59 NTU Management Review Vol. 31 No. 3 Dec. 2021 packages (with each package consisting of one supervisor questionnaire, one subordinate questionnaire, and one colleague questionnaire). We received 219 supervisor questionnaires from 81 store managers, 230 subordinate self-rating questionnaires, and 229 colleague-rating questionnaires. After we eliminated the questionnaires that had excessive missing values and the questionnaires that could not be matched, we obtained the final dataset comprising 210 sample units from 81 stores. Of these stores’ 81 managers, 47.4% were men, the average age was 29.69 years (SD = 3.99), and average organizational tenure was 1.28 years (SD = 1.70). Of the 210 focal service employees, 61.9% were men, the average age was 26.88 years (SD = 3.35), and average organizational tenure was 0.93 years (SD = 1.90). Of the 210 colleagues, 61.2% were men, the average age was 26.74 years (SD = 3.04), and average organizational tenure was 0.95 years (SD = 1.94). The average group size was 6.06, ranging from 3 to 20. 3.2 Measures The measurement scales of the present study were originally developed in English but were administered in Chinese. We use a translation and back-translation procedure to ensure semantic equivalence between the two language versions of these scales. With the exception of the negative-mood scale, we measure all scale items using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Leaders’ NIFTs. We measure leaders’ NIFTs by using a scale developed by Sy (2010). This scale uses adjectives to describe leaders’ NIFTs. The original scale, which is designed to assess leaders’ NIFTs, consists of three dimensions: conformity, insubordination, and incompetence. For the current study, we use only two dimensions— insubordination and incompetence—because conformity is not a typical negative attribute for followers in countries characterized by cultural values of collectivism and high power distance (Bond and Smith, 1996; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010).2 The 2 To understand whether or not we could adequately treat conformity as a dimension of leaders’ NIFTs, we conduct Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs). In this way, we examine the factor loading of conformity in two second-order CFA models. In Model A, we follow the theoretical framework proposed by Sy (2010) to specify conformity as a component (one first-order factor) of “leaders’ NIFTs” (the second-order factor). The factor loading of conformity onto “leaders’ NIFTs” is insignificant (λ = -.13, p > .05). In Model B, we specify conformity as a component of “leaders’ PIFTs.” The factor loading of conformity onto “leaders’ PIFTs” is significant and positive (λ = .56, p < .001). These results imply that, in the current study, it is unreasonable to treat conformity as a dimension of leaders’ NIFTs.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODg3MDU=