How exploitative leadership undermines subordinates’ taking charge behavior? A moderated mediation model

Abstract

Background

The study of the dark side of leadership is gaining growing interest, with negative leadership exerting a stronger influence on employees than positive leadership. Considering the importance of employees’ proactive behaviors for organizational innovation and long-term growth, investigating whether exploitative leadership—a representative form of negative leadership—impacts such behaviors is a meaningful research question.

Purpose

This study aims to explore the impact of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ taking charge behavior, as well as the mediating role of subordinates’ organizational identification and the moderating role of traditionality.

Methods

We conducted a two-phase survey using convenience sampling across various industries in China, collecting cross-sectional data from 348 employees. A structural equation model with latent variables was used to test all hypotheses.

Results

This study found that exploitative leadership negatively affects taking charge behavior, and organizational identification mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and taking charge behavior. Furthermore, traditionality weakens the negative impact of exploitative leadership on organizational identification, as well as the indirect relationship between exploitative leadership and taking charge behavior through organizational identification. In other words, subordinates with high traditionality are more likely to adhere to authority, mitigating the adverse effects of exploitative leadership.

Conclusions and value

This study applies social identity theory to explore the negative impact of exploitative leadership on taking charge behavior, revealing the internal mechanisms and boundary conditions of this relationship, thus filling a gap in the literature on exploitative leadership. We also provide practical recommendations for organizations to mitigate the harmful effects of exploitative leadership and enhance the governance of leaders’ exploitative behaviors.

Introduction

In recent years, more and more scholars have expanded the focus of leadership research to its dark side [1, 2], resulting in a series of studies on different types of negative leadership, such as abusive leadership [3–5], authoritarian leadership [6], destructive leadership [1, 7], and self-serving leadership [8]. Through these studies on negative leadership, scholars have increasingly recognized the typical characteristic of negative leadership—leaders’ self-interest [7, 9]. According to Schmid et al. ’s definition of exploitative leadership (EL), it refers to a leadership style that seeks personal gain through the oppression of subordinates, including five behaviors: actual self-serving actions, pressuring subordinates, suppressing subordinates, taking credit for subordinates’ work, and manipulating subordinates [10]. Since then, exploitative leadership has become an emerging theme in negative leadership studies.

Exploitative leadership is distinctly different from other forms of negative leadership. For example, compared to abusive supervision, which is characterized by a high level of hostility and frequent conflict between leaders and employees [4, 5], exploitative leadership does not employ a hostile approach in carrying out its exploitative behaviors [10]. Moreover, although exploitative leadership is driven by a strong self-serving motive, it is distinct from self-serving leadership. Specifically, self-serving leadership prioritizes personal interests over those of other organizational members and the organization itself [8]. It seeks personal gains by influencing employees or the organization, utilizing various means to achieve these benefits [11]. However, exploitative leadership primarily secures personal benefits by directly exploiting employees, such as by taking credit for subordinates’ achievements [10].

Precisely because exploitative leadership is characterized by extreme selfishness and the exploitation of subordinates, this leadership style often has severe negative impacts on subordinates’ physical and mental well-being. Exploitative leadership triggers employees’ negative affectivity [12], causing psychological distress [13, 14], weakening employees’ harmonious passion for work [15], inducing depression, anger, and fear [16], and resulting in emotional exhaustion [17, 18]. Moreover, the exploitative behavior of leaders makes it difficult for employees to form high-quality leader-member exchange [19], and it is also challenging for employees to establish relational attachments with the leaders [20]. More seriously, exploitative leadership, as a typical situational factor, significantly impacts employee behavior. On one hand, exploitative leadership increases employees’ counterproductive work behavior [21], knowledge hiding [22], workplace incivility [23], service sabotage [24], and workplace deviance [25]. On the other hand, exploitative leadership also reduces employees’ positive behaviors, such as constructive voice [26], innovative behavior [27], and knowledge sharing [28].

Although the impact of exploitative leadership has been extensively studied, research on its relationship with subordinates’ taking charge behavior, as well as underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions, remains limited, and empirical evidence in this area is still insufficient. These are precisely the focus of our research and have significant research value mainly because employees’ taking charge behavior is highly altruistic and beneficial to the organization. Taking charge behavior (TCB) is the voluntary and proactive actions taken by employees to optimize organizational structure, improve work methods, and enhance work processes [29]. Previous studies have shown that employees’ taking charge behavior, on one hand, helps improve their work experience and performance levels [30, 31]; on the other hand, it also stimulates corporate creativity, enhancing organizational adaptability and vitality [32, 33]. Previous research has mainly focused on the impact of positive leadership (such as empowering leadership [34, 35] and transformational leadership [36]) on taking charge, but little is known about whether and how negative leadership influences taking charge. However, compared to positive leadership, negative leadership generally has a greater impact on employees [19, 37]. Therefore, exploring whether exploitative leadership, as a typical form of negative leadership, influences taking charge is a worthwhile research question—our primary concern. This not only helps fill the literature gap regarding the effects of exploitative leadership but also provides theoretical guidance for organizations to maximize the effectiveness of taking charge.

The second research question of this study is to explore the underlying mechanism between exploitative leadership and taking charge behavior. Previous studies have found that, on one hand, the exploitative behavior of leaders affects subordinates’ perceptions of relationships, such as causing subordinates to perceive a lack of organizational justice and support, reducing the quality of leader-member exchange [19], and subsequently leading to a decline in employees’ service performance. On the other hand, exploitative leadership reduces subordinates’ job satisfaction and affective commitment [10], leading to organizational cynicism [18]. Social identity theory posits that individuals act based on their identity identification and invest effort and resources into groups they identify with [38]. Based on this theory, the emotional bond and cognitive alignment between individuals and organizations significantly influence their level of organizational identification [39]. Organizational identification (OI), as a specific form of social identity, refers to an individual’s sense of identification with the organization [40]. When employees establish a strong emotional and cognitive connection with their organization, they tend to develop a strong sense of organizational identification, which in turn motivates them to proactively engage in behaviors that benefit organizational development [39, 41]. Previous research has found that employees’ constructive voice behavior is negatively influenced by exploitative leadership, and this relationship is mediated by organizational identification [26]. Given that both taking charge behavior and constructive voice are extra-role behavior, it is worth exploring whether organizational identification serves as a potential mediator between EL and TCB.

The third research question of this paper is when the impact of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ taking charge behavior is greater. Employees’ taking charge behavior is not only influenced by leadership but also closely related to their value orientation [36, 42, 43]. Especially in Chinese society, traditionality is a typical cultural value of Chinese people, specifically referring to the degree of individual recognition of hierarchical role relationships in Confucian thought, which is prominently manifested as adherence to authority in the workplace [44]. Additionally, many Chinese companies have a top-down management style, and corporate culture emphasizes clear hierarchies. Therefore, studying the moderating role of subordinates’ traditionality in the EL-OI-TCB relationship has important theoretical and practical significance.

In summary, we propose three research questions in this paper, aiming to explore for the first time how and when exploitative leadership affects subordinates’ taking charge behavior, filling the current research gaps and contributing to the expansion of the nomological network of exploitative leadership.

Theory and hypotheses

Exploitative leadership and subordinates’ taking charge behavior

Exploitative leadership achieves personal gain through means such as exerting pressure, manipulating, and hindering subordinates’ development [10]. It is a follower-directed and low-hostility selfish and destructive leadership style [2]. It includes five dimensions: genuine egoistic behaviors, exerting pressure, underchallenging followers, taking credit, and manipulating followers [10]. Taking charge behavior, as a typical positive, challenging, and change-oriented behavior, is influenced by leadership [45]. Taking charge behavior has the general characteristics of proactive work behavior, such as voluntariness and spontaneity, but it is different from other extra-role behaviors. On one hand, taking charge is oriented towards change and improvement, having a stronger organizational benefit, with the fundamental aim of enhancing organizational functions, improving organizational efficiency, and breaking routines for organizational progress [46]. Employees who engage in taking charge place more emphasis on bringing progress and development to the organization rather than on gaining personal benefits [32]. On the other hand, challenges and risks coexist in taking charge. As a behavior that challenges the status quo, taking charge is essentially an innovative behavior [32], and innovation involves the mobilization of resources and structural changes, which may face resistance from both inside and outside the organization, requiring employees to bear the risk of failure. Additionally, employees who engage in taking charge often exhibit confidence in their abilities and take on the responsibility of driving change [29, 47].

Given the characteristics of exploitative leadership [10], we suppose that exploitative leadership may negatively affect subordinates’ taking charge behavior for the following reasons. First, exploitative leaders prioritize their own interests and treat subordinates as tools for personal gain, causing subordinates to feel exploited and neglected [48], thereby reducing their motivation to engage in taking charge behavior. Second, exploitative leadership often imposes excessive work pressure on subordinates, leading to psychological distress [49]. It also induces moral disengagement among subordinates, prompting them to engage in unethical behavior [50] as a retaliatory response against their leaders [51]. Third, exploitative leaders continuously assign monotonous and boring tasks to subordinates and hinder their career development, causing subordinates to lose hope for the future and weakening their intrinsic motivation to innovate and implement change. Previous research has found that exploitative leadership weakens employees’ harmonious passion, leading to a reduction in proactive service performance [15]. Fourth, exploitative leaders take credit for their subordinates’ achievements, making it difficult to establish a high-quality leader–member exchange relationship. Subordinates in low-quality leader–member exchange relationship relationships are more likely to reduce their effort in assigned tasks [52] and are less willing to endure the challenges associated with taking charge [53]. Finally, because exploitative leadership manipulates subordinates, hostile competition among them hinders cooperation and communication, leading to destructive behaviors [54] and ultimately obstructing the possibility of effective change. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that exploitative leadership is related to a decrease in subordinates’ taking charge behavior. In summary, based on the above reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1

Exploitative leadership negatively affects subordinate’s taking charge behavior.

Social identity theory

Social identity theory posits that social identity is an individual’s cognition of belonging to a social group and the emotional and value significance associated with being a member of that group [55]. It often enhances an individual’s self-esteem, making them engage in the success and status of their group [39]. This theory points out that through interaction and communication with other members of the group, individuals form a group identity in their self-concept, linking their self-perception, values, and emotions with the group, and using this as the basis for their group behavior [56]. Furthermore, the social identity theory of leadership considers both leaders and subordinates, describing their interactions from a social constructionist perspective [57, 58]. On one hand, subordinates identify effective leaders based on social identification and develop corresponding followership patterns. On the other hand, leaders leverage social identification to construct and sustain their power influence over subordinates. Identification serves as an empathetic bond linking leaders and followers [57, 58]. Social identity theory serves as an essential theoretical framework for uncovering the intrinsic mechanisms through which exploitative leadership affects employees from an identification perspective. Applying this theory helps to unravel the “black box” of exploitative leadership’s effects. For example, some scholars have found that exploitative leadership diminishes employees’ perceived organizational respect, making it difficult for them to experience a strong sense of insider identity, which in turn increases their social loafing [48]. Additionally, exploitative leadership weakens employees’ organizational identification, thereby reducing their constructive voice behavior [26].

Subordinates’ organizational identification as a mediator

Organizational identification is a distinct form of social identification that denotes an individual’s psychological connection to their organization [40]. When employees have a close cognitive and emotional connection with the organization, they exhibit a stronger sense of identification with the organization and engage in more behaviors that benefit the organization, thereby enhancing the organization’s social status [41]. Among the studies on the antecedents of organizational identification, the influence of leadership is a key focus of scholars, particularly how leadership hinders organizational identification [37].

Based on social identity theory, we suppose that exploitative leadership has a negative impact on subordinates’ organizational identification for the following reasons. First, exploitative leaders prioritize their own interests and treat subordinates as tools for personal gain [10]. In contrast, excellent leaders can increase employees’ sense of identification by conveying the organization’s values and norms to them, making them feel an internal alignment with the organization [59]. The selfish and self-serving behavior style of exploitative leaders serves as a negative “role model” for employees [60, 61]. Second, leaders often impose excessive work pressure on subordinates, reducing their job satisfaction and affective commitment [10], and increasing subordinates’ psychological contract breach [62]. Third, exploitative leaders take credit for subordinates’ work achievements, making employees feel unfairly treated and unrecognized [19]. Scholars have found that procedural justice, distributive justice, and interactional justice are all positively related to organizational identification [63–65]. Finally, exploitative leaders achieve their goals by sowing discord among subordinates, undermining the atmosphere of cooperation and communication among employees. When the organizational environment is supportive, open, and honest in communication, employees express their loyalty to the organization by enhancing their sense of identification [66]. Based on the above, we believe that exploitative leadership is negatively related to subordinates’ organizational identification.

Furthermore, we hypothesize that subordinates’ organizational identification promotes their taking charge behavior, still based on social identity theory. This theory posits that individuals tend to further enhance their group’s superiority through various means to maintain their group identity [56, 67], engage in behaviors beneficial to the group’s success, and view the group’s success as their own [39]. Previous research has found that high levels of organizational identification lead to more extra-role behaviors, such as constructive voice [68]. We hypothesize that organizational identification has a positive impact on taking charge behavior, based on the following points. First, employees with organizational identification often have stronger intrinsic motivation and are willing to put in extra effort for the organization’s success [69, 70]. This intrinsic motivation drives them to proactively propose and implement changes to promote the organization’s development and progress. Second, employees with organizational identification usually have higher affective organizational commitment, and are more proactive in optimizing work processes and methods, achieving better in-role and extra-role performance [71]. Third, organizational identification provides employees with a psychologically safe environment [72], enabling them to challenge the status quo and drive change [45]. Finally, employees with organizational identification are willing to take on responsibilities and risks because they hope to bring positive changes and development to the organization through their efforts, ultimately achieving the best interests of the organization [39]. Therefore, we expect that organizational identification will have a positive impact on taking charge behavior.

In summary, we hypothesize that organizational identification is an important mediating mechanism in explaining the impact of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ taking charge behavior. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2

Subordinates’ organizational identification mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and subordinates’ taking charge behavior.

Subordinates’ traditionality as a moderator

Traditionality is a typical cultural value of Chinese people [73]. It mainly includes five aspects: deference to authority, respect for ancestors and filial piety, contentment with the status quo, fatalism and self-preservation, and male superiority, with deference to authority being the dominant factor [44, 73]. In the work context, traditionality refers to the degree to which individuals recognize hierarchical role relationships in Confucian thought [44, 74], notably manifesting as deference to authority and compliance with leaders’ instructions [44, 73]. China is undergoing a transition from a traditional to a modern society, leading to variations in individuals’ cultural values, such as traditionality [44]. Previous research has found significant differences in values, cognitive attitudes, and behaviors among individuals with different levels of traditionality [19, 75, 76].

We speculate that subordinates’ traditionality may buffer the negative impact of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ organizational identification, mainly because, on one hand, high-traditionality individuals revere authority, accept the hierarchical relationship of “superior over subordinate,” believe that subordinates should endure, understand, and comply with the leader’s actions [74], tolerate the leader’s privileges, and are less sensitive to the leader’s unfair treatment [44]. Even when subjected to exploitative behavior from leaders [19, 75], it may not shake their organizational identification. On the other hand, high-traditionality subordinates may perceive exploitative behavior from leaders as a manifestation of authority, leading to a less severe negative emotional state and psychological distress [10, 12, 77], maintaining emotional stability and a stronger inclination to identify with the organization. Furthermore, individuals with high traditionality may have a greater need for organizational identification, and this high need makes them more susceptible to organizational imprinting, thus more likely to identify with the organization [78]. Conversely, low-traditionality individuals pursue independence, view the superior-subordinate relationship as equal [74], and adhere to autonomous and independent values in work and interpersonal interactions, making them less tolerant of exploitative behaviors from leaders, with strong feelings of being exploited and intense emotional reactions [44, 79]. This results in low-traditionality subordinates’ organizational identification being significantly impacted when facing exploitative leadership.

In sum, we believe that from both cognitive and emotional perspectives, subordinates’ traditionality may buffer the negative impact of exploitative leadership on their organizational identification. Based on the above reasoning, we hypothesize:

H3

Subordinates’ traditionality moderates the relationship between exploitative leadership and organizational identification such that it is weaker when traditionality is high.

Combining H1, H2, and H3, we form a moderated mediation model, where subordinates’ traditionality may moderate the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ taking charge behavior through their organizational identification. Specifically, high-traditionality subordinates are more likely to respect the authority of the leader, comply with the leader’s instructions, and have a higher tolerance for exploitative leadership, thereby reducing the negative impact of exploitative leadership on their organizational identification. Combining this with the explanation that subordinates’ organizational identification increases taking charge behavior, we further propose the following hypothesis:

H4

Subordinates’ traditionality moderates the indirect relationship between exploitative leadership and subordinates’ taking charge behavior via organizational identification, such that the indirect relationship is weaker when traditionality is high.

The proposed conceptual model is depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

The proposed research model

Method

Data collection and study sample

This study adopted a convenience sampling method, was conducted across various industries in China, and distributed questionnaires through the online survey platform Credamo. Participants were fully informed about the study’s purpose and procedures, and their informed consent was obtained prior to their participation. We administered online surveys to 465 participants, presenting an informed consent page that assured them the survey was anonymous and that their information would be kept confidential. Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was implied through the submission of completed questionnaires. To reduce common method variance (CMV), the survey used a time-lagged data collection method. At Time 1, participants completed the demographic variables, EL, and traditionality scales. A total of 422 questionnaires were collected, with a response rate of 90.75% at this stage. Two weeks later (Time 2), participants with valid questionnaires in the first stage were asked to complete the OI and TCB scales. Finally, the study was conducted with the final 348 valid paired samples obtained, with a valid response rate of 82.46%.

Among the 348 participants, 58.91% were female; 38.22% were between 20 and 30 years old, 50.86% were between 31 and 40 years old, and 10.92% were over 40 years old. Regarding tenure, 68.39% had been employed for less than 11 years, 26.15% from 11 to 20 years, and 5.46% for over 20 years. Participants mainly came from the manufacturing industry, information technology and internet industry, and education industry, accounting for 31.03%, 24.43%, and 9.77% of the total number, respectively. Of these, 94.54% held a bachelor’s degree or higher. The sample characteristics distribution was displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample distribution

Characteristics	Categories	No. of respondents	(%)
Age	20–30 years	133	38.22
	31–40 years	177	50.86
	More than 40 years	38	10.92
Gender	Male	143	41.09
	Female	205	58.91
Education	Under bachelor’s degree	19	5.46
	Bachelor’s degree	254	72.99
	Master’s degree	71	20.40
	PhD	4	1.15
Tenure	1–10 years	238	68.39
	11–20 years	91	26.15
	More than 20 years	19	5.46

Note(s): N = 348

Measurement scales

To ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire, we followed Brislin’s recommended translation and back-translation procedure for the English scales of EL, traditionality, OI, and TCB to obtain their Chinese versions [80]. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly Disagree” to “5 = Strongly Agree”.

Exploitative leadership. We measured exploitative leadership with 15 items compiled by Schmid et al. [10]. The scale included the following five dimensions (genuine egoistic behaviors, exerting pressure, underchallenging followers, taking credit, and manipulating followers), each with three items. An example item was “Values the achievement of his or her own goals over the needs of the employees”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.96, CR was 0.96, AVE was 0.60.

Traditionality. We measured traditionality with a 5-item scale used by Farh, Earley, and Lin [44]. An example item was “The best way to avoid mistakes is to follow the instructions of senior persons”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.85, CR was 0.86, AVE was 0.55.

Organizational Identification. The OI scale was evaluated with a 6-item scale used by Mael and Ashforth [40]. For example, When I talk about my company, I usually say “we” rather than “they”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.84, CR was 0.83, AVE was 0.45.

Taking Charge Behavior. This scale, based on the 10 measurement items developed by Morrison and Phelps [29], referred to the TCB measurement method by Li et al. [69] in the Chinese context, selected the six items with the highest factor loadings from the original scale to measure TCB. An example item was “I often try to implement solutions to pressing organizational problems”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.89, CR was 0.89, AVE was 0.57.

Control variables. Through the investigation of previous studies [34, 43, 69, 81], this article added gender, age, tenure, and education as control variables in the study.

Data analyses and results

Reliability and validity analysis

As shown in Table 2, the AVE values for EL, traditionality, OI, and TCB are 0.60, 0.55, 0.45, and 0.57, respectively, while the corresponding CR values are 0.96, 0.86, 0.83, and 0.89. These values fall within the acceptable range [82–84], indicating that the four variables exhibit good convergent validity. At the same time, the square roots of the AVE values for each variable are 0.77, 0.74, 0.67, and 0.75, respectively, all bigger than the correlation coefficients between these variables and the other three variables, suggesting good discriminant validity among the variables.

Table 2.

Cronbach’s alpha, AVE, and CR values of the core variables

Variable	Cronbach’s alpha	AVE	CR
Exploitative leadership	0.96	0.60	0.96
Traditionality	0.85	0.55	0.86
Organizational identification	0.84	0.45	0.83
Taking charge behavior	0.89	0.57	0.89

In addition, we used a four-factor measurement model as the baseline model and conducted confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS 24. Among the four models presented in Table 3, the four-factor measurement model showed a significant advantage in data fitting over the other three models. Therefore, the variables used in this study had good discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Models				RMSEA	CFI	TLI	IFI
Four-factor model (baseline model)	1000.07	452	2.21	0.06	0.93	0.92	0.93
Three-factor model a	1734.93	455	3.81	0.09	0.83	0.81	0.83	734.86***(3)
Two-factor model b	1959.78	457	4.29	0.10	0.80	0.78	0.80	959.71***(5)
Single factor model c	2880.21	458	6.29	0.12	0.67	0.65	0.68	1880.14***(6)

Note(s): ^a EL and traditionality merged; ^b EL and traditionality merged, and OI and TCB merged; ^c all variables merged. EL = Exploitative leadership, OI = Organizational identification, TCB = Taking charge behavior. ***p <.001

We used the single unmeasured latent factor method to test for CMV [85]. Specifically, this involved loading a latent method factor onto all items of EL, traditionality, OI, and TCB. The data showed that the four-factor model in the questionnaire (= 1000.07, = 452, = 2.21, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, IFI = 0.93) had a worse fit than the five-factor model consisting of the latent method factor and the four main variables (= 995.01, = 451, = 2.21, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, IFI = 0.93). However, the method factor accounted for only 3.10% of the variance, which is below the 25% threshold suggested by Williams et al. [86]. Therefore, there was no significant CMV in this study.

Descriptive statistics and correlational analysis

The data for gender, age, education, tenure, EL, traditionality, OI, and TCB were calculated in SPSS 26.0 to obtain the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients. As shown in Table 4, EL was positively correlated with traditionality (r =.06, p >.05) but negatively correlated with OI (r = −.47, p <.01) and TCB (r = −.46, p <.01); traditionality was positively correlated with OI (r =.13, p <.05) and TCB (r =.08, p >.05); OI was positively correlated with TCB (r =.59, p <.01). These results provided preliminary evidence for our hypotheses.

Table 4.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender	0.59	0.49
2. Age	32.80	6.17	−0.12*
3. Education	1.17	0.53	0.04	−0.09
4. Tenure	8.99	6.11	−0.13*	0.94**	−0.23**
5. EL	2.26	0.91	0.09	−0.08	0.07	−0.03
6. Traditionality	2.70	0.90	−0.07	0.19**	−0.09	0.25**	0.06
7. OI	4.03	0.64	−0.12*	0.18**	−0.11*	0.17**	−0.47**	0.13*
8. TCB	3.85	0.77	−0.04	0.15**	0.03	0.09	−0.46**	0.08	0.59**

Note(s): N = 348, **p <.01, *p <.05, two-tailed

Hypotheses testing

We used structural equation model (SEM) with latent variables to test hypotheses 1–4 in AMOS 24, complemented by bootstrap analysis with 10,000 bootstrap samples and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval.

Exploitative leadership and taking charge behavior

Hypothesis 1 postulated that EL was positively related to TCB. We established SEM with latent variables in which gender, age, education, tenure, and EL, respectively, predicted TCB. Analytical results indicated that this model fitted the data very well ( = 537.73, = 264, = 2.04, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, IFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05). The coefficient between EL and TCB was significant (estimate = − 0.42, 95% CI: [−0.54, − 0.33], p <.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 received support.

Moderated mediation SEM model

To test hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, we established a moderated mediating SEM with latent variables, including the aforementioned control variables. The analysis results showed that the moderated mediation model fit the data well ( = 1131.27, = 607, = 1.86, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, IFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.06).

The mediating effect of organizational identification

Hypothesis 2 proposed that OI mediated the relationship between EL and TCB. We applied SEM with latent variables to test this hypothesis. We used bootstrapping analysis with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) based on 10,000 iterations to determine the significance of direct and indirect effects. The direct coefficients were displayed in Fig. 2. The indirect relationship between EL and TCB through OI was significant (estimate = − 0.33, 95% CI: [− 0.46, − 0.22], p <.001). Since the direct relationship between EL and TCB was not significant after introducing OI as a mediator (estimate = − 0.12, 95% CI: [− 0.24, 0.01], p >.05), OI fully mediated the relationship of EL with TCB. Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Fig. 2.

The results of the moderated mediating SEM with latent variables. Note(s): EL = Exploitative leadership, OI = Organizational identification, TCB = Taking charge behavior., EL× traditionality = Interaction of exploitative leadership and traditionality; ***p <.001

The moderating effect of traditionality

Hypothesis 3 assumed that traditionality positively moderated the relationship between EL and OI. As shown in Table 5, the results showed that the interaction coefficient between EL and traditionality was significant (estimate = 0.13, 95% CI: [0.07, 0.21], p <.001). Hypothesis 3 was supported. We employed the two-way interaction model to further illustrate the significance of the interaction effect, as shown in Fig. 3. The impact of EL on OI was significant (M − SD, estimate = − 0.19, 95% CI: [− 0.35, − 0.03], p <.05) at a low level of traditionality. However, when traditionality was high, the impact of EL on OI was not significant (M + SD, estimate = 0.05, 95% CI: [− 0.21, 0.32], p >.05). And such difference was significant (difference estimate = − 0.24, 95% CI: [− 0.37, − 0.12], p <.001). In total, Hypothesis 3 received support.

Table 5.

Moderating effect of traditionality

	Estimate	SE	95% CI	p-value
Effect of EL on OI	−0.42	0.05	[− 0.54, − 0.32]	< 0.001
Effect of traditionality on OI	0.16	0.04	[0.08, 0.25]	< 0.001
Effect of EL × traditionality on OI	0.13	0.03	[0.07, 0.21]	< 0.001
EL on OI at low traditionality (M − SD)	−0.19	0.08	[− 0.35, − 0.03]	< 0.05
EL on OI at high traditionality (M + SD)	0.05	0.13	[− 0.21, 0.32]	> 0.05
Difference between low and high traditionality	−0.24	0.06	[− 0.37, − 0.12]	< 0.001

Note(s): Bootstrap sample size = 10,000; N = 348

Fig. 3.

The interaction plot of EL and traditionality on organizational identification. Note(s): EL = Exploitative leadership

The moderated mediation effect of traditionality

Hypothesis 4 assumed that traditionality enhanced the indirect relationship between EL and TCB through OI. As shown in Table 6, the moderated mediation effect was significant (estimate = 0.10, 95% CI: [0.04, 0.18], p <.001). Further, the indirect effect of traditionality on TCB via OI was significant (M − SD, estimate = − 0.15, 95% CI: [− 0.27, − 0.03], p <.05) at a low level of traditionality; the indirect effect of traditionality on TCB via OI was not significant (M + SD, estimate = 0.04, 95% CI: [− 0.15, 0.27], p >.05) at a high level of traditionality. And such difference was significant (difference estimate = − 0.18, 95% CI: [− 0.32, − 0.08], p <.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 received support.

Table 6.

Moderated mediation effect of traditionality

	Estimate	SE	95% CI	p-value
Moderated mediation effect	0.10	0.03	[0.04, 0.18]	< 0.001
Indirect effect at low traditionality (M − SD)	−0.15	0.06	[− 0.27, − 0.03]	< 0.05
Indirect effect at high traditionality (M + SD)	0.04	0.11	[− 0.15, 0.27]	> 0.05
Difference in indirect effects	−0.18	0.06	[− 0.32, − 0.08]	< 0.001

Note(s): Bootstrap sample size = 10,000; N = 348

Discussion

Drawing on social identity theory, this study investigated 348 employees to explore the impact of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ taking charge behavior, as well as the mediating role of subordinates’ organizational identification and the moderating role of traditionality. All hypotheses were supported by the research data.

This study supplements the existing literature on exploitative leadership and subordinates’ taking charge behavior in three ways. First, by revealing the negative impact of EL on TCB, this study expands the nomological network of the dark side of EL and enriches research on the effects of EL on employees’ proactive behaviors. Although many scholars have found that EL negatively impacts subordinates’ positive behaviors such as innovative behavior [17, 27], constructive voice [26], and knowledge sharing [28], the impact of EL on subordinates’ TCB has not been explored. We fill this research gap by providing empirical evidence that EL reduces subordinates’ TCB. Furthermore, considering that taking charge is crucial for organizations to navigate challenges and achieve long-term development in a dynamic competitive environment, this study expands the negative antecedents of TCB from the perspective of leadership style and provides valuable theoretical guidance for organizations.

Second, this study helps better understand how EL affects subordinates’ TCB by revealing the mediating effect of organizational identification. Although prior research has not explicitly examined the EL–TCB relationship, existing studies have consistently shown that OI is a key driver of proactive work behaviors such as TCB [69]. Drawing on social identity theory [40, 41], we argue that employees’ identification with the organization helps them maintain positive attitudes and behaviors toward their work, motivates them to strive for organizational goals, and promotes self-development. Individuals are motivated to uphold and enhance their organizational identity by engaging in behaviors that improve the organization’s status and success, and they perceive the organization’s achievements as their own. Our finding—that OI fully mediates the EL–TCB relationship—suggests that EL undermines employees’ sense of belonging and psychological connection to the organization. As a result, employees are less likely to internalize organizational values and feel responsible for its development, which diminishes their willingness to take charge. Furthermore, this study advances research on the antecedents of organizational identification by identifying a new form of destructive leadership. While prior studies have primarily examined abusive forms of destructive leadership (e.g., abusive supervision) and their negative impact on OI [87], our study shows that exploitative leadership, a non-abusive yet self-serving form, can also significantly impair employees’ organizational identification. This finding deepens our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms (rather than emotional mechanisms) through which EL impacts employee behavior, thereby offering a novel perspective beyond prior research that has mostly focused on emotional mediators such as emotional exhaustion [17] or harmonious work passion [15].

Third, we also find that subordinates’ traditionality moderates the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on subordinates’ TCB through their organizational identification. This finding expands the cultural value boundary conditions of EL’s impact on employees’ TCB, especially in the Chinese context. This is consistent with previous research arguments that employees with low traditionality are more susceptible to the harm of EL [19]. Specifically, when subordinates with low traditionality face EL, their organizational identification is severely damaged, making them less willing to take charge. This relates to high-traditionality individuals’ tendency to obey and respect authority, whereas low-traditionality individuals lean towards egalitarianism [88], indicating that individuals with different levels of traditionality have different values and cognitive patterns [74]. Unlike previous studies, which have found that the effects of EL are moderated by various factors—such as organizational-level factor (high-performance work systems) [20], group-level factor (leader-member exchange relationships) [89], or individual-level personality traits (adaptive personality, proactive personality) [26, 90]. This study focuses on the role of individual values—particularly in the Chinese cultural context—in mitigating the negative effects of EL. By exploring the cultural boundary conditions of EL’s impact, this study enriches the EL literature and highlights its unique theoretical contributions.

Managerial suggestions

Our research provides some valuable practical suggestions for organizations. First, organizations should establish a checks-and-balances system encompassing authority, responsibility, and benefits. They should strengthen leader oversight through institutions like ethics committees, confining power within the “cage” of regulations to prevent leaders from abusing their authority for personal gain. Second, organizations should establish safe and open channels for employee complaints, encouraging employees to report any misuse of public power by leaders. Organizations should adopt a “zero tolerance” policy towards exploitative behavior by leaders. Upon detection, measures should be taken, and employees should be guided to respond to such behavior in a more ethical manner [91], especially for high-traditionality employees. Third, our research indicates that employees’ organizational identification can inspire them to take charge behaviors. Organizations can enhance employees’ organizational identification by fostering pride in what the organization stands for, implementing human resource management practices that care for employee welfare, treating employees fairly, and fulfilling commitments to them [92], especially for low-traditionality employees who are more sensitive to EL [19]. Organizations should view these typical reactions as useful information for improving organizational identification management.

Limitations and directions for future research

Although this study has obtained some valuable conclusions, there are inevitably some limitations. First, this study collected data through self-reported questionnaires at two time points, and the results showed no significant CMV. However, considering that TCB is an extra-role behavior, it would be better for future research to have leaders evaluate employees’ TCB rather than having employees evaluate themselves. This would make the measurement results more objective. This study used a cross-sectional research design, which limits the inference of causal relationships. Future research should use longitudinal research methods to test the causal relationships in the theoretical model. Additionally, in this study, the AVE value for the OI scale was slightly below the classic Fornell-Larcker criterion of 0.5 [93]. However, the CR of the construct reached 0.83, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70. This result suggests that the OI construct still demonstrates acceptable internal consistency. The slightly lower AVE value for the OI construct may be attributed to two possible reasons. On the one hand, the original OI scale was developed in English. Although we carefully translated it into Chinese, potential issues related to language or cultural adaptation may have affected the internal consistency of the items when applied to Chinese employees. On the other hand, our sample consisted of employees from different industries and organizational backgrounds, which may have resulted in varied perceptions and interpretations of OI, thereby leading to a more dispersed distribution of responses and a lower AVE value. Future research should refine the wording of measurement items (especially when translating scales), incorporate a pilot study, and ensure that the items are closely aligned with the theoretical construct. Second, although this study found that OI fully mediates the EL-TCB relationship, future research can still explore other possible mediating factors, such as thriving at work. Previous research has found that thriving at work can mediate the relationship between inclusive leadership and TCB [45]. Additionally, other studies have found that EL negatively impacts employees’ innovative behavior by reducing thriving at work [27]. Future research can continue to explore other potential mechanisms through which EL affects TCB. Third, most existing research focuses on the impact of leadership styles on employee behavior. However, an increasing number of scholars are paying attention to the reverse influence of employees’ proactive behavior on leadership styles. For example, some scholars have found that employees’ TCB influences leaders’ trust in employees, thereby impacting leaders’ empowering behaviors [94]. Whether employees’ TCB influences exploitative leadership through certain mechanisms is a research gap worth exploring.

Conclusion

This paper, based on social identity theory, uses empirical research and SEM with latent variables to test the negative impact of EL on subordinates’ TCB, with subordinates’ organizational identification playing a fully mediating role in the EL-TCB relationship. Meanwhile, subordinates’ traditionality buffered the direct negative impact of EL on organizational identification, as well as the indirect negative impact of EL on TCB via organizational identification. Specifically, when traditionality is high, the negative impact of EL on subordinates’ TCB via organizational identification is mitigated. This paper fills the research gap on EL’s impact on TCB, and enriches the understanding of the cultural value boundary conditions of the EL-TCB relationship in the Chinese context by introducing traditionality as an individual cultural moderator. These findings suggest that organizations should pay attention to the harmfulness of EL, and strengthen the supervision and governance of EL through a series of practical measures, to reduce its negative impact on employees’ taking charge behavior, achieving a win-win development for employees and organizations.

Abbreviations

CMV

Common Method Variance

EL

Exploitative Leadership

OI

Organizational Identification

SEM

Structural Equation Model

TCB

Taking Charge Behavior

Author contributions

L.K.: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, writing– original draft, and writing– review & editing. S.L.: methodology, validation, and writing– review & editing. L.L.: validation, and writing– review & editing. S.Y.: formal analysis, and supervision. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by “the Proof-of-Concept Project of Zhongguancun Open Laboratory (Grant No. 20220981113)”.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Institute of Science and Technology of North China Electric Power University (EM2024-003, Approval Date: January 4, 2024), which completed the ethical review of the research project. Participation in this online survey was entirely voluntary. All participants provided informed consent, which was implied through the submission of their completed questionnaires.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.