Skip to main content
Download PDF

With great power comes more deviations: the negative influence of empowering leadership on unethical pro-supervisor behavior in the Chinese context

BMC Psychology volume 13, Article number: 385 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

As unethical pro-supervisor behavior focuses on the benefits of leaders and causes great damage to both organizations and individuals, leadership can be an effective tool to explore the causes and possible solutions. Empowering leadership is frequently seen as a positive leadership style, whereas it also has the dark side and may invoke unethical behavior. This study explored the influence of empowering leadership on unethical pro-supervisor behavior, examined the mediating role of leader identification, and investigated the moderating effect of employees’ bottom-line mentality.

Methods

Two studies were conducted to test the proposed model. Specifically, in Study 1, a behavioral scenario experiment was administered to a sample comprising 162 employees in China. In Study 2, a three-wave questionnaire survey was administered to collect data among 305 employees in China.

Results

The results showed that empowering leadership had a positive impact on unethical pro-supervisor behavior, which was mediated by leader identification. Furthermore, employees’ bottom-line mentality exerted positive moderating effects on the relationship between empowering leadership and unethical pro-supervisor behavior, as well as the relationship between leader identification and unethical pro-supervisor behavior.

Conclusions

The findings provide guiding values for organizations’ management and normalization involving unethical pro-supervisor behavior in the practical field.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Unethical behavior is becoming prevalent in organizations and bringing huge losses to enterprises [1]. Although this kind of behavior is often described as being motivated by self-interest, employees may also take unethical actions to help others. Relevant studies on unethical behavior carried out to benefit others have focused on how unethical behavior may advance one’s organization, but this behavior also indirectly benefits the employees themselves by benefitting their organization or group [2]. Umphress and Bingham [3] have emphasized that employees could take unethical actions to benefit other entities, including supervisors. Unethical pro-supervisor behavior (UPSB) refers to the actions that employees take for the benefits of their supervisors, leading to the unethical nature of the behavior being ignored by both supervisors and employees, and some supervisors even encourage or covertly participate in such behavior [1]. Determining how to effectively deal with UPSB has become an important challenge for researchers and managers and is an urgent issue worth studying [4].

Leadership style can be an effective tool for exploring the causes of and possible solutions for employees’ unethical behavior, especially when it comes to the behavior that benefits leaders, because leaders have extraordinary impacts on their followers and the entire organizational system. However, the investigation on the relationship between leadership and UPSB is still in the early stages [5]. Several studies have suggested that leadership may not always play a good gatekeeper role and even positive leadership styles may increase UPSB [1, 6]. As a traditional positive leadership style, empowering leadership has the unique traits of giving power, delegating authority, and granting autonomy to subordinates, which make it conceptually similar but empirically different from other supportive leadership styles [7, 8]. Other leadership styles involve the process of influencing others, whereas empowering leadership focuses on providing subordinates with influence, leading to its distinct place in the literature on positive leadership [9, 10]. Empowering leadership can boost employees’ self-direction and self-determination, and it is frequently seen as an efficient leadership style associated with many advantages, such as employees’ affective commitment [11], proactive behavior [12], job crafting [13], and creativity [14, 15]. Although this leadership can lead to beneficial outcomes for individuals as well as organizations, recent studies have indicated that an empowering and autonomous work environment may invoke unethical behavior, whereas empirical evidence on the possible shortcomings of empowering leadership is rare and mixed [10, 16]. Considering this, we aim to explore the role of empowering leadership in promoting employees’ UPSB, understand the linking mechanism, and provide a theoretical and empirical basis for forming effective strategies to reduce and avoid UPSB in the workplace.

According to the social exchange theory and reciprocity principle, an exchange process begins when an actor treats a target person favorably or unfavorably, and the target may then respond to the initial action with positive or negative behavior [17]. This implies that employees might reciprocate the empowering leaders who provide autonomy and support and are likely to act in ways that are advantageous to the leaders, even if some of these behaviors are unethical and against organizations’ interests. Furthermore, the provision of power and autonomy tends to be accompanied by reduced supervision, so employees may break ethical rules and exhibit their loyalty to their supervisors through UPSB [18]. This is particularly important in the Chinese context as collectivism and power distance affect employees’ feelings of empowerment and senses of obligation to their leaders [19]. The Chinese term “renqing” highlights the strong reciprocal relationships that arise through exchanges of favors and resources, enabling interpersonal networks to be established and maintained [20]. Besides, compared to organizations that follow other cultures, the traditional Chinese organizations are characterized by high-power distance and emphasize on loyalty and obedience to the leaders [21]. As a result, empowered employees may feel valued and be willing to give back to their supervisors without considering ethical rules [6], which amplifies the influence of empowering leadership on UPSB.

The social exchange theory indicates that employees would engage in positive reciprocating responses following leaders’ initial supportive actions, and these responses can be divided into two categories, which are relational type and behavioral type [17]. The relational type emphasizes interpersonal identification and connection, and the behavioral type involves constructs that measure specific work behaviors. In the context of our study, empowering leadership may make subordinates see their leaders as important others, generate recognition of the leaders, and exhibit the relational reciprocating response—leader identification, which refers to subordinates assimilating their cognition of the leaders into self-concepts and identifying themselves with the leaders’ attributes to maintain the strength of these psychological connections [22]. The social identification theory also suggests that the powerful members in a group, such as leaders, are likely to become the focus of attention and be identified as the group prototype, whereas subordinates would devote their efforts and resources to the leaders they identify with to enhance the superiority of their group [23]. Leader identification is particularly crucial when considering the guanxi orientation in China. Guanxi refers to the interpersonal networks that emerge from Chinese culture and tradition, and the emphasis on networking and building strong ties is an integral part of the Chinese business environment [20]. Leader identification reflects the quality of guanxi between leaders and employees, and the strong identification would make employees perceive themselves as holding an insider status and being on the leaders’ side, which could lead to unethical attempts at showcasing their loyalty to the leaders and promoting the value of the group [24].

We propose that empowering leadership and leader identification are associated with UPSB, but employees in the same leadership environment may not behave similarly. The social exchange theory suggests that people’s reciprocating responses in social exchange relationships depend on individual differences [17]. The social cognitive theory also emphasizes that individual cognitive factors determine their interpretation of the environment and further affect their specific behaviors. It illustrates that moral cognition and judgment are important components of individual cognition, and individuals’ moral behaviors depend on their subjective perception of morality [25]. As a type of moral cognition, bottom-line mentality (BLM) is an extreme mindset that focused on attaining bottom-line outcomes over other priorities, leading to individuals having low standards of morality and doing whatever it takes to achieve their goals [26]. Therefore, when the leaders give employees power and autonomy and employees identify strongly with their leaders, the individuals with high BLM would be more willing to perform UPSB for the interests of the leaders and retain the leaders’ attention, trust, and support. Our belief is in line with the notion that the interaction between context factors and a person’s characteristics results in unethical behavior [27].

In conclusion, research on employees’ UPSB is still in the early phases. Based on the social exchange theory, we start from the perspective of leadership and try to explore the potential negative influence of empowering leadership on UPSB. Existing studies have indicated that the social exchange theory is limited because of its focus on positive exchanges in organizational settings, such as the exchange between leaders’ support and employees’ hard work, whereas the exploration of negative exchanges is insufficient, and the relevant behavioral predictions are too general [28, 29]. Additionally, previous studies on empowering leadership have mainly concentrated on the bright sides, such as its positive relationships with job crafting [8, 13] and creativity [14, 15]. Recently scholars have challenged this view and found unexpected negative effects of empowering leadership, such as overconfidence and deviant behaviors among employees [10, 30]. These complex findings necessitate a comprehensive research approach that can identify the psychological processes and boundary conditions associated with empowering leadership and its outcomes [31]. Thus, we further explore the linking mechanism between empowering leadership and employees’ UPSB by investigating the mediating role of leader identification and the moderating effects of employees’ bottom-line mentality. The literature consists of conflicting research outcomes regarding whether leader identification has beneficial or detrimental results [32]. In our study, we posit another negative result that employees may expect UPSB from leader identification. Besides, previous studies on BLM have shown it leads individuals to believe that the success of others is detrimental to their own success, and employees with a high degree of BLM would be less willing to help their colleagues and may even intentionally harm others [33, 34]. Our study develops this view and suggests that BLM can be an amplifier that drives employees to help their leaders through unethical behaviors under certain organizational contexts.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

In order to determine how to effectively deal with UPSB from the leadership perspective, our study focuses on the negative influence of empowering leadership on UPSB, and predicts that empowering leadership can produce employees’ leader identification and further promote UPSB. We also propose that employees’ BLM could be a crucial boundary condition that expands the effects of empowering leadership and leader identification on UPSB. The comprehensive framework of the study is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Theoretical model

Full size image

Unethical pro-supervisor behavior

When members of an organization perform actions that go against moral principles and social norms, their behaviors are considered unethical. In recent years, scholars have implied that employees engage in unethical actions not only for their own benefits but also to satisfy others’ interests [1]. UPSB refers to employee behavior that benefits supervisors yet breaches ethical rules or staff codes [35]. As UPSB only promotes the interests of supervisors which are the entities distinct from employees, it may lead to negative effects that are occasionally ignored or even encouraged by the supervisors, in turn affecting the organization’s profits, tarnishing the company’s reputation, and ruining the relationships with external stakeholders [2, 4].

Employees frequently experience inhibitions that prevent them from acting unethically, but these inhibitions may be overridden when the apparent benefits of engaging in unethical activities outweigh the perceived costs. The potential benefits of UPSB include putting reciprocity principles into practice, satisfying affiliation needs, and deepening relationships with leaders [2]. Previous study has found that high-quality leader-member exchange relationships increase employees’ unethical behaviors due to the desire for positive reciprocity [36]. Li et al. [4] also pointed out that employees’ perceived leader support increases the sense of having to reciprocate, which further produces UPSB. Although scholars have highlighted the impact of the broad exchange-based association between leaders and subordinates on UPSB, the influence of specific leadership styles has not yet been explored. In this study, we examine empowering leadership, which may pass direct and indirect benefits from supervisors to followers, as an antecedent of UPSB.

Empowering leadership and unethical pro-supervisor behavior

In recent years, research and practice have paid much attention to empowering leadership, which is the leadership style involving sharing power among subordinates, providing them with more freedom and responsibilities, encouraging them to take part in decision-making, and demonstrating trust and faith in their work abilities [31]. In contrast to the common belief that the leadership is a process of influencing others, empowering leadership places greater emphasis on providing influence to employees than on influencing them, which makes it different from other positive leadership styles [9, 10].

Although research has painted an optimistic picture in which empowering leadership positively impacts employees’ autonomy and self-direction, scholars have argued that this consensus might be hasty, as empowering leadership may also lead to undesirable employee behaviors [37]. According to the social exchange theory, a sequence of exchanges built on the reciprocity principle forms the basis of interpersonal connections, which means that individuals are obliged to repay the favors given to them by another party [29]. Previous research has advocated for the social exchange view and suggested that employees may participate in unethical pro-organizational behavior as a way of repaying the organization for its favoritism [3]. According to the multi-foci approach of social exchange, subordinates may form independent relationships with supervisors, and these are distinct from their relationships with the organization [38, 39]. Empowering leadership enables employees to gain decision-making autonomy, obtain encouragement and support, and feel respected and valued in interactions with leaders. These favors lead to a sense of responsibility among employees and make them inclined to repay their leaders in line with the reciprocity principle, as failure to complete this obligation may negatively affect their networks and reputations. When this inclination is strong, employees may break ethical codes to reward their leaders. Moreover, as the central gatekeepers of proper behaviors, leaders can influence and prevent their followers from acting unethically, but they cannot always handle management problems by themselves, so they may empower employees to participate in various activities in the rapidly changing business world. Empowered employees are required to solve difficulties and complete tasks on their own, and this increase in task challenge can enhance employees’ resilience [18], in turn inducing them to repay the supervisors without considering ethical standards. Notably, existing studies have shown that feelings of autonomy can make individuals feel unbound by regulations, reduce their sensitivity to moral climates, and produce uncivilized behaviors [40, 41]. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1

Empowering leadership has a significant positive impact on employees’ UPSB.

The mediating role of leader identification

Apart from the influence of empowering leadership on UPSB, the cognitive and psychological changes in the way employees perceive their leaders play a crucial role in how employees act to repay the leaders [42]. The social exchange theory states that reciprocating responses include relational and behavioral types. One type of reciprocating response often causes the other, and a series of reciprocal exchanges typically include leaders’ initial actions, employees’ relational responses, and the behavioral responses [17]. Leader identification is a common relational response, referring to the degree to which subordinates identify with their leaders and believe the leaders are similar to them in terms of cognition and action [32]. The reciprocating response involving interpersonal identification can result in behavioral responses like UPSB [29]. This argument is consistent with the social identification theory, which indicates that employees who form good impression and build high-quality relationships with their leaders tend to define themselves according to the leaders’ attitudes and values and internalize the leaders’ goals and benefits, and further engage in behaviors that benefit the leaders [43].

Empowering leadership can provide employees with independence and affirm their abilities, thus enhancing their sense of security and achievement, and further facilitating their trust and interpersonal identification with their leaders [44]. In other words, empowering leadership can improve employees’ self-esteem and belongingness, driving them to incorporate their perceptions of the leaders into self-concept and resulting in leader identification [45]. Empowering leaders are also open and transparent and express their values and beliefs through actions and deeds, so their followers are likely to identify with those values and internalize them as their own [46]. In addition, scholars have pointed out that one’s identification with an individual, relationship, or collective is linked to other-focused behaviors, including understanding, assisting, and supporting others’ needs [47]. Thus, when employees have a strong sense of identification with their leaders, they internalize the leaders’ ideals and goals, try to comply with the leaders’ requirements, and perform actions for the leaders’ advantages. For instance, previous research has found that subordinates who strongly identify with their leaders improve their at-work performance as a way of rewarding their leaders [48]. Recognition and value internalization can also enhance individuals’ willingness to take on additional-role-related duties for the person they identify with. Strong leader identification may make employees work towards their leaders’ benefits, and these employees may occasionally engage in unethical actions, such as concealing information that can negatively impact the leaders [2]. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2

Employees’ leader identification mediates the positive relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB.

The moderating role of bottom-line mentality

In addition to supporting the impact of empowering leadership on UPSB via leader identification, the social exchange theory suggests that individual differences in traits may have significant moderating impacts in the exchange process [17, 49]. It indicates that individuals differ in the extent to which they attend to obligations of repayment, as well as how they repay others. The social cognitive theory also emphasizes the interactions between environmental factors, individual cognitive factors, and individual behaviors, as individuals’ minds and interpretation of external environment information would affect their specific behaviors [25]. In other words, individuals with low internal moral standards are likely to break through moral barriers and perform unethical behaviors under certain environmental situations. Thus, BLM is an important characteristic that differs among individual employees and affects how they respond to empowering leadership.

BLM is a type of moral thinking that identifies securing bottom-line benefits as success, whereas other results are seen as failure. Individuals with high BLM usually appreciate bottom-line results and resources but ignore other priorities. They tend to focus on achieving goals and target outcomes, and are likely to develop a strong sense of obligation towards the bottom line and attend to the resources for success at any cost [34]. Besides, the triggering of unethical actions is closely related to the acquisition of benefits, so these individuals may disregard organizational rules and social values to reach bottom-line outcomes in certain work situations [33, 50]. In our study, empowering leadership and leader identification increase employees’ willingness to repay their leaders, and employees with high BLM generally focus on attaining goals and may have a strong tendency to break through moral restraints to reciprocate the leaders for maintain the resources on achieving success [26]. Moreover, bottom-line outcomes are often affected by leaders, so employees with high BLM may expend great amounts of efforts to repay their leaders and thereby increase the likelihood of achieving the desired results, regardless of whether the behavior is ethical [49]. By contrast, those with low BLM are more conscious of the ethicality of their activities and may take moral actions to assist their leaders, such as completing duties or improving work performance [35]. Therefore, we suggest that employees’ BLM can strengthen the effects of empowering leadership and leader identification on UPSB. Empowered employees with high BLM are more likely to violate regulations or laws to gain advantages for their leaders and maintain the exchange resources. Similarly, among employees with a strong sense of leader identification, those with high BLM might put more efforts to protect the benefits of their leaders and retain the leaders’ attention and trust regardless of the cost. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3

Employees’ BLM moderates the relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB such that the positive relationship is stronger when employees are high in BLM.

H4

Employees’ BLM moderates the relationship between leader identification and UPSB such that the positive relationship is stronger when employees are high in BLM.

We conducted two studies to examine our hypotheses. In Study 1, we used behavioral scenarios among full-time employees, in which different levels of empowering leadership were experimentally manipulated, to obtain high internal validity and establish the main link between empowering leadership and UPSB. To test our entire model outside of the laboratory design, we then conducted a multi-wave field study to maximize external validity. In Study 2, full-time employees from various occupations and industries assessed their perceived empowering leadership, leader identification, BLM, and UPSB. Taken together, these studies revealed a pattern of consistent outcomes that supported our theoretical framework based on different samples and work-related situations.

Study 1

Participants and procedure

In this study, G*Power was used to calculate the sample size required for the experiment. After setting the effect size to 0.5, the significance level to α = 0.05, and the statistical test power to 0.8, it was calculated that 64 participants were required for each group and 128 participants for the total sample. We collected data from full-time employees in Shanghai, Zhejiang and Heilongjiang Province in China. 184 employees took part in the experiment, and 162 valid data were obtained after selection, with an effective rate of 88.04%. The data were selected according to the following principles: (1) participants provided the same answers to questions with reverse and regular coding and (2) more than 10% values were missing. Of the 162 participants, 50.62% were men, and 49.38% were women; 22.22% respondents were aged below 25, 25.31% were 26–30, 21.60% were 31–35, 16.05% were 36–40, 7.41% were 41–45, 5.56% were 46–50, and 1.85% were over 50; 19.14% respondents had high school degree or below, 27.16% had college degree, 33.95% had bachelor degree and 19.75% had master degree or above. In terms of the organization, 16.67% were from service industry, 17.90 were from entertainment industry, 18.52% were from manufacturing industry, 19.75% were from technology industry, 17.28% were from financial industry, and 9.88% were from other industries; 9.88% were less than 10 people, 21.60% were 10–50 people, 22.22% were 50–100 people, 22.84% were 100–500 people, 13.58% were 500–1000 people, and 9.88% were more than 1000 people.

One of two experimental conditions was randomly allocated to participants: high empowering leadership or low empowering leadership. In the high empowering leadership condition, participants were provided with a description stating that their supervisor, Li, gave employees the power and flexibility to complete work tasks and provided appropriate supports and responses. In the low empowering leadership condition, Li often restricted employees’ work manners while not giving them enough supports or responses. These scenarios were adapted and synthesized using the content of Ahearne et al.’s scale and Mai et al.’s measurement [7, 51]. To check our manipulations of empowering leadership, the participants all completed the Ahearne et al.’s scale for the construct [7]. After that, they evaluated their BLM, identification with supervisor Li and provided information about their tendency and willingness to engage in UPSB.

Measures

All the research variables were measured by mature scales. As the study was conducted in China, the English scales were translated, retranslated and revised for an authentic expression. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (to little or no extent) to 5 (to a great extent).

Empowering leadership. We measured empowering leadership with a 12-item scale developed by Ahearne et al. [7]. It includes four dimensions, which are enhancing the meaningfulness of work, fostering participation in decision making, expressing confidence in high performance, and providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints. A sample item was “Supervisor Li believes that I can handle demanding tasks” (α = 0.93).

Leader identification. We measured leader identification with a 6-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth [22] and revised by Wang et al. [52]. A sample item was “Supervisor Li’s successes are my successes” (α = 0.86).

Bottom-line mentality. We measured BLM with a 4-item scale developed by Greenbaum et al. [34]. A sample items was “I only care about the business” (α = 0.86).

Unethical pro-supervisor behavior. We measured UPSB with a 6-item scale developed by Johnson and Umphress [2]. A sample item was “Because it helps supervisor Li, I would exaggerate the truth about Li’s performance to others” (α = 0.82).

Control variables. We controlled for participants’ gender, age and degree as well as the industry type and organizational size as previous studies have shown that these demographic variables have influence on UPSB [2, 4, 35].

Results

Manipulation check

Participants in high empowering leadership group reported higher ratings on the empowering leadership scale (M = 4.03, SD = 0.45) than participants in low empowering leadership group (M = 2.25, SD = 0.54), t(160) = 22.63, p < 0.001, suggesting the manipulation was successful in Study 1.

Descriptive statistics

As shown in Table 1, empowering leadership was positively related to leader identification (r = 0.71, p < 0.001) and UPSB (r = 0.64, p < 0.001), and leader identification was also positively correlated with UPSB (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). Notably, the control variables were not significantly related to the substantive variables in the behavioral scenarios. Following Becker’s suggestions, we removed the control variables from subsequent analysis to avoid decreased statistical power and increased Type II error [53].

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables in study 1
Full size table

Hypothesis tests

We entered empowering leadership condition (1 = high empowering leadership, 2 = low empowering leadership) as independent variable, and used t test to test Hypothesis 1. The results showed that UPSB in high empowering leadership group (M = 3.42, SD = 0.69) was significantly higher than in low empowering leadership group (M = 2.16, SD = 0.43), t(160) = 13.97, p < 0.001, thus Hypothesis 1 was supported. Previous studies have also found that empowering leadership was significantly related to employees’ unethical creative behavior and deviant behavior [30, 51], but these behaviors also directly or indirectly benefit employees themselves, whereas UPSB is carried out for the advantages of the other entity.

Table 2 shows that empowering leadership was positively related to leader identification (β = 0.71, p < 0.001, Model 1), and leader identification was significantly related to UPSB (β = 0.65, p < 0.001, Model 3). After adding leader identification as a mediator, the strength of relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB (β = 0.64, p < 0.001, Model 2) decreased to a lower level (β = 0.35, p < 0.001, Model 4), while leader identification remained significantly related to UPSB (β = 0.41, p < 0.001, Model 4). Furthermore, the bootstrapping analysis showed the strength of indirect relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB was estimated at 0.24 with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval [0.15, 0.34], supporting Hypothesis 2. This finding is similar to previous studies that empowering leadership can improve employees’ organizational identification and further increase their positive work behaviors such as work engagement and innovative behavior, whereas few studies have focused on leader identification and the related negative work behaviors [43, 54].

Table 2 Results of regression analysis in study 1
Full size table

The results also found that the interaction between empowering leadership and BLM (β = 0.13, p < 0.05, Model 6) as well as the interaction between leader identification and BLM (β = 0.16, p < 0.01, Model 8) were positively associated with UPSB. We also computed slopes one standard deviation below and above the mean of BLM. As Fig. 2 shows, empowering leadership and leader identification were more positively associated with UPSB when BLM was high. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 were supported. Previous studies have also paid increasing attention to BLM in organizational settings and generally linked to a number of unethical and undesirable behaviors at work, such as undermining coworkers, abusing subordinates, and creating unethical climates in organizations [55, 56, 57].

Fig. 2
figure 2

The moderating effects of BLM in Study 1: (a) The moderating role of BLM on the relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB; (b) The moderating role of BLM on the relationship between leader identification and UPSB

Full size image

Discussion of study 1

Study 1 revealed that empowering leadership was positively related to employees’ UPSB, leader identification mediated the relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB, and BLM offered the boundary conditions. However, this study has several limitations. It manipulated empowering leadership in the behavioral scenarios, but the participants evaluated their identification with the supervisor and their tendency to engage in UPSB at a single time point, so the causal connections between variables cannot be established. Compared with other research methods, the external validity and generalizability of behavioral scenarios are questionable. Although this study chose full-time employees because they are close to actual situations, the simulated experiments and real circumstances differed in a few ways. First, when employees perceive their leaders’ empowering behavior in a real work environment, the actual leader identification may develop over a longer period of time. Second, the study measured employees’ readiness to engage in UPSB rather than actual behavior. Furthermore, BLM is an individual characteristic, and participants may be easily disturbed by scenario simulations and do not show their true personal traits completely. Therefore, we conducted a multi-wave field study to provide further evidence and maximize the external validity of the model in Study 2.

Study 2

Participants and procedure

357 employees from various industries in Shanghai, Zhejiang and Heilongjiang Province were invited in this study. According to the consistency between normally coded items and reverse coded items as well as the completeness of responses, 305 valid data were obtained after selection, with an effective rate of 85.43%. Among the 305 participants, 57.70% were men, and 42.30% were women; 27.21% respondents were aged below 25, 25.90% were 26–30, 17.70% were 31–35, 11.48% were 36–40, 9.18% were 41–45, 3.94% were 46–50, and 4.59% were over 50; 14.75% respondents had high school degree or below, 22.62% had college degree, 40.98% had bachelor degree and 21.65% had master degree or above. In terms of the organization, 18.03% were from service industry, 19.34% were from entertainment industry, 19.02% were from manufacturing industry, 18.36% were from technology industry, 17.70% were from financial industry, and 7.55% were from other industries; 10.49% were less than 10 people, 21.31% were 10–50 people, 23.61% were 50–100 people, 21.64% were 100–500 people, 13.77% were 500–1000 people, and 9.18% were more than 1000 people.

We collected data on-site in three stages at two-month intervals to avoid common method variance. The participants were told that the survey was confidential and their replies would remain anonymous, meaning that company personnel would have no access to the data and the data would only be used for academic research. In the first wave (T1), the participants reported their demographic information, BLM, and empowering leadership related to their direct supervisor. In the second wave (T2), the participants were asked to rate their leader identification with their direct supervisor. In the third wave (T3), the participants answered questions related to their UPSB.

Measures

Empowering leadership. We used the same scale as in Study 1 and replaced the supervisor’s name (“Your direct supervisor” instead of “supervisor Li”) (α = 0.91).

Leader identification. Leader identification was measured using the same scale as in Study 1 (α = 0.84).

Bottom-line mentality. BLM was measured using the same scale as in Study 1 (α = 0.82).

Unethical pro-supervisor behavior. UPSB was measured using the same scale as in Study 1 (α = 0.86).

Control variables. As in Study 1, we controlled for participants’ gender, age and degree, as well as the industry type and organizational size. In addition, leader-member exchange (LMX) can influence the research variables in the real workplace. LMX refers to the quality of the relationship between a leader and a subordinate [58]. It can affect subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors, and in turn interfere with the impact of empowering leadership on employees’ UPSB. Empowering leadership is a leadership style that emphasizes leaders’ empowerment of and trust in subordinates, and it can enhance LMX and make employees willing to repay their leaders through unethical behaviors [59], whereas high-quality LMX may also increase employees’ UPSB even if they are not empowered [36]. Controlling for LMX allows for highlighting the characteristics of empowering leadership and for accurately assessing the independent impact of empowering leadership on UPSB. Further, when the quality of a leader-subordinate relationship is high, the subordinate is likely to identify with the leader, so the mediating effect of leader identification could be biased if not controlled for LMX [60]. Previous studies have also shown that LMX has a moderating effect on the relationships between leaders’ performance and subordinates’ responses [58, 61]. Therefore, we controlled for LXM and used the 7-item scale developed by Liden et al. [62] to measure it. A sample item was “I can count on my supervisor to ‘bail me out’, even at his or her own expense, when I really need it” (α = 0.89).

Results

Common method bias

All the variables were measured by self-reporting methods, so we adopted time interval measurement and inserted reverse scoring items to avoid common method bias. We also conducted a single-factor test to inspect the seriousness of common method bias. The results showed that 6 factors’ eigenvalues were larger than 1, with the first factor accounting for 31.53% of the variance. It indicated that the common method deviation of Study 2 was within the acceptable range.

Validity analysis

We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to inspect the distinctiveness of the study constructs. Compared with the alternative models (see Table 3), the four-factor model (i.e. empowering leadership, leader identification, BLM, UPSB) showed a great model fit, with χ²/df = 2.84, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90 and SRMR = 0.06. Therefore, the research variables in the study showed good distinctiveness, and the discriminant validity was confirmed.

Table 3 Results of the confirmatory factor analysis in study 2
Full size table

Descriptive statistics

As shown in Table 4, empowering leadership was positively related to leader identification (r = 0.60, p < 0.001) and UPSB (r = 0.35, p < 0.001), leader identification was also positively corelated with UPSB (r = 0.41, p < 0.001). Notably, among all the control variables, only age, organizational size and LMX were significantly corelated with the substantive variables in the study, so we removed other control variables in the following analysis to preserve statistical power and avoid Type II error [53].

Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables in study 2
Full size table

Hypothesis tests

Table 5 shows that empowering leadership was positively related to UPSB (β = 0.35, p < 0.001, Model 4), which confirmed Hypothesis (1) Empowering leadership was positively associated with leader identification (β = 0.57, p < 0.001, Model 2), and leader identification was positively related to UPSB (β = 0.41, p < 0.001, Model 5). After adding leader identification, the effect of empowering leadership on UPSB declined (β = 0.17, p < 0.05, Model 6) while leader identification still had a significant impact on UPSB (β = 0.31, p < 0.001, Model 6). The bootstrapping analysis also indicated that the indirect effect of empowering leadership on UPSB via leader identification was estimated at 0.21, and the corresponding 95% bias-corrected confidence interval was [0.11, 0.31], thus confirming Hypothesis (2) Lee [63] also found that leader identification has a positive impact on employees’ intrinsic motivation, and employees with a high degree of identification would internalize their leaders’ values and even engage in unethical behaviors to help them achieve the goals.

Table 5 Results of regression analysis in study 2
Full size table

We conducted moderated regression analysis to test the moderating role of BLM, and the independent variable and moderator were mean centered to avoid potential multicollinearity. The results found that the interaction between empowering leadership and BLM (β = 0.12, p < 0.05, Model 8) as well as the interaction between leader identification and BLM (β = 0.14, p < 0.01, Model 10) were positively associated with UPSB. We also computed slopes one standard deviation below and above the mean of BLM. As Fig. 3 shows, empowering leadership and leader identification were more positively associated with UPSB when BLM was high. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 were supported. Shalvi et al. [64] also pointed out that when self-moral cognition is not harmed individuals are inclined to carry out unethical behaviors, and employees with a high degree of BLM would experience less moral burden and have a higher possibility of engaging in unethical behaviors when they desire to repay others.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The moderating effects of BLM in Study 2: (a) The moderating role of BLM on the relationship between empowering leadership and UPSB; (b) The moderating role of BLM on the relationship between leader identification and UPSB

Full size image

Discussion of study 2

The results of Study 2 further validated our theoretical model. This study revealed a significant association between empowering leadership and UPSB mediated by leader identification, which was consistent with the results of Study 1. Additionally, this study also found that BLM played a moderating role in the model. In the context of high-level empowering leadership or leader identification, subordinates with high BLM engage in more UPSB, supporting our original hypotheses.

General discussion

The study explored the way in which empowering leadership can impact UPSB, enriched the research on negative results of empowering leadership and leader identification in organizational environments, and developed the literature regarding person-situation interaction in UPSB by examining BLM as a moderator. The findings also offer reference for organizations and leaders to understand the mechanism of empowering leadership on UPSB and improve the management and normalization in the practical field. Then, it would be possible to enable empowering leadership’s positive impacts and avoid its unethical sides through necessary organizational ethical infrastructure.

Theoretical implications

Our study makes several contributions to the literature on business ethics. First, according to the social exchange theory, we present an in-depth examination of the possibility that empowering leadership can spark employees’ UPSB. Empowered followers often have high degree of autonomy and are willing to return the favor to supervisors, leading them to conduct extra-role actions and make tactical errors [8, 65], including engaging in more unethical actions to reward their supervisors. The results of this research not only provide a crucial complement to the body of knowledge on the antecedents of UPSB, but also outline the drawbacks of empowering leadership. Existing studies have concentrated on the bright sides of empowering leadership, such as its positive relationships with job crafting [8, 13] and creativity [14, 15], whereas few have paid attention to its negative impacts on employees’ working attitudes and behaviors. Our study responds to the research call that empowering leadership does not always play a positive role and a deeper exploration is needed to find whether and how leaders’ empowering practices can result in negative consequences [31]. Additionally, previous studies based on the social exchange theory have mainly focused on desirable exchanges in the workplace [29], while we highlight an exploration of the negative effects of social exchange, providing a broad framework that the negative reciprocity of social interactions can be placed and analyzed in the social exchange theory.

We further revealed the explanatory mechanism for the impact of empowering leadership on UPSB via employees’ leader identification. The influence of empowering leadership on UPSB not only includes making employees “dare to do” but also requires making employees “want to do.” The psychological premise of “dare to do” is that empowering leadership gives employees power and autonomy in the workplace, and the psychology of “want to do” derives from individuals’ cognition and motivation. In daily management work, empowering behaviors such as prioritizing interpersonal relationships and giving employees self-determination and opportunities cause subordinates to have high levels of identification with and commitment to their leaders [18, 66, 67]. Besides, the employees’ sense of affiliation may render them indifferent to moral standards and insensitive to unethical activities, increasing their motivation and ability to make excuses for unethical actions. In other words, employees who develop leader identification may engage in unconventional actions to repay their leaders even when those actions go against established rules [68], leading to a higher possibility of UPSB. Previous studies about the outcomes of leader identification are mixed and conflicting. Some studies have indicated that having a feeling of unity with the leader produces positive consequences, such as better individual performance and creativity [69, 70], whereas others have argued that leader identification is related to dependence on one’s leader [71]. Our research broadens this concept and suggests another potential negative result of leader identification in the ethical field.

Moreover, we contribute to the business ethics research by examining BLM that affects the entire theoretical model. According to Johnson and Umphress’s [2] integrated perspective, UPSB is based on person-situation interactions, and its occurrence can be controlled by personal characteristics. As a personal trait, BLM can increase the possibility that individuals would damage society or organizations [34]. However, research on BLM is mainly conceptual, and impacts of BLM are still not fully understood [57]. Some studies have concentrated on the effects of leaders’ BLM on employees, such as employees’ moral disengagement and social undermining of coworkers [34, 50, 72], whereas the role of employees’ BLM in organizational settings requires further exploration. In our study, we explored the differences between employees in similar empowering leadership or leader identification conditions, and found that individuals with high BLM are more likely to engage in UPSB. The extreme pursuit of bottom-line results makes employees have lower moral standards and higher tolerance for unethical actions, which leads to more possibilities of engaging in unethical behaviors to accomplish the goal of helping their leaders. This conclusion broadens the nomological network of BLM by recognizing its detrimental influence on organizational vitality and informing academics and practitioners about the possible risk of concentrating on bottom-line results at the cost of other crucial factors such as ethical laws and organizational rules.

Practical implications

Our study has the following practical implications. While attaching importance to the advantages of empowering leadership, organizations should pay attention to its potential drawbacks. This argument indicates that organizations can adopt conditional strategies to restrict empowerment [65]. Due to the impact of empowering leadership on UPSB, organizations should monitor the ethics of leaders’ empowering behavior. It is suggested that clear indicators of employees’ abilities should be formed and the standards of empowerment should be improved, which can make employees understand that they deserve to be empowered and reduce the pressure they feel to repay leaders. Besides, organizations can educate empowered employees about how to manage their relationships with leaders properly, make them realize the drawbacks of UPSB, and guide them to take ethical actions to help their leaders, such as enhancing their cooperative ability and improving their work performance [15, 43].

In addition, the moral norms that leaders demonstrate are important for whether employees engage in unethical behaviors. When employees identify strongly with their leaders, they become driven to strive for the goals set by the leaders and see the leaders’ benefits as their own [45, 70, 73], leading to more UPSB. However, previous research has also illustrated that when employees identify with their leaders and their leaders’ interests are in alignment with the organization, they imitate the leaders’ values and behaviors and bring benefits to the organization, such as by taking part in organizational citizenship behavior [24]. As leaders exemplify an organization’s values and act as role models by adhering to organizational standards [74], they should pay attention to their own moral awareness, set good examples of moral behaviors, and show their bottom line focusing on ethics. It is important for leaders to emphasize their abhorrence of unethical behaviors in the workplace and make employees realize that they would not be understood and recognized when they take unethical actions for their leaders [75]. In this case, employees with strong leader identification would restrict their behaviors based on leadership standards and the moral atmosphere.

Our study also found that BLM affects whether employees repay their leaders in an ethical or unethical way, so organizations need to consider employees’ personal traits, identify employees with high BLM, and guide employees correctly throughout the management process. Specifically, organizations should give morality and ethics the same weight as performance when selecting and developing employees. It is suggested that employees should be shown the serious consequences of unethical behaviors and make them deeply understand the importance of moral results [76]. Organizations can also educate employees about the multiple interpretations of bottom-line results and provide them with psychological counseling to improve their mentality by reducing their negative emotions and rectifying incorrect concepts of winning and losing. Moreover, Eissa et al. [33] found that employees with high BLM are likely to learn more negative behaviors from their leaders, so organizations ought to focus on the selection criteria of leaders and conduct performance evaluations that highlight ethics [77]. By setting an example of moral norms and a balance between self-interests and ethical standards, empowering leaders can encourage their followers to be like them in terms of behaving ethically, and simultaneously increase employees’ own moral awareness and emphasis on ethical outcomes.

Limitations and future research

Our study has several limitations that need to be considered. First, this study verified the hypotheses through a behavioral scenario experiment in Study 1 and a multi-wave questionnaire survey in Study 2. Although the method of combining an experiment and a questionnaire can reduce the impact of common method bias and enhance the internal and external validity of the results, causal connections between variables cannot be completely established. It is suggested that future research can employ longitudinal tracking to gather more convincing proofs of causal relationships. Second, the study only explored the influence of empowering leadership on UPSB. Future research can focus on other leadership styles, such as inclusive leadership, servant leadership, and charismatic leadership, and then compare these approaches to find out which is likeliest to induce UPSB. Third, our study was conducted in the Chinese context, and cultural factors, such as the power gap between leaders and subordinates, can affect employees’ feelings of empowerment and senses of obligation to their leaders [19]. Future research can replicate our findings in a broader and cross-cultural context to explore how cultural dimensions influence the outcomes of empowering leadership.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Vriend T, Said R, Janssen O, Jordan J. The dark side of relational leadership: positive and negative reciprocity as fundamental drivers of follower’s intended pro-leader and pro-self unethical behavior. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1473.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson HH, Umphress EE. To help my supervisor: identification, moral identity, and unethical pro-supervisor behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2019;159(2):519–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Umphress EE, Bingham JB. When employees do bad things for good reasons: examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organ Sci. 2011;22(3):621–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Li S, Jain K, Tzini K. When supervisor support backfires: the link between perceived supervisor support and unethical pro-supervisor behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2022;179(1):133–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmad R, Nejati M, Farr-Wharton B, Bentley T. Impact of leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: a systematic literature review and future research directions. J Leadersh Org Stud. 2024;31(3):338–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. He S, Yun X. Research on the influencing mechanism of paradoxical leadership on unethical pro-supervisor behavior. Behav Sci. 2022;12(7):231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahearne M, Mathieu J, Rapp A. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(5):945–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim M, Beehr TA. Can empowering leaders affect subordinates’ well-being and careers because they encourage subordinates’ job crafting behaviors? J Leadersh Org Stud. 2018;25(2):184–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Amundsen S, Martinsen OL. Empowering leadership: construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. Leadersh Quart. 2014;25(3):487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rai A, Kim M. Empowering leadership and followers’ good and bad behaviors: a dual mediation model. Hum Resour Dev Q. 2021;32(4):537–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim M, Beehr TA. Empowering leadership: leading people to be present through affective organizational commitment? Int J Hum Resour Man. 2020;31(16):2017–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boudrias JS, Montani F, Vandenberghe C, Battistelli A. Are wellbeing dimensions differentially related to employee proactive behavior? The joint moderating effects of knowledge job demands and empowering leadership. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(16):13999–4011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Audenaert M, George B, Bauwens R, Decuypere A, Descamps AM, Muylaert J, Ma R, Decramer A. Empowering leadership, social support, and job crafting in public organizations: a multilevel study. Public Pers Manage. 2020;49(3):367–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chow IHS. The mechanism underlying the empowering leadership-creativity relationship. Leadersh Org Dev J. 2018;39(2):202–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peng M, Liang Z, Fatima I, Wang Q, Rasheed MI. The nexus between empowering leadership, job engagement and employee creativity: role of creative self-efficacy in the hospitality industry. Kybernetes. 2023;53(10):3189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lu JG, Brockner J, Vardi Y, Weitz E. The dark side of experiencing job autonomy: unethical behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;73:222–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manage. 2005;31(6):874–900.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Den Hartog DN, De Hoogh AHB. Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2009;18(2):199–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hui MK, Au K, Fock H. Empowerment effects across cultures. J Int Bus Stud. 2004;35(1):46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Obschonka M, Zhou M, Zhou Y, Zhang J, Silbereisen RK. Confucian traits, entrepreneurial personality, and entrepreneurship in China: a regional analysis. Small Bus Econ. 2019;53(4):961–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang K, Wang Y, Tang N. Power distance orientation and perceived insider status in China: a social identity perspective. Asia Pac Bus Rev. 2023;29(1):89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav. 1992;13(2):103–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Steffens NK, Haslam SA, Schuh SC, Jetten J, van Dick R. A meta-analytic review of social identification and health in organizational contexts. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2017;21(4):303–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Y, Chen CC. Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. Leadersh Quart. 2013;24(4):534–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Aquino K, Freeman D, Reed A, Lim VKG, Felps W. Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97(1):123–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Babalola MT, Mawritz MB, Greenbaum RL, Ren S, Garba OA. Whatever it takes: how and when supervisor bottom-line mentality motivates employee contributions in the workplace. J Manage. 2021;47(5):1134–54.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Trevino LK. Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist model. Acad Manage Rev. 1986;11(3):601–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmad R, Nawaz MR, Ishaq MI, Khan MM, Ashraf HA. Social exchange theory: systematic review and future directions. Front Psychol. 2023;13:1015921.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV. Social exchange theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11(1):479–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yam KC, Reynolds SJ, Zhang P, Su RK. The unintended consequences of empowering leadership: increased deviance for some followers. J Bus Ethics. 2022;181(3):683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheong M, Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Spain SM, Tsai CY. A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. Leadersh Quart. 2019;30(1):34–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ashforth BE, Schinoff BS, Rogers KM. I identify with her, I identify with him: unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations. Acad Manage Rev. 2016;41(1):28–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Eissa G, Wyland R, Lester SW, Gupta R. Winning at all costs: an exploration of bottom-line mentality, machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29(3):469–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Greenbaum RL, Mawritz MB, Eissa G. Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(2):343–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mesdaghinia S, Rawat A, Nadavulakere S. Why moral followers quit: examining the role of leader bottom-line mentality and unethical pro-leader behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2019;159(2):491–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu S, Lin X, Hu W. How followers’ unethical behavior is triggered by leader-member exchange: the mediating effect of job satisfaction. Soc Behav Personal. 2013;41(3):357–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mackey J, Frieder R, Perrewé P, Gallagher V, Brymer R. Empowered employees as social deviants: the role of abusive supervision. J Bus Psychol. 2015;30(1):149–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lavelle JJ, Rupp DE, Brockner J. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model. J Manage. 2007;33(6):841–66.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Li Y, You H, Oh S. A study on the structural relationship between emotional labor, job burnout, and turnover intention among office workers in Korea: the moderated mediating effect of leader-member exchange. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Foulk TA, Lanaj K, Tu MH, Erez A, Archambeau L. Heavy is the head that wears the crown: an actor-centric approach to daily psychological power, abusive leader behavior, and perceived incivility. Acad Manage J. 2018;61(2):661–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pitesa M, Thau S. Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: how power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making. Acad Manage J. 2013;56(3):635–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liu W, Zhu R, Yang Y. I warn you because I like you: voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadersh Quart. 2010;21(1):189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Arshad M, Qasim N, Farooq O, Rice J. Empowering leadership and employees’ work engagement: a social identity theory perspective. Manage Decis. 2022;60(5):1218–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sluss DM, Ashforth BE. Relational identity and identification: defining ourselves through work relationships. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(1):9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. van Knippenberg D, van Knippenberg B, de Cremer D, Hogg MA. Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadersh Quart. 2004;15(6):825–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Laschinger HKS, Finegan J. Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: a strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nurs Econ. 2005;23(1):6–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang Y, Yin Y, Su W. The impact of servant leadership on proactive service behavior: a moderated mediation model. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):178.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA. Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: the role of relational identification and self-efficacy. J Occup Organ Psych. 2011;84(1):153–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Babalola MT, Greenbaum RL, Amarnani RK, Shoss MK, Deng Y, Garba OA, Guo L. A business frame perspective on why perceptions of top management’s bottom-line mentality result in employees’ good and bad behaviors. Pers Psychol. 2020;73(1):19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Farasat M, Azam A. Supervisor bottom-line mentality and subordinates’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. Pers Rev. 2022;51(1):353–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mai KM, Welsh DT, Wang F, Bush J, Jiang K. Supporting creativity or creative unethicality? Empowering leadership and the role of performance pressure. J Bus Ethics. 2022;179(1):111–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang Z, Xing L, Xu H, Hannah ST. Not all followers socially learn from ethical leaders: the roles of followers’ moral identity and leader identification in the ethical leadership process. J Bus Ethics. 2021;170(3):449–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Becker TE. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organ Res Methods. 2005;8(3):274–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Burhan Q, Khan MA. From identification to innovation: how empowering leadership drives organizational innovativeness. Leadersh Org Dev J. 2024;45(3):478–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mawritz MB, Greenbaum RL, Butts MM, Graham KA. I just can’t control myself: a self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Acad Manage J. 2017;60(4):1482–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mitchell MS, Hetrick AL, Mawritz MB, Edwards BD, Greenbaum RL. Oh the anxiety! The anxiety of supervisor bottom-line mentality and mitigating effects of ethical leadership. J Manage. 2024;50(7):2888–926.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Quade MJ, McLarty BD, Bonner JM. The influence of supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee bottom-line mentality on leader-member exchange and subsequent employee performance. Hum Relat. 2020;73(8):1157–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Dulebohn JH, Bommer WH, Liden RC, Brouer RL, Ferris GR. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J Manage. 2012;38(6):1715–59.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jada UR, Mukhopadhyay S. Empowering leadership and LMX as the mediators between leader’s personality traits and constructive voice behavior. Int J Organ Anal. 2019;27(1):74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Li J, Furst-Holloway S, Masterson SS, Gales LM, Blume BD. Leader-member exchange and leader identification: comparison and integration. J Manage Psychol. 2018;33(2):122–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Greenbaum RL, Mawritz MB, Bonner JM, Webster BD, Kim J. Supervisor expediency to employee expediency: the moderating role of leader-member exchange and the mediating role of employee unethical tolerance. J Organ Behav. 2018;39(4):525–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D. A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(4):662–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lee K. The effect of supervisor identification on unethical pro-supervisor behavior: the moderating role of employability perceptions. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2020;17(24):9344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shalvi S, Dana J, Handgraaf MJJ, De Dreu CKW. Justified ethicality: observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 2011;115(2):181–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Cheong M, Spain SM, Yammarino FJ, Yun S. Two faces of empowering leadership: enabling and burdening. Leadersh Quart. 2016;27(4):602–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kim SY, Fernandez S. Employee empowerment and turnover intention in the U.S. Federal bureaucracy. Amer Rev Public Adm. 2017;47(1):4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vecchio RP, Justin JE, Pearce CL. Empowering leadership: an examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. Leadersh Quart. 2010;21(3):530–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wang F, Shi W. Inclusive leadership and pro-social rule breaking: the role of psychological safety, leadership identification and leader-member exchange. Psychol Rep. 2021;124(5):2155–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Peng J, Chen X, Nie Q, Wang Z. Proactive personality congruence and creativity: a leader identification perspective. J Manage Psychol. 2020;35(7/8):543–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang XH, Howell JM. A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. Leadersh Quart. 2012;23(5):775–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kark R, Shamir B, Chen G. The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(2):246–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhang Y, He B, Huang Q, Xie J. Effects of supervisor bottom-line mentality on subordinate unethical pro-organizational behavior. J Manage Psychol. 2020;35(5):419–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Epitropaki O. A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: testing a moderated-mediated model. J Organ Behav. 2013;34(1):65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Dust SB, Resick CJ, Mawritz MB. Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic-organic contexts. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(3):413–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Enwereuzor IK, Onyishi IE, Albi-Oparaocha FC, Amaeshi K. Perceived leader integrity as a mediator between ethical leadership and ethical climate in a teaching context. BMC Psychol. 2020;8(1):52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Warren DE, Gaspar JP, Laufer WS. Is formal ethics training merely cosmetic? A study of ethics training and ethical organizational culture. Bus Ethics Q. 2014;24(1):85–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ordóñez LD, Schweitzer ME, Galinsky AD, Bazerman MH. Goals gone wild: the systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Acad Manage Perspect. 2009;23(1):6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants.

Funding

This study was funded by General Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province (Grant number 2020SJA0597).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, 200234, China

    Zhifan Wu, Chongrong Huang & Chen Zhu

  2. School of Education Science, Jiangsu Second Normal University, Nanjing, 211200, China

    Zhifan Wu

  3. College of Philosophy, Law and Political Science, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, 200234, China

    Chengyan Li

Authors
  1. Zhifan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chongrong Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chen Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengyan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.W. wrote the main manuscript text. Z.W. and C.L. revisied the manuscript. Z.W., C.H. and C.Z. participated in data collection. All authors contributed to the study conception and design, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengyan Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study research protocol obtained the ethical approval from the ethics committee of Shanghai Normal University (No. 2022061). All procedures applied in the research study were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Z., Huang, C., Zhu, C. et al. With great power comes more deviations: the negative influence of empowering leadership on unethical pro-supervisor behavior in the Chinese context. BMC Psychol 13, 385 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02712-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02712-1

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us