Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:232579 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the influences of leadership and work stress on employee
behavior, and the moderating effects of transactional and transformational leadership on the
relationship between work stress and employee negative behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – Using convenience sampling method, the authors investigated
employees from 20 firms in different places and industries, and 347 valid questionnaires were collected.
SPSS18.0 statistical analysis software was used for reliability and validity analysis, descriptive
statistics, correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypothesis.
Findings – The empirical results show that there is a positive correlation between work stress and
employee negative behavior. Transformational leadership has negative impacts on work stress and
employee negative behavior, whereas transactional leadership has positive influences. Moreover,
transactional leadership strengthens the influence of work stress on employee negative behavior,
whereas transformational leadership has no moderating effect.
Practical implications – First, enterprises should take employees’ stress tolerance into account in
selection and recruitment, and enhance stress management. Second, by demonstrating inspirational
vision and personal charisma, open leadership style, rather than short-term transactional behavior, will
motivate subordinates more effectively. Finally, distribution system should be improved to achieve
principle and procedural justice.
Originality/value – The paper extends the research on employee behavior by investigating the
impacts of leadership and work stress. According to Chinese social, economic and cultural
characteristics, this research examines the influence of contemporary Chinese mindset and pluralistic
values on employee behavior. Open leadership is proposed as a new leadership style, which contributes
to improving leadership behavior and preventing negative behavior in workplace.
Keywords China, Transformational leadership, Work stress, Transactional leadership, Employee
negative behavior, Open leadership
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
With the rapid development of economy in China, speed, efficiency and effectiveness
have become primarily important for organizations. Chinese enterprises are Chinese Management Studies
Vol. 8 No. 1, 2014
experiencing deep changes in structure, technology, personnel, etc. to deal with fierce pp. 109-126
market competition. Multiple reasons such as tight job market partially caused by the © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-614X
second baby boom, over-relying on work income and lack of a comprehensive social DOI 10.1108/CMS-04-2014-0089
CMS security system have led to employees’ heavy work stress (Zhang, 2002). Research
suggested that increasing work stress triggers employee negative behavior. Practically,
8,1 employees’ interpersonal conflict, absenteeism, turnover and extreme behavior like
retaliation have become increasingly widespread in the workplace (Shi et al., 2009),
which harmed the organizations’ effectiveness and development. Cases like continual
suicides of employees have attracted both public and academic attention. Is there a
110 causal relationship between employees’ stress and extreme behavior? Is stress
associated with employee behavior? What is the impact of leadership on employees’
work stress and related behaviors? We try to find answers by conducting this research.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on leadership and employees’
work stress in the domain of organizational behavior and human resources management. In
recent years, with the accelerating pace of work and life in China, how leadership and work
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
stress influence employee behavior has caught scholars’ and managers’ attention.
Previously, researchers primarily focused on the influence of stress on employees’
performance, especially positive performance, whereas the negative impacts were often
ignored. Some scholars noted that the relationship between work stress and employee
negative behavior may exist (Zhang and Chen, 2008a), but these studies were just confined
to theoretical development and conceptual models establishment. Also, research on
employee behavior emphasized individual differences and internal psychological effects
(Zhang and Chen, 2008a), while less attention was paid to the organizational context.
Although the relationship between leadership and employee behavior has been studied
continually (Tims et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2010), leadership’s impact on stress has not been
explored, and its effect on relationship between work stress and employee behavior is still in
early stage. Again, there is a dearth of empirical research in Chinese context. Although the
past 30 years have witnessed extremely high economic increase in China, unbalance
between wealth and happiness has become increasingly salient. It’s in such a social context
that we discuss the relationship between employees’ stress, behavior and leadership’s role,
and try to find ways of reducing employee stress and negative behavior through improving
leadership.
From an organizational perspective, this research analyzes characteristics of
employee behavior under stress, transactional leadership and transformational
leadership in Chinese cultural and social context. Also, we explore influences of those
two different leaderships on work stress, employee behavior and their relationship.
Again, the research analyzes the influences of current pluralistic values on employee
behavior and leadership effectiveness. Based on them, we propose open leadership as a
new leadership style, which includes positive motivation, humanistic concern, moral
behavior and reward justice in Chinese context. Research findings provide theoretical
support for enhancing leadership effectiveness, reducing employee negative behavior
and improving organizational performance.
Hater and Bass (1988) found that transformational leadership has a stronger
relationship with subordinate effectiveness and satisfaction than transactional
leadership. In addition, when psychological empowerment is high, transformational
leadership is positively related to innovative behavior, whereas transactional leadership
has a negative relationship with innovative behavior (Pieterse et al., 2010).
Some studies showed that employees’ perception of stress is linked to leadership style
(Gill et al., 2006). Particularly, subordinates who give higher score on supervisor
consideration have lower stress (Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964). Transactional leadership
is characterized by low consideration, which encourages employees with promise, praise
and rewards, and criticizes them through denial, condemned, threat or admonished.
Transactional leaders are only concerned about whether the employees have completed the
“deal” (Bass, 1985; Chen and Shi, 2007). To accomplish the tasks and obtain the rewards,
employees pay more attention to individual performance and therefore feel stressful. Studies
illuminated that management primarily relying on position power will lead to discontent
among employees. Further, disrespect to employees and inappropriate criticism will cause
negative behavior (Gao et al., 2008). Transactional leadership is hardly helpful for employee
active behavior (Luo and Chen, 2011). Bruursema’s paper indicated that leadership style is
related to employee behavior through emotions. Also, when organizational procedures are
not fair and transactional leadership is salient, negative emotions and counterproductive
work behavior are more likely to happen (Bruursema, 2004).
Transformational leaders are characterized by high consideration and they are keen
on enhancing subordinates’ intrinsic motivation and raise their self-realization desire, so
that employees can surpass their original expectation of work and do not focus on the
exchange of benefits (Bass, 1996; Chen and Shi, 2007). In the transformational leadership
model, employees can choose ethical standards and behavior patterns freely. Behavior
motivation is no longer mandatory but results from internal trust, which mitigates
stress. Many studies proved that transformational leadership has a strong predictive
power on organizational citizenship behavior of employees (Zhang and Qiao, 2006; Li
et al., 2006), employees’ trust (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and work engagement (Tims et al.,
2011). Transformational leadership can buffer work stress directly (Gill et al., 2006;
Khalid et al., 2012) and restrain employee negative behavior (Bruursema, 2004).
Based on the above analysis, we hypothesize that:
H2a. Transactional leadership positively affects work stress.
H2b. Transactional leadership positively affects employee negative behavior.
CMS H3a. Transformational leadership negatively affects work stress.
8,1 H3b. Transformational leadership negatively affects employee negative behavior.
2.4.3 The moderating effect of leadership. Leadership was supported as a moderator in
many studies. For example, transactional leadership is the moderator between
individuals’ delay of gratification and their vocational delay of gratification. Under
114 high-level transactional leadership, employees of both high- and low-level delay of
gratification report high vocational delay of gratification (Liu and Huang, 2013).
Scholars proposed that the consideration dimension of transformational leadership
moderates the relationship between employees’ distributive justice perception and
organizational citizenship behavior. Specifically, when leaders are more concerned
about the subordinates; subordinates who perceive distributive justice are more likely to
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
Figure 1.
Theoretical model
negative behavior, but also moderates the relationship between employees’ work stress Work stress and
and negative behavior.
employee
3. Method
behavior
3.1 Samples and data collecting
In this study, the respondents were from Changsha, Yueyang, Chengzhou, Guangzhou
and Shenzhen in mainland China. Samples included employees of different position 115
levels in enterprises. All investigations were convened by human resource departments,
and completed in the relatively concentrated time. Before respondents answered
questions, they were told that the survey results would be confidential and only used for
academic research purposes. Questionnaires were collected on the spot.
A total of 420 questionnaires were circulated in 20 firms and 365 were collected. After
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
picking out incomplete and invalid surveys, there were 347 qualified questionnaires.
Among the respondents, 162 were male (46.7 per cent) and 185 female (53.3 per cent).
These employees were selected from industries like manufacturing, construction,
finance and insurance, transportation and wholesale and retail industries. To ensure the
authenticity of data, respondents were required to provide information of their direct
superiors, and therefore, the data did not include information of top managers. Middle
managers accounted for 25.0 per cent, junior managers for 37.8 per cent and ordinary
employees for 37.2 per cent. Employees who work over three years accounted for 41.0
per cent.
3.2 Measurement
3.2.1 Work stress. There are several validated work stress scales, e.g. job stress scale
(Golparvar and Vaseghi, 2011), work stress scale (Cooper and Marshall, 1978), Maslach
burnout inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1984) and so on. However, these studies were
conducted in developed countries, and they have not been confirmed in countries with
different economic patterns, geographical features and culture (Liu et al., 2005). Based on
relevant literature (Kjeerheim et al., 1997; Lazarus and Launier, 1978; Quick et al., 1997),
Liu and colleagues (2005) developed the Chinese work stress self-report scale by using
interviews, questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis. The scale has been widely
used in China. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale was 0.91. This
measure includes 25 items which dimensionalized as task requirements, work
environment, position competition and social factors. Sample items are “I shoulder
heavy responsibilities in work which gives me stress” (task requirements), “Work
environment is poor and disgusting which gives me stress” (work environment),
“Promotion competition is fierce and difficult which gives me stress” (position
competition) and “My social interaction gives me stress” (social factors). All items range
from 1 (very small) to 5 (very big).
3.2.2 Negative behavior. Negative deviant behavior scale developed by Robinson and
Bennett (1995) is most widely used, which includes production-related behavior,
political behavior, offensive behavior and property-related behavior. However, Chinese
have their unique cultural psychological characteristics (Hofstede, 1993, 2001). For
example, Chinese employees are more tolerant and emphasize harmony. They prefer
hidden ways to express grievance rather than direct contending with others (Liu and Li,
2009). Offensive and property-related behaviors rarely happen in China (Yao and Li,
2011). Therefore, we used local negative behavior scale which has good reliability and
CMS validity (Yao and Li, 2011) in Chinese context. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.92. It includes 26 items of three dimensions such as work laziness behavior,
8,1 interpersonal malicious behavior and obstructive destructive behavior. Sample items
include “When I have much work stress, I will arrive late or leave early to work” (work
laziness behavior), “When I have much work stress, I can not help but lose my temper
with my colleagues” (interpersonal malicious behavior) and “When I can not release
116 work stress, I will find reasons to insult others within the company” (obstructive
destructive behavior). All items ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
3.2.3 Leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass
has been widely applied for over 20 years (Avolio et al., 1999). But “intellectual stimulation”
in Bass’ transformational leadership rarely appears in Chinese leadership and Chinese
culture emphasizes more on “moral behavior” (Ling et al., 2000; Li and Shi, 2005). So Li and
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
Shi modified the transformational leadership scale based on the MLQ according to Chinese
context (Li and Shi, 2005). Transformational leadership includes dimensions such as moral
behavior, charisma, individualized consideration and inspirational motivation. Sample
items are “My superior share comforts and hardships with employees” (moral behavior),
“My supervisor loves his/her work and has ambition” (charisma), “My supervisor is willing
to help employees solve problems of life and family” (individualized consideration) and “My
supervisor talks optimistically about the future” (inspirational motivation). The Cronbach’s
alpha of this 26-item scale was 0.95. Transactional leadership was measured by Bass’
scale, including contingent reward, active management-by-exception and passive
management-by-exception. Sample items include “My supervisor rewards my
achievement” (contingent reward), “My supervisor focuses on all mistakes” (active
management-by-exception) and “My supervisor believes that if not broke, don’t fix”
(passive management-by-exception). The Cronbach’s alpha of this 12-item scale was
0.75. All items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.2.4 Control variables. In this research, employees’ gender, position level, enterprise
nature and industry are treated as control variables.
4. Results
Table I shows the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients of variables
used in the analysis. The results showed that employees’ work stress has significantly
positive correlations with their negative behavior (r ⫽ 0.35, p ⬍ 0.01), work-laziness
Variable M SD WS DB WL IM OD TS TF
WS 2.62 0.63 1
NB 1.90 0.50 0.35** 1
WL 1.86 0.56 0.30** 0.88** 1
IM 2.17 0.59 0.25** 0.82** 0.57** 1
OD 1.69 0.58 0.36** 0.88** 0.64** 0.64** 1
TS 3.12 0.50 0.02 0.02 0.06 ⫺0.03 0.02 1
TF 3.67 0.70 ⫺0.13* ⫺0.33** ⫺0.25** ⫺0.30** ⫺0.32** 0.47** 1
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and Notes: Significance at: * p ⬍ 0.05 (two-tailed), ** p ⬍ 0.01 (two-tailed); WS ⫽ work stress,
correlations among NB ⫽ negative behavior, WL ⫽ work-laziness behavior, IM ⫽ interpersonal-malicious behavior,
variables OD ⫽ obstructive-destructive behavior, TS ⫽ transactional leadership, TF ⫽ transformational leadership
behavior (r ⫽ 0.30, p ⬍ 0.01), interpersonal-malicious behavior (r ⫽ 0.25, p ⬍ 0.01) and Work stress and
obstructive-destructive behavior (r ⫽ 0.36, p ⬍ 0.01). They provided support for H1,
H1a, H1b and H1c.
employee
We conducted regressions of leadership, work stress and employee negative behavior
behavior. Work stress and employee negative behavior were treated as dependent
variables separately. Employees’ gender, position level, enterprise nature and industry
were entered as control variables. Then, transactional and transformational leadership 117
were entered as independent variables. The regression results are found in Table II.
There is a positive correlation between transactional leadership and both stress ( ⫽
0.126, Adj-R2 ⫽ 0.069, p ⬍ 0.05) and employee negative behavior ( ⫽ 0.214, Adj-R2 ⫽
0.184, p ⬍ 0.001). Thus, H2a and H2b were supported. Transformational leadership
negatively affected work stress ( ⫽ ⫺0.175, Adj-R2 ⫽ 0.069, p ⬍ 0.01) and negative
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
(t)
Model Work stress Negative behavior
Control variables
Gender ⫺0.074 (⫺1.374) ⫺0.119 (⫺2.337)*
Position level ⫺0.187 (⫺3.479)*** 0.046 (0.915)
Enterprise nature 0.036 (0.665) 0.180 (3.574)***
Industry ⫺0.045 (⫺0.815) 0.030 (0.582)
Independent variables
Transactional leadership 0.126 (2.099)* 0.214 (3.817)***
Transformational leadership ⫺0.175 (⫺2.958)** ⫺0.435 (⫺7.859)***
R2 0.085 0.198 Table II.
Adjusted R2 0.069 0.184 Regression analysis of
F-value 5.269*** 13.971*** leadership, work stress
and employee negative
Notes: Significance at: * p ⬍ 0.05; ** p ⬍ 0.01; *** p ⬍ 0.001 (two-tailed) behavior
CMS
8,1
118
Figure 2.
Influences of dimensions
of leadership on work
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
Negative behavior
Model   
Step 1: Control
Gender ⫺0.139 (⫺2.533)* ⫺0.096 (⫺1.995)* ⫺0.097 (⫺2.015)*
Level 0.021 (0.393) 0.102 (2.096)* 0.100 (2.063)*
Enterprise nature 0.179 (3.283)*** 0.169 (3.540)*** 0.176 (3.705)***
Industry 0.028 (0.504) 0.043 (0.886) 0.051 (1.062)
Step 2: Main effect
Work stress 0.298 (6.192)*** 0.302 (6.283)***
Transactional leadership 0.176 (3.295)*** 0.182 (3.407)***
Transformational leadership ⫺0.383 (⫺7.194)*** ⫺0.377 (⫺7.090)***
Step 3: Moderating effect
Work stress ⫻ transactional
leadership 0.128 (2.481)*
Work stress ⫻ transformational
leadership ⫺0.049 (⫺0.956)
R2 0.052 0.279 0.292
Table III. Adjusted R2 0.041 0.264 0.273
Hierarchical regression F-value 4.693*** 18.767*** 15.464***
analysis: the moderating
effect of leadership Notes: Significance at: * p ⬍ 0.05; *** p ⬍ 0.001 (two-tailed)
119
Figure 3.
Relationships among
variables
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
Negative behavior
Figure 4.
The moderating effect of
transactional leadership
on the relationship
between work stress and
employee negative
Work stress behavior
condition of high level of transactional leadership, the slope between work stress and
employee negative behavior was much steeper than in the group of the low transactional
leadership. It means that with the increase of level of transactional leadership, managers
will pay more attention to the results of employees’ work and their subordinates tend to
be more concerned about the final award. Under the existing work stress, employees
may have more negative behavior to others and organization to achieve the goal and get
the award. Therefore, the moderating effect is stronger when the level of transactional
leadership is higher.
negative behavior, proposed by Bruursema (2004), Gill et al. (2006) and Khalid et al.
(2012). This indicates that transformational leadership helps employees to complete
various tasks and, meanwhile, delivers more positive thinking, which can significantly
reduce employees’ stress and negative behavior. However, transformational leadership
cannot weaken the influence of stress on negative behavior. Stress – non-equilibrium –
compensation model indicated that stress disturbs employees’ psychological and
behavioral equilibrium, and people engage in deviant behaviors to return the
equilibrium (Golparvar and Hosseinzadeh, 2011). This approach from stress to negative
behaviors has been generated by personal physiological, emotional and situational
factors so that transformational leadership cannot affect the individual self-regulation.
Therefore, transformational leadership does not reduce employee negative behavior
under work stress.
We believe that these conclusions are closely related to Chinese economic and
social environment. In the past 30 years, the Chinese government has been promoting
“the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics” by opening up and
marketization. The dissemination of foreign culture makes people’s values gradually
diversified, and the value of collectivism is being replaced by pursuit of profit and power
regardless of others’ interests. Hongyu (2012) research demonstrated that compared
with an individual with lower collectivism, using an individual with higher collectivism
is easier to feel the leader’s authority, trust and welfare caring. The absence of social
morality and civic values leads to the lack of appropriate behavior guidance for
employees. Besides, inequitable distribution of organizational resource and lack of
communication channels lead to employees’ psychology imbalance. Perceptions of
unfairness increase work stress (Sloan, 2012). Leaders’ over-pursuit of efficiency and
result-orientation augment utilitarianism and impatience among employees.
Transactional leadership strengthens the influence of work stress on negative behavior
because of its emphases on instrumental exchange (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Bass and
Avolio, 1995). Specifically, it focuses on goal achievement–reward relationship.
Transformational leadership can weaken subordinates’ stress and negative behavior
because of inspirational motivation and individualized consideration (Burns, 1978; Bass
and Avolio, 1995; Bass, 1996). Once the employees’ stress accumulates, negative
behavior would be accelerated to happen under transactional leadership and
transformational leadership cannot weaken it. These may explain why transactional
leadership moderates the relationship between stress and negative behavior, whereas
transformational leadership has no moderating effect.
6. Managerial implications Work stress and
Based on above research conclusions, we suggest that contingent reward, moral
behavior, charisma, individualized consideration and inspirational motivation can
employee
effectively reduce employee negative behavior. Therefore, we propose a new type of behavior
leadership in Chinese context.
This new leadership should have several characteristics. First, the leaders should
know subordinates’ expectations, and motivate employees according to their efforts. 121
They should lead by example and influence the subordinates by virtue. Leaders should
win employees’ support, respect and trust by showing abilities, charisma and being
good at learning. Leaders should be concerned about employees’ different needs and
help them develop their potentiality. Also, leaders should express inspiring visions and
high expectations for subordinates to stimulate their self-efficacy so that they make
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
active efforts for achieving organizational goal. In a word, this new leadership is
characterized by motivating employees, concern about subordinates and emphasizing
moral behavior and justice, and we can call it “open leadership”. We hope that this new
leadership style can reduce employees’ work stress and related negative behavior which
is harmful for organizations, and create a harmonious and orderly work environment to
give employees positive energy. Open leadership encourages employees to work
happily and promotes organizational development, and aims to achieve a win-win
situation for employees and the organization.
For managerial practice, our research has the following implications.
First, employees’ stress tolerance should be taken into account in selection and
recruitment. The employees with high self-control ability who can adjust themselves
from negative mood are more likely to contribute to a harmonious organization
atmosphere, which may in turn improve organizational performance. Consequently, the
human resource department should establish a scientific recruitment system to recruit
employees with good resilience and high stress tolerance, particularly for marketing and
senior management positions.
Second, organizations should enhance stress management actively. From the
perspective of organization, managers should try to control the stressors, and create a
harmonious corporate culture and comfortable work environment. These can be done by
conducting satisfaction surveys and advocating democratic participation.
Psychological counseling institutions can be helpful for employees to reasonably
attribute and vent negative emotion to reduce employee negative behavior. For
managers, they should pay attention to psychological needs of employees, and try to
cultivate a psychological contract between employees and the company rather than only
a labor contract. In this way, employees will not only regard the work as merely a job,
but may attempt manage the work stress by themselves. Also, the sense of belonging
resulting from psychological contract will help employees to control their own behavior,
and restrain the deviant behavior to some extent.
Furthermore, leaders should develop open leadership style and reduce short-term,
utilitarian exchange behavior. By demonstrating personal charisma, leaders should
convey organizational missions, improve employees’ values and beliefs, build a trust
and supportive atmosphere and affect subordinates psychologically. Employees should
be not only required to complete task or achieve performance, but also cared emotionally
and psychologically. If they approve philosophy and goals of managers and
organizations, they are more likely to work hard for the common vision. In this way,
CMS organizational commitment will be improved and negative behavior will be restrained
effectively.
8,1 Finally, enterprise distribution system should be improved to achieve principle and
procedural justice. Injustice will produce dissatisfaction and subsequent contradictions
and conflicts. However, the key component to organizational justice is not equality of
results, but the fairness of processes and principles. A fair process will help to avoid
122 employees’ perception of injustice and negative behaviors.
References
Appelbaum, S.H., Iaconi, G.D. and Matousek, A. (2007), “Positive and negative deviant workplace
behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 586-598.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, FreePress, New York, NY,
pp. 3-242.
Bass, B.M. (1996), “Theory of transformational leadership redux”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 463-478.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden,
Redwood City, CA.
Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000), “Development of a measure of workplace deviance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-360.
Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. (2007), “Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 409-421.
Boyd, N.G., Lewin, J.E. and Sager, J.K. (2009), “A model of stress and coping and their influence on
individual and organizational outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 2,
pp. 197-211.
Bruursema, K. (2004), Leadership Style and the Link with Counterproductive Work Behavior (cwb):
An Investigation Using the Job-Stress/cwb Model, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Chen, W.J. and Shi, K. (2007), “Transformational and transactional leadership and its mechanism”,
Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 22-29.
Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (1978), Understanding Executive Stress, Macmilan Press, London,
pp. 78-82.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. and Toth, P. (1997), “The relationship of Work stress and
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-180. employee
Dalal, R.S. (2005), “A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior
behavior and counterproductive work behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90
No. 6, pp. 1241-1255.
Diefendorff, J.M. and Mehta, K. (2007), “The relations of motivational traits with workplace 123
deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 967-977.
Downton, J.V. (1973), Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (1999), “Counter productive work behavior in response to job
stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)
1. Song Lin, David Lamond. 2014. Human resource management practices in Chinese organisations. Chinese
Management Studies 8:1, 2-5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 07:55 30 January 2016 (PT)