This is a research study, having four variables. .1)Leader humility 2)Antisocial behavior 3)mindfulness   4) Self-efficacy

I need help to w.rite Abstract of this study and need you to make the sense clear of  Theoretical background and  Discussion. Thank you

This article uses a leader humility model to examine the effects and consequences of leader

humility on organization's antisocial behavior. This analysis demonstrated that leader humility

moderates the relationship between antisocial behavior with the moderating role of

mindfulness and self-efficacy. However, we used the leader humility model to describe the

effects and consequences of leader humility on antisocial behavior. The current study predicts

that leader humility positively influences antisocial behavior with the moderating role of

mindfulness and self-efficacy.

Introduction

Humility is an interpersonal trait that acts out in a social context. It involves accuracy, self-

acceptance, understanding one's faults (Emmons 1999), an open-minded attitude, willingness

to acknowledge mistakes, seeking guidance, and eagerness to learn (Landrum 2002).

There is less research that has been examined on humility; there are two reasons.

The first reason for the slowdown in the study of humility is the different definitions of humility.

(Tangney 2009)

Humility has been defined as the absence of narcissism (Lee & Ashton, 2005). The lack of

something negative does not necessarily indicate the appearance of something positive.

Therefore, humility is simply the absence of narcissism or arrogance. (2005 Tangney).

Definitions of Humility includes a wide range of qualities. Some sense of humility refers to the

people's accurate view of themselves. (Emmons 1999, Sandage & Wiens 2001, Tangney 2000).

Another reason why the study of logic has slowed down is that the researcher has not agreed

on an acceptable method of measuring humility. Which is thought to be a problem that

naturally threatens their authenticity. (Davis, Worthington, Hook 2010).

Humility is described as a common trait that arises in a social context. Which means the desire

to see oneself correctly, the appreciation of the powers of others and contributions, and

teaching ability, or open to new ideas and opinions (2013 Mitchell, and Owens, Johnson,).

In part, in acknowledgment to comprehensive research, it appears that leaders perceive for

themselves in an intense light (2005 Fritzon and Board, 2011, Hamburg and Chatterjee,

2011 Stern and Park, Westfall), Inductive and experimental research on the leader's

humility proposed by the leader The humble senior management team promotes

supportive organizational context, including integration, Authorized Climate (2014 Song,

and Xiao, Waldman, Kinicki, Tsui, Ou); Gives legal status to the follower.

Growth and development (2012 Hekman, and Owens) boost follower integrity and loyalty (2013

Behrend, and Offermann, Basford). The learning direction of employees enhances job

fulfillment. Work commitment and sustainability (2013 Owens et al.) and strengths the adverse

outcomes of leader narcissism driving positive follower consequences (Wallace, Waldman, and

Owens, forthcoming). Although the preliminary results are encouraging in terms of the

importance of leadership humility in an organizational context. Understand whether and how

the humility leader's humility affects the performance of the whole team, mostly ignorant.

There are different studies and meta-analysis on leader humility and its relation with other

variables like employee performance, team performance(Liu 2017), employees'

creativity(Wang, Zhang, Jia 2016, Aggression(Summerell 2020) and more under different

moderators/mediators.

Current studies on Leader Humility mostly focus on how humility has an impact on the positive

behaviors of employees towards their work and organization, such as employees' creativity (Lei

2015), helping behavior (Mao 2017), task performance (Yu & Wang 2017, Diao 2019).

But less research has examined how Leader Humility impacts employees' antisocial Behaviors at

the workplace. ( Summerell 2020). So it is necessary to discuss this critical study question

because the adverse behaviors of employs can psychologically hurt other people at the

workplace.

Antisocial workplace behavior indicates to any action that harms or purposes to harm an

organization, its workers, or its stakeholders" (page vii, 1997, Greenberg and Giacalon).

Antisocial behaviors are any behaviors of organizational members that bring harm to the

organization or the other members of the organization( Aquino & Bayron 2002, Hoel et al.

1999, Bensimon 1997). They are intentional and offensive behavior aimed at harming the

organization or its constituents.(2000,2003, Robinson, and Bennett; 1999 Spector andFox & ).

Initially, researchers use divers labels for these activities like for example Robinson & Bennet

(1995) use the term "Deviant Behaviors," Griffin & Glew (1996) use the name "Aggressive Work

Behaviors," Vardi & Wiener (1996) use "Organizational misbehaviors" letter O'Leary Kelly(1998)

use the term "antisocial behaviors" for these negative behaviors in the organization.

Previous studies and literature have argued that this social behavior is a reaction to unfair

treatment in an organization. (2003, Douglas and Aquino; 1999, Aquino et al.; 1990,

Greenberg). Like for instance, when workers feel that they are not treated equitably at the

workplace, they engage themselves in breaking the norm and negative behaviors such as

retaliation (1997, Folger, and Skarlicki), deviance (1999, Aquino et al.), social loafing (2003,

Murphy et al.). Yet, the purpose of the trust in explaining the antisocial behaviors remains

unclear( 2003, Bennet & Robinson).

Leaders Humility has an adversarial relationship with employees' antisocial work behaviors(E.

Summerell 2020). When employees feel that the leader is fair and trustworthy, they engage

themselves in more positive behaviors and reduce adverse reactions. (Sousa-Lima et al. 2013).

According to Wang et al. ( 2019), leader humility promotes the positive conduct of employees

and overcome or reduce the negative behaviors of employees in the workplace.

The current study predicts that leader humility has a positive influence on antisocial behavior

with the moderating role of mindfulness and self-efficacy.

Antecedent's study on leadership has not explored the purpose of leadership sincerity in the

leader's decisions. However, the use of charisma has been examined. Research by Langer and

Sviokla (1988) studied how mindfulness can create attraction. This matter should be based on

the meanings of the mindfulness and intellect represented over Langer (1989a), that one's

intelligence is considered realism and instability.

Mindfulness training has been experimentally tested and has been defined in the literature

(1983 Langer, 1985 Langer, 1989; 1985 Bashner, Chanowitz, and Langer,).

Ellen Langer, the researcher, who is the head of the Psychology of Control studies (1983), has

proposed that mindfulness training will enhance the concept of restraint between more aged

people. Psychological functioning will begin to improve health and long life. In his research,

Langer realized that when subjects were trained to make up their minds, they were more likely

to control themselves. And more likely they have ascertained their lives (p. 8 1985 Langer,)

Langer and his colleagues (1976 Lan Langer and Rodin, Langer, Beck, 1982 Timko, and Janoff

Bulman, 1979 Beck, Weinman, Spitzer and Langer, Rodin,) have developed a spirit of high-level

mentality in research subtitled subjects and advanced training plans. In turn, this transformed

the lives of more adult people in specific ways by assisting them in managing their

environment. High level of mindfulness in the subjects studied. And advanced training plans

that turned the lives of older people in real ways, supporting them to manage their

environment.

Mindfulness is based on investigating past beliefs and improving mental attitudes that indicate

learning and maturity that comes from correct reasoning (1991 Gilovich).

Weick and his colleagues propose several methods that drive to mindset in organizations that

include feeling reluctant to make interpretations easy, flexibility determination, and Engage

with failure (Wood et al., 1999).

Feeling reluctant to make interpretations easy:

(1999) Weick and his colleagues suggested that there was a reluctance of mindfulness to

facilitate. Strategic decisions ordinarily require a massive level of complexity. Consequently,

decision-makers of organizational usually practice cognitive simplification methods that enable

them to sense and manage complexity (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Flexibility determination

Mindfulness is also reflected as an outcome of a commitment to resilience (1996 Bpirrieer,

1999 Weick et al.), which about overcome from defeat. The determination of flexibility is a

typical mentality, which involves assuming that the path to success is probably a direct line and

to be left behind by failures be a way of life.

Engage with failure: (1999)

Weick and his colleagues also propose that suffering from loss strengthens mindset. Weick et

al. Proposing the term collective mindfulness into studies of organizational (1999), Langer

(1989) first work was extended. An organization can develop flexibility of environment, free to

new learning, confidence, risk-taking, and thought-provoking adaptation as collective property,

according to their study of highly credible organizations, who consistently avoid errors and

failures. He portrayed the characteristics of mutual mindfulness in organizations as exhibitions

of five methods: 1. engagement with loss; 2. reluctant engagement interpret

Reluctanceceptibility to essential operation susceptibility to flexibility; and Commitmentskills

(Weeks &

In 2001).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy derives from complicated cognitive, convivial, incomparable, or fleshly skills

through practice (1982, Bandura). People seem to examine data about their abilities, and

evaluate after that they manage their preferences and attempts to the fullest (1980 Adams,

Bandura, Hardy, & Howells,).

Self-efficacy is the measure of success that is required to deliver the desired results through

successful execution. The decision of a person's self-efficacy affects the beginning, intensity,

and behavior. People join actions that they consider themselves proficient in handling. Once

involved, their efficacy views affect how hard they work for this task and how long they face

obstructions (Bandura, 1977, 1986).

Research infers that it has an essential influence on performance. Its efficacy can act as a

guiding authority to subdue performance constraints (1992 Gust & Mitchell,). some researchers

think that affordability and achievement cyclic, outstanding self-efficacy facility achievement,

and victorious performance nourish self-efficacy. (1992 Gust & Mitchell, Math 1993 Martineau

Matthews, &Tennenbaum,).

Research Gaps and Rationale of the study

Leadership scholars should undoubtedly examine whether the humility of leadership expression

promotes maximum learning, adaptation, and exceptional performance (see 2005 Collins, 2004

Rodriguez, and LopezVera ).

The present study has shown the positive effects of humility in the thoughts of an organization

(Xiao, Waldman, Kinicki, Tsui, Ou, and 2014 Song, 2012, Hekman, and Owens;2013, Owens et

al.,; (Siu Yin Cheung, 2019) (Evita March 2020) (Saima Naseer, 2019) (Yue Wang, 2019)

(Placeholder3) (Karl Aquino, 2003) (Bradly P.Owens, 2013) (Don E. Davis, 2010) (Kibeom Lee,

2005) (Green, 2002) (Bradly D. Owens, 2015) (Robert R. Sinclair, 2002)Hekman, in press and

Owens). In addition to understanding the leader's efficacy, we intend that the incorporation of

leader narcissism and leadership humility will also have the real effect of leaders in aspects of

member psychological motivation (2004 Bakker, and Schaufeli; I .e.Job commitment) and

behavioral motive (like job achievement).

Humility is an overwhelming sensation and has gained little consideration in emotional research

until recently. The current study presents the first proof that humility can separately foretell

less violence and offensive when examining narcissism. It shows that humility is not merely a

lack of narcissism. It also highlights the different addition of humility in describing the variation

in violence and offensive variability. Current research also contributes original empirical proof

that temporarily forming a state of humility can reduce antisocial practices. Further study of

humility e-cites on antisocial action can have widespread social impact at the community level.

Problem Statement:

For some people, and then half of all incidents of social behavior in the workplace have not

been reported (1994, Bachchan; 1981, Merrill, Snyder, and Lion). These analyses have led to the

issue being addressed by these individuals. More broadly, researchers have identified an

extensive array of occupational factors correlated with increased susceptibility to occupational

violence (eg., 1994 Jenkins, and Castillo).

One of the causes for this is that there are severe problems with self-report as well as humility.

It is contradictory for people to think of themselves as extraordinary. Because of these

concerns, many scholars have suggested that it is an ideal approach to measure nearby

observers' humility ( 2010, Davis et al. 2004; Exline et al.).

Research Questions:

This analysis aims to get answers to the following questions.

Does leader humility positively associate with antisocial behavior?

Will leader humility lessen the antisocial behavior of employees in the organization?

Does antisocial behavior positively associate with leader humility?

Does leader humility negatively associate with employee antisocial behavior?

Does/if a leader has the ability of mindfulness and self-efficacy to mediate the path of

employee antisocial behavior?

Research Objectives

The aims of this study are as follows.

To examine the effect of leader humility on employee behavior.

To check the impact of Leader Humility on antisocial behavior.

Does the leader humility make a positive impact on the employees?

To examine the moderating effect of leader humility between the relation of leader

mindfulness and leader self-efficacy.

Significance:

Theoretical

This research becomes part of the literature on the antecedent of leader humility and its

impacts on the antisocial behavior of an employee in the organization through the lens that has

never been examined previously, i.e., considering about the method about leader humility,

which directs to positive behavior and the effects of the organization. The moderating role of

leader humility (mindfulness, self-efficacy) can lessen the outcome of antisocial behavior on the

employee. Moreover, the Self-efficacy theory is carried out in the current research to

determine the correlation among these necessary variables, which can be offered in

management research for the future.

Managerial

Many leadership papers think that leaders form, group, culture, and values, and that drive

behavior, which then manages the performance of the group (2000; Kennedy, and Dell, also see

2014 Waldman and Berson, Da'as, 2014, Shang and Sun, Xu,). For instance, through

transformational leaders, their powerful metaphors, stimulating perspectives, and evolutionary

expressions of value (1,990 Schein) create a transformational experience, which affects team

performance (i.e., 1993, Avolio, Bass, 119 2003 Proctor-Thomson and Parry).

This research gives organizations recognition, approval, and understanding of the positive

consequences of leader humility. The study also helps organizations adapt to employment

conditions and nature and maintain an environment to avoid adverse effects and results. It can

also support organizations to promote appropriate worker recognition, development, and

coaching strategies. This data will be useful for both the employees and the organization. This

research will guide workers on how to manage their anger in the workplace.

Contextual

There is little or no empirical research examined that explores the relation of leader humility

and employees' antisocial behaviors at the workplace. This research is conducted to explore the

relationship between leader humility and antisocial behaviors at the workplace with the

moderation role of mindfulness and self-efficacy.

Propose Research Model

MINDFULNESS

LEADER HUMILITY ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIORS

Theoretical Background

According to Aquino et al. 1999, an employee shows antisocial behaviors when they are not

treated well at the workplace. When employees' do not observe fairness in the workplace, they

engage themselves in negative behaviors.

The model of this study is supported by Self efficacy theory by Bandura (1861). The self-efficacy

theory is the overarching theory, which is keeping the whole links of this study.

Previous researches use the social Exchange theory to understand the relation of

Leader Humility and employees' antisocial behaviors at the workplace. ( wang et al. 2019). Self-

efficacy theory ( Bandura et al. 1861) is an extension of the social learning theory. It claimed

that when people observe model performances and behavior and their consequences, they try

to adopt these behaviors. According to Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997), Self-efficacy is individuals

believe in their capabilities to control one's behavior or actions.

The self-efficacy theory provides a link between leader humility and antisocial behaviors in the

workplace. Leaders who are humble and have high self-efficacy can control the antisocial

behaviors of employees at the workplace.

According to social exchange theory by (1964), Blau (1959), Kelley and Thibaut's employees

react excellent or harmful to the behaviors they receive from others accordingly. So the

employees who are mistreated at the workplace will behave accordingly.

Based on the previous research, this study also attempts to describe the exchange relationship

based on social exchange theory. When workers feel that they are being treated well and

honestly at the workplace, they will show positive behaviors and reduce negative or antisocial

behaviors.

The first section of the study is about Leaders Humility and Antisocial behaviors. This study,

based upon the Self Efficacy theory, implies that when the leader is humble and has high self-

SELF EFFICACY

efficacy, he will show a positive response. As a result, he will have the capability to control

antisocial behaviors of employees at the workplace.

CHAPTER NO. 02

Literature Review

Leader Humility

Humility also has to do with the idea of transcending or acknowledging oneself

Far more than the self and connected to things outside the self (1995. Dennett. 2000 Tangney,

, 1997 Templeton). Accordingly, the proposed aspect of humility: drawing attention: Being open

and willing to acknowledge others' strengths, ideas, and opinions of others

Personal boundaries are all manifestations of self-transcendence (see 2010 Gordon, 2005

Urbanski, Morris, Brotheridge, 2002 Seligman). We see humility as an individuals trait that

emerges in social interactions is behavior and is recognizable to others. (2013 Ovens et al. 1518)

Although humility has been scientifically tested (2003 Roberts & Wood), our social ideology of

humility is appropriate because it is our goal to understanding humility as it relates to the

process of leadership influence and team member communication.

One of the necessary foundations of our ideological model is that the pattern of the humility of

leaders is one influential team input that will lead to positive team interactions, task execution,

and further improvement.

Due to its relational introduction, leadership humility is supposed to lead to high degree

leadership links that result in a commitment to group participation (Owens, etc.) (2013). The

effect of leadership humility in organizations has impacted, as it has created an environment of

empowerment at the grassroots level in the management organization. In turn, this affects the

members' actions, engagement, and achievement (2014, Ou et al.).

Researchers have further observed that leadership humility plays a crucial role in organization

effectiveness: for example, scholars have noted that humble managers can encourage followers

to develop gratifying relationships, succeeding in promoting many decisive team results,

including team knowledge, coordination, collective cohesion utility, and team achievement

(Hekman and Owens, in press 2013 Owens et al.,

(2010 McCornack and Ownes.)

Antisocial behavior

Recently, there has been a developing focus on wrong or destructive behavior at the job and

the adverse effects of these measures on corporational functioning. Although these practices

are several, from non-criminal actions to misleading or flowing rumors such as burglary and

bribes. New experimental investigations have shown that these different behaviors can be

achieved through active practice. ( 2000 Robinson and Bennett, 1989; Hogan and Hogan, 1997

Skarlicki and Folger). After (1998 Robinson and O Leary Kelly, we collectively call this behavior

antisocial behavior in the existing research.

As proposed in many theoretical studies of Antisocial behavior (1996 Barling, - 1998, Baron,

and; 1996 Griffin and Glew O'Leary- Kelly, 1997 Specter. Personal variations in personality have

played an imperative role in Antisocial behavior expression in the workplace. For example,

(1999) Fox & Specter found that locus of power, fear, are associated with signs of anger. Among

them, attribute violence was more firmly related to Antisocial behavior (see 2002 Lee and Allen,

for similar cases).

AntiSocial attitudes are a general trend hitting a significant proportion of the population serving

in various fields and professions (2005, Bishop et al. 2002, Boyd; 2003, Di Martino et al.,). In

extension to its harmful impacts on workers' strength and well-being ( 2000 Chappell and Di

Martino), such behavior is costly for businesses in terms of absenteeism, action,

and adverse consequences on public status. ( 2001, Hoel et al.).

Still, for businesses to have the appropriate answers and sources, they need to have an actual

picture of the problem's intensity or scope (2003 Di Martino et al. 2003, Essenberg). Although

regional reporting methods can give this crucial information to organizations, where workers

usually leave to report it as antisocial behavior and where so poor reporting is frequent, it is

likely to fail to discuss the issue. Given the value of reporting, it is essential to understand the

factors that affect underreporting on a large scale.

Mindfulness

In a related research program (1989–2005), Langer practiced the phrase mindfulness to lead to

an extensive and artistic focus on one's surroundings.

Constant with others, we determine mindfulness as an observational, controversial position

(e.g., 2004, bishops et al., 2007; Brown et al. 2011, Mikulas). Mindfulness here means

"completely" and promptly "moment by moment." Mindfulness involves recognizing recent

outer stimuli, such as external functions or objects, and regional methods and events such as

passions, thoughts, feelings, and impressions. Observing mindfulness, observational attitudes

are linked to a decrease in psychic interpretation and assessment (e.g., 2006 Putnam and

Weick). At the appropriate level, mindfulness means enduring individual variations in the

inclination to be in a position of mental consciousness. (2007; Brown et al., 2011; Glomb et al.).

Furthermore, while this study is beginning to add to organizational scholarship by exploring the

purpose of the degree of recognition and knowledge in businesses, it is moderately quiet on

mindfulness interactions. An interesting question is whether a corporate member's intelligence

influences workplace practices and other organizational members. One assembly of

organizational members representing an especially leading role is that they hold the leader's

position.

Self-efficacy

In current years, self-belief has appeared as a principal element in many theories of individual

behavior. This inclination can also be seen in manufacturing or organizational psychology.

(1981)Aldag and Brief, for instance, indicate that workers in companies have specific beliefs and

assumptions about their production and suggest that when trying to define organizational

behavior If so, they should be considered. In extension to highlighting the power of self-

confidence and recognizing expectations, (1981), Aldag and Brief presented a model that

illustrates the synergy between organizational positions and self-beliefs.

Despite the suggestions of (1981), Aldag, and Brief, it is surprising that little organizational

analysis has analyzed self-confidence. The privilege of this inclination in regulatory review has

been the current concern in self-efficacy, representing one's beliefs about whether one can

achieve something successfully (1977, 1978 Bandura). Self-efficacy is related to expectancy

(1976, Pritchard and Campbell), which describes beliefs on work and achievement. Some

scholars have practiced the two together (1991, Lituchy and Earley, 1985, Garland.).

Hypothesis

H1.

Leader humility is negatively related to Antisocial behavior.

H2

Mindfulness is positively related to leader humility

H3,

Mindfulness mediates the negative relationship between leader humility and antisocial

behaviors.

H4,

Self-efficacy is positively associated with leader humility.

H5.

Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between leader humility and Antisocial behavior.

Leader humility and Antisocial Behavior

H1; Leader Humility is negatively related to antisocial behaviors.

Previous studies show the relationship between leader humility and employees' behavior at the

workplace with moderating or mediating role of different factors. For example, the relation

between leader humility and employees' antisocial behavior is negatively related. When a

leader is humble, the employees show ethical behavior (Oc et al., 2015). The more the leader

shows humility, the less harmful behavior employees will show at the workplace.

According to social exchange theory, people react as a result of other actions accordingly (Blau

1964). When a leader shows humility and acts reasonably by their leader, they respond to it by

engaging themselves in more positive or ethical behaviors (lei et al., 2015; Yu and Wang 2017).

Employees show antisocial behaviors when they are not treated fairly and justly (Aquino et

al.,1999).

When a leader is humble, he shows openness to employees, appreciates their achievements

admire them. As a result, the respect of the leader enhances the employee's perception of the

LMX process (Owens & Hekman 2012). Employees avoid adapting behaviors that may hurt their

leader and affect their leadership. (Fox et al.,2001).

leader Humility and mindfulness

H2, mindfulness is positively associated with Leader Humility.

The term "leadership" in organizations is usually associated with the CEO level at an

organization where leaders represent the organization internally and externally (Mintzberg

1973). however, leadership takes place at a different level in the organization to ensure that the

necessary actions are being made to achieve an organization's goals. Leaders at these levels

have a higher influence on employees (Judge & Piccolo 2004; Lowe et al., 1996).

Previous researches mostly focused on leadership traits, style, and behavior but less focused on

leaders' attributes (Bono & Judge 2004; Judge et al. 2002). However, no research has examined

how a leader's attention and awareness affect employees' and subordinates' behavior and

performance in the workplace.

Leader humility and mindfulness have positive relation Verdorfer(2016). If a leader is humble,

shows appreciation and admiration to others, values their strengths and contributions along

with it if a leader is mindful, knowing what is taking place around in the current moment

without any judgment, the respect for such leader will enhance in the perception of employees.

They will avoid behaviors that may hurt their leader.

H3 Mediating Role of Mindfulness between leader Humility and Antisocial Behavior

Leader attention and awareness affect the behavior of employees in the workplace.

It is widely accepted that the leader shows different leadership styles and behavior to influence

employees' attitudes, practices, and performance (Gerstner and Day 1997; Lowe et al. 1996).

Mindfulness is the leader's quality of awareness and attention that influence their employees.

(Reb 2012).

The relationship between leader and follower is more effective when the leader is having the

ability of mindfulness. The research suggested that mindfulness is associated with a better

ability to perform in relation as it helps people relate to others emotionally (Boyatzis & McKee

2005, Carroll 2008).

H4, leader of humility, and self-efficacy

Self-Efficacy has a positive association with leader humility.

Self-efficacy is a critical element of Bandura's 1977, which refers to one's belief in one's

capability to perform a specific task. Research shows that 'high level of agency is required for

effective leadership.' (Hannah et al. 2008). Therefore, to become a successful leader in the

future, you need a high level of self-efficacy.

A humble leader should possess a high level of self-efficacy to become more active.

H5, Mediating role of Self Efficacy among the relationship of leader humility and employees'

antisocial behaviors.

High levels of self-efficacy enhance individuals' belief in their capabilities to achieve the

assigned goals (Philips & Gully,1997).

Humbles leaders with high self-efficacy leave a significant influence on employees' behavior

when employees find their leader humble and self-confident; they tend to show positive

responses at the workplace. Leaders with high self-efficacy engage their employees in more

complex tasks to motivate them to perform beyond the expected performance level. (Bass

1985.).

CHAPTER - 3

Research Methodology

The objective of this study is to investigate hypotheses because the researcher leads to explain

the variance in the dependent variable (Antisocial behavior) regarding the independent variable

(Leader humility) and moderating variables (Mindfulness and Self Efficacy). It is qualitative

research. This research becomes part of the literature on the antecedent of leader humility and

its impacts on an employee's antisocial behavior in the organization. It is causal research done

in the natural environment.

Population

The study's target population constituted the private sector (Bank industry) in Islamabad.

Sample design and size

Structured Interviews are used as sampling for data collection. Data are collected from the

workers who were available conveniently and willing to give data. According to Rule-of-10, 10

participants per item in the instruments being practiced performs enough sample size (Arrindell

& Van Der Ende, 1985). A total number of items used in the interview was 50, by adding nine

items leader humility by the scale of OWNES et al. (2013), nine-item antisocial behavior

measured with a scale developed by Robinson and o' leary-kelly's (1998)), 15 items of

Mindfulness by BROWN & RAYAN (2003)., 10-Item scale adopted from Ralf Schwarzer &

Matthias Jerusalem was used to measure self-efficacy.

Sample and data collection

Data was collected from the various organizations of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Self-

administered questions through a personal reference. We interviewed leaders and employees

of various banks in Islamabad, out of which 65% of the employees responded to the same

answer.

Demographics

The data was obtained from the various organization of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

The following table reveals the detail of the gender classification from which data has been

collected.

Table.no.1 The Demographics

Male

22

Female

8

Total

30

Measures and Reliabilities

Leader humility

As an individual characteristic that appears in social synergies, humility is behavior-based and is

identifiable to others" (2013: Owens et al.). Humility on the personal level has been empirically

proved to encourage more excellent representation in both business and educational contexts

(2011; Johnson et al., 2013 Owens et al.). Nine item scale confirms and develops by 2013

Owens et al. This person actively seeks feedback, even if it is significant. This person

acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than him or herself.

Antisocial behavior

Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly's express of antisocial behavior, which they measured using nine

items, such as damaged assets belonging to my boss, criticized people at the job, or began an

argument with someone at work, and did the job poorly, in entirely or slowly on purpose"

(Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998: 663).

Mindfulness

(1972) Nyanaponika Thera described mindfulness "the free and single-minded knowledge of

what occurs to us and us at the progressive moments of understanding. (1976) Hanh similarly

described mindfulness as having one's consciousness growing to the fact. (1972) Nyanaponika

Thera explained mindfulness "the free and single-minded knowledge of what occurs to us and

us at the progressive moments of understanding. (1976) Hanh similarly described mindfulness

as having one's consciousness growing to the fact. Such as a 15 item scale by brown and Rayan

(2003).

Self-Efficacy

Bandura proposed self-efficacy as a particular field construct, the observed capacity to

implement concrete activities to accomplish specific results (1994, Bandura; 1997 Adams, and

Bandura), which require to be measured by means adapted to the content field.

Ralf Schwarzer & Matthias Jerusalem 10 item scale of Self-efficacy.

Discussion:

The current research was conducted to check the relationship between Leader humility and

employee antisocial behaviors. To test the hypothesis, interviews were conducted. Data was

collected from different organizations of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The total sample size of the

study was 30. We find that a) Leader humility is negatively related to employee's antisocial

behavior at the workplace. B) leader mindfulness positively moderates the between leader

humility and employee's antisocial behaviors. The positive relation is strong when leader

mindfulness is high. C) leader self-efficacy positively moderates the association of leader

humility and employee's antisocial behaviors. The positive relationship between leader humility

and employee antisocial behaviors is strong when the self-efficacy of a leader is high.

We use the self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1861) and social exchange theory (Blau 1964). Self-

efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their abilities to control others' behaviors, which are

necessary to perform some specific job. It is a leader's ability to how he manages his

employee's antisocial behaviors. When a leader shows humble behaviors towards his

employees, the employees will act positively due to the social exchange theory.

So the consequences show and prove that employees don't show antisocial behaviors to the

humble leader. When leaders show openness towards employees, give them importance,

appreciate them on their success, and acknowledge their strengths, employees do not tend to

show negative behaviors that may hurt their leader.

Theoretical Implication

The current study has a various practical implementation for managers and organizations and

organizations.

Our research shows that a leader's humility plays a vital role in reducing employees' antisocial

behaviors in the workplace. So the managers must focus on developing humility in their leaders

to decrease employees' antisocial behaviors at the workplace. Training and development

programs should be organized to make leaders understand how vital humility is, develop

humility in them, and encourage them to practice humility in an organization. Organizations

should focus on selecting humble leaders.

The current study suggests that employees should be aware of the negative effect of antisocial

behaviors at the workplace and build interpersonal relations with their leader.

Limitations and Future research Directions:

This study has some limitations that should be discussed in the future. First, in current study

data was collected through interviews with sample size of 30 including leaders and employees,

to check the relationship of leader humility and employees antisocial behaviors, further

research should conduct with larger sample size to further examine the relation of humble

leader and employees antisocial behavior by using other techniques of data collection.

Secondly, our research focus only one outcome that is Antisocial behaviors of employees ,

further research is encouraged to investigate the other types of behaviors of employees in

relation with leaders humility.

Finally ,we use mindfulness and self-efficacy as moderators and self-efficacy theory to explore

the underlying process; future research can be conducted using an alternative approach and

moderator. Furthermore previous studies confirm that perception of leader humility differ for

individualist and capitalist cultures. further studies should also consider other contextual

factors to explore the relation..

Conclusion:

Drawing on the self-efficacy theory, this study explains the relationship between leader

humility and employee antisocial behavior. The current research introduces two variables

leader's mindfulness and self-efficacy to explore the mechanism underlying leader humility and

antisocial behaviors. This study finds that leaders' humility can reduce employee's antisocial

behaviors; the relation is even stronger when the leader has a high level of mindfulness and

self-efficacy.

The current study opens pathways for researchers to further explore the effect of leader

humility on employee's behavior, considering other contextual factors.

References

(n.d.).

Bradly D. Owens, D. R. (2015). How Does Leader Humilty Influence Team Performance? Exploring the

machanismsof Contagion and Collective Promotion Focus. Academy Of Management Journal., 1-

55.

Bradly P.Owens, M. D. (2013). Expressed Humility in organisations ,Implication for performance,Teams

and Leaderships. Organisation Science, 1517-1538.

Don E. Davis, E. L. (2010). Humility; Review of measurment strategies and conceptulization as

personality judgement. Journal of Positive Psycholoy, 243-252.

Evita March, R. G. (2020). Exploring Anger as a moderator of narcisim and antisocial behavior on tinder.

Personality and Individual Differences., 2-4.

Green, L. L. (2002). Leadership Self Efficacy and managers motivation for leading change. Journal of

Organisational Behavior, 215-235.

Karl Aquino, S. D. (2003). Identity Threat and antisocial behavior in organisations, the moderating effect

of individua differences ,agressive modeling,and hirarchical status. Organisation Behavior and

Human Decision Process., 195-208.

Kibeom Lee, M. C.-H. (2005). Personality Corelates of workplace Anti-social Behavior. . Applied

Psychology, 54(1), 81-98.

Robert R. Sinclair, J. M. (2002). A threat Appraisal Prespective on Employees fears about anti-social

workplace behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 37-56.

Saima Naseer, F. S. (2019). Understanding how leader's humility promotes followers emotions and

ethical behavior;workplace spirtuality as moderator. Journal of Positive Psychology., 2-12.

Siu Yin Cheung, E. G. (2019). Does being mindfull make people more creative at workplace? the role of

Creative process engagement and precieved leader Humility. Organizational behavior and

Human Decision Processes. , 1-5.

Yue Wang, W. L. (2019). More Humility less counterproductive Work behaviors? the role of interpersonal

justice and trust. china: online Published.

Kawakami, C., White, J. B., & Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful and Masculine: Freeing Women Leaders From

the Constraints of Gender Roles. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 49–63. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00151

Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for leading change.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215–235. doi:10.1002/job.137

Dickerson, A., & Taylor, M. A. (2000). Self-Limiting Behavior in Women. Group & Organization

Management, 25(2), 191–210. doi:10.1177/1059601100252006

Summerell, E., Harmon-Jones, C., Denson, T. F., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2020). Humility is associated with

less aggressive motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 158,

109837. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109837

Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How Does Leader Humility Influence Team Performance?

Exploring the Mechanisms of Contagion and Collective Promotion Focus. Academy of Management

Journal, 59(3), 1088–1111. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0660

Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource

Management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472. doi:10.2307/258514

Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How Does Leader Humility Influence Team Performance?

Exploring the Mechanisms of Contagion and Collective Promotion Focus. Academy of

Management Journal, 59(3), 1088–1111. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0660

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4),

822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822