Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study extends affective events theory (AET) by exploring how compulsory citizenship behavior (CCB) shapes employee complaints through anger, and how leader–member exchange (LMX) moderates this process. Using data from 394 leader–member dyads in a Taiwanese public organization, the results show that employees compelled to perform extra-role behaviors experience stronger anger, which in turn increases their likelihood of complaining. Anger thus mediates the CCB–complaints relationship, while high-quality LMX weakens these negative effects. By highlighting both the emotional mechanism and the relational boundary conditions, this study advances understanding of why CCB elicits adverse employee reactions and offers practical insights for organizations seeking to manage extra-role demands more effectively. Additionally, the study underscores practical implications for organizations, suggesting that leaders who cultivate strong, positive relationships with subordinates are better equipped to manage the negative affective responses associated with CCB, thereby fostering more positive employee behaviors.

Keywords

compulsory citizenship behavior anger leader-member exchange complaint affective events theory

Introduction

Many organizations have asked employees to invest additional time in citizenship behavior to improve organizational efficiency and engage in extra-role activities beyond their work roles to enhance organizational reputation. In these situations, employees are often compelled to spend more of their own time performing extra-role behaviors and activities. Employees typically undertake these additional responsibilities to maintain their employment. Therefore, Vigoda-Gadot (2006) introduced the term compulsory citizenship behavior (CCB) to describe the “dark” side of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This concept is derived from OCB and encompasses extra-role characteristics, emphasizing a sense of compulsion (Liang, 2022; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). However, how do employees who are compelled to engage in OCB feel in this situation?

Although prior studies over the past decade have demonstrated that CCB affects employee outcomes such as workplace deviance and facades of conformity (Liang, 2022), work–family conflict (Chen et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2017), ego depletion (Qin & Zhang, 2024), and turnover intention (Liang, 2024), limited research has examined employees’ direct responses (e.g., complaints). Complaints are typically directed at the source of the problem to directly express dissatisfaction with negative experiences (Kowalski, 1996; Laforest, 2002). For example, complaining behavior, which involves expressing dissatisfaction, often occurs when employees perceive that their leaders assign additional work tasks (Yuan & Gao, 2022). When extra-role behavior is required, employees may initially express their dissatisfaction directly and share it with colleagues rather than engaging in more intense negative behaviors, such as ego depletion (Qin & Zhang, 2024) or work-family conflicts (Chen et al., 2021). Thus, this study underscores that employees obligated to undertake extra-role activities may experience dissatisfaction and raise complaints about these additional obligations.

Affective events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) posits that workplace events evoke emotional responses that influence employees’ subsequent behaviors. The nature of affective and emotional reactions may vary as individuals respond to these events (Tillman et al., 2018). Furthermore, the AET framework suggests that affective and emotional reactions could serve as important mechanisms linking workplace events to employee outcomes (Wang et al., 2024). Therefore, this study examines employees’ immediate emotional responses (i.e., expressed anger) to determine whether a strong mechanism is generated by employees with CCB. Anger, in contrast to emotions such as frustration or emotional exhaustion, is a negative response triggered by feelings of helplessness in the workplace (Keenan & Newton, 1984). It is characterized by specific experiences and feelings associated with a desire to harm a particular target (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). In increasingly diverse societies, it is critically important to understand whether company-mandated engagement in extra-role activities generates emotional reactions. This study examines anger as an emotional response directed toward a specific goal, social interaction, or behavioral tendency (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). By exploring how CCB can generate anger and lead to complaining behavior, this research contributes to a broader understanding of these dynamics. This study hypothesizes that anger is the initial emotional reaction experienced by employees who are compelled to participate in extra-role activities within an organization.

Employees required to perform extra-role activities do not necessarily express complaints through feelings of anger. Given that CCB is an adverse aspect of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006), a positive reciprocal relationship with leaders may moderate anger in the context of CCB. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) developed leader–member exchange (LMX) theory to conceptualize the quality of relationships between leaders and members, emphasizing its role in fostering positive employee outcomes. High-quality LMX relationships, for instance, have been linked to enhanced employee performance (Park et al., 2022) and greater job engagement (Liao et al., 2019). Moreover, Tabak et al. (2023) found that LMX moderates the effect of work engagement on turnover intentions, substantially reducing the likelihood of turnover. However, when leader–member relationships are of low or moderate quality, their exchanges do not significantly correlate with employee job performance. LMX is arguably established through emotions, with respect and affect important facets of the exchange (Herdman et al., 2017). LMX theory suggests that members reciprocate with their leaders or organizations in response to the benefits provided by their leaders (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Park et al., 2022). When employees feel that they receive more than they give to their leaders, they may restore equity by engaging in OCB, which may reduce anger and decrease complaints. Thus, this study aims to develop a framework that clarifies how LMX moderates the relationship between CCB and employees’ reactions.

This study makes three primary contributions. First, this study employed AET to investigate the effects of CCB on complaining behavior mediated by anger. The aim is to determine whether employees who are compelled to engage in CCB initially express their dissatisfaction through complaining behavior and sharing it with colleagues rather than resorting to more intense negative actions. Drawing on the AET perspective, this study examines how work-related events shape employees’ negative behaviors (e.g., employee silence; He et al., 2019), thereby extending prior research that has employed the social exchange framework to investigate the effects of CCB (He et al., 2019; Liang, 2022). Importantly, this study suggests that extra-role activities resulting from leaders’ coercive demands can also lead employees to exhibit negative behaviors, thus going beyond the social exchange perspective.

Second, this study highlights the relevance of theoretical models in understanding the impact of CCB on employee complaints within organizational contexts. Most studies of complaining behavior have focused on the marketing literature, examining aspects such as the effects of consumer service on consumer complaints (Blodgett et al., 1995), complaints and product failure (Dunn & Dahl, 2012), and interdependent self-construal and complaining behavior (Ziegler et al., 2024). Nevertheless, research on how work-related issues influence employee complaints remains limited within the organizational behavior literature. This study contributes to the management field by investigating the antecedents of employee complaints, such as CCB.

Finally, this study enhances the understanding of leader–member exchanges by examining their positive relationships. Previous research has often overlooked this relationship as a comprehensive framework for understanding the dynamics of giving and taking between parties (Liao et al., 2019). By distinguishing within-dyad from generalized LMX patterns, this study suggests that outcomes at the generalized level may differ from or even contradict those at the dyad level. It further proposes that employees in high-quality LMX relationships experience less anger and voice fewer complaints about CCB due to their focus on long-term reciprocity.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

CCB and Complaining Behavior in AET

Affective events theory (AET) posits that emotional reactions mediate the relationship between workplace events and individual behavior (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Significant events can elicit emotional responses, with negative experiences—such as being required to perform extra-role activities—potentially leading to emotional exhaustion, workplace deviance, and facades of conformity (Liang et al., 2022). Consistent with AET, negative emotions produce adverse outcomes, whereas positive emotions generate beneficial outcomes (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Since AET emphasizes the emotional processes underlying individual behaviors, it provides significant insights into the anger reactions that arise from experiencing CCB and how these reactions influence behavior in the workplace.

This study uses AET to examine how interactions with environmental factors shape employees’ emotional and behavioral responses to CCB over time (Wegge et al., 2006). Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) proposed that AET pertains to the outcomes of affective and emotional responses in the workplace and suggested that two distinct types of behavior can be differentiated: affect-based behavior and cognitively driven behavior. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that complaining behavior is influenced by affect-driven behaviors, such as CCB. This hypothesis is grounded in the definition of complaining behavior as the expression of displeasure aimed at venting emotional reactions, achieving personal goals, or both (Heck et al., 2005). Consequently, complaining is a behavioral manifestation of this discontent.

CCB is perceived as “a much darker and more destructive side of OCB than the one we are accustomed to discussing as part of conventional OCB” (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, p. 78). CCB represents a particularly negative form of extra-role behavior (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007), in which employees, under social or managerial pressure, involuntarily engage in tasks beyond their formal responsibilities. As a result, they may reduce discretionary behaviors and express dissatisfaction with their managers and these extra-role demands. According to AET, prior studies have demonstrated that dissatisfaction with negative experiences is frequently communicated to coworkers by complaining about adverse workplace conditions (Laforest, 2002; Yuan & Gao, 2022). When employees are compelled to engage in OCB, they are likely to express grievances about the organization due to these forced activities. This study posits that CCB coerces them into helping behaviors, prompting employee complaints and significantly contributing to dissatisfaction with extra-role activities. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: CCB is positively associated with complaining behavior.

CCB and Anger

AET suggests that affective states, including physiological components, can influence behavior (Wegge et al., 2006). Extra-role activities and involuntary tasks imposed by leaders may trigger anger, which arises from prolonged workplace stress (Keenan & Newton, 1984) and can lead to various adverse behavioral outcomes. This distressing emotion emerges in reaction to negative workplace conditions, affecting subjective experiences, interpersonal relationships, and social evaluations (Bodenhausen et al., 1994). Anger is an unpleasant emotion triggered by a negative work environment, often leading to adverse personal behaviors and diminished spousal well-being (Wang et al., 2024). When employees perceive public service activities as unfair workplace demands, they may gradually develop anger directed toward the organization mandating these activities. Consequently, employees are prone to negative emotional reactions when asked to engage in additional involuntary workplace activities (Liang et al., 2022).

CCB, a prevalent phenomenon in organizations, contributes to increased job burnout (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007) and heightened citizenship pressure (Liang, 2022). This study argues that anger is the primary negative emotion among employees compelled to work overtime, as the demands of forced tasks can undermine emotional well-being. Anger arises because such tasks are perceived as neither necessary nor avoidable, thereby eliciting this response (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). In response to an emotion-eliciting incident, employees assess whether the event can be influenced or controlled by managers and evaluate their own capacity to alter contingencies and outcomes to better align with their interests. Employees are likely to experience anger when required to perform additional tasks in an unpleasant situation. Consequently, employees who are compelled to engage in OCB may gradually develop anger toward the demands that they participate in forced extra activities. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: CCB is positively associated with anger.

Anger As a Mediator Between CCB and Complaining Behavior

Based on affective events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), employees compelled to perform extra-role or involuntary tasks are prone to anger, a negative emotional response arising from sustained workplace pressure or dissatisfaction with the status quo (Keenan & Newton, 1984; Wang et al., 2024), which may lead them to express dissatisfaction with these demands. This emotional reaction aligns with research showing that negative workplace events affect outcomes through emotional responses (Liang et al., 2022). For example, workplace bullying can provoke anger, which may impact spousal well-being (Wang et al., 2024). Anger typically arises from individuals’ perceptions and evaluations of their organizational environment (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). CCB is characterized by employees’ involuntary participation in informal work activities under strong social or managerial pressure (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). This pressure may lead employees to express grievance about the additional tasks imposed on them at work, resulting in anger. Anger is often considered to result from interference with goal-directed activities or from experiencing negative workplace events (Wang et al., 2024). Consequently, anger is likely to emerge among employees who express dissatisfaction with their organizations or tasks, especially when they are required to undertake additional responsibilities. Analyzing anger as a mediator clarifies how affect-based behavior, as outlined in AET, translates into reactions to CCB. Thus, employees may experience anger, leading to complaining behavior when compelled to engage in CCB. Thus, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Anger mediates the relationship between CCB and complaining behavior.

The Moderating Role of LMX

While employees may experience anger due to CCB, this study proposes that the quality of leader–member exchange relationships shapes these emotional reactions. Specifically, it examines whether closer exchange relationships moderate the association between CCB and anger, with high-quality relationships potentially weakening this positive link. High-quality LMX relationships are defined by strong socioemotional exchanges, wherein leaders and members exhibit mutual respect, support, and trust and develop positive emotional bonds and mutual fondness (Greenbaum et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2023). Leaders cultivate high-quality relationships with employees to build trust and strong socioemotional connections. Leaders develop high-quality relationships with certain members, creating differences in LMX quality (Uhl-Bien et al., 2022). Consequently, employees with high LMX perceive their leaders as role models and, due to strong socioemotional bonds, are more likely to emulate their behaviors, further strengthening the LMX. Likewise, leaders tend to form high-quality LMX with highly engaged employees.

This study posits that high-quality LMX may attenuate CCB’s effect on anger. According to prior research (Park et al., 2022), LMX theory posits that leaders can significantly influence employees' emotions and behaviors by developing meaningful relationships. High-quality LMX relationships between leaders and employees are characterized by mutual trust and a focus on maintaining long-term ties (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2022). As a result, employees are more likely to support their leaders’ behaviors, exhibit fewer negative emotional reactions, and feel gratitude and obligation, enhancing their motivation to reciprocate. Therefore, employees may exhibit fewer emotional reactions (e.g., anger), even when they are required to engage in CCB within a high-quality LMX relationship. This study hypothesizes the following:

Hypothesis 4: High-quality LMX relationships moderate the relationship between CCB and anger such that the relationship is weaker when high-quality LMX relationships are stronger than when they are weaker.

A Moderated Mediation Model of CCB on Complaining Behavior via Anger

This study proposes a moderated mediation model in which anger mediates emotional reactions and high-quality leader–member exchange (LMX) moderates this effect. Based on AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), high-quality LMX can mitigate anger and reduce CCB-related complaining behaviors, particularly when employees and leaders maintain positive interactions. This dynamic is expected to decrease the likelihood that employees' feelings of anger will interfere with their goals (e.g., reducing complaining behavior and sustaining a positive relationship with the organization). Employees in high-quality LMX relationships with their leaders tend to prioritize long-term ties over short-term gains and are less likely to exhibit negative emotional or behavioral reactions (Yuan et al., 2023). Consequently, they experience less anger when addressing extra-role activities. Figure 1 shows that CCB influences complaining behavior via anger, particularly under high-quality LMX relationships. The following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: The positive indirect effects of CCB on complaining behavior through anger are weaker when high-quality LMX relationships are stronger than when they are weaker.

Figure 1.

A dual-level moderated mediation model.

Methods

Samples and Procedures

This study collected data from 450 leader–member dyads working for a public organization in Taiwan. The organization was selected with the cooperation of a human resources manager, who facilitated the distribution of surveys across 15 work teams. The team leaders assessed different numbers of employees, with group sizes ranging from nine to twenty-three. Additionally, the organization has been actively engaged in extra-role activities, such as beach cleanups and community service initiatives. This study used a two-wave design with data from employees and leaders to reduce common method variance (CMV). At Time 1, employees reported CCB, LMX, and anger; at Time 2, they reported complaining behavior, while leaders assessed LMX. After completing the questionnaire, participants were offered incentives of approximately $5. Demographic information (e.g., email addresses) was collected to link responses over time, and all responses were kept confidential and securely stored. To ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence, native English-speaking researchers translated the survey from English into Mandarin. The accuracy of the translated versions was then verified through a back-translation process conducted by bilingual Chinese speakers, following the procedure outlined by Brislin (1980).

A total of 450 full-time participants from a public organization volunteered for the study, of whom 412 subordinates returned the first survey, resulting in a 92% response rate. Following the exclusion of invalid and incomplete responses, 405 usable dyad surveys were retained. Four weeks later (Time 2), these 405 employees and their leaders received a second survey, and 398 leader–employee dyads returned it, yielding a 98% response rate. Following the removal of unavailable and missing data, the final sample included 394 dyads from the public organization. Among employees, 266 (68%) were male (M = 45.45 years, SD = 10.79) and 128 (32%) were female (M = 39.50 years, SD = 11.62), with an average work tenure of 17.57 years (SD = 10.68) and an average weekly workload of 41.38 hr (SD = 5.95). Participants reported having between zero and four children. Leaders were 72.55% male (M = 48.23 years, SD = 9.68).

Member Measures

CCB

CCB at Time 1 was assessed using a 5-item behavioral scale (α = .83) adapted from Vigoda-Gadot (2006), with responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5). Two sample items are, “The management in this organization puts pressure on employees to engage in extra-role work activities beyond their formal job tasks” and “There is social pressure in this organization to work extra hours, beyond the formal workload and without any formal rewards.” The scale demonstrated a reliability score of .83.

LMX

LMX quality was measured at Time 1 with a 5-item, 5-point scale created by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). A representative item from the scale is, “I have sufficient confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify their decision in their absence.” Cronbach’s α for this measure at the individual level was .84.

Anger

Anger. Participants’ anger was measured at Time 1 using a three-item scale developed by Keenan and Newton (1984) to capture negative emotional responses to workplace events. Items included statements such as “I am more irritable than usual at work” and “I am angry at this job,” rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores reflected greater anger, and the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .83).

Complaining Behavior

At Time 2, complaining behavior was measured using a four-item scale from the Chinese edition by Hung and Chen (2020). This scale measures the extent to which respondents are likely to complain after being required to perform tasks outside their regular organizational duties. Sample items include, “I criticize my company to outsiders” and “I spread negative news about the company.” Participants rated complaining behavior on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores reflecting greater dissatisfaction and a stronger tendency to complain. The scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Control Variables

Following prior CCB research (Liang, 2022; Qin & Zhang, 2024), this study controlled for participant gender, age, number of children, weekly work hours, and work tenure to limit demographic influences on the results. Gender and age were included due to their potential links with paternalistic leadership styles (Jackman, 1994), while number of children, weekly work hours, and work tenure were controlled as they are frequently used as predictors or control variables in CCB studies (Liang et al., 2022). Participants reported their age, work tenure, and number of children using open-ended responses, ensuring accurate and detailed demographic data for the analyses.

Measure for Leaders

LMX

To control for common method variance, leaders completed the 12-item LMX scale developed by Wang et al. (2005) at Time 1 (α = .91). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to assess the quality of the leaders’ relationships with their employees. A sample item is, “My subordinates are people I consider friends.” To establish the validity of this measure, it was administered to both leaders and members.

The correlation between leader and member LMX ratings (r = .32, p < .01) indicates that this study’s LMX analyses rely on leader ratings. Following LeBreton and Senter (2008), the intraclass correlation coefficients were ICC (1) = .11, slightly above the mean of .10, and ICC (2) = .14, exceeding the .12 threshold, indicating a sufficient nested effect. Therefore, leader LMX ratings were used to minimize common method variance.

Results

Analytic Process

Given the dataset’s multilevel structure—LMX at the organizational level and CCB, anger, and complaining at the individual level—polynomial regression (Edwards & Cable, 2009) and moderated mediation methods (Muller et al., 2005) were applied within a multilevel structural equation modeling framework (Preacher et al., 2010). Following Edwards and Lambert (2007), multilevel regression coefficients were used to generate response surface analyses. To evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of the measures (CCB, LMX, anger, and complaining behavior), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using structural equation modeling (SEM) in LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Model fit was examined following Williams and O’Boyle (2015) guidelines, including the chi-square test, RMSEA (<0.05), CFI (≥0.90), NNFI (≥0.90), and PGFI (≥0.05). The proposed moderation model was further tested using hierarchical regression analyses.

Table 1 compares the baseline four-factor model (CCB, LMX, anger, and complaining behavior) with three alternative models. The baseline model demonstrated the best fit [χ² (146) = 484.98, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, PGFI = 0.68], outperforming alternatives 1–3 (Δχ² = 2,775.68, 4,109.84, and 4,183.54, respectively). Average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50 for all constructs (CCB = 0.70; LMX = 0.74; anger = 0.82; complaining behavior = 0.68), and construct reliability (CR) was 0.71, supporting acceptable discriminant validity. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.69 to 0.86, confirming convergent validity and the distinctiveness of the measures.

Table 1.

Comparison of Measurement Models.

Model	Factors	χ ²	df	Δχ²^a	RMSEA	CFI	NNFI	PGFI
Baseline model	Four factors	484.98	146	−	0.05	0.98	0.98	0.68
Alternative model 1	Three factors: CCB and LMX were combined into one factor.	2,775.68	149	2,290.70**	0.21	0.91	0.90	0.45
Alternative model 2	Two factors: CCB, LMX, and anger were combined into one factor.	4,109.84	151	3,624.86**	0.26	0.88	0.86	0.38
Alternative model 3	All factors were combined into one factor.	4,183.54	152	3,698.56**	0.26	0.87	0.85	0.38

Note. CCB = compulsory citizenship behavior.

Baseline model was compared with models 1–3, respectively.

p < .01

Tests of Hypotheses

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for the study variables. CCB showed strong positive associations with both anger (r = .73, p < .01) and complaining behavior (r = .77, p < .01). To examine the proposed moderated mediation, analyses were conducted using a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) framework (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Muller et al., 2005), with results summarized in Table 3. This study tested a moderated mediation model in which CCB influences complaining behavior indirectly through anger, with LMX moderating the CCB–anger relationship. As shown in Table 3 (Step 2), CCB was positively associated with complaining behavior (β = .76, p < .01). Mediation analyses following Baron and Kenny (1986) indicated a significant direct effect of CCB on complaining behavior (β = .79, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Step 5 of Table 3 revealed that CCB was positively related to anger (β = .96, p < .01), with the direct effect also significant (β = .70, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 2. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the results in Table 4 confirmed that CCB influenced complaining behavior via anger (z = 7.85, p < .01, 95% CI [0.21, 0.34]).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. CCB	2.38	.99	(.83)
2. LMX	2.61	1.03	−.50*	(.91)
3. Anger	2.10	.95	.73*	−.42*	(.83)
4. Complaining behavior	2.16	1.00	.77*	−.52*	.74*	(.93)
5. Gender	1.32	.47	−.17*	.25*	−.15*	−.16*	(–)
6. Age	43.52	11.39	.18*	−.17*	.15*	.13*	−.25*	(–)
7. Number of children	1.00	1.10	.01	−.03	.02	.01*	−.03	.45*	(–)
8. Work hour per week	41.38	5.95	.24*	−.18*	.16*	.19*	−.27*	.32*	.16*	(–)
9. Work tenure	17.57	1.68	.21*	−.23*	.17*	.14*	−.18*	.76*	.46*	.23*	(–)

Note. LMX = leader-member exchange; CCB = compulsory citizenship behavior.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 3.

Results for Indirect Effect of CCB on Complaining Behavior via Anger Across Different Levels of LMX.

Variables	Complaining behavior (β)			Anger (β)	Complaining behavior (β)
Predictors	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 4	Step 5	Step 6
Gender	−.11*	−.04	−.01	−.01	−.02	−.01
Age	−.03	−.01	.01	.02	.02	.01
Numbers of children	−.10	−.01	−.00	−.01	.01	−.01
Work hours	.16**	.01	−.00	−.01	−.03	.01
Work tenure	.14*	−.03	−.06	−.07	−.03	.06
CCB		.76**	.68**	.96**	.96**	.54**
LMX (Mo)			−.18**	.09	.19*	.06
Anger (Med)						.46**
CCB × LMX				−.30**	−.29**	−.10
LMX × Anger						−.15
R ²	.28	.78	.79	.80	.75	.83
Adjusted R²	.07	.60	.62	.63	.56	.69
F	5.63**	504.84**	23.64**	15.97**	12.18**	2.10

Note. CCB = compulsory citizenship behavior; LMX = leader-member exchange; Med = mediator; Mo = moderator.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 4.

Results for Indirect Effect of CCB on Complaining Behavior via Anger.

Indirect effects	Effect size/Point estimate	SE	LL 95% CI	UL 95% CI	Z
Sobel test	0.27	0.03	0.21	0.34	7.85**
Bootstrap	0.27	0.04	0.18	0.36

Note. CCB = compulsory citizenship behavior; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval Bias-corrected CI is reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000.

p < .01.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that LMX moderates the relationship between CCB and anger. Control variables were entered in Step 1 of Table 3, followed by CCB (Step 2), LMX (Step 3), and the CCB × LMX interaction (Step 4). Step 5 results indicated a significant moderating effect of LMX (β = −.29, p < .01). As illustrated in Figure 2, the effect of CCB on anger was weaker for employees with high-quality LMX, supporting Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of LMX in the relationship between CCB and anger.

Hypothesis 5 proposed that LMX moderates the indirect effect of CCB on complaining behavior via anger. Consistent with Muller et al. (2005) moderated mediation framework, Step 2 of Table 3 shows a significant CCB–complaining behavior relationship (β = .76, p < .01), and Step 4 indicates a significant CCB × LMX interaction on complaining behavior (β = −.30, p < .01). Step 6 confirms a significant mediating effect (β = .46, p < .01). These results demonstrate that the indirect effect of CCB on complaining behavior through anger is weaker under high LMX, supporting Hypothesis 5.

Discussion

Drawing on AET and LMX theories, this study examined how CCB influences complaining behavior through anger, with LMX moderating the relationship between CCB and anger. The results indicate that, within a moderated mediation model, high-quality LMX weakens the indirect effect of CCB on complaining through anger. Using data from leader–employee dyads across two time points, the findings provide strong support for this model and highlight its theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the literature by examining CCB as a negative aspect of OCB and its impact on employees' affective and behavioral responses. Previous research on CCB has focused primarily on its effects on emotional exhaustion and turnover intention (Liang, 2024), work-family conflict (Chen et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2017), and ego depletion (Qin & Zhang, 2024). However, complaining behavior is typically aimed at generating an emotional response (e.g., anger), serving as a way for employees to express dissatisfaction with negative experiences when they are initially compelled to engage in extra activities. Complaining behavior is primarily expressed through employees’ dissatisfaction with work-related issues (Aubé & Rousseau, 2016; Heck et al., 2005). Consistent with prior research (Shoss et al., 2013), this study found that such complaints were mainly directed at task-related issues, particularly concerns about workload and the imbalance between effort and reward. Building on these findings, the study further examined CCB as a potential driver of employee complaints within organizational contexts. Specifically, it investigated whether employees compelled to engage in CCB initially channel their dissatisfaction by voicing complaints to colleagues. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the organizational conditions under which complaining behaviors may have especially detrimental effects.

Second, this study enhances the LMX literature by clarifying how high-quality leader–member relationships shape employee responses. The results indicate that employees with strong LMX ties are less prone to anger and are less likely to voice complaints about CCB, reflecting the stabilizing effect of long-term reciprocal interactions. Additionally, this study suggests that LMX patterns at the generalized level may explain outcomes differently that, or even opposite to, those at the leader–member dyad level. The findings support the studies by Parker et al. (2022) and Liang (2024); however, a theoretical explanation of the group-level phenomena shaped by LMX is still needed to better understand between-group variations. This study demonstrates that group-level investigations are essential, as leaders can significantly influence employees’ emotions and behaviors through the development of meaningful relationships.

Third, this study highlights the value of theoretical frameworks for understanding how CCB influences employee complaints in organizational contexts. Research on complaining behavior has primarily concentrated in the marketing field, examining the impact of customer service on consumer complaints (Blodgett et al., 1995), product failures (Dunn & Dahl, 2012), and the role of interdependent self-construal in complaint behavior (Ziegler et al., 2024). In contrast, organizational behavior and human resource management research has paid relatively little attention to work-related drivers of employee complaints. Addressing this gap, the present study identifies key antecedents of employee complaints, emphasizing the influence of CCB on employees’ emotional and behavioral responses within organizations.

Practical Implications

This study presents two practical implications derived from the findings. This study highlights the significance of leaders in maintaining high-quality relationships with their team members. Such high-quality LMX relationships have diminished negative affective and behavioral reactions within organizations (Liang, 2024). The findings suggest that leaders should recognize that high-quality LMX will likely reduce anger and complaints about CCB, owing to its emphasis on long-term reciprocity. Consequently, organizations should implement training programs to assist leaders in developing positive attitudes and effective relationship-building skills. Specifically, leaders should focus not only on fostering high-quality relationships with employees but also on enhancing their ability to address employees' concerns.

Second, numerous studies have examined CCB as a negative counterpart to OCB, leading to adverse organizational outcomes (He et al., 2019; Liang, 2022, 2024; Qin & Zhang, 2024; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). When compelled to engage in CCB, employees are likely to exhibit negative affective, emotional, and behavioral reactions, especially when expected to fulfill roles as ‘good soldiers.’ Consequently, organizations should recognize that extra-role activities perceived as compulsory may not be willingly undertaken by employees. If leaders or organizations require employees to participate in such activities, they should provide appropriate support and explicit rewards (e.g., bonuses) and communicate these incentives clearly to employees.

Third, at the managerial level, this study’s findings indicate that CCB can negatively influence important work outcomes. Accordingly, leaders should adopt effective communication practices to prevent and mitigate the occurrence of such behaviors. Communication-based interventions may be particularly valuable when employees are required to undertake additional tasks. At the employee level, these tasks should be communicated transparently, employees’ opinions should be solicited, and their participation should be actively encouraged. To further enhance communication between supervisors and team members, organizations should implement training programs emphasizing group collaboration and team coaching (Aubé & Rousseau, 2016).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, in terms of survey and research design, this study employed a two-wave survey to examine participants' reactions and address common method variance (CMV). Specifically, leaders completed the LMX scales, whereas employees provided responses on CCB, anger, and complaining behavior at separate time points to reduce CMV. Future research could further mitigate this issue by incorporating multiple data sources and utilizing experimental research designs (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Second, this study explored how CCB influences complaining behavior via anger, moderated by high-quality LMX, in the context of Chinese culture. However, other culturally significant factors, such as guanxi—which encourages extra effort but may inhibit employees from voicing personal opinions (Chen & Chen, 2004; He et al., 2019)—were not included. Future research should consider these cultural variables to provide a more comprehensive understanding of CCB and its effects in Eastern organizational settings.

Finally, AET suggests that workplace events can provoke diverse emotional reactions, including anger, guilt, sadness, anxiety, and fear (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In this study, anger was singled out as the central emotional response to explore how CCB influences employees’ subsequent behavioral outcomes. Research on the role of anger in coping with CCB remains limited. Compared with emotional exhaustion, previous research has more frequently identified anger as a common emotional response to negative workplace events (Liang, 2024; Wang et al., 2024). Nevertheless, future studies should incorporate a broader range of mood and emotional variables to provide a more comprehensive understanding of CCB and its consequences.

In conclusion, this study enhances understanding of how CCB influences complaining behavior via anger within the AET framework and highlights the moderating role of LMX. Using a moderated mediation model, the findings demonstrate that high-quality LMX weakens the indirect effect of CCB on complaining behavior through anger, offering both theoretical insights and practical guidance for managing workplace interactions.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Huai-Liang Liang

Ethical Considerations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions for example, their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

References

Aubé

Rousseau

(2016). Yes, we complain … so what? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1137–1151. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2015-0304

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderatorm-ediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Berkowitz

Harmon-Jones

(2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4(2), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107

Blodgett

J. G.

Wakefield

K. L.

Barnes

J. H.

(1995). The effects of customer service on consumer complaining behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(4), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049510094487

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Sheppard

L. A.

Kramer

G. P.

(1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240104

Brislin

R. W.

(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 349–444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Carver

C. S.

Harmon-Jones

(2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013965

Chen

X. P.

Chen

C. C.

(2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese Guanxi: A process model of Guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APJM.0000036465.19102.d5

Chen

Sparrow

Cooper

C. L.

(2021). Compulsory citizenship behaviour and work-family conflict: The role of proactive personality. Current Psychology, in press.

10.

Dunn

Dahl

D. W.

(2012). Self-threat and product failure: How internal attributions of blame affect consumer complaining behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0169

11.

Edwards

J. R.

Cable

D. M.

(2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891

12.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

13.

Ellsworth

P. C.

Scherer

K. R.

(2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In Davidson

R. J.

Scherer

K. R.

Goldsmith

H. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). Oxford University Press.

14.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. http://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

15.

Greenbaum

R. L.

Mawritz

M. B.

Bonner

J. M.

Webster

B. D.

Kim

(2018). Supervisor expediency to employee expediency: The moderating role of leader–member exchange and the mediating role of employee unethical tolerance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2258

16.

Peng

Zhao

Estay

(2019). How and when compulsory citizenship behavior leads to employee silence: A moderated mediation model based on moral disengagement and supervisor–subordinate guanxi views. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3550-2

17.

Heck

A. K.

Bedeian

A. G.

Day

D. V.

(2005). Mountains out of molehills? Tests of the mediating effects of self-esteem in predicting workplace complaining. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(11), 2262–2289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02102.x

18.

Herdman

A. O.

Yang

Arthur

J. B.

(2017). How does leader-member exchange disparity affect teamwork behavior and effectiveness in work groups? The moderating role of leader-leader exchange. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1498–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314556315

19.

Hung

J. P.

Cheng

Y. N.

(2020). The effects of supervisor’s justice remedy on subordinates’ perception of psychological contract breach and its subsequent impacts. Research in Applied Psychology, 73, 263–310. https://doi.org/10.3966/156092512020120073006

20.

Jackman

M. R.

(1994) The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press.

21.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(2006). LISREL for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

22.

Keenan

Newton

T. J.

(1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to role stress, climate, and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00148.x

23.

Kowalski

R. M.

(1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychological bulletin, 119(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.179

24.

Laforest

(2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1595–1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00077-2

25.

LeBreton

J. M.

Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

26.

Liang

H. L.

(2022). Compulsory citizenship behavior and facades of conformity: A moderated mediation model of neuroticism and citizenship pressure. Psychological Reports, 125(6), 1341–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211031794

27.

Liang

H. L.

(2024). Compulsive citizenship behavior and turnover intention: A two-stage moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and mindfulness. Current Psychology, 43(33), 27058–27069.

28.

Liang

H. L.

Yeh

T. K.

Wang

C. H.

(2022). Compulsory citizenship behavior and its outcomes: Two mediation models. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 766952. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.766952

29.

Liao

Liu

Song

(2019). Give and take: An episodic perspective on leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000371

30.

Liu

Zhao

Sheard

(2017). Organizational citizenship pressure, compulsory citizenship behavior, and work–family conflict. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(4), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6064

31.

Muller

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852

32.

Park

Liden

R. C.

(2022). Leader–member exchange differentiation and employee performance: A political perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(6), 1121–1135. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2611

33.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

34.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

(2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141

35.

Qin

Zhang

(2024). How compulsory citizenship behavior depletes individual resources—a moderated mediation model. Current Psychology, 43(2), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04386-7

36.

Shoss

M. K.

Maurer

A. H.

Rupprecht

E. A.

(2013). “My boss is probably the devil!” Exploring employees’ online vents. In Zerbe

W. J.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Härtel

C. E. J.

(Eds.), Individual sources, dynamics, and expressions of emotion (pp. 249–277). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-9791(2013)0000009016

37.

Tabak

Shkoler

Lebron

Rabenu

(2023). Team-member and leader-member exchange, engagement, and turnover intentions: Implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 27(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2023.2217731

38.

Tillman

C. J.

Gonzalez

Crawford

W. S.

Lawrence

E. R.

(2018). Affective responses to abuse in the workplace: The role of hope and affective commitment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12203

39.

Uhl-Bien

Carsten

Huang

Maslyn

(2022). What do managers value in the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship? Identification and measurement of the manager’s perspective of LMS (MLMX). Journal of Business Research, 148, 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.041

40.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing Some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00297.x

41.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5

42.

Wang

Law

K. S.

Hackett

R. D.

Wang

Chen

Z. X.

(2005). Leader-Member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908

43.

Wang

C. H.

Liang

H. L.

Y. C.

(2024). How does workplace bullying lead to employee compulsory citizenship behavior and affect spouse well-being? Anger as the mediating role. Current Psychology, 43(8), 7131–7143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04923-4

44.

Wegge

Dick

R. V.

Fisher

G. K.

West

M. A.

Dawson

J. F.

(2006). A test of basic assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) in call centre work 1. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00489.x

45.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in Organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

46.

Williams

L. J.

O’Boyle

E. H.

(2015). Ideal, nonideal, and no-marker variables: The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique works when it matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1579–1602. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038855

47.

Yuan

Gao

(2022). Why do Chinese employees complain at the workplace? An exploratory study based on the theory of work adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 920041. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920041

48.

Yuan

Sun

U. Y.

Effinger

A. L.

Zhang

(2023). Being on the same page matters: A meta-analytic investigation of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(9), 1540–1558. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001089

49.

Ziegler

A. H.

Allen

A. M.

Peloza

Norris

J. I.

(2024). How do embarrassing service disruptions impact bystanders’ word-of-mouth, complaining, and avoidance? The moderating role of self-construal. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(3), 1070–1086. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2266

The Impact of Compulsory Citizenship Behavior on Employee Complaints: Exploring the Mediating Role of Anger and the Moderating Effect of Leader-Member Exchange

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

CCB and Complaining Behavior in AET

CCB and Anger

Anger As a Mediator Between CCB and Complaining Behavior

The Moderating Role of LMX

A Moderated Mediation Model of CCB on Complaining Behavior via Anger

Methods

Samples and Procedures

Member Measures

CCB

LMX

Anger

Complaining Behavior

Control Variables

Measure for Leaders

LMX

Results

Analytic Process

Tests of Hypotheses

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References