Pro-social rule breaking (PSRB) is considered a positive deviant workplace behavior. In the Chinese context, paternalistic leadership (PL), combined with benevolent, moral, and authoritarian behaviors, appears to affect subordinates’ internal psychology and external behaviors (e.g., PSRB).
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between PL and PSRB in the Chinese context. It was also hypothesized that psychological empowerment (PE) and leader-member exchange (LMX) moderates the relationship between PL and PSRB, respectively.
METHODS:
Data were collected from 366 working adults in China. The participants provided their experience and perception in the workplace for the proposed research model. The reliability and validity of measurement scales were demonstrated.
RESULTS:
The results showed that the moral leadership dimension of PL negatively impacted PSRB, and the authoritarian leadership dimension of PL positively impacted PSRB. PE negatively moderated the relationship between moral leadership and PSRB and positively moderated the relationship between authoritarian leadership and PSRB. LMX positively moderated the relationship between authoritarian leadership and PSRB.
CONCLUSIONS:
The findings contribute to developing the theory of leadership style affecting PSRB. The implications for practice and future research directions were discussed.
MorrisonEW. Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management. 2006;32(1):5–28.
2.
DahlingJJ, GutworthMB. Loyal rebels? A test of the normative conflict model of constructive deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2017;38(8):1167–82.
3.
VaderaAK, PrattMG, MishraP. Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management. 2013;39(5):1221–76.
4.
DahlingJJ, ChauSL, MayerDM, GregoryJB. Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2012;33(1):21–42.
5.
HuangY, LuX, WangX. The effects of transformational leadership on employee’s pro-social rule breaking. Canadian Social Science. 2014;10(1):128–34.
ChengBS, ChouLF, WuTY, HuangMP, FarhJL. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2004;7(1):89–117.
8.
LinCP, LinMZ, LiYB. An empirical study on the effect of paternalistic leadership on employees’ voice behaviors–the intermediary role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics. 2015;18(6):789–810.
9.
ZhangY, HuaiMY, XieYH. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly. 2015;26(1):25–36.
10.
ShinSJ, ZhouJ. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal. 2003;46(6):703–14.
11.
FarhJL, ChengBS. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In
LiJT,
TsuiAS,
WeldonE. (Eds.) Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2000:84–127.
12.
WangAC, ChengBS. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2010;31(1):106–21.
13.
ChengBS. Paternalistic authority and leadership: A case study of a Taiwanese CEO. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. 1995;79:119–73.
14.
FarhJL, ChengBS, ChouLF, ChuXP. Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In
TsuiAS,
BianY,
ChengL. (Eds.), China’s Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and Performance. New York: Sharpe; 2006:230–60.
15.
SpreitzerGM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 1995;38(5):1442–65.
16.
ThomasKW, VelthouseBA. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review. 1990;15(4):666–81.
17.
GraenGB, Uhl-BienM. 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. 1995;6(2):219–47.
18.
IliesR, NahrgangJD, MorgesonFP. Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(1):269–77.
19.
Van DyneL, KamdarD, JoiremanJ. In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(6):1195–207.
20.
ChenCC, FarhJL. Developments in Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In
HarrisBM. (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Oxford:Oxford University Press; 2009.
21.
ScanduraTA, GraenGB. Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1984;69(3):428–36.
22.
FornellC, LarckerDF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(3):382–8.
23.
GefenD, StraubD. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;16(1):91–109.
24.
PodsakoffPM, OrganDW. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management. 1986;12(4):531–44.
25.
LammE, Tosti-KharasJ, KingCE. Empowering employee sustainability: Perceived organizational support toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015;128(1):207–20.
26.
BaltesBB, ZhdanovaLS, ClarkMA. Examining the relationships between personality, coping strategies, and work-family conflict. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2011;26(4):517–30.
27.
BrislinRW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970;1(3):185–216.
28.
TsaiHT, WuTJ, YehSP. Chinese paternalistic leadership and leadership effectiveness in textile industry. Autex Research Journal. 2013;13(3):82–8.
29.
HouN, PengJ. Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, active implementation and job performance: An investigation on the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2019;51(1):117–27.
30.
TangCY, NaumannSE. Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management & Organization. 2015:1–16.
31.
LinKJ, HsiehYH, LianWS. Knowledge sharing and personality traits moderated by transformational leadership. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(1):67–80.
32.
NabiAK, AliS, HadiT. Friendship, transformational leadership and organizational climate. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(3):319–31.
33.
DilawarKD, LiXY, SyedaMD, HamidK. Moderated relations among empowerment, cynicism and commitment. Human Systems Management. 2017;36(3):229–39.
