I need these 6 pages done by Saturday 2pm pst

Leadership, work stress and employee behavior

Yan-Hong Yao and Ying-Ying Fan School of Business Administration, Hunan University, Changsha, China

Yong-Xing Guo Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney,

Australia, and

Yuan Li School of Business Administration, Hunan University, Changsha, China

Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to explore the influences of leadership and work stress on employee behavior, and the moderating effects of transactional and transformational leadership on the relationship between work stress and employee negative behavior. Design/methodology/approach – Using convenience sampling method, the authors investigated employees from 20 firms in different places and industries, and 347 valid questionnaires were collected. SPSS18.0 statistical analysis software was used for reliability and validity analysis, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypothesis. Findings – The empirical results show that there is a positive correlation between work stress and employee negative behavior. Transformational leadership has negative impacts on work stress and employee negative behavior, whereas transactional leadership has positive influences. Moreover, transactional leadership strengthens the influence of work stress on employee negative behavior, whereas transformational leadership has no moderating effect. Practical implications – First, enterprises should take employees’ stress tolerance into account in selection and recruitment, and enhance stress management. Second, by demonstrating inspirational vision and personal charisma, open leadership style, rather than short-term transactional behavior, will motivate subordinates more effectively. Finally, distribution system should be improved to achieve principle and procedural justice. Originality/value – The paper extends the research on employee behavior by investigating the impacts of leadership and work stress. According to Chinese social, economic and cultural characteristics, this research examines the influence of contemporary Chinese mindset and pluralistic values on employee behavior. Open leadership is proposed as a new leadership style, which contributes to improving leadership behavior and preventing negative behavior in workplace.

Keywords China, Transformational leadership, Work stress, Transactional leadership, Employee negative behavior, Open leadership

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction With the rapid development of economy in China, speed, efficiency and effectiveness have become primarily important for organizations. Chinese enterprises are experiencing deep changes in structure, technology, personnel, etc. to deal with fierce market competition. Multiple reasons such as tight job market partially caused by the second baby boom, over-relying on work income and lack of a comprehensive social

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-614X.htm

Work stress and employee behavior

109

Chinese Management Studies Vol. 8 No. 1, 2014

pp. 109-126 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1750-614X DOI 10.1108/CMS-04-2014-0089

security system have led to employees’ heavy work stress (Zhang, 2002). Research suggested that increasing work stress triggers employee negative behavior. Practically, employees’ interpersonal conflict, absenteeism, turnover and extreme behavior like retaliation have become increasingly widespread in the workplace (Shi et al., 2009), which harmed the organizations’ effectiveness and development. Cases like continual suicides of employees have attracted both public and academic attention. Is there a causal relationship between employees’ stress and extreme behavior? Is stress associated with employee behavior? What is the impact of leadership on employees’ work stress and related behaviors? We try to find answers by conducting this research.

A considerable amount of literature has been published on leadership and employees’ work stress in the domain of organizational behavior and human resources management. In recent years, with the accelerating pace of work and life in China, how leadership and work stress influence employee behavior has caught scholars’ and managers’ attention. Previously, researchers primarily focused on the influence of stress on employees’ performance, especially positive performance, whereas the negative impacts were often ignored. Some scholars noted that the relationship between work stress and employee negative behavior may exist (Zhang and Chen, 2008a), but these studies were just confined to theoretical development and conceptual models establishment. Also, research on employee behavior emphasized individual differences and internal psychological effects (Zhang and Chen, 2008a), while less attention was paid to the organizational context. Although the relationship between leadership and employee behavior has been studied continually (Tims et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2010), leadership’s impact on stress has not been explored, and its effect on relationship between work stress and employee behavior is still in early stage. Again, there is a dearth of empirical research in Chinese context. Although the past 30 years have witnessed extremely high economic increase in China, unbalance between wealth and happiness has become increasingly salient. It’s in such a social context that we discuss the relationship between employees’ stress, behavior and leadership’s role, and try to find ways of reducing employee stress and negative behavior through improving leadership.

From an organizational perspective, this research analyzes characteristics of employee behavior under stress, transactional leadership and transformational leadership in Chinese cultural and social context. Also, we explore influences of those two different leaderships on work stress, employee behavior and their relationship. Again, the research analyzes the influences of current pluralistic values on employee behavior and leadership effectiveness. Based on them, we propose open leadership as a new leadership style, which includes positive motivation, humanistic concern, moral behavior and reward justice in Chinese context. Research findings provide theoretical support for enhancing leadership effectiveness, reducing employee negative behavior and improving organizational performance.

2. Theories and hypotheses 2.1 Work stress In 1936, the Canadian physiologist Hans Selye first used the term of “stress” and systematically described the concept of stress in the book Syndromes Caused by Role of a Variety of Injuries. He proposed stress as a biological response when humans, animals or organisms are affected by environmental stimulation. Stress can be caused by many different demands on the organism, and it is non-specific (Sclye, 1956). “Non-specific” means

CMS 8,1

110

that although environmental stimuli or needs may vary, the body’s biological response is relatively constant. Subsequently, scholars of medicine, psychology, sociology and other disciplines began to pay attention to the stress problem, and defined the concept from their own perspective respectively. Some scholars saw the work stress as a stimulus or response variable, whereas others saw it as an environmental variable or product of interaction between the individual and the environment. These different definitions showed that work stress is a multidimensional concept. Among these various definitions, the one suggested by Lazarus’ transactional model is generally accepted and commonly used. It asserted that stress resides neither in the person nor the environment, but rather in the interaction between the two (Lazarus and Launier, 1978; Yu and Li, 2006).

2.2 Employee negative behavior One of the very interesting categories of behaviors in workplaces is negative deviant behaviors (Appelbaum et al., 2007). Employee negative deviant behavior is spontaneous behavior of organizational members that violates the standard, policy or regulations of the organization and poses threats to the well-being of the whole organization or its members (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998). Different terminologies were used to describe deviant behavior, such as organizational device (Moberg, 1997), organizational aggression (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996), organizational retaliation behavior (Skarlicki et al., 1999) and counter-productive work behavior (Fox et al., 1999). These deviant behaviors are all negative to organizations, so researchers call them negative behavior straightforward (Golparvar et al., 2012).

Using the combination method of deduction and induction, Bennett and Robinson (2000) categorized employees’ deviant behavior in workplace into four approaches such as:

(1) production-related behavior (withdrawal, arriving late to work, withholding effort at work, etc.);

(2) political behavior (rumor spreading, discrimination, corporate sabotage, etc.); (3) offensive behavior (sexual harassment, verbal attacks, bodily injury, etc.); and (4) property-related behavior (unethical decision making, intentionally slowing

down the work cycle, vandalism, etc.).

Then, production-related and property-related behavior were combined into organizational-oriented behavior, whereas political and offensive behavior were combined into interpersonal-oriented behavior (Bennett and Robinson, 2000), which was commonly recognized (Diefendorff and Mehta, 2007; Zoghbi-Manrique and Verano-Tacoronte, 2007; Berry et al., 2007). The empirical study in China, however, proposed three dimensions (Yao and Li, 2011):

(1) work-laziness behavior (including work alienation, slacking and false claim); (2) interpersonal-malicious behavior (including interpersonal withdrawal and

political combat); and (3) obstructive-destructive behavior (including conflict attack, confrontation and

obstruction and hostile sabotage).

2.3 Work stress and employee behavior Work stress is the result of interaction between individual and environment. When there are contextual events or factors which may lead to stress, people will feel stressful and

111

Work stress and employee behavior

anxious. Then, if this kind of stress is not dealt with properly, there will be corresponding stress response or consequences. These strains may demonstrate as negative emotions, physiological fatigue, insomnia or some common symptoms in behavior such as poor performance in communication, interpersonal alienation or aggressiveness in communication. In addition, stress behavioral responses also include the decline of work effort such as being late, absent or quit (Shi et al., 2009).

Although the relevant empirical research on the relationship between work stress and employee behavior is rare, the relationship is supported by them. Although stress to a certain extent can be motivative and promote work efficiency, most theories and models suggested that work stress has negative effect and leads to employee negative behavior (Lambert et al., 2007; Golparvar et al., 2012). O’Brien’s (2008) stressor-strain model asserted that deviant behaviors are affected by organizational stressors. Stress – non-equilibrium– compensation approach (Golparvar and Hosseinzadeh, 2011) proposed that stress induces non-equilibrium state in the human system, and then motivates people to strive to return the previous equilibrium. If they are simultaneously experiencing negative emotions, they will engage in deviant behaviors. Some empirical studies revealed that work stress resulted from work overload, role ambiguity and work conflict leading to deviant behaviors (Sackett and DeVore, 2001; Boyd et al., 2009). Dalal’s (2005) meta-analytic review found that deviant behaviors are significantly related to work stress. We therefore propose the following hypotheses:

H1. Employees’ work stress is positively related to their negative behavior.

H1a. Employees’ work stress is positively related to their work-laziness behavior.

H1b. Employees’ work stress is positively related to their interpersonal-malicious behavior.

H1c. Employees’ work stress is positively related to their obstructive-destructive behavior.

2.4 The role of leadership 2.4.1 The characteristic of leadership. Since Downton (1973) first proposed transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership, leadership theory was quickly developed and widely applied (Burns, 1978; Pillai et al., 1999; Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Bass’ transactional and transformational leadership is the most widely recognized theory (Bass, 1996).

Transactional leadership is based on “individual” self-interest philosophy. Managers and employees are considered to be individuals who are rational in pursuit of individual interests. It is just a pure trading relationship between them (Bass, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1990). Transactional leadership, which is result-oriented, is only concerned about the short-term goals of the organization. Transactional leaders regard employees as “economic men” who have low quality and demand, work hard to obtain remuneration and care about the clarification of tasks and roles (Burns, 1978; Zhao, 2003). Transactional leadership emphasizes traditional instrumental exchange, which means providing employee salary and position according to their contribution and performance. Transactional leadership is divided into contingent reward, active management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1995).

CMS 8,1

112

Transformational leadership, which is process-oriented, improves employees’ development, commitment through constructing vision, trust, expectation and suggestion (Bass, 1996). Transformational leaders regard employees as “social men” who have loyalty, independence, self-confidence and potential desire to change and realize themselves. Bass’ transformational leadership includes charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass, 1996). However, leadership as a process of social influence has different concepts and composition in different national culture (Hofstede, 1993, 2001). Some studies showed that Chinese transformational leadership includes a unique component – “moral” (Ling et al., 2000; Li and Shi, 2005).

2.4.2 The influence of leadership on work stress and employee negative behavior. Different leadership styles have different influences on employee behavior. For instance, Hater and Bass (1988) found that transformational leadership has a stronger relationship with subordinate effectiveness and satisfaction than transactional leadership. In addition, when psychological empowerment is high, transformational leadership is positively related to innovative behavior, whereas transactional leadership has a negative relationship with innovative behavior (Pieterse et al., 2010).

Some studies showed that employees’ perception of stress is linked to leadership style (Gill et al., 2006). Particularly, subordinates who give higher score on supervisor consideration have lower stress (Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964). Transactional leadership is characterized by low consideration, which encourages employees with promise, praise and rewards, and criticizes them through denial, condemned, threat or admonished. Transactional leaders are only concerned about whether the employees have completed the “deal” (Bass, 1985; Chen and Shi, 2007). To accomplish the tasks and obtain the rewards, employees pay more attention to individual performance and therefore feel stressful. Studies illuminated that management primarily relying on position power will lead to discontent among employees. Further, disrespect to employees and inappropriate criticism will cause negative behavior (Gao et al., 2008). Transactional leadership is hardly helpful for employee active behavior (Luo and Chen, 2011). Bruursema’s paper indicated that leadership style is related to employee behavior through emotions. Also, when organizational procedures are not fair and transactional leadership is salient, negative emotions and counterproductive work behavior are more likely to happen (Bruursema, 2004).

Transformational leaders are characterized by high consideration and they are keen on enhancing subordinates’ intrinsic motivation and raise their self-realization desire, so that employees can surpass their original expectation of work and do not focus on the exchange of benefits (Bass, 1996; Chen and Shi, 2007). In the transformational leadership model, employees can choose ethical standards and behavior patterns freely. Behavior motivation is no longer mandatory but results from internal trust, which mitigates stress. Many studies proved that transformational leadership has a strong predictive power on organizational citizenship behavior of employees (Zhang and Qiao, 2006; Li et al., 2006), employees’ trust (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and work engagement (Tims et al., 2011). Transformational leadership can buffer work stress directly (Gill et al., 2006; Khalid et al., 2012) and restrain employee negative behavior (Bruursema, 2004).

Based on the above analysis, we hypothesize that:

H2a. Transactional leadership positively affects work stress.

H2b. Transactional leadership positively affects employee negative behavior.

113

Work stress and employee behavior

H3a. Transformational leadership negatively affects work stress.

H3b. Transformational leadership negatively affects employee negative behavior.

2.4.3 The moderating effect of leadership. Leadership was supported as a moderator in many studies. For example, transactional leadership is the moderator between individuals’ delay of gratification and their vocational delay of gratification. Under high-level transactional leadership, employees of both high- and low-level delay of gratification report high vocational delay of gratification (Liu and Huang, 2013). Scholars proposed that the consideration dimension of transformational leadership moderates the relationship between employees’ distributive justice perception and organizational citizenship behavior. Specifically, when leaders are more concerned about the subordinates; subordinates who perceive distributive justice are more likely to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior such as helping others, working hard and organizational commitment (Liang et al., 2007).

When employees face different leadership styles, their stressfulness and work behavior may be different (Hater and Bass, 1988; Gill et al., 2006). Thus, leadership moderates the relationship between employee work stress and negative behavior. Transactional leadership focuses on achieving individual performance to get the rewards (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). Under the impact of transactional leadership and the existing work stress, employees may demonstrate negative behavior to others and organization to gain resource advantage or get the rewards (Bruursema, 2004). Therefore, transactional leadership strengthens the relationship between stress and negative behavior. Syrek’s (2013) revealed that transformational leadership negatively moderates the relationships between time pressure and both employees’ exhaustion and work–life balance. Again, Khalid et al. (2012) proposed that supportive leadership negatively moderates the influence of work stress on job performance. Specifically, transformational leadership emphasizes humanistic concern that improves employees’ working enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation, which will prevent employee negative behavior caused by work stress.

Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:

H4. Transactional leadership strengthens the influence of work stress on employee negative behavior.

H5. Transformational leadership weakens the influence of work stress on employee negative behavior.

In summary, the theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1. Work stress is positively related to employee negative behavior. Leadership not only affects stress and

Figure 1. Theoretical model

CMS 8,1

114

negative behavior, but also moderates the relationship between employees’ work stress and negative behavior.

3. Method 3.1 Samples and data collecting In this study, the respondents were from Changsha, Yueyang, Chengzhou, Guangzhou and Shenzhen in mainland China. Samples included employees of different position levels in enterprises. All investigations were convened by human resource departments, and completed in the relatively concentrated time. Before respondents answered questions, they were told that the survey results would be confidential and only used for academic research purposes. Questionnaires were collected on the spot.

A total of 420 questionnaires were circulated in 20 firms and 365 were collected. After picking out incomplete and invalid surveys, there were 347 qualified questionnaires. Among the respondents, 162 were male (46.7 per cent) and 185 female (53.3 per cent). These employees were selected from industries like manufacturing, construction, finance and insurance, transportation and wholesale and retail industries. To ensure the authenticity of data, respondents were required to provide information of their direct superiors, and therefore, the data did not include information of top managers. Middle managers accounted for 25.0 per cent, junior managers for 37.8 per cent and ordinary employees for 37.2 per cent. Employees who work over three years accounted for 41.0 per cent.

3.2 Measurement 3.2.1 Work stress. There are several validated work stress scales, e.g. job stress scale (Golparvar and Vaseghi, 2011), work stress scale (Cooper and Marshall, 1978), Maslach burnout inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1984) and so on. However, these studies were conducted in developed countries, and they have not been confirmed in countries with different economic patterns, geographical features and culture (Liu et al., 2005). Based on relevant literature (Kjeerheim et al., 1997; Lazarus and Launier, 1978; Quick et al., 1997), Liu and colleagues (2005) developed the Chinese work stress self-report scale by using interviews, questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis. The scale has been widely used in China. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale was 0.91. This measure includes 25 items which dimensionalized as task requirements, work environment, position competition and social factors. Sample items are “I shoulder heavy responsibilities in work which gives me stress” (task requirements), “Work environment is poor and disgusting which gives me stress” (work environment), “Promotion competition is fierce and difficult which gives me stress” (position competition) and “My social interaction gives me stress” (social factors). All items range from 1 (very small) to 5 (very big).

3.2.2 Negative behavior. Negative deviant behavior scale developed by Robinson and Bennett (1995) is most widely used, which includes production-related behavior, political behavior, offensive behavior and property-related behavior. However, Chinese have their unique cultural psychological characteristics (Hofstede, 1993, 2001). For example, Chinese employees are more tolerant and emphasize harmony. They prefer hidden ways to express grievance rather than direct contending with others (Liu and Li, 2009). Offensive and property-related behaviors rarely happen in China (Yao and Li, 2011). Therefore, we used local negative behavior scale which has good reliability and

115

Work stress and employee behavior

validity (Yao and Li, 2011) in Chinese context. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.92. It includes 26 items of three dimensions such as work laziness behavior, interpersonal malicious behavior and obstructive destructive behavior. Sample items include “When I have much work stress, I will arrive late or leave early to work” (work laziness behavior), “When I have much work stress, I can not help but lose my temper with my colleagues” (interpersonal malicious behavior) and “When I can not release work stress, I will find reasons to insult others within the company” (obstructive destructive behavior). All items ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

3.2.3 Leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass has been widely applied for over 20 years (Avolio et al., 1999). But “intellectual stimulation” in Bass’ transformational leadership rarely appears in Chinese leadership and Chinese culture emphasizes more on “moral behavior” (Ling et al., 2000; Li and Shi, 2005). So Li and Shi modified the transformational leadership scale based on the MLQ according to Chinese context (Li and Shi, 2005). Transformational leadership includes dimensions such as moral behavior, charisma, individualized consideration and inspirational motivation. Sample items are “My superior share comforts and hardships with employees” (moral behavior), “My supervisor loves his/her work and has ambition” (charisma), “My supervisor is willing to help employees solve problems of life and family” (individualized consideration) and “My supervisor talks optimistically about the future” (inspirational motivation). The Cronbach’s alpha of this 26-item scale was 0.95. Transactional leadership was measured by Bass’ scale, including contingent reward, active management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception. Sample items include “My supervisor rewards my achievement” (contingent reward), “My supervisor focuses on all mistakes” (active management-by-exception) and “My supervisor believes that if not broke, don’t fix” (passive management-by-exception). The Cronbach’s alpha of this 12-item scale was 0.75. All items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.2.4 Control variables. In this research, employees’ gender, position level, enterprise nature and industry are treated as control variables.

4. Results Table I shows the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients of variables used in the analysis. The results showed that employees’ work stress has significantly positive correlations with their negative behavior (r � 0.35, p � 0.01), work-laziness

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables

Variable M SD WS DB WL IM OD TS TF

WS 2.62 0.63 1 NB 1.90 0.50 0.35** 1 WL 1.86 0.56 0.30** 0.88** 1 IM 2.17 0.59 0.25** 0.82** 0.57** 1 OD 1.69 0.58 0.36** 0.88** 0.64** 0.64** 1 TS 3.12 0.50 0.02 0.02 0.06 �0.03 0.02 1 TF 3.67 0.70 �0.13* �0.33** �0.25** �0.30** �0.32** 0.47** 1

Notes: Significance at: *p � 0.05 (two-tailed), **p � 0.01 (two-tailed); WS � work stress, NB � negative behavior, WL � work-laziness behavior, IM � interpersonal-malicious behavior, OD � obstructive-destructive behavior, TS � transactional leadership, TF � transformational leadership

CMS 8,1

116

behavior (r � 0.30, p � 0.01), interpersonal-malicious behavior (r � 0.25, p � 0.01) and obstructive-destructive behavior (r � 0.36, p � 0.01). They provided support for H1, H1a, H1b and H1c.

We conducted regressions of leadership, work stress and employee negative behavior. Work stress and employee negative behavior were treated as dependent variables separately. Employees’ gender, position level, enterprise nature and industry were entered as control variables. Then, transactional and transformational leadership were entered as independent variables. The regression results are found in Table II. There is a positive correlation between transactional leadership and both stress (� � 0.126, Adj-R2 � 0.069, p � 0.05) and employee negative behavior (� � 0.214, Adj-R2 � 0.184, p � 0.001). Thus, H2a and H2b were supported. Transformational leadership negatively affected work stress (� � �0.175, Adj-R2 � 0.069, p � 0.01) and negative behavior (� � �0.435, Adj-R2 � 0.184, p � 0.001), supporting H3a and H3b.

To explore the influences of different dimensions of leadership on work stress and employee behavior, we conducted regressions of each dimension of transactional and transformational leadership, stress and employee negative behavior, as shown in Figure 2. Three dimensions of transactional leadership had no impacts on work stress. However, contingent reward had a negative relationship with employee negative behavior (� � �0.116, p � 0.05), whereas passive management-by-exception had a positive relationship with negative behavior (� � 0.053, p � 0.001). Four dimensions of transformational leadership all reduced negative behavior (� � �0.317, �0.331, �0.241, �0.234, p�0.001). Three dimensions of transformational leadership can relieve work stress, except inspirational motivation (� � �0.127, �0.118, �0.136, p � 0.05).

Hierarchical regression analysis was applied to test the moderating effect. We centered the independent variables before testing to reduce the multicollinearity in the regression equations. First, the regression was conducted with control and dependent variables. Then, independent and moderating variables were added. We put in interaction terms of independent and moderating variables at last. The results of regression are presented in Table III. Employees’ stress had a significant positive relationship with their negative behavior (� � 0.302, Adj-R2 � 0.273, p � 0.001), which supported H1. In Step 3, after adding in interaction terms of work stress and leadership,

Table II. Regression analysis of

leadership, work stress and employee negative

behavior

Model �(t)

Work stress Negative behavior

Control variables Gender �0.074 (�1.374) �0.119 (�2.337)* Position level �0.187 (�3.479)*** 0.046 (0.915) Enterprise nature 0.036 (0.665) 0.180 (3.574)*** Industry �0.045 (�0.815) 0.030 (0.582) Independent variables Transactional leadership 0.126 (2.099)* 0.214 (3.817)*** Transformational leadership �0.175 (�2.958)** �0.435 (�7.859)*** R2 0.085 0.198 Adjusted R2 0.069 0.184 F-value 5.269*** 13.971***

Notes: Significance at: *p � 0.05; **p � 0.01; ***p � 0.001 (two-tailed)

117

Work stress and employee behavior

we found that interaction of stress and transactional leadership was significant to employee negative behavior (� � 0.128, Adj-R2 � 0.273, p � 0.05), which meant that transactional leadership moderated the relationship between work stress and employee negative behavior, so the result supported H4. Transformational leadership had no moderating effect (� � �0.049, Adj-R2 � 0.273, p � 0.05), so H5 was not supported.

Figure 3 demonstrates the relationships among variables we have explored. Using method proposed by Luo and colleagues (2008) for testing the moderating

effect, we first calculated the median of transactional leadership, and then conducted regressions in two groups separately – below the median and above it, to observe the model of work stress and employee negative behavior. As can be seen in Figure 4, in the

Figure 2. Influences of dimensions of leadership on work stress and employee negative behavior

Table III. Hierarchical regression analysis: the moderating effect of leadership

Model Negative behavior

� � �

Step 1: Control Gender �0.139 (�2.533)* �0.096 (�1.995)* �0.097 (�2.015)* Level 0.021 (0.393) 0.102 (2.096)* 0.100 (2.063)* Enterprise nature 0.179 (3.283)*** 0.169 (3.540)*** 0.176 (3.705)*** Industry 0.028 (0.504) 0.043 (0.886) 0.051 (1.062) Step 2: Main effect Work stress 0.298 (6.192)*** 0.302 (6.283)*** Transactional leadership 0.176 (3.295)*** 0.182 (3.407)*** Transformational leadership �0.383 (�7.194)*** �0.377 (�7.090)*** Step 3: Moderating effect Work stress � transactional leadership 0.128 (2.481)* Work stress � transformational leadership �0.049 (�0.956) R2 0.052 0.279 0.292 Adjusted R2 0.041 0.264 0.273 F-value 4.693*** 18.767*** 15.464***

Notes: Significance at: *p � 0.05; ***p � 0.001 (two-tailed)

CMS 8,1

118

condition of high level of transactional leadership, the slope between work stress and employee negative behavior was much steeper than in the group of the low transactional leadership. It means that with the increase of level of transactional leadership, managers will pay more attention to the results of employees’ work and their subordinates tend to be more concerned about the final award. Under the existing work stress, employees may have more negative behavior to others and organization to achieve the goal and get the award. Therefore, the moderating effect is stronger when the level of transactional leadership is higher.

5. Conclusions and discussion In this research, employees of different levels were investigated to explore the effects of leadership and work stress on employee negative behavior and the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between stress and employee behavior. From the above theoretical and empirical analyses, we can draw the following conclusions.

First, the empirical evidences supported that employees’ work stress has a significant positive relationship with their negative behavior. Specifically, employees with higher stress have more negative behavior in comparison with those employees with lower work stress. This result is consistent with the previous researchers’ theoretical assumptions (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Golparvar et al., 2012), which were about the correlation between stress and employee negative behavior in workplace.

Figure 3. Relationships among

variables

Work stress

N egative behavior

High level of transactional leadership

Low level of transactional leadership

Figure 4. The moderating effect of transactional leadership

on the relationship between work stress and

employee negative behavior

119

Work stress and employee behavior

Second, transactional leadership directly leads to employee negative behavior and strengthens the influence of work stress on negative behavior. This empirical study develops Oaklander’s and Fleishman (1964), Gill’s et al. (2006) and Yang’s and Shi (2006) views that leadership is related to work stress. They did not mention the positive relationship between transactional leadership and work stress. We found that when leaders pay more attention to the results, their subordinates tend to be more stressful. When stress accumulates to a certain extent, employees may demonstrate negative behavior to people or organizations. Thus, when the level of transactional leadership is high, the positive relationship between employees’ work stress and their negative behavior is stronger.

Third, transformational leadership mitigates work stress and reduces negative behavior, which demonstrates that transformational leadership reduces work stress and negative behavior, proposed by Bruursema (2004), Gill et al. (2006) and Khalid et al. (2012). This indicates that transformational leadership helps employees to complete various tasks and, meanwhile, delivers more positive thinking, which can significantly reduce employees’ stress and negative behavior. However, transformational leadership cannot weaken the influence of stress on negative behavior. Stress – non-equilibrium – compensation model indicated that stress disturbs employees’ psychological and behavioral equilibrium, and people engage in deviant behaviors to return the equilibrium (Golparvar and Hosseinzadeh, 2011). This approach from stress to negative behaviors has been generated by personal physiological, emotional and situational factors so that transformational leadership cannot affect the individual self-regulation. Therefore, transformational leadership does not reduce employee negative behavior under work stress.

We believe that these conclusions are closely related to Chinese economic and social environment. In the past 30 years, the Chinese government has been promoting “the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics” by opening up and marketization. The dissemination of foreign culture makes people’s values gradually diversified, and the value of collectivism is being replaced by pursuit of profit and power regardless of others’ interests. Hongyu (2012) research demonstrated that compared with an individual with lower collectivism, using an individual with higher collectivism is easier to feel the leader’s authority, trust and welfare caring. The absence of social morality and civic values leads to the lack of appropriate behavior guidance for employees. Besides, inequitable distribution of organizational resource and lack of communication channels lead to employees’ psychology imbalance. Perceptions of unfairness increase work stress (Sloan, 2012). Leaders’ over-pursuit of efficiency and result-orientation augment utilitarianism and impatience among employees. Transactional leadership strengthens the influence of work stress on negative behavior because of its emphases on instrumental exchange (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1995). Specifically, it focuses on goal achievement–reward relationship. Transformational leadership can weaken subordinates’ stress and negative behavior because of inspirational motivation and individualized consideration (Burns, 1978; Bass and Avolio, 1995; Bass, 1996). Once the employees’ stress accumulates, negative behavior would be accelerated to happen under transactional leadership and transformational leadership cannot weaken it. These may explain why transactional leadership moderates the relationship between stress and negative behavior, whereas transformational leadership has no moderating effect.

CMS 8,1

120

6. Managerial implications Based on above research conclusions, we suggest that contingent reward, moral behavior, charisma, individualized consideration and inspirational motivation can effectively reduce employee negative behavior. Therefore, we propose a new type of leadership in Chinese context.

This new leadership should have several characteristics. First, the leaders should know subordinates’ expectations, and motivate employees according to their efforts. They should lead by example and influence the subordinates by virtue. Leaders should win employees’ support, respect and trust by showing abilities, charisma and being good at learning. Leaders should be concerned about employees’ different needs and help them develop their potentiality. Also, leaders should express inspiring visions and high expectations for subordinates to stimulate their self-efficacy so that they make active efforts for achieving organizational goal. In a word, this new leadership is characterized by motivating employees, concern about subordinates and emphasizing moral behavior and justice, and we can call it “open leadership”. We hope that this new leadership style can reduce employees’ work stress and related negative behavior which is harmful for organizations, and create a harmonious and orderly work environment to give employees positive energy. Open leadership encourages employees to work happily and promotes organizational development, and aims to achieve a win-win situation for employees and the organization.

For managerial practice, our research has the following implications. First, employees’ stress tolerance should be taken into account in selection and

recruitment. The employees with high self-control ability who can adjust themselves from negative mood are more likely to contribute to a harmonious organization atmosphere, which may in turn improve organizational performance. Consequently, the human resource department should establish a scientific recruitment system to recruit employees with good resilience and high stress tolerance, particularly for marketing and senior management positions.

Second, organizations should enhance stress management actively. From the perspective of organization, managers should try to control the stressors, and create a harmonious corporate culture and comfortable work environment. These can be done by conducting satisfaction surveys and advocating democratic participation. Psychological counseling institutions can be helpful for employees to reasonably attribute and vent negative emotion to reduce employee negative behavior. For managers, they should pay attention to psychological needs of employees, and try to cultivate a psychological contract between employees and the company rather than only a labor contract. In this way, employees will not only regard the work as merely a job, but may attempt manage the work stress by themselves. Also, the sense of belonging resulting from psychological contract will help employees to control their own behavior, and restrain the deviant behavior to some extent.

Furthermore, leaders should develop open leadership style and reduce short-term, utilitarian exchange behavior. By demonstrating personal charisma, leaders should convey organizational missions, improve employees’ values and beliefs, build a trust and supportive atmosphere and affect subordinates psychologically. Employees should be not only required to complete task or achieve performance, but also cared emotionally and psychologically. If they approve philosophy and goals of managers and organizations, they are more likely to work hard for the common vision. In this way,

121

Work stress and employee behavior

organizational commitment will be improved and negative behavior will be restrained effectively.

Finally, enterprise distribution system should be improved to achieve principle and procedural justice. Injustice will produce dissatisfaction and subsequent contradictions and conflicts. However, the key component to organizational justice is not equality of results, but the fairness of processes and principles. A fair process will help to avoid employees’ perception of injustice and negative behaviors.

7. Limitations and future research This study has several limitations. First, the research only focuses on the impact of the work stress and leadership on employee negative behavior. The influences of other factors on employee behavior, such as organizational culture and centralization degree, were not taken into account. Second, we just used the overall work stress scores to investigate the relationship between work stress and employee negative behavior. Further research can explore the effects of stress’ different dimensions on negative behavior. Finally, open leadership needs structural dimensions refinement and more empirical studies to test its effectiveness.

References Appelbaum, S.H., Iaconi, G.D. and Matousek, A. (2007), “Positive and negative deviant workplace

behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 586-598. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational

and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, FreePress, New York, NY, pp. 3-242.

Bass, B.M. (1996), “Theory of transformational leadership redux”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 463-478.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.

Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000), “Development of a measure of workplace deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-360.

Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. (2007), “Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 409-421.

Boyd, N.G., Lewin, J.E. and Sager, J.K. (2009), “A model of stress and coping and their influence on individual and organizational outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 197-211.

Bruursema, K. (2004), Leadership Style and the Link with Counterproductive Work Behavior (cwb): An Investigation Using the Job-Stress/cwb Model, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper Collins, New York, NY. Chen, W.J. and Shi, K. (2007), “Transformational and transactional leadership and its mechanism”,

Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 22-29. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (1978), Understanding Executive Stress, Macmilan Press, London,

pp. 78-82.

CMS 8,1

122

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. and Toth, P. (1997), “The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-180.

Dalal, R.S. (2005), “A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1241-1255.

Diefendorff, J.M. and Mehta, K. (2007), “The relations of motivational traits with workplace deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 967-977.

Downton, J.V. (1973), Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process, Free Press, New York, NY.

Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (1999), “Counter productive work behavior in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 291-309.

Gao, R.G., Yang, J. and Wang, B.Y. (2008), “Prevention and conformity of workplace deviance behavior”, China Human Resource Development, Vol. 5 No. 215, pp. 44-46.

Gill, A.S., Flaschner, A.B. and Shachar, M. (2006), “Mitigating stress and burnout by implementing transformational-leadership”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 469-481.

Golparvar, M. and Hosseinzadeh, K.H. (2011), “Model of relation between person – job none fit with emotional exhaustion and desire to leave work: evidence for the stress – unequilibrium – compensation model”, Quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 41-56.

Golparvar, M., Kamkar, M. and Javadian, Z. (2012), “Moderating effects of job stress in emotional exhaustion and feeling of energy relationships with positive and negative behaviors: job stress multiple functions approach”, International Journal of Psychological Studies, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 99-112.

Golparvar, M. and Vaseghi, Z. (2011), “Mediating role of energy at work in connection between stress with creativity, organizational citizenship behaviors and deviant behaviors”, Journal of Psychological Models and Approaches, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 1-15.

Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied psychology, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 695-702.

Hofstede, G.H. (1993), “Cultural constraints in management theories”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-94.

Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Sage, London.

Hongyu, N., Mingjian, Z., Qiang, L. and Liqun, W. (2012), “Exploring relationship between authority leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in China: the role of collectivism”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 231-244.

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-768.

Khalid, A., Murtaza, G., Zafar, A., Zafar, M.A., Saqib, L. and Mushtaq, R. (2012), “Role of supportive leadership as a moderator between job stress and job performance”, Information Management and Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 487-495.

Kjeerheim, K., Haldorsen, T., Andersen, A., Mykletun, R. and Aasland, O.G. (1997), “Work-related stress, coping resources, and heavy drinking in the restaurant business”, Work and Stress, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 6-16.

123

Work stress and employee behavior

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Griffin, M.L. (2007), “The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 644-656.

Lazarus, R.S. and Launier, R. (1978), “Stress-related transactions between person and environment”, Perspectives in interactional psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 287-327.

Li, C.P., Meng, H. and Shi, K. (2006), “The effects of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behavior”, Psychological Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 175-177.

Li, C.P. and Shi, K. (2005), “The structure and measurement of transformational leadership in China”, Acta Psychologica Sinica, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 803-811.

Liang, Q.Z., Ma, X.W., Huang, Y.B. and Sun, H. (2007), “A study on moderating effects of supervisor’s leadership style on the relationship between perceived distribution justice and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 9-13.

Ling, W., Chia, R.C. and Fang, L. (2000), “Chinese implicit leadership theory”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 6, pp. 729-739.

Liu, P., Xie, J.L. and Jing, R.T. (2005), “The empirical research on relationship between work stress and job satisfaction in state-owned enterprises”, China Soft Science, Vol. 7 No. 12, pp. 121-126.

Liu, W.B. and Li, G. (2009), “Classification and comparison of staff’s passive behavior outside of the role”, Hubei Social Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 184-186.

Liu, X.Y. and Huang, Y.H. (2013), “A multi-level analysis of the relationship between delay of gratification trait and vocational delay of gratification: the moderating role of transactional leadership”, Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 491-496.

Luo, S.Q., Jiang, Y., Chen, X.P. and Xu, S.Y. (2008), Measurement of single-dimensional Construct and Multidimensional Construct, Peking University Press, Beijing.

Luo, X. and Chen, W.Z. (2011), “Research on the leadership style influencing employees’ positive deviance behavior”, Soft Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 124-127.

Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1984), “Burnout in organizational settings”, Applied Social Psychology Annual, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 133-153.

Moberg, D. (1997), “On employee vice”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 41-60. Oaklander, H. and Fleishman, E.A. (1964), “Patterns of leadership related to organizational stress

in hospital settings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 520-532. O’Brien, K.E. (2008), A Stressor-Strain Model of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and

Counterproductive Work Behavior, ProQuest, NJ. O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W. and Glew, D.J. (1996), “Organization-motivated aggression: a

research framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 225-253. Pieterse, A.N., Knippenberg, D.V., Schippers, M. and Stam, D. (2010), “Transformational and

transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of psychological empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 609-623.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.S. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal of management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Morrman, R.H. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.

CMS 8,1

124

Quick, J.C., Quick, J.D., Nelson, D.L. and Hurrell, J.J. Jr (1997), Preventive Stress Management in Organizations, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-572.

Robinson, S.L. and Greenberg, J. (1998), “Employees behaving badly: dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance”, Trends in Organization Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. l-30.

Sackett, P.R. and DeVore, C.J. (2001), “Counterproductive behaviors at work”, Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 145-164.

Sclye, H. (1956), The Stress of Life, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990), Value-Added Leadership: How to Get Extraordinary Performance in

Schools, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY, pp. 54-77. Shi, Y., Liu, C. and Liu, X.Q. (2009), “Overview of research on the work stress”, Research on

Economics and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 101-107. Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, I.L. and Tesluk, E. (1999), “Personality as a moderator in the relationship

between fairness and retaliation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 100-108.

Sloan, M.M. (2012), “Unfair treatment in the workplace and worker well-being the role of coworker support in a service work environment”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 3-34.

Syrek, C.J., Apostel, E. and Antoni, C.H. (2013), “Stress in highly demanding it jobs: transformational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion and work–life balance”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 252-261.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2011), “Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 121-131.

Yang, M. and Shi, L. (2006), “The response of occupational stress and the relationship with leadership style”, Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 226-231.

Yao, Y.H. and Li, Y. (2011), “Primary development of questionnaire about employees’ deviance behavior under work stress”, Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 725-729.

Yu, W.H. and Li, Y. (2006), “A review of research on the occupational stress”, Journal of Shenyang College of Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 67-70.

Zhang, J.W. (2002), “On work-stress and self-regulation”, Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 60-65.

Zhang, S. and Qiao, K. (2006), “Effects of transactional and transformational leadership on employees’ OCB”, Journal of Dalian University of Technology (Social Sciences), Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-28.

Zhang, Y. and Chen, W.Z. (2008a), “The analyses of motivations and management strategies of employee workplace deviance behavior”, Economic Management, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 71-73.

Zhao, S.S. (2003), “Development of teachers: from ‘transactional management’ to ‘transformational management’”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 52-56.

Zoghbi-Manrique, P.D.L. and Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2007), “Investigating the effects of procedural justice on workplace deviance”, International, Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 719-733.

125

Work stress and employee behavior

Further reading Zhang, Y. and Chen, W.Z. (2008b), “The research of the relationship between job stress and

employee workplace deviance”, East China Economic Management, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 90-94.

About the authors Yan-Hong Yao, PhD, is Professor of Management in School of Business Administration at Hunan University, Changsha, China. Her research focuses on OB and HRM.

Ying-Ying Fan is a Master candidate in School of Business Administration at Hunan University, with research interests in HRM. Ying-Ying Fan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Yong-Xing Guo is a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. His research interests include HRM and Industrial Relations in China.

Yuan Li is Master in School of Business Administration at Hunan University, with research interests in HRM.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

CMS 8,1

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Week 3 Resources/The moderating effect of employee commitment on HR.pdf