Journal of Business Ethics (2023) 185:483–498

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05207-w

ORIGINAL PAPER

Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership

Evokes Employees’ Workplace Deviance
Yijing Lyu1 · Long‑Zeng Wu1 · Yijiao Ye2 · Ho Kwong Kwan3 · Yuanyi Chen4

Received: 20 August 2021 / Accepted: 4 July 2022 / Published online: 8 August 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Abstract
Drawing on the perspective of causal reasoning and the social cognitive theory of moral thought and action, this study
explores the mechanisms underlying the association between exposure to exploitative leadership and employee workplace
deviance. The results of a time-lagged survey conducted in China reveal that exposure to exploitative leadership can evoke
a moral justification process that leads to increased employee organizational and interpersonal deviance. A tendency toward
hostile attribution bias reinforces the direct link between exploitative leadership and moral justification and the indirect effects
of exploitative leadership on employee organizational and interpersonal deviance, via moral justification. The theoretical and
practical implications of this study are discussed and potential directions for future studies are proposed.

Keywords Exploitative leadership · Hostile attribution bias · Interpersonal deviance · Moral justification · Organizational
deviance

Introduction

The dramatic phenomenon of death from overwork has

Yijing Lyu, Long-Zeng Wu, and Yijiao Ye have contributed equally
sounded an alarm. Leaders who heavily exploit others are
to this work, and the authorship is listed alphabetically. a serious menace to employees, as exploited employees
are often burdened with additional tasks while their lead-
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress. ers take credit for their achievements (Schmid et al., 2019).
—Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821).
In response to the growing number of scandals related to
* Long‑Zeng Wu negative behavior by leaders in recent years, academia has
wulongzeng@163.com paid increasing attention to destructive leadership (Schyns &
Yijing Lyu Schilling, 2013). However, although great progress has been
lyuyijing@163.com made in this field of study (Chénard-Poirier et al., 2022;
Yijiao Ye Duffy et al., 2002; Krasikova et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2021;
yeyijiao1991@163.com Lyubykh et al., 2022), one important element, leader self-
Ho Kwong Kwan interest, remains underexplored (Schilling, 2009). The con-
weicheong2317@hotmail.com cept of exploitative leadership was first proposed by Schmid
Yuanyi Chen et al. (2019) to capture leader self-interest. Defined as a lead-
chenyy@hkbu.edu.hk ership style that is highly self-interested at the expense of
others (Schmid et al., 2019), exploitative leadership violates
1
School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China universally held ethical norms and can create severe moral
2
College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, issues at work.
China A small but growing number of empirical studies have
3
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management shown that exploitative leadership can cause employees to
Department, China Europe International Business School display increased psychological distress, turnover intention,
(CEIBS), Shanghai, China
and knowledge hiding and decreased employee organiza-
4
Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, tional commitment, job satisfaction, job performance, and
Hong Kong, China

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
484
innovative behavior (Guo et al., 2020; Majeed & Fatima,
2020; Schmid et al., 2019; Syed et al., 2021; Wang et al.,
2021; Wu et al., 2021). Exploitative leaders oppress their
employees and take credit for their accomplishments
(Schmid et al., 2019). Employees who perceive that they
have been unjustly treated are more likely to violate work-
place norms or threaten the well-being of other organiza-
tional members to restore a sense of justice (Bennett &
Robinson, 2000).
Although Schmid and colleagues (2019) examined the
link between exploitative leadership and workplace devi-
ance, they found mixed results across their studies. While
a positive relationship was found in one sample, a negative
effect was found in another. To resolve these conflicting find-
ings, we differentiate between organizational deviance and
interpersonal deviance and also look into the influencing
mechanisms to see whether a more thorough exploration
helps to address the ambiguities. Research has shown that
organizational deviance differs from interpersonal deviance
because their respective targets are distinguishable (Bennett
& Robinson, 2000). Organizational deviance is non-inter-
personal and harmful to organizations, while interpersonal
deviance is harmful to individuals (Robinson & Bennett,
1995). A meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) revealed that
organizational and interpersonal deviance are strongly cor-
related but have differential relationships with personality
traits, which supports their separability. Recent research on
ethics has indicated that organizational and interpersonal
deviance may be influenced by different predictors, modera-
tors, or mediating mechanisms. For example, lone wolf ten-
dencies have been shown to weaken the mediating effect of
moral identity on the relationship between abusive supervi-
sion and organizational deviance, but to have no such effect
on the relationship between abusive supervision and inter-
personal deviance (Wu et al., 2020). Hence, the first purpose
of this study is to explore the potentially different effects of
exploitative leadership on employees’ organizational versus
interpersonal deviance, to provide a more complete picture
of the effect of exploitative leadership on employee work-
place deviance.
In addition, a more thorough exploration of the mecha-
nism is needed to resolve the conflicting results of exploita-
tive leadership. Although the previously mentioned theories
are helpful in identifying the destructive effects of exploita-
tive leadership on employee job attitudes and behavior, these
theories cannot fully account for the effects. Research into
exploitation has acknowledged that there are many potential
social and psychological mechanisms that can explain the
destructive effects of exploitation (Livne-Ofer et al., 2019).
A recent review paper by Lemoine et al. (2019) highlighted
the moral approaches linking moral forms of leadership to
employees’ deviant reactions. Exploitative leadership is
unethical because it violates the ethical norms of society
13
Y. Lyu et al.
regarding self-interest (Schmid et al., 2019). This study thus
uses the perspective of causal reasoning and the social cog-
nitive theory of moral thought and action to explain how and
when exposure to exploitative leadership is related to work-
place deviance, which is also unethical behavior (Wu et al.,
2020). On the one hand, the causal reasoning perspective
asserts that exposure to destructive leadership leads victims
to engage in moral cognitive processing. When they believe
that their unfavorable workplace experiences are attributable
to external causes, they are likely to engage in externally
directed workplace deviance toward the organization and
other people. On the other hand, the social cognitive theory
of moral thought and action stresses the mediating role of
moral schemas in the relationship between contextual vari-
ables and subsequent moral behavior (Bandura, 1991; Duffy
et al., 2012). Moral schemas influence employees’ percep-
tions of what is right to allow them to maintain a positive
perception of themselves (Bandura, 1991). Taking these two
perspectives together, this study regards moral justification,
which reflects an individual’s interpretation of an unethi-
cal action as ethical (Barsky et al., 2011), as a schema that
helps exploited employees to justify their immoral behav-
ior as self-release, thus relieving them of guilt and freeing
them to engage in organizational and interpersonal deviance.
Hence, the second purpose of this study is to investigate
the mediating role of moral justification in the association
between perceptions of exploitative leadership and employ-
ees’ organizational and interpersonal deviance.
As moral cognitive processing does not occur in a vac-
uum, this research also explores a boundary condition under
which the effects of exploitative leadership are exacerbated.
The causal reasoning perspective stresses that attribution
style interacts with a situational variable (e.g., leadership) to
predict cognitive processing and subsequent deviant behav-
ior (Martinko et al., 2002). Hostile attribution bias reflects
the extent to which an individual is inclined to ascribe bad
motives to an action (Adams & John, 1997). Employees high
in hostile attribution bias tend to regard leaders’ exploitative
behavior as malevolent and as a violation of ethical norms.
Hence, when these employees encounter exploitative lead-
ers, they may not be self-critical and are prone to engage in
moral justification. Our third aim is to examine the mod-
erating role of hostile attribution bias in the relationships
between exploitative leadership, moral justification, and
workplace deviance (i.e., organizational and interpersonal
deviance).
Our study contributes to the literature in the following
ways. First, this study applies the causal reasoning perspec-
tive and social cognitive theory of moral thought and action
to develop and test a model accounting for the destructive
effects of exploitative leadership. In particular, it posits that
under leader exploitation, employees engage in organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance. Our study thus helps
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace…
Hostile
Attribution Bias
H3/H4
Justification
Exploitative
Leadership
Fig. 1  Conceptual model
resolve the mixed findings of previous research and enrich
the behavioral outcome literature on exploitative leader-
ship. Second, our study examines the mediating influence
of moral justification. It thus helps unpack the “black box”
through which exploitative leadership affects employees’
deviant behavior, which is underexplored in the literature.
Third, by examining the moderating effect of hostile attri-
bution bias, this study enriches the understanding of the
boundary conditions of exploitative leadership’s effects and
identifies the employees who suffer most from exploitative
leadership. The conceptual framework of this study is illus-
trated in Fig. 1.
Theory and Hypotheses
Exploitative Leadership
Leaders’ self-serving behavior is pervasive in organizations
(Krasikova et al., 2013; Van Dijk & De Cremer, 2006; Wil-
liams, 2014). To explain leaders’ self-interest, Schmid and
colleagues (2019) proposed the concept of exploitative lead-
ership to describe leaders who treat subordinates as means
to self-serving ends. This construct includes five important
dimensions: displaying genuinely egoistic behavior, taking
credit from followers, putting stress on followers, manipu-
lating followers, and under-challenging followers. First, by
displaying genuinely egoistic behavior, exploitative leaders
prioritize their own goals and benefits over those of others.
Second, exploitative leaders take credit for the achievements
of others even if they have not contributed to them, and usu-
ally feel entitled to do so. Third, exploitative leaders usually
exert undue pressure on subordinates without regard for their
well-being. To achieve their self-serving goals, exploitative
leaders overburden their subordinates and put excessive
pressure on them to perform. Fourth, exploitative leaders
may use their influence and manipulative behavior to play
subordinates against one another for their own benefit. Fifth,
485
H2
Moral
Organizational Deviance
Interpersonal Deviance
H1
exploitative leaders may under-challenge subordinates by
assigning them tedious tasks and may block their career
advancement to benefit themselves.
Exploitative Leadership and Workplace Deviance
Workplace deviance is defined as discretionary conduct that
breaks organizational norms and damages the well-being of
an organization or its members (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
According to Bennett and Robinson (2000), workplace devi-
ance includes behavior directed either at the organization
(organizational deviance) or at members of the organiza-
tion (interpersonal deviance). Organizational deviance is
intended to damage the organization, whereas interpersonal
deviance targets the well-being of organizational members
(Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Studies of destructive leadership have focused on the
negative effects of abusive supervision and found that
exposure to abusive supervision is positively associated
with organizational and interpersonal deviance (Mitchell
& Ambrose, 2007; Wang et al., 2012). More specifically,
research has indicated that the positive effects of abusive
supervision on organizational and interpersonal deviance
are stronger for employees with strong rather than weak
negative reciprocity beliefs (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).
Moreover, research has shown that interactional justice
mediates the indirect effects of abusive supervision on both
organizational and interpersonal deviance, and that power
distance alleviates the destructive effects of abusive supervi-
sion (Wang et al., 2012). Furthermore, research has revealed
that moral identity mediates the indirect effects of abusive
supervision on organizational and interpersonal deviance
and that lone wolves suffer less from being abused (Wu
et al., 2020). Overall, the literature on destructive leader-
ship has shed light on the effects of abusive supervision on
organizational and interpersonal deviance by looking at both
mediators and moderators, but has overlooked the effects
of exploitative leadership, except for the conflicting results
13
486
obtained by Schmid et al. (2019). Hence, it is timely to apply
a fine-grained approach to explore the relationship between
exploitative leadership and workplace deviance.
As an aversive leadership style that pursues self-serving
ends at the expense of other people, exploitative leadership
tends to motivate employees to engage in both organizational
and interpersonal deviance. The causal reasoning perspec-
tive and the social cognitive theory of moral thought and
action provide a broad theoretical foundation to explain
these relationships. The causal reasoning perspective pro-
poses that leadership perception is an important situational
variable that influences counterproductive workplace behav-
ior via a two-stage cognitive process involving disequilibria
and attribution (Martinko et al., 2002). The first stage is
to describe how people evaluate the quality of their work
environment. The second stage involves analysis of the cause
of the state of their work environment. In the context of
exploitative leadership, employees first perceive the work
context as unfavorable and unjust; when they attribute this
injustice to an intentional external cause, they are likely to
engage in workplace deviance.
The social cognitive theory of moral thought and action
suggests that self-regulatory mechanisms rooted in moral
standards and learned through moral agency translate
employees’ moral reasoning about their work context into
behavior (Bandura, 1991). People evaluate their work envi-
ronments while socializing. They use the moral standards
they have learned from the work environment to guide their
moral conduct. In leadership settings, employees regard their
leaders as agents of the organization because leaders repre-
sent the organization by judging the job performance of their
followers and providing moral guidelines (Bandura, 1986).
The behavior demonstrated by agents of the organization
is usually viewed as indicative of the organization’s values
and beliefs (Wu et al., 2020). When perceiving exploitative
leadership, employees are likely to recognize that unethi-
cal behavior is encouraged, and thus disengage from self-
regulation of their moral conduct. Consequently, they may
tend to exhibit unethical behavior such as organizational and
interpersonal deviance.
As discussed above, exploitative leadership has five
dimensions (Schmid et al., 2019). We propose that all of
these dimensions are positively related to both organizational
and interpersonal deviance. First, when exploitative lead-
ers overload employees with tedious and time-consuming
tasks (Schmid et al., 2019), the resulting pressure is likely
to induce helplessness, despair, and outrage in employ-
ees. Because leaders usually have the power to determine
employees’ career development, employees who fear further
exploitation and career intervention may vent their anger by
displacing others and engaging in deviant behavior toward
the organization and its members. Second, exploitative lead-
ers may manipulate subordinates, seeking to fully control
13
Y. Lyu et al.
them (Schmid et al., 2019). Exploited employees who can-
not escape such manipulation may engage in retaliatory
behavior (Fox & Spector, 1999). When exploitative leaders
demonstrate that they care less about the organization and its
members than about themselves (Schmid et al., 2019), they
signal to employees that it is acceptable to harm the interests
of the organization and other members. Employees may thus
view deviant behavior as a way to express their resistance to
exploitative leaders, and therefore engage in organizational
and interpersonal deviance. Third, exploitative leaders vio-
late commonly held moral norms by taking credit for the
achievements of others (Schmid et al., 2019). Employees
who are oppressed and exploited may become unwilling to
contribute to their work if they perceive rewards as unobtain-
able. To satisfy their sense of justice they may even behave
in ways that harm the organization and its members (Hoobler
& Brass, 2006; Tepper et al., 2008), resulting in increased
organizational and interpersonal deviance. Finally, because
exploitative leaders may under-challenge subordinates by
assigning them menial and boring tasks (Schmid et al.,
2019; Syed et al., 2021), employees may have little interest
in their jobs and become alienated from the organization
(Wang et al., 2021). Exploitative leaders may also play sub-
ordinates against one another for their own benefit (Schmid
et al., 2019). Employees may therefore keep their distance
from one another and be less likely to work as a team (Wang
et al., 2021). Exploitative leaders thus weaken their employ-
ees’ connections with the organization and its members,
thereby enhancing their tendency to initiate organizational
and interpersonal deviance.
Hypothesis 1a Exploitative leadership is positively related
to employees’ organizational deviance.
Hypothesis 1b Exploitative leadership is positively related
to employees’ interpersonal deviance.
The Mediating Effect of Moral Justification
Moral justification is a form of reasoning that excuses an
immoral act, causing the immoral act to become socially
approved and acceptable (Niven & Healy, 2016). A basic
proposition is that individuals generally conform to
social norms that prevent them from behaving unethically
(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Gino et al., 2011). However, social
cognitive scholars have suggested that people use a self-
regulatory mechanism to rationalize their immoral conduct
as justifiable in some way (Bandura, 1991). This process
of moral justification can help individuals shed the guilt
of engaging in inhumane behavior and provide an excuse
for such behavior (Duffy et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2012).
In other words, through the process of moral justification,
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace…
individuals who behave in immoral ways can retain a clear
conscience by finding reasons to validate their actions.
Applying the causal reasoning perspective (Martinko
et al., 2002) and the social cognitive theory of moral
thought and action (Bandura, 1991), we posit that exploit-
ative leadership triggers a process of moral justification in
employees. First, as a form of immoral leadership through
which leaders pursue their own interests regardless of
other people (Schmid et al., 2019), exploitative leader-
ship violates ethical norms that are almost universally
held. When employees perceive leaders as violating soci-
etal norms, it seems easier and more excusable for them
to avoid moral self-blame and find ways to justify their
misconduct (Barsky et al., 2011). Second, by shamelessly
taking credit for others’ achievements (Schmid et al.,
2019), exploitative leaders show that they do not prior-
itize morality, which signals to employees that they too
need not value ethical norms, and that pernicious actions
are allowable. Accordingly, employees come to view their
harmful behavior as acceptable (Loi et al., 2015) and tend
to develop justifiable excuses for their misbehavior. Third,
employees who are manipulated and deceived by exploit-
ative leaders (Schmid et al., 2019) tend to retaliate by
engaging in harmful work behavior. Rather than perceiv-
ing such harmful work behavior as unethical, exploited
employees tend to view it as a justifiable as “an eye for an
eye.” As such, the exploitation they experience frees them
from self-censorship and helps them justify themselves as
morally righteous.
Increased moral justification will further contribute to
employees’ organizational and interpersonal deviance.
Rather than viewing deviance toward the organization and
its members as unethical, employees who morally justify
their conduct may consider deviance as excusable “tit-for-
tat” behavior, as they tend to believe that exploitative leaders
leave them no choice but to engage in such behavior. Thus,
moral justification frees employees from the guilt of causing
harm to others (Loi et al., 2015). Free from self-reproach,
employees may adjust their moral standards to view their
deviant behavior as forgivable (Niven and Healy, 2006; Wu
et al., 2020), and then become far more unscrupulous in
committing deviant behavior, thereby increasing organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance. In contrast, employees
who do not engage in moral justification may view such mis-
conduct as blameworthy and as a betrayal of the organization
and its members (Huang et al., 2017). Such a perception is
likely to prevent these employees from engaging in deviant
behavior.
The above reasoning leads us to propose that when
being exploited by leaders, employees are prone to drop the
self-regulatory standards that prevent them from behaving
unethically and to engage in moral justification to develop
a definition of deviant behavior that excuses such conduct.
487
With justifiable excuses, employees tend to initiate organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance without hesitation.
Hypothesis 2a Moral justification mediates the association
between exploitative leadership and organizational deviance.
Hypothesis 2b Moral justification mediates the association
between exploitative leadership and interpersonal deviance.
The Moderating Effect of Hostile Attribution Bias
Hostile attribution bias reflects an accusatory mentality in
which individuals are prone to attribute hostility to other
people’s actions (Milich & Dodge, 1984). Hostile attribu-
tion bias drives people to view the behavior of aggressors
as deliberate, regardless of the reality (Matthews & Norris,
2002). They are prone to being aggressive toward others
who are in fact innocent (Hoobler & Brass, 2006), express-
ing anger (Aquino et al., 2004), and retaliating or initiating
violence (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Martinko et al., 2011).
Such misattributions lead to biased perceptions of inten-
tional wrongdoing, especially when situations are ambigu-
ous and unclear (Wu et al., 2014). In contrast, individuals
low in hostile attribution bias may view the harm caused by
an instigator as excusable or unintended (Wu et al., 2014)
and attribute aversive conduct to external causes rather than
to the will of the initiator. Recent empirical studies have
indicated that hostile attribution bias exacerbates the nega-
tive influences of various forms of workplace mistreatment,
including abusive supervision, workplace incivility, and
negative workplace gossip (Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Lyu
et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2014; Ye et al., 2019).
The causal reasoning perspective asserts that an employ-
ee’s attribution style interacts with perceived leadership to
account for cognitive processing and subsequent workplace
deviance (Martinko et al., 2002). The style of attribution
with which individuals view their external surroundings
largely determines their cognitive and behavioral reactions
(Hoobler & Brass, 2006). We therefore argue that hostile
attribution bias intensifies the destructive effects of expo-
sure to exploitative leadership. Hostile attribution bias may
drive employees to view exploitative leaders as inherently
malicious and as pursuing their self-interest at the expense
of others. This perception exacerbates the aversive feeling
that emerges from exploitative leadership. Such employees
when exploited are thus prone to reducing their moral self-
regulation and seeking excuses for their misbehavior. In
contrast, those who have low hostile attribution bias may
not attribute bad intentions to their exploitative leaders, and
instead view their exploitation as unintentional or unavoid-
able (Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Wu et al., 2014). They are
thus less likely to violate their own moral standards to jus-
tify unethical behavior. That is, exploitative leaders are less
13
488
likely to evoke moral justification in employees who are low
in hostile attribution bias.
Hypothesis 3 Hostile attribution bias moderates the associa-
tion between exploitative leadership and moral justification
such that the association is stronger for employees with high
(versus low) levels of hostile attribution bias.
The arguments outlined above constitute an integrated
tableau of the effects of exploitative leadership on organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance through the moral justifi-
cation process, and its increased effect on moral justification
among followers high in hostile attribution bias. In short,
exploitative leadership elicits moral justification in follow-
ers who are high in hostile attribution bias, which results
in increased organizational and interpersonal deviance. We
thus predict that hostile attribution bias intensifies the path
from exploitative leadership to organizational and interper-
sonal deviance via moral justification.
Hypothesis 4a Hostile attribution bias moderates the indi-
rect effect of exploitative leadership on organizational devi-
ance through moral justification, such that the indirect effect
is stronger for employees with high (versus low) levels of
hostile attribution bias.
Hypothesis 4b Hostile attribution bias moderates the indi-
rect effect of exploitative leadership on interpersonal devi-
ance through moral justification, such that the indirect effect
is stronger for employees with high (versus low) levels of
hostile attribution bias.
Methods
Sample and Procedures
Data collection for this study was conducted in two service
companies in China, a logistics company and a hotel. We
used two companies to increase the generalizability of our
findings. The companies’ human resources (HR) depart-
ments helped to recruit participants and administer the
survey. To promote participation, we informed the target
participants of the purpose and procedures of our research
project. We emphasized that their responses and identifiable
information would be accessible only to the researchers. To
protect their confidentiality, we asked the participants to put
the completed answer sheets in envelopes and hand them
to us directly. Each participant received RMB30 (approxi-
mately US$4.30) for completing each questionnaire.
The data collection period lasted six months and included
three measurement times. To match the responses at the dif-
ferent times points, we distributed a unique identity number
13
Y. Lyu et al.
to each participant and marked it in advance on each ques-
tionnaire. At Time 1, we invited 550 employees to complete
a questionnaire covering their demographic information
(gender, age, and education), hostile attribution bias, and
perceptions of their supervisors’ exploitative leadership and
abusive supervision (control variable). We obtained 453
usable responses, a response rate of 82.36%. Three months
later, at Time 2, we asked these 453 employees to rate their
moral justification and received 384 completed responses,
a response rate of 84.77%. At Time 3, the employees who
had completed the Time 2 survey were asked to rate their
organizational and interpersonal deviance. Self-reported
deviance was used in this study following previous studies
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2008) because
deviant behavior is difficult to observe from a third-party
perspective (Fox et al., 2001). We received 329 completed
questionnaires, a response rate of 85.68%. Of this final sam-
ple, 49.85% were men and 69.60% had completed a college
education. On average, the participants were 31.45 years of
age (SD = 10.70).
To examine the systematic differences in the responses
among the three groups of participants—those who com-
pleted all three surveys and those who completed only the
first or only the first and second—we used the method of
Goodman and Blum (1996) to conduct a multivariate analy-
sis of variance (MANOVA). The results showed that the
three groups of participants did not vary in gender, age, or
education. Moreover, no significant differences were found
in exploitative leadership and hostile attribution bias among
the three groups. Hence, attrition bias was largely eliminated
in this study.
Measures
Our data were collected in China, but the measurements
used in this research were initially created in English. To
check the equivalence of meaning, one of the authors trans-
lated all of the measures from English into Chinese and
another author back-translated them into English (Brislin,
1980). The key content of the measures was retained. We
then interviewed several potential participants in the two
surveyed organizations to check whether they understood
the questionnaires. Based on their feedback we made modi-
fications to ensure that all of the measures could be applied
to this data collection setting (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003). A
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree”
to 5 “strongly agree” was applied for all of the measures
except the demographic variables and workplace deviance.
Exploitative Leadership
We used the 15-item measure from Schmid et al. (2019)
that was later used by Wu et al. (2021) in a Chinese context.
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace…
Consistent with Schmid et al. (2019), we conceptualized
exploitative leadership as a single higher-order construct
with five dimensions. Representative items are, “Takes it
for granted that my work can be used for his or her personal
benefit” (genuine egoistic behavior); “Puts me under pres-
sure to reach his or her goals” (exerting pressure); “Gives
me tedious tasks if he or she can benefit from it” (undermin-
ing development); “Uses my work to get himself or her-
self noticed” (taking credit); and “Plays my colleagues and
me off one another to reach his or her goals” (manipulative
leader behavior). The confirmatory factor analysis results
revealed that the second-order factor model fit the data well:
χ2(85) = 259.51, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08.
The reliability of the whole scale was 0.96.
Hostile Attribution Bias
The six-item scale of Adams and John (1997) was applied.
This scale has been used in the Chinese context by Wu et al.
(2014) and Lyu et al. (2016). A sample item is “A person is
better off if he/she doesn’t trust anyone.” The reliability of
this scale was 0.94.
Moral Justification
The six-item measure from McFerran et al. (2010) was used.
This measure has also been used by Huang et al. (2017)
in the Chinese context. A sample item is “Making fun of
coworkers doesn’t really hurt them.” The reliability of this
scale was 0.94.
Workplace Deviance
The 19-item scale of Bennett and Robinson (2000) was used.
This scale has been confirmed as suitable for the Chinese
setting by Huang et al. (2017). Among the 19 items, 12
were used to assess organizational deviance and seven to
assess interpersonal deviance. Employees were requested
to rate their levels of deviant behavior over the previous
three months. Representative items include, “Taken property
from work without permission” (organizational deviance)
and “Made fun of someone at work” (interpersonal devi-
ance). The responses ranged from 1 “never” to 5 “daily.” The
reliability of this scale was 0.94 for organizational deviance
and 0.94 for interpersonal deviance.
Control Variables
To enhance the validity of our research, we carefully con-
sidered several control variables based on social cognitive
theory and the literature on unethical workplace behav-
ior. First, situational factors such as organizational culture
and organizational tolerance for unethical behavior are
489
possible predictors of unethical employee behavior (Bar-
ling et al., 2008; McCormick et al., 2015). Therefore, to
rule out the variance attributed to such factors, we consid-
ered it important to control for organizational differences.
Second, research on social cognitive theory has shown that
employees’ cognitive functioning, self-regulatory processes,
and behavior are also significantly affected by individual
factors such as demographic variables (McCormick et al.,
2015). Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that
the level of reported unethical behavior varies widely
based on employee gender, age, and education (e.g., Bar-
ling et al., 2008; Galbraith & Stephenson, 1993; Lee et al.,
2017; Loe et al., 2000; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Samnani
et al., 2014). For instance, Barling et al. (2008) contended
that gender and age are important predictors of aggressive
behavior at work as they influence the understanding of such
behavior and the ability to control it. Similarly, a review by
Loe et al. (2000) of ethical decision-making in the workplace
emphasized the importance of recognizing the roles of gen-
der and education in ethical decision-making. The above evi-
dence stresses the importance of taking demographic factors
into account when investigating the influence of situational
factors (e.g., exploitative leadership) on unethical behav-
ior. Finally, because abusive supervision, the most common
form of destructive leadership (Schmid et al., 2019), has
been shown to be related to employee organizational and
interpersonal deviance (Wang et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2020),
it is important to control for its effects on the relationship
between non-abusive forms of destructive leadership (e.g.,
exploitative leadership) and employee workplace deviance.
Based on the above reasoning, we controlled for
employee gender, age, education, organizational differences,
and abusive supervision to identify the unique influence of
exploitative leadership on employee organizational deviance
and interpersonal deviance. Gender was a dummy variable
coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Age was self-reported
by the participants in years. Education was coded 1 for high
school education or below, 2 for an associate degree, 3 for a
bachelor’s degree, and 4 for a postgraduate degree or above.
Moreover, because we collected data from two companies,
the dummy variable “company” was coded 1 for Company
1 and 2 for Company 2. Finally, the 15 items from Tepper
(2000) were used to assess employee perceptions of abusive
supervision. This measure has been applied in the Chinese
context Liu et al. (2010). A sample item is “My supervisor
ridicules me.” The reliability of the measure was 0.97.
We compared the results with and without the control var-
iables (Becker et al., 2016) and found that excluding these
controls did not significantly affect our results. Nevertheless,
to provide more detail during the data analysis, we retained
the control variables in our subsequent data analysis. More
information on the data analysis without the control vari-
ables is available on request.
13
490 Y. Lyu et al.

Table 1  Results of the confirmatory factor analyses

Model χ2 df TLI CFI RMSEA △χ2(△df) △CFI

Baseline six-factor model 2863.33 1060 0.90 0.90 0.07 – –

Five-factor model 1 3175.88 1065 0.88 0.89 0.08 312.55(5) −0.01
With exploitative leadership and abusive leadership combined as one factor
Five-factor model 2 3809.55 1065 0.84 0.85 0.09 946.22(5) −0.05
With organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance combined as one factor
Five-factor model 3 3957.41 1065 0.83 0.84 0.09 1094.08(5) −0.06
With exploitative leadership and moral justification combined as one factor
Five-factor model 4 4117.02 1065 0.82 0.83 0.09 1253.69(5) −0.07
With hostile attribution bias and moral justification combined as one factor
Five-factor model 5 3864.70 1065 0.84 0.85 0.09 1001.37(5) −0.05
With moral justification and organizational deviance combined as one factor
Five-factor model 6 4216.24 1065 0.82 0.83 0.10 1352.91(5) −0.07
With moral justification and interpersonal deviance combined as one factor
One-factor model 9978.64 1076 0.49 0.52 0.16 7115.31(16) −0.38
With all variables combined as one factor

N = 329; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation

Results the factor loadings of the six constructs significantly

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
We performed confirmatory factor analysis using Mplus
7.0 software (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) to test the dis-
tinctiveness of exploitative leadership, hostile attribution
bias, moral justification, organizational deviance, inter-
personal deviance, and abusive supervision. We examined
the baseline model for the six variables. Table 1 indi-
cates that the six-factor model had an acceptable fit, with
χ2 = 2863.33, df = 1060, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90;
RMSEA = 0.07. In addition, the fit index of the baseline
model was better than that of the other models, demon-
strating the distinctiveness of the six variables. Moreover,
exceeded 0.50. The average variance extracted (AVE) was
0.80 for exploitative leadership, 0.72 for hostile attribution
bias, 0.71 for moral justification, 0.74 for organizational
deviance, 0.78 for interpersonal deviance, and 0.83 for
abusive supervision. All of these values were greater than
0.50, demonstrating convergent validity. Additionally, as
reported in Table 2, the square root of the AVE for each
construct exceeded its correlations with the other vari-
ables. These results provide additional evidence of the dis-
criminant validity of the above six variables.
Descriptive Statistics
The results in Table 2 show that exploitative leadership was
positively correlated with moral justification, organizational

Table 2  Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender 1.50 0.50 1.00

2. Age 31.45 10.70 0.05 1.00
3. Education 2.09 0.85 −0.10 −0.39** 1.00
4. Organization 1.54 0.50 0.25** 0.08 −0.63** 1.00
5. Abusive leadership 1.71 0.82 0.17* −0.13* −0.22** 0.45** (0.91)
6. Exploitative leadership 2.11 0.86 0.13* −0.11 −0.16** 0.44** 0.76** (0.89)
7. Moral justification 2.25 0.99 0.01 −0.08 −0.17** 0.34** 0.36** 0.39** (0.84)
8. Organizational deviance 1.79 0.85 0.05 −0.06 −0.18** 0.39** 0.40** 0.42** 0.59** (0.86)
9. Interpersonal deviance 1.57 0.78 −0.05 −0.02 −0.15** 0.24** 0.32** 0.33** 0.43** 0.76** (0.88)
10. Hostile attribution bias 2.61 1.01 0.10 −0.13* −0.07 0.25** 0.29** 0.26** 0.45** 0.50** 0.29** (0.85)

N = 329; ** p < .01 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed)

Bracketed values on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance extracted value of each variable

13
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace… 491

Table 3  Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Moral justification Organizational deviance Interpersonal deviance
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13

Control variables
Gender −0.10 −0.09 −0.10* −0.10* −0.10* −0.08 −0.03 −0.07 −0.03 −0.13* −0.10* −0.13* −0.10
Age −0.05 .05 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 0.00 −0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02
Education 0.03 0.00 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 −0.01 −0.02 −0.03 −0.04
Organization 0.27** 0.22** 0.15* 0.14* 0.15* 0.33** 0.21** 0.29** 0.18** 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.02
**
Abusive leadership 0.26 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.28** 0.15** 0.13 0.08 0.28** 0.19** 0.15 0.11
Independent variable
Exploitative leadership 0.21** 0.19** 0.20** 0.20** 0.21** 0.12 0.19* 0.12
Mediator
Moral justification 0.48** 0.47** 0.35** 0.34**
Moderator
Hostile attribution bias 0.35** 0.35** 0.35**
Interaction
Exploitative leader- 0.18** 0.22**
ship × hostile attribu-
tion bias
Abusive supervision × −0.05
hostile attribution bias
R2 0.18 0.20 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.23 0.42 0.25 0.42 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.23
F 14.40** 13.41** 20.68** 20.86** 18.57** 19.13** 38.12** 17.60** 33.30** 9.69** 15.98** 9.06** 14.07**

N = 329; ** p < .01 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed)

deviance, and interpersonal deviance (r = 0.39, 0.42, 0.33,
respectively, p < 0.01). In addition, moral justification
was significantly correlated with organizational deviance
and interpersonal deviance (r = 0.59, 0.43, respectively,
p < 0.01). Furthermore, abusive supervision was signifi-
cantly correlated with exploitative leadership (r = 0.76,
p < 0.01). However, the square roots of the AVE for abusive
supervision (0.91) and exploitative leadership (0.89) were
higher than their correlations. Combined with the confirma-
tory factor analysis results reported above, we conclude that
although exploitative leadership overlapped with abusive
supervision, it was significantly distinguishable from abu-
sive supervision. These results provide preliminary evidence
for our hypotheses.
Hypothesis Testing
We performed hierarchical multiple regression analysis to
examine Hypotheses 1a and 1b, which look at the influence
of exploitative leadership on organizational and interper-
sonal deviance, respectively. The results in Table 3 indi-
cate that after controlling for employee demographics, the
company, and abusive supervision, exploitative leadership
was significantly related to both organizational deviance
(β = 0.21, p < 0.01, Model 8) and interpersonal deviance
(β = 0.19, p < 0.05, Model 12). Hence, Hypotheses 1a and
1b were supported.
To test the mediation (Hypothesis 2), moderation
(Hypothesis 3), and moderated mediation (Hypothesis 4)
hypotheses, we used the PROCESS macro proposed by
Hayes (2013, 2018). Specifically, we ran Model 7 based on
5,000 bootstrapped samples. The results are presented in
Table 4. When the control variables exploitative leadership
and moral justification were added to the model simulta-
neously, moral justification was significantly associated
with organizational deviance (β = 0.40, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01,
Model 15), supporting Hypothesis 2a. The direct relation-
ship between exploitative leadership and organizational
deviance became non-significant (β = 0.11, SE = 0.07, n.s.,
Model 15) but the indirect effect of exploitative leadership
on organizational deviance via moral justification was sig-
nificant (indirect effect = 0.09, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.0135,
0.1831]). Similarly, moral justification was significantly
related to interpersonal deviance (β = 0.27, SE = 0.04,
p < 0.01, Model 16). The direct relationship between exploit-
ative leadership and interpersonal deviance became non-sig-
nificant (β = 0.11, SE = 0.07, n.s., Model 16), but the indirect
effect of exploitative leadership on interpersonal deviance
via moral justification was significant (indirect effect = 0.06,
SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.0114, 0.1267]). Hence, Hypotheses
2a and 2b were supported.

13
492 Y. Lyu et al.

Table 4  PROCESS result Moral justification Organizational deviance Interpersonal deviance

M14 M15 M16

Control variables
Gender −0.20 (.09) −0.05 (.08) −0.15* (.08)
Age 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Education −0.03 (.08) 0.04 (0.06) −0.03 (0.07)
Organization 0.29* (0.14) 0.31 (0.11) 0.04 (0.12)
Abusive leadership 0.03 (0.09) 0.08** (.07) 0.11 (0.07)
Independent variable
Exploitative leadership 0.24** (0.08) 0.11 (0.07) 0.11 (0.07)
Mediator
Moral justification 0.40** (0.04) 0.27** (0.04)
Moderator
Hostile attribution bias 0.35** (0.05)
Interaction
Exploitative leadership × 0.22** (0.05)
hostile attribution bias
R2 0.34 0.42 0.23
F 20.86** 3.30** 14.07**

Notes: N = 329; ** p < .01 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed)

3.3 Table 5  Conditional indirect effects of exploitative leadership on

High hostile attribution bias organizational and interpersonal deviance (at ± 1 SD of hostile attri-
3.1 (β = .39, p < .01) bution bias)
2.9
Effect (SE) Boot LL Boot UL
Moral Justification

2.7 95% CI 95% CI

2.5 Exploitative leadership–moral justification–organizational deviance

2.3 Low hostile attribution bias (−1 0.01 (0.04) −0.0752 0.0907
SD)
2.1 Mean hostile attribution bias 0.09 (0.04) 0.0135 0.1831
1.9 High hostile attribution bias (+ 1 0.18 (0.06) 0.0743 0.3045
SD)
1.7 Low hostile attribution bias
(β = .02, n.s.) Exploitative leadership–moral justification–interpersonal deviance
1.5 Low hostile attribution bias (−1 0.00 (0.03) −0.0487 0.0594
low high SD)
Exploitative Leadership
Mean hostile attribution bias 0.06 (0.03) 0.0114 0.1267
High hostile attribution bias (+ 1 0.12 (0.04) 0.0480 0.2086
Fig. 2  Interactive effect of exploitative leadership and hostile attribu- SD)
tion bias on moral justification
N = 329; bootstrapped sample size = 5,000; bootstrapped estimates
for standard errors are presented in parentheses; LL = lower limit;
UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval
Hypothesis 3 predicts that hostile attribution bias
strengthens the association between exploitative leadership
and moral justification. As expected, the interaction between employees high in hostile attribution bias (β = 0.39, p < 0.01)
exploitative leadership and hostile attribution bias was sig- but not significant among those low in hostile attribution
nificantly related to moral justification (β = 0.22, SE = 0.05, bias (β = 0.02, n.s.). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
p < 0.01, Model 14). This was also supported by the results Hypothesis 4 predicts a moderating effect of hostile
of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis (β = 0.18, attribution bias on the mediation of moral justification.
p < 0.01, Model 4). We further plotted the interaction effect As shown in Table 5, the conditional effect of exploita-
by applying the procedure of Aiken and West (1991). Fig- tive leadership on organizational deviance through moral
ure 2 indicates that the relationship between exploitative justification was significant when hostile attribution bias
leadership and moral justification was significant among was high (+ 1 SD, indirect effect = 0.18, SE = 0.06, 95%

13
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace… 493

CI = [0.0743, 0.3045]) but non-significant when it was low the MD2C templates and present the results in Figs. 3 and
(-1 SD, indirect effect = 0.01, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.0752, 4. Hypothesis 4b was also supported.
0.0907]). Overall, the moderated mediation test was signifi-
cant (index = 0.09, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.0377, 0.1419]). Post‑Hoc Analysis
Hypothesis 4a was thus supported. Similarly, the condi-
tional influence of exploitative leadership on interpersonal The results supported all of the hypotheses by demonstrat-
deviance via moral justification was significant among ing that the indirect effects of exploitative leadership on both
employees high in hostile attribution bias (+ 1 SD, indirect organizational and interpersonal deviance were mediated by
effect = 0.12, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.0480, 0.2086]) but moral justification and moderated by hostile attribution bias.
non-significant among those low in hostile attribution bias As abusive supervision is also an important type of destruc-
(-1 SD, indirect effect = 0.00, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [-0.0487, tive leadership, it is important to examine the differential
0.0594]). Overall, the results of the moderated mediation test mediation and moderation effects of both abusive supervi-
were significant (index = 0.06, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.0246, sion and exploitative leadership. As presented in Table 3,
0.0959]). We plotted the moderated indirect effects using abusive leadership significantly predicted both organizational

Fig. 3  Conditional indirect

on organizational deviance at values of the moderator
Conditional indirect effect of exploitative leadership

effect of exploitative leadership

hostile attribution bias through moral justification

0.7
on organizational deviance
0.5

0.3 95% CI Upper Limit

Conditional Indirect Effect

0.1
95% CI Lower Limit
-0.1

-0.3

-0.5
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Hostile attribution bias

Fig. 4  Conditional indirect

effect of exploitative leadership
interpersonal deviance at values of the moderator hostile
Conditional indirect effect of exploitative leadership on

on interpersonal deviance 0.5

attribution bias through moral justification

0.3

95% CI Upper Limit

Conditional Indirect Effect
0.1
95% CI Lower Limit

-0.1

-0.3
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Hostile attribution bias

13
494
deviance (β = 0.28, p < 0.01, Model 6) and interpersonal devi-
ance (β = 0.28, p < 0.01, Model 10). However, when exploita-
tive leadership was included, the relationships between abu-
sive supervision and organizational deviance (β = 0.13, n.s.,
Model 8) and interpersonal deviance (β = 0.15, n.s., Model 12)
became non-significant. These results indicate that exploita-
tive leadership had a stronger effect than abusive supervision
on organizational and interpersonal deviance, supporting
the unique influence of exploitative leadership on organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance compared to that of abusive
supervision.
Moreover, as shown in Table 4, when we included exploita-
tive leadership and abusive supervision simultaneously in the
regression on moral justification, the influence of abusive
supervision on moral justification was not significant (β = 0.03,
SE = 0.09, n.s., Model 14), which is consistent with the hier-
archical multiple regression analysis results in Table 3. When
exploitative leadership was not included, abusive supervision
was negatively associated with moral justification (β = 0.26,
p < 0.01, Model 1). However, when exploitative leadership
was included, abusive supervision was not significantly related
to moral justification (β = 0.12, n.s., Model 2). According to
Baron and Kenny (1986), one of the conditions for confirm-
ing mediation is that the independent variable (abusive super-
vision) should be significantly associated with the mediator
(moral justification). Hence, we concluded that the mediat-
ing effect of moral justification on the relationship between
abusive supervision and employee deviance was not signifi-
cant, further supporting the significant and outstanding role of
exploitative leadership beyond abusive supervision.
Finally, we ran a model in which hostile attribution bias
moderated both the relationship between abusive supervision
and moral justification and the relationship between exploita-
tive leadership and moral justification. The results in Table 3
show that the relationship between the interaction term abusive
supervision × hostile attribution bias and moral justification
was not significant (β = -0.05, n.s., Model 5), suggesting that
hostile attribution bias did not moderate the influence of abu-
sive supervision. This result indicates that when confronted
with both abusive supervision and exploitative leadership,
employees with high levels of hostile attribution bias are more
vulnerable to exploitative leadership than to abusive supervi-
sion. Taken together, our findings indicate that exploitative
leadership and abusive supervision are two distinguishable
variables and that our proposed model fits with exploitative
leadership but not with abusive supervision.
Discussion
Drawing on the causal reasoning perspective and the social
cognitive theory of moral thought and action, we explored
the effects of exploitative leadership on employees’
13
Y. Lyu et al.
organizational and interpersonal deviance, and the underly-
ing mediating and moderating processes. Using time-lagged
data from two service companies in China at three time
points, we found that exploitative leadership contributes
to employees’ organizational and interpersonal deviance
through moral justification. Additionally, hostile attribu-
tion bias reinforces the influence of exploitative leadership
on employee moral justification and the indirect effects of
exploitative leadership on organizational and interpersonal
deviance via moral justification.
Theoretical Implications
This study provides theoretical extensions to the literature
on exploitative leadership in several ways. First, it goes
beyond previous studies to include more specific behavioral
consequences of exploitative leadership, namely, organi-
zational and interpersonal deviance. To date the effects of
exploitative leadership on unfavorable employee behavior
have been underexplored, as most studies have focused on
employee well-being and work attitudes (Schmid et al.,
2019). Although Schmid and colleagues (2019) identified
the effect of exploitative leadership on workplace deviance,
they did not differentiate between organizational and inter-
personal deviance. However, scholars have confirmed that
the core element of organizational deviance is quite different
from that of interpersonal deviance (Bennett & Robinson,
2000). Therefore, we contribute to the literature by demon-
strating that exploitative leadership has a significant impact
on employees’ organizational and interpersonal deviance,
even when controlling for abusive supervision. The findings
of our post hoc analysis indicate that exploitative leadership
is a useful variable for understanding destructive leadership
styles because exploitative leadership has unique effects
that explain moral justification and workplace deviance
beyond the effects of abusive supervision. Indeed, exploita-
tive leadership but not abusive supervision fit our proposed
moderated mediation and model, suggesting that the causal
reasoning perspective and the social cognitive theory of
moral thought and action are more applicable in explain-
ing the effects of exploitative leadership than the effects of
abusive supervision. Our research thus verifies the power-
ful effects of exploitative leadership and its prominent role
in the destructive leadership literature in a complementary
and fine-grained way. More specifically, our findings support
the argument that exploitative leadership acts as a comple-
mentary variable, providing additional information on the
less heeded effects of destructive leadership (Schmid et al.,
2019).
Additionally, this study demonstrates that organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance are influenced by the
same predictor, mediator, and moderator in our proposed
model. Hence, the differences between organizational and
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace…
interpersonal deviance may not be important when the
model focuses on exploitative leadership. This evidence
is inconsistent with other studies focusing on abusive
supervision, which have argued that lone wolf tenden-
cies alleviate the mediating effect of moral identity on the
relationship between abusive supervision and organiza-
tional deviance, but have no such effect on the relationship
between abusive supervision and interpersonal deviance
(Wu et al., 2020). This inconsistency provides opportuni-
ties for scholars to test and compare these two forms of
workplace deviance under different leadership styles in
the future.
Second, this study unpacks the inherent underlying
mechanism tying exploitative leadership to employees’
organizational and interpersonal deviance by shedding
light on social cognitive theory. By introducing the social
cognitive theory of moral thought and action (Bandura,
1986), we demonstrate the role of moral justification in
the influence of exploitative leadership, whereby exploited
employees find excuses to free themselves from moral self-
condemnation and thus engage in deviant behavior. Prior
studies of this intervening process have mainly focused
on perspectives of resource depletion (Guo et al., 2020;
Wang et al., 2021), coping with stress (Syed et al., 2021),
and social exchange (Wu et al., 2021). However, the per-
spective of moral justification is pivotal, as it contributes
to the theoretical framework of exploitative leadership. It
also responds to the call by Schmid and colleagues (2019)
for a more detailed examination of the theoretical process
of exploitative leadership. The results of this study also
identify the pivotal role of the social cognitive theory of
moral thought and action in exploitative leadership, and
affirm that individuals will change their beliefs about what
is right to maintain positive perceptions of themselves
(Bandura, 1986, 1991).
Third, building on the causal reasoning perspective
(Martinko et al., 2002) and the social cognitive theory of
moral thought and action (Bandura, 1991), this study fur-
ther investigates the contingent effect of hostile attribution
bias between exploitative leadership, moral justification,
and workplace deviance. Our results suggest that employ-
ees who are high rather than low in hostile attribution bias
are extremely sensitive and susceptible to exploitative
leadership. When such employees are exploited by their
leaders, their moral justification process is more likely to
be triggered, resulting in high levels of organizational and
interpersonal deviance. These findings not only enhance
our understanding of exploitative leadership by answering
the “when” question of exploitative leadership but also
enrich the social cognitive theory of moral thought and
action by identifying a key individual boundary condition
that affects the moral self-regulatory process (Bandura,
1986, 1990).
495
Practical Implications
Our findings indicate that exploitative leadership leads to
increased employee workplace deviance. Because work-
place deviance can be harmful not only to the organization
but also to its members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), it
is critical to eliminate exploitative leaders for the good
of the organization and its members. To reduce exploita-
tive supervision, organizational leaders should be formally
informed of the harm that their exploitative behavior can
cause. Through appropriate training, leaders should be
taught self-discipline and proper values to restrain their
tendency to exploit others. Furthermore, organizations
should closely supervise leaders to deter any exploita-
tion. First, organizations should investigate the leadership
styles of candidates when selecting organizational lead-
ers (Schmid et al., 2019). Candidates who show excessive
self-interest or self-benefiting behavior should be marked
as undesirable and carefully evaluated (Judge & LePine,
2007). Second, organizations should establish training
systems to convey the appropriate values and behavioral
guidelines to their leaders. Organizations are also encour-
aged to build proactive feedback systems to supervise
leaders and identify exploitative leaders using 360-degree
detection.
As exploited employees are prone to engaging in moral
justification to defend their unethical behavior, organiza-
tions should evaluate candidates’ moral tendencies during
recruitment by testing their character and observing their
behavior in interviews. It is important for organizations
to hire individuals who strongly emphasize moral stand-
ards and follow them strictly, regardless of how others
behave. In addition, training that highlights moral values
should be designed and provided. Organizations should
also incorporate ethical practices into work procedures to
signal to employees that moral standards are extremely
important (Chen et al., 2016). This will help establish a
socially responsible culture in the workplace.
As suggested, because employees high in hostile attri-
bution bias tend to be more vulnerable to and affected by
exploitative leaders, special attention should be paid to
these employees. Organizations should provide psycho-
logical counseling to such employees and train them to
be more positive and understanding of others (Lyu et al.,
2016). A considerate and warm organizational atmosphere
should be cultivated to reduce interpretations of hostility
(Matthews & Norris, 2002). Reducing employees’ hostile
attribution bias could help counterbalance the detrimental
effects of exploitative leadership in the workplace when
exploitation cannot be quickly reduced.
13
496
Limitations and Future Research
This study has several limitations. First, although we col-
lected data at three time points to alleviate common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the data were all self-reported
and thus susceptible to common method bias. Future
researchers are encouraged to use experimental or longi-
tudinal data to further decrease the likelihood of common
method bias.
Second, the inclusion of abusive supervision provided
pivotal evidence for the distinct effects of exploitative lead-
ership. However, this study did not consider other forms of
destructive leadership or mistreatment by leaders, such as
pseudo-transformational leadership (Barling et al., 2008),
despotic leadership (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008), and
strategic bullying (Ferris et al., 2007). We do not know
whether the effects of exploitative leadership would be
unchanged by the inclusion of other forms of destructive
leadership. Future research should include other styles of
destructive leadership to identify the broader effects of
exploitative leadership.
Third, this study was conducted in China, where atti-
tudes and behavior are heavily influenced by traditional
values (Farh et al., 1997; Liu et al., 2013; Yang, 2003) that
strongly emphasize hierarchical relationships and submis-
sion to superiors (Yang et al., 1991). These values mean that
Chinese employees tend to forgive rather than take revenge
when treated unfairly by leaders (Liu et al., 2010). Thus,
they are highly tolerant of leaders when exploited and may
react differently compared with employees in Western cul-
tures. In addition, interpretations of exploitative leadership
may vary across cultures. Thus, although constraining the
research context enhanced this study’s internal validity, fur-
ther exploration is needed to replicate our results in other
cultural backgrounds to confirm the generalizability of our
findings.
Conclusion
Applying the causal reasoning perspective and the social
cognitive theory of moral thought and action, we explored
the impact of exploitative leadership on employees’ organi-
zational and interpersonal deviance by focusing on the
underlying mechanism of moral justification and the bound-
ary condition of hostile attribution bias. Our findings suggest
that exploitative leadership induces moral justification in
employees, which results in increased organizational and
interpersonal deviance. Moreover, such effects are reinforced
by employees’ hostile attribution bias. Our findings make
important contributions to the literature on exploitative lead-
ership and suggest directions for future research.
13
Y. Lyu et al.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers 71902111, 72102148);
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant
Number 20720201013); Shenzhen Natural Science Fund (the Stable
Support Plan Program No. 20200810161833001); China Europe Inter-
national Business School (Grant Numbers AG21TEO, AG22HPL).
References
Adams, S. H., & John, O. P. (1997). A hostility scale for the California
psychological inventory: MMPI, observer Q-Sort, and big-five
correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(2), 408–424.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Sage.
Aquino, K., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. (2004). Overt expressions
of anger in response to perceived victimization by co-workers:
Attributional style, hierarchical status, and organizational norms.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 152–164.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),
1423–1440.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations,
47(7), 755–778.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and
action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of
moral behavior and development: Theory, research and applica-
tions (Vol. 1, pp. 77–129). Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In W. Reich
(Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, states of
mind (pp. 161–191). Cambridge University Press.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational
leadership: Towards the development and test of a model. Journal
of Business Ethics, 81, 851–861.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra-
tegic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Barsky, A., Islam, G., Zyphur, M. J., & Johnson, E. (2011). Investigat-
ing the effects of moral disengagement and participation on uneth-
ical work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 59–75.
Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R.,
& Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational stud-
ies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),
349–360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal devi-
ance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2),
410–424.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike
back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychologi-
cal contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5), 1104–1117.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and
written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Hand-
book of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 339–444).
Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral
reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to
Rebellion Under Exploitation: How and When Exploitative Leadership Evokes Employees’ Workplace…
unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 101(8), 1082–1096.
Chénard-Poirier, L. A., Morin, A., Boudrias, J.-S., & Gillet, N.
(2022). The combined effects of destructive and constructive
leadership on thriving at work and behavioral empowerment.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 173–189.
Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep
deprivation on workplace deviance: A self-regulatory perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 913–934.
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic
leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top
management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism:
A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311.
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of
individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547–559.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermin-
ing in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2),
331–351.
Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K.
(2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666.
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, 421–444.
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interper-
sonal injustice and workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat.
Journal of Management, 38(6), 1788–1811.
Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M.
G. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced per-
spective on destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18(3),
195–206.
Fox, R., McManus, I. C., & Winder, B. (2001). The shortened Study
Process Questionnaire: An investigation of it structure and longi-
tudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511–530.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggres-
sion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915–931.
Galbraith, S., & Stephenson, H. B. (1993). Decision rules used by male
and female business students in making ethical value judgments:
Another look. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(3), 227–233.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable
to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethi-
cal behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 115(2), 191–203.
Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sam-
pling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal
of Management, 22(4), 627–652.
Goussinsky, R. (2015). Customer aggression, felt anger and emotional
deviance: The moderating role of job autonomy. International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7(1), 50–71.
Guo, L., Cheng, K., & Luo, J. (2020). The effect of exploitative leader-
ship on knowledge hiding: A conservation of resources perspec-
tive. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 42(1),
83–98.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford
Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.).
Guilford Press.
Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role
of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business
Ethics, 56(3), 219–230.
497
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family
undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91(5), 1125–1133.
Huang, G. H., Wellman, N., Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Wang, L. (2017).
Deviance and exit: The organizational costs of job insecurity and
moral disengagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1),
26–42.
Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of
personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual and
team contexts. In J. Langan-Fox, C. Cooper, & R. Klimoski (Eds.),
Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management
challenges and symptoms (pp. 332–355). Edward Elgar.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S., & LeBrenton, J. M. (2013). Destructive
leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research
agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338.
Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S., & Chun, J. U. (2017). Ethical leadership
and employee moral voice: The mediating role of moral efficacy
and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence.
Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 47–57.
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of
moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethi-
cal, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management
Annals, 13(1), 148–187.
Li, C., Wang, Q., Shang, Z., & Wang, X. (2017). Does leader ostra-
cism hurt you? A moderated mediation model of leader ostracism,
anger and deviance. Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.5​ 465/A
​ MBPP.2​ 017.1​ 5730a​ bstra​ ct
Liao, Z., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., Song, Z., & Liu, Y. (2021). Seeing
from a short-term perspective: When and why daily abusive super-
visor behavior yields functional and dysfunctional consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 377–398.
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., & Mao, Y. (2013). Ethical leadership
and job performance in China: The roles of workplace friendships
and traditionality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86(4), 564–584.
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 cog-
nitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83(4), 835–856.
Livne-Ofer, E., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., & Pearce, J. L. (2019). Eyes
wide open: Perceived exploitation and its consequences. Academy
of Management Journal, 62(6), 1989–2018.
Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical
studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of
Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.
Loi, R., Xu, A. J., & Yan, L. (2015). Abuse in the name of injustice:
Mechanisms of moral disengagement. Asian Journal of Business
Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.
Lyu, Y., Zhu, H., Zhong, H.-J., & Hu, L. (2016). Abusive supervision
and customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: The
roles of hostile attribution bias and work engagement. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 53(1), 69–80.
Lyubykh, Z., Bozeman, J., Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., & Shan, J.
V. (2022). Employee performance and abusive supervision: The
role of supervisor over-attributions. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 43(1), 125–145.
Majeed, M., & Fatima, T. (2020). Impact of exploitative leadership
on psychological distress: A study of nurses. Journal of Nursing
Management, 28, 1–12.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an
integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A
causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 10(1–2), 36–50.
13
498
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Per-
ceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribu-
tion styles. Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 751–764.
Matthews, B. A., & Norris, F. H. (2002). When is believing “seeing”?
hostile attribution bias as a function of self-reported aggression.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 1–31.
McCormick, J., Alavi, S. B., & Hanham, J. (2015). The importance of
context when applying social cognitive theory in organizations. In
A. Ortenblad (Ed.), Handbook of research on management ideas
and panaceas: Adaptation and context (pp. 110–129). Edward
Elgar Publishing.
McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. (2010). How personality and
moral identity relate to individuals’ ethical ideology. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 20, 35–56.
Milich, R., & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in
child psychiatric populations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, 12(3), 471–490.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reci-
procity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, 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.
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Emotional
exhaustion and organizational deviance: Can the right job and a
leader’s style make a difference? Journal of Business Research,
59(12), 1222–1230.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus-statistical analysis
with latentvariables: User’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Niven, K., & Healy, C. (2016). Susceptibility to the ‘dark side’ of goal-
setting: Does moral justification influence the effect of goals on
unethical behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 115–127.
Peng, Y. C., Chen, L. J., Chang, C. C., & Zhuang, W. L. (2016). Work-
place bullying and workplace deviance: The mediating effect of
emotional exhaustion and the moderating effect of core self-eval-
uations. Employee Relations, 38(5), 755–769.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. S., & 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.
Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Robinson, S., & Greenberg, J. (1999). Employees behaving badly:
Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of work-
place deviance. In D. M. Rousseau & C. Cooper (Eds.), Trends in
organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–23). Wiley.
Samnani, A. K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect
and counterproductive workplace behavior: The moderating role
of moral disengagement and gender. Journal of Business Ethics,
119(2), 235–244.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural
methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices
approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 169–215.
Schilling, J. (2009). From ineffectiveness to destruction: A qualitative
study on the meaning of negative leadership. Leadership, 5(1),
102–128.
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.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad lead-
ers? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes.
Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.
Syed, F., Naseer, S., Akhtar, M. W., Husnain, M., & Kashif, M.
(2021). Frogs in boiling water: A moderated-mediation model
13
Y. Lyu et al.
of exploitative leadership, fear of negative evaluation and knowl-
edge hiding behaviors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8),
2067–2087.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management,
33(3), 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy,
M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 721–732.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How
management style moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management
theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108(1), 79–92.
Van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Self-benefiting in the allocation
of scarce resources: Leader–follower effects and the moderating
effect of social value orientations. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 32, 1352–1361.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice
and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources, 50(1), 43–60.
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 Jour-
nal, 42(2), 233–248.
Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals
and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior. Journal of
Management, 40, 1365–1395.
Wu, L.-Z., Sun, Z., Ye, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Yang, M. (2021). The
impact of exploitative leadership on frontline hospitality employ-
ees’ service performance: A social exchange perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 96(2), 102954.
Wu, L.-Z., Zhang, H., Chiu, R. K., Kwan, H. K., & He, X. (2014).
Hostile attribution bias and negative reciprocity beliefs exacerbate
incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance. Journal of Business
Ethics, 120(2), 189–199.
Wu, X., Kwan, H. K., Ma, Y., Lai, G., & Yim, F.H.-K. (2020). Lone
wolves reciprocate less deviance: A moral identity model of abu-
sive supervision. International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, 31(7), 859–885.
Yang, K. S. (2003). Methodological and theoretical issues on psycho-
logical traditionality and modernity research in an Asian society:
In response to Kwang-Kuo Hwang and beyond. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 6(3), 263–285.
Yang, K. S., Yu, A. B., & Yeh, M. H. (1991). Chinese individual
modernity and traditionality: Construct definition and measure-
ment (in Chinese). In K. S. Yang & K. K. Hwang (Eds.), The mind
and behavior of the Chinese: Selected papers of the 1989 Taipei
conference (pp. 241–306). Taipei: Laureate.
Ye, Y., Zhu, H., Deng, X., & Mu, Z. (2019). Negative workplace gossip
and service outcomes: An explanation from social identity theory.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 159–168.
Zhu, H., Lyu, Y., & Ye, Y. (2019). Workplace sexual harassment, work-
place deviance, and family undermining. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(2), 594–614.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.