ArticlePDF Available

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E A moderated mediation effect of symbolic and substantive preventive actions on employees' preventive behavior in the context of Covid-19

September 2023

Authors:

Asif Nawaz

Sukkur IBA University

Shuaib Ahmed

Aix-Marseille University

Samar Batool

Sukkur IBA University

Hira Rani

Shah Abdul Latif University

Show all 5 authorsHide

Content uploaded by Hira Rani

Content may be subject to copyright.

Received:  May  Revised:  November  Accepted:  November 

DOI: ./asap.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A moderated mediation effect of symbolic and

substantive preventive actions on employees’

preventive behavior in the context of Covid-19

Asif Nawaz1Shuaib Ahmed Soomro1Samar Batool1

Hira Rani1Arsalan Aslam2

Department of Business Administration,

Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan

Institute of Quality and Technology

Management, University of the Punjab,

Lahore, Pakistan

Correspondence

Shuaib Ahmed Soomro, Department of

Business Administration, Sukkur IBA

University, Airport Road Sukkur, Postal

code , Sindh, Pakistan.

Email: shuaib.ahmed@iba-suk.edu.pk

Human rights statements and informed

consent: All procedures followed were in

accordance with the ethical standards of

the responsible committee on human

experimentation (institutional and

national) and with the Helsinki

Declaration of  and its later

amendments. Informed consent was

obtained from all patients for being

included in the study.

Abstract

This study utilizes Social Information Processing (SIP) the-

ory to investigate the relationship between organizational

preventive actions (substantive vs. symbolic), employee

preventive behavior, the mediating role of conspiracy

beliefs, and moderating role of leadership integrity in the

context of Covid-. The study explains leadership integrity

as a boundary condition to facilitate or hinder the mediated

relationship between organizational actions and employee

preventive behavior (EPB). The hypothesized model was

tested using partial least square structural equation mod-

eling (PLS-SEM) on two-wave data collected from 

respondents. The results revealed that substantive actions

do not predict EPB directly but through conspiracy beliefs.

Contrary to these, symbolic actions negatively predict EPB

directly. Leadership integrity moderates the relationship

between substantive actions and conspiracy beliefs, while

the interaction effect with symbolic actions is not sup-

ported. The findings of this study caution managers to

walk their talk because employees critically observe the

most apparent actions, especially when management fails

to practice them. The study contributes to social informa-

tion processing theory by pointing to leadership integrity

as a source of authenticity to curb the negative impact of

Anal Soc Issues Public Policy ;–. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/asap 1

15302415, 0, Downloaded from https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12337 by Sindh Agricultural University, Wiley Online Library on [21/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

2NAWAZ  .

symbolic actions and catalyst the effect of substantive

actionsonemployeepreventivebehavior.

KEYWORDS

conspiracy beliefs, Covid-, employee preventive behavior, leader’s

integrity, social information processing theory (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

Negligence toward preventive behavior is prominent in various cultures regarding Covid-

(Nguyen et al., ; Ozdemir et al., ). This research seeks to find multiple factors that affect

the preventive behavior of people during pandemic times (Coroiu et al., ). For instance, fac-

tors such as culture, gender, age, and knowledge about Covid- are among the few predictors

of preventive behavior during the Covid- lockdown. However, most of these studies focused

on public behavior during the heightened Covid- spread (Gursoy & Chi, ). These factors

are concerned with the individuals and the governments. Whereas after the resumption of work,

safety behaviors are within the physical and organizational boundaries, usually hidden from the

direct interventions of government officials. Therefore, employees’ only commitment to preven-

tive behavior and organizations and their members are the external factors that may influence

an individual’s health and safety behavior at work. Limited research is available to investigate

employee behaviors once they join their organization (Yuan et al., ). So, this research inves-

tigates organizational roles and employee behavior once they return to work during the Covid-

pandemic after the first wave was over.

The leadership role is significant, particularly in the Covid- scenario (Antonakis, ), as

they have to simultaneously manage the performance and employees’ well-being (Kirchner et al.,

). However, less attention has been paid to determining the preventive employee behaviors

that contribute to the adoption and non-adoption of preventive employee behaviors at the work-

place. At an uncertain time, organizations and leadership are the two sources to provide authentic

information to their employee to adopt preventive behavior in the workplace (Sriharan et al.,

), especially in the presence of rumors and conspiracies that hinder the factual information

(Jolley & Paterson, ; Roozenbeek et al., ). Organizations speak through their action and

policies (Windscheid et al., ), and leaders’ actions and words speak of their intention and

geniuses of the issue (Leroy et al., ).

Organizational actions trickle down to employees through social learning and information cues

(Boekhorst, ;Peng&Wei,). Hence, promptness and instruction through lip services are

not enough to motivate individuals to comply (Gravina et al., ). Despite the phenomenon’s

importance, researchers paid little attention to knowing the preventive behavior of employees

due to the influence of organizational actions and leaders’ behavior. Hence, based on the logic of

social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, ), the study sees how organizational

actions and leadership behavior shape employees’ preventive behavior in organizations.

Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, ) posits that in times of uncer-

tainty, individuals interpret the information in their environment by analyzing past information

that signifies their attitude and behavior. The source of information is behavioral experience,

observation, and people around them (Chen et al., ). Employees take leaders’ actions as

a source of factual information that shapes their attitudes and behavior in the very context

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 3

(Paustian-Underdahl & Halbesleben, ). Organizational action affects and is affected by var-

ious stakeholders. To cater to this, they formulate their actions on two different bases. Symbolic

actions are organizational efforts to manage stakeholders’ impressions that are loosely coupled

with daily activities (Elsbach, ). An organization’s substantive actions aim to change daily

activities in the focal direction by incorporating them into performance indicators (Suchman,

). This study tries to find the impact of organizational actions in the form of symbolic and

substantive health and safety measures on the perception of a leader’s integrity and, ultimately,

the employee’s preventive behavior. Employees see the organization, leaders, or peers as a source

of authentic information. However, doubt or inconsistency might create suspicion in their mind

toward the power source. Conspiracy belief refers to the explanatory belief(s) that harmful effects

are a result of malicious action of powerful agents (i.e., managers, organizations, or countries) (van

Prooijen & de Vries, ). The study further tries to find the mediating role of conspiracy beliefs

about management between organization actions in framing the employee preventive behavior of

employees. Additionally, the study investigates the moderating role of behavioral integrity on the

link between organizational actions (substantive vs. symbolic) and employee conspiracy beliefs.

This study contributes to the existing literature in many ways. First, it refreshes the vital but

neglected part of employees’ well-being by prioritizing their health and safety (Parker Lee, )

in organizational actions. Second, manifesting organizational actions of health (either symbolic

or substantive) facilitate employees to embrace preventive behavior or not. Third, the study links

information queues from organizational actions as a decision criterion for employees to per-

ceive their leader’s integrity and conspiracy about management. Fourth, the study contributes

by manifesting leadership integrity as decision criteria for employees to decide on their pre-

ventive behavior in the wake of ambiguities and misinformation related to Covid-. Fifth, the

study further proposes how leader safety behavior develops the climate to prioritize safety or

not. The leader’s behavior acts as a buffer to the situation by curbing the ambiguities and shapes

individuals’ behavior (Paustian-Underdahl & Halbesleben, ).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Social information processing theory and preventive behavior

Preventive behavior was favorable during Covid- (Bashirian et al., ). According to the recent

recommendation of the World Health Organization, preventive behavior has been identified as a

real effective solution to tackle problems like viruses, especially when we face a supply short-

age of vaccines for the public (World Health Organization, ). Researchers (e.g., Kowalski &

Black, ) have defined preventive behavior as an array of attitudes, emotions, and behavior to

cope with their prevention. It includes different aspects of social distancing as compliance toward

personal hygiene that shows relevancy even in situations that have been generated due to the

Covid- breakthrough (Adunlin et al., ; Bashirian et al., ). Preventive behavior is not

only a solution to keep oneself safe from infection, but rather it also decreases the frequency of

virus suspicion, thereby guarding society (e.g., Ranjit et al., ).

People in many parts of the globe are reluctant to follow preventive measures. Especially

after resuming work, employees are still supposed to follow preventive measures (Shaw et al.,

). However, various factors affect the adoption of preventive behavior (McCarthy et al., ;

4NAWAZ  .

Wegemer & von Keyserlingk, ). These include but are not limited to culture (Biddlestone

et al., ), conspiracy beliefs (Alper et al., ), trust in government and management (Oleksy

et al., ), age, education (Haischer et al., ), etc. The rumors on mainstream media and

social media also raise doubt in people’s minds (Yu et al., ). In such a confusing situation,

people tend to look at some authentic source of information (Xia et al., ). For an employee

working in an organization, the organization, and members of the organization, including peers

and leaders, act as an information source (He et al., ). According to social information

processing theory, people tend to interpret the information from their surroundings and work

environment and decide their behavior (Vlachos et al., ).

Inside the organization’s boundaries, the entity and management are responsible for ensuring

compliance with these measures (Fernandez & Shaw, ). These compliance strategies include

social distancing by marking “distance marks,” “no service without a mask,” frequent washing of

hands, avoidance of gathering in close places, etc. However, organizations sometimes take such

measures to show compliance rather than practicing them (Kao et al., ). Such organizations

only symbolize these actions to avoid legal and social pressures. On the other hand, some organiza-

tions take substantive actions by ensuring compliance with these preventive measures in their true

spirit (Rochira et al., ). Additionally, they allow the employee to work from home (Chanana

& Sangeeta, ), helping them to cope with difficult situations (Haque, ) and take action

about employees’ well-being (Carnevale & Hatak, ). As an insider, employees have better

access to and understand the information. They see organizational actions as a business strategy

or care of employees. Hence, based on their information and insider status, employees attribute

the organizational actions to either symbolic or substantive (Donia et al., ).

The present study has incorporated the framework of Social Information Processing theory

(Salancik & Pfeffer, ). The framework is suitable in this situation because uncertainty, infor-

mation abundance or disbelief, and conspiracies confuse the situation (Oleksy et al., ). The

logic of social information processing theory is simple in the behavioral context (Dodge & Godwin,

). Once an individual is uncertain about any information, or behavior, they seek help from

their surroundings, organization, peers, and leaders (Meyer, ). They try to authenticate the

situation with the information they receive from these sources (Chen et al., ). In recent litera-

ture, Lu et al. () highlighted that in a situation full of risk and uncertainty, employees observe

their management’s actions and behavior. Employees verify their observations about conspiracies

and then try to act accordingly. Specifically, in the case of Covid-, the rumors created confusion

in employees’ minds about compliance with preventive behaviors (Uscinski et al., ). Sym-

bolic actions shake their trust in management, organizations, and the context as a non-serious

issue (Erisen, ). In contrast, substantive actions strengthen employees’ trust. The seriousness

of the problem, also shapes their behavior. As a second effort, the employees critically observe

and take a cue from leaders’ actions to perceive their word deed consistency (Integrity) regarding

Covid-.

Role of symbolic and substantive organizational actions

Being the integral component of corporate social responsibilities, the provision of health and a

safe environment is emphasized in corporate culture. Responding to various stakeholders’ pres-

sures, the organization verbally implements health and safety regulations or through substantive

actions that determine safety compliance (Kachanoff et al., ). Existing research by Truong

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 5

et al. () highlighted the non-convincing power of symbolic actions that reflect the organiza-

tion’s prevention. The study also highlighted the importance of substantive actions with symbolic

actions in the precaution of complete prevention of Covid-.

Symbolic actions describe the intention of an entity (individual or organization) adapt a behav-

ior merely as a reaction or response to a stimulus without internalizing it. However, substantive

behavior can influence people toward the target behavior because it motivates employee by help-

ing them in difficulty. In the Covid- context, symbolic actions represent a mere exhibition of

compliance rather than practicing the required steps (Shabana & Ravlin, ) to avoid the spread

of Covid-. On the other hand, serious actions by organization in the form of implementation of

Covid- SOPs is perceived as substantive actions by employees. In a study, Truong et al. ()

elaborated that conformity and actual practicality of every behavior comes at the cost of com-

promises. That is why an organization shows symbolic prevention loosely coupled with actual

prevention, while substantive prevention plays an integral role in avoiding the spread of Covid-.

Some authors (i.e., Berrone et al., ) declared the significance of substantive behavior and

argued that exceeding minimum requirements may also confer legitimacy so that once minimal

standards are met, organizations are likely to continue working to be the best or the most admired

(Delmas & Montes-Sancho, ). Strengthening the point, Berrone et al. () research claim

that substantive actions bring radical changes in health and safety systems because it ensures

people’s commitment and clear compliance with safety measures. Once employees find their orga-

nization as caring. They take it as an information cue that points toward the seriousness of the

issue. The employees use authentic information to shape their preventive behavior. On the other

hand, if they find their organization following preventive measures to avoid legal actions, they

take the issue (the Covid-) as non-serious. They take organizational emphasis as a conspiracy

against lower-level employees (van Prooijen & de Vries, ).

A growing body of research discusses conspiracy beliefs by focusing on their antecedents

(Uscinski et al., ) or consequences (Douglas & Leite, ). On the antecedents’ side, infor-

mation cues are affected by unreliable or doubtful information that creates disbelief toward the

originating entity (Oleksy et al., ). The employees consider their managers as an agent of

the organization and other forces outside the organizational domains. Organizational substantive

preventive actions are considered genuine efforts that strengthen their trust in the organization.

On the other hand, symbolic actions portray the nonseriousness of the organization toward the

issue. This builds a perception of conspiracy about management. The abundance of information

and lack of authenticity creates confusion in their minds (Oleksy et al., ). Besides this, con-

spiracies about the context also strengthen the confusion about leadership (Erisen, ). The

employees learn from the organizational actions and try to be minimally involved in preventive

behavior but for compulsory compliance. Based on the above logic, we hypothesize that

Hypothesis a: Organization symbolic preventive actions negatively affect employee preven-

tive behavior.

Hypothesis b: Organization symbolic preventive actions positively affect employee conspir-

acy beliefs about the organization and management.

Hypothesis a: Organization substantive prevention has a positive association with employee

preventive behavior.

Hypothesis b: Substantive preventive actions negatively affect employee conspiracy beliefs

about the organization and management.

6NAWAZ  .

Mediating role conspiracy belief about management and organization

Gogarty and Hagle () informed about the emergence of conspiracy theories with the massive

rise of Covid-. Literature has defined conspiracy belief as “an explanation of historical, ongoing,

or future events that cites as a main causal factor a group of powerful persons, the conspirators,

acting in secret for their benefit against the common good” (Uscinski et al., ). Banai et al.

() findings highlighted that why people believing in conspiracy theories avoid adopting pre-

ventive measures during Covid-. The study concluded that conspiracy belief causes distrust in

people’s minds on governmental policies and preventive measures and the distrust prevents them

from preventive behavior.

Before the inception of the vaccine, preventive behavior was considered the only guard against

Covid-. However, compliance with preventive measures was drastically affected by conspiracy

beliefs about the pandemic disease. Moreover, these conspiracy beliefs regarding propaganda and

the non-control reality of Covid- have been found as negatively related to vaccination inten-

tion and preventive behavior (Romer & Jamieson, ). Recent research claimed that conspiracy

belief reduces public attention to such prevention measures (Romer & Jamieson, ). Because

that belief decreases public compliance with health and safety guidelines (McCarthy et al., ;

Stanković et al., ).

Adding to that, previous literature (e.g., Douglas & Leite, ) stated that individuals living

with conspiracy beliefs promote negative attitudes and bring hindrances to scientific researchers

in proposing preventive precautionary measures. Various studies (e.g., Banai et al., ;Erisen,

) highlighted why people believing in conspiracy theories avoid adopting preventive mea-

sures during Covid- (Erisen, ). The conspiracy beliefs generate distrust in people’s minds

on governmental policies and preventive measures and stop them from opting for preventive

behavior (Enders et al., ; Erisen, ). The phenomenon is particular among individuals

in developing countries and from the lower class (Mao et al., ). They feel ostracized (Poon

et al., ; Wegemer & von Keyserlingk, ). If such conspiracy persists within an organiza-

tion, employees neither feel satisfied or committed nor feel they are part of that organization.

Such individuals do not believe their leaders and tend to leave their job even (Douglas & Leite,

). Empirical research also supports the negative association between conspiracy beliefs and

preventive behavior (Enders et al., ;Erisen,).

Using the lens of social information processing theory, we build the logic developed in Hb that

an organization’s symbolic actions strengthen the disbelief that increases the belief in conspiracies

that ultimately reduce the tendency toward preventive behavior. On the other hand, substantive

preventive actions signal the genuineness of the issue that minimizes the belief in a conspiracy

against the organization (Hb), ultimately reducing its negative impact on preventive behavior.

Based on these logics, we hypothesize that.

Hypothesis : Conspiracy belief about management mediates the relationship between

organization symbolic prevention and employee preventive behavior.

Hypothesis : Conspiracy belief about management mediates the relationship between

organization substantive prevention and employee preventive behavior.

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 7

Leader’s behavioral integrity

As Simons et al. () define behavioral integrity as an alignment of an entity’s words and deeds.

Hence, leaders’ behavioral integrity can be defined as a perceived pattern of alignment associated

with the leader’s words and deeds (Vogelgesang et al., ). Consistency in the leader’s behavior

shapes followers’ thoughts (Ete et al., ) by exhibiting predictable behavior. The predictability

becomes more salient in the time of doubt, as in the context of Covid-. Employees frame their

behavior based on their observations of the organization, peers, and leaders. (In)congruence in

organizational policies and actions regarding preventive behavior during Covid- (symbolic or

substantive) shapes the conspiracy belief of the employees (Boudrias et al., ).

Contrary to the previous logic, the organization’s substantive actions curb employees’ negative

sense-making and conspiracy about management. Another authentic source of information that

strengthens the relationship: the manager’s behavior in the form of behavioral integrity. How-

ever, employees perceive organizational actions as lip service, which corroborates organizational

conspiracy. In such a situation, if employees find incongruency between the manager’s words

and actions, they strengthen the ambiguity and their conspiracy beliefs (Leroy et al., ). On

the other hand, managers’ congruent behavior buffers the severity of the relationship and lets

them feel safe in the workplace (Choi et al., ). Employees note the organization’s symbolic

and substantiative preventive actions among the important factors that affect them (Truong et al.,

). These factors are interrelated phenomena that influence an employee differently (Iatridis

& Kesidou, ) and influence their conspiracy beliefs (Enders & Uscinski, ). These beliefs

result from distrusting information in higher authorities (Uscinski et al., ). Contrasting previ-

ous argument, Salancik and Pfeffer’s () theory argues that information from the leaders helps

employees cope with conspiracy beliefs. But a multitude of literature states that conspiracy beliefs

negatively influence preventive measures (e.g., Farias & Pilati, ; Goreis & Kothgassner, ).

Based on the theoretical and empirical support, we hypothesize that

Hypothesis a: Leader’s behavioral integrity moderates the relationship between the organi-

zation’s symbolic action and employee conspiracy beliefs about the organization.

Hypothesis b: Leader’s behavioral integrity moderates the relationship between the organi-

zation’s substantive action and employee conspiracy beliefs about the organization.

Taking the theoretical logic of hypotheses (H,H

,Ha,&H

b), and literature (e.g., Shanka

& Menebo, ), the conspiracy belief resulting from the organization’s actions and leader’s

integrity shapes employee preventive behavior. Applying the logic of Salancik and Pfeffer’s ()

SIP theory, leaders’ behavioral integrity becomes a debatable phenomenon to be explored as a

moderator among the relationship between an organization’s symbolic and substantive actions

and employee preventive behavior via conspiracy beliefs about organization and management.

Therefore, this study has proposed that:

Hypothesis a: Leader’s behavioral integrity moderates the mediated relationship between an

organization’s symbolic action and employee preventive behavior.

Hypothesis b: Leader’s behavioral integrity moderates the mediated relationship between an

organization’s substantive action and employee preventive behavior.

8NAWAZ  .

METHOD

The data was collected from August  to September , , after the end of the first wave

of Covid- in Pakistan (WHO, ). The time was congruent with the study requirement as

most organizations resumed their physical operations. However, government officials made com-

pliance with preventive measures mandatory (Ikram et al., ). As per previous researchers’

recommendations (i.e., Slattery et al., ), the questionnaire was pilot-tested (n =) from

randomly selected participants to assess the suitability of items to the study requirement and

participants. Respondents were mainly concerned about the English language. Hence, the

questionnaire was translated into Urdu by using the back-translation method.

Data were collected in two phases to minimize common method variance (MacKenzie & Pod-

sakoff, ). In the first phase, an invitation was shared over various social media platforms and

respondents were asked to follow the link. The link on the social media guided the respondents

to a page explaining the purpose of the study and invitation to participate in the study. In the

first phase, respondents were asked to give their demographic information, including gender,

age, education, type of employment, experience, and contact details for future correspondence

regarding this study. The subsequent section of the questionnaire was designed to collect data

regarding organizational preventive actions and their (employees) perceptions about their man-

agers/supervisors’ integrity. A total of  responses were received. Out of these  responses, 

were discarded due to self-employed or unemployed respondents, yielding a total of  respon-

dents. During the second phase, after  weeks, the respondents (n =) were contacted via email

or their WhatsApp contact for the second round of data collection, that is, their conspiracy beliefs

about management and their preventive behavior. The final sample consists of  responses from

full-time employees (% male, with an average age of . years). The respondents were from var-

ious industries, including academia (%), health (%), manufacturing (%), transportation and

logistics (%), hospitality (%), and others (%).

Measures

All the measures were adapted from established literature with slight modifications to fit the

requirement of the study. Unless otherwise mentioned, all responses were rated on a five-point

Likert scale ranging from  (not at all) to  (to a great extent). Employee perception about organiza-

tional substantive preventive actions was measured with five items from Hyatt and Berente ()

with excellent reliability (α=.). Sample items include “Our management gives a high priority

to employee health & safety issues.” Similarly, employee perception of organizational symbolic

preventive actions was measured using five items from Bowen et al. () with good reliability

(α=.). Sample items include “Being seen at the forefront of employee health & safety stan-

dards.” Employees’ perception of leaders’ behavioral integrity was measured with a reliable (α=

.) four items scale (Simons et al., ).

Conspiracy belief about management was measured with nine items from van Prooijen and

de Vries (). The sample item is “Our management had hidden goals which will benefit only

them.” The scale is also reliable (α=.). Employee preventive behavior was measured with five

behaviors recommended by WHO as a preventive measure against Covid- (Karić & Me¯

dedović,

). Besides this, respondent was asked about the suffering or death of their family, friend, or

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 9

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations between primary study variables

MSD1234567

. Gender . . –

. Age in years . . . –

. Substantive preventive

actions

. . . –. –

. Symbolic preventive

actions

. . . . .** –

. Behavioral integrity . . –. –. –. –. –

. Conspiracy beliefs . . –.* . –. –. .** –

. Employee preventive

behavior

. . . –. –. –.** –.** –.** –

n=.

**p<., *p<., two-tailed.

relative on a dichotomous scale of yes/no to control for the confounding effect of these factors

(Irigoyen-Camacho et al., ).

RESULTS

Table summarize the descriptive and correlation results. Data analysis was done using variance-

based structural equation modeling (SEM) using smartPLS software (e.g., Ringle et al., ).

Research suggests using PLS-SEM for small samples, complex models, nonnormal data, and

prediction-oriented research (e.g., Hair et al., ). As the study aims to predict Employee pre-

ventive behavior, and the sample is relatively small, the partial least square method is the best

choice (Hair et al., ). The analysis includes the outer and inner models’ assessment (e.g., Hair

et al., ). Outer model assessment encircles, reliability assessment, inter-item reliability, and

establishment of convergent and discriminant validity (e.g., Chin, ). The structural model

assessment covers path assessment, including direct, indirect, and moderation assessment, along

with an assessment of the predictive capability of the model (e.g., Hair et al., ).

Measurement model

Items’ loadings were used to ensure inter-item reliability with a threshold of ≥. (Chin, ;

Hair et al., ). Convergent validity was checked with average variance extracted (AVE) against

a benchmark value of ≥. (Henseler & Chin, ). internal consistency reliability was assessed

with composite reliability and Cronbach alpha value and found all values above the minimum of

≥. (Nawaz et al., ; Ringle et al., ). The results of measurement model are summarized

in Table .

Table summarize the results of discriminant validity. For assessment of discriminant validity,

Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio criteria with ≤. cut-off value was applied (Henseler et al.,

). This criterion answers the critiques of former Fornell and Larcker () criteria. All the

HTMT values are below ≤., ascertaining discriminant validity (Voorhees et al., ).

10 NAWAZ  .

TABLE 2 Measurement model results for symbolic and substantive preventive actions on employees’

preventive behavior

Factor Items Loadings AVE Cronbach’s-αCR

Behavioral

integrity

BI_ . . . .

BI_ .

BI_ .

BI_ .

Employee

conspiracy

belief

ConsB_ . . . .

ConsB_ .

ConsB_R .

ConsB_ .

ConsB_ .

ConsB_ .

ConsB_ .

Employee

Preventive

Behavior

EPB_ . . . .

EPB_ .

EPB_ .

EPB_ .

Substantive

Preventive

measures

OrgSub_ . . . .

OrgSub_ .

OrgSub_ .

OrgSub_ .

OrgSub_ .

Symbolic

Preventive

Measures

Symb_PA_ . . . .

Symb_PA__ .

Symb_PA__ .

Symb_PA__ .

Symb_PA__ .

Note: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability.

TABLE 3 Discriminant validity results for symbolic and substantive preventive actions on employees’

preventive behavior

12345

. Behavioral integrity –

. Conspiracy belief . –

. Employee preventive

behavior

. . –

. Substantive preventive

actions

. . . –

. Symbolic preventive

actions

. . . . –

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 11

FIGURE 1 Structural model for direct, indirect and moderating effects. The dotted lines represent indirect

relationships between IV and DV through mediator. The bold lines represent the significant relationships as per

the given criteria *p <.; **p <..

Hypotheses testing

Table summarizes the results of path assessment. Following PLS-SEM literature, authors used

path coefficients and significance assessment procedure for path analysis (e.g., Ringle et al., ).

Hypothesisa posits, negative relationship between symbolic preventive actions and employee

preventive behavior was found significant (b* =–., t=., p<.). Contrary to this, Hypothe-

sis b which is positive relationship between symbolic preventive actions and employee conspiracy

beliefs, do not support it (b* =., t=., p=.). Similarly, positive association between substan-

tive preventive actions and employee preventive behavior (Hypothesisa) was not supported (b* =

., t=., p=.). Hypothesis b that is negative relationship between organization substantive

actions and conspiracy beliefs found significant (b* =–., t=., p=.). Hypothesis  which

is mediating role of conspiracy belief between organizational substantive preventive actions and

employee preventive behavior. We followed Preacher and Hayes () method for indirect path

using  bootstrapping. Results confirm mediating role of conspiracy belief (b* =., t=.,

p=.) hence, accepting hypothesis . Similarly, hypothesis , posits mediating role of conspir-

acy belief between organizational symbolic preventive actions and employee preventive behavior.

However, the results do not support the indirect relationship (b* =–., t=., p=.). Figure 

exhibits the relationships between variables.

Hypothesis a proposes that relationship between symbolic preventive action and conspir-

acy beliefs will be stronger when managers/supervisors are perceived to exhibit low behavioral

12 NAWAZ  .

TABLE 4 Direct, indirect and moderating effects for research model

Hypothesis Path Coefficient SD t p

Hypothesisa Symbolic Preventive

Actions →Employee

Preventive Behavior

–. . . .

Hypothesis b Symbolic Preventive

Actions →Conspiracy

Belief

. . . .

Hypothesis a Substantive Preventive

Actions→Employee

Preventive Behavior

. . . .

Hypothesis b Substantive Preventive

Actions →Conspiracy

Belief

–. . . .

Hypothesis  Symbolic Preventive

Actions →Conspiracy

Belief →Employee

Preventive Behavior

–. . . .

Hypothesis  Substantive Preventive

Actions →Conspiracy

Belief →Employee

Preventive Behavior

. . . .

Hypothesis a Symbolic Preventive

Actions * Behavioral

integrity →

Conspiracy Belief

–. . . .

Hypothesis b Substantive Preventive

Actions * Behavioral

integrity →

Conspiracy Belief

–. . . .

Hypothesis a Symbolic Preventive

Actions * Behavioral

integrity →

Conspiracy Belief

→Employee

Preventive Behavior

. . . .

Hypothesis b Substantive Preventive

Actions * Behavioral

integrity →

Conspiracy Belief →

Employee Preventive

Behavior

. . . .

**p<., *p<..

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 13

FIGURE 2 Two-way interaction graph - symbolic preventive action * behavioral integrity

integrity than high behavioral integrity. To get the interaction term (Symbolic preventive action *

Behavioral integrity), the product indicator approach is used by multiplying each indicator of sym-

bolic preventive actions and behavioral integrity (e.g., Ringle et al., ). The results (b* =., t=

., p=.) do not support the proposed moderating role of behavioral integrity on positive rela-

tionship between organizational symbolic preventive actions and conspiracy beliefs of employee

(Hypothesis a). The interaction graph (see Figure ) also complement the results. As lines for

both low and high behavioral integrity are parallel indicating that relationship between symbolic

preventive actions and conspiracy belief is same for high and low levels of integrity perception.

Hypothesis b proposed that negative relationship between substantive preventive actions and

conspiracy beliefs would be weaker when managers/supervisors are perceived to exhibit high

behavioral integrity than low behavioral integrity. The coefficient of the product term (Substantive

preventive action * Behavioral Integrity) is significant, indicating a significant interaction effect

(b* =–., t=., p=.); hence, it supports the moderating role of behavioral integrity on

relationship between substantive preventive actions and employee conspiracy beliefs (Hypothesis

b).

The interaction graph (see Figure ) that complements the results. At a low level of behavioral

integrity showing a slight change in the conspiracy belief due to substantive actions. While con-

spiracy is minimum once both behavioral integrity and substantive prevention actions are high.

This indicates that relationship between substantive preventive actions and conspiracy belief is

weaker when perception of behavioral integrity is high.

Finally, results indicate that relational string, “Symbolic preventive actions * behavioral

integrity →conspiracy belief→employee preventive behavior” is not significant (b* =., t=

., p=.) of moderated mediation path. Contrary to this, results (b* =., t=., p=.)

14 NAWAZ  .

FIGURE 3 Two-way interaction graph - substantive preventive action * behavioral integrity

support causal string “Substantive preventive actions * Behavioral Integrity →conspiracy belief→

employee preventive behavior.” The Rvalues for conspiracy beliefs and preventive behavior are

. and ., respectively.

DISCUSSION

By developing and testing a model that sees the impact of organizational preventive actions on

employee preventive behavior through their conspiracy belief about organization and manage-

ment, this study contributes to theory and practice in multiple ways. First, the role of organization

and leadership became even more critical during the pandemic, and recent literature documented

this need. Individuals search for authentic sources of information to establish their beliefs and

subsequent behavior. The pandemic was full of doubts and misinformation that blurred the whole

scenario. This study adds to the literature by extending the role of organization and leadership

in shaping employees’ beliefs and behavior during pandemics and similar situations. Second,

employees critically evaluate the originations’ actions and attribute them positively or negatively.

Due to their insider status, employees are better positioned to attribute substantive or symbolic

organizational actions based on their observations. The study highlighted the importance of orga-

nizational substantive or symbolic actions in shaping employees’ preventive behavior during

Covid-.

Third, according to social information processing theory, an individual seeks help from an

authentic source of information in an ambiguous situation. However, once the authenticity of

the source becomes questionable due to an inconsistent line of actions, it creates distrust about

the whole system and the source itself. Following these lines of reasoning, this study highlighted

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 15

conspiracy beliefs about organizations and management as a mechanism that explains the behav-

ior of employees working in those organizations. Fourth, another authentic source in social circles

is the manager/supervisor, who are role models in most cases. Employees see them and decide

their course of action. This study highlighted a manager/supervisor’s behavioral integrity (word-

deeds consistency) as a lens through which employees see organizational actions to form their

beliefs, and ultimately their behavior, even if it concerns their health.

There are consistencies as well anomalies in the finding based on expectations. For exam-

ple, the relationship between organizational substantive preventive actions regarding employees’

health and safety was significant with employee conspiracy beliefs. The results are consistent with

studies that believe that organizations’ substantive actions are an enabler of positive outcomes

and inhibitors of adverse effects (Donia et al., ; Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, ). These stud-

ies conclude substantive organizational actions contribute to organizational image (Truong et al.,

), identification (Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, ), organizational fit (Donia et al., ) trust

that ultimately predict employees’ positive behavior (Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, ). Contrary to

these consistencies, the study finds no significant association between organizational symbolic

preventive actions regarding health and safety and employee conspiracy beliefs. The findings

are anomalous with literature that suggest a negative association between symbolic actions and

negative attitudes and behavior (Truong et al., ).

Similarly, the results corroborate the conclusion that substantive organizational actions curb

employee conspiracy beliefs that improve preventive behavior (e.g., Oleksy et al., ). Employee

conspiracy beliefs act as a mediating mechanism to link organizational actions and employee

behavior. However, our findings partially support the claim. The hypothesis (H) does not sup-

port the proposition that an organization’s symbolic actions enhance employee conspiracy beliefs

that inhibit them from showing preventive behavior. The findings are inconsistent with studies

that believe the attribution of actions fuels conspiracy beliefs because they address the motive of

attribution (Bost & Prunier, ;Oleksyetal.,). On the contrary, substantive organizational

actions negatively affect conspiracy beliefs that help promote preventive behavior. The negative

association between conspiracy beliefs and preventive or compliance behavior is consistent with

extant literature (Bierwiaczonek et al., ).

The results of this study suggest that the negative association between substantive actions and

conspiracy beliefs will be stronger when employees perceive their managers as exhibiting a higher

level of behavioral integrity than a lower level of integrity. These findings are aligned with exist-

ing literature that concludes leadership behavior is a lens that forms the attitude and behavior of

employees (Paustian-Underdahl & Halbesleben, ). The study also demonstrates that leader’s

integrity moderates the indirect relationship between an organization’s substantive preventive

actions and employee preventive behavior via conspiracy beliefs. Moreover, the results partially

support the proposition that a leader’s integrity moderates the indirect relation between organi-

zational actions and employee preventive behavior via their conspiracy beliefs. The findings are

in line with literature that concludes individual or contextual factors moderate the relationship

between institutions and preventive behavior (e.g., Shanka & Menebo, ).

Theoretical contribution

The study contributes to the literature in multiple ways. First, the study extends the attribution

of organizational preventive actions into substantive and symbolic ones that curb or strengthen

the conspiracy belief of employees. In this way, the authors extend the literature that external

16 NAWAZ  .

and internal stakeholders keep an eye on organizational actions to form and strengthen their

beliefs. Second, this study contributes to social information processing theory by considering

organizational actions as builders of information cues that help shape beliefs and behavior. The

study further contributes to SIP theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, ) by explaining the mechanism

(conspiracy beliefs) that form the information cues situation assessment that helps individuals

to structure their behavior. Fourth, the study highlighted leaders’ behavioral integrity as a lens

through which employee analyze organizational actions and their subsequent behavior. For exam-

ple, from moderation analysis, it is evident that employees do not decide their behavior only based

on organizational actions. Instead, they see these activities through the lens of leaders’ behavioral

integrity. When they find their leaders/managers/supervisors high in exhibiting integrity, they

ignore the organization’s wrong actions and follow preventive behavior. The study also contributes

to SIP by explaining why organizational actions or leaders’ behavior is essential. For example, in

high-integrity cases, managers’ integrity is the determiner of preventive behavior, whereas, in the

case of low integrity, the organization’s substantive actions dominate in determining employee

behavior.

Practical implications

Multiple managerial implications can be drawn from this study. First, the study suggests the

importance of substantive actions in reducing employees’ conspiracy beliefs and subsequent

behavior. It is crucial for managers that employees see the substantive actions as a serious

step toward their betterment; otherwise, mere symbolic actions may corroborate their conspir-

acy beliefs and the seriousness of the issue. The study also highlighted the importance of the

managers’/supervisor’s behavior. It is also important to note that employees critically observe

managers’ actions. If they find it aligned with their values and words, it motivates them to

disbelieve in conspiracies, and even the organizational image-building efforts are attributed pos-

itively. In the opposite case of low integrity, employees see organizational actions with doubts.

So, organizations must see their actions align with their values and words. It is also vital for

managers to know that employees seek guidance from organizational and managerial actions.

Mainly managers must generate a clear message to impart the seriousness of the situation. Man-

agers’ behavior of “following their words” decreases employees’ conspiracy beliefs and promotes

preventive behavior among them. Thus, managers can use their actions as a tool to augment

organizational policies.

Limitations and future research direction

It is essential to note some limitations in the present research. First, the data was collected in two

intervals to avoid common method biases. Even then, the chances of CMB cannot be neglected

due to self-desirability bias. Future research may utilize a multi-rater data collection method or

objective data of a dependent variable. Another limitation related to data is the small sample

size (n =) that inflates the confidence interval. Future studies may use a large sample to get

rigor in the estimation. Second, respondents’ prior beliefs and situations may act as confound-

ing factors to affect their preventive behavior. Authors controlled for the suffering or death of a

friend or relative/family member due to Covid- to curb the effect of situational factors. Even

then, the chance of these confounding factors cannot be eliminated. Future researchers may use

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 17

experimental design to control maximum factors to get an accurate picture. Besides this, people

in developing countries and collectivist cultures tend to believe conspiracy theories (Mao et al.,

). Hence, a multi-culture sample in future studies will help to understand the comparison.

Employee job insecurity is a major factor in abiding by the organization’s compliance rules and

preventive behavior. Such employees do not even consider the workplace’s injustice and ignore

every good or bad to secure their job. Job security may act as a boundary condition determining

compliance even in unfavorable situations. Relationships with supervisors’ act as a boundary con-

dition to shape managers’ perception and behavior. This was not considered in this study. Future

research might consider the three-way interaction effect of leader-member exchange (LMX) and

organizational actions to see its effect on employee conspiracy beliefs and preventive behavior.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This article has a project file as a reference. Through project file complete analysis can be run in

SmartPLS with a single click. So, derived data supporting the findings of this study are available

from the corresponding author on request.

ORCID

Asif Nawaz https://orcid.org/---

Shuaib Ahmed Soomro https://orcid.org/---

REFERENCES

Adunlin, G., Adedoyin, A.C.A., Adedoyin, O.O., Njoku, A., Bolade-Ogunfodun, Y. & Bolaji, B. () Using the

protection motivation theory to examine the effects of fear arousal on the practice of social distancing during

the Covid- outbreak in rural areas. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, (-), –.

https://doi.org/./..

Alper, S., Bayrak, F. & Yilmaz, O. () Psychological correlates of Covid- conspiracy beliefs and preventive mea-

sures: evidence from Turkey. Current Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/./s---



Antonakis, J. () Leadership to defeat Covid-. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,(),–.https://

doi.org/./

Banai, I.P., Banai, B. & Mikloušić, I. () Beliefs in COVID- conspiracytheories, compliance with the preventive

measures, and trust in government medical officials. Current Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/.

/s---y

Bashirian, S., Jenabi, E., Khazaei, S., Barati, M., Karimi-Shahanjarini, A., Zareian, S., et al. () Factors associated

with preventive behaviours of Covid- among hospital staff in Iran in : an application of the Protection

Motivation Theory. Journal of Hospital Infection, (), –. https://doi.org/./j.jhin...

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Larraza-Kintana, M. () Socioemotional wealth and corporate

responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly,

(), –. https://doi.org/./asqu....

Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L. & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. () Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions:

institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, (), –. https://

doi.org/./smj.

Biddlestone, M., Green, R. & Douglas, K.M. () Cultural orientation, power, belief in conspiracy theories, and

intentions to reduce the spread of Covid-. British Journal of Social Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/

./bjso.

18 NAWAZ  .

Bierwiaczonek, K., Gundersen, A.B. & Kunst, J.R. () The role of conspiracy beliefs for Covid- health

responses: A meta-analysis. Current Opinion in Psychology.https://doi.org/./j.copsyc..

Boekhorst, J.A. () The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: a social information

processing perspective. Human Resource Management, (), –. https://doi.org/./hrm.

Bost, P.R. & Prunier, S.G. () Rationality in conspiracy beliefs: the role of perceived motive. PsychologicalReports,

(), –. https://doi.org/./..PR..z

Boudrias, J.-S., Rousseau, V. & Lajoie, D. () How lack of integrity and tyrannical leadership of managers influ-

ence employee improvement-oriented behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, (), –. https://doi.org/.

/s---

Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. & Farukt, A.C. () The role of supply management capabilities in

green supply. Production and Operations Management, (), –. https://doi.org/./j.- ..

tb.x

Carnevale, J.B. & Hatak, I. () Employee adjustment and wellbeing in the era of Covid-: implications for

human resource management. Journal of Business Research,,–.https://doi.org/./j.jbusres..

.

Chanana, N., & Sangeeta. () Employee engagement practices during Covid- lockdown. Journal of Public

Affairs, ():e. https://doi.org/./pa.

Chen, Z., Takeuchi, R. & Shum, C. () A social information processing perspective of coworker influence on a

focal employee. Organization Science, (), –. https://doi.org/./orsc..

Chin, W.W. () The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.)

Modern methods for business research. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Vol. , pp. –.

Chin, W.W. () How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi,V., Chin,W.W., Henseler,J.,

&Wang,H.(Eds.)Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg:

Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. –.

Choi, Y., Yoon, D.J. & Kim, D. () Leader behavioral integrity and employee in-role performance: the roles of

coworker support and job autonomy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,(),

–. https://doi.org/./ijerph

Coroiu, A., Moran, C., Campbell, T.& Geller, A.C. () Barriers and facilitators of adherence to social distancing

recommendations during Covid- among a large international sample of adults. PLoS ONE, (), e.

https://doi.org/./journal.pone.

Delmas, M.A. & Montes-Sancho, M.J. () Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: symbolic

and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, (), –. https://doi.org/./smj.

Dodge, K.A. & Godwin, J. () Social-information-processing patterns mediate the impact of preventive

intervention on adolescent antisocial behavior. Psychological Science, (), –. https://doi.org/./



Donia, M.B.L., Ronen, S., Tetrault Sirsly, C.-A. & Bonaccio, S. () CSR by any other name? The differential

impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, (),

–. https://doi.org/./s---

Donia, M.B.L. & Tetrault Sirsly, C.-A. () Determinants and consequences of employee attributions of corporate

social responsibility as substantive or symbolic. European Management Journal, (), –. https://doi.org/

./j.emj...

Douglas, K.M. & Leite, A.C. () Suspicion in the workplace: organizational conspiracy theories and work-related

outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/./bjop.

Elsbach, K.D. () Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational Behavior, , –.

https://doi.org/./S-()-

Enders, A.M. & Uscinski, J.E. () Are misinformation, antiscientific claims, and conspiracy theories for political

extremists? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, (), –. https://doi.org/./

Enders, A.M., Uscinski, J.E., Klofstad, C. & Stoler, J. () The different forms of COVID- misinformation and

their consequences. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.https://doi.org/./mr--

Erisen, C. () Psychological foundations and behavioralconsequences of Covid- conspiracy theory beliefs: the

Turkish case. International Political Science Review,https://doi.org/./

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 19

Ete, Z., Epitropaki, O., Zhou, Q. & Graham, L. () Leader and organizational behavioral integrity and follower

behavioral outcomes: the role of identification processes. Journal of Business Ethics, , –. https://doi.org/

./s---

Farias, J. & Pilati, R. () Covid- as an undesirable political issue: conspiracy beliefs and intolerance of uncer-

tainty predict adhesion to prevention measures. Current Psychology,–.https://doi.org/./s--

-

Fernandez, A.A. & Shaw, G.P. () Academic leadership in a time of crisis: the coronavirus and Covid-. Journal

of Leadership Studies, (), –. https://doi.org/./jls.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. () Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,(),–.https://doi.org/./

Gogarty,K.&Hagle,C.()A guide to right-wing media reactions and conspiracy theories surrounding coron-

avirus. Media Matters Am, , . Retrieved from. https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-/guide-

right-wing-media- coronavirus-reactions- and-conspiracy-theories

Goreis, A. & Kothgassner, O.D. () Social media as vehicle for conspiracy beliefs on Covid-. Digital Psychology,

(), –. https://doi.org/./dp.vi.

Gravina, N., Nastasi, J.A., Sleiman, A.A., Matey, N. & Simmons, D.E. () Behavioral strategies for reducing

disease transmission in the workplace. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, (), –. https://doi.org/

./jaba.

Gursoy, D. & Chi, C.G. () Effects of Covid- pandemic on hospitality industry: review of the current situations

and a research agenda. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, (), –. https://doi.org/./

..

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. () PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, (), –. https://doi.org/./MTP-

Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. & Ringle, C.M. () When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.

European Business Review, (), –. https://doi.org/./ebr---

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M. & Ringle, C.M. () Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European

Journal of Marketing, (), –. https://doi.org/./EJM---

Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. () A primer on partial least squares structural equation

modeling (PLS-SEM) (Second ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Haischer, M.H., Beilfuss, R., Hart, M.R., Opielinski, L., Wrucke, D., Zirgaitis, G., et al. () Who is wear-

ing a mask? Gender-, age-, and location-related differences during the Covid- pandemic. PLoS ONE, (),

e. https://doi.org/./journal.pone.

Haque, A. () The Covid- pandemic and the role of responsible leadership in health care: thinking beyond

employee wellbeing and organisational sustainability. Leadership in Health Services,(),–.https://doi.

org/./LHS---

He, B., He, Q. & Muddassar, S. () Inclusive leadership and subordinates’ pro-social rule breaking in the work-

place: mediating role of self-efficacy and moderating role of employee relations climate. Psychology Research

and Behavior Management, , –. https://doi.org/./PRBM.S

Henseler, J. & Chin, W.W. () A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent

variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,

(), –. https://doi.org/./

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. () A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-

based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,(),–.https://doi.org/

./s---

Hyatt, D.G. & Berente, N. () Substantive or symbolic environmental strategies? Effects of external and internal

normative stakeholder pressures. Business Strategy and the Environment, (), –. https://doi.org/.

/bse.

Iatridis, K. & Kesidou, E. () What drives substantive versus symbolic implementation of iso  in a time

of economic crisis? Insights from Greek manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Ethics, (), –.

https://doi.org/./s---

Ikram, M., Zhang, Q., Sroufe, R. & Ferasso, M. () The social dimensions of corporate sustainability: an

integrative framework including COVID- Insights. Sustainability, (). https://doi.org/./su

20 NAWAZ  .

Irigoyen-Camacho, M.E., Velazquez-Alva, M.C., Zepeda-Zepeda, M.A., Cabrer-Rosales, M.F., Lazarevich, I. &

Castaño-Seiquer, A. () Effect of income level and perception of susceptibility and severity of covid- on stay-

at-home preventive behavior in a group of older adults in mexico city. International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health, (), . https://doi.org/./ijerph

Jolley, D. & Paterson, J.L. () Pylons ablaze: examining the role of G Covid- conspiracy beliefs and support

for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/./bjso.

Kachanoff, F.J., Bigman, Y.E., Kapsaskis, K. & Gray, K. () Measuring realistic and symbolic threats of covid-

 and their unique impacts on well-being and adherence to public health behaviors. Social Psychological and

Personality Science,(),–.https://doi.org/./

Kao, K., Lust, E., Dulani, B., Ferree, K.E., Harris, A.S. & Metheney, E. () The ABCs of Covid- prevention in

Malawi: authority, benefits, and costs of compliance. World Development,,.https://doi.org/./j.

worlddev..

Karić, T. & Me¯

dedović, J. () Covid- conspiracy beliefs and containment-related behaviour: the role of political

trust. Personality and Individual Differences,,.https://doi.org/./j.paid..

Kirchner, K., Ipsen, C. & Hansen, J.P. () COVID- leadership challenges in knowledge work. Knowledge

Management Research & Practice, (), –. https://doi.org/./..

Kowalski, R.M. & Black, K.J. () Protection motivation and the Covid- virus. Health Communication, (),

–. https://doi.org/./..

Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J.R.B., McCaughey, D., et al. () Behavioral integrity

for safety, priority of safety, psychological safety, and patient safety: a team-level study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/./a

Lu, J., Zhang, Z. & Jia, M. () Does servant leadership affect employees’ emotional labor? A social information-

processing perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, (), –. https://doi.org/./s---

McCarthy, M., Murphy, K., Sargeant, E. & Williamson, H. () Examining the relationship between conspiracy

theories and COVID- vaccine hesitancy: a mediating role for perceived health threats, trust, and anomie?

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, (), –. https://doi.org/./asap.

MacKenzie, S.B. & Podsakoff, P.M. () Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural

remedies. JournalofRetailing, (), –. https://doi.org/./j.jretai...

Mao, J.-Y., Yang, S.-L. & Guo, Y.-Y. () Are individuals from lower social classes more susceptible to conspiracy

theories? An explanation from the compensatory control theory. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,(),–

. https://doi.org/./ajsp.

Meyer, G.W. () Social information processing and social networks: a test of social influence mechanisms.

Human Relations, (), –. https://doi.org/./

Nawaz, A., Sandhu, K.Y. & Mughal, N. () Customer related social stressors a challenge to employee satisfaction:

evidences from luxury bus service providers in Pakistan. International Journal of Business Excellence, (), –

. https://doi.org/./IJBEX..

Nguyen, N.P.T., Hoang, T.D., Tran, V.T., Vu, C.T., Siewe Fodjo, J.N., Colebunders, R., et al. () Preventive behav-

ior of Vietnamese people in response to the Covid- pandemic. PLoS ONE, (), e. https://doi.org/.

/journal.pone.

Oleksy, T., Wnuk, A., Maison, D. & Łyś, A. () Content matters: different predictors and social consequences

of general and government-related conspiracy theories on Covid-. Personality and Individual Differences,,

. https://doi.org/./j.paid..

Ozdemir, S., Ng, S., Chaudhry, I. & Finkelstein, E.A. () Adoption of preventive behaviour strategies and public

perceptions about Covid- in Singapore. International Journal of Health Policy and Management,(),–.

https://doi.org/./ijhpm..

Parker Lee, D. () The Covid- office in transition: cost, efficiency and the social responsibility business case.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, (), –. https://doi.org/./AAAJ---

Paustian-Underdahl, S.C. & Halbesleben, J.R.B. () Examining the influence of climate, supervisor guidance,

and behavioral integrity on work–family conflict: a demands and resources approach. Journal of Organizational

Behavior,(),–.https://doi.org/./job.

Peng, H. & Wei, F. () Trickle-down effects of perceived leader integrity on employee creativity: a moderated

mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, (), –. https://doi.org/./s---

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 21

Poon, K.-T., Chen, Z. & Wong, W.-Y. () Beliefs in Conspiracy theories following ostracism. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, (), –. https://doi.org/./

Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. () SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple medi-

ation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, (), –. https://doi.org/./

BF

Ranjit, Y.S., Shin, H., First, J.M. & Houston, J.B. () Covid- protective model: the role of threat perceptions

and informational cues in influencing behavior. Journal of Risk Research, (-), –. https://doi.org/.

/..

Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R. & Gudergan, S.P. () Partial least squares structural equation modeling

in HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, (), –. http://doi.org/

./..

Rochira, A., Gatti, F., Prati, G., Mannarini, T., Fedi, A., Procentese, F., et al. () An integrated model of

compliance with covid- prescriptions: instrumental, normative, and affective factors associated with health-

protective behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, , –. https://doi.org/./s-

--

Romer, D. & Jamieson, K.H. () Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID- in the

U.S. Social Science & Medicine,,.https://doi.org/./j.socscimed..

Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C.R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A.L.J., Recchia, G., et al. () Susceptibility to

misinformation about Covid- around the world. Royal Society Open Science, (), . https://doi.org/.

/rsos.

Salancik, G.R. & Pfeffer, J. () A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.

Administrative Science Quarterly, (), –. https://doi.org/./

Shabana, K.M. & Ravlin, E.C. () Corporate social responsibility reporting as substantive and symbolic behavior:

a multilevel theoretical analysis. Business and Society Review, (), –. https://doi.org/./basr.

Shanka, M.S. & Menebo, M.M. () When and how trust in government leads to compliance with covid-

precautionary measures. Journal of Business Research,,–.https://doi.org/./j.jbusres...



Shaw, W.S., Main, C.J., Findley, P.A., Collie, A., Kristman, V.L. & Gross, D.P. () Opening the workplace after

covid-: what lessons can be learned from return-to-work research? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,

(), –. https://doi.org/./s---

Simons, T., Friedman,R., Liu, L.A. & McLean Parks, J. () Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity:

attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among Black and non-Black employees. Journal

of Applied Psychology,(),–.https://doi.org/./-...

Slattery, E.L., Voelker, C.C.J., Nussenbaum, B., Rich, J.T., Paniello, R.C. & Neely, J.G. () A practical guide

to surveys and questionnaires. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, (), –. https://doi.org/./



Sriharan, A., Hertelendy, A.J., Banaszak-Holl, J., Fleig-Palmer, M.M., Mitchell, C., Gutberg, J., et al. () Cri-

sis leadership during the Covid- pandemic: a review to inform policymaking. Academy of Management

Proceedings, (), . https://doi.org/./AMBPP..abstract

Stanković, S., Lazarević, L.B. & Knežević, G. () The role of personality, conspiracy mentality, rebt irrational

beliefs, and adult attachment in COVID- related health behaviors. Studia Psychologica, (), –. https://

doi.org/./sp...

Suchman, M.C. () Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management

Review, (), –. https://doi.org/./amr..

Truong, Y., Mazloomi, H. & Berrone, P. () Understanding the impact of symbolic and substantive environmen-

tal actions on organizational reputation. Industrial Marketing Management,,–.https://doi.org/./

j.indmarman...

Uscinski, J.E., Enders, A.M., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Funchion, J., Everett, C., et al. () Why do people believe

Covid- conspiracy theories? Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review.https://doi.org/./

mr--

van Prooijen, J.-W. & de Vries, R.E. () Organizational conspiracy beliefs: implications for leadership styles and

employee outcomes. JournalofBusinessandPsychology,(),–.https://doi.org/./s---



22 NAWAZ  .

Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G. & Rapp, A.A. () Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corpo-

rate social responsibility: a multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, (), –. https://doi.org/./job.

Vogelgesang, G.R., Crossley, C., Simons, T. & Avolio, B.J. () Behavioral integrity: examining the effects of trust

velocity and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Ethics, (), –. https://doi.org/./

s--- 

Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Calantone, R. & Ramirez, E. () Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an

analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (), –.

https://doi.org/./s---

Wegemer, C.M. & von Keyserlingk, L. () Dual pandemics of Covid- and systemic racism: the roles of percep-

tions of inequities, civic values, and conservatism in mask-wearing behavior. Analyses of Social Issues and Public

Policy, (), –. https://doi.org/./asap.

WHO. () World Health Organization: Covid dashboard retrieved from https://Covid.who.int/region/emro/

country/pk

Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Kidder, D.L., Cheung, H.K., Morner, M. & Lievens, F. () Actions speak louder

than words: outsiders’ perceptions of diversity mixed messages. Journal of Applied Psychology, (), –.

https://doi.org/./apl

Xia, J., Wu, T. & Zhou, L. () Sharing of verified information about covid- on social network sites: a social

exchange theory perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, (), .

https://doi.org/./ijerph

Yu, M., Li, Z., Yu, Z., He, J. & Zhou, J. () Communication related health crisis on social media: a case of Covid-

outbreak. Current Issues in Tourism, (), –. https://doi.org/./..

Yuan, Z., Ye, Z. & Zhong, M. () Plug back into work, safely: job reattachment, leader safety commitment, and

job engagement in the Covid- pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, (), –. https://doi.org/./

apl

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Asif Nawaz is a PhD candidate at Department of Business Administration at Sukkur IBA Uni-

versity. Main research interests include leadership, knowledge management, organizational

sustainability.

Shuaib Ahmed Soomro is an Assistant Professor of HRM/OB at Department of Busi-

ness Administration at Sukkur IBA University. He holds a PhD in HRM and OB from IAE

Aix-Marseille University, France. Main research interests include psychology, organizational

behavior, and HRM practices.

Samar Batool is a faculty member at Sukkur IBA University. Ms Batool is a PhD candidate

at Department of Business Administration at Sukkur IBA University. Main research interests

include HRM, OB.

Dr Hira Rani is a faculty member at Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur. She holds a PhD in

HRM from Sukkur IBA University, Sindh. Main research interests include Burnout, Employee

voice, Ostracism.

Arsalan Aslam is a Research Associate at Institute of Quality and Technology Management,

University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

A MODERATED MEDIATION EFFECT 23

How to cite this article: Nawaz, A., Soomro, S.A., Batool, S., Rani, H., & Aslam, A.

() A moderated mediation effect of symbolic and substantive preventive actions on

employees’ preventive behavior in the context of Covid-. Analyses of Social Issues and

Public Policy,–.https://doi.org/./asap.

Sociotechnical governance of misinformation: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper

Article

Oct 2024

Misinformation is a complex and urgent sociotechnical problem that requires meaningful governance, in addition to technical efforts aimed at detection or classification and intervention or literacy efforts aimed at promoting awareness and identification. This review draws on interdisciplinary literature—spanning information science, computer science, management, law, political science, public policy, journalism, communications, psychology, and sociology—to deliver an adaptable, descriptive governance model synthesized from past scholarship on the governance of misinformation. Crossing disciplines and contexts of study and cases, we characterize: the complexity and impact of misinformation as a governance challenge, what has been managed and governed relative to misinformation, the institutional structure of different governance parameters, and empirically identified sources of success and failure in different governance models. Our approach to support this review is based on systematic, structured literature review methods to synthesize and compare insights drawn from conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative empirical works published in or translated into English from 1991 to the present. This review contributes a model for misinformation governance research, an agenda for future research, and recommendations for contextually‐responsive and holistic governance.

The role of conspiracy beliefs for COVID-19 health responses: A meta-analysis

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2022

While conspiracy theories about COVID-19 are proliferating, their impact on health-related responses during the present pandemic is not yet fully understood. We meta-analyzed correlational and longitudinal evidence from 53 studies (N = 78,625) conducted in 2020 and 2021. Conspiracy beliefs were weakly associated with more reluctance toward prevention measures both cross-sectionally and over time. They explained lower vaccination and social distancing responses but were unrelated to mask wearing and hygiene responses. Conspiracy beliefs showed an increasing association with prevention responses as the pandemic progressed and explained support for alternative treatments lacking scientific bases (e.g., chloroquine treatment, complementary medicine). Despite small and heterogenous effects, at a large scale, conspiracy beliefs are a non-negligeable threat to public health.

The Role of Personality, Conspiracy Mentality, REBT Irrational Beliefs, and Adult Attachment in COVID-19 Related Health Behaviors

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022
STUD PSYCHOL

Inclusive Leadership and Subordinates’ Pro-Social Rule Breaking in the Workplace: Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy and Moderating Role of Employee Relations Climate

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2021

Purpose Drawing on the Social Information Processing (SIP) theory, the study sought to examine the link between inclusive leadership and employees’ pro-social rule-breaking (PSRB) behavior through the mediating effect of self-efficacy. The study also investigates the moderating role of employee relations climate between inclusive leadership and self-efficacy. Methods The study’s sample size consists of 438 full-time corporate employees at 47 organizations from China. Statistical analysis methods were used for data analysis, such as Pearson’s correlation analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multilevel regression analysis. Results The results demonstrated that inclusive leadership positively affects PSRB behavior and self-efficacy. Furthermore, the employee relations climate moderate’s self-efficacy, which mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and the PSRB behavior of employees. Conclusion This study determines the psychological factors causing PRSB behavior in light of inclusive leadership. In the context of SIP theory, the findings conclude that inclusive leadership fundamentally influences self-efficacy, encouraging employees to exhibit PSRB behavior. Furthermore, this study also explains the mediating and moderating effect of self-efficacy and employment climate, which shape PSRB behavior. Hence, this study contributes to the organizational behavior literature regarding PSRB behavior and inclusive leadership.

Are misinformation, antiscientific claims, and conspiracy theories for political extremists?

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Extremist political groups, especially “extreme” Republicans and conservatives, are increasingly charged with believing misinformation, antiscientific claims, and conspiracy theories to a greater extent than moderates and those on the political left by both a burgeoning scholarly literature and popular press accounts. However, previous investigations of the relationship between political orientations and alternative beliefs have been limited in their operationalization of those beliefs and political extremity. We build on existing literature by examining the relationships between partisan and nonpartisan conspiracy beliefs and symbolic and operational forms of political extremity. Using two large, nationally representative samples of Americans, we find that ideological extremity predicts alternative beliefs only when the beliefs in question are partisan in nature and the measure of ideology is identity-based. Moreover, we find that operational ideological extremism is negatively related to nonpartisan conspiracy beliefs. Our findings help reconcile discrepant findings regarding the relationship between political orientations and conspiracy beliefs.

Psychological foundations and behavioral consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs: The Turkish case

Article

Apr 2022
INT POLIT SCI REV

Cengiz Erisen

This article offers a comprehensive approach to understanding pandemic-related behavior by tackling both the psychological predictors of belief in conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and their potential consequences for trust in experts and institutions, compliance behavior and vaccine acceptance. Drawing from an observational survey (n = 1028) in Turkey, this article examines: (a) the psychological precedents of believing COVID-19 conspiracy theories; (b) how trust in experts, scientists and health authorities is influential in controlling these beliefs; (c) to what extent conspiracy theory beliefs affect compliance with protective measures; and (d) who is more likely to accept vaccination. Results demonstrate that one of the potential solutions to the influence of conspiracy theory beliefs across an array of attitudes and behaviors is to establish trust in experts, scientists and health authorities.

Dual pandemics of COVID‐19 and systemic racism: The roles of perceptions of inequities, civic values, and conservatism in mask‐wearing behavior

Article

Jan 2022

Amid unprecedented political polarization, the United States continues to grapple with the simultaneous crises of COVID‐19 and systemic racism. We examine potential predictors of COVID‐19 mask wearing at the intersection of these crises, with particular attention to the behavior of conservatives and young people, who have resisted compliance with efforts to contain the spread of COVID‐19. Specifically, we investigate perceptions of racial/ethnic inequities in the healthcare system and civic values as predictors of COVID‐19 mask‐wearing frequency and potential moderators of the relationship between political orientation and COVID‐19 mask‐wearing frequency. Diverse college students at a university in southern California participated in our longitudinal survey, which was initiated prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic (N = 431). We found that perceptions of inequities and civic values predicted mask wearing, whereas political conservatism was negatively related to mask wearing. Further, conservative participants were more likely to wear masks if they reported greater perceptions of inequities. Our results provide a foundation for future research that may inform targeted public health interventions aimed at encouraging responsible COVID‐19 behavior and fostering dialogue on systemic equities in a contentious political environment.

An Integrated Model of Compliance with COVID-19 Prescriptions: Instrumental, Normative, and Affective Factors Associated with Health-Protective Behaviors

Article

Jan 2022

Background The efficacy of public measures for reducing the transmission of the COVID-19 infection relies on citizens’ voluntary adherence with prescribed actions. Drawing on prior literature about compliant behavior, this study aimed to identify factors associated with people engagement in health-protective behaviors by including a conjoint complement of instrumental/self-oriented, normative/community-based, and affective variables.MethodA cross-sectional study involving a non-representative sample of 4045 Italian citizens was carried out during the first stage of the pandemic (April–May 2020). Variables associated with health-protective behaviors were perceived personal and societal concerns and perceived effectiveness of the institutional response to the outbreak (instrumental dimensions), and family and friends perceived norms and sense of community responsibility (normative dimensions). Two negative emotions (anxiety and fear) were included as mediators between personal and societal concerns and outcome behaviors.ResultsResults showed the importance of both self-interest and community-based factors. Indeed, self-interest concerns, family perceived norms, and sense of community responsibility were significant predictors of people’s decisions to engage in health-protective behaviors.Conclusions The research findings show that compliance with public health prescriptions is a multimodal phenomenon and integrating self-interest and community-based factors can offer a better understanding of people’s decision to engage in health-protective behaviors. Further, this study unveils that a shared sense of community is effective in encouraging adherence to recommended behaviors so as behavioral changes can be sustained by targeting the recommendations not only on risk minimization for oneself but also on the allocation of personal responsibility toward the belonging community.

Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories and COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy: A mediating role for perceived health threats, trust, and anomie?

Article

Dec 2021

The COVID‐19 pandemic has led to an upswing in conspiracy theory beliefs, which creates challenges for effectively countering the pandemic, with higher rates of COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy found among conspiracy theorists. Research suggests health risk perceptions, trust in government and anomie may mediate the relationship between COVID‐19 conspiracy theory beliefs and vaccine hesitancy. However, the mediating role of trust in government and anomie on vaccine hesitancy have not been empirically examined in the context of COVID‐19, and it is not clear whether different conspiracy theories have distinct mediational pathways to vaccine hesitancy. The current study examines the extent to which perceptions of the health threat posed by COVID‐19, trust in government and anomie can explain the relationship between distinct COVID‐19 conspiracy theories and COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy. Drawing on data from a national online survey of 779 Australian adults, a series of path analyses examining the influence of three distinct conspiracy theories on vaccination hesitancy revealed two key mediational pathways, which varied across conspiracy theory types. Anomie and perceptions of the health threat posed by COVID‐19 were the most common mediators of this relationship. Implications for COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and for conspiracy theory research are discussed.

When and How Trust in Government Leads to Compliance towards COVID-19 Precautionary Measures

Article

Oct 2021
J BUS RES

Despite the risks of COVID-19, some people ignore the COVID-19 precautionary measures, endangering public health. We aimed to investigate how and in what conditions trust in government and health authorities encourage individuals to comply with COVID-19 precautionary measures. Based on a sample of 664 respondents, we found that an increase in the level of trust in government is associated with higher compliance with COVID-19 precautionary measures. We also found that problem awareness mediates the effect of trust in government on compliance with COVID-19 precautionary measures. In addition, we examined whether individualistic orientation moderates the mediating effect of problem awareness. We found that individualistic orientation mitigates the mediating effect of problem awareness in the relationship between trust in government and compliance behavior. The findings of this study have the potential to inform policy and practice by addressing the ways in which compliance with COVID-19 precautionary measures can be improved.

Crisis Leadership during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review to Inform Policymaking

Conference Paper

Aug 2021

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented stress on health care systems worldwide. The global scale of the outbreak and its unpredictable nature has put a significant leadership burden on health care leaders and decision-makers. Predefined emergency preparedness plans are no longer working. Evidence-based guidelines and crisis communication plans are insufficient. There is an increased amount of pandemic fatigue among the general population. Businesses are suffering. A financial crisis is looming. Health systems leaders need new leadership behaviors and mindsets to help them lead during the next phases of this dynamic crisis as well as in future pandemics. Despite a proliferation of perspectives on the topic, given the novelty of the situation there is no aggregated resource distilling the evidence about how to lead under crisis conditions. Objective: The aim of this paper is to systematically examine evidence from research on public health crisis leadership to determine what competencies are explicitly needed to better respond to pandemics like COVID-19. Specifically, we sought to map and assess published studies on pandemics (a) to characterize core competencies required to lead in the health sector during a pandemic, and (b) to identify contextual enablers and barriers to leading during a crisis. Methods: We conducted a rapid review using the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005), the World Health Organization Rapid Review Guide, and the Joanna Briggs Institute 2020 guide to scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2017). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SR) guided our reporting of study findings. Data Sources: We performed a systematic and comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Business Source Premier, and Canadian Business & Current Affairs for studies published between 2003 (since SARS) and July 28, 2020. Study Selection, Extraction, and Synthesis: We selected all empirical articles (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) that discussed crisis leadership during a pandemic. Data Synthesis: The literature search identified 8,044 citations. A review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 749 full-text articles for assessment, of which 30 were selected for review. Conclusions: Our findings show that crisis leadership competencies commonly fall under three categories of leadership capacity: task, people, and adaptive. In pandemic-related leadership literature, task-related behaviors such as preparing and planning, establishing collaborations, and crisis communication often receive more attention. Our analysis revealed that during a crisis, people-oriented capacities and adaptive capacities are equally important for leaders to successfully lead in a dynamic situation shaped by structural, political, and cultural contextual factors.

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E A moderated mediation effect of symbolic and substantive preventive actions on employees' preventive behavior in the context of Covid-19

Recommended publications

How to Deal With a Difficult Boss

Body talk on social networking sites and body dissatisfaction among young women: A moderated mediati...

Stick to Convention or Bring Forth the New? Research on the Relationship Between Employee Conscienti...

Effects of relationship education on maintenance of couple relationship satisfaction