What behavioral trait refers to an authoritarian and paternalistic posture?

Introduction

Deviant workplace behaviors (DWB) are increasing dramatically, which has recently fatigued all-encompassing attention among both academicians and practitioners. Robinson and Bennett (1995) have described DWB as any voluntary acts that violate organizational norms, and thus threaten the well-being of an organization, its members, or both. A report past the Us Bedchamber of Commerce estimates that 75% of employees steal at least once (Shulman, 2005). Moreover, DWB can be linked with adverse aspects of individuals, groups and organizations (Alias et al., 2013). For instance, unauthorized web surfing (gambling) during working hours has been estimated to cost upward to £300 million loss in productivity yearly (Taylor, 2007). The bulk of previous inquiry has concentrated on the relationship between employees' personality traits (eastward.g., O'Neill and Hastings, 2011; Zhang et al., 2015) and their DWB. Yet, very lilliputian empirical research has been done on the link between leadership style and employees' DWB.

Leaders correspond their organizations, and their actions are often related to followers' behaviors (Aquino et al., 1999). Leadership has been conceptualized as the process of influencing the activities of an organized group towards the task accomplishment (Chemers, 1997). Among the diverse leadership styles, authoritarian leadership is one of the most prevalent in Chinese settings (Farh and Cheng, 2000), due to its fit with traditional cultures. Thus, disciplinarian leadership has been chosen as our interested leadership construct. Authoritarian leadership is originally divers by Cheng et al. (2004) as ane element of paternalistic leadership. They argue that disciplinarian leadership tin can be conceptualized as leaders' behaviors that assert accented authority and control over subordinates and demand unconditional obedience. High leadership authority means low sharing of power and information with followers, every bit well as strong control over followers' behaviors.

Bass (1990) has classified the primary styles of leadership into transactional, transformational, empowering, and authoritarian. The first three styles could exist summarized as egalitarian leadership, which stresses the notion of equal distribution of power in the community or grouping (Flood et al., 2000). In dissimilarity to egalitarian leadership, authoritarian leadership places emphasis on the asymmetric power between leaders and followers, which allows leaders to put personal dominance and command over followers (Tsui et al., 2004). Moreover, authoritarian leadership differs from some other types of leadership, such as abusive supervision, which is described equally supervisors' sustained display of non-physical hostility against their subordinates (Tepper, 2000); authentic leadership, which is defined as leaders' behaviors aiming at promoting positive psychological capacities of employees (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Compared with the above ii leadership styles, the cadre of disciplinarian leadership is asserting complete control over subordinates.

Previous research has identified some personality variables which may chronicle to authoritarian leadership, such every bit supervisors' machiavellianism (Kiazad et al., 2010), need for personalized power (Aryee et al., 2007) and narcissism (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Another stream of research has found that disciplinarian leadership is associated with employees' attitude, bear on and behaviors, such as job dissatisfaction (Shaw, 1955), negative emotions towards supervisors (Farh et al., 2006), and actress-part behaviors (Chen et al., 2014). Although authoritarian leadership may besides chronicle to employees' DWB, scant attempts take been made to systematically explore the underlying machinery behind the relationship betwixt authoritarian leadership and employees' DWB.

Social Exchange Theory states that the bones nature of human behaviors is a subjective interaction with others, and the development of interpersonal relationships is in accordance with the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964). Co-ordinate to this theory, leadership behaviors may shape the commutation relationship betwixt leaders and followers, which might be associated with followers' workplace behaviors. Moreover, psychological contract violation could be considered as subordinates' unfulfilled expectation of the social exchange relationship (Dark-brown and Moshavi, 2002). In improver, organizational cynicism is "a negative attitude toward one'southward employing organization" (Dean et al., 1998). Employees with high level of organizational cynicism hold that the system lacks integrity and that leader'south decisions are fabricated with a self-interested drive (Andersson, 1996; Neves, 2012). From the Social Exchange Theory perspective, it is thus reasonable to infer that both psychological contract violation and organizational pessimism, which could reflect the quality of social relation between leaders and followers, may mediate the link between authoritarian leadership and employees' DWB. Therefore, drawing on Social Exchange Theory, the electric current research is to investigate the human relationship between authoritarian leadership and DWB. More chiefly, we attempt to explicate why this relationship occurs by providing important explanatory mechanism. To this end, psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism are introduced every bit mediators that business relationship for the authoritarian leadership-DWB human relationship.

Theoretical Groundwork and Hypotheses

Authoritarian Leadership and Employees' DWB

Disciplinarian leadership refers to a leader'southward behaviors of implementing strong control over subordinates and requiring their unconditional obedience (Cheng et al., 2004). The primary feature of disciplinarian leadership is absolute dominance of the leaders. Authoritarian leaders are inclined to exert command by issuing rules and threatening punishment for disobedience (Aryee et al., 2007). They often utilise strict discipline to subordinates' piece of work and exhibit their authority on decision making (Wang et al., 2013). When leaders implement their followers with an authoritarian approach, subordinates are demanded to comply with leaders' requests without dissent and subordinates may experience negative emotions towards leaders (Farh et al., 2006). Prior research has shown that disciplinarian leadership is linked with employees' job dissatisfaction (Shaw, 1955). Furthermore, when employees are dissatisfied with their job, they may exhibit DWB like absenteeism, low performance and violence (Mount et al., 2006). Thus, it is inferred that disciplinarian leadership is positively linked with employees' DWB.

Based on Social Commutation Theory, all homo behaviors are based on the reciprocal benefits in the social human relationship, and the benefits exchanged are indicative of mutual support and investment in that relationship (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964; Neves and Caetano, 2006). According to the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), subordinates' attitude and behaviors are associated with leadership behaviors. When subordinates receive support or assistants authority from their leaders, they are inclined to reciprocate with positive job attitude and performance. On the contrary, when subordinates are subjected to threats or intimidation from authoritarian leaders (Kiazad et al., 2010), they tend to reciprocate with negative reactions, such equally DWB. Taken together, it is possible that employees under authoritarian leadership are more likely to exhibit DWB. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H1: Authoritarian leadership is positively related to employees' DWB.

Mediating Part of Psychological Contract Violation

Psychological contract is an individual's belief regarding the terms of an understanding between the private and organization (Levinson et al., 1972; Kotter, 1973). The disquisitional chemical element of this concept lies in the reciprocal obligations. For instance, subordinates look to receive rewards in exchange for their commitment and contribution to the arrangement. Psychological contract violation is defined as subordinates' perception that the organisation has failed to fulfill its obligations or promises (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). When the system is unable to meet subordinates' expectation, the psychological contract violation occurs. Disciplinarian leaders oftentimes condone followers' suggestions and disbelieve their contributions (Aryee et al., 2007), which makes them experience disrespected and their expectation unmet. Therefore, employees under authoritarian leadership are inclined to experience psychological contract violation.

Moreover, disciplinarian leaders ofttimes control and command subordinates mainly via threats and intimidation (Kiazad et al., 2010), which could be related to employees' negative emotions, such every bit anger and fear (Farh et al., 2006). These negative emotions are associated with psychological contract violation (Ortony et al., 1988; Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Thus, employees under disciplinarian leadership may experience aroused and fearful towards the organization and consider whether to maintain or end this organization-member human relationship, and then the psychological contract is likely to be violated. Based on these previous studies, we advise the following hypothesis:

H2a: Authoritarian leadership is positively linked with psychological contract violation.

A growing literature has suggested that psychological contract violation is linked with employees' DWB (e.m., Restubog et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008). General Strain Theory (Agnew, 1992, 2006) has posited that strain occurs when negative social relationship is developed, and individuals who experience loftier level of accumulated strain are inclined to appoint in deviant behaviors. As nosotros know, when psychological contract is violated, employees perceive relatively lower quality human relationship with their organization. Drawing from the General Strain Theory, lower quality relationship would force employees into a high-strain situation. Taking this into consideration, exhibiting DWB would be considered as a reaction to the strain. Therefore, employees with higher level of strain are more likely to show DWB (Alias et al., 2013). Based on both theoretical ground and empirical findings, information technology is possible that psychological contract violation is positively associated with employees' DWB. Thus, this study puts forrad the following hypothesis:

H2b: Psychological contract violation is positively related to employees' DWB.

The foundation of the arrangement-member relationship is psychological contract, which is comprised of beliefs virtually reciprocal obligations in this social relationship (Rousseau, 1989). When subordinates perceive that leaders fail to fulfill obligations or promises, the psychological contract violation occurs (Turnley et al., 2003). Appropriately, the research of psychological contract violation has generally taken Social Exchange Theory to understand its relationship with employees' behaviors (Chen et al., 2004). As suggested in Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Lorinkova and Perry, 2014), leadership behaviors could shape the common relationship between leaders and subordinates, which may be linked with subordinates' behaviors. Based on this theory, authoritarian leadership which makes employees' social exchange expectation unfulfilled, may exist related to employees' higher psychological contract violation, and then employees are more than likely to exert DWB. Taking these theoretical arguments and same hypotheses (H1, H2a, and H2b) into consideration, information technology is inferred that psychological contract violation may act as a mediator between authoritarian leadership and employees' DWB. We propose the following hypothesis:

H2c: Psychological contract violation mediates the link betwixt authoritarian leadership and employees' DWB.

Organizational Pessimism as a Mediator

Organizational cynicism is defined as "a negative mental attitude toward one'due south employing organization, comprising iii dimensions: (one) a belief that the arrangement lacks integrity; (two) negative impact toward the organisation; and (3) tendency of showing disquisitional behaviors towards the system" (Dean et al., 1998). Organizational pessimism is characterized by frustration, hopelessness, contempt toward organization and lack of trust in organisation (Andersson, 1996). The main reason for the link betwixt authoritarian leadership and organizational cynicism lies in the variation of perceived organizational back up. It is well acknowledged that authoritarian leaders emphasize personal dominance and control over subordinates, and they habitually get things done in their own ways (Tsui et al., 2004). Furthermore, authoritarian leaders often disregard the interests and perspectives of employees (Chan et al., 2013). Since leadership beliefs operates as an important indicator of the extent of support provided by the organization (Levinson, 1965), subordinates nether authoritarian leadership may experience that they go less support from the organisation. Moreover, this reduction of perceived organizational support could be linked with followers' cynical attitudes towards the organisation (Leiter and Harvie, 1997; Treadway et al., 2004). Thus, it is plausible that disciplinarian leadership is positively related to organizational cynicism. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3a: Authoritarian leadership is positively linked with organizational cynicism.

Information technology has been demonstrated that organizational cynicism is positively linked with employees' DWB (due east.g., James, 2005; Evans et al., 2010). Organizational cynics believe that leader is concerned just with his own cocky-interest, and they unremarkably experience frustrated and existence treated unfairly (Andersson, 1996). Moreover, frustration (Spector, 1997) and perceived injustice (Greenberg and Alge, 1998) are positively associated with employees' DWB. Thus, employees with college organizational cynicism are more likely to show DWB. Taken together, it is reasonable to infer a positive link between organizational cynicism and employees' DWB. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3b: Organizational pessimism is positively related to employees' DWB.

According to the Social Exchange Theory (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964), the behaviors of leaders, the key agents of the arrangement, would shape subordinates' attitude and behaviors towards the organisation. From this theory, authoritarian leadership which stresses on leaders' dominate control over subordinates via threats and intimidation (Kiazad et al., 2010), would make subordinates feel uneasy, oppressed and generate distrust in organization (Wu et al., 2012). This sense of distrust is the main feature of organizational cynicism (Kanter and Mirvis, 1989; Andersson, 1996). And so, subordinates with high level of organizational cynicism may feel frustration and contempt towards organization (Andersson, 1996) and tend to appoint DWB. Taking theoretical arguments and these above hypotheses (H1, H3a, and H3b) into consideration, authoritarian leaders who are arbitrary and of low trustworthiness could brand employees to be cynical towards the organisation, which may be related to employees' DWB. Thus, information technology is plausible that organizational cynicism might account for the relationship between disciplinarian leadership and employees' DWB. The following hypothesis is tested:

H3c: Organizational cynicism mediates the link between disciplinarian leadership and employees' DWB.

Many studies take shown that psychological contract violation could be associated with organizational pessimism (e.g., Andersson, 1996; Dean et al., 1998; Chrobot-Mason, 2003; Johnson and O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). Equally we know, psychological contract violation involves employees' perception that their employing organisation fails to fulfill promised obligations or duties (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Furthermore, this negative perception (i.e., psychological contract violation) could make employees feel distrust towards their organization, and then the contemptuous attitude towards organization may be strengthened (Robinson et al., 1994). On the footing of these studies, nosotros advise the following hypothesis:

H4: Psychological contract violation is positively related to organizational pessimism.

To sum upwardly, a fix of hypotheses have been derived from existing theory and prior research. Then several multivariate models will be constructed to exam these hypotheses, specifically the proposed mediating roles of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism betwixt authoritarian leadership and DWB. Based on these analyses mentioned above, the present study puts forward the post-obit hypothetical model shown in Figure one.

Figure ane. Hypothetical model.

Materials and Methods

Participants and Procedures

The sample consisted of 391 workers from five manufacturing enterprises in a northern urban center of China. Nosotros collected information from total-fourth dimension employees who had worked together and ofttimes interacted with their supervisors. At commencement, a total of 470 questionnaires were distributed, and 453 questionnaires were returned for an overall return rate of 96.4%. Ii surveys were not included due to incomplete or illegible responses. Additionally, the participants who indicated that they did non have a supervisor had been excluded, because they were unable to provide meaningful ratings on the focal variable, perceived authoritarian leadership. Finally, 391 (83.two%) valid questionnaire were received.

The jobs held past these employees varied widely, including repairman, quality inspectors, operator, material managing director, and other manufacture related activities. The respondents were mainly men (n = 271, 69.three%), and they are mostly betwixt the ages of 26 and 45, which brand up 60.iv% of the full. The majority of the participants were junior college (vocational education, 36.v%) and undergraduate higher (undergraduate education, 42.0%). Moreover, lx.2% of the respondents possessed three–5 years' piece of work experience. In add-on, 10.6% of the participants had a low- or mid-level leadership position (7.4% first-line manager, 3.2% department eye direction staff).

From January to Feb 2015, we contacted with several manufacturing enterprises and asked them to participate in this investigation. Later on getting approval, the managers of each enterprise introduced the homo resource department staffs to united states of america. We told them the purpose of this survey, proper ways of collecting information in improver to the detailed precautions in the survey. At the get-go of the investigation, nosotros introduced the voluntary nature of this survey and bodacious anonymity and confidentiality to the participants. To express our appreciation, participants were given a $v souvenir certificate to a local store as long every bit they completed the questionnaire. This study was part of a larger research project on leadership behaviors, for which the first author had received ethical clearance from the university ethical review process.

Measures

A 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), was used to measure the participants' responses for each detail. The scales used to measure out each variable were adapted from relevant prior research. All scales items were translated into Chinese by professional person translators post-obit a double bullheaded back-translation procedure (Schaffer and Riordan, 2003) to ensure semantic equivalence with the original English language wording. Cronbach'south alpha was calculated for each calibration.

Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarian leadership was measured by the nine-item version of the Authoritarian Leadership Questionnaire by Farh and Cheng (2000). Sample items were "My supervisor asks me to obey his/her instructions completely", "My supervisor always has the concluding say in the meeting", and "My supervisor scolds the states when nosotros cannot accomplish our task". Cronbach'southward alpha of the scale was 0.87.

Psychological Contract Violation

Psychological contract violation was measured past the Psychological Contract Violation Questionnaire (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). Sample items include "I feel betrayed by my system", "I feel that my organisation has violated the contract between united states of america". Cronbach's blastoff was 0.90 for this scale.

Organizational Cynicism

Nosotros used the Organizational Cynicism Questionnaire adult by Dean et al. (1998) to measure organizational cynicism. Examples of statements are "Company policies, goals and practices are often inconsistent", "I feel angry when I think of the company", "I often laugh at the company's slogan and actions". The calibration consisted of three dimensions: pessimism organized religion (α = 0.92), cynicism emotion (α = 0.93) and pessimism behaviors (α = 0.84). Cronbach'south alpha of the full scale was 0.94.

Deviant Workplace Behaviors

Deviant Workplace Behaviors Questionnaire (Bennett and Robinson, 2000) was adopted to measure out DWB. Information technology was a multidimensional construct including 2 portions: (a) 7 items for interpersonal deviance (α = 0.91), (b) 12 items for organizational deviance (α = 0.93). The case items were "Acted rudely toward someone at piece of work", "Dragged out work in guild to get overtime". Cronbach's alpha was 0.95 for the total scale.

Results

Description

Table 1 shows the hateful, standard departure, and correlations for each of the constructs. Information technology was found that authoritarian leadership was significantly and positively correlated with employees' DWB (r = 0.23, p < 0.01), psychological contract violation (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) and organizational pessimism (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). These results provided initial support for H1, H2a, and H3a, respectively. Psychological contract violation was significantly and positively correlated with DWB (r = 0.threescore, p < 0.01) which provided initial back up for H2b. Organizational cynicism was significantly and positively correlated with DWB (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and psychological contract violation (r = 0.59, p < 0.01) which provided initial support for H3b and H4.

Tabular array 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations amid all variables.

Measurement Model Testing

The measurement model consisted of iv latent factors (authoritarian leadership, psychological contract violation, organizational pessimism and DWB) and eleven observed indicators. The observed indicators were formed by the method of item parceling (i.e., aggregating individual items into several parcels). Compared with detail-level data, aggregate-level data has several advantages, such every bit higher communality, higher ratio of common-to-unique factor variance, and lower random error (Matsunaga, 2008). The goodness of fit of the model was evaluated using the following indices (Kline, 2005): (a) chi-square statistics; (b) root-mean-square fault of approximation (RMSEA): best if below.08; (c) goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI): best if above 0.90.

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS 21.0 to examine whether employees' scores on their self-report measures (i.e., authoritarian leadership, psychological contract violation, organizational cynicism and DWB) captured distinctive constructs. We compared the fitness between a 1-gene model (all observed indicators loaded on i factor), ii-factor model (disciplinarian leadership and psychological contract violation on i factor, organizational pessimism and DWB on the other), iii-factor model (authoritarian leadership and psychological contract violation on one factor, organizational cynicism and DWB as split up factors) and four-cistron model (authoritarian leadership, psychological contract violation, organizational pessimism and DWB as separate factors). The results (run across Table 2) indicated that the iv-gene model fitted the data better than other models.

Tabular array 2. Fit indices for measurement models.

In society to decide whether common method variance was problematic, we employed Harman's single-factor examination (Harman, 1976) to test whether the bulk of the variance could be accounted for by one general factor. The results showed that the showtime factor deemed for only 29.46% of the variance, less than half, and this finding could exist accustomed (Harris et al., 2013). Furthermore, common method variance was tested past using the CFA marker technique (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We performed a CFA (5-factor model) in which a common method gene was added to 4-factor model. The results indicated the inclusion of the common method variance in 5-factor model did not improve the overall model fit of 4-gene model significantly (Tabular array 2). Thus, information technology was determined that the common method bias was not a problem in this study.

Structure Model Testing

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test our Hypotheses 1–four and to appraise the appropriateness and fit of our proposed theoretical model. First, we built a fractional-mediated model (Model 1). The results showed that Model 1 did non fit the information well (see Table 3), and the path from disciplinarian leadership to employees' DWB was not significant (β = 0.06, p > 0.05) (see Effigy ii). Then we deleted the not-significant path based on the Model 1 and built the fully mediated model (Model 2) (run across Figure 3). The results indicated that Model two fitted well to the information (see Tabular array 3), only the path from psychological contract violation to employees' DWB was not-significant (β = 0.10, p > 0.05). The chi-square divergence between Model 1 and Model 2 reached the significant level (Δχ^two (1) = sixty.80, p < 0.001), which suggested that Model ii fitted ameliorate than Model ane (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. Comparing of the structural models.

Figure ii. Partial-mediated model (Model 1). AL1–AL4 are 4 parcels of authoritarian leadership (AL1–AL3 aggregates of 2 items and AL4 was three items from the Disciplinarian Leadership Questionnaire); PCV, psychological contract violation; OC, organizational cynicism; DWB, deviant workplace behaviors; PCV1 aggregates of two items and PCV2 was two items from Psychological Contract Violation Questionnaire; CF, pessimism faith; CB, pessimism beliefs; CE, cynicism emotion; CF, CB, and CE are three dimensions of the Organizational Cynicism Questionnaire; ID, interpersonal deviation; OD, organizational departure; ID and OD are two dimensions of the Deviant Workplace Behaviors Questionnaire. ^∗p < 0.05; ^{∗ ∗}p < 0.01; ^∗∗∗p < 0.001.

Effigy 3. Fully mediated model (Model ii). AL1–AL4 are four parcels of disciplinarian leadership (AL1–AL3 aggregates of 2 items and AL4 was three items from the Disciplinarian Leadership Questionnaire); PCV, psychological contract violation; OC, organizational cynicism; DWB, deviant workplace behaviors; PCV1 aggregates of two items and PCV2 was two items from Psychological Contract Violation Questionnaire; CF, cynicism organized religion; CB, pessimism behavior; CE, pessimism emotion; CF, CB, and CE are three dimensions of the Organizational Cynicism Questionnaire; ID, interpersonal departure; OD, organizational divergence; ED and OD are 2 dimensions of the Deviant Workplace Behaviors Questionnaire. ^∗p < 0.05; ^{∗ ∗}p < 0.01; ^∗∗∗p < 0.001.

Second, in gild to determine the all-time model, we developed another alternative model (Model 3). For Model iii, we deleted the non-significant path and added a path betwixt psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism based on the Model 2 (see Figure 4). The chi-foursquare difference between Model two and Model 3 reached the pregnant level (Δχ² (1) = 45.84, p < 0.001). The results indicated that compared with Model 2, Model 3 provided a better fit to the data (see Tabular array 3). Therefore, Model 3 was called as our final structural model.

Effigy four. The last mediation model (Model 3). AL1–AL4 are iv parcels of authoritarian leadership (AL1–AL3 aggregates of two items and AL4 was three items from the Disciplinarian Leadership Questionnaire); PCV, psychological contract violation; OC, organizational cynicism; DWB, deviant workplace behaviors; PCV1 aggregates of ii items and PCV2 was ii items from Psychological Contract Violation Questionnaire; CF, cynicism faith; CB, cynicism behavior; CE, cynicism emotion; CF, CB, and CE are three dimensions of the Organizational Cynicism Questionnaire; ID, interpersonal difference; OD, organizational divergence; ID and OD are two dimensions of the Deviant Workplace Behaviors Questionnaire. ^∗p < 0.05; ^∗∗p < 0.01; ^∗∗∗p < 0.001.

Further, nosotros tested the mediation effects identified in Model iii using the bootstrapping method (Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Hayes, 2013). The SEM results supported our hypotheses. First, as depicted in Tabular array 4 and Figure 4, psychological contract violation and organizational pessimism mediated the human relationship between disciplinarian leadership and DWB, and the significant mediation furnishings comprised: (a) the indirect outcome of authoritarian leadership on DWB via organizational cynicism, (b) the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on DWB via psychological contract violation followed by organizational cynicism. Therefore, H1, H2c, and H3c were supported. Second, the path coefficient from authoritarian leadership to psychological contract violation was positively significant (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), supporting H2a. Third, the path coefficient between authoritarian leadership and organizational cynicism was pregnant (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), so H3a was supported. Quaternary, the path coefficient from organizational cynicism to DWB was significant (β = 0.84, p < 0.001), supporting H3b. Fifth, H4 was supported by the results: the path coefficient between psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism was significant (β = 0.85, p < 0.001). Sixth, the indirect effect of organizational pessimism in the link between psychological contract violation and DWB (PCV→OC→DWB) was pregnant (β = 0.71, p < 0.001) (see Tabular array 4). This event demonstrated that psychological contract violation was positively related to DWB, through the indirect effect of organizational cynicism. Therefore, H2b was supported.

Tabular array 4. Directly and indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals in last model 3.

Discussion

Our results show that the relationship betwixt authoritarian leadership and employees' DWB is fully mediated past psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism, which indicates that Model 2 (fully mediated model) fits better than Model 1 (partially mediated model). This result suggests that employees under authoritarian leadership tend to perceive higher psychological contract violation and college arrangement pessimism, both of which are positively related to their DWB. Moreover, we find the link between disciplinarian leadership and DWB is sequentially mediated by psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism, which supports that Model iii fits better than Model 2. It is indicated that when leader adopts an authoritarian approach, their followers are more than likely to feel psychological contract violation. Then, this sense of psychological contract violation is positively related to followers' perception of organizational cynicism, which can be associated with their DWB.

Theoretical Implications

First, based on the Social Exchange Theory, our findings provide an alternative lens through which to understand the underlying mechanism of the authoritarian leadership-DWB relationship. Drawing from Social Exchange Theory (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964), employees tin can react to the social exchange relationship, which is initiated and shaped by the leaders' actions. In this light, this study demonstrates that authoritarian leadership has a positive relationship with employees' DWB, which is consequent with previous studies (e.thou., Farh and Cheng, 2000; Schuh et al., 2013). More importantly, psychological contract violation (Brown and Moshavi, 2002) and organizational cynicism (Neves, 2012), both of which could reflect the quality of social relation between leaders and followers, are found to mediate the link between disciplinarian leadership and DWB. These results contribute to current inquiry by suggesting that the propositions from Social Exchange Theory tin be extended to explicate the underlying machinery backside the relationship between disciplinarian leadership and followers' behaviors.

Moreover, our work adds to the body of literature on authoritarian leadership. Overall, this study offers an important contribution to the disciplinarian leadership literature by demonstrating its human relationship with employees' negative perception and behaviors towards the organization. Prior inquiry has emphasized that authoritarian leadership has a negative relationship with subordinates' positive attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational commitment (Erben and Güneşer, 2008) and organizational citizenship behavior (Salam et al., 1996). Still, petty attention has been paid to the link between authoritarian leadership and employee's negative attitudes and behaviors, which are frequently observed in the workplace. Thus, this study enriches the existing research by demonstrating the relationship between authoritarian leadership and negative aspects (i.east., psychological contract violation, organizational cynicism and DWB).

Last merely non the least, our research has advanced the understanding of the mediating roles of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first written report to propose the mediating roles of both psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism within the same structural model. Previous research has only investigated the mediating role of psychological contract violation (east.g., Ahmed and Muchiri, 2014; Liao et al., in press) or organizational cynicism (east.g., Gkorezis et al., 2015) in the link between leadership and work-related aspects. In dissimilarity to prior work, by taking both psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism into consideration, the current inquiry has unveiled the underlying mechanism that explains the authoritarian leadership-DWB link.

Practical Implications

Our findings concord several important managerial implications. Beginning and foremost, our results demonstrate that disciplinarian leadership is associated with a number of negative work-related aspects. In this light, the occurrence of authoritarian leadership should be reduced by advisedly selecting and training supervisors. For instance, the personality characteristic of "authorisation" (i.e., the levels of assertiveness, aggression, and cooperation) assessed by 16PF Questionnaire (Cattell et al., 1970) should be considered as 1 of indices in the supervisor recruitment system. Moreover, organizations might provide supervisors with training courses to improve their interpersonal relationship skills (Aryee et al., 2007). Additionally, leaders themselves should attempt to create an equity and harmonious working environment, and testify benevolence to employees. All the same, it is noteworthy that the relationship between authoritarian leadership and poor performance of subordinates might non always be stable (Farh et al., 2008). Under some circumstances, such as tight deadlines and crunch situations, authoritarian leadership may be needed to obtain desirable outcomes. For case, authoritarian leadership could be constructive in promoting subordinates' attempt in urgent situation (Niu et al., 2009), and giving them motivation to attain goals (Chan et al., 2013). Thus, it is suggested that leaders should utilise different leadership fashion under unlike situations (Yang et al., 2012). In other words, the overuse of any one leadership style may disappoint employees or impairment leadership effectiveness.

Moreover, in line with previous studies, our results take demonstrated that psychological contract violation is positively related to negative attitude of cynicism (e.g., Chrobot-Mason, 2003; Johnson and O'Leary-Kelly, 2003), and employees' DWB (e.thousand., Restubog et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008). Thus, leaders should adopt some direction strategies to fulfill followers' psychological contract. For example, leaders can inquire for subordinates' opinions to drag their sense of participation, share direction power to inspire employees' loyalty to the organisation, and bear witness business organisation for subordinates' well-being in both work and family domains.

Finally, in order to reduce organizational cynicism in the workplace, arrangement should use different approaches to increase trustworthiness, such equally offer organizational support, treating all the employees fairly. In addition, organizations should provide a communication platform where employees could share work-related information, keep track of the company policies, and complain online with supervisors, so that a meliorate exchange relationship would exist built based on trust.

Limitations and Future Research

The results of this enquiry should exist interpreted with respect to a number of limitations that may shed lite on hereafter enquiry directions. Starting time, this inquiry is cross-sectional in nature, and no causal human relationship between variables of involvement in our study could exist established. The longitudinal effects of organizational or psychological factors on employees' DWB remain unexplored. It is possible that a one-occasion test of a mediation model is not adequate, especially equally a temporal sequence is proposed in our study. Thus, addressing the causality issue using a longitudinal design to test the current study model would however be a fruitful avenue for future research.

2d, although our research has demonstrated that authoritarian leadership can be positively linked with employees' DWB. All the same, it is also institute that if leaders perceive that the goals of organization or their ain interests are defeated by followers' behaviors, they would implement a destructive leadership way (Krasikova et al., 2013). It is suggested that followers' DWB might be predictive of leaders' behaviors, such as authoritarian leadership. Every bit mentioned before, leaders may vary behaviors according to unlike circumstances (Yang et al., 2012). Therefore, information technology is recommended that hereafter research should examine the role of followers in shaping leaders' behaviors.

Third, this written report merely focuses on psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism as mediating variables. Testing other mediators such as perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange, may provide further insights regarding the machinery underlying the link between authoritarian leadership and employees' DWB.

Despite these limitations, this written report makes several important contributions. To our cognition, the current research represents the showtime attempt to investigate both psychological contract violation and organizational pessimism in ane written report to examine the underlying mechanism behind the link between disciplinarian leadership and employees' DWB. The results advise that the relationship between authoritarian leadership and DWB is mediated past organizational cynicism. Moreover, this relationship is also sequentially mediated by psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. In consideration of the probable machinery, these findings could provide valuable guidance for how to reduce employees' DWB.

Ethics Statement

This report was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of ethics committee of China University of Mining and Engineering with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accord with the Proclamation of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the ideals committee of Prc University of Mining and Technology.

Author Contributions

HJ: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, drafting and revising the newspaper, and understanding to exist accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy of any part of the piece of work are accordingly investigated and resolved. YC: substantial contributions to drafting the work and revising information technology critically for important intellectual content. PS: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, and the communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication procedure. JY: substantial contributions to data acquisition and data analysis.

Funding

This study was supported past the National Natural Science Foundation of Red china (71672187, 71302141), Prc Postdoctoral Science Special Foundation (2016T90529, 2013M541761), National Social Science Foundation of Red china (15CSH052), Qing Lan Project of Jiangsu Province (2017).

Conflict of Interest Argument

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general theory of crime. Criminology thirty, 47–87. doi: ten.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

CrossRef Full Text

Agnew, R. (2006). "General strain theory: current status and directions for further inquiry," in Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, eds F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, and Thousand. R. Blevins (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers), 101–123.

Google Scholar

Ahmed, E., and Muchiri, M. (2014). Effects of psychological contract alienation, ethical leadership and supervisors' fairness on employees' operation and well-being. World 5, 1–xiii. doi: ten.21102/wjm.2014.09.52.01

CrossRef Full Text

Alias, Thousand., Mohd Rasdi, R., Ismail, M., and Abu Samah, B. (2013). Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: HRD calendar for Malaysian back up personnel. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 37, 161–182. doi: 10.1108/03090591311301671

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: an examination using a contract violation framework. Hum. Relations 49, 1395–1418. doi: 10.1177/001872679604901102

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Aquino, Thou., Lewis, M. U., and Bradfield, 1000. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: a proposed model and empirical exam. J. Organ. Behav. 20, 1073–1091. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199912)twenty:7<1073::AID-JOB943>three.0.CO;2-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. 10., Lord's day, Fifty. Y., and Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of calumniating supervision: test of a trickle-downwardly model. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 191–201. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Gratis Press.

Google Scholar

Blau, P. Thousand. (1964). Commutation and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Google Scholar

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L., and Tang, R. 50. (2008). When employees strike back: investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1104–1117. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1104

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brown, F. West., and Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: kinesthesia reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. J. Leadersh. Stud. viii, 79–93. doi: 10.1177/107179190200800307

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., and Tatsuoka, 1000. 1000. (1970). Handbook for the Xvi Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Google Scholar

Chan, S. C., Huang, Ten., Snape, E., and Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face up of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based cocky-esteem, and performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 108–128. doi: 10.1002/job.1797

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chemers, M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Google Scholar

Chen, C. C., Chen, Y. R., and Xin, K. (2004). Guanxi practices and trust in direction: a procedural justice perspective. Organ. Sci. fifteen, 200–209. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0047

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, 10. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. 50., and Cheng, B. S. (2014). Melancholia trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J. Manage. 40, 796–819. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410604

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheng, B. South., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., and Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 7, 89–117. doi: ten.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chrobot-Mason, D. L. (2003). Keeping the promise: psychological contract violations for minority employees. J. Manag. Psychol. 18, 22–45. doi: 10.1108/02683940310459574

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Dean, J. W. Jr., Brandes, P., and Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, 341–352. doi: 10.2307/259378

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Erben, Yard. S., and Güneşer, A. B. (2008). The relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational delivery: investigating the role of climate regarding ethics. J. Bus. Ideals 82, 955–968. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9605-z

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Evans, W. R., Goodman, J. M., and Davis, W. D. (2010). The impact of perceived corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism. OCB, and employee deviance. Hum. Perform. 24, 79–97. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2010.530632

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Farh, J. L., and Cheng, B. Due south. (2000). "A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations," in Direction and Organizations in Chinese Context, eds J. T. Li, A. Southward. Tsui, and Southward. Eastward. Walton (London: MacMillan), 95–197.

Google Scholar

Farh, J. Fifty., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., and Chu, Ten. P. (2006). "Dominance and benignancy: employees' responses to paternalistic leadership in Red china," in Prc's Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Direction and Functioning, eds A. Southward. Tsui, Y. Bian, and L. Cheng (New York, NY: Sharpe), 230–260.

Google Scholar

Farh, J. Fifty., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., and Cheng, B. Due south. (2008). "Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: research progress and future inquiry directions," in Business Leadership in China: Philosophies, Theories, and Practices, eds C. C. Chen and Y. T. Lee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 171–205.

Google Scholar

Flood, P. C., Hannan, East., Smith, K. Thou., Turner, T., West, M. A., and Dawson, J. (2000). Chief executive leadership manner, consensus decision making, and top management team effectiveness. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 9, 401–420. doi: 10.1080/135943200417984

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Gkorezis, P., Petridou, Eastward., and Krouklidou, T. (2015). The detrimental upshot of machiavellian leadership on employees' emotional exhaustion: organizational cynicism as a mediator. Eur. J. Psychol. eleven, 619–631. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v11i4.988

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Greenberg, J., and Alge, B. (1998). "Ambitious reactions to workplace injustice," in Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations, eds R. W. Griffin and A. O'Leary-Kelly (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 119–145.

Google Scholar

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Printing.

Google Scholar

Harris, Chiliad. J., Marett, K., and Harris, R. B. (2013). An investigation of the impact of abusive supervision on technology end-users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2480–2489. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Arroyo. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

James, S. M. (2005). Antecedents and Consequences of Cynicism in Organizations: An Exam of Potential Positive and Negative Furnishings on School Systems. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Google Scholar

Johnson, J. L., and O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The furnishings of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: not all social commutation violations are created equal. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 627–647. doi: 10.1002/task.207

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kanter, D. L., and Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and Disillusion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar

Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. Fifty. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., and Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: the role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors' machiavellianism and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. J. Res. Pers. 44, 512–519. doi: ten.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Kotter, J. P. (1973). The psychological contract: managing the joining-up process. Calif. Manage. Rev. 15, 91–99. doi: 10.2307/41164442

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krasikova, D. 5., Green, Due south. M., and LeBreton, J. K. (2013). Destructive leadership a theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. J. Manage. 39, 1308–1338. doi: 10.1177/0149206312471388

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leiter, Yard. P., and Harvie, P. (1997). Correspondence of supervisor and subordinate perspectives during major organizational modify. J. Occup. Health Psychol. two, 343–352. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.2.4.343

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: the relationship between human and arrangement. Adm. Sci. Q. nine, 370–390. doi: ten.2307/2391032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Levinson, H., Molinari, J., and Spohn, A. One thousand. (1972). Organizational Diagnosis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Liao, South. H., Widowati, R., Hu, D. C., and Tasman, L. (in printing). The mediating upshot of psychological contract in the relationships between paternalistic leadership and turnover intention for strange workers in Taiwan. Asia Pac. Manage. Rev. doi: x.1016/j.apmrv.2016.08.003

CrossRef Total Text

Lorinkova, N. M., and Perry, Southward. J. (2014). When is empowerment effective? The role of leader-leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and fourth dimension theft. J. Manage. 43, 1631–1654. doi: 10.1177/0149206314560411

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Matsunaga, Thousand. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: a primer. Commun. Methods Meas. 2, 260–293. doi: ten.1080/19312450802458935

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Morrison, E. W., and Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees experience betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops. Acad. Manage. Rev. 22, 226–256. doi: 10.2307/259230

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mount, 1000., Ilies, R., and Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive piece of work behaviors: the mediating effects of job satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 59, 591–622. doi: x.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.ten

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Neves, P. (2012). Organizational cynicism: spillover effects on supervisor-subordinate relationships and performance. Leadersh. Q. 23, 965–976. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.06.006

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Neves, P., and Caetano, A. (2006). Social exchange processes in organizational modify: the roles of trust and control. J. Change Manage. half-dozen, 351–364. doi: 10.1080/14697010601054008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Niu, C. P., Wang, A. C., and Cheng, B. Southward. (2009). Effectiveness of a moral and chivalrous leader: probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 12, 32–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.01267.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Neill, T. A., and Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance behavior with more than merely the "Big Five". Pers. Individ. Dif. 50, 268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.x.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ortony, A., Clore, Grand. Fifty., and Collins, A. (1988). The Cognitive Construction of Emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: x.1017/CBO9780511571299

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P. K., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social scientific discipline research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Restubog, S. Fifty. D., Bordia, P., and Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of psychological contract alienation in a non-western culture: the moderating office of disinterestedness sensitivity. Br. J. Manage. 18, 376–386. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00531.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, South. Fifty., and Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 555–572. doi: 10.2307/256693

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. Southward., and Rousseau, D. Grand. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: a longitudinal study. Acad. Manage. J. 37, 137–152. doi: 10.2307/256773

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, Southward. 50., and Morrison, Eastward. West. (2000). The development of psychological contract alienation and violation: a longitudinal report. J. Organ. Behav. 21, 525–546. doi: ten.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and unsaid contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibil. Rights J. 2, 121–139. doi: 10.1007/BF01384942

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salam, S., Cox, J., and Sims, H. P. (1996). How to brand a squad piece of work: mediating effects of job satisfaction betwixt leadership and team citizenship. Acad. Manage. Proc. 1996, 293–297. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.1996.4980731

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schaffer, B. S., and Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: a best-practices approach. Organ. Res. Methods six, 169–215. doi: x.1177/1094428103251542

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuh, Southward. C., Zhang, Ten. A., and Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive furnishings of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. J. Motorcoach. Ideals 116, 629–640. doi: ten.1007/s10551-012-1486-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shulman, T. D. (2005). Biting the Hand that Feeds: The Employee Theft Epidemic. West Conshohocken, PA: Infinity Publishing.

Google Scholar

Spector, P. Due east. (1997). "The office of frustration in hating behavior at work," in Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, eds R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 1–17.

Google Scholar

Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., et al. (2004). Leader political skill and employee reaction. Leadersh. Q. 15, 493–513. doi: ten.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsui, A. Southward., Wang, H., Xin, K., Zhang, Fifty., and Fu, P. P. (2004). "Let a thousand flowers flower": variation of leadership styles among Chinese CEOs. Organ. Dyn. 33, 5–xx. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2003.eleven.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Turnley, Westward. H., Bolino, G. C., Lester, S. Westward., and Bloodgood, J. Yard. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Manage. 29, 187–206. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00214-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, West. L., Wernsing, T. South., and Peterson, South. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based mensurate. J. Manage. 34, 89–126. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Wang, A. C., Chiang, T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., and Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the deviation: the moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Procedure. 122, 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, M., Huang, 10., Li, C., and Liu, W. (2012). Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Manage. Organ. Rev. eight, 97–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00283.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, L. R., Wu, K. S., Wang, F. K., and Chin, P. C. (2012). Relationships among projection manager's leadership style, team interaction and project performance in the Taiwanese server industry. Qual. Quant. 46, 207–219. doi: ten.1007/s11135-010-9354-4

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, H., Luo, X. R., Liao, Q., and Peng, L. (2015). Does IT squad climate matter? An empirical written report of the impact of co-workers and the Confucian work ethic on deviance behavior. Inform. Manage. 52, 658–667. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2015.05.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

huotsawley51.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732/full

Share this post