Title
Comparing effects of toxic leadership and team social support on job insecurity, role ambiguity,
work engagement, and job performance: A multilevel mediational perspective
Introduction
Workplace uncertainty is rising due to technology, automation, and changes like contract jobs
and COVID-19. This leads to job insecurity (fear of job loss) and role ambiguity (unclear job
roles), which harm employee motivation and performance.
The study investigates how social factors — toxic leadership and team support — shape these
demands and impact employee outcomes. Using Social Information Processing theory, it shows
that employees shape their views based on leaders and coworkers.
In Malaysia's hierarchical and collectivist culture, leaders have strong influence, but supportive
teams help reduce stress. The study uses a multilevel approach to show that leadership and team
support (at the group level) affect job stress, engagement, and performance (at the individual
level). This helps organizations understand how improving leadership and team dynamics can
lower stress and boost employee outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
1. Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model
Job demands (e.g., insecurity, ambiguity) drain physical/mental energy, reduce
motivation and engagement.
Team support and leadership are resources that can reduce this strain.
2. Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory
Social Information Processing (SIP) theory says that Employees interpret their work environment
based on signals from leaders and peers. Instead of just reacting to the actual job conditions,
employees form their views through social interactions. This means things like leadership and team
support strongly influence how employees feel about their job, including their stress levels, motivation,
and performance—even more than the actual work itself.
Hypotheses Development
This study focuses on two major uncertainty-based job demands:
1. Job insecurity – when employees fear losing their job.
2. Role ambiguity – when employees are unclear about their job responsibilities or what is
expected of them.
These two demands create stress and confusion, making employees feel anxious, powerless, and
less motivated. As a result, job performance and work engagement decrease.
Work Engagement and Job Performance
Work engagement means being energetic, dedicated, and deeply involved in work. When
employees feel safe, valued, and know what’s expected of them, they are more engaged and
perform better. But with high job insecurity and role ambiguity, their engagement drops, and
they feel disconnected. Job performance is defined as “the behaviors employees engage in while at
work. It refers to how well someone performs at his or her work”.
Hypothesis 1:
Job insecurity (1a) and role ambiguity (1b) are negatively related to work engagement.
→ When employees feel insecure or confused about their role, they become less motivated and
less focused on work.
Hypothesis 2:
Work engagement is positively related to job performance.
→ Engaged employees work harder, make fewer mistakes, and show better results.
Hypothesis 3:
Work engagement mediates the relationship between:
Job insecurity (3a) and job performance.
Role ambiguity (3b) and job performance.
→ This means insecurity and unclear roles reduce engagement, which then lowers
performance. So, engagement is the middle link that explains the impact.
Drivers of Uncertainty-Based Job Demands
1. Toxic leadership – when leaders are abusive, controlling, or selfish. These leaders
reduce employees’ confidence, create fear, limit communication, and make employees
uncertain about their job roles and future.
2. Team social support – when coworkers offer help, care, and guidance. Supportive teams
reduce stress, build trust, and help employees understand their work better, making them
more confident and engaged.
Hypothesis 4:
Toxic leadership (4a) is negatively related to work engagement.
Team social support (4b) is positively related to work engagement.
→ Bad leaders lower motivation, while supportive teams increase it
Hypothesis 5:
Toxic leadership (5a) is negatively related to job performance.
Team social support (5b) is positively related to job performance.
→ Toxic leaders hurt results, but supportive coworkers improve them
Hypothesis 6:
Toxic leadership (6a) is positively related to job insecurity.
Team social support (6b) is negatively related to job insecurity.
→ Bad leaders make employees fear job loss. Supportive teams make them feel secure
Hypothesis 7:
Toxic leadership (7a) is positively related to role ambiguity.
Team social support (7b) is negatively related to role ambiguity.
→ Toxic leaders confuse employees about their roles. Supportive teams help clarify
them.
Hypothesis 8:
Job insecurity and role ambiguity mediate the relationship between:
Toxic leadership and work engagement
Team social support and work engagement
→ This means toxic leaders increase job insecurity and confusion, which then lower
engagement. Supportive teams reduce these issues, leading to better engagement.
Research Design
Participants: 265 employees from 48 private-sector teams in Malaysia.
Tools Used:
o Toxic Leadership Scale
o Supervisor Support Scale (modified for coworker support)
o Job Insecurity and Role Ambiguity Scales
o Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
o WHO's Job Performance Questionnaire
Analysis: Multilevel modeling (hierarchical linear modelling HLM), Monte Carlo simulation
for mediation testing.
Key Findings
Job Demands & Work Engagement
Job insecurity & role ambiguity → lower work engagement (Supported).
Work engagement → higher job performance (Supported).
Engagement mediates the negative effect of job demands on performance (Partially
supported).
Toxic Leadership
Increases job insecurity and role ambiguity.
Reduces job performance.
No direct effect on engagement but does influence it indirectly through ambiguity.
Team Social Support
Reduces job insecurity significantly.
Increases engagement.
No direct effect on performance but improves it indirectly via engagement.
Mediating Effects
Role ambiguity mediates toxic leadership → engagement.
Job insecurity mediates team support → engagement.
Theoretical Implications
Social environments matter: Leadership and team dynamics shape how demands are
experienced.
Not just buffers: Toxic leadership and team support are active drivers of job insecurity
and ambiguity.
Multilevel insight: This study treats leadership and support as team-level constructs,
reflecting collective influence.
Practical Implications
HR should:
o Recruit ethical and emotionally intelligent leaders.
o Clarify roles and expectations clearly.
o Train teams to support one another, especially during organizational changes.
Promote team-building, feedback systems, and open communication.
Toxic leaders must be identified and corrected early to prevent widespread organizational
harm.
Limitations
Cross-sectional design: Cannot determine causality.
Self-reported data may involve bias.
Cultural setting: Results are based on Malaysian workplace dynamics.
Future Research Suggestions
Use longitudinal studies to track changes over time.
Explore wider organizational factors like organizational climate and psychological
safety.
Test in different countries and industries for broader applicability.
