How Self-sacrificial Leadership Inspires Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mutual Commitment

How Self-sacrificial Leadership Inspires Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mutual Commitment | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article How Self-sacrificial Leadership Inspires Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mutual Commitment Yanting Zhu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749884/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In the era of brittleness, anxiety, non-linearity, and incomprehensibility, the effectiveness of self-sacrificial leadership has become increasingly important. From the perspective of social exchange theory, this study explores the impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employee organization-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO), the mediating mechanism of employee-organization mutual commitment, the moderating effect of supervisor organizational embodiment, and an integrated moderated mediation model. By analyzing 398 valid sample data from five affiliated public hospital in China, the results indicate that (a) self-sacrificial leadership positively influences employee OCBO; (b) employee-organization mutual commitment mediates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and OCBO; (c) supervisor organizational embodiment positively moderates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment; (d) supervisor organizational embodiment further moderates the mediating effect of mutual commitment. Organizations can refer to the research findings to cultivate their leaders’ self-sacrificial behavior, which can foster employee OCBO to obtain positive organizational performance. Self-sacrificial Leadership Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior Employee-Organization Mutual Commitment Supervisor Organizational Embodiment Figures Figure 1 Introduction Under the background of the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, the internal and external business environments of organizations are undergoing profound changes, posing unprecedented challenges to leadership effectiveness. With the widespread application of AI in workplace settings, new modes of work such as remote collaboration, intelligent automation, and human-AI collaboration are becoming increasingly prevalent, raising new questions regarding the role positioning and management approaches of leaders. In this digitally transitional phase filled with both opportunities and uncertainties, many organizations have seen the emergence of leaders with a self-sacrificial spirit, whose prioritization of collective interests significantly influences team members' cognition, attitudes, and behavioral choices (Johnson, 2020; Liu et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2025 ). Self-sacrificial leadership was referred to as a leadership style in which individuals willingly delay or forgo their own short-term or long-term interests for the collective welfare or benefit of the organization (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998 ). In the above-mentioned complex environment, organizations face accelerating technological iterations, shifting job structures, and growing ethical responsibility challenges in their management tasks. Such a leadership approach, centered on dedication and accountability, is gradually becoming a critical driving force in guiding organizations to adapt to organizational changes and achieve sustainable business development. Research indicates that self-sacrificial leadership can effectively stimulate positive behavioral responses from employees, such as promoting organizational citizenship behavior (Li et al., 2016 ), encouraging proactive behavior (Tian & Li, 2015 ), and enhancing knowledge-sharing willingness (Zhang et al., 2017). However, while existing studies confirm that self-sacrificial leadership in the workplace facilitates employees' engagement in organizational citizenship behavior, there is a lack of differentiation and in-depth exploration of specific types of organizational citizenship behavior, such as organization-directed or interpersonal-directed citizenship behavior. In addition, it is possible that self-sacrificial leadership can have a significant impact on employee OCBO given the target similarity may exist between the two (Harris et al., 2009 ). The theoretical lens of social exchange theory can help us to investigate the working mechanism of the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCB, in which employees may engage in OCBO to reciprocate their leaders’ self-sacrifice at work (Law et al., 2009 ). Therefore, based on social exchange theory, this study aims to construct a moderated mediation model to systematically examine the mechanism through which self-sacrificial leadership influences employees' organization-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO), and to explore the mediating role of employee-organization mutual commitment and the moderating effect of supervisor organizational embodiment. The findings are expected to provide theoretical foundations and managerial insights for leadership practices and organizational behavior research in the era of artificial intelligence. Theory and Hypothesis Self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCBO Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined as voluntary individual action that is not formally or explicitly rewarded by the organization yet collectively enhance its operational effectiveness (Organ, 2006). OCB is considered as a functionally important lubricant for organizational performance (Mackenzie et al., 2006 ), and can be categorized with two types according to the targets of individual behaviors in the workplace, which are organization- and interpersonal-directed organizational citizenship (William and Anderson, 1991 ). Organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-O) refers to citizenship behaviors that are directly targeted at the organization and collectively beneficial to the organization (e.g., taking action to protect the company from potential issues). In contrast, interpersonal-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-I) refers to citizenship behaviors directed toward specific individuals, which indirectly benefit the organization (e.g., helping colleagues overcome work-related difficulties). As a collectivist-oriented and effective leadership behavior, self-sacrificial leaders focus on organizational goals. Through self-sacrificial actions in daily work (such as voluntarily undertaking high-risk or tedious tasks, willingly delaying or forgoing fair compensation, and proactively contributing personal resources to the team or organization), they promote the value of organizational objectives and emphasize the overall well-being of team members. These actions help internalize collective goals among team members and encourage them to contribute willingly to the group (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998 ; De Cremer, 2006 ). Social exchange theory emphasizes that human relationships evolve through reciprocal interactions, in which individuals offer work resources, assistance, or services in anticipation of obtaining comparable or enhanced value in the future (Gouldner, 1960 ). Consequently, when team members perceive their leader's self-sacrificial behavior and receive beneficial resources from the organization, they are more likely to identify with the organization (Zhang et al., 2017), follow and emulate the leader (Zhou et al., 2019). They further develop a sense of responsibility to reciprocate the organization (Gouldner, 1960 ), thereby inclining them to engage in organization-directed citizenship behavior. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 1 Self-sacrificial leadership has a significant positive impact on employee OCBO. The mediating role of employee-organization mutual commitmen t Social exchange theory serves as a key theoretical framework for explaining employee-organization relationships and organizational citizenship behavior (Coyle-Shapiro, Diehl, & Chang, 2017). The positive influence of social exchange relationships on employee organizational citizenship behavior has been widely confirmed in previous research (e.g., Liu, Chen, & Holley, 2017; Song, Tsui, & Law, 2009). From the perspective of employee-organization relationships, mutual investment between employee and organization represents a balanced pattern characterized by open-ended and long-term incentives provided by the organization and contributions reciprocated by employees (Tsui et al., 1997). In this employee-organization relationship approach, both parties maintain balanced investments in each other, with the advantage of eliciting positive responses from employees in terms of attitudes, behaviors such as OCB, and other individual-level outcomes (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2017). In alignment with the mutual investment approach, mutual commitment was referred to as employees’ perception of the extent of mutual obligation in their relationship with the organization (Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004 )). Specifically, assessing commitment in the employee-organization relationship is bidirectional, encompassing both employees’ perception of organizational commitment to them (perceived organizational support) and employees’ commitment to the organization (organizational commitment). On one hand, perceived organizational support reflects employees’ overall perception of how they are treated by the organization and the extent to which the organization values their contributions and well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1997). Employees’ recognition of organizational support stems from their need to confirm that the organization acknowledges and rewards their efforts (Eisenberger et al., 1986). This inherently represents a reciprocal perspective; thus, employees who perceive stronger organizational support are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Self-sacrificial leadership demonstrates concern for team members’ well-being and development (Xu et al., 2019), leading members to perceive that the organization values their welfare and contributions, thereby enhancing their sense of organizational support. On the other hand, self-sacrificial leaders are unafraid of sacrificing personal interests (including time, compensation, resources, etc.), take proactive responsibility, strive for the welfare of team members, and go to great lengths to assist them while standing together through challenges. As a result, team members develop high levels of organizational commitment as a reciprocal response to the organization (De Cremer et al., 2004; Shamir et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 1997). Within the framework of social exchange theory, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) constitutes a significant outcome variable in the workplace (Cropanzo et al., 2005). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ) and the norm of reciprocity (Gordon et al., 1992) provide essential theoretical lenses for explaining the psychological mechanisms underlying employees' engagement in OCB (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004 ). Moreover, individuals tend to allocate more resources to reciprocate behaviors that directly benefit them (Blau, 1964 ; Cropanzo et al., 2005). From this theoretical perspective, both high levels of perceived organizational support and organizational commitment can motivate employees to exhibit more OCB (Gordon et al., 1992; Wayne et al., 1997). Employee-organization mutual commitment reflects perceived organizational support, mutual trust and shared values. Since the quality of exchange is also influenced by the relationship between the participants and the target (Blau, 1964 ), a high level of mutual commitment in the employee-organization relationship leads employees to perceive sufficient organizational support, define their work roles more broadly, strive to align with organizational expectations, and direct their reciprocation toward the organization rather than individuals (such as colleagues) to reciprocate their organization (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004 ). Consequently, this fosters employee citizenship behaviors that directly benefit the organization (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004 ). Based on the above analysis, this study proposes the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2 Employee-organization mutual commitment mediates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCBO. The moderating role of supervisor organizational embodiment Supervisor organizational embodiment refers to the extent to which team members perceive their leader as representative of the organization (Eisenberger et al. 2010). Although leaders are often seen as typical representatives of the organization and serve as the most direct influencers of employee behavior, perceptions of whether a leader truly embodies the organization vary among employees, leading to differences in perceived leader organizational embodiment (Eisenberger et al. 2010). This perception links or even equates employees' views of the leader with their views of the organization, further influencing how employees perceive and interpret the leader's behavior (Carmeli et al., 2011). Previous studies have demonstrated that leader organizational embodiment plays a significant moderating role in the relationships between leadership behavior and employees' emotions, attitudes, cognition, and behaviors (Buffardi et al., 2014 ; Gonzalez-Morales et al., 2010 ). For example, it moderates the relationship between supervisor support and employee organizational citizenship behavior (Wang et al., 2018), the relationship between leader-member exchange and employee affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 2014), and the relationship between transformational leadership and team members' affective commitment (Stinglhamber et al., 2015). Based on this, the present study posits that leader organizational embodiment influences the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee-organization mutual commitment. When team members perceive their leader as highly representative of the organization, they are more likely to interpret supportive behaviors from the self-sacrificial leader as organizational support. This, in turn, enhances their sense of commitment to the organization, thereby strengthening employee-organization mutual commitment. Conversely, when team members perceive a lower degree of leader organizational embodiment, they are less likely to attribute the leader's attitudes and behaviors to the organization, which diminishes employee-organization mutual commitment. Hypothesis 3 Supervisor organizational embodiment moderates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee-organization mutual commitment. Specifically, when the level of supervisor organizational embodiment is higher, the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment is stronger. Furthermore, the higher the level of leader organizational embodiment, the stronger the perception of mutual commitment among team members, and the greater their perceived responsibility to reciprocate the organization. This, in turn, increases the likelihood that they will engage in more organization-directed citizenship behaviors as a form of reciprocation in the organization. Conversely, when the level of leader organizational embodiment is lower, the perception of mutual commitment diminishes, reducing the sense of responsibility to reciprocate the organization. Consequently, team members may be less likely to engage in organization-directed citizenship behaviors. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 4 Supervisor organizational embodiment moderates the mediating role of self-sacrificial leadership in influencing employee OCBO. Specifically, the level of supervisor organizational embodiment is higher, the mediating effect of mutual commitment between self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCBO is stronger; conversely, the level of supervisor organizational embodiment is lower, the mediating effect is weaker. Methods Participants We distributed online questionnaires to employees from affiliated hospitals under the same medical university in Guangdong Province of China. Each participant who completed the questionnaire received an incentive of 10 RMB yuan. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, with 436 returned. After excluding 38 invalid responses, 398 valid questionnaires were retained, reaching a response rate of 79.6%. Among the valid sample, 179 respondents were male (44.97%), and 219 were female (55.03%). In terms of age distribution, 48.49% were between 21 and 30 years old, 44.97% were between 31 and 40 years old, 5.53% were between 41 and 50 years old, and 1.01% were over 50 years old. Regarding education level, the majority held a bachelor’s degree or equivalent (69.10%), and most had less than 10 years of work experience in their current organization (81.91%). Research Procedures and Analytical Techniques The measures employed in this study were adapted from well-established questionnaires in extant literatures. To ensure semantic equivalence and conceptual accuracy, Brislin's back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1986 ) was applied to all items. Furthermore, six practitioners (including two department managers, two senior employees, and two new employees) were invited to complete a pilot test of the Chinese version of the questionnaire. Their feedback was collected and used to refine the wording of items, aiming to mitigate potential impact of common method bias in terms of item content and comprehension (Podsakoff et al. 2003). All questionnaires were distributed and collected online. To encourage honest and objective responses, the instructions explicitly stated the academic purpose of the study and assured respondents of complete anonymity. Regarding analytical techniques, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Mplus 8.0 to examine discriminant validity of the research model. Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were performed with SPSS 30.0. Hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes in the SPSS software. Measures All scales were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree"). Self-sacrificial Leadership. A five-item scale developed by De Cremer and van Knippenberg ( 2004 ) was used to measure self-sacrificial leadership. A sample item is: “My supervisor is willing to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of the team.” The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.86. Employee-organization Mutual Commitment. It was measured using the sixteen-item scale adapted by Coyle-Shapiro and colleagues ( 2004 ). For example: "My organization cares about my overall job satisfaction" and "I feel like I am part of my organization." The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.94. Supervisor Organizational Embodiment. It was measured using a five-item questionnaire developed by Eisenberger and colleagues (2010). For example: “When my supervisor encourages me, I believe my organization is also encouraging me.” The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.88. Employee Organizational-directed Citizenship Behavior. It was measured using an eight-item scale developed by Lee and Allen ( 2002 ). A sample item is: "I often put forward suggestions to improve the company’s operations." The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.85. Control Variables: In line with previous studies, this research included gender, age, and educational background as control variables given their potential impact on employee organization-directed citizenship behavior. Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis of the four variables in this study was conducted using Mplus 8.0. Specifically, a three-factor model combining self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment as a single latent variable yielded the following fit indices: χ 2 / df ( df ) = 3.06(461), CFI = 0.74, TLI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.10. Another three-factor model combining mutual commitment and Supervisor organizational embodiment as a single latent variable resulted in: χ 2 / df ( df ) = 3.07(461), CFI = 0.74, TLI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.10. A two-factor model combining self-sacrificial leadership, mutual commitment, and Supervisor organizational embodiment as one latent variable produced: χ 2 / df ( df ) = 3.47(463), CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.67, RMSEA = 0.11. Finally, a single-factor model combining all variables as one latent variable showed: χ 2 / df ( df ) = 3.78(529), CFI = 0.62, TLI = 0.59, RMSEA = 0.12. The results indicate that the four-factor model demonstrated better fit and discriminant validity compared to the alternative models: χ 2 / df ( df ) = 1.71(443), CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.06. Descriptive Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistical analysis of the variables was conducted using SPSS 30.0. The results showed that self-sacrificial leadership was positively correlated with mutual commitment ( r = 0.57, p < 0.01) and employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior ( r = 0.35, p < 0.01) respectively. Mutual commitment was positively correlated with employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior ( r = 0.65, p < 0.01). Supervisor organizational embodiment was positively correlated with self-sacrificial leadership ( r = 0.63, p < 0.01), mutual commitment ( r = 0.62, p < 0.01), and employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior ( r = 0.37, p < 0.01) respectively. These findings provide preliminary support for the subsequent hypotheses testing of this study. Hypothesis Testing In order to test the main effect of this study, regression analysis was conducted using SPSS 30.0 to test Hypothesis 1 . After controlling for relevant variables, self-sacrificial leadership was found to have a significant positive effect on employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior ( b = 0.25, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The mediation effect of employee-organization mutual commitment was tested using the SPSS PROCESS macro. The results indicated that self-sacrificial leadership had significant positive effects on mutual commitment ( b = 0.46, p < 0.001) and on employees’ organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior ( b = 0.25, p < 0.001). When both self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment were included in the regression equation, the effect of self-sacrificial leadership on organization-directed citizenship behavior became non-significant, while mutual commitment showed a significant positive relationship with organization-directed citizenship behavior ( b = 0.55, p < 0.001). Additionally, the bootstrap method (with 5,000 resamples) was used to further examine the mediation effect. The indirect effect was 0.25, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.20, 0.32], which does not include zero. Therefore, the mediation effect is statistically supported, and Hypothesis 2 is supported. The moderating effect proposed in the research model was tested as follows. The data were mean-centered to mitigate potential multicollinearity issues. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effect of leader organizational embodiment. In the first step, demographic variables were entered into the regression equation. In the second step, self-sacrificial leadership and leader organizational embodiment were added. In the third step, the interaction term (calculated from the centered variables) was included. The results showed that after controlling for demographic variables and main effects, the interaction term had a significant positive effect on employee-organization mutual commitment ( b = 0.09, p < 0.001), indicating a significant moderating effect of leader organizational embodiment. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported. Furthermore, the moderating effect was illustrated by plotting the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment at high and low levels of leader organizational embodiment (one standard deviation above and below the mean), as shown in Fig. 1 . As depicted in Fig. 1 , when leader organizational embodiment is higher, the positive effect of self-sacrificial leadership on employee-organization mutual commitment is stronger, suggesting that leader organizational embodiment moderates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment in the research model. ----------------------------------------------------- Insert Fig. 1 about here ----------------------------------------------------- Further, this study employed the Bootstrapping method (5,000 resamples) to examine and analyze the moderated mediation effect by integrating self-sacrificial leadership, employee-organization mutual commitment, supervisor organizational embodiment, and organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior within an integrated research framework. The results indicated that when supervisor organizational embodiment was high, the indirect effect of self-sacrificial leadership on employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior through employee-organization mutual commitment was significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.14, 0.29], excluding zero. When supervisor organizational embodiment was low, the indirect effect remained significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.02, 0.14], excluding zero. In addition, the difference in the indirect effect between high and low levels of supervisor organizational embodiment was also significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.05, 0.21], excluding zero. Therefore, the moderated mediation effect is supported, confirming Hypothesis 4 . Research Conclusions and Directions for Future Research Research Conclusions This study, grounded in social exchange theory, investigates a moderated mediation mechanism through which self-sacrificial leadership influences employee OCBO, with employee-organization mutual commitment as the mediator and supervisor organizational embodiment as the moderator. Specifically, the findings reveal that self-sacrificial leadership positively affects employee OCBO. Employee-organization mutual commitment mediates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and OCBO. Moreover, supervisor organizational embodiment positively moderates both the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment and the indirect effect of mutual commitment. The theoretical contributions of this study are threefold. Firstly, it enriches the understanding about the consequences of self-sacrificial leadership by clarifying the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and specific types of organizational citizenship behavior, along with the underlying mediating mechanisms. While prior studies have shown that self-sacrificial leadership generally promotes employee organizational citizenship behavior, its impact on organization-directed citizenship behavior remained underexplored. In times of organizational digital transformation and business era of uncertainty, such behavior has become increasingly critical for organizational performance. As a distinctive and significant leadership style in contemporary contexts, understanding whether and how self-sacrificial leadership can effectively stimulate organization-directed citizenship behavior is essential. This study directly addresses this question from the lens of social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity. Secondly, previous research on the mediating mechanisms between self-sacrificial leadership and individual organizational citizenship behavior has largely focused on identification and role internalization. From the perspective of employee-organization relationships, this study introduces mutual commitment as a novel mediator, revealing its bridging role in the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and organization-directed citizenship behavior. Thirdly, by incorporating supervisor organizational embodiment as a moderator, this study enriches the understanding of this construct and provides a nuanced explanation of when team members are more likely to engage in organization-directed citizenship behavior under self-sacrificial leadership. Finally, previous research has yielded inconsistent findings regarding the differential impact of social exchange on organization-directed versus interpersonal-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-O/I). For instance, Jiang and Law (2013) found that the mediating effect of social exchange relationships was significant between procedural justice and interpersonal-directed OCB but not significant between procedural justice and organization-directed OCB. The findings of this study helps better understand the specific antecedents of OCBO by confirming the impact of self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment on employee OCBO in the workplace. Directions for Future Research The study also offers practical implications for management. First, organizations should recognize the effectiveness of self-sacrificial leadership and encourage managers to demonstrate accountability, dedication, and a willingness to empower others for the collective good. Leadership training and development programs, particularly for frontline managers, should emphasize fostering a collective-oriented mindset and enhancing resilience in challenging situations. Second, the mediating role of employee-organization mutual commitment highlights the need for managers to balance organizational support with organizational commitment. Strengthening both aspects can more effectively promote employee OCB to facilitate organizational performance at the employee level. Third, managers should align themselves closely with organizational vision, mission, and values, thereby enhancing their embodiment of the organization. Consistency in goals, actions, and advocated principles can amplify the positive impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employee OCB in management practice. However, this study has several limitations. First, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce common method bias. Future research could employ multi-source data collection to enhance validity. Second, the study focuses on individual-level mediation and moderation effects. Future work could explore team-level constructs, such as self-sacrificial leadership climate and mutual commitment team atmosphere, and their cross-level effects. Third, additional mediating pathways between self-sacrificial leadership and organization-directed citizenship behavior warrant investigation. Finally, individual differences, such as role orientation, could be examined as potential boundary conditions in future studies. Declarations Data availability The datasets of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Acknowledgements The author sincerely appreciates Professor Wenhao Luo for his precious time, valuable suggestions and constructive feedback on this manuscript, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of this work. Funding This study was supported by the Youth Research Special Project of NCUT (Grant No.2025NCUTYRSP041) by North China University of China; 2025 Normal Research Project (Grant No. GJXY2025N001) awarded by Association for Student Employment; and 2025 Normal Research Project (Grant No. 25JY0308) awarded by China Association of Higher Education. All three grants were awarded to Yanting Zhu. Contributions Conceptualization, Validation, Writing, and Editing: Yanting Zhu. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Ethics declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of North China University of Technology. It was conducted in accordance with research ethics principles, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The informed consent to participate was obtained from all the participants in the study. Consent for publication Consent for publication was obtained from all participants. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Anderson SE, Williams LJ. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manag. 1991;17(3):601–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 . Blau PM. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964. Bos AER, De Cremer D, van Dijke MH. Distributive justice moderating the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2004;25(5):466–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410544746 . Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WJ, Berry JW, editors. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1986. pp. 137–64. Buffardi LC, Eisenberger R, Gonzalez-Morales MG, Karagonlar G, Shoss MK, Wickham R. The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J Organizational Behav. 2014;35(5):635–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1877 . Caesens G, De Zanet F, Hanin D, Marique G, Stinglhamber F. The influence of transformational leadership on followers' affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Career Dev Int. 2015;20(6):583–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0022 . Choi Y, Mai-Dalton RR. On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadersh Q. 1998;9:475–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90012-1 . Coyle-Shapiro JA-M, Kessler I, Purcell J. Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or it's my job? J Manage Stud. 2004;41(1):85–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00422.x . Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J Manag. 2005;31(6):874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 . Cummings J, Armeli S, Eisenberger R, Lynch P. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol. 1997;82(5):812–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 . De Cremer D. Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadersh Q. 2006;17(1):79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005 . De Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;95(2):140–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.002 . Feng B, Wu Q, Xiong C, Zhou R. The influence of self-sacrificial leadership on employee organizational citizenship behavior from the perspective of role theory. Chin J Manage. 2019;16(7):997–1005. Gonzalez-Morales MG, Karagonlar G, Neves P, Becker TE, Eisenberger R, Steiger-Mueller M, Stinglhamber F. Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(6):1085–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020858 . Gouldner AW. The norm of reciprocity. Am Sociol Rev. 1960;25(2):161–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 . Harris CM, Lavelle JJ, McMahan GC. Fairness in human resource management, social exchange relationships, and citizenship behavior: testing linkages of the target similarity model among nurses in the United States. Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2009;20(12):2419–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190903363818 . Huntington R, Hutchison S, Eisenberger R, Sowa D. Perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol. 1986;71(3):500–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 . Johnson SK. (2020, May 14). How CEOs can lead selflessly through a crisis. Harvard Business Review . Retrieved 3 April 2022, from https://hbr.org/2020/05/how-ceos-can-lead-selflessly-through-a-crisis Law KS, Song LJ, Tsui AS. Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: the role of social and economic exchange perceptions. J Manag. 2009;35(1):56–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321544 . Lee J-Y, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, Podsakoff PM. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 . Li N, Liu S, Xu M. Good soldiers instead of good change agents: Examining the dual effects of self-sacrificial leadership on pro-social behavior and change-oriented behavior in teams. J Manag. 2024;50(2):490–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221117529 . Li R, Zhang Z, Tian X. Can self-sacrificial leadership promote subordinate taking charge? The mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of risk aversion. J Organizational Behav. 2016;37(5):758–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2058 . Li R, Tian X. Can self-sacrificial leadership promote employees’ proactive behavior? The mediating effect of perceived responsibility and its boundary conditions. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2015;47(12):1472–85. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01472 . Li X, Luo J, Qu Y, Xu Z. (2019). Self-sacrificing for the public and breaking silence: A cross-level study on the impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employee voice behavior. Science of Science and Management of S&T , 40(8), 141–157. Lin Y, Peng J, Wang Z. From leader identification to organizational identification: Exploring the boundary conditions of identity transformation. J Psychol Sci. 2018;41(4):883–9. Liden RC, Shore LM, Wayne SJ. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Acad Manag J. 1997;40(1):82–111. https://doi.org/10.5465/257021 . Lynch PD, Armeli S, Eisenberger R, Rexwinkel B, Rhoades L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42 . MacKenzie SB, Organ DW, Podsakoff PM. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. Wen P, Wang S, Zhou H. Employment modes, charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Explanations from perceived job security. Pakistan J Stat. 2014;30(5):827–36. https://doi.org/10.18187/pjs.v30i5.796 . Yang F, Wang B, Yang M, Chen W. Martyred but proud: Understanding the consequences of leader self-sacrifice from the emotional motivating perspective. J Occup Organizational Psychol. 2025;98(3):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70054 . Yao N, Zhang L, Zhang Y. The impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employees' tacit knowledge sharing. Leadersh Sci. 2017;32:40–3. Lee K, Allen NJ. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(1):131–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8749884","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":601241728,"identity":"2b91745b-a418-4056-8777-0c0a2e4d114d","order_by":0,"name":"Yanting Zhu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"North China University of China","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yanting","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-31 12:39:39","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749884/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749884/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104311147,"identity":"0dabb365-c346-48c6-9830-f2240ec80e60","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-10 10:56:59","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56857,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe moderating effect of supervisor organizational embodiment on the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership (SSL) and supervisor organizational embodiment (SOE)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8749884/v1/23ed6a8cff53001d6f0c8b0c.jpg"},{"id":105395481,"identity":"d46b1375-336d-4f51-9633-a8f12e2701b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 14:13:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":647084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8749884/v1/fb5ae8ea-8900-4db3-a543-b8208e0fbb8c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"How Self-sacrificial Leadership Inspires Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mutual Commitment","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUnder the background of the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, the internal and external business environments of organizations are undergoing profound changes, posing unprecedented challenges to leadership effectiveness. With the widespread application of AI in workplace settings, new modes of work such as remote collaboration, intelligent automation, and human-AI collaboration are becoming increasingly prevalent, raising new questions regarding the role positioning and management approaches of leaders. In this digitally transitional phase filled with both opportunities and uncertainties, many organizations have seen the emergence of leaders with a self-sacrificial spirit, whose prioritization of collective interests significantly influences team members' cognition, attitudes, and behavioral choices (Johnson, 2020; Liu et al., 2024; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-sacrificial leadership was referred to as a leadership style in which individuals willingly delay or forgo their own short-term or long-term interests for the collective welfare or benefit of the organization (Choi \u0026amp; Mai-Dalton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). In the above-mentioned complex environment, organizations face accelerating technological iterations, shifting job structures, and growing ethical responsibility challenges in their management tasks. Such a leadership approach, centered on dedication and accountability, is gradually becoming a critical driving force in guiding organizations to adapt to organizational changes and achieve sustainable business development. Research indicates that self-sacrificial leadership can effectively stimulate positive behavioral responses from employees, such as promoting organizational citizenship behavior (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), encouraging proactive behavior (Tian \u0026amp; Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and enhancing knowledge-sharing willingness (Zhang et al., 2017). However, while existing studies confirm that self-sacrificial leadership in the workplace facilitates employees' engagement in organizational citizenship behavior, there is a lack of differentiation and in-depth exploration of specific types of organizational citizenship behavior, such as organization-directed or interpersonal-directed citizenship behavior. In addition, it is possible that self-sacrificial leadership can have a significant impact on employee OCBO given the target similarity may exist between the two (Harris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The theoretical lens of social exchange theory can help us to investigate the working mechanism of the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCB, in which employees may engage in OCBO to reciprocate their leaders\u0026rsquo; self-sacrifice at work (Law et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, based on social exchange theory, this study aims to construct a moderated mediation model to systematically examine the mechanism through which self-sacrificial leadership influences employees' organization-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO), and to explore the mediating role of employee-organization mutual commitment and the moderating effect of supervisor organizational embodiment. The findings are expected to provide theoretical foundations and managerial insights for leadership practices and organizational behavior research in the era of artificial intelligence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheory and Hypothesis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-sacrificial leadership and employee OCBO\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined as voluntary individual action that is not formally or explicitly rewarded by the organization yet collectively enhance its operational effectiveness (Organ, 2006). OCB is considered as a functionally important lubricant for organizational performance (Mackenzie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), and can be categorized with two types according to the targets of individual behaviors in the workplace, which are organization- and interpersonal-directed organizational citizenship (William and Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-O) refers to citizenship behaviors that are directly targeted at the organization and collectively beneficial to the organization (e.g., taking action to protect the company from potential issues). In contrast, interpersonal-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-I) refers to citizenship behaviors directed toward specific individuals, which indirectly benefit the organization (e.g., helping colleagues overcome work-related difficulties).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a collectivist-oriented and effective leadership behavior, self-sacrificial leaders focus on organizational goals. Through self-sacrificial actions in daily work (such as voluntarily undertaking high-risk or tedious tasks, willingly delaying or forgoing fair compensation, and proactively contributing personal resources to the team or organization), they promote the value of organizational objectives and emphasize the overall well-being of team members. These actions help internalize collective goals among team members and encourage them to contribute willingly to the group (Choi \u0026amp; Mai-Dalton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; De Cremer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Social exchange theory emphasizes that human relationships evolve through reciprocal interactions, in which individuals offer work resources, assistance, or services in anticipation of obtaining comparable or enhanced value in the future (Gouldner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1960\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, when team members perceive their leader's self-sacrificial behavior and receive beneficial resources from the organization, they are more likely to identify with the organization (Zhang et al., 2017), follow and emulate the leader (Zhou et al., 2019). They further develop a sense of responsibility to reciprocate the organization (Gouldner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1960\u003c/span\u003e), thereby inclining them to engage in organization-directed citizenship behavior. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSelf-sacrificial leadership has a significant positive impact on employee OCBO.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe mediating role of employee-organization mutual commitmen\u003c/b\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial exchange theory serves as a key theoretical framework for explaining employee-organization relationships and organizational citizenship behavior (Coyle-Shapiro, Diehl, \u0026amp; Chang, 2017). The positive influence of social exchange relationships on employee organizational citizenship behavior has been widely confirmed in previous research (e.g., Liu, Chen, \u0026amp; Holley, 2017; Song, Tsui, \u0026amp; Law, 2009). From the perspective of employee-organization relationships, mutual investment between employee and organization represents a balanced pattern characterized by open-ended and long-term incentives provided by the organization and contributions reciprocated by employees (Tsui et al., 1997). In this employee-organization relationship approach, both parties maintain balanced investments in each other, with the advantage of eliciting positive responses from employees in terms of attitudes, behaviors such as OCB, and other individual-level outcomes (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn alignment with the mutual investment approach, mutual commitment was referred to as employees\u0026rsquo; perception of the extent of mutual obligation in their relationship with the organization (Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler, \u0026amp; Purcell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e)). Specifically, assessing commitment in the employee-organization relationship is bidirectional, encompassing both employees\u0026rsquo; perception of organizational commitment to them (perceived organizational support) and employees\u0026rsquo; commitment to the organization (organizational commitment). On one hand, perceived organizational support reflects employees\u0026rsquo; overall perception of how they are treated by the organization and the extent to which the organization values their contributions and well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1997). Employees\u0026rsquo; recognition of organizational support stems from their need to confirm that the organization acknowledges and rewards their efforts (Eisenberger et al., 1986). This inherently represents a reciprocal perspective; thus, employees who perceive stronger organizational support are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Self-sacrificial leadership demonstrates concern for team members\u0026rsquo; well-being and development (Xu et al., 2019), leading members to perceive that the organization values their welfare and contributions, thereby enhancing their sense of organizational support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, self-sacrificial leaders are unafraid of sacrificing personal interests (including time, compensation, resources, etc.), take proactive responsibility, strive for the welfare of team members, and go to great lengths to assist them while standing together through challenges. As a result, team members develop high levels of organizational commitment as a reciprocal response to the organization (De Cremer et al., 2004; Shamir et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 1997).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the framework of social exchange theory, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) constitutes a significant outcome variable in the workplace (Cropanzo et al., 2005). Social exchange theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) and the norm of reciprocity (Gordon et al., 1992) provide essential theoretical lenses for explaining the psychological mechanisms underlying employees' engagement in OCB (Coyle-Shapiro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, individuals tend to allocate more resources to reciprocate behaviors that directly benefit them (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Cropanzo et al., 2005). From this theoretical perspective, both high levels of perceived organizational support and organizational commitment can motivate employees to exhibit more OCB (Gordon et al., 1992; Wayne et al., 1997).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployee-organization mutual commitment reflects perceived organizational support, mutual trust and shared values. Since the quality of exchange is also influenced by the relationship between the participants and the target (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), a high level of mutual commitment in the employee-organization relationship leads employees to perceive sufficient organizational support, define their work roles more broadly, strive to align with organizational expectations, and direct their reciprocation toward the organization rather than individuals (such as colleagues) to reciprocate their organization (Coyle-Shapiro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, this fosters employee citizenship behaviors that directly benefit the organization (Coyle-Shapiro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Based on the above analysis, this study proposes the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eEmployee-organization mutual commitment mediates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCBO.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe moderating role of supervisor organizational embodiment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisor organizational embodiment refers to the extent to which team members perceive their leader as representative of the organization (Eisenberger et al. 2010). Although leaders are often seen as typical representatives of the organization and serve as the most direct influencers of employee behavior, perceptions of whether a leader truly embodies the organization vary among employees, leading to differences in perceived leader organizational embodiment (Eisenberger et al. 2010). This perception links or even equates employees' views of the leader with their views of the organization, further influencing how employees perceive and interpret the leader's behavior (Carmeli et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have demonstrated that leader organizational embodiment plays a significant moderating role in the relationships between leadership behavior and employees' emotions, attitudes, cognition, and behaviors (Buffardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gonzalez-Morales et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). For example, it moderates the relationship between supervisor support and employee organizational citizenship behavior (Wang et al., 2018), the relationship between leader-member exchange and employee affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 2014), and the relationship between transformational leadership and team members' affective commitment (Stinglhamber et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this, the present study posits that leader organizational embodiment influences the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee-organization mutual commitment. When team members perceive their leader as highly representative of the organization, they are more likely to interpret supportive behaviors from the self-sacrificial leader as organizational support. This, in turn, enhances their sense of commitment to the organization, thereby strengthening employee-organization mutual commitment. Conversely, when team members perceive a lower degree of leader organizational embodiment, they are less likely to attribute the leader's attitudes and behaviors to the organization, which diminishes employee-organization mutual commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSupervisor organizational embodiment moderates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and employee-organization mutual commitment. Specifically, when the level of supervisor organizational embodiment is higher, the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment is stronger.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the higher the level of leader organizational embodiment, the stronger the perception of mutual commitment among team members, and the greater their perceived responsibility to reciprocate the organization. This, in turn, increases the likelihood that they will engage in more organization-directed citizenship behaviors as a form of reciprocation in the organization. Conversely, when the level of leader organizational embodiment is lower, the perception of mutual commitment diminishes, reducing the sense of responsibility to reciprocate the organization. Consequently, team members may be less likely to engage in organization-directed citizenship behaviors. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 4\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSupervisor organizational embodiment moderates the mediating role of self-sacrificial leadership in influencing employee OCBO. Specifically, the level of supervisor organizational embodiment is higher, the mediating effect of mutual commitment between self-sacrificial leadership and employee OCBO is stronger; conversely, the level of supervisor organizational embodiment is lower, the mediating effect is weaker.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe distributed online questionnaires to employees from affiliated hospitals under the same medical university in Guangdong Province of China. Each participant who completed the questionnaire received an incentive of 10 RMB yuan. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, with 436 returned. After excluding 38 invalid responses, 398 valid questionnaires were retained, reaching a response rate of 79.6%. Among the valid sample, 179 respondents were male (44.97%), and 219 were female (55.03%). In terms of age distribution, 48.49% were between 21 and 30 years old, 44.97% were between 31 and 40 years old, 5.53% were between 41 and 50 years old, and 1.01% were over 50 years old. Regarding education level, the majority held a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree or equivalent (69.10%), and most had less than 10 years of work experience in their current organization (81.91%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Procedures and Analytical Techniques\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe measures employed in this study were adapted from well-established questionnaires in extant literatures. To ensure semantic equivalence and conceptual accuracy, Brislin's back-translation procedure (Brislin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) was applied to all items. Furthermore, six practitioners (including two department managers, two senior employees, and two new employees) were invited to complete a pilot test of the Chinese version of the questionnaire. Their feedback was collected and used to refine the wording of items, aiming to mitigate potential impact of common method bias in terms of item content and comprehension (Podsakoff et al. 2003). All questionnaires were distributed and collected online. To encourage honest and objective responses, the instructions explicitly stated the academic purpose of the study and assured respondents of complete anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding analytical techniques, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Mplus 8.0 to examine discriminant validity of the research model. Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were performed with SPSS 30.0. Hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes in the SPSS software.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasures\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll scales were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = \"strongly disagree,\" 5 = \"strongly agree\").\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-sacrificial Leadership. A five-item scale developed by De Cremer and van Knippenberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) was used to measure self-sacrificial leadership. A sample item is: \u0026ldquo;My supervisor is willing to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of the team.\u0026rdquo; The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.86.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployee-organization Mutual Commitment. It was measured using the sixteen-item scale adapted by Coyle-Shapiro and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). For example: \"My organization cares about my overall job satisfaction\" and \"I feel like I am part of my organization.\" The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.94.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisor Organizational Embodiment. It was measured using a five-item questionnaire developed by Eisenberger and colleagues (2010). For example: \u0026ldquo;When my supervisor encourages me, I believe my organization is also encouraging me.\u0026rdquo; The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.88.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployee Organizational-directed Citizenship Behavior. It was measured using an eight-item scale developed by Lee and Allen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). A sample item is: \"I often put forward suggestions to improve the company\u0026rsquo;s operations.\" The internal consistency coefficient of this scale in the current study was 0.85.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl Variables: In line with previous studies, this research included gender, age, and educational background as control variables given their potential impact on employee organization-directed citizenship behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis of the four variables in this study was conducted using Mplus 8.0. Specifically, a three-factor model combining self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment as a single latent variable yielded the following fit indices: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e) = 3.06(461), CFI = 0.74, TLI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.10. Another three-factor model combining mutual commitment and Supervisor organizational embodiment as a single latent variable resulted in: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e) = 3.07(461), CFI = 0.74, TLI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.10. A two-factor model combining self-sacrificial leadership, mutual commitment, and Supervisor organizational embodiment as one latent variable produced: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e) = 3.47(463), CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.67, RMSEA = 0.11. Finally, a single-factor model combining all variables as one latent variable showed: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e) = 3.78(529), CFI = 0.62, TLI = 0.59, RMSEA = 0.12. The results indicate that the four-factor model demonstrated better fit and discriminant validity compared to the alternative models: \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e) = 1.71(443), CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.06.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistical Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistical analysis of the variables was conducted using SPSS 30.0. The results showed that self-sacrificial leadership was positively correlated with mutual commitment (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) and employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.35, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) respectively. Mutual commitment was positively correlated with employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). Supervisor organizational embodiment was positively correlated with self-sacrificial leadership (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.63, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), mutual commitment (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), and employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) respectively. These findings provide preliminary support for the subsequent hypotheses testing of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypothesis Testing\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to test the main effect of this study, regression analysis was conducted using SPSS 30.0 to test Hypothesis \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. After controlling for relevant variables, self-sacrificial leadership was found to have a significant positive effect on employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e is supported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mediation effect of employee-organization mutual commitment was tested using the SPSS PROCESS macro. The results indicated that self-sacrificial leadership had significant positive effects on mutual commitment (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) and on employees’ organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). When both self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment were included in the regression equation, the effect of self-sacrificial leadership on organization-directed citizenship behavior became non-significant, while mutual commitment showed a significant positive relationship with organization-directed citizenship behavior (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Additionally, the bootstrap method (with 5,000 resamples) was used to further examine the mediation effect. The indirect effect was 0.25, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.20, 0.32], which does not include zero. Therefore, the mediation effect is statistically supported, and Hypothesis \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e is supported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe moderating effect proposed in the research model was tested as follows. The data were mean-centered to mitigate potential multicollinearity issues. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effect of leader organizational embodiment. In the first step, demographic variables were entered into the regression equation. In the second step, self-sacrificial leadership and leader organizational embodiment were added. In the third step, the interaction term (calculated from the centered variables) was included. The results showed that after controlling for demographic variables and main effects, the interaction term had a significant positive effect on employee-organization mutual commitment (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), indicating a significant moderating effect of leader organizational embodiment. Thus, Hypothesis \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e is supported. Furthermore, the moderating effect was illustrated by plotting the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment at high and low levels of leader organizational embodiment (one standard deviation above and below the mean), as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. As depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, when leader organizational embodiment is higher, the positive effect of self-sacrificial leadership on employee-organization mutual commitment is stronger, suggesting that leader organizational embodiment moderates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment in the research model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e-----------------------------------------------------\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e-----------------------------------------------------\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, this study employed the Bootstrapping method (5,000 resamples) to examine and analyze the moderated mediation effect by integrating self-sacrificial leadership, employee-organization mutual commitment, supervisor organizational embodiment, and organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior within an integrated research framework. The results indicated that when supervisor organizational embodiment was high, the indirect effect of self-sacrificial leadership on employee organization-directed organizational citizenship behavior through employee-organization mutual commitment was significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.14, 0.29], excluding zero. When supervisor organizational embodiment was low, the indirect effect remained significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.02, 0.14], excluding zero. In addition, the difference in the indirect effect between high and low levels of supervisor organizational embodiment was also significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.05, 0.21], excluding zero. Therefore, the moderated mediation effect is supported, confirming Hypothesis \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Conclusions and Directions for Future Research","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Conclusions\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study, grounded in social exchange theory, investigates a moderated mediation mechanism through which self-sacrificial leadership influences employee OCBO, with employee-organization mutual commitment as the mediator and supervisor organizational embodiment as the moderator. Specifically, the findings reveal that self-sacrificial leadership positively affects employee OCBO. Employee-organization mutual commitment mediates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and OCBO. Moreover, supervisor organizational embodiment positively moderates both the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment and the indirect effect of mutual commitment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical contributions of this study are threefold. Firstly, it enriches the understanding about the consequences of self-sacrificial leadership by clarifying the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and specific types of organizational citizenship behavior, along with the underlying mediating mechanisms. While prior studies have shown that self-sacrificial leadership generally promotes employee organizational citizenship behavior, its impact on organization-directed citizenship behavior remained underexplored. In times of organizational digital transformation and business era of uncertainty, such behavior has become increasingly critical for organizational performance. As a distinctive and significant leadership style in contemporary contexts, understanding whether and how self-sacrificial leadership can effectively stimulate organization-directed citizenship behavior is essential. This study directly addresses this question from the lens of social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondly, previous research on the mediating mechanisms between self-sacrificial leadership and individual organizational citizenship behavior has largely focused on identification and role internalization. From the perspective of employee-organization relationships, this study introduces mutual commitment as a novel mediator, revealing its bridging role in the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and organization-directed citizenship behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThirdly, by incorporating supervisor organizational embodiment as a moderator, this study enriches the understanding of this construct and provides a nuanced explanation of when team members are more likely to engage in organization-directed citizenship behavior under self-sacrificial leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, previous research has yielded inconsistent findings regarding the differential impact of social exchange on organization-directed versus interpersonal-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-O/I). For instance, Jiang and Law (2013) found that the mediating effect of social exchange relationships was significant between procedural justice and interpersonal-directed OCB but not significant between procedural justice and organization-directed OCB. The findings of this study helps better understand the specific antecedents of OCBO by confirming the impact of self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment on employee OCBO in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eDirections for Future Research\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study also offers practical implications for management. First, organizations should recognize the effectiveness of self-sacrificial leadership and encourage managers to demonstrate accountability, dedication, and a willingness to empower others for the collective good. Leadership training and development programs, particularly for frontline managers, should emphasize fostering a collective-oriented mindset and enhancing resilience in challenging situations. Second, the mediating role of employee-organization mutual commitment highlights the need for managers to balance organizational support with organizational commitment. Strengthening both aspects can more effectively promote employee OCB to facilitate organizational performance at the employee level. Third, managers should align themselves closely with organizational vision, mission, and values, thereby enhancing their embodiment of the organization. Consistency in goals, actions, and advocated principles can amplify the positive impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employee OCB in management practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, this study has several limitations. First, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce common method bias. Future research could employ multi-source data collection to enhance validity. Second, the study focuses on individual-level mediation and moderation effects. Future work could explore team-level constructs, such as self-sacrificial leadership climate and mutual commitment team atmosphere, and their cross-level effects. Third, additional mediating pathways between self-sacrificial leadership and organization-directed citizenship behavior warrant investigation. Finally, individual differences, such as role orientation, could be examined as potential boundary conditions in future studies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author sincerely appreciates Professor Wenhao Luo for his precious time, valuable suggestions and constructive feedback on this manuscript, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of this work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by the Youth Research Special Project of NCUT (Grant No.2025NCUTYRSP041) by North China University of China; 2025 Normal Research Project (Grant No. GJXY2025N001) awarded by Association for Student Employment; and 2025 Normal Research Project (Grant No. 25JY0308) awarded by China Association of Higher Education. All three grants were awarded to Yanting Zhu.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization, Validation, Writing, and Editing: Yanting Zhu.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of North China University of Technology. It was conducted in accordance with research ethics principles, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The informed consent to participate was obtained from all the participants in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication was obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson SE, Williams LJ. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manag. 1991;17(3):601\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/014920639101700305\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlau PM. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBos AER, De Cremer D, van Dijke MH. Distributive justice moderating the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2004;25(5):466\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410544746\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/01437730410544746\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WJ, Berry JW, editors. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1986. pp. 137\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuffardi LC, Eisenberger R, Gonzalez-Morales MG, Karagonlar G, Shoss MK, Wickham R. The supervisor POS\u0026ndash;LMX\u0026ndash;subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor\u0026rsquo;s organizational embodiment. J Organizational Behav. 2014;35(5):635\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.1877\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.1877\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaesens G, De Zanet F, Hanin D, Marique G, Stinglhamber F. The influence of transformational leadership on followers' affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Career Dev Int. 2015;20(6):583\u0026ndash;603. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi Y, Mai-Dalton RR. On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadersh Q. 1998;9:475\u0026ndash;501. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90012-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90012-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoyle-Shapiro JA-M, Kessler I, Purcell J. Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or it's my job? J Manage Stud. 2004;41(1):85\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00422.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00422.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J Manag. 2005;31(6):874\u0026ndash;900. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206305279602\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCummings J, Armeli S, Eisenberger R, Lynch P. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol. 1997;82(5):812\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Cremer D. Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadersh Q. 2006;17(1):79\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;95(2):140\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeng B, Wu Q, Xiong C, Zhou R. The influence of self-sacrificial leadership on employee organizational citizenship behavior from the perspective of role theory. Chin J Manage. 2019;16(7):997\u0026ndash;1005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonzalez-Morales MG, Karagonlar G, Neves P, Becker TE, Eisenberger R, Steiger-Mueller M, Stinglhamber F. Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(6):1085\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0020858\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0020858\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGouldner AW. The norm of reciprocity. Am Sociol Rev. 1960;25(2):161\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2092623\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2092623\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris CM, Lavelle JJ, McMahan GC. Fairness in human resource management, social exchange relationships, and citizenship behavior: testing linkages of the target similarity model among nurses in the United States. Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2009;20(12):2419\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09585190903363818\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09585190903363818\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuntington R, Hutchison S, Eisenberger R, Sowa D. Perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol. 1986;71(3):500\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson SK. (2020, May 14). How CEOs can lead selflessly through a crisis. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 3 April 2022, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://hbr.org/2020/05/how-ceos-can-lead-selflessly-through-a-crisis\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://hbr.org/2020/05/how-ceos-can-lead-selflessly-through-a-crisis\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw KS, Song LJ, Tsui AS. Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: the role of social and economic exchange perceptions. J Manag. 2009;35(1):56\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321544\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206308321544\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee J-Y, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, Podsakoff PM. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879\u0026ndash;903. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi N, Liu S, Xu M. Good soldiers instead of good change agents: Examining the dual effects of self-sacrificial leadership on pro-social behavior and change-oriented behavior in teams. J Manag. 2024;50(2):490\u0026ndash;522. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221117529\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/01492063221117529\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi R, Zhang Z, Tian X. Can self-sacrificial leadership promote subordinate taking charge? The mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of risk aversion. J Organizational Behav. 2016;37(5):758\u0026ndash;81. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.2058\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.2058\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi R, Tian X. Can self-sacrificial leadership promote employees\u0026rsquo; proactive behavior? The mediating effect of perceived responsibility and its boundary conditions. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2015;47(12):1472\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01472\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01472\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi X, Luo J, Qu Y, Xu Z. (2019). Self-sacrificing for the public and breaking silence: A cross-level study on the impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employee voice behavior. \u003cem\u003eScience of Science and Management of S\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 40(8), 141\u0026ndash;157.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin Y, Peng J, Wang Z. From leader identification to organizational identification: Exploring the boundary conditions of identity transformation. J Psychol Sci. 2018;41(4):883\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiden RC, Shore LM, Wayne SJ. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Acad Manag J. 1997;40(1):82\u0026ndash;111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/257021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/257021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLynch PD, Armeli S, Eisenberger R, Rexwinkel B, Rhoades L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):42\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacKenzie SB, Organ DW, Podsakoff PM. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWen P, Wang S, Zhou H. Employment modes, charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Explanations from perceived job security. Pakistan J Stat. 2014;30(5):827\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18187/pjs.v30i5.796\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18187/pjs.v30i5.796\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang F, Wang B, Yang M, Chen W. Martyred but proud: Understanding the consequences of leader self-sacrifice from the emotional motivating perspective. J Occup Organizational Psychol. 2025;98(3):1\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70054\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/joop.70054\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYao N, Zhang L, Zhang Y. The impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employees' tacit knowledge sharing. Leadersh Sci. 2017;32:40\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee K, Allen NJ. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(1):131\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Self-sacrificial Leadership, Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior, Employee-Organization Mutual Commitment, Supervisor Organizational Embodiment","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749884/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749884/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn the era of brittleness, anxiety, non-linearity, and incomprehensibility, the effectiveness of self-sacrificial leadership has become increasingly important. From the perspective of social exchange theory, this study explores the impact of self-sacrificial leadership on employee organization-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO), the mediating mechanism of employee-organization mutual commitment, the moderating effect of supervisor organizational embodiment, and an integrated moderated mediation model. By analyzing 398 valid sample data from five affiliated public hospital in China, the results indicate that (a) self-sacrificial leadership positively influences employee OCBO; (b) employee-organization mutual commitment mediates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and OCBO; (c) supervisor organizational embodiment positively moderates the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and mutual commitment; (d) supervisor organizational embodiment further moderates the mediating effect of mutual commitment. Organizations can refer to the research findings to cultivate their leaders\u0026rsquo; self-sacrificial behavior, which can foster employee OCBO to obtain positive organizational performance.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Self-sacrificial Leadership Inspires Employee Organization-directed Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mutual Commitment","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-10 10:56:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749884/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"923a965f-20de-4a8d-b3f5-0cc5856b5b7c","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T14:11:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-10 10:56:04","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8749884","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8749884","identity":"rs-8749884","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}