in Table 2).6 First, the hypothesized model B, including the interaction term of leadership and collective-focused leadership, did not show increased fit properties ns, AIC=1485), and the interaction term was not significantly related to (Δχ2=3, Δdf=3, affective commitment climate (β=-.12, =1.51, ns), rejecting Hypothesis 3a. Second, the t hypothesized model C, including the interaction term of contingent-reward leadership and differentiated leadership, showed increased fit properties p<.05, AIC=1478) (Δχ2=10, Δdf=3, as well as increased compared to the model without an interaction explained variance (Δ=.03) term (Hypothesized model A), and the interaction term was significantly related to climate (β=-.16, =-2.08, supporting Hypothesis 3b. A plot of the t p<.05), interaction is provided in Figure 3. ***Insert Figure 3 about here*** Figure 3 shows that the negative relationship between differentiated leadership and affective-commitment climate is much more pronounced under high levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate than under low levels. To further inspect the two different slopes, we specified two additional models: one with high levels of climate (+1SD) and one with low levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate (-1SD). The results further substantiate our reasoning by showing that high levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate lead to a much steeper negative slope between differentiated individual-focused leadership (β=-.90, =-2.12, than low levels of t p<.05) contingent-reward-leadership climate (β=-.26, =-2.65, Finally, we also inspected t p<.01). potential conditional indirect relations with bootstrapping procedures in the high-level (+1SD) and low-level (-1SD) models. Results show that the indirect relation between differentiated individual-focused leadership and organizational effectiveness is affected by the level of contingent-reward leadership, with an indirect relation of -.03 (95% BCCI [-.110, -.001]) for low contingent-reward leadership and an indirect relation of -.12 (95% BCCI [-.638, -.002]) for high contingent-reward leadership.
in Table 2).6 First, the hypothesized model B, including the interaction term of leadership and collective-focused leadership, did not show increased fit properties (Δχ2=3, Δdf=3, ns, AIC=1485), and the interaction term was not significantly related to affective commitment climate (β=-.12, t =1.51, ns), rejecting Hypothesis 3a. Second, the hypothesized model C, including the interaction term of contingent-reward leadership and differentiated leadership, showed increased fit properties (Δχ2=10, Δdf=3, p<.05, AIC=1478) as well as increased explained variance (Δ=.03) compared to the model without an interaction term (Hypothesized model A), and the interaction term was significantly related to climate (β=-.16, t =-2.08, p<.05), supporting Hypothesis 3b. A plot of the interaction is provided in Figure 3. ***Insert Figure 3 about here*** Figure 3 shows that the negative relationship between differentiated leadership and affective-commitment climate is much more pronounced under high levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate than under low levels. To further inspect the two different slopes, we specified two additional models: one with high levels of climate (+1SD) and one with low levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate (-1SD). The results further substantiate our reasoning by showing that high levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate lead to a much steeper negative slope between differentiated individual-focused leadership (β=-.90, t =-2.12, p<.05) than low levels of contingent-reward-leadership climate (β=-.26, t =-2.65, p<.01). Finally, we also inspected potential conditional indirect relations with bootstrapping procedures in the high-level (+1SD) and low-level (-1SD) models. Results show that the indirect relation between differentiated individual-focused leadership and organizational effectiveness is affected by the level of contingent-reward leadership, with an indirect relation of -.03 (95% BCCI [-.110, -.001]) for low contingent-reward leadership and an indirect relation of -.12 (95% BCCI [-.638, -.002]) for high contingent-reward leadership.