Investigating when and why employee cheating behavior predicts leader bottom-line mentality
Main Article Content
Cite this article:
Shi, G., & Shuai, D.
(2025). Investigating when and why employee cheating behavior predicts leader bottom-line mentality.
Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal,
53(4),
e14290.
Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgments
Author Contact
This study explored the relationship between employee cheating behavior and leader bottom-line mentality using the organizational shame framework. We surveyed 372 department and team heads in China using a two-wave time-lagged procedure. The results showed that employee cheating behavior increased leader bottom-line mentality by enhancing leader’s shame, and the degree of leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence moderated this relationship. The positive effect of employee cheating behavior on leader’s shame and its positive indirect effect on leader bottom-line mentality via leader’s shame were more pronounced when the interdependence was high rather than low. Finally, leader’s desire for control intensified the effect of the positive interaction between employee cheating behavior and leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence on leader’s shame, and it also indirectly impacted leader bottom-line mentality through shame. These findings enrich the theoretical study of bottom-line mentality antecedents and also provide important practical insights for managing employee cheating behavior.
Article Highlights
- Employee cheating behavior, the type of deception (leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence), and the leader’s personal characteristics (desire for control) were found to be important antecedents affecting leader’s shame and subsequently their bottom-line mentality.
- This study has filled a gap in the existing literature on leader bottom-line mentality by focusing on interpersonal interactions.
- The results offer a reasonable explanation for the bottom-line mentality among leaders, suggesting that it may be a negative response to employees cheating rather than motivated by the leader’s malice.
Employee cheating behavior refers to moral behavior in the workplace that violates accepted standards or rules and brings benefits to oneself (Shu et al., 2011). Research has shown that employee cheating behavior creates the illusion that an individual is more efficient and valuable to the organization, which not only undermines the organization’s actual performance but also contributes to the departure of ethical and productive employees (Mesdaghinia et al., 2019). In some cases, it may damage the organization’s reputation, potentially leading to its downfall (Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2020). However, the impact of employee cheating behavior on leadership remains poorly understood.
Bottom-line mentality (BLM) refers specifically to the singular focus on ensuring bottom-line results to the exclusion of other priorities (Greenbaum et al., 2012). To date, research on the antecedents of leader BLM has focused on individual leader cognitive and organizational situational factors. The former includes Machiavellianism, emotional exhaustion, and calculating thinking (Eissa et al., 2019); the latter includes a compensation system and top-level leader BLM (Mazzetti et al., 2014). However, these studies only offer a partial explanation of leader BLM because, in practice, leaders tend to exhibit more nuanced management behavior, including considering employee performance and weighing management options. Meanwhile, previous research on shame has primarily focused on differences between shame and guilt among college students or adolescents (Bagozzi et al., 2018). Despite the potential of shame to affect leaders’ management practices, the complex interactive effects of various factors on the relationship between employee cheating behavior and leader BLM have not been addressed in the literature.
Daniels and Robinson’s (2019) organizational shame theory is a useful framework that can explain when and why employee cheating leads to leaders adopting a BLM. According to shame theory, for a leader to feel shame toward employee cheating behavior, they must first feel responsible for the behavior and attribute it to a defective self. We argue that frequent cheating behavior by employees may cause leaders with a high desire for control to believe they have deviated from the ideal managerial identity and that their managerial competence is flawed, resulting in a sense of shame and motivating them to adopt a BLM as a coping mechanism. However, leaders do not always feel ashamed of an employee’s deception, especially when that behavior has little relevance to the organization’s main operational goals, indicating the need to examine additional variables.
This paper explored the interactive effects of shame, leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, and desire for control to examine the microprocesses behind the formation of leader BLM strategy and the boundary conditions between employee cheating behavior and BLM through the lens of shame theory. By addressing the complex dynamics and specific circumstances through which employee behavior affects leader BLM, this paper responded to scholars’ appeals for more studies on both the situational antecedents of BLM (Babalola et al., 2020) and the consequences of cheating behavior (Kundro et al., 2023). The findings expand our understanding of the interplay between organizational and situational factors behind BLM and offer practical implications for leaders grounded in shame management.
Organizational Shame Theory
Shame is a distressing emotion arising from failing to meet work-related identity standards and feeling identity threat (Cohen et al., 2011). According to Daniels and Robinson’s (2019) organizational shame theory framework, a stimulus event can trigger shame through two consecutive psychological processes. First, an individual negatively evaluates the stimulus event as deviating from their own identity standards. Second, they attribute the responsibility for this deviation to a defective self. There are three motivations for behavior after experiencing shame: protection, repair, and defense. Protection motivates personal avoidance and withdrawal, while repair drives constructive behavior. Defense, conversely, triggers attacks on those inflicting humiliation. If the individual is unable to process and regulate the shame in a healthy, well-adjusted matter, these motivations can then have a detrimental impact on work attitudes and behaviors (Daniels & Robinson, 2019).
The Intermediary Role of Leader’s Shame
In the context of shame theory, employee cheating behavior could motivate leader BLM through causing shame. While performing their managerial duties, leaders internalize identity standards that are in accordance with the expectations and norms of the employees and the organization (Brown, 2022). As a deviation from normal behavior, employee cheating behavior could be perceived as a negative stimulus event that subsequently causes the leader to believe they have failed to meet basic managerial job identity standards (Zada et al., 2022) and lack managerial competence (Xing et al., 2021), resulting in feelings of shame. Applying the defensive and repair motives, we postulated that a leader who feels ashamed of employee cheating behavior may adopt a BLM and focus on specific, objective, and tangible goals, such as using data to visually track and monitor the state of the organization’s functioning and ensure baseline results (Lee et al., 2019). As a result of this unbalanced focus, leaders may subsequently experience a depletion of resources and be unable to prioritize secondary objectives, such as corporate social responsibility, stakeholder rights, and employee welfare. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There will be an indirect effect of employee cheating behavior on bottom-line mentality through leader’s shame.
Regulatory Role of Leader–Subordinate Cooperative Goal Interdependence
Individuals are goal-oriented, and how they construct and perceive their goal relationships with others determines how they attribute others’ behavior and subsequently interact (Brown, 2022). One useful concept for ascertaining whether employee cheating behavior will evoke shame is leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, which reflects the extent to which the goals that motivate an employee’s behavior are positively related to a leader’s goals (Deutsch, 1949). When leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence is low, leaders are less likely to perceive employee misbehavior as a reflection of their own management abilities and more likely to attribute it to external factors such as team complexity or being overworked (Brown, 2022; Daniels & Robinson, 2019). In contrast, when interdependence is high, leaders are more likely to trust their employees and feel responsible for their deception, triggering shame and a heightened BLM response. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence will positively moderate the positive correlation between employee cheating behavior and leader’s shame.
Hypothesis 3: Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence will positively moderate the indirect effect of employee cheating behavior on bottom-line mentality through leader’s shame.
The Second-Order Moderating Effect of Leader’s Desire for Control
Individual differences in personality traits are an important second-level interfering factor in the cognitive evaluation process that leads to shame (Murphy & Kiffin-Petersen, 2017). Since employee cheating behavior devalues the leader’s control over the organization, leaders with a higher need for control are more likely to perceive deviant behavior as a threat to their management identity (van Knippenberg et al., 2020). Therefore, when a leader’s desire for control is high, high levels of employee cheating behavior and leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence are more likely to elicit feelings of shame and lead to a BLM. In contrast, leaders with a lower desire for control are able to tolerate a wider range of employee behaviors without experiencing distress. Therefore, regardless of the levels of employee cheating behavior and leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, these leaders will not experience a strong sense of deviation from their identity standards when employees cheat. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: There will be a three-way interaction between employee cheating behavior, leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, and leader’s desire for control on leader’s shame, such that in situations where a leader’s desire for control is high (vs. low) the interactive effect of employee cheating behavior and leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence on leader’s shame will be stronger.
Hypothesis 5: A leader’s desire for control will positively moderate the conditional indirect effect of employee cheating behavior and leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence on bottom-line mentality through leader’s shame.
The theoretical model of this paper is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Theoretical Model
Method
Participants and Procedure
The ethics committee of Shihezi University approved this study. Informed consent was completed for all procedures, and we assured the participants that their responses would remain anonymous. We distributed 450 surveys to employees in leadership positions in multiple enterprises in China. Following the approach of other scholars (Hu et al., 2021), we selected team leaders who managed several subordinates. We collected data across two time periods, using the last four digits of their cell phone numbers for matching. At the first stage we gathered data on employee cheating, leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, and leader’s desire for control. At the second stage we gathered data on leader’s shame, BLM, and the respondents’ demographics.
Following two-stage matching, invalid responses and those with missing data were removed, resulting in 372 valid responses (recovery rate: 82.66%). Out of the 450 surveys we distributed, respondents returned 372 completed forms. Among the respondents, 215 were men (57.8%) and 157 were women (42.2%), with ages ranging between 21 and 59 years (M = 31.0, SD = 7.7). Furthermore, 86.2% of the respondents had bachelor’s or postgraduate degrees, and 57.0% considered themselves grassroots leaders.
Measures
All scales were translated into Chinese and then back into English for use in this study. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
To assess employee cheating behavior, we used a seven-item scale developed by Mitchell et al. (2018). A sample item is “My subordinates often give the appearance of working hard in front of me, but actually do not work hard.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .90.
To evaluate leader’s shame, we employed the seven-item subscale of the Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale created by Cohen et al. (2011) and revised by Ma and Zhu (2023) to reflect the nuances of the workplace environment and the identity traits of leaders. This version invites supervisors to reflect on their emotional reactions during recent interactions with their subordinates. Sample items are “Subordinates’ disobedience makes me feel very embarrassed,” “I want to escape from the situation at that time,” and “I strive to conceal my errors.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .92.
To measure leader BLM, we used a four-item scale developed by Greenbaum et al. (2012). A sample item is “At work, I only care about meeting the bottom line.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .87.
To assess variable leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, we used a five-item scale developed by Chen and Tjosvold (2006). A sample item is “My subordinates and I share common goals.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .91.
To measure leader’s desire for control, we used a four-item scale developed by De Rijk et al. (1998). A sample item is “At work, I attach great importance to being able to set the pace of work.” Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .88.
Drawing on existing research (Naeem et al., 2019), we also used employees’ gender, age, level of education, years of experience in the company, and company hierarchy as control variables.
Data Analysis
We used Mplus 7.0 for confirmatory factor analysis and SPSS 27.0 for conducting correlation tests. For hypothesis testing, we employed regression analysis in SPSS 27.0 and Models 4, 7, and 11 of the PROCESS macro 4.1.
Results
Common Method Bias Test
Table 1 shows that the five variables in this study had good discriminant validity. Thus, this study was not significantly affected by common method bias.
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Note. N = 372. CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
a Employee cheating behavior, Leader’s shame, Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; b Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame, Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; c Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame + Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; d Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame + Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence + Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; e Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame + Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence + Leader’s desire for control + Leader’s bottom-line mentality.
Correlation Analysis
Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the core variables in this study. There were significant and positive correlations (p < .01) among all variables, providing initial support for our hypotheses.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. N = 372.
** p < .01.
Hypothesis Testing
We first conducted a regression analysis of the relationships between employee cheating behavior, leader’s shame, and BLM. The results in Table 3 show that employee cheating behavior had a significant and positive effect on leader’s shame, and leader’s shame had a significant and positive effect on BLM. Subsequently, we used Model 4 in the PROCESS macro and the bootstrapping method (5,000 resamples) to test the indirect effect of employee cheating behavior on BLM through leaders’ shame. The results in Model 1 of Table 4 indicate that the mediating effect of leader’s shame was significant, supporting Hypothesis 1.
Table 3. Effect of Employee Cheating Behavior and Leader–Subordinate Cooperative Goal Interdependence on Leader’s Shame and Bottom-Line Mentality
Note. CB = employee cheating behavior; COOP = leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 4. Indirect and Conditional Indirect Effects of Employee Cheating Behavior on Leader’s Bottom-Line Mentality via Leader’s Shame
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; COOP = leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence; DC = leader’s desire for control.
*** р < .001.
We conducted a regression analysis of employee cheating behavior, leader–subordinate cooperation goal interdependence, and their interactive effect on leader’s shame. The results in Table 3 indicate that the interaction between the employee cheating behavior and leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence had a significant and positive impact on leader’s shame. Figure 2 shows the simple slope test results, which revealed that the effect of employee cheating on leader’s shame was not significant with low cooperative goal interdependence, but it was significant with high goal interdependence, supporting Hypothesis 2.
Figure 2. Interaction of Employee Cheating Behavior and Interdependence of Cooperative Goal on Leader’s Shame
We used Model 7 in the PROCESS macro and the bootstrapping method (5,000 resamples) to test the conditional indirect effect of employee cheating behavior and cooperative goal interdependence on BLM through leader’s shame. The results in Model 2 of Table 4 indicated that the mediating effect of leader’s shame was significant in both high and low leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence conditions, but there was a significant difference between them, supporting Hypothesis 3.
We conducted a regression analysis of the interaction between employee cheating behavior, leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, and leader’s desire for control as well as assessed their joint interactive effect on leader’s shame. The results in Table 5 show that the triple interaction of employee cheating, leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, and leader's desire for control positively affected leader’s shame. Figure 3 contains the simple slope analysis results, which indicate no significant interaction between cheating and goal interdependence when the leader’s desire for control is low, but the interaction is significant when the leader’s desire for control is high, supporting Hypothesis 4.
Table 5. Effects of Employee Cheating Behavior, Leader–Subordinate Cooperative Goal Interdependence, and Leader’s Desire for Control on Leader’s Shame and Bottom-Line Mentality
Note. CB = employee cheating behavior; COOP = leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence; DC = leader’s desire for control.
Figure 3. Three-Way Interaction Effect of Employee Cheating Behavior, Interdependence of Cooperative Goal, and Leader’s Desire for Control on Leader’s Shame
To test Hypothesis 5, we used Model 11 in the PROCESS macro and the bootstrapping method (5,000 samples). The results in Model 3 of Table 4 show that the conditional indirect effect of leader’s shame was significant in every context. Further analysis of the differences revealed that there was a significant difference between Conditions 1 and 2, while there was no significant difference between Conditions 3 and 4. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported.
Discussion
This paper explored the relationship between employee cheating behavior and leader BLM, examining the interactions among employee cheating behavior, leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, and leader’s desire for control on leader’s shame. The results show that employees’ cheating behavior had a positive impact on a leader’s BLM through leader’s shame, which was in line with our first hypothesis. Cooperative goal interdependence positively moderated the relationship between employees’ cheating behavior and leader’ shame, as well as the indirect effects of shame, in line with our second and third hypotheses. Furthermore, a leader’s desire to control strengthened not only the positive interaction between employee cheating behavior and the interdependence of leader–subordinate cooperation goals on leader’s shame but also its conditional indirect effect on leader’s BLM through leader’s shame, in line with our fourth and fifth hypotheses.
Theoretical Contributions
This study has made three major contributions to the literature. First, we have enriched BLM research in the field of leadership by examining the bottom–up influence of employees on leaders. Previous studies on the antecedents of BLM have mainly focused on individual leader factors (Eissa et al., 2019; Greenbaum et al., 2012) and overlooked the impact of interactions between employees and leaders on leader BLM (Mawritz et al., 2017). This study provides a nuanced examination of the effect of employee cheating behavior on leader BLM by integrating the degree of cheating behavior, behavior characteristics, and leadership characteristics in a comprehensive context. Second, this study also extends prior research on the consequences of employee cheating behavior and further examines the boundary conditions of its effects, responding to the call for more studies in this area (Kundro et al., 2023). Third, this study is the first to examine leaders’ psychological responses to employee cheating behavior using Daniels and Robinson’s (2019) organizational shame framework. Through innovatively extending the shame framework to the dyadic interactions between employees and leaders, our model provides a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological processes through which employee cheating behavior promotes leader BLM.
Practical Implications
This study has practical implications. The findings emphasize the damaging effects of employee cheating behavior on leadership style and provide a template for the management of employee cheating behavior through emphasizing the significance of shame. In settings of high leader–subordinate goal interdependence and desire for control, even low-level cheating behavior can trigger leaders to manage their shame by focusing exclusively on performance (i.e., adopting a BLM). However, researchers have shown that a BLM motivates employees to indulge in unethical workplace behaviors to achieve performance goals, impeding the long-term innovation and sustainable development of the organization (Babalola et al., 2020; Greenbaum et al., 2020). Since addressing minimal deceptive conduct is costly and ineffective, we recommend that leaders prioritize managing their shame emotions and receive training on the dangers of misusing BLM, especially in emotionally charged situations.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This study has two primary limitations. First, the study is primarily rooted in an Eastern culture, and caution is advised when applying these insights cross-culturally. Confucianism portrays leaders as humble and exemplary, making them more susceptible to shame from employee cheating behavior (Ho et al., 2004; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012). In contrast, Western culture typically delineates clear boundaries of responsibility between leaders and employees, reducing leaders’ susceptibility to shame from employee misconduct. In future studies, researchers could establish a framework to explore how cultural differences affect leaders’ experience of shame (Cucuani et al., 2022). Second, we collected data at two time points, which limited our ability to ascertain longitudinal changes. Future scholars in this area could utilize a dynamic research process, such as studying how leader BLM may lead to workplace anxiety, violation norm acceptability perception, and moral disengagement among employees, which are emotional or cognitive variables that ultimately lead to employee cheating behavior. Combining such research with the present study may reveal a cyclical effect in which employees’ cheating behavior stimulates leader BLM, which, in turn, intensifies employees’ cheating behavior, forming an escalating spiral of deceit.
Babalola, M. T., Greenbaum, R. L., Amarnani, R. K., Shoss, M. K., Deng, Y., Garba, O. A., & Guo, L. (2020). A business frame perspective on why perceptions of top management’s bottom‐line mentality result in employees’ good and bad behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12355
Bagozzi, R. P., Sekerka, L. E., & Sguera, F. (2018). Understanding the consequences of pride and shame: How self-evaluations guide moral decision making in business. Journal of Business Research, 84, 271–284.
Brown, A. D. (2022). Identities in and around organizations: Towards an identity work perspective. Human Relations, 75(7), 1205–1237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726721993910
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1727–1752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00657.x
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP Scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022641
Cucuani, H., Agustiani, H., Sulastiana, M., & Harding, D. (2022). Construction of shame-proneness scale of employee Malay people: A study from Indonesia. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, (15), 927–938.
Daniels, M. A., & Robinson, S. L. (2019). The shame of it all: A review of shame in organizational life. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2448–2473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318817604
De Rijk, A. E., Blanc, P. M. L., Schaufeli, W. B., & De Jonge, J. (1998). Active coping and need for control as moderators of the job demand-control model: Effects on burnout. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00658.x
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.
Eissa, G., Wyland, R., Lester, S. W., & Gupta, R. (2019). Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12241
Greenbaum, R. L., Babalola, M., Quade, M. J., Guo, L., & Kim, Y. C. (2020). Moral burden of bottom-line pursuits: How and when perceptions of top management bottom-line mentality inhibit supervisors’ ethical leadership practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04546-w
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025217
Hillebrandt, A., & Barclay, L. J. (2020). How cheating undermines the perceived value of justice in the workplace: The mediating effect of shame. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1164–1180.
Ho, D. Y.-F., Fu, W., & Ng, S. M. (2004). Guilt, shame and embarrassment: Revelations of face and self. Culture & Psychology, 10(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X04044166
Hu, Q., Wei, J., Wang, L., & Xie, X. (2021). How does an error maker’s status affect coworkers’ error tolerance? The roles of deviation from task objective and team interdependence [In Chinese]. Management World, 37, 113–127 + 117.
Kundro, T. G., Belinda, C. D., Affinito, S. J., & Christian, M. S. (2023). Performance pressure amplifies the effect of evening detachment on next-morning shame: Downstream consequences for workday cheating behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(8), 1356–1371. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001074
Lee, A., Schwarz, G., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 109–126.
Ma, J., & Zhu, M. (2023). A cross-lagged study on the spiral of abusive supervision in the workplace [In Chinese]. Journal of Systems Management, 32(4), 812. https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2021.0081
Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. M., & Graham, K. A. (2017). I just can’t control myself: A self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1482–1503.
Mazzetti, G., Schaufeli, W. B., & Guglielmi, D. (2014). Are workaholics born or made? Relations of workaholism with person characteristics and overwork climate. International Journal of Stress Management, 21(3), 227–254.
Mesdaghinia, S., Rawat, A., & Nadavulakere, S. (2019). Why moral followers quit: Examining the role of leader bottom-line mentality and unethical pro-leader behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 491–505.
Mitchell, M. S., Baer, M. D., Ambrose, M. L., Folger, R., & Palmer, N. F. (2018). Cheating under pressure: A self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 54–73.
Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.009
Murphy, S. A., & Kiffin-Petersen, S. (2017). The exposed self: A multilevel model of shame and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 657–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3185-8
Naeem, M., Weng, Q., Ali, A., & Hameed, Z. (2019). An eye for an eye: Does subordinates’ negative workplace gossip lead to supervisor abuse? Personnel Review, 49(1), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2018-0174
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330–349.
van Knippenberg, D., Giessner, S. R., Sleebos, E., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2020). A motivated information processing perspective on the antecedents of empowering leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(2), 79–89.
Xing, L., Sun, J., & Jepsen, D. (2021). Feeling shame in the workplace: Examining negative feedback as an antecedent and performance and well-being as consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1244–1260.
Zada, S., Khan, J., Saeed, I., Wu, H., Zhang, Y., & Mohamed, A. (2022). Shame: Does it fit in the workplace? Examining supervisor negative feedback effect on task performance. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 2461–2475. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S370043
Figure 1. Theoretical Model
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Note. N = 372. CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
a Employee cheating behavior, Leader’s shame, Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; b Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame, Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; c Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame + Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence, Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; d Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame + Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence + Leader’s desire for control, Leader’s bottom-line mentality; e Employee cheating behavior + Leader’s shame + Leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence + Leader’s desire for control + Leader’s bottom-line mentality.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. N = 372.
** p < .01.
Table 3. Effect of Employee Cheating Behavior and Leader–Subordinate Cooperative Goal Interdependence on Leader’s Shame and Bottom-Line Mentality
Note. CB = employee cheating behavior; COOP = leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 4. Indirect and Conditional Indirect Effects of Employee Cheating Behavior on Leader’s Bottom-Line Mentality via Leader’s Shame
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; COOP = leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence; DC = leader’s desire for control.
*** р < .001.
Figure 2. Interaction of Employee Cheating Behavior and Interdependence of Cooperative Goal on Leader’s Shame
Table 5. Effects of Employee Cheating Behavior, Leader–Subordinate Cooperative Goal Interdependence, and Leader’s Desire for Control on Leader’s Shame and Bottom-Line Mentality
Note. CB = employee cheating behavior; COOP = leader–subordinate cooperative goal interdependence; DC = leader’s desire for control.
Figure 3. Three-Way Interaction Effect of Employee Cheating Behavior, Interdependence of Cooperative Goal, and Leader’s Desire for Control on Leader’s Shame
This work was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72162029), awarded to Guanfeng Shi.
The authors thank research assistants Qingling Chen, Ziyi Zhang, and Juan Wang for their technical expertise and administrative assistance, and the participants who offered their time and insights.
Guanfeng Shi was responsible for research conceptualization, funding, data curation, and review of the manuscript. Dandan Shuai was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, manuscript writing, and editing. Both authors contributed to and approved the final article.
The data supporting this study’s findings are available from Shihezi University, but access is limited by licensing agreements. The data can be obtained from the authors upon request and with university permission.
Dandan Shuai, Room 512, School of Economics and Management, Shihezi University, No. 221 North Fourth Road, Shihezi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, 832003. Email: [email protected]
Article Details
© 2025 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.