19 crisis: The moderating role of self-leadership, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, ISSN 2340-9444, Sage Publishing, London, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, pp. 10-25, https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444231203744 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327030 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444231203744 Business Research Quarterly 2024, Vol. 27(1) 10 –25 © The Author(s) 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/23409444231203744 journals.sagepub.com/home/brq Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). Introduction Researchers have been interested in how to promote followers’ workplace well-being (WWB), involving “not only job satisfaction but also the positive emotions that an individual experiences regarding work” (Zheng et al., 2015), as well as ameliorate their work–family conflict (WFC), that is, when “work demands restrain individuals from fulfilling responsibilities and roles related to family” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) during crises (Eby et al., 2016; Hogan, 2020; Lindström & Giordano, 2016). The recent COVID-19 pandemic underscored this issue’s importance, especially for nurses who provided the most direct and close care to infected patients (K. R. Choi et al., 2020). They faced workloads much higher than usual on a daily basis and several challenges such as shift work, longer working hours, high workloads and demands, staff shortages, and harsh working environments (Kramer & Kramer, 2020; Yildiz et al., 2021). All of these undoubtedly reduced nurses’ WWB and exacerbated their WFCs (Liu et al., 2022; Sahin et al., 2021). Researchers have recognized WFC as a source of stress in nursing, which may impair their physical and mental health (Gonnelli & Raffagnino, 2017), diminish their quality of work (Zandian et al., 2020), and even increase burnout and turnover (Amoo et al., 2018). Poor WWB likewise exacerbates nurses’ intention to leave the organization (Holland et al., 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to identify factors that can Self-sacrificial leadership, thriving at work, workplace well-being, and work–family conflict during the COVID-19 crisis: The moderating role of self-leadership Danyu Huang and Hao Zhou Abstract The COVID-19 crisis has created instability in nurses’ workplace well-being (WWB) and work–family relationships. Exploring effective leadership tailored to the needs in a special context is significant to address these issues. Therefore, we examined how the interaction of self-sacrificial leadership (SSL) and self-leadership (SL)—explaining in the integration of conservation of resources and self-determination theories—related to thriving at work (TAW), WWB, and work– family conflict (WFC). A multi-wave questionnaire was distributed to 405 nurses working at a large hospital in China. The results indicate that (1) SSL brought more WWB and less WFC, (2) TAW mediated the correlations between them, and (3) SL stimulated more TAW than did SSL and weakened the influence of SSL on TAW. Alongside improving the understanding of the role of SSL and SL during the COVID-19 pandemic, we facilitate management interventions to practitioners. JEL CLASSIFICATION: L200 Keywords Self-sacrificial leadership, workplace well-being, work–family conflict, thriving at work, self-leadership Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China Corresponding author: Hao Zhou, Business School, Sichuan University, No. 29 Wangjiang Road, Chengdu 610064, China. Email: [email protected] 1203744BRQ0010.1177/23409444231203744Business Research QuarterlyHuang and Zhou research-article2023 Regular Paper Huang and Zhou 11 improve nurses’ WWB and ameliorate their WFC during such a macro-crisis. The underlying assumption of past literature may be that negative work environment factors such as conflict, job stressors, work schedule variability, weekend hours, long work hours, and abusive supervision are among the primary drivers of WWB (negative relationship) and WFC (positive relationship) (Michel et al., 2011; Raffenaud et al., 2020; Schulte & Vainio, 2010; Shih et al., 2022; Sonnentag et al., 2023; Y. C. Zhang & Liao, 2015). Although addressing these factors may have positive results, it is difficult or impossible for organizations to implement relevant initiatives in reality. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals could not change the stressful environment, long hours, and difficult schedules. Nevertheless, these issues can be addressed by strengthening the external and internal resources for nurses (Kotzé, 2021). Research shows that, amid a crisis, leadership is critical in supporting employees to overcome difficult situations (Williams et al., 2017) and an effective leadership style can contribute to the organization’s success (Elbaz & Haddoud, 2017; Garbaa et al., 2018). Among the various leadership styles, self-sacrificial leadership (SSL) has not been studied comprehensively yet. Yang et al. (2023) called for future research that precisely examines the impact of SSL in different types of organizational crises, especially external crises. Furthermore, self-leadership (SL), as a non-traditional leadership style, can provide individuals with powerful internal resources, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (Harunavamwe et al., 2020; Inam et al., 2023). Accordingly, in this study, we considered SSL as an external resource and SL as an internal resource, examining how their interaction enhanced nurses’ WWB and mitigated their WFCs. In addition, we utilize the conservation of resources (COR) theory and self-determination theory (SDT) to better understand the mechanisms underlying these relationships. The purpose of this study was to examine how SSL and SL improved the low WWB and high WFC among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this, we drew on COR theory and SDT as the theoretical foundations and used a multi-wave data collection approach for validation. The study makes several important contributions to existing research. Perhaps most prominently, by considering a combination of external resources (SSL) and internal resources (SL) as an effective crisis-coping strategy, this study deepened our understanding of the relationship between the two resources and contributes to the literature on WWB and WFC. Second, by examining managers’ self-sacrificial behaviors aimed at alleviating the stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this study validates the view that SSL often occurs during organizational crises (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Matteson & Irving, 2006) and answers Yang et al.’s (2023) call to focus on the role of SSL in external crises. Third, we integrate COR and SDT as an integrative theoretical framework to explore the interactive effects of two different resources, making “work resources” more concrete and further defining how SSL affects various outcomes. Last but not the least, this study’s sample and context provided a unique opportunity to explore the relationship between two different types of leadership and nurses’ WWB and WFC during this uncertain time. Theoretical background and hypotheses Self-sacrificial leadership SSL refers to a management style in which “leaders voluntarily, temporarily or permanently, give up their personal interests, privileges, and well-being for the welfare of their organizations and team members” (Y. Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999, p. 479; R. Li et al., 2016, p. 760). This leadership style is often used during organizational crises and can effectively address the organization’s uncertainty and complex challenges (De Cremer et al., 2004; Matteson & Irving, 2006). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many examples of SSL emerged. For example, Marriott’s CEO gave up his salary, provided hotel rooms for free to frontline employees to help fight the pandemic, and called on other executives to take pay cuts to help the business weather the storm. This series of initiatives reduced costs by a total of $140 million, providing short-term relief to Marriott’s financial and operational pressures. Meanwhile, instances of front-line healthcare managers making huge sacrifices in terms of time, money, and health to help relieve the tremendous work pressure of their subordinates were countless. Their self-sacrificial behaviors set an example of strength for their subordinates and provide them with a better physical and mental state in helping the COVID-19 patients. These examples demonstrate SSL’s prevalence and effective impacts during COVID-19. Although some researchers have pointed out the conceptual overlap among SSL, servant leadership, and transformational leadership in that they all include or advocate for a certain level and form of leaders’ sacrifice, they differ fundamentally in their focus and the motivation behind the sacrifice (Yang et al., 2023). Self-sacrificial leaders are more likely to emphasize achieving ethical self-transcendence and may be motivated to achieve the greater good for the organization (Halverson et al., 2004; Matteson & Irving, 2006). Servant leaders focus on their followers and meeting their development goals and interests. Finally, transformational leaders prioritize achieving organizational goals, and their behavior is often motivated by the desire to support the achievement of organizational vision and goals by serving the interests of the organization (Arnold & Loughlin, 2010; Matteson & Irving, 2006; Smith et al., 2004; van Dierendonck et al., 2014). 12 Business Research Quarterly 27(1) Previous studies have overwhelmingly concentrated on exploring the outcomes of self-sacrificial leaders in four main categories: (1) follower work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment and organization-based self-esteem; Halverson et al., 2004; He et al., 2018), (2) employee work behaviors (e.g., creativity, organizational citizenship behavior, voice, and work engagement; X. Chen et al., 2020; He et al., 2018; Liang & Fan, 2020; J. Zhang et al., 2020), (3) leader-related outcomes (e.g., leaders’ effectiveness, employee evaluations of leaders, and leaders’ prosocial impacts at work and conflicts at home; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Janson et al., 2008; Lanaj et al., 2021), and (4) performance outcomes (e.g., innovative performance and organizational social capital; Jiang et al., 2019; Mostafa & Bottomley, 2020). Although prior research has delved more into the outcomes of SSL, few studies have investigated the impact of SSL on employee problems triggered by external crises. Therefore, the current study bridges this gap by exploring how SSL improves employee WWB and alleviates their WFC resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 1 presents the theoretical model of this study. Self-sacrificial leadership and workplace wellbeing/work–family conflict COVID-19 is one of the most devastating stressors in health care and has had a powerful contextual impact on people (Y. F. Chen et al., 2021). During the pandemic, hospitals worked extended hours to save lives, resulting in shift work and long working hours. In addition, nurses coped with high workloads and demands, staff shortages, and negative workplace environments. These are some of the many stressors that placed tremendous work pressures on nurses (Alrawashdeh et al., 2021; McKnight et al., 2020; Yildiz et al., 2021) and led to a significant decrease in their WWB (Mo et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022). Moreover, the demanding tasks and work environments as well as the heavy workload led to WFCs when the nurses could not balance their family responsibilities (Karakurt et al., 2022; Yildiz et al., 2021). Furthermore, nurses were deep in the mire of lost resources during this period. The acquisition paradox principle of the COR theory states that the loss of resources magnifies the value of acquisitions. Therefore, resource acquisition is significant when the loss is high (Hobfoll, 1989). Thus, we argue that self-sacrificial leaders can provide nurses with timely and adequate workrelated support and resources in a resource-draining environment involving reduced WWB and increased WFC, like during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, self-sacrificial managers create greater work-related motivational resources in the face of crises by demonstrating their behavioral characteristics. For example, in difficult times, the leaders forego their interests and bear personal costs for their subordinates’ well-being (e.g., pay more benefits, increase bonuses, or subsidize household goods). They also care about the needs of their employees and addressing group concerns (e.g., they focus on their employees’ physical and psychological stresses and occasionally console employees’ families to improve family relationships) (Lanaj et al., 2021). In addition, they volunteer to take on a more significant division of labor (Y. Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998). Aligned with the COR theory, regaining resources allows individuals to recover from losses and gain more resources (Hobfoll, 1989). During the pandemic, when nurses perceive the supportive resources for work and family provided by their managers, they will subsequently demonstrate an increased sense of WWB and experienced lesser WFC (Leung et al., 2020; Matthews et al., 2014). Therefore, we hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 1a. During the COVID-19 pandemic, managers’ SSL has a positive relationship with nurses’ WWB. Figure 1. Theoretical model. Huang and Zhou 13 Hypothesis 1b. During the COVID-19 pandemic, managers’ SSL has a negative relationship with nurses’ WFC. The mediating role of thriving at work Thriving at work (TAW) represents a positive psychological state in which the individual experiences both vitality and learning (Spreitzer et al., 2005). For nurses, chaos and uncertainty create stress and challenges to TAW. In such cases, self-sacrificial leaders focus on the interests and needs of their subordinates, soothing them emotionally and providing them with the resources needed to accomplish their tasks (Hobfoll, 1989). When leaders meet their subordinates’ needs, they improve their moods and restore their vitality at work. In addition, following the prosocial motivation of self-sacrificial behavior states that self-sacrificial leaders are willing to help employees achieve their work goals and visions (Rosati, 2009). This willingness means that such leaders provide appropriate resources to promote their employees’ development during difficult times (Rosati, 2009). In this context, one of the most critical manifestations of employee development is the experience of a state of “learning” (Birdi et al., 1997). Consequently, influential self-sacrificial leaders typically provide subordinates with the opportunities and resources they need to learn and grow, encouraging them to take the initiative and promoting a learning atmosphere. Thus, when nurses faced heavy workloads and scant nursing expertise during the COVID-19 crisis, the leaders provided as many supportive resources as possible to enhance the nurses’ vitality and facilitate their learning and growth, allowing them to thrive more at work. Then, TAW also motivated nurses to store more resources for their work by learning to continuously absorb and utilize new knowledge, skills, and abilities and be more competent in their job of caring for the COVID-19 patients (Basinska & Rozkwitalska, 2020). Furthermore, individuals experiencing higher vitality have been found to better cope with frustrating events and stressful situations (Zhu et al., 2023). Therefore, nurses with higher vitality were less likely to be depressed or distressed by the dilemmas caused by COVID-19. Consequently, those thriving at work tended to be more competent, resilient, and proactive and were therefore more likely to experience higher levels of WWB (Yousaf et al., 2019). Furthermore, individuals with a higher TAW are able to experience more positive emotions and perceive that they are capable of solving problems through the knowledge and skills they have learned, which also provides more personal resources for solving work and family problems (O’Neill & Rothbard, 2017). Specifically, a high level of vitality was found to regulate nurses’ emotions when working during the pandemic and reduce the impact of adverse emotions on the work environment, whereas a high learning ability promoted their efficiency and success in treating patients (Z. D. Zhang et al., 2022). Furthermore, a high level of thriving has also helped nurses cope with the lack of family responsibilities and family life, brought about by high workloads during the pandemic, with positive emotions and solve any family problems, thus leading to the fulfillment of their family roles (Z. D. Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, when work and family domains overlap, TAW provides nurses with positive coping strategies that reduce WFC (Xu et al., 2020). In summary, consistent with the COR theory, SSL as a supportive resource can be helpful in acquiring and maintaining other resources (TAW, a psychological resource) and thus curb the loss of the original resources (high WWB and low WFC) (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Accordingly, we hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 2a. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses’ TAW mediates the relationship between managers’ SSL and nurses’ WWB. Hypothesis 2b. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses’ TAW mediates the relationship between managers’ SSL and nurses’ WFC. The role of self-leadership The COR theory asserts that individuals seek to protect and accumulate scarce resources (e.g., personal identity resources, conditioned resource) to cope with the dilemmas created by stressors (Hobfoll, 1989; Karatepe & Karatepe, 2010). In this study, we viewed SSL as a conditional resource for nurses, defined as an external supportive resource that positively affects nurses’ TAW. Moreover, external support as well as internal personal resources can improve employees’ abilities to manage and buffer work stress (Kotzé, 2021). Therefore, we introduced SL as an internal personal resource (a personal characteristic resource) to examine the combined effect of internal and external resources. SL is a non-traditional view of leadership, yet it is similar to the traditional view of leadership in that they both emphasize the use of specific strategies to change behaviors, attitudes, or outcomes (Knotts et al., 2022). However, it is unique in that the entire process of action involves only the individual and no one else, and the individual is the initiator of the influence and uses appropriate behavioral, cognitive, and intrinsic motivational strategies to lead themselves effectively (Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2011). Neck and Houghton (2006) emphasized three strategies in SL: (1) behavior-focused strategies that underscore improving employees’ self-awareness and managing behaviors that are associated with challenging and necessary but unpleasant tasks; (2) natural reward strategies that allow for their greater intrinsic pleasure in 14 Business Research Quarterly 27(1) completing tasks; and (3) constructive thinking strategies including the use of mental imagery and the development of efficient self-talk, with attention to positive beliefs and assumptions. Past research has shown that employees who use these strategies cope better with stress and reflect stronger work motivation (e.g., self-efficacy), more positive work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction and job engagement), and better work outcomes (e.g., task performance and creativity) (DiLiello et al., 2006; Inam et al., 2023; Kotzé, 2021; Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019; Prussia et al., 1998). Compared with external influence, SL focuses on the internal influence process (Knotts et al., 2022). In summary, we therefore view SL as a personal internal resource for nurses. We further introduce the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to understand the interaction effects of the two resources. Specifically, we argue that SL as an internal personal resource can directly contribute to nurses’ TAW and that SL as a psychological resource can diminish the positive impact of SSL as an external support resource on TAW. Self-leadership and thriving at work. Drawing on SDT, we argue that, as a personal internal resource, nurses’ SL can promote TAW by satisfying the three basic psychological needs during situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Deci & Ryan, 2000). First, nurses with high SL tend to be autonomous as they are usually free to self-direct and selfmotivate in their work (Manz, 1986), inspiring them to strive for achievement (Stewart et al., 2011) and satisfying their need for autonomy. Second, nurses with strong SL are more likely to achieve long-term career success; they are often flexible in implementing the abovementioned three strategies to guide their work (Murphy & Ensher, 2001; Raabe et al., 2007), satisfying their need for competence. Third, research shows that individuals with high autonomy develop more positive relationships with others (Deci et al., 2017; Hodgins et al., 1996), thus satisfying their need for relatedness. Therefore, nurses with high levels of SL can satisfy all the three needs simultaneously. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when nurses experience full autonomy, competence, and relatedness, they will fell energized, acquire knowledge related to treating COVID19 patients, and learn new nursing skills for self-development (Wang et al., 2021). Consequently, nurses with strong SL can experience greater TAW. Hypothesis 3. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses’ SL has a positive association with TAW. The moderating role of self-leadership. According to another important corollary of SDT, internal resources are highly related to individual internal motivation, while external resources stimulate external motivation more directly (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 1985). During the COVID-19 period, nurses’ high SL implied that their internal resources were adequate. When faced with demanding work tasks, they were less sensitive to external factors; instead, more personal internal resources preferentially stimulated their internal motivation and thus drove their behavior (Kotzé, 2021). In contrast, SSL represents an environmental factor, an external resource more closely associated with employees’ external motivation (Iqbal et al., 2022). In addition, two dimensions of TAW—learning and vitality—are temporary internal attributes that manifest a positive emotional state within the individual (Spreitzer et al., 2005; Spreitzer & Porath, 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2018), making them more sensitive to intrinsic motivation. However, when nurses have weak SL, they may be more inclined to rely on superiors and organizations. In crisis settings, such nurses prefer to receive direct support and help from the organization rather than leading themselves to break through difficult situations (Gündemir et al., 2019; Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020). Lower levels of SL can cause them to lack intrinsic motivation and turn to external motivation, which relies more on external resources. In such a case, the presence of a self-sacrificial leader may be an effective stimulus to nurses’ TAW (Walumbwa et al., 2018). Such leaders have sacrificed their time, energy, and money to attempt to maintain a comfortable work environment for the first-line nurses under the pressure of the pandemic, thus enabling them to engage more energetically in their nursing work. Meanwhile, the abundance of resources allows for more learning opportunities. Hypothesis 4. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses’ SL will moderate the relationship between managers’ SSL and nurses’ TAW, such a positive effect will be weaken when SL is high (vs. low). The moderated mediation model Combining the mediating path of TAW (connecting SSL with WWB/WFC) and the moderating approach of SL (the effect of SSL on TAW), we constructed a moderated mediation model (see Figure 1). Specifically, based on the COR theory and SDT, during the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses with high SL will show strong intrinsic motivation due to the satisfaction of internal resources. Moreover, this inherent motivation will decrease SSL’s positive effect as an external supportive resource on TAW, further diminishing the positive and negative indirect connections of SSL to WWB and WFC, respectively. Accordingly, we hypothesize as follows: Hypothesis 5a. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses’ SL will moderate the indirect effect of managers’ SSL on nurses’ WWB, such that this indirect relationship is weaker for nurses with high SL and stronger for nurses with low SL. Huang and Zhou 15 Hypothesis 5b. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses’ SL will moderate the indirect effect of managers’ SSL on nurses’ WFC, such that this indirect relationship is weaker for nurses with high SL and stronger for nurses with low SL. Method Participants and procedure We collected data for this study using a questionnaire. The participants were full-time nurses from different departments in a large general hospital in northwest China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were assured of their anonymity in the survey and that the data would be used for research purposes only. We collected data in a way that protected confidentiality and anonymity, using codes to identify participants. Other than the investigators, no individuals or organizations accessed the data. To reduce common method bias, we used a three-wave study design, with a 2-week interval between each wave. We distributed the questionnaire between December 2020 and January 2021 through an online survey platform (www.wjx.com). The participants completed the questionnaire on their computer or cell phone by clicking on the link. The questionnaire asked all participating nurses to report on their experiences at work since the pandemic had begun. The measured variables included SSL, SL, TAW, WWB, WFC, and proactive personality (PP). At time 1, the participants reported their basic demographic information and assessed their leaders’ SSL, self-reported SL, and PP. At time 2, we collected participants’ self-assessed TAW. Finally, at time 3, participants self-evaluated their WWB and WFC. We initially distributed the questionnaire to 561 nurses. After 3 survey rounds, we received 465 respondents with a response rate of 83%. We then sorted the dataset, removing entries containing straightlining/non-differentiation and missing values in a tabular fashion to prevent systematic measurement errors. Finally, we obtained 405 matched valid questionnaires. Table 1 shows the detailed demographic information. Measures We used a structured questionnaire for data collection. Except for the control variables, we adopted a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) to measure the other main variables. In addition, we adopted Brislin’s (1980) translation-back translation procedure and translated the original scales into Chinese. Self-sacrificial leadership. We adopted the five-item scale developed by De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2004) to measure SSL. A sample item is, “My supervisor is willing to make personal sacrifices in the team’s interest.” Cronbach’s α was .956. Thriving at work. To evaluate TAW, we referred to the tenitem scale adapted from Porath et al. (2012), which includes the learning (five items) and vitality (five items) dimensions. A typical item for learning is, “I find myself learning often.” An example item for vitality is “I have energy and spirit.” Cronbach’s α was .961. Workplace well-being. We used Zheng et al.’s (2015) sixitem scale to assess WWB. An example item includes, “In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job.” Cronbach’s α was .944. Work–family conflict. We assessed WFC referring to the five-item scale developed and validated by Netemeyer et al. (1996). An example item includes, “My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties.” Cronbach’s α was .947. Self-leadership. We measured SL by adapting Houghton et al.’s (2012) nine-item scale. Sample items include “I work toward specific goals I set for myself,” “Sometimes I picture in my mind a successful performance before I actually do a task,” and “I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy of my beliefs about situations I am having problems with.” Cronbach’s α was .922. Table 1. Demographic information of participants. Demographic characteristics (%, n) Gender Male 4% (16) Female 96% (389) Age (years), mean ± SD 32.1 ± 5.6 Education Secondary school 37.3% (151) Junior college 56.5% (229) Bachelor degree and above 6.2% (25) Marriage No 16.5% (67) Yes 83.5% (338) Tenure (years), mean ± SD 9.4 ± 6.1 Professional title Junior 92.1% (373) Intermediate 5.4% (22) Senior 2.5% (10) Department Surgery 40.5% (164) Internal medicine 38% (154) Supporting 21.5% (87) SD: standard deviation. 16 Business Research Quarterly 27(1) Control variables. We discussed participants’ demographic information as the control variable, including gender, age, education, marriage, organizational tenure, professional title, and department. We also controlled PP as an important personality trait variable because extensive literature has concluded a positive association between PP and TAW (Abid et al., 2021; Y. F. Chen et al., 2021). We evaluated PP based on Seibert et al.’s (1999) 10-item scale. A sample item is, “No matter the odds, if I believe in something, I will make it happen.” Cronbach’s α was .950. Analysis First, we performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) applying AMOS 24.0 to examine the discriminant validity among the core variables. Then, we used PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013) to examine all hypotheses. In addition, we examined the mediating and moderated mediating effects based on the bootstrapping results. We performed randomized iterations 5,000 times and calculated the 95% confidence intervals (Preacher et al., 2010). Confirmatory factor analysis The CFAs were conducted to evaluate the discriminant validity of the six core constructs: SSL, SL, TAW, WWB, WFC, and PP. The results showed that all the six-factor model fitted indices passed the threshold (χ2/df = 2.862, comparative fit index [CFI] = .908, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .902, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .068, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .045) and outperformed the other five competitive models. This indicates that the five variables have good discriminant validity. See Table 2 for details. To test the common method bias problem, we also tested the fit of the one-factor model (i.e., all the indicators were loaded on one factor). The rationale behind the “one-factor procedure” is that if method variance accounts for a significant amount of covariation among the measurements, the CFA results should show that the one-factor model fits the data well (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Here, the onefactor model in the CFA (Table 2) demonstrated a poor fit (χ2/df = 11.441, CFI = .478, TLI = .451, RMSEA = .161, SRMR = .168). Therefore, the common method bias was not a major problem in this study. Results Descriptive statistics Table 3 provides the descriptive information and bivariate correlations for all the variables. Hypothesis testing We examined all hypotheses using PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013), with bootstrapping 5,000 times, and present the results of the moderated mediation model in Tables 4 to 6. Hypothesis 1 predicted a significant positive relationship between SSL and WWB (Hypothesis 1a) and a significant negative linkage between SSL and WFC (Hypothesis 1b). Table 4, Model 1, shows that there is a significantly positive correlation between SSL and WWB (B = .238, SE = 0.047, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.146, 0.330]), supporting Hypothesis 1a. Furthermore, Table 4, Model 3, illustrates a negative association between SSL and WFC (B = −.198, SE = 0.094, p < .05, 95% = [−0.383, −0.014]), thus supporting Hypothesis 1b. Next, we applied SPSS-PROCESS to examine the mediating effect of TAW. Hypotheses 2a and 2b assumed Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results. Model χ2df χ2/df χ2CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Six-factor model (SSL; SL; TAW; WWB; WFC; PP) 2,647.445 925 2.862 – .908 .902 .068 .045 Five-factor model (SSL; SL + PP; TAW; WWB; WFC) 3,394.290 930 3.650 746.845*** .869 .861 .081 .056 Four-factor model (SSL + SL + PP; TAW; WWB; WFC) 4,915.702 934 5.263 2,268.257*** .788 .776 .103 .073 Three-factor model (SSL + SL + PP; TAW; WWB + WFC) 7,245.138 937 7.732 4,597.693*** .665 .646 .129 .190 Two-factor model (SSL + SL + PP, TAW + WWB + WFC) 8,046.048 939 8.569 5,398.603*** .622 .602 .137 .112 One-factor model (SSL + SL + PP + TAW + WWB + WFC) 1,0754.427 940 11.441 8,106.982*** .478 .451 .161 .168 CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; SSL: self-sacrificial leadership; SL: self-leadership; PP: proactive personality; TAW: thriving at work; WWB: workplace well-being; WFC: work–family conflict. ***p < .001. N = 405. Huang and Zhou 17 Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations. Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Gender 1.96 0.20 2. Age (years) 32.07 5.58 .11* 3. Education 1.69 0.58 −.11* −.15** 4. Marriage 0.83 0.37 .15** .43** −.08 5. Tenure (years) 9.14 6.07 .13* .92** −.26** .38** 6. Professional title 1.10 0.38 .06 .60** .06 .12* .65** 7. Surgery 0.40 0.49 .17** −.14** −.12* .00 −.13** −.12* 8. Internal medicine 0.38 0.49 .03 −.17** .11 −.05 −.19** −.15** −.65** 9. Proactive personality 5.74 0.89 .05 −.03 −.04 .00 −.05 .02 .13* .03 (.950) 10. Self-sacrificial leadership 5.63 1.16 −.01 −.10* .00 −.06 .13** −.14** .05** .05 .60** (.956) 11. Self-leadership 5.89 0.81 .06 .01 .00 .02 .01 .04 .10** .01 .70** .48** (.922) 12. Thriving at work 6.03 0.89 .10* .05 −.04 .07 .04 −.02 .03 .07 .33** .30** .35** (.961) 13. Workplace well-being 5.88 0.99 .03 .00 −.02 .03 −.02 −.04 .11** .05 .45** .44** .39** .64** (.922) 14. Work–family conflict 4.13 1.73 .05 .07 −.01 .12* .06 .02 .09 −.10* −.03 −.11* −.10 −.16** −.20** (.947) SD: standard deviation. N = 405. Gender: male = 1, female = 2; Education: secondary school, junior college, bachelor degree, and above; Professional title: junior, intermediate, senior; Department: surgery, internal medicine, supporting. The diagonal brackets are Cronbach’s α value. **p < .01; *p < .05. 24 Business Research Quarterly 27(1) Neck, C. P., Manz, C. C., & Houghton, J. (2019). Self-leadership: The definitive guide to personal excellence (2nd ed.). Sage. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. O’Neill, O. A., & Rothbard, N. P. (2017). Is love all you need? The effects of emotional culture, suppression, and work-family conflict on firefighter risk-taking and health. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 78–108. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C. B., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Selfleadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 523–538. Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. (2007). Action regulation theory and career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(2), 297–311. Raffenaud, A., Unruh, L., Fottler, M., Liu, A. X. L., & Andrews, D. (2020). A comparative analysis of work-family conflict among staff, managerial, and executive nurses. Nursing Outlook, 68(2), 231–241. Rogers, M., Lamarche, K., Miller, M., Moore, K. S., Spies, L. A., Taylor, J., & Staempfli, S. (2022). Global emotional and spiritual well-being and resilience of Advanced Practice Nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A crosssectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(5), 1483–1492. Rosati, C. S. (2009). XV—Self-interest and self-sacrifice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 109(1–3), 311– 325. Russo, M., Buonocore, F., Carmeli, A., & Guo, L. (2018). When family supportive supervisors meet employees’ need for caring: Implications for work-family enrichment and thriving. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1678–1702. Sahin, S., Adegbite, W. M., & Sen, H. T. (2021). How do family supportive supervisors affect nurses’ thriving: A research before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 35(5), 602–609. Schulte, P., & Vainio, H. (2010). Well-being at work-overview and perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(5), 422–429. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Krainer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. Sergent, K., & Stajkovic, A. D. (2020). Womens leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771–783. Shih, F. C., Yeh, S. C. J., & Hsu, W. L. (2022). Abusive supervision and employee well-being of nursing staff: Mediating role of occupational stress. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(2), 664–675. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80–91. Sonnentag, S., Tay, L., & Shoshan, H. N. (2023). A review on health and well-being at work: More than stressors and strains. Personnel Psychology, 76, 473–510. Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. (2014). Self-determination as nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 245–258). Oxford University Press. Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549. Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. (1996). The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior in a service setting. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 143–164. Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Selfleadership: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 185–222. Training-Industry. (2020, July 27). Self-management in remote teams. https://trainingindustry.com/articles/strategy-alignment-and-planning/how-an-invisible-virus-is-acceleratingthe-coming-revolution-in-greater-self-management/ van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544–562. Walumbwa, F. O., Muchiri, M. K., Misati, E., Wu, C., & Meiliani, M. (2018). Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 249–261. Wang, T., Wang, D. D., & Liu, Z. R. (2021). Feedback-seeking from team members increases employee creativity: The roles of thriving at work and mindfulness. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(9), 1321–1340. Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733–769. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Chow, C. W. C. (2020). Can taking charge at work help hospitality frontline employees enrich their family life? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89(7), 102594. Yang, F. F., Senewiratne, S., Newman, A., Sendjaya, S., & Chen, Z. J. (2023). Leader self-sacrifice: A systematic review of two decades of research and an agenda for future research. Applied Psychology, 72(2), 797–831. Yildiz, B., Yildiz, H., & Arda, O. A. (2021). Relationship between work–family conflict and turnover intention in nurses: A Huang and Zhou 25 meta-analytic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(8), 3317–3330. Yousaf, K., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ilyas, S., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Impact of ethical leadership and thriving at work on psychological well-being of employees: Mediating role of voice behaviour. Business, Management and Education, 17(2), 194–217. Zandian, H., Sharghi, A., & Moghadam, T. Z. (2020). Quality of work life and work-family conflict: A cross-sectional study among nurses in teaching hospitals. Nursing Management (Harrow), 27(2), 23–31. Zhang, J., Li, J., & Huang, J. (2020). How self-sacrificial leadership influences employee voice: Psychological safety as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(12), 1–8. Zhang, Y. C., & Liao, Z. Y. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4), 959–987. Zhang, Z. D., Li, P., Zhang, L., Zheng, J. W., & Xue, Z. X. (2022). Helping neighbors and enhancing yourself: A spillover effect of helping neighbors on work-family conflict and thriving at work. Current Psychology, 41, 3539–3550. Zheng, X. M., Zhu, W. C., Zhao, H. X., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621–644. Zhu, M., Li, S. T., Gao, H. Y., & Zuo, L. J. (2023). Social media use, thriving at work, and employee well-being: A mediation model. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04367-w