Yangjie Ke
Li Liu
Manli Gu- School of Business, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Introduction: This study investigates how paternalistic leadership (authoritarian, benevolent, and moral) affects counterproductive work behavior among Chinese Generation Z employees. By integrating culturally specific leadership styles with generational traits, this research offers insights into the mechanisms driving counterproductive work behavior in the Chinese workplace. Drawing upon social identity theory and the cultural context of traditional China, we propose a moderated mediation model where leader identification acts as a mediator and the employee’s traditionality serves as a moderator.
Methods: We collected data through a multi-wave survey of 324 Gen Z employees in China. The collected data were analyzed in Stata 17.0 using multiple regression analysis, examining the relationship between paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behavior.
Results: Results reveal that benevolent and moral leadership reduce counterproductive work behavior, while authoritarian leadership increases it. Leader identification fully mediates the effects of benevolent and moral leadership, and partially mediates the effect of authoritarian leadership. Traditionality negatively moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification, with lower traditionality strengthening this connection.
Discussion: These results highlight the complex dynamics between leadership styles and employee behavior, providing insights for creating productive and harmonious workplaces for Gen Z employees in China. The findings also emphasize leader identification as a key mechanism and traditionality as a contextual moderator shaping these effects, underscoring the need for adaptive leadership approaches.
Introduction
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB)—such as resistance to instructions, absenteeism, and interpersonal conflicts—have become a growing concern in China’s competitive and high-pressure workplace (Zhu and Zhang, 2021). These behaviors are especially concerning among Generation Z employees, who are rapidly becoming a major workforce segment (Fan et al., 2023). Leadership style plays a pivotal role in shaping employee attitudes and behavior (Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011). Within the Chinese cultural and organizational context, paternalistic leadership is widespread in Chinese organizations and deeply rooted in Confucian values (Farh et al., 2008). This leadership style has been shown to shape various employee behaviors, including voice behavior (Peng and Chen, 2022), innovative work behavior (Nazir et al., 2020), and sustained work behavior (Fang et al., 2019). This raises a critical question: how does paternalistic leadership influence the counterproductive behaviors of Chinese Gen Z employees?
Although Gen Z employees across countries share traits such as creativity, confidence, and a strong sense of fairness (Dangmei and Singh, 2016; Nova et al., 2022), Chinese Gen Z employees display distinctive characteristics shaped by both generational and cultural contexts. Compared with previous generations in China, they are generally more individualistic, expressive, and sensitive to authority, having grown up during a time of rapid economic growth, technological advancement, and increasing global exposure (Hendrastomo and Januarti, 2023). At the same time, unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese Gen Z employees have been shaped by Confucian family values and a tradition of hierarchical relationships that emphasize respect for authority and social harmony (Zhang N. et al., 2021). In addition, they have grown up in a distinct social and cultural environment—particularly an internet landscape characterized by tighter governance and regulation—which may shape how they access information, form opinions, and interact with authority. For example, internet governance and social media restrictions in China have been shown to influence the behaviors and values of Generation Z (Xu and Albert, 2014). These generational and cultural differences may influence how Chinese Gen Z employees perceive and respond to leadership, particularly traditional forms such as paternalistic leadership.
While existing research has explored various leadership styles such as transformational (Huang et al., 2021), ethical (Shen and Lei, 2022), and exploitative (Guo et al., 2023), there is a gap in understanding how culturally leadership styles, like paternalistic leadership, affect counterproductive work behaviors among this demographic. To better understand this relationship, it is important to consider the psychological mechanisms and cultural factors that influence how employees respond to leadership. Drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), we investigate how leader identification mediates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behaviors (Wang and Howell, 2012). We further argue that traditionality—the degree to which individuals endorse hierarchical, Confucian values—moderates this relationship by influencing how strongly Gen Z employees identify with paternalistic leaders (Tan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2017; Li and Sun, 2015). This study seeks to address this gap by examining the mediating role of leader identification and the moderating role of traditionality in the context of paternalistic leadership.
Building on this conceptual framework, understanding how paternalistic leadership influences counterproductive work behavior among Chinese Gen Z employees holds both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, this research addresses a critical gap by examining how a culturally rooted leadership style—paternalistic leadership—affects the counterproductive behaviors of a new generational workforce. Specifically, by identifying leader identification as a mediator, the study clarifies how paternalistic leadership influences counterproductive work behavior. Furthermore, by examining traditionality as a generational trait, it shows how differences among Chinese Gen Z employees shape their responses to such leadership. Practically, the study provides evidence-based guidance for organizations to develop leadership strategies tailored to the characteristics of China’s evolving workforce. These insights support the design of leadership practices that are both culturally appropriate and effective in managing younger employees.
Theoretical background and hypothesis development
Theoretical background
Paternalistic leadership represents an indigenous aspect of Chinese leadership, fundamentally rooted in Confucian ideology (Westwood, 1997). This leadership style encompasses traits of fatherly kindness, moral integrity, stringent discipline, and authoritative guidance (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008). Owing to cultural influences, paternalistic leadership finds wide adoption, particularly within family-run businesses in China (Farh and Cheng, 2000). Farh and Cheng provide a comprehensive framework for paternalistic leadership, defining it across three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality. Authoritarianism summarizes the leader’s exercise of absolute authority and the expectation of unwavering obedience. Benevolence, on the other hand, denotes a leader’s inclination toward personalized concern for the well-being of individuals beyond the confines of professional relationships. The moral dimension signifies a leader’s representation of personal virtue, self-discipline, and selflessness. Notably, empirical investigations have unveiled cross-dimensional correlations within paternalistic leadership, revealing positive associations between benevolence and morality while showing a negative linkage with authoritarianism (Pellegrini et al., 2007). The triad model of paternalistic leadership has gained widespread recognition and serves as the foundation for a multitude of subsequent research (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008). While the term “paternalistic leadership” may carry different meanings in other cultural or theoretical contexts, sometimes even being associated with controlling or condescending leadership styles that limit employee autonomy (Aycan, 2006). This study adopts a culturally specific interpretation rooted in the Confucian tradition, as our research is situated in the Chinese context.
Counterproductive work behavior is defined as the deliberate actions of employees that either harm or represent a risk to the company and its stakeholders (Bolton et al., 2012). It is often referred to as workplace deviance and is characterized as “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and threatens the well-being of an organization or its members” (Gruys and Sackett, 2003). According to the stressor-emotion model, the counterproductive work behavior originates from stressful work situations, leading to negative emotions among employees (Spector and Fox, 2002). Leadership factors as a prevalent form of stress is a key element affecting the counterproductive work behavior (Holtz and Harold, 2013). For example, ethical leadership is negatively associated with employees’ counterproductive work behavior, and transactional leadership intensifies the connection between workplace stress and adverse employee behaviors (Yao et al., 2014). Within the exploration of factors contributing to counterproductive work behavior, one potential area of conflict in multigenerational workplaces is the field of management and leadership styles (Arsenault, 2004). In this particular context, the domain is notably impacted by differences between generations in regards to retention, values, motivation, work style preferences, and perceptions of effective leadership. The central conflict often revolves around what it means to be a leader and the attributes associated with being a good leader (Kraus, 2017).
One of the most influential theories explaining how individuals perceive themselves within organizations is social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This theory suggests that individuals categorize themselves and others into different social groups, enabling individuals to locate or define themselves in the social environment. Within this framework, leader identification takes place when employees positively evaluate both the role and personal identity of their leader (Sluss and Ashforth, 2008). Leader identification will encourage employees to align their perceptions of the leader with their own self-concept (Bakker et al., 2023), leading them to strive to meet the leader’s expectations and act in ways that benefit the leader (Johnson, 2010). Leader identification, which refers to how employees define themselves in their relationship with their leaders, has been considered a crucial psychological mechanism through which leadership styles influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011). In support of this theoretical view, empirical studies have shown that leader identification, or the degree to which employees define themselves in relation to their leader, mediates the effects of leadership on employee attitudes and behaviors (Zhu et al., 2013). Employees who identify strongly with their leader may internalize their values and align with their goals, thereby reducing the likelihood of deviant behaviors. However, if identification is low, especially under perceived coercion or unfairness, the risk of counterproductive work behavior may increase.
Another important factor influencing leader identification is traditionality, which reflects an individual’s endorsement of hierarchical authority (Li et al., 2018). Traditionality refers to organized cognitive attitudes, ideas, value orientations, temperament characteristics, and behavioral wills of individuals in traditional societies (Spreitzer et al., 2005). It is viewed as the most accurate representation of traditional Chinese characteristics and value perspectives (Hui et al., 2004b), which encompasses the individual’s acknowledgment of traditional Confucian principles, including deference to authority, adherence to ethical conduct, self-preservation, respect for one’s parents, reverence for ancestors, and male dominance (Xiong Chen and Aryee, 2007). For traditionalists, leaders are seen as paternal figures and followers as their children. The expectation is that followers should trust and demonstrate loyalty to their leaders (Rarick, 2007). Therefore, traditionality tends to influence leaders and followers, like father-son relationships (Hui et al., 2004a). It is noteworthy that the adverse implications of authoritarianism can be either mitigated or reshaped by moderating factors, with the traditionality of employees serving as one such moderator (Farh et al., 2014).
Hypothesis development
Paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behavior
Leadership styles substantially impact counterproductive work behavior, and the prevailing conflict between Gen Z employees and organizations frequently centers on their preferences for leadership styles (Ogunsola et al., 2024). Prior research has highlighted the beneficial impact of leaders’ benevolence and morality on team identification and top management team decision efficacy, whereas authoritarianism is found to have deleterious consequences in these contexts (Chen et al., 2015). Similarly, Zhang S. et al. (2021) found that benevolent and moral leadership positively influenced safety participation among Chinese high-speed railway drivers. In contrast, authoritarian leadership styles have been associated with undesirable effects in these domains. Given the personality traits of Gen Z employees, they typically resist commanding and authoritarian leadership styles, instead favoring leadership characterized by benevolence and moral integrity (Nikolic, 2022).
Authoritarian leadership, characterized by rigidity and control, tends to undermine positive employee behaviors and elicit adverse psychological and behavioral reactions. For example, Liu and Ling (2025) found that authoritarian leadership increased emotional exhaustion and reduced voice behavior (when employees speak up with ideas or concern to improve work or prevent problems) among frontline service workers in China. Likewise, Zheng et al. (2025) reported that authoritarian leadership significantly undermined young nurses’ psychological capital and increased burnout. Authoritarian leadership tends to increase counterproductive work behavior among Gen Z employees, as its rigid, control-oriented style conflicts with their preference for autonomy and fairness (Luqman et al., 2020). Taken together, these findings underscore the relevance of authoritarian leadership as a potential predictor of counterproductive work behavior among Gen Z employees. In our study, we propose that authoritarian leadership will be positively associated with counterproductive work behavior among Gen Z employees.
On the contrary, leaders’ benevolence and morality exhibit correlations with favorable outcomes, including trust in managers, manifestations of organizational citizenship behavior, and the fostering of creativity (Chen et al., 2014). Benevolent leadership reduces counterproductive work behavior among Gen Z employees by demonstrating personalized care and support, which fosters emotional bonds and a sense of being valued, thereby discouraging retaliatory or disengaged behaviors (Luqman et al., 2020). Benevolent leadership has also been shown to increase work engagement and initiative, thereby decreasing counterproductive behavior (Li et al., 2022). Moral leadership, through its emphasis on fairness, integrity, and ethical role modeling, enhances perceptions of justice and trust (Mohi Ud Din and Zhang, 2023), which in turn decreases the likelihood of norm-violating actions and promotes constructive employee conduct. Also, this leadership has been found to negatively correlate with various forms of counterproductive work behavior, including abuse, withdrawal, theft, sabotage, and production/service deviance (Kulualp and Koçoğlu, 2019). Together, these two leadership dimensions serve as protective factors that buffer Gen Z employees against engaging in counterproductive work behavior. In our study, we propose that both benevolent and moral leadership will be negatively associated with counterproductive work behavior among Gen Z employees.
Based on the literature reviewed above, the following main hypotheses are developed.
H1a: Authoritarian leadership is positively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
H1b: Benevolent leadership is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
H1c: Moral leadership is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
The mediating role of leader identification
Gen Z employees generally prefer a leadership approach that involves seeking consensus rather than giving commands. They prefer encouragement and participation over being autocratic, and value adaptability and flexibility over rigidity and hierarchy (McCrindle and Fell, 2019). Therefore, authoritarian leadership focuses on the leaders’ dominance, rigid oversight, and the subordinates’ unquestioning adherence (Zhang and Xie, 2017) is likely to negatively evaluate authoritarian leaders. Integrating the social identity theory and characteristics of both Gen Z employees and leadership styles, we argue that authoritarian leadership will result in lower leadership identification. Gen Z employees, who value autonomy, inclusivity, and open communication, may find authoritarian leadership, which is marked by strict control and top-down decision-making, misaligned with their values (Demirbilek and Keser, 2022). This misalignment can hinder positive identification with their leaders, resulting in a weaker sense of belonging and loyalty. Consequently, authoritarian leadership is likely to lead to lower leadership identification among Gen Z employees. By contrast, compared with authoritarian leadership, benevolent and moral leadership typically emphasize care, support, and a focus on morals, which aligns with the values that Gen Z employees themselves often appreciate (Nikolic, 2022). Gen Z values transparency, ethical behavior, and a supportive work environment, which makes them more likely to resonate with leaders who exhibit these qualities. They appreciate leaders who are honest and open in their communication, act with integrity, and create a positive workplace. This approach is especially inclusive of Gen Z employees, making them more likely to embrace and identify with this style of leadership. Based on this, we make the following assumptions:
H2a: Authoritarian leadership is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ leader identification.
H2b: Benevolent leadership is positively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ leader identification.
H2c: Moral leadership is positively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ leader identification.
Employees who strongly identify with their leaders tend to exhibit greater attentiveness and loyalty toward both their supervisors and organizations (Sluss et al., 2012). Such employees are more likely to adopt their leaders’ priorities, objectives, and values, often reshaping their own self-concept to align with their leaders’ standards, beliefs, and behaviors (Gu et al., 2015). This strong identification fosters a sense of obligation to contribute constructively, including the willingness to share innovative ideas and solutions with their leaders (Liu et al., 2010).
Moreover, employees who identify closely with their leaders are typically more motivated and driven to meet their leaders’ expectations. They often engage in behaviors that not only benefit the leader but also support organizational goals (Johnson, 2010). When leaders are perceived as role models or relatable figures, their actions and attitudes have a stronger influence on employees’ behaviors (Wang and Rode, 2010).
Drawing on this perspective, we propose that employees with a high level of leader identification are less likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviors, regardless of how they are treated by their leaders. In this context, leader identification acts as a protective factor, mitigating negative workplace behaviors. Taken together, previous research suggests that leader identification plays a critical mediating role in this relationship, exerting a negative influence on employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H3: Leader identification is negatively related to Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
H4a: Leader identification mediates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
H4b: Leader identification mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
H4c: Leader identification mediates the relationship between moral leadership and Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
The moderating role of traditionality
We argue that traditionality moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leadership identification. Individuals with high traditionality have more recognition of ethics and leadership authority, while individuals with low traditionality tend to pursue effectiveness and equality (Farh et al., 2007). High-traditional individuals pay attention to traditional cultural values such as benevolence, righteousness, morality, and self-discipline (Li et al., 2017), which can have a positive impact on their sense of leader identification and improve the influence of paternalistic leadership. On the contrary, individuals with low adherence to traditional values are less likely to embrace or even pay attention to the ethical norms promoted by traditional culture (Wu et al., 2021). They also tend to question or disregard the authority and status of leaders (Liu et al., 2013) As a result, the influence of paternalistic leadership may be weakened among these individuals.
Based on Gen Z employees’ traits, we assume those with higher levels of traditionality tend to exhibit a greater degree of identification with any type of leadership. This implies that regardless of the actions taken by leaders, Gen Z employees are inclined to accept them and feel a sense of identification with the hierarchical relationship (Hui et al., 2004a). In contrast, Gen Z employees with lower levels of traditionality tend to have higher expectations of leadership styles. For these individuals, they prefer to collaborate with leaders who encourage participation and adaptability, rather than those who enforce strict hierarchical structures. They are more likely to identify with this open and egalitarian work environment, leading to higher levels of job satisfaction and positivity (Bălan and Vreja, 2018). Hence, we argue that traditionality moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification, therefore, the theoretical assumption is as follow:
H5a: The negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification is moderated by traditionality, such that it is stronger for lower than for higher levels of traditionality.
H5b: The positive relationship between benevolent leadership and leader identification is moderated by traditionality, such that it is stronger for lower than for higher levels of traditionality.
H5c: The positive relationship between moral leadership and leader identification is moderated by traditionality, such that it is stronger for lower than for higher levels of traditionality.
Based on the above discussion, the moderated mediation model of the relationship between paternalistic leadership and the Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior was constructed, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Methods
Participants and procedures
We utilized an online survey to collect data and test our hypotheses, focusing on Gen Z employees in Mainland China. To minimize the potential impact of common method variance, we collected the data at two separate points in time, aligning with the proposed theoretical model (Podsakoff et al., 2012). At Time one (T1), Gen Z employees reported perceived leadership styles, including paternalistic leadership and control variables (i.e., authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, and moral leadership). They were also asked to rate their own degree identification with leaders at the same time one (T1). At Time two (T2), 1 months later, the T1 respondents were asked to rate their level of the counterproductive work behavior and traditionality again.
The survey was administered through the Credamo platform (a questionnaire survey platform based in mainland China). We employed a convenience sampling approach. Questionnaire links were distributed with the help of colleagues, senior students working in various companies, and advisors. Before participation, respondents were informed of the research purpose, assured that their data would remain confidential and used solely for academic research, and encouraged to reach out via telephone, WeChat, or SMS if they had any questions during completion.
By the final submission deadline, a total of 358 responses were recorded through the online questionnaire platform. During data processing, we excluded responses with completion times of less than 60 s, those exhibiting uniform answers across all items, and any other invalid data submissions. Ultimately, 324 valid responses were collected. In this study, statistical analysis of the data was primarily conducted using Stata 17.0. Initially, Stata 17.0 was employed to perform descriptive analyses on both demographic statistics and the four key research variables, providing an overview of the data as a whole.
Table 1 presents the key demographic statistics of the participants. It shows males represent 53.09% and females 46.91% of respondents. Most Gen Z employees (53.40%) are aged 27–29. In terms of education, 48.15% hold bachelor’s degrees, 16.36% have graduate degrees, and 15.74% have high school education or lower. Private enterprises employ 28.09% of respondents, and the majority (48.15%) have 1–2 years of work experience. Regular employees make up 61.42% of respondents, reflecting their limited experience and younger age. Additionally, 73.6% express satisfaction with their current salary levels.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of demographic information.
Measures
All measurement scales involved in our study were adapted from the existing literature and were employed and demonstrated to have good reliability and validity by many previous studies in the Chinese context (e.g., Farh et al., 2008; Yu and Zhang, 2007; Liu et al., 2013; Chen and Spector, 2011). All multi-item measures were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Paternalistic leadership (T1). At Time 1, for paternalistic leadership, we used a 15-items scale developed by Cheng to measure paternalistic leadership (Cheng et al., 2003). The sample items for authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality included: “My supervisor asks me to obey his/her instructions completely,” and “My supervisor is a virtuous leader compared to other company leaders.”
Leader identification (T1). At Time 1, we used Walumbwa and Hartnell’s 10-items measure to assess how employees identify with their direct leader (Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011). This scale was originally designed to measure employees’ identification with the organization (Kark et al., 2003); in this study, items focused on the direct leader of the employee. Two example items are, “When someone criticizes my direct leader, it feels like an insult to me” and “I am proud to tell others I work with this supervisor.”
Traditionality (T2). At Time 2, participants rated their traditionality using the 5-item scale by Farh et al. (1997). Two sample items are “The best way to avoid mistakes is to follow the instructions of a senior person” and “When people are in dispute, they should ask the most senior person to decide who is right.”
Counterproductive work behavior (T2). At Time 2, members rate their own degree of counterproductive work behavior. The counterproductive work behavior was assessed using a 10-item Chinese version derived from Bennett and Robinson (2000) original 19-item scale. This shorter version has been validated in Chinese organizational research and has been widely adopted in local studies. In this study, two sample items are “Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions” and “Put little effort into your work.”
Results
Reliability and validity test results
To assess the potential concern of common method bias (CMB), we conducted Harman’s single-factor test by loading all study items into an unrotated principal component analysis. The results showed that the first factor accounted for 47.65% of the total variance, which exceeds the commonly used 40% threshold but falls below the more conservative 50% threshold, suggesting that CMB may not be a significant concern (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Kock et al., 2021). Moreover, following recommendations in the literature, we adopted several procedural remedies to further minimize CMB, including assuring participant anonymity, randomizing the presentation order of items, and using varied scale formats to reduce evaluation apprehension and response consistency effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Kock et al., 2021).
As shown in Table 2, the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership (authoritarian, benevolent, and moral leadership) demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.937, 0.928, and 0.931, respectively. All values exceed the recommended threshold of 0.80, indicating high reliability of the measurement scales (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Similarly, the Cronbach’s alpha for leader identification, traditionality, and the counterproductive work behavior are 0.955, 0.917, and 0.921, thereby inferring robust internal consistency and high reliability across the variable indicators. Analysis from Table 2 also reveals that the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, moral leadership, leader identification, and traditionality all exceed 0.7, while AVE for the counterproductive work behavior slightly surpasses 0.5, meeting the required standard (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The Composite Reliability (CR) scores all exceed 0.9, indicating a strong performance (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Factor loading values range from 0.722 to 0.912 (surpassing 0.6), providing further evidence of the scale’s sound convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010).
Table 2. Reliability and validity statistics of variables.
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess discriminant validity among paternalistic leadership, leader identification, traditionality, and the counterproductive work behavior. As shown in Table 3, the results for the six-factor model yielded χ2 = 1001.319, df = 725, χ2/df = 1.381 < 3, RMSEA = 0.034 < 0.08, TLI = 0.973 > 0.9, CFI = 0.975 > 0.9, and SRMR = 0.034 < 0.08. They indicate a good overall model fit for the six-factor model, and its fit indices outperform those of the other factor models, demonstrating the satisfactory discriminant validity of the scale used in this study.
Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Correlation analysis results
Table 4 summarizes the mean values, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients. The analysis reveals the negative relationship between benevolent leadership and the counterproductive work behavior (r = −0.473, p < 0.01). Moral leadership is negatively related to the counterproductive work behavior (r = −0.589, p < 0.01). And there was a positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and the counterproductive work behavior (r = 0.656, p < 0.01).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Both benevolent leadership (r = 0.568, p < 0.01) and moral leadership (r = 0.712, p < 0.01) are positive related to leader identification. In contrast, the table indicates a negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification. (r = −0.486, p < 0.01). Finally, there was a negative interaction between leader identification and the counterproductive work behavior (r = −0.746, p < 0.01). This preliminary analysis suggests a significant negative relationship between leader identification and employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
Multiple regression analysis
Table 5 presents regression models of paternalistic leadership and its dimensions on employees’ counterproductive work behavior and leader identification. In Model 2, authoritarian leadership shows a positive impact on employees’ counterproductive work behavior (b = 0.470, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H1a. Model 3 reveals that benevolent leadership is negatively related to employees’ counterproductive work behavior (b = −0.359, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H1b. In Model 4, moral leadership significantly influences employees’ counterproductive work behavior, demonstrating a negative interaction (b = −0.428, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H1c. In Model 7, authoritarian leadership shows a negative impact on leader identification (b = −0.489, p < 0.001), confirming Hypothesis H2a. Model 8 indicates a positive relationship between benevolent leadership and leader identification (b = 0.524, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H2b. In Model 9, moral leadership positively affects leader identification (b = 0.627, p < 0.001), confirming Hypothesis H2c. Finally, according to Model 5, it is evident that leader identification exerts a negative impact on employees’ counterproductive work behavior (b = −0.643, p < 0.001), thereby supporting Hypothesis H3.
Table 5. Multiple regression results predicting counterproductive work behavior and leader identification.
Mediation and moderation analysis
Table 6 examines the mediating effect of identification in the relationship between authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, and moral leadership and counterproductive work behavior. Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was employed to enhance the robustness of the estimates. This method was chosen because it provides robust estimates of indirect effects, even when the normality assumption is violated, which is common in complex mediation models. Additionally, bootstrap resampling enhances the accuracy of confidence intervals, making it particularly suitable for capturing the nuances of leader identification’s mediating role (Hayes, 2017).
Table 6. Testing for mediation effects of leader identification.
Authoritarian leadership facilitates employees’ counterproductive work behavior through leader identification, as indicated by a significant indirect effect (95% CI [0.189, 0.300], excluding zero), while the direct effect is not significant (95% CI [0.160, 0.290], including zero). This implies that leader identification partially mediates the influence of authoritarian leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Thereby, it can confirm Hypothesis H4a. Benevolent leadership reduces employees’ counterproductive work behavior through leader identification, as indicated by a significant indirect effect (95% CI [−0.384, −0.027], excluding zero), while the direct effect is not significant (95% CI [−0.096, 0.030], including zero). This indicates that leader identification fully mediates the impact of benevolent leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior, supporting Hypothesis H4b. Last, moral leadership reduces employees’ counterproductive work behavior through leader identification, as indicated by a significant indirect effect (95% CI [−0.433, −0.323], excluding zero), while the direct effect is not significant (95% CI [−0.118, 0.018], including zero). Thus, leader identification fully mediates the influence of moral leadership on employees’ counterproductive work behavior, supporting Hypothesis H4c.
In order to examine the moderating effect of traditionality on the relationship between the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership and leader identification, the interaction of authoritarian leadership with traditionality, benevolent leadership with traditionality, and moral leadership with traditionality were sequentially incorporated into the model. Regression analyses were conducted on leader identification, and the results are presented in the table.
As summarized by Model 1 in Table 7, the influence of authoritarian leadership on leader identification is negative (b = −0.317, p < 0.001). The interaction between authoritarian leadership and traditionality impacts employees’ counterproductive work behavior positively (b = 0.071, p < 0.05). This suggests that when traditionality is high, the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification tends to be weaker. Conversely, when traditionality is low, this negative relationship is stronger. To better visualize the moderation effect, we plotted the interaction terms in Figure 2.
Table 7. Moderation effects of traditionality on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification.
Figure 2. Moderation effect of traditionality on the relationship between authoritarian leadership and leader identification.
In Model 2, the influence of benevolent leadership on leader identification is positive (b = 0.327, p < 0.001). The interaction between benevolent leadership and traditionality significantly impacts employees’ counterproductive work behavior negatively (b = −0.117, p < 0.001). In Model 3, the influence of moral leadership on leader identification is positive (b = 0.436, p < 0.001). The interaction between moral leadership and traditionality significantly impacts employees’ counterproductive work behavior negatively (b = −0.083, p < 0.01). This implies that varying levels of traditionality affect the relationship between benevolent leadership, moral leadership and leader identification. When traditionality is high, the positive relationship between benevolent leadership and moral leadership and leader identification tends to diminish. Conversely, when traditionality is low, the negative relationship between benevolent leadership and moral leadership and leader identification intensifies.
As depicted in Figures 3, 4, in the relationship between benevolent leadership, moral leadership, and leader identification, the slope of low-level traditionality is steeper compared to high-level traditionality. Consequently, lower traditionality reinforces the positive correlation between benevolent leadership, moral leadership, and leader identification. With a decrease in traditionality, the positive impact of benevolent leadership and moral leadership on leader identification also strengthens.
Figure 3. Moderation effect of traditionality on the relationship between benevolent leadership and leader identification.
Figure 4. Moderation effect of traditionality on the relationship between moral leadership and leader identification.
Discussion
Theoretical implications
This study develops a theoretical model that explores how paternalistic leadership affects Chinese Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior, with leader identification as a mediator and traditionality as a moderator. Our findings support the three main hypotheses: the impact of paternalistic leadership on counterproductive work behavior, the mediating role of leader identification, and the moderating role of traditionality.
First, this study offers important insights into how distinct dimensions of paternalistic leadership shape workplace behavior among Chinese Gen Z employees. Regarding each dimension, benevolent leadership and moral leadership exhibit significant negative effects on employee’s counterproductive work behavior, whereas authoritarian leadership shows a significant positive effect. Benevolent leadership demonstrates sincere treatment toward individuals, offering substantial assistance and care, which makes employees feel valued by the leadership, consequently reducing the likelihood of generating more counterproductive work behavior. Moral leadership influences employees through its moral appeal, fostering a greater willingness among employees to personally invest in their work, thereby reducing substantial counterproductive work behavior. However, authoritarian leadership’s demeanor tends to hurt employees emotionally, dampening their enthusiasm and motivation for work, thereby stimulating younger employees to engage in more counterproductive work behavior.
Secondly, the results show that leader identification fully mediates the relationship between benevolent leadership and moral leadership and employees’ counterproductive work behavior, and partially mediates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and the counterproductive work behavior. This indicates that Gen Z employees are more inclined to endorse the positive leadership styles of benevolent leadership and moral leadership, which foster positive self-value feedback among employees, consequently reducing their negative attitudes toward work and content innovation. Conversely, Gen Z employees are more resistant to the influence of authoritarian leadership, displaying lower identification, thereby prompting more counterproductive work behavior. This is mainly because authoritarian leadership typically emphasizes power and control, which contradicts the values cherished by Gen Z employees, such as respecting individual rights and the diversity of values (Dolot, 2018). The conflict resulting from this clash of values leads to lower identification, thereby increasing the occurrence of the counterproductive work behavior. The emphasis on care, support, and moral principles typically highlighted by benevolent leadership and moral leadership aligns with the values cherished by Gen Z employees (Nikolic, 2022). They may be more inclined to collaborate with their leaders because they feel that these leaders better understand their needs, support their growth, and consequently, have higher levels of identification with them.
Lastly, our study found traditionality moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification. Employees with lower traditionality exhibit a stronger relationship between paternalistic leadership and leader identification. In high traditionality contexts, traditional values can mitigate the negative impact of authoritarian leadership, leading to higher leader identification. Conversely, in low traditionality contexts, authoritarian leadership significantly affects leader identification, resulting in lower ratings. High traditionality individuals are more compliant with authority, making them less sensitive to fluctuations in leadership behavior (Hui et al., 2004a; Xiong Chen and Aryee, 2007). They tend to maintain positive relationships with leaders regardless of leadership style. On the other hand, low traditionality employees react more strongly to changes in leadership behavior, given their less adherence to traditional values.
Our study also revealed that individuals with higher traditionality start with a higher baseline level of leader identification. Although they exhibit a steeper slope of change in response to paternalistic leadership, their initial identification is generally stronger. This suggests that while high traditionality individuals naturally align with leadership, their response to changes in paternalistic leadership is less pronounced due to their familiarity with hierarchical structures (Cheng et al., 2004). Low traditionality individuals, less accustomed to traditional authority, show a more pronounced response to changes in leadership behavior, reflecting their less constrained stance toward traditional values and authority.
Taken together, high traditionality individuals’ inherent values align with paternalistic leadership, enhancing their leader identification. They are more likely to uphold traditional hierarchical norms, while low traditionality individuals, who may reject traditional values, experience a stronger impact on their leadership identification due to their more flexible stance on authority (Farh et al., 2007; Li and Ngo, 2017).
Practical implications
In the Chinese cultural context, the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership that are most acceptable are benevolent leadership and moral leadership, both deeply resonating with people. Firstly, leaders should engage in acts of kindness and assistance toward Gen Z employees, allowing them to feel the organization’s care and warmth. This enhances employees’ sense of belonging and responsibility to the company. Providing a favorable working environment and access to information resources also encourages employees to contribute creatively to the organization. Secondly, leaders should prioritize their own conduct, establishing correct values that align with the organizational culture. As leaders, setting an example for employees, conveying positive energy, and inspiring them to actively contribute to the company’s development are crucial. Lastly, leaders should minimize autocratic and authoritative practices, avoiding a commanding tone. Instead, they should engage in communication with others in an egalitarian manner, fostering cooperation between employees and leaders.
Importantly, across all three leadership dimensions, our findings highlight the central role of leader identification as a practical lever to reduce counterproductive work behavior. It is not only the direct actions of leaders that matter, but also how these actions foster employees’ psychological connection and attachment to the leader. Strengthening leader identification serves as a key pathway through which benevolent and moral leadership reduce counterproductive tendencies, and through which authoritarian leadership can, unfortunately, amplify them. By enhancing leader identification, organizations can indirectly lower the likelihood of counterproductive actions and promote overall workplace harmony. Therefore, leadership practices that foster identification, such as demonstrating care, acting with moral integrity, and maintaining respectful, trust-based relationships, are essential strategies for improving organizational outcomes among Gen Z employees.
As Gen Z employees continue to enter the labor market, there is a notable departure in the traditional values of these new-generation workers compared to the past. This calls for adaptive and flexible responses from paternalistic leadership to address the diverse needs of different employees. On the one hand, when dealing with high traditionality employees, it is crucial to emphasize respect and humility. Leaders should highlight the importance of a respectful and humble relationship between leaders and employees, aligning with the traditional Confucian emphasis on “respect for elders and love for the young.” Cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect can enhance the trust and identification of highly traditionality employees with leadership. Simultaneously, instilling a sense of responsibility and obligation is essential. High traditionality employees typically value duty and a sense of responsibility.
On the other hand, it is imperative to adapt flexibly to low traditionality employees. Given that low traditionality employees are more sensitive to social exchange relationships, paternalistic leadership needs to be more adaptable to their needs. In contrast to high traditionality employees, leaders can strengthen leadership identification among low traditionality employees by establishing more egalitarian and interactive communication channels. Unlike high traditionality employees, leaders can further enhance identification among low traditionality employees by establishing more egalitarian and interactive communication channels. Recognizing the heightened sensitivity of low traditionality individuals to social exchange relationships, leaders should prioritize open and transparent communication that encourages active participation and feedback. This approach not only acknowledges the distinct preferences of low traditionality employees but also fosters a collaborative and inclusive organizational culture.
Limitations and future directions
Our study offers valuable insights into the dynamics of paternalistic leadership, leader identification, and counterproductive work behavior among Chinese Gen Z employees, making a meaningful contribution to the literature on paternalistic leadership. Nonetheless, several limitations remain, which future research should aim to address.
Firstly, all variables within this study were self-reported by Gen Z employees. While statistical analysis indicated no significant common method bias in our dataset, it is important to note that complete exclusion of such variance cannot be guaranteed. We recommend future research may opt to gather data from diverse sources, for example, the counterproductive work behavior of Gen Z employees can be evaluated by their leaders.
Secondly, this study was conducted within companies in mainland China, consequently, the generalizability of our findings may be constrained, particularly when considering variances in Western cultural contexts. In Western research, paternalistic leadership is sometimes examined as a single dimension, focusing either on benevolence or authoritarianism, each linked separately to employee outcomes (Ehrnrooth et al., 2024). By contrast, Chinese research typically adopts a three-dimensional model that integrates authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality into a unified leadership style. The effects of benevolent and moral leadership may be particularly culturally embedded, as they resonate with Confucian values and hierarchical norms that are more common in Chinese organizations. At the same time, the observed link between authoritarian leadership and counterproductive work behavior may reflect a more general psychological mechanism, such as autonomy frustration, that could extend beyond cultural boundaries. These cultural differences suggest that leadership styles effective in China may not translate directly to Western contexts. Thus, future research could replicate and compare our findings in other industries or different cultural contexts.
Finally, the results showed Gen Z employees’ leader identification played a partial mediation role in our model, which indicated there might be other mediating mechanisms in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Hence, alternative mediations like emotional exhaustion (Lebrón et al., 2018), abusive supervision (Sulea et al., 2013), and work resources (Shen and Lei, 2022), could be considered from a different angle to investigate the mechanism between them in future research. We encourage future research to explore from multiple perspectives what influences Gen Z employees’ counterproductive work behavior.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval were not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants or participants legal guardian/next of kin provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
YK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Software, Writing – original draft. LL: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. MG: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: a legitimate diversity and leadership issue. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 25, 124–141. doi: 10.1108/01437730410521813
Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang, and K. K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (Springer, Boston, MA), 445–466.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327
Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Olsen, O. K., and Espevik, R. (2023). Daily transformational leadership: a source of inspiration for follower performance? Eur. Manag. J. 41, 700–708. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2022.04.004
Bălan, S., and Vreja, L. O. (2018) “Generation Z: challenges for management and leadership.” Proceedings of the 12th International Management Conference “Management Perspectives in the Digital Era”, Bucharest, Romania,
Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 349–360. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Bolton, L. R., Harvey, R. D., Grawitch, M. J., and Barber, L. K. (2012). Counterproductive work behaviours in response to emotional exhaustion: a moderated mediational approach. Stress. Health 28, 222–233. doi: 10.1002/smi.1425
Chen, X.-P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T.-J., Farh, J.-L., and Cheng, B.-S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Aust. J. Manag. 40, 796–819. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410604
Chen, P. Y., and Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): an integration of perspectives. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21, 342–352.
Chen, L., Yang, B., and Jing, R. (2015). Paternalistic leadership, team conflict, and TMT decision effectiveness: interactions in the Chinese context. Manag. Organ. Rev. 11, 739–762. doi: 10.1017/mor.2015.34
Cheng, B., Chou, L., Huang, M., Farh, L. J., and Peng, S. (2003). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: evidence from business organizations in mainland China. Indig. Psychol. Res. Chin. Soc. 20:209.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., and Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 7, 89–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x
Dangmei, J., and Singh, A. (2016). Understanding the generation Z: the future workforce. South-Asian J. Multidisciplinary Stud. 3, 1–5.
Demirbilek, M., and Keser, S. (2022). Leadership expectations of generation Z teachers working in educational organizations. Res. Educ. Admin. Leadership 7, 209–245.
Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., Balabanova, E., and Wechtler, H. (2024). Western and non-western leadership styles and employee wellbeing: a case of a high-power distance context. Front. Psychol. 14:1261893. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261893
Fan, P., Zhang, H., Yang, S., Yu, Z., and Guo, M. (2023). Do illegitimate tasks Lead to work withdrawal behavior among generation Z employees in China? The role of perceived insider status and Overqualification. Behav. Sci. 13:702. doi: 10.3390/bs13090702
Fang, C.-H., Fang, C.-L., Chao, R.-F., and Lin, S.-P. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and employees’ sustained work behavior: a perspective of playfulness. Sustainability 11:6650. doi: 10.3390/su11236650
Farh, J.-L., and Cheng, B.-S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Management and organizations in the Chinese context, London: Palgrave Macmillan 84–127.
Farh, J.-L., Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., and Chu, X.-P. (2014). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In I. Alon, W. Zhang, and S. Li (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance. New York, NY: Routledge, 230–260.
Farh, J.-L., Earley, P. C., and Lin, S.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Adm. Sci. Q. 42, 421–444. doi: 10.2307/2393733
Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., and Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 715–729. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.25530866
Farh, L. J., Liang, J., Chou, L.-f., and Cheng, B.-S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research direction. In C.-C. Chen & Y.-T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices. Cambridge University Press. 171–205.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
Gruys, M. L., and Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11, 30–42. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Gu, Q., Tang, T. L.-P., and Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 126, 513–529. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1967-9
Guo, L., Luo, J., and Cheng, K. (2023). Exploitative leadership and counterproductive work behavior: a discrete emotions approach. Pers. Rev. 53, 353–374. doi: 10.1108/PR-02-2021-0131
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2nd Edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hendrastomo, G., and Januarti, N. E. (2023). The characteristics of generation Z students and implications for future learning methods. J. Kependidikan J. Has. Penelit. Dan Kajian Kepustakaan Di Bidang Pendidik. Pengajar. Dan Pembelajaran 9, 484–496. doi: 10.33394/jk.v9i2.7745
Holtz, B. C., and Harold, C. M. (2013). Effects of leadership consideration and structure on employee perceptions of justice and counterproductive work behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 492–519. doi: 10.1002/job.1825
Huang, S. Y., Li, M.-W., and Chang, T.-W. (2021). Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and participative leadership in predicting counterproductive work behaviors: evidence from financial technology firms. Front. Psychol. 12:658727. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658727
Hui, C., Lee, C., and Rousseau, D. M. (2004a). Employment relationships in China: do workers relate to the organization or to people? Organ. Sci. 15, 232–240. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0050
Hui, C., Lee, C., and Rousseau, D. M. (2004b). Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 311–321. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.311
Johnson, R. E. (2010). Not all leader–member exchanges are created equal: importance of leader relational identity. Leadersh. Q. 21, 796–808. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.008
Kark, R., Shamir, B., and Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 246–255. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246
Kock, F., Berbekova, A., and Assaf, A. G. (2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: detection, prevention and control. Tour. Manag. 86:104330. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330
Kraus, M. (2017). Comparing generation X and generation Y on their preferred emotional leadership style. J. Appl. Leadersh. Manag. 5, 62–75.
Kulualp, H. G., and Koçoğlu, C. M. (2019). The open door to prevent counterproductive work behavior: ethical leadership. An. Bras. Estud. Tur. 9:5. doi: 10.34019/2238-2925.2019.v9.26170
Lebrón, M., Tabak, F., Shkoler, O., and Rabenu, E. (2018). Counterproductive work behaviors toward organization and leader-member exchange: the mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and work engagement. Organ. Manag. J. 15, 159–173. doi: 10.1080/15416518.2018.1528857
Li, J., Furst-Holloway, S., Masterson, S. S., Gales, L. M., and Blume, B. D. (2018). Leader-member exchange and leader identification: comparison and integration. J. Manag. Psychol. 33, 122–141. doi: 10.1108/JMP-06-2017-0220
Li, S.-L., Huo, Y., and Long, L.-R. (2017). Chinese traditionality matters: effects of differentiated empowering leadership on followers’ trust in leaders and work outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 145, 81–93. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2900-1
Li, H., and Ngo, H. Y. (2017). Chinese traditionality, job attitudes, and job performance: a study of Chinese employees. Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship 5, 139–150. doi: 10.1108/EBHRM-08-2015-0035
Li, Y., and Sun, J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: a cross-level examination. Leadersh. Q. 26, 172–189. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.001
Li, H., Sun, S., Wang, P., and Yang, Y. (2022). Examining the inverted U-shaped relationship between benevolent leadership and employees’ work initiative: the role of work engagement and growth need strength. Front. Psychol. 13:699366. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.699366
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., and Mao, Y. (2013). Ethical leadership and job performance in China: the roles of workplace friendships and traditionality. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86, 564–584. doi: 10.1111/joop.12027
Liu, S., and Ling, Z. (2025). How does authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision suppress employee voice? A meta-analysis based on cognitive and resource perspectives. Balt. J. Manag. 20, 248–265. doi: 10.1108/BJM-10-2024-0622
Liu, W., Zhu, R., and Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadersh. Q. 21, 189–202. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014
Luqman, R., Fatima, S., Ahmed, S., Khalid, I., and Bhatti, A. (2020). The impact of autocratic leadership style on counterproductive work behavior: the mediating role of employee commitment and moderating role of emotional exhaustion. Pollster J. Acad. Res. 6, 22–47.
McCrindle, M., and Fell, A. (2019). Understanding generation Z: Recruiting, training and leading the next generation. Sydney, Australia: McCrindle Research Pty Ltd.
Mohi Ud Din, Q., and Zhang, L. (2023). Unveiling the mechanisms through which leader integrity shapes ethical leadership behavior: theory of planned behavior perspective. Behav. Sci. 13:928. doi: 10.3390/bs13110928
Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Asadullah, M. A., Qun, W., and Khadim, S. (2020). Linking paternalistic leadership to follower's innovative work behavior: the influence of leader–member exchange and employee voice. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 24, 1354–1378. doi: 10.1108/ejim-01-2020-0005
Nikolic, K. (2022). Different leadership styles and their impact on generation Z employees’ motivation. Signature.
Nova, T. K., Adam, M., and Harmen, H. (2022). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on employee performance of Telkom Aceh region: generation Z as moderator. Int. J. Scientific Manag. Res. 5, 58–66.
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. 3rd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ogunsola, O. K., Arikewuyo, K. A., and Okwegbe, V. E. (2024). Effect of leadership styles on gen-Z work performance: an empirical analysis. Asian J. Res. Bus. Manag. 6, 51–71.
Pellegrini, E. K., and Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. Aust. J. Manag. 34, 566–593. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316063
Pellegrini, E., Scandura, T., and Jayaraman, V. (2007). Generalizability of the paternalistic leadership concept: a cross-cultural investigation (working paper). St. Louis: University of Missouri–St. Louis.
Peng, J.-C., and Chen, S. (2022). In search of a cross-level mechanism linking paternalistic leadership to employee voice behavior. Manag. Decis. 60, 2238–2255. doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2021-0454
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Rarick, C. A. (2007). Confucius on management: understanding Chinese cultural values and managerial practices. J. Int. Manag. Stud. 2, 22–28.
Shen, Y., and Lei, X. (2022). Exploring the impact of leadership characteristics on subordinates’ counterproductive work behavior: from the organizational cultural psychology perspective. Front. Psychol. 13:818509. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818509
Sluss, D. M., and Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How relational and organizational identification converge: processes and conditions. Organ. Sci. 19, 807–823. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0349
Sluss, D. M., Ployhart, R. E., Cobb, M. G., and Ashforth, B. E. (2012). Generalizing newcomers' relational and organizational identifications: processes and prototypicality. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 949–975. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0420
Spector, P. E., and Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 12, 269–292.
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., and Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: an examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 205–227. doi: 10.1002/job.315
Sulea, C., Fine, S., Fischmann, G., Sava, F. A., and Dumitru, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors. J. Pers. Psychol. 12, 196–200. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000097
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict” in The social psychology of intergroup relations. eds. W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole), 33–47.
Tan, L., Wang, Y., and Lu, H. (2021). Leader humor and employee upward voice: the role of employee relationship quality and traditionality. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 28, 221–236. doi: 10.1177/1548051820970877
Walumbwa, F. O., and Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: the role of relational identification and self-efficacy. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 84, 153–172. doi: 10.1348/096317910x485818
Wang, X.-H. F., and Howell, J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 23, 775–790.
Wang, P., and Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Hum. Relat. 63, 1105–1128.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: the cultural basis for'paternalistic headship'among the overseas Chinese. Organ. Stud. 18, 445–480. doi: 10.1177/017084069701800305
Wu, L.-Z., Sun, Z., Ye, Y., Kwan, H. K., and Yang, M. (2021). The impact of exploitative leadership on frontline hospitality employees’ service performance: a social exchange perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 96:102954. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102954
Xiong Chen, Z., and Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: an examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 226–238. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24162389
Yao, Y.-H., Fan, Y.-Y., Guo, Y.-X., and Li, Y. (2014). Leadership, work stress and employee behavior. Chin. Manag. Stud. 8, 109–126. doi: 10.1108/CMS-04-2014-0089
Yu, B., and Zhang, L. (2007). Supervisor–subordinate guanxi and employee work outcomes in Chinese enterprises: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 1, 610–636.
Zhang, S., Du, Y., and Zhou, C. (2021) “Traditional Chinese family as the basis for raising a child.” ICERI2021 proceedings.
Zhang, N., Liu, S., Pan, B., and Guo, M. (2021). Paternalistic leadership and safety participation of high-speed railway drivers in China: the mediating role of leader–member exchange. Front. Psychol. 12:591670. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.591670
Zhang, Y., and Xie, Y.-H. (2017). Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Manag. Organ. Rev. 13, 147–166. doi: 10.1017/mor.2016.36
Zheng, X., Song, J., Shi, X., Kan, C., and Chen, C. (2025). The effect of authoritarian leadership on young nurses' burnout: the mediating role of organizational climate and psychological capital. BMC Health Serv. Res. 25, 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12403-7
Zhu, W., Wang, G., Zheng, X., Liu, T., and Miao, Q. (2013). Examining the role of personal identification with the leader in leadership effectiveness: a partial nomological network. Group Org. Manag. 38, 36–67. doi: 10.1177/1059601112456595
Keywords: paternalistic leadership, counterproductive work behavior, leader identification, Chinese traditionality, generation Z employees
Citation: Ke Y, Liu L and Gu M (2025) Paternalistic leadership and counterproductive work behavior: mediating role of leader identification and moderating effect of traditionality in Chinese generation Z employees. Front. Psychol. 16:1587525. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1587525
Edited by:
Jane Terpstra Tong, Monash University Malaysia, MalaysiaReviewed by:
Isabella Poggi, Roma Tre University, ItalySamyia Safdar, Teesside University, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2025 Ke, Liu and Gu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Li Liu, bGkubGl1QHRheWxvcnMuZWR1Lm15