71 NTU Management Review Vol. 31 No. 3 Dec. 2021 Table 5 Results of the Model Comparison Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA AIC BIC Theoretical Model: Leaders’ NIFTs → abusive supervision → negative mood → SP, AB Leaders’ NIFTs → LMX → psychological empowerment → SP, AB 26.55 16 .96 .06 2552.86 2689.70 Competing Model 1 (SP and AB as antecedents of leaders’ NIFTs): SP, AB → leaders’ NIFTs → abusive supervision → negative mood SP, AB → leaders’ NIFTs → LMX → psychological empowerment 34.17 16 .85 .08 2795.84 2931.88 Competing Model 2 (all mediators were parallel ): Leaders’ NIFTs → abusive supervision, negative mood → SP, AB Leaders’ NIFTs → LMX, psychological empowerment → SP, AB 80.50 10 .76 .18 2638.89 2795.75 Competing Model 3 (first-stage and second-stage mediators were reversed): Leaders’ NIFTs → negative mood → abusive supervision → SP, AB Leaders’ NIFTs → psychological empowerment → LMX → SP, AB 57.64 16 .86 .11 2586.11 2722.95 Note: N = 210. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; Leaders’ NIFTs = Leaders’ Negative Implicit Followership Teories; LMX = Leader-member Exchange, SP = Service Performance; AB = Altruistic Behavior toward Colleagues. In our theoretical model and three competing models, we also controlled for leaders’ PIFTs (Positive Implicit Followership Theories), which are located at the same stage as NIFTs in every model. We reported AIC (the Akaike’s Information Criterion) and BIC (the Bayesian Information Criterion) values because the four models in this table were non-nesting models with respect to each other.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODg3MDU=