Paternalistic Leadership and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Mediating Role of Leader Identification and Moderating Effect of Traditionality in Chinese Generation Z Employees

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292025/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Paternalistic Leadership and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Mediating Role of Leader Identification and Moderating Effect of Traditionality in Chinese Generation Z Employees

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292025/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study investigates how paternalistic leadership—authoritarian, benevolent, and moral—affects counterproductive work behaviors among Chinese Generation Z employees. Using social identity theory and Chinese traditional culture as a foundation, we propose a moderated mediation model with leader identification as a mediator and traditionality as a moderator. Data from a multi-time survey of 324 Gen Z employees in China, analysed with Stata 17.0, reveal that benevolent and moral leadership reduce counterproductive behaviors, while authoritarian leadership increases them. Leader identification fully mediates the effects of benevolent and moral leadership and partially mediates the effect of authoritarian leadership. Traditionality negatively moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification, with lower traditionality strengthening this connection. These results highlight the complex dynamics between leadership styles and employee behavior, providing insights for creating productive and harmonious workplaces for Gen Z employees in China.

Paternalistic Leadership

Counterproductive Work Behavior

Leader Identification

Traditionality

Generation Z Employees

In the wake of the Great Resignation and the rise of quiet quitting, understanding the factors influencing employee behavior has never been more critical. Leadership style plays a pivotal role in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). For Generation Z employees, who are increasingly making their mark on the workforce, counterproductive behaviors such as conflicts with superiors and resistance to instructions have become a pressing issue (Fan et al., 2023). In China, where paternalistic leadership remains a prevalent approach, exploring its impact on these behaviors is essential for effective management.

Paternalistic leadership, deeply embedded in Chinese organizational culture, affects various employee behaviors, including voice behavior (Peng & Chen, 2022), innovative work behavior (Nazir et al., 2021), and sustained work behavior (Fang et al., 2019). This raises a critical question: How does paternalistic leadership influence the counterproductive behaviors of Chinese Gen Z employees?

As Generation Z increasingly drives the labor market (Warner & Zhu, 2018), their distinct attributes—intelligence, creativity, and a strong commitment to fairness (Singh & Dangmei, 2016; Nova et al., 2022)—necessitate nuanced management strategies. While existing research has explored various leadership styles such as transformational (Huang et al., 2021), ethical (Shen & Lei, 2022), and exploitative (Guo et al., 2024), there is a gap in understanding how culturally specific leadership styles, like paternalistic leadership, affect counterproductive behaviors in this demographic.

This study seeks to address this gap by examining the roles of leader identification and traditionality in the context of paternalistic leadership. Drawing on social identity theory, we investigate how leader identification mediates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and counterproductive behaviors (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Wang & Howell, 2012). We also explore how traditionality—a measure of adherence to traditional values—moderates this relationship (Tan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2017).

By integrating these factors into the framework of paternalistic leadership, this research advances theoretical understanding and offers practical insights for organizations. In the context of contemporary workforce challenges, such as quiet quitting and the Great Resignation, aligning leadership strategies with cultural values and addressing the needs of Chinese Gen Z employees can enhance productivity and organizational harmony.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Paternalistic Leadership

Paternalistic leadership represents an indigenous aspect of Chinese leadership, fundamentally rooted in Confucian ideology (Westwood, 1997). This leadership style encompasses traits of fatherly kindness, moral integrity, stringent discipline, and authoritative guidance. Owing to cultural influences, paternalistic leadership finds wide adoption, particularly within family-run businesses in China (Farh & Cheng, 2000). Farh and Cheng (2000) provide a comprehensive framework for paternalistic leadership, defining it across three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality. Authoritarianism summarizes the leader's exercise of absolute authority and the expectation of unwavering obedience. Benevolence, on the other hand, denotes a leader's inclination toward personalized concern for the well-being of individuals beyond the confines of professional relationships. The moral dimension signifies a leader's representation of personal virtue, self-discipline, and selflessness. Notably, empirical investigations have unveiled cross-dimensional correlations within paternalistic leadership, revealing positive associations between benevolence and morality while showing a negative linkage with authoritarianism (Pellegrini et al., 2007).

The triad model of paternalistic leadership has gained widespread recognition and serves as the foundation for a multitude of subsequent research. (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Organizational-level studies have illuminated the beneficial impact of leaders' benevolence and morality on team identification and top management team decision efficacy, whereas authoritarianism is found to have deleterious consequences in these contexts (Chen et al., 2015). At the individual level, leaders' benevolence and morality exhibit correlations with favorable outcomes, including trust in managers, manifestations of organizational citizenship behavior, and the fostering of creativity (Chen et al., 2014). In contrast, authoritarian leadership styles have been associated with undesirable effects in these domains. It is noteworthy that the adverse implications of authoritarianism can be either mitigated or reshaped by moderating factors, with the traditionality of employees serving as one such moderator (Farh et al., 2014).

Generation Z and Counterproductive Work Behavior

The workforce has witnessed the entry of Gen Z, born from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, comprising approximately 32% of the global population (Priporas et al., 2017). Gen Z's unique digital skills and innovative mindset are vital for organizations. Managing these talents effectively is crucial for businesses to thrive in today's tech-driven world. (Meret et al., 2018). The integration of this generation into the workforce highlights the crucial need to understand and manage Gen Z talent effectively (Garai-Fodor, 2019). This generation is seeking the most suitable cultural alignment for themselves in upcoming work environment (Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015). Unlike employees from other generations, Gen Z employees place a heightened emphasis on leadership styles, the overall company culture, and their relationships with colleagues (Baldonado, 2018). However, there remains a scarcity of empirical studies that specifically target Gen Z employees, contributing to the lack of comprehensive understanding. This is evident from the varying perspectives on Gen Z's priorities. For instance, some researchers express concerns about job security, while others argue that job fit, aligning with their skills, is vital. (Chillakuri, 2020). The assessment of Gen Z's professional values reveals mixed findings: some prioritize higher earnings (Flippin, 2017), with further research suggesting that work-life balance is more critical (Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015). The lack of research underscores the incomplete understanding of Gen Z employees.

Counterproductive work behavior is defined as the deliberate actions of employees that either harm or represent a risk to the company and its stakeholders (Bolton et al., 2012). It is often referred to as workplace deviance and is characterized as "voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and threatens the well-being of an organization or its members" (Gruys & Sackett, 2003). According to the stressor-emotion model, the counterproductive work behavior originates from stressful work situations, leading to negative emotions among employees (Spector & Fox, 2002). Leadership factors as a prevalent form of stress is a key element affecting the counterproductive work behavior (Holtz & Harold, 2013). For example, ethical leadership is negatively associated with employees’ counterproductive work behavior, and transactional leadership intensifies the connection between workplace stress and adverse employee behaviors. (Yao et al., 2014).

The research on counterproductive work behavior primarily focuses on two aspects: the development of theoretical frameworks and the formation of mechanisms (Sun, 2015). Within the exploration of factors contributing to counterproductive work behavior, one potential area of conflict in multigenerational workplaces is the field of management and leadership styles (Arsenault, 2004). In this particular context, the domain is notably impacted by differences between generations in regards to retention, values, motivation, work style preferences, and perceptions of effective leadership. The central conflict often revolves around what it means to be a leader and the attributes associated with being a good leader (Kraus, 2017). Leadership styles substantially impact the counterproductive work behavior, and the prevailing conflict between Gen Z employees and organizations frequently centers on their preferences for leadership styles. Given the personality traits of Gen Z employees, they typically resist commanding and authoritarian leadership styles, instead favoring leadership characterized by benevolence and moral integrity (Nikolic, 2022).

Based on the literature reviewed above, the following main hypotheses are developed.

Paternalistic leadership significantly impacts Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

H1a

Authoritarian leadership is positively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

H1b

Benevolent leadership is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

H1c

Moral leadership is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

The Mediating Role of Leader Identification

Social identity theory maintains that people classify themselves and others into various social groups, enabling individuals to locate or define themselves in the social environment (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to social identity theory, leader identification occurs when employees positively evaluate both the role and personal identity of their leader (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Leader identification will prompt employees to align their cognitions of leader with their self-definition and make them hope to meet the leader’s expectations (Johnson, 2010). This theory suggests that leader identification, which refers to how employees define themselves in their relationship with their leaders, is crucial for understanding how leadership styles impact employees' attitudes and behaviors (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). In our study, we hypothesize that Gen Z employees may identify with paternalistic leadership. Building upon the literature discussed above, we propose the following hypothesis:

Paternalistic leadership has a significant impact on leadership identification.

Gen Z employees generally prefer a leadership approach that involves seeking consensus rather than giving commands. They prefer to encourage participation over being autocratic, and value adaptability and flexibility over rigidity and hierarchy. (McCrindle & Fell, 2019). Therefore, authoritarian leadership emphasizes leaders’ authority strict control and subordinates’ unquestioned obedience (Zhang & Xie, 2017) is likely to negatively evaluate authoritarian leaders. By contrast, compared with authoritarian leadership, benevolent and moral leadership typically emphasize care, support, and a focus on morals, which aligns with the values that Gen Z employees themselves often appreciate (Nikolic, 2022). Based on this, we make the following assumptions:

H2a

Authoritarian leadership is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ leader identification.

H2b

Benevolent leadership is positively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ leader identification.

H2c

Moral leadership is positively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ leader identification.

Employees with a strong identification with their leaders are more considerate and loyal to their leaders and organizations (Sluss et al., 2012). They prefer to internalize their leaders’ interests, goals and values; and even change their self-concept to make their values, beliefs and behaviors more like those of leaders (Gu et al., 2015). Employees who strongly identify with their leader are highly inclined to feel a sense of duty to share novel ideas and approaches with them (Liu et al., 2010), they also encourage themselves to aspire to meet the leader’s expectations and engage in behaviors that are advantageous to the leader (Johnson, 2010).Moreover, scholars have proposed that identifying with a leader could lead to a greater likelihood of being affected by the leader and affect their own work behavior (Wang & Rode, 2010). For employees with a high level of leader identification, it is not easy to exhibit the counterproductive work behavior regardless of how the leader treats them. Hence, we suppose that:

Leader identification is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

Leader identification plays a mediating role between paternalistic leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

H4a

Leader identification mediates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

H4b

Leader identification mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

H4c

Leader identification mediates the relationship between moral leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

The Moderating Role of Traditionality

Traditionality refers to organized cognitive attitudes, ideas, value orientations, temperament characteristics, and behavioral wills of individuals in traditional societies (Spreitzer et al., 2005). It describes the individual’s recognition of traditional Confucian ideas such as “following authority, being safe and upright, self-preservation of destiny, filial piety and ancestor worship, and male superiority” (Xiong Chen & Aryee, 2007). Individuals with high traditionality have more recognition of ethics and leadership authority (Farh et al., 2007). High-traditional individuals pay attention to traditional cultural values such as benevolence, righteousness, morality, and self-discipline (Li et al., 2017), which should help improve their sense of leader identification and improve the influence of paternalistic leadership; on the contrary, low-traditional individuals not only do not pay attention to or even reject the ethical values advocated by traditional culture, but also do not fully recognize the authority and status of leaders (Liu et al., 2013), which may mitigate the impact of paternalistic leadership.

Based on Gen Z employee traits, those with higher levels of traditionality tend to exhibit a greater degree of identification with any type of leadership. This implies that regardless of the actions taken by leaders, these employees are inclined to accept them and feel a sense of identification with the hierarchical relationship (Hui et al., 2004). In contrast, employees with lower levels of traditionality tend to have higher expectations of leadership styles. For these individuals, they prefer to collaborate with leaders who encourage participation and adaptability, rather than those who enforce strict hierarchical structures. They are more likely to identify with this open and egalitarian work environment, leading to higher levels of job satisfaction and positivity (Bălan & Vreja, 2018). In this study, we argue that traditionality moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification, therefore, the theoretical assumption is as follows:

H5a

The negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification is moderated by traditionality, such that it is stronger for lower than for higher levels of traditionality.

H5b

The positive relationship between benevolent leadership and leader identification is moderated by traditionality, such that it is stronger for lower than for higher levels of traditionality.

H5c

The positive relationship between moral leadership and leader identification is moderated by traditionality, such that it is stronger for lower than for higher levels of traditionality

Based on the above discussion, the moderated mediation model of the relationship between paternalistic leadership and the Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior was constructed, as shown in Fig. 1.

Research Design

We utilized a survey method to examine our hypotheses, focusing on Gen Z employees in Mainland China. At Time one (T1), Gen Z employees reported perceived leadership styles, including paternalistic leadership and control variables. They were also asked to rate their own degree identification with leaders at the same time one. At Time two (T2), 1 months later, the T1 respondents were asked to rate their own level of the counterproductive work behavior and their level of traditionality again.

Measurements

All measurement scales involved in our study were adapted from the existing literature and were employed and demonstrated to have good reliability and validity by many previous studies in the Chinese context. All multi-item measures were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Paternalistic leadership (T1). At Time 1, for paternalistic leadership, we used a 15-items scale developed by Cheng to measure paternalistic leadership (Cheng et al., 2003). The sample items for authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality included: “My supervisor asks me to obey his/her instructions completely” and “My supervisor is a virtuous leader compared to other company leaders.”

Leader identification (T1). At the same Time 1, we used Walumbwa and Hartnell 's 10-items measure to assess how employees identify with their direct leader (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011). This scale was originally designed to measure employees’ identification with the organization (Kark et al., 2003), in this study, items focused on the direct leader of the employee. Two example items are, “When someone criticizes my direct leader, it feels like an insult to me” and “I am proud to tell others I work with this supervisor.”

Traditionality (T2). At the Time 2, participants rated their traditionality using the 5-item scale by Farh (Farh et al., 1997). Two sample items are “The best way to avoid mistakes is to follow the instructions of a senior person” and “When people are in dispute, they should ask the most senior person to decide who is right.”

Counterproductive work behavior (T2). At the same Time 2, members rate their own degree of counterproductive work behavior. The counterproductive work behavior was assessed most often with Bennett and Robinson’s 10-items scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). According to local conditions, we removed some measurement items. For example, items involving racial discrimination or drug abuse, do not apply to surveys in mainland China. In this study, two sample items are “Neglected to follow your boss's instructions” and “Put little effort into your work.”

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The primary method employed was the online dissemination of questionnaires using the Credamo platform (a questionnaire survey platform based in mainland China). The survey process, from questionnaire design to data collection, spanned a period of three months. A total of 358 questionnaires were distributed. During data processing, we excluded responses with completion times of less than 60 seconds or any other invalid data submissions. Ultimately, 324 valid questionnaires were collected, resulting in an effective response rate of 90.50%. The statistical analyses consisted of two main parts: measurement model assessment and hypothesis testing. Established scales were validated via confirmatory factor analysis, followed by checks for common method bias. Hypothesis testing involved coefficient analyses to examine associations among the four variables, with regression analyses exploring relationships, including mediating and moderating effects.

Descriptive Overview

Frequency distribution of demographic variables in this study is as follows:

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Information
Demographic Information		N	%
Gender	Male	172	53.09%
Gender	Female	152	46.91%
Age	21–23	13	4.01%
	24–26	101	31.17%
	27–29	173	53.40%
	30–32	37	11.42%
Education	High School and Below	51	15.74%
	Higher Professional School	64	19.75%
	Bachelor Degree	156	48.15%
	Master Degree / Ph.D.	53	16.36%
Enterprise Category	Public Institution	45	13.89%
	State-Owned Enterprise	63	19.44%
	Private Enterprise	91	28.09%
	Sino-Foreign Joint Venture	55	16.98%
	Foreign-Invested Enterprise	40	12.35%
	Others	30	9.26%
Tenure	0–12 Months	72	22.02%
	13–24 Months	156	48.15%
	25–36 Months	68	20.99%
	37 Months and Above	28	8.64%
Job Level	General Staff	199	61.42%
	Frontline Managers	53	16.36%
	Middle Managers	36	11.11%
	Senior Managers	36	11.11%
Salary Satisfaction	Very Dissatisfied	35	10.80%
	Dissatisfied	51	15.74%
	Neutral	80	24.69%
	Satisfied	82	25.31%
	Very Satisfied	76	23.46%

This study collected valid 324 survey responses, the Table 1 presents the key demographic variables of the participants. It is evident that, gender-wise, males represent 53.09% and females 46.91% of respondents. Most Gen Z employees (53.40%) are aged 27–29. In terms of education, 48.15% hold bachelor's degrees, 16.36% have graduate degrees, and 15.74% have high school education or lower. Private enterprises employ 28.09% of respondents, and the majority (48.15%) have 1–2 years of work experience. Regular employees make up 61.42% of respondents, reflecting their limited experience and younger age. Additionally, 73.6% express satisfaction with their current salary levels.

Reliability and Validity Test

Table 2

Reliability and Validity Statistics of Variables
Variable	AVE	CR	KMO	Cronbach's α
AL	.799	.952	.896	.937
BL	.777	.946	.888	.928
ML	.784	.948	.906	.931
LI	.715	.962	.967	.955
T	.752	.938	.895	.917
CWB	.585	.934	.941	.921
Note(s): PL: paternalistic leadership, AL: authoritarian leadership, BL: benevolent leadership, ML: moral leadership, LI: leader identification, T: traditionality, and CWB: counterproductive work behavior.

As depicted in the Table 2, three dimensions of paternalistic leadership, namely authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, and moral leadership, exhibit α of .937, .928, and .931 (above .8), signifying strong internal consistency within the variable indicators. Similarly, the α for leader identification, traditionality, and the counterproductive work behavior are .955, .917, and .921, thereby inferring robust internal consistency and high reliability across the variable indicators. It also reveals that the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, moral leadership, leader identification, and traditionality all exceed .7, while AVE for the counterproductive work behavior slightly surpasses .5, meeting the required standard. The Composite Reliability (CR) scores all exceed .9, indicating a strong performance. Factor loading values range from .722 to .912 (surpassing .6), providing further evidence of the scale's sound convergent validity.

Table 3

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Model	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	TLI	CFI	SRMR
Six-Factor Model	1001.319	725	1.381	.034	.973	.975	.034
Five-Factor Model	1630.452	730	2.233	.062	.912	.917	.049
Four-Factor Model	2254.756	734	3.072	.080	.852	.860	.069
Three-Factor Model	2664.172	737	3.615	.090	.813	.823	.081
Two-Factor Model	4034.903	739	5.460	.118	.681	.698	.106
One-Factor Model	4747.962	741	6.408	.129	.613	.632	.153
Note(s): N = 324; Six-Factor Model: AL, BL, ML, LI, T, CWB; Five-Factor Model: AL, BL + ML, LI, T, CWB; Four-Factor Model: AL + BL + ML, LI, T, CWB; Three-Factor Model: AL + BL + ML, LI + T, CWB; Two-Factor Model: AL + BL + ML + LI + T, CWB; One-Factor Model: AL + BL + ML + LI + T + CWB. χ2/df < 3; RMSEA < .08; TLI > .9; CFI > .9; SRMR < .08

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess discriminant validity among paternalistic leadership, leader identification, traditionality, and the counterproductive work behavior. As shown in the Table 3, the data for the six-factor model yielded χ2 = 1001.319, df = 725, χ2/df = 1.381 < 3, RMSEA = .304 < .08, TLI = .973 > .9, CFI = .975 > .9, and SRMR = .034 < .08. These results indicate a good overall model fit for the six-factor model, and its fit indices outperform those of the other factor models, demonstrating the satisfactory discriminant validity of the scale used in this study.

Multivariate Correlation Analysis

Table 4 summarizes the mean values, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients. A significant negative correlation exists between paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behavior (b = − .293, p < .01). The analysis suggests that paternalistic leadership negatively impacts counterproductive work behavior, supporting H1. It also reveals a negative relationship between benevolent leadership and counterproductive behavior (b = − .473, p < .01). The moral leadership is negatively related to the counterproductive work behavior (b = − .589, p < .01). And there was a positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and the counterproductive work behavior (b = .656, p < .01). Based on the above findings, it can be inferred that the hypotheses H1a-H1c are supported.

There is a positive relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification (b = .600, p < .01), providing support for hypothesis H2. Both benevolent leadership (b = .568, p < .01) and moral leadership (b = .712, p < .01) are positive related to leader identification. In contrast, the table indicates a negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification. (b = − .486, p < .01). Consequently, hypotheses H2a-H2c can be validated. Finally, there was a negative interaction between leader identification and the counterproductive work behavior (b = − .746, p < .01). This preliminary analysis suggests a significant negative relationship between leader identification and employees' counterproductive work behavior, providing initial support for hypothesis H3.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Variables
Variable Name	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1.Gender	1.469	.500
2.Age	27.114	1.931	− .011
3. Education	2.651	.934	− .146***	− .071
4.Enterprise Category	3.222	1.485	.097*	.045	− .216***
5.Tenure	22.503	11.798	.033	.110**	− .088	.136**
6.Job Level	1.719	1.046	.075	.260***	− .218***	.250***	− .113**
7.Salary Satisfaction	3.349	1.290	− .029	− .180***	− .027	− .050	.080	− .124**
8.PL	3.038	.488	.012	− .097*	.025	.025	.048	− .092*	.246***
9.AL	3.336	1.184	− .011	− .053	.166***	− .063	.036	− .156***	.205***	− .189***
10.BL	2.790	1.105	.040	− .013	− .041	.012	− .049	.019	.031	.701***	− .691***
11.ML	2.988	1.158	− .012	− .055	− .099*	.084	.070	.025	.071	.787***	− .601***	.637***
12.LI	3.019	1.034	.025	− .030	− .084	.136**	.010	− .006	.198***	.600***	− .486***	.568***	.712***
13.Traditionality	2.865	1.048	.026	.000	− .012	.089	.027	− .066	.293***	.454***	− .230***	.392***	.435***	.753***
14.CWB	2.773	.837	.033	− .022	.121**	− .117**	.014	− .064	.096*	− .293***	.656***	− .473***	− .589***	− .746***	− .469***
Note(s): N = 324. * p < .05. p < .01. * p < .001. Gender was coded as 1 = male, 2 = female. Age: 1 = “21–23”, 2 = “24–26”, 3 = “27–29”, 4 = “30–32”. Education: 1 = “High School and Below”, 2 = “Higher Professional School”, 3 = “Bachelor Degree”, 4 = “Master Degree / Ph.D.” Enterprise: 1 = “Public Institution”, 2 = “State-Owned Enterprise”, 3 = “Private Enterprise”, 4 = “Sino-Foreign Joint Venture”, 5 = “Foreign-Invested Enterprise”, 6 = “Others”. Tenure: 1 = “0–12 Months”, 2 = “13–24 Months”, 3 = “25–36 Months”, 4 = “37 Months and Above”. Job Level: 1 = “General Staff”, 2 = “Frontline Managers”, 3= “Middle Managers”, 4 = “Senior Managers”. Salary Satisfaction is measured on the Likert five-point scale, ranging from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied."

Multivariate Regression Analysis

The following Table 5 presents regression models of paternalistic leadership and its dimensions on employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

Table 5

Regression Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership on the CWB
Variable	CWB
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model5
Gender	.102	.114	.075	.131	.070
Age	.003	− .003	− .002	.002	− .014
Education	.102*	.111*	.008	.086	.057
Enterprise Category	− .054*	− .043	− .054*	− .052	− .034
Tenure	.002	.002	.001	− .000	.004
Job Level	− .005	− .021	.049	− .003	.007
Salary Satisfaction	.061*	.113**	− .025	.072*	.083**
PL		− .588***
AL			.470***
BL				− .359***
ML					− .428***
R2	.037	.146	.443	.260	.378
ΔR2	.015	.124	.429	.241	.362
F	1.72	6.72***	31.36***	13.86***	23.95***
Note(s): N = 324. * p < .05. p < .01. * p < .001.

From Model 2, it can be observed that the impact of paternalistic leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior is significant, suggesting a negative influence (b = − .588, p < .001). Therefore, it can be concluded that paternalistic leadership is negatively associated with employees’ counterproductive work behavior, providing support for Hypothesis H1. In Model 3, authoritarian leadership exhibits a positive impact on employees' counterproductive work behavior (b = − .470, p < .001), confirming Hypothesis H1a. Model 4 reveals that benevolent leadership is negatively related to employees’ counterproductive work behavior (b = − .359, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis H1b. In Model 5, moral leadership significantly influences employees' counterproductive work behavior, demonstrating a negative interaction (b = − .428, p < .001), confirming Hypothesis H1c.

The following Table 6 presents regression models of paternalistic leadership and its dimensions on leader identification.

Table 6

Regression Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership and CWB on Leader Identification
Variable	LI
Variable	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9	Model 10	Model 11
Gender	.025	− .000	.054	− .016	.074	.119*
Age	.005	.018	.011	.007	.031	.006
Education	− .061	− .083	.036	− .038	.004	.062
Enterprise Category	.102**	.080*	.103**	.099**	.073*	.012
Tenure	− .003	− .004	− .002	− .001	− .007*	− .000
Job Level	− .037	− .004	− .094	− .040	− .055	− .029
Salary Satisfaction	.163***	.053	.253***	.147***	.131***	.166***
PL		1.248***
AL			− .489***
BL				.524***
ML					.627***
CWB						− .643***
R2	.065	.387	.352	.377	.546	.627
ΔR2	.044	.371	.336	.361	.534	.618
F	3.13**	24.83***	21.43***	23.82***	47.33***	66.31***
Note(s): N = 324. * p < .05. p < .01. * p < .001.

From Model 7, it can be observed that there is a positive influence of paternalistic leadership on LI (b = 1.248, p < .001), therefore, providing support for Hypothesis H2. In Model 8, authoritarian leadership exhibits a negative impact on leader identification (b = − .489, p < .001), confirming Hypothesis H1a. Model 9 indicates a positive relationship between benevolent leadership and leader identification (b = .524, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis H1b. In Model 10, moral leadership positively affects leader identification (b = − .627, p < .001), confirming Hypothesis H1c. Finally, according to Model 11, it is evident that leader identification exerts a negative impact on employees' counterproductive work behavior (b = − .643, p < .001), thereby supporting Hypothesis H3.

Mediation and Moderation Analysis

The Table 7 examines the roles of leader identification in authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, and moral leadership in relation to the Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Bootstrap method was employed for the analysis with a sample size of 5000.

Table 7

Testing for Mediation Effects of Leader Identification
Path	Effect	Estimate	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI	Mediation
AL→LI→CWB	Indirect Effect	.245***	.028	.189	.300	Partial Mediation
AL→LI→CWB	Direct Effect	.225***	.033	.160	.290	Partial Mediation
BL→LI→CWB	Indirect Effect	− .326***	.029	− .384	− .268	Full Mediation
BL→LI→CWB	Direct Effect	− .032	.032	− .096	.030	Full Mediation
ML→LI→CWB	Indirect Effect	− .378***	.028	− .433	− .323	Full Mediation
ML→LI→CWB	Direct Effect	− .050	.035	− .118	.018	Full Mediation
Note(s): N = 324. * p < .05. p < .01. * p < .001. Resampling times = 5000.

Authoritarian leadership, through leader identification, facilitates employees’ counterproductive work behavior (95% CI, the indirect effect confidence interval [.189, .300] excludes 0, while the direct effect confidence interval [.160, .290] includes 0). This implies that leader identification partially mediates the influence of authoritarian leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Thereby it can confirm Hypothesis H4a. Furthermore, benevolent leadership promotes employees’ counterproductive work behavior through leader identification (the indirect effect confidence interval [-.384, − .0268] excludes 0, and the direct effect confidence interval [-.096, .030] includes 0). This indicates that leader identification fully mediates the impact of benevolent leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior, supporting Hypothesis H4b. At last, moral leadership fosters employees’ counterproductive work behavior through leader identification (the indirect effect confidence interval [-.433, − .323] excludes 0, and the direct effect confidence interval [-.118, .018] includes 0). Thus, leader identification fully mediates the influence of moral leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior, supporting Hypothesis H4c.

In order to examine the moderating effect of traditionality on the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership and leader identification, the interaction of authoritarian leadership with traditionality (T), benevolent leadership with traditionality, and moral leadership with traditionality were sequentially incorporated into the model. Regression analyses were conducted on leader identification, and the results are presented in the Table VIII.

Table 8

Testing for Moderation Effects of Traditionality on Leader Identification
Variable	LI
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Gender	.009	− .042	.020
Age	− .014	− .015	.006
Education	− .004	− .048	− .015
Enterprise Category	.041	.038	.035
Tenure	− .001	.000	− .004
Job Level	− .027	.014	− .011
Salary Satisfaction	.068*	.000	.010
AL	− .317***
BL		.327***
ML			.436***
T	.611***	.587***	.511***
AL*T	.071*
BL*T		− .117***
ML*T			− .083**
R2	.689	.681	.764
ΔR2	.679	.670	.756
F	69.21***	66.69***	101.04***
Note(s): N = 324. * p < .05. p < .01. * p < .001.

As summarized in Table 8, in Model 1, the influence of authoritarian leadership on leader identification indicates a negative effect (b = − .317, p < .001). The interaction between authoritarian leadership and traditionality impacts employees' counterproductive work behavior positively (b = .071, p < .05). This suggests that varying levels of traditionality affect the relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification. When traditionality is high, the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification tends to be weaker. Conversely, when traditionality is low, this negative relationship is stronger.

In Model 2 and 3, respectively, the influences of benevolent leadership (b = .327, p < .001) and moral leadership (b = .436, p < .001) on leader identification indicates positive effects. The interaction between benevolent leadership, moral leadership, and traditionality significantly impacts employees' counterproductive work behavior negatively (Model 2, b = − .117, p < .001; Model 3, b = − .083, p < .01). This implies that varying levels of traditionality affect the relationship between benevolent leadership, moral leadership and leader identification. When traditionality is high, the positive relationship between benevolent leadership and moral leadership and leader identification tends to diminish. Conversely, when traditionality is low, the negative relationship between benevolent leadership and moral leadership and leader identification intensifies.

As shown in Fig. 2, the slope of low-level traditionality is steeper compared to that of high-level traditionality. Consequently, it suggests that high traditionality can mitigate the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on leader identification.

As depicted in Figs. 3 and 4, in the relationship between benevolent leadership, moral leadership, and leader identification, the slope of low-level traditionality is steeper compared to high-level traditionality. Consequently, lower traditionality reinforces the positive correlation between benevolent leadership, moral leadership, and leader identification. With a decrease in traditionality, the positive impact of benevolent leadership and moral leadership on leader identification also strengthens.

Theoretical Implications

This study advances a theoretical model that explores how paternalistic leadership affects Chinese Gen Z employees' counterproductive work behavior, with leader identification as a mediator and traditionality as a moderator. Our findings support the three main hypotheses: the impact of paternalistic leadership on counterproductive work behavior, the mediating role of leader identification, and the moderating role of traditionality.

First, the results indicate a significant relationship between paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behavior among Gen Z employees. Specifically, benevolent and moral leadership styles reduce counterproductive behaviors, while authoritarian leadership exacerbates them. Benevolent leadership’s support and care make employees feel valued, which decreases counterproductive behavior. Moral leadership’s ethical appeal fosters a personal investment in work, further reducing such behaviors. Conversely, authoritarian leadership’s emphasis on control undermines employees' enthusiasm and motivation, increasing counterproductive actions.

Leader identification significantly mediates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behavior. It fully mediates the effects of benevolent and moral leadership, and partially mediates the effect of authoritarian leadership. This suggests that Gen Z employees, who value positive leadership styles, develop stronger leader identification with benevolent and moral leaders, reducing their counterproductive behavior. In contrast, authoritarian leadership, which clashes with Gen Z's values of fairness and individual rights (Dolot, 2018), leads to lower leader identification and increased counterproductive behavior.

Our study found traditionality moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification. Employees with lower traditionality exhibit a stronger relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification. In high traditionality contexts, traditional values can mitigate the negative impact of authoritarian leadership, leading to higher leader identification. Conversely, in low traditionality contexts, authoritarian leadership significantly affects leader identification, resulting in lower ratings. High traditionality individuals are more compliant with authority, making them less sensitive to fluctuations in leadership behavior (Hui et al., 2004a; Xiong Chen & Aryee, 2007). They tend to maintain positive relationships with leaders regardless of leadership style. On the other hand, low traditionality employees react more strongly to changes in leadership behavior, given their less adherence to traditional values.

Our study also revealed that individuals with higher traditionality start with a higher baseline level of leader identification. Although they exhibit a steeper slope of change in response to paternalistic leadership, their initial identification is generally stronger. This suggests that while high traditionality individuals naturally align with leadership, their response to changes in paternalistic leadership is less pronounced due to their familiarity with hierarchical structures (Cheng et al., 2004). Low traditionality individuals, less accustomed to traditional authority, show a more pronounced response to changes in leadership behavior, reflecting their less constrained stance towards traditional values and authority.

Taken together, high traditionality individuals’ inherent values align with paternalistic leadership, enhancing their leader identification. They are more likely to uphold traditional hierarchical norms, while low traditionality individuals, who may reject traditional values, experience a stronger impact on their leadership identification due to their more flexible stance on authority (Farh et al., 2007; Li & Ngo, 2017).

Practical Implications

In the Chinese cultural context, the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership that are most acceptable are benevolent leadership and moral leadership, both deeply resonating with people. Firstly, leaders should engage in acts of kindness and assistance towards Gen Z employees, allowing them to feel the organization's care and warmth. This enhances employees' sense of belonging and responsibility to the company. Providing a favorable working environment and access to information resources also encourages employees to contribute creatively to the organization. Secondly, leaders should prioritize their own conduct, establishing correct values that align with the organizational culture. As leaders, setting an example for employees, conveying positive energy, and inspiring them to actively contribute to the company's development are crucial. Lastly, leaders should minimize autocratic and authoritative practices, avoiding a commanding tone. Instead, they should engage in communication with others in an egalitarian manner, fostering cooperation between employees and leaders.

As Gen Z employees continue to enter the labor market, there is a notable departure in the traditional values of these new-generation workers compared to the past. This calls for adaptive and flexible responses from paternalistic leadership to address the diverse needs of different employees. On the one hand, when dealing with high traditionality employees, it is crucial to emphasize respect and humility. Leaders should highlight the importance of a respectful and humble relationship between leaders and employees, aligning with the traditional Confucian emphasis on "respect for elders and love for the young." Cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect can enhance the trust and identification of high traditionality employees with leadership. Simultaneously, instilling a sense of responsibility and obligation is essential. High traditionality employees typically value duty and a sense of responsibility.

On the other hand, it is imperative to adapt flexibly to low traditionality employees. Given that low traditionality employees are more sensitive to social exchange relationships, paternalistic leadership needs to be more adaptable to their needs. In contrast to high traditionality employees, leaders can strengthen leadership identification among low traditionality employees by establishing more egalitarian and interactive communication channels. Unlike high traditionality employees, leaders can further enhance identification among low traditionality employees by establishing more egalitarian and interactive communication channels. Recognizing the heightened sensitivity of low traditionality individuals to social exchange relationships, leaders should prioritize open and transparent communication that encourages active participation and feedback. This approach not only acknowledges the distinct preferences of low traditionality employees but also fosters a collaborative and inclusive organizational culture.

Limitation and Future Directions

Our study provides a significant understanding of paternalistic leadership, leader identification and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior and contributes immensely to knowledge in the field of paternalistic leadership. However, there are still some limitations that future research needs to address.

Initially, all variables within this study were self-reported by Gen Z employees. While statistical analysis indicated no significant common method variance in our dataset, it is important to note that complete exclusion of such variance cannot be guaranteed. Future researchers may opt to gather data from diverse sources, for example, the counterproductive work behavior of Gen Z employees can be evaluated by their leaders.

Secondly, this study was conducted within companies in mainland China, consequently, the generalizability of our findings may be constrained, particularly when considering variances in Western cultural contexts. Thus, future research could replicate and compare our findings in other industries or different cultural contexts.

Finally, the results showed Gen Z employees’ leader identification played a mediation role in our model, which indicated there might be other mediations mechanisms in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Hence, alternative mediations like emotional exhaustion (Lebrón et al., 2018), abusive supervision (Sulea et al., 2013), and work resources (Shen & Lei, 2022), could be considered from a different angle to investigate the mechanism between them in future research. We encourage future research to explore from multiple perspectives what influences Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was approved by the relevant ethics committee, and all participants provided their informed consent to participate.

Consent for publication: All authors consent to the publication of this manuscript.

Availability of data and materials: All data and materials are available.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding: This research did not receive any funding from grants or other sources.

Acknowledgements: All contributions are acknowledged.

Author Contribution

Ke Yangjie collected the data and drafted the initial manuscript. Liu li and Gu Manli provided the theoretical framework and revised the manuscript for final editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Bălan S, Vreja LO. (2018). Generation Z: Challenges for management and leadership. Proceedings of the 12th International Management Conference Management Perspectives in the Digital Era, Bucharest, Romania.
Baldonado AM. Leadership and gen Z: motivating gen Z workers and their impact to the future. Int J Managerial Stud Res (IJMSR). 2018;6(1):56–60.
Bennett RJ, Robinson SL. Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(3):349.
Bolton LR, Harvey RD, Grawitch MJ, Barber LK. Counterproductive work behaviours in response to emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediational approach. Stress Health. 2012;28(3):222–33.
Chen L, Yang B, Jing R. Paternalistic leadership, team conflict, and TMT decision effectiveness: Interactions in the Chinese context. Manage Organ Rev. 2015;11(4):739–62.
Chen X-P, Eberly MB, Chiang T-J, Farh J-L, Cheng B-S. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J Manag. 2014;40(3):796–819.
Cheng B, Chou L, Huang M, Farh LJ, Peng S. A triad model of paternalistic leadership: Evidence from business organizations in Mainland China. Indigenous Psychol Res Chin Soc. 2003;20:209.
Chillakuri B. Understanding Generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. J Organizational Change Manage. 2020;33(7):1277–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-02-2020-0058.
Farh J-L, Cheng B-S, Chou L-F, Chu X-P. Authority and benevolence: Employees' responses to paternalistic leadership in China. China's Domestic Private Firms. Routledge; 2014. pp. 230–60.
Farh J-L, Earley PC, Lin S-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Adm Sci Q, 421–44.
Farh J-L, Hackett RD, Liang J. Individual-Level Cultural Values as Moderators of Perceived Organizational Support–Employee Outcome Relationships in China: Comparing the Effects of Power Distance and Traditionality. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(3):715–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25530866.
Flippin CS. Generation Z in the workplace: Helping the newest generation in the workforce build successful working relationships and career paths. Www.CandaceSteeleFlippin.com; 2017.
Garai-Fodor M. Values-based food consumer behavior patterns among the Z generation in terms of health nutrition. Int J Bus Administrative Stud. 2019;5(2):53.
Gruys ML, Sackett PR. Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. Int J selection Assess. 2003;11(1):30–42.
Gu Q, Tang TL-P, Jiang W. Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. J Bus Ethics. 2015;126:513–29.
Holtz BC, Harold CM. Effects of leadership consideration and structure on employee perceptions of justice and counterproductive work behavior. J Organizational Behav. 2013;34(4):492–519.
Hui C, Lee C, Rousseau DM. Employment relationships in China: do workers relate to the organization or to people? Organ Sci. 2004;15(2):232–40.
Johnson RE. Not all leader–member exchanges are created equal: Importance of leader relational identity. Leadersh Q. 2010;21(5):796–808.
Kark R, Shamir B, Chen G. The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(2):246.
Kraus M. Comparing Generation X and Generation Y on their preferred emotional leadership style. J Appl Leadersh Manage. 2017;5:62–75.
Lebrón M, Tabak F, Shkoler O, Rabenu E. Counterproductive work behaviors toward organization and leader-member exchange: The mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and work engagement. Organ Manage J. 2018;15(4):159–73.
Li S-L, Huo Y, Long L-R. Chinese traditionality matters: effects of differentiated empowering leadership on followers’ trust in leaders and work outcomes. J Bus Ethics. 2017;145:81–93.
Liu J, Kwan HK, Fu PP, Mao Y. Ethical leadership and job performance in China: The roles of workplace friendships and traditionality. J Occup Organizational Psychol. 2013;86(4):564–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12027.
McCrindle M, Fell A. Understanding Generation Z: Recruiting, training and leading the next generation. McCrindle Research Pty Ltd.; 2019.
Nikolic K. (2022). Different leadership styles and their impact on Generation Z employees’ motivation. Signature.
Ozkan M, Solmaz B. The changing face of the employees–generation Z and their perceptions of work (a study applied to university students). Procedia Econ Finance. 2015;26:476–83.
Pellegrini EK, Scandura TA. Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. J Manag. 2008;34(3):566–93.
Priporas C-V, Stylos N, Fotiadis AK. Generation Z consumers' expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;77:374–81.
Shen Y, Lei X. Exploring the impact of leadership characteristics on subordinates’ counterproductive work behavior: from the organizational cultural psychology perspective. Front Psychol. 2022;13:818509.
Sluss DM, Ashforth BE. How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organ Sci. 2008;19(6):807–23.
Sluss DM, Ployhart RE, Cobb MG, Ashforth BE. Generalizing newcomers' relational and organizational identifications: Processes and prototypicality. Acad Manag J. 2012;55(4):949–75.
Spector PE, Fox S. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Hum resource Manage Rev. 2002;12(2):269–92.
Spreitzer GM, Perttula KH, Xin K. Traditionality matters: an examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. J Organizational Behav. 2005;26(3):205–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.315.
Sulea C, Fine S, Fischmann G, Sava FA, Dumitru C. (2013). Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors. J Personnel Psychol.
Sun Y. (2015). Review of Counterproductive Work Behavior of the new generation employees. Education Management and Management Science: Proceedings of the International Conference on Education Management and Management Science (ICEMMS 2014), August 7–8, 2014, Tianjin, China.
Tajfel H, Turner JC. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict In Austin WG & Worchel S, editors, The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.[Google Scholar].
Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA. Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. J Occup Organizational Psychol. 2011;84(1):153–72.
Wang P, Rode JC. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Hum Relat. 2010;63(8):1105–28.
Westwood R. Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for'paternalistic headship'among the overseas Chinese. Organ Stud. 1997;18(3):445–80.
Chen X, Z., Aryee S. Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(1):226–38.
Yao Y-H, Fan Y-Y, Guo Y-X, Li Y. Leadership, work stress and employee behavior. Chin Manage Stud. 2014;8(1):109–26.
Zhang Y, Xie Y-H. Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Manage Organ Rev. 2017;13(1):147–66.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
23 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
21 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
18 Oct, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Paternalistic Leadership and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Mediating Role of Leader Identification and Moderating Effect of Traditionality in Chinese Generation Z Employees

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Paternalistic Leadership

Generation Z and Counterproductive Work Behavior

The Mediating Role of Leader Identification

The Moderating Role of Traditionality

Method

Research Design

Measurements

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

Results

Descriptive Overview

Reliability and Validity Test

Multivariate Correlation Analysis

Multivariate Regression Analysis

Mediation and Moderation Analysis

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitation and Future Directions

Declarations

Author Contribution

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1