Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:29:25.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deterrence Effects: The Role of Authoritarian Leadership in Controlling Employee Workplace Deviance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2020

Yuyan Zheng Open the ORCID record for Yuyan Zheng [Opens in a new window] ,
Xu Huang ,
Les Graham ,
Tom Redman  and
Saiquan Hu
Yuyan Zheng*
Affiliation:
Durham University, UK
Xu Huang
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Baptist University, China
Les Graham
Affiliation:
Durham University, UK
Tom Redman
Affiliation:
Durham University, UK
Saiquan Hu
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, China
*
Corresponding author: Yuyan Zheng ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing upon two independent samples from mainland China, we propose and investigate the deterrence function of leadership behavior focused on control. We suggest that controlling leadership, specifically, authoritarian leadership, deters employees’ deviance under certain conditions. That is, authoritarian leadership thwarts employees’ interpersonal deviance behavior when leaders send clear signals of potential punishments of non-compliance by showing low leader benevolence, and when employees are highly dependent on the leaders for important work resources. Results from two independent studies largely support our key propositions. Overall, these results add to the range of possible impacts that a leader can play in decreasing employee deviance. Theoretical implications and directions for follow-up research are discussed.

摘要

摘要

基于从中国大陆收集的两个数据样本，我们研究了倾向于控制的领导行为对下属的威慑作用。我们提出，控制型领导，特别是威权领导，在一定的条件下对员工的偏差行为起到了威慑作用。具体来说，当展现较低的仁慈时，威权领导会释放明确的信号，即不遵从命令的员工会受到毫不留情的惩罚，且当员工也高度依赖领导来获取工作资源时，威权领导将有效压制员工的人际偏差行为。对两个独立研究的数据的分析结果总体证实了我们的假设。本文的结果对领导如何降低员工偏差行为提供了一种新的思路。我们进一步讨论了本文的理论贡献，并展望了未来研究的方向。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

На основании двух независимых выборок из материкового Китая, мы предлагаем и исследуем механизмы сдерживания, которое характерно для поведения руководителя, ориентированного на контроль. Мы предполагаем, что контролирующий стиль руководства и, в частности, авторитарный стиль руководства, предотвращает нарушения сотрудников при определенных условиях. Авторитарное руководство препятствует личному девиантному поведению сотрудников в том случае, когда лидеры посылают четкие сигналы о возможных наказаниях за несоблюдение требований, демонстрируя низкую терпимость руководства, а также когда сотрудники сильно зависят от руководителей в отношении важных рабочих ресурсов. Результаты двух независимых исследований в значительной степени подтверждают наши ключевые предположения. В целом, эти результаты расширяют ряд возможных воздействий, с помощью которых руководитель может препятствовать нарушениям со стороны сотрудников. Мы обсуждаем теоретические выводы и направление для будущих исследований.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Partiendo de dos muestras independientes de China continental, proponemos e investigamos la función de la disuasión del comportamiento de liderazgo enfocado en el control. Sugerimos que el liderazgo controlador, especialmente el liderazgo autoritario, disuade la desviación bajo ciertas condiciones. Esto es, el liderazgo autoritario frustra la desviación del comportamiento interpersonal de los empleados cuando los líderes envían señales claves de castigos posibles del incumplimiento al mostrar baja benevolencia, y cuando los empleados son altamente dependientes de los líderes para obtener recursos laborales. Los resultados de estos dos estudios independientes apoyan en gran medida nuestras proposiciones. En términos generales, estos resultados se suman al rango de impactos posibles que un líder puede jugar para disminuir la desviación del empleado. Las implicaciones teóricas y las direcciones para investigación de seguimiento son discutidas.

Keywords

authoritarian leadershipbenevolent leadershipresource dependenceworkplace deviance威权领导仁慈领导资源依赖偏差行为авторитарное руководствоблагожелательное руководствозависимость от ресурсовнарушение трудовой дисциплиныliderazgo autoritarioliderazgo benevolentedependencia de recursosdesviación laboral
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 377 - 404
Open Practices
Open data
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor George (Zhen Xiong) Chen

The Open Data badge recognizes authors who deposit their data (and statistical code, if necessary)in an open-access repository. The data used in this study can be found at [https://osf.io/gy5qx/?view_only=f9a9ec13ff774c59a141ead5e20ae8fe]. Details about the badge are available on the journal's website.

References

REFERENCES

Achen, C. H., & Snidal, D. 1989. Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Politics, 41(2): 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New York, NY: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 452–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. 2003. Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1): 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aycan, Z. 2006. Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In Yang, K. S., Hwang, K. K., & Kim, U. (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context: 445–466. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. 2008. The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2003. The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research. In Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 410–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. 2008. When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5): 1104–1117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 595–616. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. 2004. Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4): 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. 2013. The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1): 108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2014. Affective trust in Chinese leaders linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3): 796–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. 2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1): 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, S.-F., & Peng, J.-C. 2008. The relationship between psychological contract breach and employee deviance: The moderating role of hostile attributional style. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3): 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. 2005. The contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate dependence and leader competence. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, & Schaller, M. 2005. When authorities' commands backfire: Attributions about consensus and effects on deviant decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3): 311–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'arcy, J., & Herath, T. 2011. A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: Making sense of the disparate findings. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(6): 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. 2006. Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 917–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2009. Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4): 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Hoogh, A. H., Greer, L. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2015. Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delpech, T. 2012. Nuclear deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a new era of strategic piracy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 993–1005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 331–351.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, I. 1975. The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death. American Economic Review, 65(3): 397–417.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. 2013. Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9): 828–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Li, J. T.., Tsui, A. S., & Weldon, E. (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context: 84–127. London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. 2006. Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In Tsui, A. S., Bian, Y. J., & Cheng, L. (Eds.), China's domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance: 230–260. New York, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. 2007. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2): 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geddes, B., Frantz, E., & Wright, J. G. 2014. Military rule. Annual Review of Political Science, 17: 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geerken, M. R., & Gove, W. R. 1975. Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations. Law & Society Review, 9(3): 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gibbs, J. P. 1975. Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York, NY: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J. Jr. 1990. Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24(3): 837–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasmick, H. G., & Kobayashi, E. 2002. Workplace deviance in Japan: Applying an extended model of deterrence. Deviant Behavior, 23(1): 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. 1997. Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3): 515–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1404–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. 1982. Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. The Sociological Quarterly, 23(3): 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. 1983. Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62(2): 398–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, X., Xu, E., Chiu, W., Lam, C., & Farh, J.-L. 2015. When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: Firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2): 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. 1999. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hwang, K. K. 2008. Leadership theory of legalism and its function in Confucian society. In Chen, C.-C. & Lee, Y.-T. (Eds.), Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories and Practices, 108–142. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 269–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. 2010. Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice and positive affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6): 787–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Yang, J. 2017. The relationship between Authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: The mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellett, P. 2002. Football-as-war, coach-as-general: Analogy, metaphor and management implications. Football Studies, 5(1): 60–76.Google Scholar
Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. 2004. A scale to assess ethical leadership of Indian private and public sector managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1): 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Kluemper, D. H., Mossholder, K. W., Ispas, D., Bing, M. N., Iliescu, D., & Ilie, A. 2018. When core self-evaluations influence employees’ deviant reactions to abusive supervision: The moderating role of cognitive ability. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3800-yGoogle Scholar
Lawler, E. J. 1986. Bilateral deterrence and conflict spiral: A theoretical analysis. In Lawler, E. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes, Vol 3: 107–130. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. 2012. Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 107–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. 2014. Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1): 116–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1): 43–72.Google Scholar
Lippitt, R. 1940. An experimental study of the effect of democratic and authoritarian group atmospheres. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 16: 43–195.Google Scholar
Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A., & Kidder, D. L. 2006. The good, the bad, and the misguided: How managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, E. C., & Christian, M. S. 2015. Mindfulness buffers retaliatory responses to injustice: A regulatory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5): 1409–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manrique de Lara, P. Z. 2006. Fear in organizations: Does intimidation by formal punishment mediate the relationship between interactional justice and workplace internet deviance? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6): 580–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, P. G. 2003. Paternalism as a positive form of leadership in the Latin American context: Leader benevolence, decision-making control and human resource management practices. In Elvira, M. & Davila, A. (Eds.), Managing human resources in Latin America: An agenda for international leaders: 75–93. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marx, G. T. 1981. Ironies of social control: Authorities as contributors to deviance through escalation, nonenforcement and covert facilitation. Social Problems, 28(3): 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. 2009. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. 2017. What motivates deviant behavior in the workplace? An examination of the mechanisms by which procedural injustice affects deviance. Motivation and Emotion, 41(1): 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mo, S., & Shi, J. 2017. Linking ethical leadership to employee burnout, workplace deviance and performance: Testing the mediating roles of trust in leader and surface acting. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2): 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molm, L. D. 1989. Punishment power: A balancing process in power-dependence relations. American Journal of Sociology, 94(6): 1392–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P. M. 1983. Deterrence: A conceptual analysis (Vol. 40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., & Pepper, J. V. 2012. Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Needleman, S. 2008. Businesses say theft by their workers is up. The Wall Street Journal, B8.Google Scholar
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6): 1220–1233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2008. Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3): 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. 2005. Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(7): 777–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. 2006. The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., & Blevins, K. R. (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory - Advances in criminological theory, Vol. 15: 367–396. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Raven, B. H. 2008. The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1997. Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations, and its causes. In Sheppard, L. R. B. & Bies, R. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations, Vol. 6: 3–27. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Rottig, D., Koufteros, X., & Umphress, E. 2011. Formal infrastructure and ethical decision making: An empirical investigation and implications for supply management. Decision Sciences, 42(1): 163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1980. Effects of ownership and performance on executive tenure in US corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4): 653–664.Google Scholar
Sandler, G. B., & Mintz, E. 1974. Police organizations: Their changing internal and external relationships. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 2: 458–463.Google Scholar
Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. 2017. A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2): 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayer, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. 2013. Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5): 680–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 178–190.Google Scholar
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008. Abusive supervision and subordinates' organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4): 721–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. 2009. Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2): 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1): 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tittle, C. R., & Rowe, A. R. 1973. Moral appeal, sanction threat, and deviance: An experimental test. Social Problems, 20(4): 488–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 2004. Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1): 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, J., & Chan, A. 2004. The internal politics of an urban Chinese work community: A case study of employee influence on decision-making at a state-owned factory. The China Journal, 52: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., Michon, R., Chebat, J.-C., Tremblay, M., & Fils, J.-F. 2007. An examination of the role of perceived support and employee commitment in employee-customer encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 1177–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Knippenberg, B., Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2005. Research in leadership, self, and identity: A sample of the present and a glimpse of the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4): 495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. 1972. Perceived penal sanction and self-reported criminality: A neglected approach to deterrence research. Social Problems, 19(4): 522–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, D. I. 1968. Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American Sociological Review, 33(6): 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 1947. The theory of economic and social organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M. 2004. The social side of sanctions: Personal and social norms as moderators of deterrence. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5): 547–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, K. R., & Hawkins, R. 1986. Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law and Society Review, 20(4): 545–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. 1978. Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities, with a new preface by the author. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, E., Huang, X., & Robinson, S. L. 2017. When self-view is at stake: Responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory. Journal of Management, 43(7): 2281–2302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. 2012. Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4): 531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Xu, Y., & Wan, W. P. 2014. The deterrence effects of vicarious punishments on corporate financial fraud. Organization Science, 25(5): 1549–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukl, G. A. 1989. Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Huai, M., & Xie, Y. 2015. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1): 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H., Wu, J., Sun, J.-M., & Chen, C. W. 2012. Organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society: A reexamination. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(19): 4145–4165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar