Asia Pacific Journal of Management

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09781-x

The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be:

A moral disengagement and Chinese traditionality
examination of exploitative leadership
and employee expediency

Ken Cheng 1 & Limin Guo 2 & Jinlian Luo 2

Accepted: 12 July 2021/

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Drawing on social cognitive theory, we build a comprehensive understanding of how,
why, and when exploitative leadership relates to employee expediency by identifying
moral disengagement as one psychological mechanism and Chinese traditionality as
one boundary condition. To test our model, we administrated a three-wave survey to
collect data from 350 employees in China. The results showed that exploitative
leadership was positively related to employee expediency and that moral disengage-
ment mediated this relationship. Additionally, we found that Chinese traditionality
buffered the positive relationship between exploitative leadership and moral disengage-
ment as well as the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on employee expediency
through moral disengagement. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and
future directions are discussed.

Keywords Exploitative leadership . Employee expediency . Moral disengagement .

Chinese traditionality . Social cognitive theory

Introduction

Employee expediency, a behavioral phenomenon that recently arouses academia’s

concern, refers to an employees’ use of unethical practice to expedite work for self-
serving purposes (Greenbaum et al., 2018), such as cutting corners to complete work

* Limin Guo
guolimin183@gmail.com

1
School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, No.288 Liuhe Road,
Hangzhou 310023, People’s Republic of China
2
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, No.1239 Siping Road,
Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China
 K. Cheng et al.

assignments more quickly and altering performance numbers to appear more success-
ful. Employee expediency is quite prevalent in the workplace (Eissa, 2020). For
instance, a recent report indicated that to fulfill the monthly sales task, employees of
Chinese telecom carriers often relax the real-name registration requirement for phone
card (Sohu, 2021). In addition, employee expediency can damage the organizational
interests (Greenbaum et al., 2018). For example, Country Garden, a real estate com-
pany in China, suffered a reputation crisis due to two employees’ illegal obtaining the
pre-sale permit to serve their own interests (Fang, 2016). Hence, it is very important to
find ways to control such unethical behavior.
Regrettably, the research on employee expediency is currently in its infancy. To our
knowledge, there are only two studies attempting to answer the question of what gives
rise to employee expediency (individual initiative; Eissa, 2020; supervisor expediency;
Greenbaum et al., 2018), thereby largely limiting our understanding of how to reduce
such unethical behavior. In an effort to contribute to this emergent but very important
research field, this study draws on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to examine
the potential positive influence of exploitative leadership on employee expediency, the
mediating role of moral disengagement, and the moderating effects of Chinese
traditionality on the exploitative leadership-moral disengagement link as well as the
indirect effect of exploitative leadership on employee expediency via moral disengage-
ment. In brief, this study aims to explore how, why, and when employee expediency
would be affected by exploitative leadership.
Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we identified exploit-
ative leadership, a unique form of morally questionable leadership with the primary
intention to further the leader’s self-interest by exploiting employees (Schmid et al.,
2019), as an inducer of employee expediency, thus advancing the understanding of the
role of leadership in the development of employee expediency. Second, this study
sheds some light on the process through which exploitative leadership influences
employee expediency by verifying the mediating role of moral disengagement, a set
of cognitive mechanisms through which people disengage moral self-sanction from
their unethical acts (Bandura et al., 1996). Third, we demonstrated the idea that Chinese
traditionality, a common personality trait in East and Southeast Asian countries (e.g.,
China, Malaysia, and Singapore), moderated the influences of exploitative leadership,
thus extending the current knowledge on the boundary conditions of the influences of
exploitative leadership.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Exploitative leadership and employee expediency

As noted at the outset, employee expediency refers to unethical acts conducted by

employees to facilitate work for self-serving purposes (Greenbaum et al., 2018). As a
kind of unethical behavior, employee expediency is covert, non-interpersonal, and less
morally intense (Eissa, 2020). Typical examples of employee expediency include
ignoring company protocols to get what he or she wants, only enforcing company
rules when they benefit his or her welfare, and so on (Greenbaum et al., 2018). Prior
studies have pointed out a host of negative effects that employee expediency can exert
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

on the actors and the organization, such as increased work injuries and safety violations
(Christian et al., 2009; Halbesleben, 2010), impaired organizational long-term success
(Eissa, 2020; Greenbaum et al., 2018), and so on. Thus, scholars begin to explore the
antecedents of employee expediency and have found that the more initiative employees
undertake or expedient behavior their supervisors conduct, the more likely employee
expediency will happen (Eissa, 2020; Greenbaum et al., 2018). To better control such
behavior, more studies on its antecedents are needed.
Exploitative leadership is described as a highly selfish leadership with a primary
focus on the pursuit of self-benefit but at the expense of employees’ interests (Schmid
et al., 2019). Typical examples of exploitative leadership include expecting employees
to work day and night, setting harsh timelines, stealing recognition from employees,
and so on (Schmid et al., 2019). Prior studies have provided ample evidence for the
powerful influences of exploitative leadership on employees, such as reduced job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, and increased burnout, knowledge hiding,
and workplace deviance (Guo et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2019; Syed et al., 2021).
Given the above well-established relationships between exploitative leadership and
employees’ destructive behaviors, we expect that exploitative leadership may also
trigger employee expediency.
As previously mentioned, exploitative leaders behave egoistically and take for
granted that “others exist for me” (Schmid et al., 2019). Such leaders are likely to
cultivate a highly self-interested atmosphere or climate in organizations, which may
make it acceptable for employees to take some unethical acts to serve their own
interests (Greenbaum et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2019). Such unethical acts may likely
include expedient behavior. Moreover, leaders’ exploitative behavior can be regarded
as an unpleasant work stressor to some extent (Guo et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2019). In
this case, exploited employees are likely to get trapped in negative psychological states
(Guo et al., 2021; Majeed & Fatima, 2020) and thus may tend to adopt whatever means
to reduce stress. Given that expedient behavior, by its definition, allows employees to
increase their self-interests beyond what is possible through ethical means (Eissa, 2020;
Greenbaum et al., 2018), exploited employees may resort to such behavior as a coping
strategy. We thus hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1 Exploitative leadership is positively related to employee expediency.

The mediating role of moral disengagement

Apart from the direct effect of exploitative leadership on employee expediency,

we further seek to investigate the underlying process through which exploitative
leadership influences employee expediency. Currently, some studies have ex-
plored the influencing mechanisms of exploitative leadership. However, the
existing research has primarily focused on the affective mechanisms (e.g.,
psychological distress; Guo et al., 2021; relational attachment; Wang et al.,
2021). Less attention has been paid to the cognitive mechanisms, especially the
moral ones that may provide some insights into the question of why exploit-
ative leadership relates to employee expediency. The present study attempts to
narrow this research gap.
 K. Cheng et al.

According to social cognitive theory, moral disengagement contains a series of

cognitive justification mechanisms that allow people to behave unethically while
isolating from moral self-sanctions (Bandura, 1991, 1999). In particular, such cognitive
justification mechanisms can be broadly divided into three categories (Bandura et al.,
1996). The first is reconstructing unethical behavior to make it become acceptable; the
second is distorting or obscuring the outcomes of and the responsibility for unethical
behavior; the third is vilifying the recipients of unethical behavior (Chen et al., 2016).
Given that all these mechanisms aim to justify unethical behavior, scholars often
operationalized moral disengagement as a single overarching construct (Bandura,
1986; Moore et al., 2012).
Prior research has found that moral disengagement is a crucial psychological
mechanism through which morally questionable leadership affects subordinates’ un-
ethical behavior (e.g., Valle et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). For instance, Valle et al.
(2019) found that abusive supervision could promote employees’ moral disengage-
ment, which in turn triggered employees’ deviant behaviors. Similarly, Zhang et al.
(2018) demonstrated that moral disengagement played an important mediating role in
the relationship between narcissistic supervision and employees’ deviant behavior.
Inspired by these previous studies, we thus propose that moral disengagement may
likewise mediate the relationship between exploitative leadership and employee
expediency.
Specifically, exploitative leaders create a highly stressful work environment (Guo
et al., 2021), in which employees may attribute their detrimental acts to the huge
pressure from the leaders (Fida et al., 2015). By shifting the responsibility to the
exploitative leaders, employees can suffer less self-sanctions and feel free to undertake
expedient behavior. Additionally, given that expedient behavior, by its nature, is a kind
of unethical behavior that has low levels of moral intensity (Greenbaum et al., 2018),
exploited employees may justify their expedient behavior through disregarding the
negative consequences brought by such behavior. Moreover, compared to other im-
moral acts (e.g., theft) that may also be triggered by exploitative leadership, expediency
is less morally intense (Eissa, 2020). This comparison may likely make expediency
appear more benign or become of little consequence, thus promoting exploited em-
ployees to engage in expediency. Based on the above theoretical arguments, we
propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 Moral disengagement mediates the relationship between exploitative

leadership and employee expediency.

The moderating role of Chinese traditionality

Social cognitive theory suggests that individuals’ cognition and behavior are deter-
mined by the interaction of situational and personal factors (Bandura, 1986). In this
vein, we infer that the extent to which an exploited employee engages in moral
disengagement and subsequent expedient behavior may vary due to personal factors.
In this study, we focus on Chinese traditionality and explore its moderating role on the
effects of exploitative leadership. There are three reasons. First, many scholars have
emphasized the importance of contextualized research, especially the one based on the
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

Oriental context (e.g., Meyer, 2007; White, 2002). In response to this call, we focus on
the East and Southeast Asian context and choose Chinese traditionality, a typical
personality trait in the aforementioned context, as the personal factor. Second, prior
research has also suggested that when exploring the leadership process in the Confu-
cian cultural circle, one needs to pay close attention to the moderating role of Chinese
traditionality (e.g., Liu et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2013). Third, so for, there is no research
exploring the moderating effect of Chinese traditionality on the effects of exploitative
leadership or the formation of employee expediency.
Chinese traditionality describes the degree to which an individual adheres to traditional
Chinese cultural values (Yang et al., 1989). Individuals with higher levels of Chinese
traditionality are prone to submit to the authority and obey the prescribed social roles
(Farh et al., 1997). Hence, they are less likely to base their psychological reactions on
how authority figures treat them (Hui et al., 2004). Following this logic, when confronted
with exploitative leaders, employees with higher levels of Chinese traditionality may view
leaders’ exploitation as a common phenomenon. Such view then may make them less
sensitive and stressful, thus buffering the influences of exploitative leadership on moral
disengagement. In contrast, individuals with lower levels of Chinese traditionality are more
governed by the inducement and contribution balances (Farh et al., 1997). Considering that
exploitative leadership creates an unsatisfied situation where employees scarcely receive any
inducement (e.g., support, respect, and job autonomy; Schmid et al., 2019), employees with
lower levels of Chinese traditionality are less tolerant to such unfair treatments and respond
more strongly, thus resulting in an enhanced level of moral disengagement. Based on the
above theoretical arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 Chinese traditionality moderates the relationship between exploit-

ative leadership and moral disengagement, such that this relationship is stronger
for employees with lower levels of Chinese traditionality rather than higher.

So far, we have analyzed how exploitative leadership promotes employee expediency

through moral disengagement and argued the moderating effect of Chinese traditionality
on the relationship between exploitative leadership and moral disengagement. Based on
these, we further propose that Chinese traditionality may moderate the mediating effect of
moral disengagement on the relationship between exploitative leadership and employee
expediency. Specifically, for employees with higher levels of Chinese traditionality, they are
more likely to submit to authority and therefore may be more tolerant of exploitative
leadership. Hence, they are less likely to engage in moral disengagement and then take
expedient behaviors. In contrast, for employees with lower levels of Chinese traditionality,
they are governed by the inducement and contribution balances and thereby may more
strongly react to exploitative leadership by performing more moral disengagement and
expediency. Based on the above theoretical arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 Chinese traditionality moderates the mediating effect of moral

disengagement on the exploitative leadership-employee expediency relationship,
such that this mediating effect is stronger for employees with lower levels of
Chinese traditionality rather than higher.

Figure 1 displays our research model.

 K. Cheng et al.

Chinese Traditionality

H3(moderating effect) H2(mediating effect)

Exploitative Leadership Moral Disengagement Employee Expediency

H4(moderated-mediation effect)

H1(main effect)

Fig. 1 Research model

Method

Sample and procedures

We collected data from full-time staff of companies in various industries. Access to the
participants was obtained through the MBA programs of a major university in East
China. Participants were voluntary and confidentiality assured. To reduce common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we invited participants to complete three
separate surveys administered one month apart. At Time 1, 451 employees were asked
to complete the questionnaire in which exploitative leadership, Chinese traditionality,
and control variables were measured. We received responses from 429 employees. One
month later, at Time 2, we distributed the second questionnaire relating to moral
disengagement to participants who completed the Time-1 survey. 387 completed
questionnaires were returned. Another one month later, at Time 3, we invited the 387
participants who completed Time-1 and Time-2 surveys to assess their expedient
behavior. 354 completed questionnaires were returned. After the elimination of invalid
and suspicious data (e.g., all answers are the same), the usable sample comprised 350
employees, resulting in the final response rate of 77.61%. Among the 350 employees,
53.43% were male; the average age was 32.12 years old (SD = 5.14); the average
organizational tenure was 4.70 years (SD = 3.33); the average tenure with the current
supervisor was 2.97 years (SD = 1.88).

Measures

Given that all items used in the present study were originally developed in English, we
translated them into Chinese using the translation-back translation procedure suggested
by Brislin (1980). All measures were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), unless otherwise stated.

Exploitative leadership We measured exploitative leadership with Schmid et al.’s

(2019) 15-item scale. Sample items include “My immediate supervisor does not give
me opportunities to further develop myself professionally because his or her own goals
have priority” and “My immediate supervisor uses my work for his or her personal
gain.”

Chinese traditionality We evaluated Chinese traditionality using Farh et al.’s (1997) 5-

item scale. Sample items include “The best way to avoid mistakes is to follow the
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

instructions of senior persons” and “The chief government official is just like the head
of a household.”

Moral disengagement Moral disengagement was measured by Moore et al.’s (2012) 8-

item scale. Sample items include “Taking personal credit for ideas that were not your
own is no big deal” and “It is okay to spread rumours to defend those you care about.”

Employee expediency We assessed employee expediency with Greenbaum et al.’s

(2018) 4-item scale. Sample items include “I cut corners to complete work assignments
more quickly” and “I only enforce company rules when they benefit my welfare.”

Control variables We controlled for employees’ demographics, including gender (0 =

male, 1 = female), age, organizational tenure, and tenure with the current supervisor (in
years), as these variables might affect employee expediency (Eissa, 2020; Greenbaum
et al., 2018). Given that our data were collected from diverse industries, we also
controlled for the industry differences by creating seven dummies, namely accounting,
architecture and construction, banking, biotechnology, electrical engineering, health
care, and information technology.

Analytical strategy

SPSS 20.0 and Mplus 7.4 were employed to analyze the data. First, we conducted a
series of confirmatory factor analyses to examine whether the self-report measures
captured distinctive constructs. Then, means, standard deviations, correlations, and
reliabilities of all variables were reported. To test our hypotheses, we adopted hierar-
chical regression analysis, simple slope tests, and the bootstrapping approach. Further-
more, we utilized Cohen’s f2 index of effect size to assess the magnitudes of the main,
mediating, and moderating effect.1

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the discriminant validity of

variables. As shown in Table 1, the hypothesized four-factor model provided a
better fit to the data (χ2 (458) = 720.98, χ 2 /df = 1.57, CFI = .96, TLI = .95,
R M S E A = . 04 , S R M R = . 0 5 ) th a n a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e l s , v e r i f y i n g th e
distinctiveness of our measures. Besides, the one-factor model provided a poor
fit to the data (χ 2 (464) =3045.25, χ 2 /df = 6.56, CFI = .57, TLI = .54,
RMSEA = .13, SRMR = .12), indicating that the common method bias was not
a serious threat in our study.

f can be calculated using the R2 and ΔR2 reported in the results of hierarchical regression analysis (i.e.,
1 2

Table 3). Cohen (1969) proposed that the f2 values of .02, .15, and .35 represent small, medium, and large
effect sizes, respectively.
 K. Cheng et al.

Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Models χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA SRMR CFI TLI

Four-factor model 720.98 458 1.57 .04 .05 .96 .95

Three-factor model 1511.48 461 3.28 .08 .09 .83 .81
Two-factor model 2178.19 463 4.71 .10 .11 .72 .70
One-factor model 3045.25 464 6.56 .13 .12 .57 .54

Notes: Three-factor model emerged exploitative leadership and moral disengagement into one factor. Two
factor model emerged exploitative leadership, moral disengagement, and Chinese traditionality into one factor.
One-factor model emerged exploitative leadership, moral disengagement, Chinese traditionality, and employ-
ee expediency into one factor

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the results for the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and
correlations among the variables. As expected, exploitative leadership was positively
associated with moral disengagement (r = .56, p < .01) and employee expediency
(r = .38, p < .01); moral disengagement had a positive relationship with employee
expediency (r = .47, p < .01).

Hypotheses testing

Table 3 presents the results of hierarchical regression analysis. Hypothesis 1 predicted a

positive link between exploitative leadership and employee expediency. As shown in
Table 3, exploitative leadership had a significant and positive effect on employee
expediency (β = .22, p < .01, Model 2), with a small effect size (f2 = .10). Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that moral disengagement mediates the relationship between
exploitative leadership and employee expediency. As depicted in Table 3, exploitative
leadership significantly influenced employee expediency (β = .22, p < .01, Model 2)
and moral disengagement (β = .44, p < .01, Model 6); moral disengagement had a
significant and positive effect on employee expediency (β = .32, p < .01, Model 4).
When regressing employee expediency on exploitative leadership and moral disen-
gagement (Model 3), we found that the influence of exploitative leadership on em-
ployee expediency was reduced but still significant (β = .10, p < .05) and that moral
disengagement significantly affected employee expediency (β = .27, p < .01), implying
the partial mediating role of moral disengagement (Baron & Kenny, 1986), with a small
effect size (f2 = .08). Additionally, we used the bootstrapping approach to construct
confidence interval (CI) in estimating the indirect effect. The results showed that the
indirect effect of exploitative leadership on employee expediency through moral
disengagement was significant (indirect effect = .16, 95% CI = [.08, .27], excluding
0). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that Chinese traditionality would moderate the relationship
between exploitative leadership and moral disengagement. The results showed that the
interaction term (i.e., Exploitative leadership × Chinese traditionality) had a significant
Table 2 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of study variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Industry 1 .17 .37 –

2. Industry 2 .13 .34 −.17** –
3. Industry 3 .15 .36 −.19** −.17** –
4. Industry 4 .14 .34 −.18** −.16** −.17** –
5. Industry 5 .13 .33 −.17** −.15** −.16** −.15** –
6. Industry 6 .13 .34 −.17** −.15** −.17** −.16** −.15** –
7. Gender .47 .50 .20** .04 −.05 .01 −.06 −.13* –
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

8. Age 32.14 5.14 .35** −.20** .01 −.19** .08 −.01 .10 –
9. Organizational tenure 4.70 3.33 .50** −.22** −.10 −.27** .02 −.05 .08 .34** –
10. Tenure with the supervisor 2.97 1.88 .27** −.16** .11* −.24** −.12* −.06 .14* .38** .32** –
11. Exploitative leadership 2.75 .81 −.18** −.17** −.07 −.09 .06 .17** −.19** .15 .05 .03 (.91)
12. Moral disengagement 2.62 .91 −.22** −.16** −.11* −.11* .10 .24** −.12* .27 .01 −.01 .56** (.93)
13. Chinese traditionality 3.03 .79 .09 −.08 .15** .01 −.01 −.09 .05 .01 −.14* .16** −.22** −.21** (.86)
14. Employee expediency 2.63 1.08 −.23* −.13* −.13* −.15** .08 .17** −.17** −.20** −.13* −.33** .38** .47** −.33* (.93)

Notes: N = 350; * p < .05, ** p < .01; reliabilities are mentioned in parentheses on the diagonal
 K. Cheng et al.

Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis

Employee expediency Moral disengagement

Model Model Model Model Model Model Model

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Control variables
Industry 1 −.45** −.36** −.29** −.31** −.27** −.15* −.15*
Industry 2 −.58** −.51** −.45** −.47** −.26** −.12* −.12*
Industry 3 −.50** −.43** −.38** −.39** −.26** −.13* −.12
Industry 4 −.63** −.57** −.52** −.54** −.22** −.11 −.11
Industry 5 −.34** −.30** −.28** −.29** −.07 −.01 .01
Industry 6 −.27** −.25** −.26** −.26** .05 .07 .07
Gender −.06 −.03 −.04 −.05 −.05 .01 .02
Age −.06 −.07 −.09 −.09 .05 −.03 −.04
Organizational tenure −.12* −.13** −.13** −.12** .11 .12 .15
Tenure with the supervisor −.39** −.39** −.38** −.38** .11 .11 .08
Independent variable
Exploitative leadership .22** .10* .44** .44**
Mediator
Moral disengagement .27** .32**
Moderator
Chinese traditionality −.12**
Interaction
Exploitative leadership × Chinese −.15**
traditionality
R2 .43 .48 .52 .51 .25 .41 .44
ΔR2 .43 .05 .04 .08 .25 .16 .03

Notes: N = 350; * p < .05, ** p < .01

effect on employee expediency (β = −.15, p < .01; Model 7), with a small effect size
(f2 = .05). We further plotted the interaction at two levels (−1 SD and + 1 SD) of
Chinese traditionality (see Fig. 2). Simple slopes tests verified the moderating effect
of Chinese traditionality on the link between exploitative leadership and moral
disengagement (slope difference = .24, p < .05). Specifically, for employees with
lower levels of Chinese traditionality, exploitative leadership significantly predicted
moral disengagement (simple slope = .54, p < .01); for employees with higher
levels of Chinese traditionality, the influence of exploitative leadership on
moral disengagement was still significant but weaker (simple slope = .30,
p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
To test the moderated mediation hypothesis (i.e., Hypothesis 4), we used moderated
path analysis suggested by Edwards and Lambert (2007). The results demonstrated the
moderating effect of Chinese traditionality on the indirect effect of exploitative leader-
ship on employee expediency via moral disengagement (conditional indirect effect
difference = −.08, 95% CI = [−.17, −.01], excluding 0). Specifically, for employees
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

Low Chinese Traditionality High Chinese Traditionality

4

3.5
Moral Disengagement

2.5

1.5

1
Low Exploitative Leadership High Exploitative Leadership

Fig. 2 The moderating effect of Chinese traditionality on the relationship between exploitative leadership and
moral disengagement

with lower levels of Chinese traditionality, this indirect effect was significant (condi-
tional indirect effect = .20, 95% CI = [.11, .32], excluding 0); for employees with higher
levels of Chinese traditionality, this indirect effect was still significant but weaker
(conditional indirect effect = .12, 95% CI = [.06, .22], excluding 0). We also used the
Hayes PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) to retest the moderated mediation. The results
showed that the moderated mediation was significant (index = −.06, 95% CI = [−.12,
−.01], excluding 0). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Discussion

Drawing on social cognitive theory, we developed and examined a moderated medi-

ation model to shed light on how, why, and when employee expediency would be
influenced by exploitative leadership. In line with our theorizing, exploitative leader-
ship was positively related to employee expediency. This finding is consistent with
previous research suggesting that exploitative leadership can trigger employees’ neg-
ative behavior (e.g., Guo et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2018). Exploitative leaders are
extremely selfish. They regard employees as a means for self-serving ends, place
excessive pressure on employees to get tasks done, and grab employees’ work to get
themselves noticed (Schmid et al., 2019). Under such supervision, employees are likely
to form a perception that expedient behavior is acceptable and can function as a strategy
to cope with the stressful environment.
Besides, we found that moral disengagement mediated the influence of exploitative
leadership on employee expediency. This finding is not surprising since considerable
studies have shown that moral disengagement plays an important role in linking
negative leadership to unethical acts (e.g., Valle et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018).
 K. Cheng et al.

According to social cognitive theory, unethical behavior occurs when one’s moral self-
regulatory processes get disengaged (Bandura, 1986, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996).
Exploitative leadership can lead to a series of cognitive justification mechanisms
(e.g., displacement of responsibility) through which moral disengagement occurs, thus
further resulting in an enhanced level of expediency.
Moreover, we found that Chinese traditionality buffered the direct effect of exploit-
ative leadership on moral disengagement as well as the indirect effect of exploitative
leadership on employee expediency via moral disengagement. This is because em-
ployees with higher levels of Chinese traditionality are less sensitive to leaders’
exploitation, which thus alleviates the positive effects of exploitative leadership on
moral disengagement and subsequent employee expediency. Previous research has also
provided some indirect support for this finding (e.g., Liu et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2015).
For instance, Liu et al. (2010) found that Chinese traditionality attenuated the positive
effect of abusive supervision on employees’ revenge cognition, which in turn reduced
employees’ supervisor-directed deviance.

Theoretical implications

Our findings make a threefold contribution. First, our study advances a growing body
of research on the antecedents of expediency by verifying the positive impact of
exploitative leadership on employee expediency. To our best knowledge, extant re-
search concerning the antecedents of employee expediency only examined the positive
influences of employees’ initiative (Eissa, 2020) and supervisors’ expediency
(Greenbaum et al., 2018) on employee expediency, leaving the vital issue of how
leadership affects employee expediency largely unknown. In this study, we demon-
strated the positive relationship between exploitative leadership and employee expedi-
ency, thereby extending our understanding of the role of leadership in the development
of employee expediency. Besides, our research contributes to the exploitative leader-
ship literature to some extent by extending the range of outcomes of exploitative
leadership to expediency. This extension is important, especially in the Oriental
context, as compared to unethical conducts that are explicit, interpersonal, and more
morally intense (e.g., verbal abuse), the Oriental may prefer acts that are covert, non-
interpersonal, and less morally intense, one typical example of which is expediency.
Second, by verifying the mediating role of moral disengagement, our research provides
new insights for understanding the influencing mechanisms of exploitative leadership and
the formation mechanisms of employee expediency. On the one hand, as previously noted,
the research on how exploitative leadership affects its outcomes mainly focuses on the
affective aspects (e.g.,Guo et al., 2021 ; Wang et al., 2021). On the other hand, the research
on how employee expediency happens is mainly based on the perspectives of vicarious
learning and conservation of resources (e.g., Eissa, 2020; Greenbaum et al., 2018). In this
study, we drew on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991) and proved that moral disen-
gagement functioned as a vital cognitive mechanism between exploitative leadership and
employee expediency, thus not only opening the “black box” of how exploitative leadership
influences employee expediency, but also shedding light on the influencing paths of
exploitative leadership and the forming process of employee expediency. Additionally, by
proving moral disengagement as an outcome of exploitative leadership, we respond the call
for identifying contextual factors that could affect moral disengagement (Detert et al., 2008).
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

Third, by demonstrating the moderating role of Chinese traditionality, our study

sheds new light on the boundary conditions under which the effects of exploitative
leadership can be mitigated or exacerbated. Although scholars have suggested that the
effects of exploitative leadership are subject to moderating factors (Guo et al., 2021;
Wang et al., 2021), the existing research on the boundary conditions of the influences
of exploitative leadership is still scarce. Given this, we proposed and tested the
moderating effects of Chinese traditionality on the relationships between exploitative
leadership, moral disengagement, and employee expediency, enriching the literature on
the moderated influencing mechanism of exploitative leadership. Besides, our study
also contributes to the moral disengagement literature to some extent. By verifying the
moderating role of Chinese traditionality in the moral disengagement process, our study
responds to the call for more investigation of the cultural determinants of moral
disengagement process (Fida et al., 2015; He et al., 2019).

Managerial implications

The present study provides several important managerial implications. First, we found
that exploitative leadership positively predicted employee expediency. Thus, organiza-
tions should be aware of the harmfulness of exploitative leadership and take measures
to prevent, restrain, and reduce leaders’ exploitative behaviors. For instance, organiza-
tions are highly advised to carry out a zero-tolerance policy to leaders’ exploitative acts
and tie managerial performance and compensation systems to “no exploitation” poli-
cies. Meanwhile, training programs that aim to cultivate leaders’ understanding of one’s
interdependence with others are also highly suggested. Besides, safe complaint chan-
nels should be set up, which can help organizations timely receive employees’ feedback
to their leaders’ misconducts. Once leaders are accused of exploitation to employees,
the organizational ethics board and labor union should respond quickly, take ways to
protect employees, and solve such cases timely and seriously.
Second, we found that moral disengagement was a proximal antecedent of employee
expediency. Hence, organizations should take some steps to mitigate employees’ propensity
to morally disengage to restrain them from engaging in expedient behavior. For instance,
when recruiting new employees, organizations should give preference to the candidates who
have high levels of moral-related traits (e.g., integrity and moral identity) and abilities (e.g.,
moral reasoning). Moreover, ethical training programs that aim to improve employees’
moral sensitivity and cognitive self-regulatory abilities are also strongly recommended.
Third, we found that employees with different levels of Chinese traditionality
reacted differently when they experienced leaders’ exploitative behaviors. Thus, it is
important for organizations to adopt different means to help different employees deal
with exploitative leaders. As one kind of personality trait, Chinese traditionality,
especially the dimension of submission to authority, may encourage an increase in
exploitative leadership. Hence, for employees with higher levels of Chinese
traditionality, organizations should encourage them to report their leaders’ misbehavior
and effectively deal with these voices. On the other hand, given that employees with
lower levels of Chinese traditionality are more likely to engage in moral disengagement
and knowledge hiding when confronted with exploitative leadership, organizations
should not only take measures to prevent and reduce leaders’ exploitative acts, but
also guide those employees to deal with exploitative leadership in a more ethical way.
 K. Cheng et al.

Limitations and future research directions

Despite our theoretical and practical contributions, the present study has several
limitations. First, the data we collected were from one single societal context (i.e.,
China), which may reduce the generalizability of our findings to other contexts.
Although some Asian countries (e.g., China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea,
and Vietnam) share many general beliefs and cultural values, there still exist some
societal and cultural differences among these Asian countries. It has been well proven
that cultural differences can influence employees’ perceptions and behaviors (Kang
et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2010; Yan & Sorenson, 2006). Hence, a useful direction for
future research is to retest our model in other Asian countries that are deeply influenced
by Confucian culture.
The second limitation concerns common method biases, as all data were collected
using self-reported measures. Although we have followed Podsakoff et al.’s (2003)
suggestion to collect data at different time-points, there is still much room for improve-
ment. For instance, future studies need to pay close attention to the measurement of
exploitative leadership and Chinese traditionality.2 In this study, we measured these
two constructs at the same time. Yet, such measurement may be problematic.
Specifically, as Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggested, when completing questionnaires,
participants often appear to possess assumptions regarding the co-occurrence of items,
and such assumptions may lead to illusory correlations. As shown in Table 2, exploit-
ative leadership was significantly related to Chinese traditionality (r = −.22, p < .01).
This correlation may be somewhat exaggerated, as employees with lower (higher)
levels of Chinese traditionality may be more (less) sensitive to exploitative leadership
and thus rate higher (lower) scores of exploitative leadership. Thus, future studies are
suggested to measure these two constructs at different time-points.
Third, when studying the boundary condition of the impacts of exploitative leadership,
we only explored the moderating role of Chinese traidtionality. Apart from this, there may
exist other moderators. For instance, according to social comparison theory, it is inevitable
that individuals consciously or unconsciously compare themselves with others, especially
those having similar backgrounds (e.g., coworkers), to obtain self-evaluation and assess the
environment, which ultimately can affect persons’ cognitive and behavioral process (Buunk
& Gibbons, 2007; Greenberg et al., 2007). Thus, comparisons with colleagues who also
suffer from leaders’ exploitation may influence employees’ reactions to exploitative leader-
ship. Inspired by previous research on relative leader-member exchange (e.g., Hu & Liden,
2013; Zhao et al., 2019), a very promising direction for future research is to investigate the
moderating role of relative exploitative leadership.
Fourth, future research might benefit from employing other potential mediators beyond
moral disengagement. For instance, anxiety, an affective state of stress, nervousness, and
dread (Gray, 1991), may be one variable that is able to transmit the impact of exploitative
leadership on employee expediency, given that prior studies have demonstrated the
positive effect of destructive leadership on anxiety (e.g., Tepper, 2000) and the positive
relationship between anxiety and unethical acts (e.g., Kouchaki & Desai, 2015). Besides,
self-interested motivation may be another potential mediator.3 Exploitative leaders may

2
We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for offering this insight.
3
We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for offering this insight.
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

evoke employees’ self-interested motivation, which in turn may facilitate moral disen-
gagement and subsequent self-interested conduct (e.g., expedient behavior). In sum, to
draw a more complete picture of how exploitative leadership influences employee
expediency, it is quite necessary for future research to investigate other potential psycho-
logical processes.

Conclusion

This study found that exploitative leadership could promote employee expediency by
evoking moral disengagement and that Chinese traditionality could buffer the afore-
mentioned destructive effects of exploitative leadership. Our empirical findings extend
the knowledge of employee expediency and exploitative leadership by adopting the
social cognitive perspective and provide several important suggestions that organiza-
tions can follow to reduce employee expediency and exploitative leadership.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 71772138) and the Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science
(No. 2017BGL001).

Declarations

Conflict of interest None.

Ethical approval 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.

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

Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, Limin Guo, upon reasonable request.

References

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs.
Bandura, A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. Kurtines, & J. Gewirtz (Eds.).
Handbook of moral behavior and development: Theory, research and applications: 71–129. Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3(3): 193–209.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. 1996. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in
the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2): 364–374.
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. Triandis, & J. W.
Berry (Eds.). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: 389–444. Allyn & Bacon.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. 2007. Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1): 3–21.
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. 2016. Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational
identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8):
1082–1096.
 K. Cheng et al.

Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. 2009. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the
roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5): 1103–1127.
Cohen, J. 1969. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A
study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 374–391.
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.
Eissa, G. 2020. Individual initiative and burnout as antecedents of employee expediency and the moderating
role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business Research, 110: 202–212.
Fang, J. Y. 2016. Country Garden claims that the fraud is due to employee expediency. https://3g.163.com/
money/article/BMB71MNU002534NU.html?from=dynamic.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 421–444.
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. 2015. An
integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: The roles of stressors, negative
emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1): 131–144.
Gray, J. 1991. Fear, panic, and anxiety: What’s in a name? Psychological Inquiry, 2(1): 77–78.
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Bonner, J. M., Webster, B. D., & Kim, J. 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.
Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2007. Social comparison processes in organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1): 22–41.
Guo, L., Cheng, K., & Luo, J. 2021. The effect of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding: A
conservation of resources perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 42: 83–98.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. 2010. The role of exhaustion and workarounds in predicting occupational injuries: A
cross-lagged panel study of health care professionals. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1):
1–16.
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press.
He, P., Peng, Z., Zhao, H., & Estay, C. 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.
Hu, J. I. A., & Liden, R. C. 2013. Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when
social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1): 127–172.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. 2004. Employment relationships in China: Do workers relate to the
organization or to people? Organization Science, 15(2): 232–240.
Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., & Barclay, L. A. 2017. Affective and normative motives to work overtime in
Asian organizations: Four cultural orientations from Confucian ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1):
115–130.
Kim, Y., Chiu, C., Peng, S., Cai, H., & Tov, W. 2010. Explaining east–west differences in the likelihood of
making favorable self-evaluations: The role of evaluation apprehension and directness of expression.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1): 62–75.
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. 2015. Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals
feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2): 360–375.
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L. Z., & Wu, W. 2010. Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed
deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4): 835–856.
Majeed, M., & Fatima, T. 2020. Impact of exploitative leadership on psychological distress: A study of nurses.
Journal of Nursing Management, 28: 713–724.
Meyer, K. E. 2007. Asian contexts and the search for general theory in management research: A rejoinder.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4): 527–534.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Trevinõ, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. 2012. Why employees do bad things:
Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1): 1–48.
Peng, J., Wang, Z., & Chen, X. 2019. Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-
path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2): 419–433.
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.
Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. 2019. Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and
measurement of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management, 45(4): 1401–1433.
The more you exploit, the more expedient I will be: A moral...

Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. 2018. Different shades–different effects? Consequences of
different types of destructive leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1289.
Sohu. 2021. The insurance industry has been debunked, and when will turn to telecom carriers?. https://www.
sohu.com/a/453344896_120949831.
Syed, F., Naseer, S., Akhtar, M. W., Husnain, M., & Kashif, M. 2021. Frogs in boiling water: A moderated-
mediation model of exploitative leadership, fear of negative evaluation and knowledge hiding behaviors.
Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0611.
Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.
Wang, Z., Sun, C., & Cai, S. 2021. How exploitative leadership influences employee innovative behavior: The
mediating role of relational attachment and moderating role of high-performance work systems.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 42: 233–248.
White, S. 2002. Rigor and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where can we go? Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3): 287–352.
Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Harting, T. 2019. Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange,
and moral disengagement: A moderated-mediation model of organizational deviance. Journal of Social
Psychology, 159(3): 299–312.
Yan, J., & Sorenson, R. 2006. The effect of Confucian values on succession in family business. Family
Business Review, 19(3): 235–250.
Yang, K. S., Yu, A. B., & Yeh, M. H. 1989. Chinese individual modernity and traditionality: Construct
definition and measurement. In K. S. Yang, & A. B. Yu (Eds.). Chinese psychology and behavior: 241–
306. Taipei: Laureate.
Yu, W., Fan, Y., Zhang, J., & Men, Y. 2015. The relationship between abusive supervision and job
performance: The effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi, traditionality, and employees’ forgiveness to
supervisor. Nankai Business Review, 18: 16–25.
Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., & Yu, X. 2019. Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and
knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 40(7): 834–848.
Zhao, H., Peng, Z., Han, Y., Sheard, G., & Hudson, A. 2013. Psychological mechanism linking abusive
supervision and compulsory citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Psychology,
147(2): 177–195.
Zhang, P., Li, S., Liu, W., Han, Y., & Muhammad, N. A. 2018. Exploring the role of moral disengagement in
the link between perceived narcissistic supervision and employees’ organizational deviance: A moderated
mediation model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21(4): 223–236.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Ken Cheng is an assistant professor at the School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, China.

He received his PhD from Tongji University, China. His research interests include behavioral ethics and moral
psychology. His research has been published in journals such as Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Business Ethics, and The International Journal of Human Resource Management.

Limin Guo is a PhD candidate at the School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, China. Her
research interests include destructive leadership and unethical behavior. Her research has been published in
journals such as The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, and International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

Jinlian Luo is a professor at the School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, China. She
received her PhD from Tongji University, China. Her research interests include ambidextrous leadership and
knowledge hiding. Her research has been published in journals such as Journal of Management, Journal of
Business Ethics, and Journal of Knowledge Management