Current Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04596-z

How does exploitative leadership shape employee’s workplace

venting?
Zhining Wang1 · Huili Zhang1 · Shaohan Cai2 · Tao Cui1

Accepted: 21 March 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Purpose-Drawing on affective events theory, this study investigates the multilevel effect of exploitative leadership on
employee’s workplace venting. We also test the mediating effect of negative emotions and the moderating effect of
supervisor’s organizational embodiment (SOE) on the relationship between the two constructs. Design/methodology/
approach-The surveys were conducted in three waves. First, we administered questionnaires to 576 employees across
114 teams to assess the respondents’ perception of exploitative leadership and SOE, and received 435 completed question-
naires. Two weeks later, we sent a follow-up questionnaire to the responding individuals to rate their negative emotions,
and received 396 responses. After two additional weeks, we administered a questionnaire to the direct supervisors of
these 396 employees to rate the employees’ workplace venting. In total, 344 matched employee–supervisor questionnaires
(from 73 teams) were obtained, with a response rate of 59.72%. Findings-The results reveal that exploitative leadership
is positively related to employee workplace venting; not only directly, but also indirectly, by facilitating negative emo-
tions. In addition, SOE moderates the effects of exploitative leadership on negative emotions and employee workplace
venting. Practical implications-Our findings suggest that organizations should pay more attention to the negative effects
of exploitative leadership in the workplace. Further, managers should remind subordinates of the dark side of negative
emotions related to employee workplace venting. and make an effort to reduce negative affect via internal communication
channels or open discussions. Finally, the organization should strive to clarify the authority of leaders, correct and pun-
ish their improper behavior in a timely manner, and enhance the positive effect of SOE. Originality/value-This research
identifies negative emotions as a key mediator that links exploitative leadership to employee’s workplace venting. It also
highlights the moderating role of SOE in this relationship.

Keywords Exploitative leadership · Negative emotions · SOE · Workplace venting

Introduction

Workplace venting—defined as an emotion-focused cop-

ing strategy in which individuals communicate and release
Zhining Wang their negative feelings to others at work (Brown et al., 2005;
wzncumt@126.com
Rosen et al., 2020)—is a common phenomenon (Behfar et
Huili Zhang al., 2020; Brown et al., 2005). Venting is a prevalent response
747512566@qq.com
to displeasing work events; an average person vents more
Shaohan Cai than three times a day (Alicke et al., 1992; Volkema, 1994).
AlanCai@Cunet.Carleton.Ca
In line with the prevalence and significance of venting in the
Tao Cui workplace, in recent years, researchers have begun to pay
1823128174@qq.com
attention to the effects of workplace venting (Behfar et al.,
1
School of Economics and Management, China University of 2020; Brown et al., 2005; Rosen et al., 2020). For example,
Mining and Technology University Road, Xuzhou, it has been revealed that employee venting can greatly affect
Jiangsu 221116, China the behavior of both the persons who vent (ventor) and the
2
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada

13

recipients of the venting (ventee) (Lohr et al., 2007; Rosen
et al., 2020).
Despite these valuable insights, our understanding of
venting in the workplace remains limited. Scholars have
focused mainly on the effect of venting on the ventor and
the ventee (Rosen et al., 2020), and little attention has been
paid to the factors that influence employee venting. Thus,
further research is needed to uncover the conditions under
which venting is most likely to occur. Prior studies sug-
gest that displeasing or “bad” events may evoke individu-
als’ negative feelings, which could be released via venting
(Basch & Fisher, 1998; Brown et al., 2005). Dark leader-
ship styles are typical sources of such negative events, and
have a strong influence on followers’ emotional state and
behaviors (Schmid et al., 2019). For example, in companies
such as Coca-Cola, IBM, Alibaba, many employees alleg-
edly vent their negative emotions through internet and other
platforms, often stating that their leaders exploit them for
personal gain. This suggests that employee venting may
occur frequently under exploitative leadership. Therefore,
it is meaningful and necessary to explore the relationship
between exploitative leadership and workplace venting.
Exploitative leadership refers to exceedingly self-inter-
ested leader behaviors, such as taking credit for subordinates’
work and undermining the development of subordinates
for the benefit of the leader (Schmid et al., 2019). Exist-
ing research has demonstrated that exploitative leadership
can reduce employee innovative behavior (Wang et al.,
2021), enhance psychological distress (Majeed & Fatima,
2020) and facilitate knowledge hiding (Guo et al., 2021).
However, few researchers have examined the mechanism
through which exploitative leadership affects employees’
workplace venting. A potential mechanism and boundary
conditions between exploitative leadership and workplace
venting have not been theoretically clarified or empirically
studied. We address this gap in the current study by identify-
ing how exploitative leadership affects workplace venting.
According to affective events theory (AET), the char-
acteristics of a work environment trigger certain events,
which, in turn, influence employees’ affective reactions and
then their work behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Note that exploitative leadership often leads to negative
work events (Schmid et al., 2019), while negative emo-
tions involve emotional reactions and state (Watson et al.,
1988). Thus, it is conceivable that negative emotions link
exploitative leadership to workplace venting. In fact, bad
leadership is one of the frequently cited causes that lead to
negative emotions (Basch & Fisher, 1998; Mccoll-Kennedy
& Anderson, 2002). Additionally, Mayer et al. (2012) show
that negative emotions play an important role in transform-
ing leadership factors into employees’ behaviors. Based on
the findings of the aforementioned studies, we argue that
13
Current Psychology
negative emotions mediate the relationship between exploit-
ative leadership and workplace venting.
Finally, one factor that may greatly influence the link-
age of “exploitative leadership −> negative emotions −>
employee workplace venting” is the extent to which employ-
ees perceive the exploitation of leaders as coming from their
organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Park & Kim, 2019).
This is reflected in a supervisor’s organizational embodi-
ment (SOE), which refers to the degree to which employees
perceive their leader as an organizational agent (Eisenberger
et al., 2010). Specifically, when employees hold that the
leader strongly represents the organization, exploitation and
oppression by the leader will make them feel that they are
not valued and recognized by the organization (Park & Kim,
2019), resulting in more negative emotions. Therefore, in
the current study, we examine the moderating effect of SOE
on the relationship between exploitative leadership, nega-
tive emotions, and workplace venting.
This study contributes to the literature in the follow-
ing ways. First, we extend the current leadership literature
by developing a multilevel model to examine the effect
of exploitative leadership on workplace venting based on
AET. While previous research mainly focuses on the out-
comes of workplace venting, this study examines a predic-
tor variable for workplace venting. Second, we posit that
negative emotions mediate the linkage between exploitative
leadership and workplace venting. Thus, this study sheds
light on the mechanism through which exploitative leader-
ship influences workplace venting. Third, we investigate the
role of SOE as an important boundary condition that shapes
the effect of exploitative leadership on negative emotions
and workplace venting. This highlights the role of SOE in
determining the effect of exploitative leadership. In sum,
our findings offer key insights into the role of exploitative
leadership and SOE in facilitating workplace venting.
Theory and hypothesis
Affective events theory
AET, first proposed by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996),
argues that the work environment is a critical source of vari-
ous work events, which subsequently influence individu-
als’ affective reactions and attitudes, and trigger their work
behavior. The key characteristics of the work environment
include promotion opportunities and leadership style, among
others. AET maintains that work events can be divided into
two categories—those that are troublesome or negative, and
those that are uplifting or positive—with the former related
to negative emotions (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Current Psychology
Exploitative leadership, as a negative force in the work
environment, may act as a source of negative work events.
Such leaders may take credit for subordinates’ work and
undermine the development of subordinates for their own
benefit (Schmid et al., 2019). These actions constitute nega-
tive events, which may lead to employees’ negative emo-
tions such as anger, anxiety, and fear (analogous to Weiss
and Cropanzano’s (1996) affective reactions and attitudes).
In turn, employees may express their negative emotions by
venting to others (Parlamis, 2012).
Research on individuals’ emotion from an AET perspec-
tive suggests that individuals’ emotion is the outcome of
various work events, which then influences their behavior
(Rodell & Judge, 2009). For example, an empirical study
shows that transformational leadership enhances employ-
ees’ positive emotions and reduces their negative emotions
(Lanaj et al., 2016). Similarly, Clark et al. (2018) suggest
that mixed work events stimulate employees’ pleasant
mood, and this then influences organizational citizenship
behavior.
Therefore, we draw on AET to develop our conceptual
model, because it provides a comprehensive framework that
captures the antecedents and consequences of individuals’
negative emotions. Specifically, AET explains why negative
emotions are affected by exploitative leadership and why
such emotion contributes to related behavior. Thus, it is an
especially useful framework for understanding employee
venting. From the perspective of AET, the exploitation of
leaders results in employees’ negative emotions, which they
then tend to express through venting. Therefore, we draw
on AET to frame our conceptual model, which depicts the
relationships among exploitative leadership, negative emo-
tions, and workplace venting.
Exploitative leadership and workplace venting
The concept of workplace venting is based on the notion
that individuals’ negative emotions must be released in some
form (Breuer et al., 1957). In our study, we adopt Brown et
al.’s (2005) definition of workplace venting as an emotion-
focused coping strategy in which individuals communicate
and release their negative feelings to others at work. To date,
research on venting has mostly examined the concept from
medical and social psychology perspectives (Stoeber &
Janssen, 2011). Social psychologists have found that vent-
ing, rather than reducing individuals’ nervousness, results
in increased nervousness, rumination, and a tendency to
behave badly (Lohr et al., 2007).
Although scholars have pointed out that workplace vent-
ing is common in organizational contexts, there is little
research on its predictive variables (Behfar et al., 2020). In
the current study, we focus on exploitative leadership as an
antecedent of workplace venting. The concept of exploit-
ative leadership, proposed by Schmid et al. (2019), and
defined as leadership whose intention is promote the lead-
er’s self-interest by exploiting others. It involves five types
of behaviors: genuine egoistic behaviors, taking credit,
exerting pressure, undermining development, and manipu-
lating. In this study, we explore the mechanism behind how
exploitative leadership affects workplace venting. Draw-
ing on AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), we argue that
exploitative leadership behaviors constitute negative events
(Schmid et al., 2019). Such events at work lead to employ-
ees’ negative emotional reactions (Schmid et al., 2019). For
example, employees who perceive leaders’ egoistic behav-
iors, taking credit, and manipulating tend to show negative
emotions, such as frustration and anger (Ofer et al., 2018).
As a result, they may release such negative feelings by vent-
ing to others (Parlamis, 2012). Moreover, long-term pres-
sure and undermining development associated with such
leadership style cause employees to worry about their future
development, leading to increased psychological pressure
(Schmid et al., 2019), which will be released through vent-
ing at work. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1. Exploitative leadership is positively related to work-
place venting.
The mediating role of negative emotions
Negative emotions refer to a subjective experience of feel-
ing down and in an unpleasant situation, which includes
a variety of unpleasant negative feelings, such as anxiety,
fear, and anger (Watson et al., 1988). Research shows that
individual negative emotions can be affected by various fac-
tors, such as work events, work environment and leadership
(Basch & Fisher, 1998; Kiefer, 2005; Mccoll-Kennedy &
Anderson, 2002). Previous studies also show that negative
emotions result in counterproductive workplace behavior
(Samnani et al., 2014), reduce job satisfaction, and damage
psychological wellbeing (Salami, 2010). In addition, Mayer
et al. (2012) have also verified that negative emotions play
an important role in the transformation of leadership into the
causal chain of attitudes and behaviors.
Based on AET, we argue that exploitative leadership
behaviors, as negative events, may influence employees’
affective reactions and attitudes in the workplace. When
such leaders exert pressure on employees and manipulate
them, employees will feel disgusted and furious, which may
further facilitate negative emotions (Schmid et al., 2019).
In addition, since exploitative leaders often take credit for
employees’ achievement and hinder their career develop-
ment, employees may feel anxious about future promotions
(Clercq et al., 2019). This could lead to a higher level of
negative emotions. Finally, exploitative leadership often
13

undermine and challenge employees, put extra work pres-
sure on them, and give them tedious tasks (Schmid et al.,
2019). As a result, employees may demonstrate negative
emotional reactions (Schmid et al., 2019). Therefore, we
suggest that:
H2. Exploitative leadership is positively related to nega-
tive emotions.
Further, AET posits that individuals’ affective reac-
tions and attitudes can influence their behaviors (Weiss
& Cropanzano, 1996). A previous study has shown that
individuals’ negative feelings need to be released in some
form, including venting to others (Breuer et al., 1957).
However, whether negative emotions influence employee
venting remains underexplored. According to AET, when
employees feel angry or furious, they will attempt to vent
their anger about work problems to others to regulate their
own emotions. In addition, when employees feel anxious or
frightened at work, they may express such negative emo-
tions to others, as a means of managing such emotional
reaction (Brown et al., 2005). Finally, it is suggested that
employees may experience many negative emotions and
stresses at work (Basch & Fisher, 1998). One effective way
to release such stresses is to vent, expressing them to or dis-
cussing them with others (Brown et al., 2005). Therefore,
we hypothesize that:
H3. Negative emotions are positively related to work-
place venting.
Hypotheses 1–3 together suggest that exploitative lead-
ership, as a source of negative work events, may lead to
employees’ negative emotions such as anger, anxiety,
and fear, which, in turn, facilitates their workplace vent-
ing (Parlamis, 2012). Negative emotions thus function as
an emotion-based mechanism through which exploitative
leadership facilitates employee venting. Taken together, we
hypothesize that:
H4. The positive relationship between exploitative
leadership and workplace venting is mediated by negative
emotions.
The moderating role of SOE
The concept of SOE, proposed by Eisenberger et al. (2010),
is defined as subordinates’ perception of their leader’s orga-
nizational representative status (Eisenberger et al., 2010).
Empirical evidence shows that SOE can enhance or weaken
the influence of leaders on employees’ attitudes and behav-
iors (Mackey et al., 2018; Park & Kim, 2019; Shoss et al.,
2013). For example, Park and Kim (2019) demonstrate that
SOE amplifies the impact of abusive leadership on psycho-
logical contract breach, while Mackey et al. (2018) show
that SOE moderates the relationship between abusive lead-
ership and organizational citizenship behavior.
13
Current Psychology
We argue that SOE may also moderate the relationship
between exploitative leadership and negative emotions.
With a high level of SOE, employees may interpret their
leader’s exploitation as the organization’s intent. As a result,
they are more likely to experience negative emotions and
demonstrate higher levels of negative emotional reactions
toward the leader and the organization. In this case, the
impact of exploitative leadership on employees’ negative
emotions will be further amplified by SOE (Stinglhamber et
al., 2015). In addition, under a high level of SOE, employees
are more likely to feel that they are not valued by the orga-
nization as leaders jeopardize their development. Therefore,
exploitative leadership is very likely to result in negative
emotions. In contrast, with a low level of SOE, employees
tend to believe that the exploitative leader’s behavior is a
result of the leader’s personality, but not the organization’s
intent. Thus, employees will only experience negative emo-
tions toward the leader, but not the organization. Thus, their
negative emotions level will be relatively low compared
with when they have a high level of SOE and feel negatively
about both the leader and the organization. Therefore:
H5. SOE moderates the relationship between exploitative
leadership and negative emotions.
An integrative moderated mediation model
In summary, we hypotheses that (a) the influence of exploit-
ative leadership on workplace venting is mediated by nega-
tive emotions (H4); and (b) the path from exploitative
leadership to negative emotions (H5) is moderated by SOE.
Overall, these hypotheses suggest a moderated media-
tion model (Fig. 1). Specifically, with a high level of SOE,
exploitative leadership facilitates negative emotions more
strongly, which subsequently leads to workplace venting.
Accordingly, we propose a moderated mediation
hypothesis:
H6. SOE moderates the indirect relationship between
exploitative leadership and workplace venting via nega-
tive emotions, such that the indirect relationship is stronger
when SOE is higher (vs. lower).
Methods
Sample and procedure
The sample companies are mostly operating in industries
such as finance, service, and manufacturing. We obtained
access to the companies through the professional networks
of MBA graduates of a major business school in China, who
are the chief executives or general managers of these orga-
nizations (at the time of the questionnaire). With their help,
Current Psychology
Fig. 1 Research Model
we obtained permission from these companies’ HR man-
agers to collect data. The HR managers provided us with
a roster of employee and their direct supervisors. In total,
576 employees from 114 teams were selected as our target
sample. This initial sample size was deemed sufficient for
our analysis vis-à-vis the number of measurement items in
the questionnaire (Cohen et al., 2013).
Before administering the questionnaire, we explained to
all participants that we were conducting a study on psychol-
ogy and behavior in the workplace. We emphasize that (1)
the data collection is only used for academic research; (2)
the employees and supervisors will answer different ques-
tionnaires; and (3) participation is completely voluntary. We
will keep their responses confidential and will not disclose
the responses to their colleagues or supervisors.
In order to match the leader’s questionnaire to the
employee’s questionnaire, each team and each employee
had a corresponding numerical code printed on the first
page of each questionnaire. The questionnaires are issued
to designated participants through their corporate human
resources department. Assume that there are three members
in a team with team codes 01. The employees are assigned
codes 0101, 0102, and 0103. Take the employee with code
0101 as an example. The leader needs to fill in the leader-
ship questionnaire labeled 0101 to evaluate the employee’s
workplace venting. On the other hand, the employee ques-
tionnaire labeled 0101 will be answered by this employee
himself. To improve response rates and alleviate respon-
dents’ concerns, for each questionnaire, a resealable enve-
lope is enclosed. The participants will fill the questionnaire,
seal it in the envelope, and then hand the envelope directly
to the researchers. We then matched the data by referring
to the codes on the questionnaire. This method of collect-
ing questionnaires has been used in previous studies (e.g.,
Ouyang et al., 2022).
At Time Point 1, we sent out questionnaires, along
with the introduction to the project, to 576 employees in
114 teams. These questionnaires included items related to
respondents’ demographic information, as well as their per-
ception of exploitative leadership and SOE. We received
435 completed surveys questionnaires at this round. At
Time Point 2 (two weeks later), we sent a follow-up ques-
tionnaire to individuals who responded at Time Point 1,
asking them to rate their negative emotions. At this round,
we received responses from 396 members in total. At Time
Point 3 (two more weeks later), we sent out the supervisor
questionnaire to the direct supervisors of these 396 employ-
ees, asking them to rate these employees’ workplace vent-
ing. After receiving their responses, the researchers matched
the data for supervisors and employees based on team codes
and individual respondent codes. In total, 344 matched
employee–supervisor questionnaires (from 73 teams) were
obtained, with a response rate of 59.72%.
During the process of the questionnaire survey, the HR
managers had repeatedly emphasized to the respondents
that they need to answer all the questions in the question-
naire. As a result, the questionnaires that we received are
completely answered. There is no missing value in our
dataset. Nevertheless, there were some employees who
only participate at the time point 1 but not time point 2.
Their responses at time point 1 were excluded from the
data analysis. There were also some supervisors who do not
respond at time point 3. As a result, we also excluded the
responses from their subordinates. We then compared the
demographic information of employees whose responses
are retained and those whose responses are deleted. There is
no significant difference between the two groups in terms of
their demographic backgrounds.
Among the focal participants, 50.9% were male. As for
tenure, 20.3% had less than 1 year’s tenure, 22.7% had
between 1 and 3 years, 16.0% had between 3 and 5 years,
13

24.0% had between 5 and 7 years, and 16.9% had over 7
years.
Measures
All items were measured using a five-point Likert-type
scale, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Exploitative leadership. We measured exploitative lead-
ership using the 15-item scale developed by Schmid et al.
(2019). The responses from individual team members for
this scale are aggregated to the team level. A sample item
is “He or she takes it for granted that my work can be used
for his or her personal benefit.” Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale is 0.93.
Negative emotions. We measured negative emotions
using the 5-item scale developed by Liu et al. (2007). A
sample item is “In the last two weeks, my job made me feel
anxious.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.91.
SOE. We measured SOE using the 9-item scale devel-
oped by Eisenberger et al. (2010). The responses from indi-
vidual team members for this scale are aggregated to the
team level. A sample item is “When my supervisor encour-
ages me, I view it as encouragement from my organization.”
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.94.
Workplace venting. We measured workplace venting
using the 3-item scale developed by Brown et al. (2005).
A sample item is “He/She expressed how she/he was
feeling(negative) about work.” Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale is 0.92.
Control variables. We include age, tenure, team size, TAT
(trait anger temperament subscale) and TAR (trait anger
reactivity) as control variables in our analysis. First, we
controlled for gender because prior studies show that men
and women may differ in terms of their emotion (e.g., Fujita
et al., 1991). Second, because a person’s tenure influences
the extent to which he or she is familiar with the company’s
culture and operation (Liang, 2014), employee’s tenure was
included as a control variable. Third, we also controlled for
team size, because different group sizes have a different
influence on the interaction between employees and leaders
(Men et al., 2020).
Finally, personality traits of different participants, such as
TAT and TAR, may influence their negative emotions (Stei-
ger & Reyna, 2017). Therefore, we controlled statistically
for the effects of these traits. TAT is measured by using the
four-item scale developed by Izard et al. (1993) (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.94). TAR is measured by using the four-item scale
developed by Spielberger (1996) measuring trait anger
expression inventory (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). All items
for these two scales were measured by using a five-point
Likert-type scale, with 1 = not at all, 5 = very much for the
prompt “How well does this apply to you?”
13
Current Psychology
Data Analysis
To investigate the appropriateness of aggregating individual
scores for exploitative leadership and SOE to the team level,
we first computed the RWG (within-group interrater) (James
et al., 1984). The RWG values for exploitative leadership
and SOE were 0.99 and 0.99, respectively, both exceeded
the 0.70 criterion (James et al., 1993). This suggesting that
individual scores for exploitative leadership and SOE can
safely be aggregated for team-level analyses.
Second, we calculate intra-class correlation coefficients
(ICCs). Values higher than 0.12 for ICC (1) indicate an ade-
quate level of within-unit agreement (James et al., 1984),
while values greater than 0.60 for ICC (2) were recom-
mended by Glick (1985). The formula for calculating the
two indicators are:
MSB − MSW MSB − MSW
ICC (1) = ; ICC (2) =
MSB + (k − 1)MSW MSB
where MSB is the between-teams mean square and MSW is
the within-team mean square.
The ICC (1) values for exploitative leadership and SOE
are 0.46 and 0.29, respectively, while those for ICC (2) are
0.80 and 0.66, respectively. These results further support
aggregating individual scores of exploitative leadership and
SOE for team-level analyses.
Results
Analytical Strategy
To test our hypotheses, we conducted analyses in the fol-
lowing steps. First, we used SPSS Version 25.0 to conduct
descriptive statistics analysis. We also calculated Pearson’s
correlations to detect the initial bivariate relationships
between the variables. Second, we conducted a series of
confirmatory factor analyses in Mplus to evaluate the good-
ness of fit for the measurement model and the discriminant
validity of the constructs. Third, because our data had a
nested structure, we analyzed the data by using Mplus 8.3
(Muthen & Muthen, 2019), which allowed us to estimate
multilevel models simultaneously. Given the nature of our
path model, we used manifest variables in the estimation.
We also conducted simple slope tests to illustrate the mod-
eration effects (Preacher et al., 2007). Finally, we tested the
significance of indirect effects and moderated mediations in
our model by using the Monte Carlo method to compute
confidence intervals (CIs) (Preacher & Selig, 2012).
Current Psychology
Confirmatory factor analyses
Prior to the hypotheses testing, we conducted a series of
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). We examined five indi-
ces: (1) χ2/df score, which has a recommended threshold of
less than 5 (Bentler & Bonett, 1988); (2) comparative fix
index (CFI), which has a recommended threshold greater
than 0.90 (Bentler, 1990); (3) Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), which has a recommended
threshold of less than 0.06 (Steiger, 1990); (4) Standardized
Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), which has a recom-
mended threshold of less than 0.08; and (5) Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), which has a recommended threshold of greater
than 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1998).
The analysis results are shown in Table 1. We compared
a single-factor model (all the variables load on one latent
variable), a two-factor model (exploitative leadership ver-
sus a construct consisting of all the remaining variables), a
three-factor model (exploitative leadership, negative emo-
tions, and a construct consisting of variables measuring
workplace venting and SOE), as well as a four-factor model
with all the four distinct constructs. Only the fit indexes of
the four-factor model are acceptable (χ2 = 873.98, df = 436,
CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04), sup-
porting discriminability of this data structure.
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics, correlations, and
Cronbach’s alphas of the variables. Consistent with our
arguments, exploitative leadership is positively associated
with negative emotions (r = .51, p < .01), and positively
correlated with workplace venting (r = .25, p < .01), while
negative emotions are positively associated with workplace
venting (r = .48, p < .01). These results provide preliminary
support for our hypotheses.
Hypotheses testing
We first tested a direct model only depicting the relation-
ship between exploitative leadership and workplace vent-
ing. Exploitative leadership is positively associated with
Table 1 Measurement model comparison
χ2 df
Four-factor Model (M1) 873.98 436
Three-factor Model (M2) 1577.08 443
Two-factor Model (M3) 3893.26 449
Single-factor Model (M4) 6190.86 464
Notes: M1 = Exploitative leadership, Negative emotions, Workplace venting, SOE; M2 = Exploitative leadership, Negative emotions, Work-
place venting + SOE; M3 = Exploitative leadership, Negative emotions + Workplace venting + SOE; M4 = Exploitative leadership + Negative
emotions + Workplace venting + SOE.
workplace venting (b = 0.26, se = 0.13, p < .05; see Table 3),
supporting H1.
We then tested the whole model. The path coefficient
from exploitative leadership to negative emotions is posi-
tive and significant (b = 0.66, se = 0.13, p < .01; see Table 4),
supporting H2. Moreover, negative emotions are positively
related to workplace venting (b = 0.88, se = 0.22, p < .01),
supporting H3.
Regarding the hypothesized mediation relationship in H4,
a parametric bootstrapping with Monte Carlo approach was
used to compute CI. The H4 proposed that negative emo-
tions mediated the relationship between exploitative lead-
ership and workplace venting. The analysis results showed
that this indirect effect was statistically significant (b = 0.59,
se = 0.20, p < .01). Bootstrapping results showed a signifi-
cant indirect effect of exploitative leadership on workplace
venting via negative emotions, with 95% CI of [0.26, 0.99].
Thus, H4 was supported.
Hypothesis 5 proposed the moderating effects of SOE on
the relationship between exploitative leadership and nega-
tive emotions. As shown in Table 4, the interaction term
between exploitative leadership and SOE on negative
emotions is positive and statistically significant (b = 0.55,
se = 0.23, p < .05). The simple slope test (Preacher et al.,
2007) of this interaction is presented in Fig. 2, in which the
levels of SOE are at one standard deviation above and below
the mean value, respectively. As shown in the Fig. 2, with
a higher level of SOE, the relationship between exploitative
leadership and negative emotions is stronger. Therefore, H5
is supported.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that SOE moderates the indirect
effect of exploitative leadership on workplace venting.
Table 5 presents the conditional indirect effects analysis
results. The 95% CI was estimated by using the Monte Carlo
simulation procedure. There was a significant difference
between the indirect relationship between exploitative lead-
ership and workplace venting via negative emotions, across
different levels of SOE(diff = 0.41, se = 0.18, 95% CI: [0.07,
0.86]). Specifically, the effect of the indirect relationship
was stronger and statistically significant at a higher level of
SOE (b = 0.79, se = 0.25, p < .01, 95% CI: [0.36, 1.33]) than
χ2/df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR
2.00 0.05 0.95 0.94 0.04
3.56 0.09 0.86 0.85 0.07
8.67 0.15 0.59 0.55 0.18
13.34 0.19 0.32 0.27 0.20
13
 Current Psychology

Notes: SOE = supervisor’ s organizational embodiment; Team level, n = 73; individual level, n = 344. Individual- and team-level correlations are below and above the diagonal, respectively. Bold
Table 3 Results of Hypothesis Testing (Direct model)

- .15**

- .14**
- .17**
Variable Workplace venting

.05

.94
—
—
—
—
9
Estimate S.E. p 95%CI
Within level

- .27**
1. Employee gender 0.04 0.09 0.64 [-0.14, 0.22]

.25**
.48**

- .10
.92
—
—
—
—
2. Employee duration 0.02 0.03 0.59 [-0.05, 0.08]
8

3. TAT 0.05 0.07 0.43 [-0.08, 0.18]

4. TAR 0.15* 0.07 0.05 [0.00, 0.29]

.51**

**
- .10

- .04
.91
.30
Between level
—
—
—
—
7

5. Team size - 0.12** 0.05 0.01 [-0.22, -0.03]

6. Exploitative leadership 0.26* 0.13 0.05 [0.00, 0.52]
.27**
**
- .09

.93

.17
.04
Notes: TAT = trait anger temperament; TAR = trait anger reactivity.
—
—
—
—
6

*
p < .05. **p < .01.
.18**
- .02

- .01
.07

with a lower level of SOE (b = 0.38, se = 0.17, p < .05, 95%

—
—
—
—
5

CI: [0.08, 0.78]). Thus, H6 was supported.

.35**

.14**
- .04

.06
.06
4

Discussion
- .01
- .03

- .04
.05

.05
.06
—
—
3

This study sought to investigate the mechanisms underly-

- .03
- .10
- .07
- .09
- .05

ing and boundary conditions for exploitative leadership’s

.03
.05
—
2

effect on workplace venting. Drawing on AET, we find that

exploitative leadership positively affects workplace vent-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

ing; negative emotions serve as mediator linking exploit-

1

ative leadership to workplace venting; SOE amplifies the

1.19

influence of exploitative leadership on negative emotions;

.45
.49
.51
.42
SD

—
—
—
—

and the impact of exploitative leadership on workplace

venting via negative emotions are stronger for teams with
Team

5.92

3.93
3.17
3.15
2.91

a high level of SOE. We discuss theoretical and practical

—
—
—
—
M

implications below.
1.40
.50

.65
.69
.59
.79
.84
.64
SD
—

Theoretical contributions
Individual

Our findings contribute to the existing literature in several

1.94
3.31
3.37
3.93
3.17
3.15
2.91
.51
—
M

ways. First, scholars have uncovered various outcomes of

exploitative leadership, such as employee innovative behav-
ior (Wang et al., 2021), psychological distress (Majeed &
Fatima, 2020), and knowledge hiding (Guo et al., 2021).
Despite the extant research on exploitative leadership, its
influence on the widespread phenomenon of employee vent-
values on the diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha.

ing remains largely neglected. Our study fills this gap by

confirming the mechanism underlying exploitative leader-
ship on workplace venting from the AET perspective. In
addition, our study responds to Schmid et al.’s (2019) call
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics

to further explore the outcomes of exploitative leadership.

6. Exploitative leadership

Second, our findings reveal the mediating effects of nega-

8. Workplace venting
7. Negative emotions

tive emotions in the relationship between exploitative lead-

2. Employee gender
3. Employee tenure

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

ership and workplace venting. Thus, this paper responds

to the calls of scholars to explore the different underlying
1. Team size

mechanisms and boundary conditions between exploitative

Variable

5. TAR

9. SOE
4. TAT

leadership and employee outcomes (Schmid et al., 2019).

*

13
Current Psychology

Table 4 Results of Hypothesis Testing (Whole model)

Variable Negative emotions Workplace venting
Estimate S.E. p 95%CI Estimate S.E. p 95%CI
Within level
1. Employee gender - 0.07 0.08 0.38 [-0.22, 0.08] 0.06 0.09 0.50 [-0.11, 0.23]
2. Employee duration - 0.04 0.02 0.08 [-0.09, 0.01] 0.02 0.03 0.50 [-0.04, 0.08]
3. TAT 0.16* 0.07 0.02 [0.03, 0.29] 0.04 0.07 0.54 [-0.09, 0.17]
4. TAR 0.20** 0.07 0.01 [0.05, 0.34] 0.12 0.07 0.11 [-0.03, 0.26]
5. Negative emotions 0.16* 0.07 0.02 [0.02, 0.30]
Between level
6.Team size - 0.05 0.04 0.22 [-0.14, 0.03] - 0.09 0.05 0.06 [-0.18, 0.00]
7. Negative emotions 0.88** 0.22 0.00 [0.45, 1.32]
8. EL 0.66** 0.13 0.00 [0.40, 0.93] - 0.25 0.19 0.19 [-0.62, 0.12]
9. SOE - 0.29** 0.07 0.00 [-0.43, - 0.15]
10. EL × SOE 0.55* 0.23 0.01 [0.11, 1.00]
Notes: EL = exploitative leadership; TAT = trait anger temperament; TAR = trait anger reactivity; SOE = supervisor’ s organizational embodi-
ment. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Fig. 2 Interaction of exploitative

leadership and SOE on negative
emotion

Table 5 Analysis of moderated mediation effect In addition, previous research reveals that psychological
Moderator Exploitative leadership →Negative emo- distress and relational attachment can play mediating roles
tions→ Workplace venting
in the relationship between exploitative leadership and
Estimate S.E. P 95%CI
SOE High 0.79** 0.25 0.00 [0.36, employees’ behaviors, such as employee innovative behav-
1.33] ior and knowledge hiding (Guo et al., 2021; Wang et al.,
Low 0.38* 0.17 0.02 [0.08, 2021). However, these studies overlook the pivotal role of
0.78] emotional mechanisms, which are central to employees’
Diff 0.41* 0.18 0.02 [0.07, outcomes in the work domain. In this study, we focus on
0.86]
negative emotions, a type of negative emotional feelings,
Notes: SOE = supervisor’s organizational embodiment; N = 344;
*
p < .05, **p < .01. and demonstrate that it can serve as a mediator in the afore-
mentioned relationship. The findings also suggest that it is

13

possible for exploitative leadership to influence workplace
venting indirectly through various mediating variables.
Finally, we establish SOE as an important contextual fac-
tor that shapes the influence of exploitative leadership on
negative emotions. Scholars have demonstrated that SOE
moderates the relationship between leadership and employ-
ees’ attitude and behavior (Mackey et al., 2018; Park &
Kim, 2019; Shoss et al., 2013). In the same vein, we show
that SOE moderates the linkage between exploitative lead-
ership and negative emotions. Under a high level of SOE,
employees may interpret their leader’s exploitation as the
organization’s intent; in this case, the impact of exploit-
ative leadership on employees’ negative emotions will be
further amplified (Stinglhamber et al., 2015). This result of
our study is similar to that of Park and Kim (2019), who
suggest that SOE amplifies the impact of abusive leadership
on psychological contract breach. Further, by highlighting
complementarity between exploitative leadership and SOE
as a catalyst of workplace venting, our study offers a novel
contribution to the SOE and workplace venting literatures.
It is worth noting that our analysis demonstrates that SOE
has a negative main effect on negative emotions (b = − 0.29,
p < .01; see Table 4). A close look at Fig. 2 indicates that this
is mainly caused by the large gap between negative emo-
tions of individuals with low and high SOE when there is a
low level of exploitative leadership. In other words, when
the exploitative leadership is at low level, those employees
with low perceived SOE are more likely to vent than those
with high perceived SOE. A probable cause of the phe-
nomenon is the collective nature of Chinese culture, which
motivates employees to willingly make efforts to ensure the
success of their organizations (Yan et al., 2021). Therefore,
if employees view a leader as representative of the organiza-
tion (high SOE), they are more willing to follow the leader’s
instructions, since they feel that doing so could help their
organization to achieve its goals. As a result, they are less
likely to feel negatively in working with the leaders and thus
less likely to vent, compared to those employees with low
perceived SOE. This results in the negative main effect of
SOE on negative emotions. However, if leaders abuse their
power and exploit employees, those with high SOE will
view such behaviors as the organization’s will, and are more
likely to feel frustrated than those with low SOE, explain-
ing why SOE enhances the negative effects of exploitative
leadership.
Management implications
The findings of the current study provide valuable implica-
tions for organizations to reduce members’ workplace vent-
ing. First, they must make an effort to reduce the influence of
exploitative leadership on employees’ venting. Specifically,
13
Current Psychology
the organization should use exploitative leadership as a
negative evaluation criterion for manager recruitment and
promotion. They may also train and educate leaders on the
consequences of exploitative leadership, and warn them not
to take credit for employees’ work, increase employees’
work burden, or jeopardize their career development.
Second, our study shows that exploitative leadership can
facilitate employees’ venting through negative emotions.
Therefore, organizations and managers should help employ-
ees reduce their negative emotions. For example, team lead-
ers should assess the level of employees’ negative emotions
regularly, and take measures to attenuate these. Moreover,
organizations should help employees cope with negative
emotions by offering psychological counseling services and
emotional assistance, as well as helping them solve prob-
lems at work.
Finally, our study reveals that SOE strengthens the posi-
tive effect of exploitative leadership on employees’ venting
through negative emotions. Organizations should clarify the
authority of leaders, and correct and punish their improper
behaviors in a timely fashion. On the other hand, leaders
should make an effort to act in the way that is consistent
with the organization’s values. This could reduce employ-
ees’ confusion regarding whether leaders’ behaviors reflect
organizational intent.
Research limitations and prospects
Despite its contribution to the literature, our study is not
without limitations, which offer opportunities for future
research. First, our study asked leaders to evaluate employ-
ees’ workplace venting. Thus, leadership biases may exist in
their responses. In future research, more objective approach
could be adopted to measure the results, such as combining
employees’ self-evaluation of their workplace venting and
their supervisors’ evaluation.
Second, in the current study, we only collected subjective
data related to our major constructs. Future research may try
to use objective data to further verify our research model. In
particular, in the current study, negative emotions were self-
reported by employees. Future studies may instead attempt
to measure negative emotions by using biological indica-
tors; for example, hours of sleep or blood pressure level.
Third, because of time and financial constraints, we col-
lected data from Jiangsu province in China. Therefore, our
findings may not be applicable to other provinces. In addi-
tion, the study was conducted in the Chinese context with-
out considering the applicability to other cultural contexts.
Therefore, a larger sample size, collected from multiple
provinces, or even multiple countries, is desirable for fur-
ther verifying our findings.
Current Psychology
Finally, this study only examines the mediating role of
negative emotions in the relationship between exploitative
leadership and workplace venting. Future research could
further our knowledge about the relationship between
exploitative leadership and workplace venting by exam-
ining additional mediating mechanisms, such as psycho-
logical, cognitive, and knowledge mechanisms. Further, in
addition to SOE, it would be interesting to examine whether
the effects of exploitative leadership on negative emotions
differ under other individual or contextual factors, such as
team climate.
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
023-04596-z.
Acknowledgements This research is partly supported by The Fun-
damental Research Funds for Central Universities in China (Grant
No. 2017XKQY087), The Humanities and Social Sciences Research
Funds of the Chinese Education Ministry (Grant No. 17YJA630104),
The Social science Research Funds of Jiangsu province of China
(Grant No. 19GLB014), and The Double First-Class Initiative Project
for Cultural Evolution and Creation of China University of Mining and
Technology (Grant No.2018WHCC03/05).
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti-
tutional 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.
*we attached the data file in the system, which supports the results
reported in our article.
References
Alicke, M. D., Braun, J. C., Glor, J. E., Klotz, M. L., Magee, J., Seder-
hoim, H., & Siegel, R. (1992). Complaining behavior in social
interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18
No(3), 286–295.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (1998). Affective events-emotions matrix:
A classification of work events and associated emotions. Bond
University.
Behfar, K. J., Cronin, M. A., & Mccarthy, K. (2020). Realizing the
upside of venting: the role of the “challenger listener”. Academy
of Management Discoveries, 6 No(4), 609–630.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1988). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bul-
letin, 88 No(3), 588–606.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107 No(2), 238–246.
Breuer, J., Freud, S., Strachey, J., Freud, A., Strachey, A., & Tyson, A.
(1957). Studies on hysteria. Basic Books.
Brown, S. P., Westbrook, R. A., & Challagalla, G. (2005). Good cope,
bad cope: Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following
a critical negative work event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90
No(4), 792–798.
Clark, M. A., Robertson, M. M., & Carter, N. T. (2018). You spin
me right round: A within-person examination of affect spin and
voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 44 No(8),
3176–3199.
Clercq, D. D., Fatima, T., & Jahanzeb, S. (2019). Ingratiating with des-
potic leaders to gain status: The role of power distance orientation
and self-enhancement motive. Journal of Business Ethics, 171,
157–174.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P. C., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences. Routledge.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker,
T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010).
Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commit-
ment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodi-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 No(6), 1085–1103.
Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in
negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61 No(3), 427–434.
Glick, W. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. The Acad-
emy of Management Review, 10 No(3), 601–616.
Guo, L. M., Cheng, K., & Luo, J. L. (2021). The effect of exploitative
leadership on knowledge hiding: A conservation of resources per-
spective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 42
No(1), 83–98.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecifi-
cation. Psychological Methods, 3 No(4), 424–453.
Izard, C. E., Libero, D. Z., Putnam, P., & Haynes, O. M. (1993). Stabil-
ity of emotion experiences and their relations to traits of personal-
ity. J Pers Soc Psychol, 64 No(5), 847–860.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-
group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 69 No(1), 85–98.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment
of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of applied psychol-
ogy, 78 No(2), 306.
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of
negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26 No(8), 875–897.
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Lee, S. M. (2016). Benefits of transfor-
mational behaviors for leaders: A daily investigation of leader
behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101 No(2), 237–251.
Liang, J. (2014). Ethical leadership and employee voice: Examining
a moderated-mediation model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46,
252–264.
Liu, C., Spector, P. E., & Shi, L. (2007). Cross-national job stress:
A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28 No(2), 209–239.
Lohr, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J.
(2007). The psychology of anger venting and empirically sup-
ported alternatives that do no harm. Scientific Review of Mental
Health Practice, 5 No(1).
Mackey, J. D., Mcallister, C. P., Brees, J. R., Huang, L., & Carson, J.
E. (2018). Perceived organizational obstruction: A mediator that
addresses source–target misalignment between abusive supervi-
sion and OCBs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39 No(10),
1283–1295.
13

Majeed, M., & Fatima, T. (2020). Impact of exploitative leadership
on psychological distress: A study of nurses. Journal of Nursing
Management, 28 No(7), 1713–1724.
Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Dijke, M. V., & Cremer,
D. D. (2012). Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and devi-
ant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted needs
perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 117 No(1), 24–40.
Mccoll-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leader-
ship style and emotions on subordinate performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 13 No(5), 545–559.
Men, C., Fong, P. S., Huo, W., Zhong, J., Jia, R., & Luo, J. (2020).
Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation
model of psychological safety and mastery climate. Journal of
Business Ethics, 166 No(3), 461–472.
Muthen, L., & Muthen, L. (2019). Mplus Version 8.3 (www.statmodel.
com) Los Angeles, CA.
Ofer, E. L., Coyle-Shapiro, A. M., & Pearce, J. (2018). Eyes wide
open: Perceived exploitation and its consequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 62 No(6), 1989–2018.
Ouyang, C., Zhu, Y., & Ma, Z. (2022). Ambidextrous leadership and
employee voice behavior: the role of work motivation and ambi-
dextrous culture. Psychology Research and Behavior Manage-
ment, 2022 No(15), 2899–2914.
Park, J., & Kim, H. J. (2019). How and when does abusive supervi-
sion affect hospitality employees’ service sabotage? International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 190–197.
Parlamis, J. D. (2012). Venting as emotion regulation: The influence
of venting responses and respondent identity on anger and emo-
tional tone. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23
No(1), 77–96.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions.
Multivariate behavioral research, 42 No(1), 185–227.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confi-
dence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and
Measures, 6 No(2), 77–98.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can ‘good’ stressors spark ‘bad’
behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge
and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 No(6), 1438–1451.
Rosen, C. C., Gabriel, A. S., Lee, H. W., Koopman, J., & Johnson, R.
E. (2020). When lending an ear turns into mistreatment: An epi-
sodic examination of leader mistreatment in response to venting
at work. Personnel Psychology, 74 No(1), 175–195.
Salami, S. O. (2010). Occupational stress and well-being: Emotional
intelligence, self-efficacy, coping, negative affect and social sup-
port as moderators. Journal of International Social Research, 3
No(12), 387–393.
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 No(2), 235–244.
Schmid, E. A., Verdorfer, A. P., & Peus, C. (2019). Shedding light on
leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative
leadership. Journal of Management, 45 No(4), 1401–1433.
13
Current Psychology
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T.
J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The
roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organi-
zational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 No(1),
158–168.
Spielberger, C. D. (1996). Manual for the state-trait anger expres-
sion inventory (STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25 No(2), 173–180.
Steiger, R. L., & Reyna, C. (2017). Trait contempt, anger, disgust, and
moral foundation values. Personality and Individual Differences,
113, 125–135.
Stinglhamber, F., Marique, G., Caesens, G., Hanin, D., & De Zanet, F.
(2015). The influence of transformational leadership on follow-
ers’ affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational
support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career
Development International, 20 No(6), 583–603.
Stoeber, J., & Janssen, D. P. (2011). Perfectionism and coping with
daily failures: Positive reframing helps achieve satisfaction at the
end of the day. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 24 No(5), 477–497.
Volkema, B. R. J. (1994). Issues, behavioral responses and conse-
quences in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15 No(5), 467–471.
Wang, Z. N., Sun, C. W., & Cai, S. H. (2021). How exploitative lead-
ership influences employee innovative behavior: The mediating
role of relational attachment and moderating role of high-perfor-
mance work systems. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 42 No(2), 233–248.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences
of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 18 No(3), 1–74.
Yan, Y. L., Zhang, J. W., Akhtar, M. N., & Liang, S. C. (2021). Positive
leadership and employee engagement: The roles of state positive
affect and individualism-collectivism. Current Psychology, 1–10.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.