Leaders’ ambition and followers’ cheating behavior: The role of performance pressure and leader identification

Abstract

PurposeWe seek to understand why and how leaders’ actions that are positive from organizational perspectives, drive to engage employees in cheating behaviors.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed mediated moderation model was tested in two separate studies, study 1 and study 2, with data collected from police officers and employees of Islamic banking respectively, and then analyzed with Mplus for random coefficient models for direct effects, indirect effects, and for mediated moderation.FindingsIt was found that leaders’ ambitions may enhance performance pressure on the subordinates, which in turn promotes their cheating behavior. Overall, we found that the traditional view of ambition theory only emphasizes good mechanisms such as motivation. However, to integrate with a social identity perspective, ambition would also cause pressure and pressure rather than motivation. Additionally, leaders’ ambitions are more strongly and positively related to the performance pressure and cheating behaviors of employees when subordinates also have high leader identification. The findings of this research suggested that leaders’ positive workplace behavior could also spawn subordinates’ unethical behaviors.Practical implicationsThrough this research, we can help policymakers understand that leaders’ positive desire in general and ambition, in particular, may not be necessarily associated with subordinates’ positive behaviors. Our results revealed that internalized with performance pressure, the leaders’ ambition is associated with subordinates’ cheating behavior. The findings of this research will help policymakers understand what might be promoting unethical behavior of employees. The cheating behavior of employees is not a singular level phenomenon of subordinates, it could also be triggered by contextual factors. Therefore, in developing policies for reducing the chance of cheating at work, the policymakers should also focus on the contextual factors that might be promoting cheating.Originality/valueAmbitious leaders tend to demonstrate high performance, also, performance pressure literature focuses efforts of the employees toward high performance. The dark side of these lines of researches is still underexplored. We shifted the conventional focus of understanding to the positive side of ambition and performance pressure by explaining the potential cost in the form of employees’ enhanced cheating behavior. The interplay between the relationship between leaders’ ambition and subordinates’ perception of leader identification also enhanced our understating about the boundary condition of the relationship between leaders’ ambition, performance pressure, and cheating behavior of subordinates.

Igniting work innovation: performance pressure, extraversion, feedback seeking and innovative behavior

“…The rationale behind this is that performance pressure functions as a stressor, compelling individuals to invest psychological effort in managing this stressor to protect, develop, and maintain their cognitive resources (Trivedi and Pattusamy, 2022). In this context, FSB emerges as a job resource (Crans et al, 2022) within the JD-R framework, utilized by employees to cope with the demands imposed by performance pressure (Adeel et al, 2023). Additionally, as noted by Zhang et al (2022a), seeking feedback allows employees to gather information about their performance, identify areas for improvement, and make necessary adjustments.…”

“…According to the Job Demands-Resources theory (JD-R) (Bakker et al, 2004), job demands refer to the aspects of a job that require sustained effort and are associated with physical, cognitive or emotional strain. Performance pressure can be considered a job demand (Adeel et al, 2023) as it involves high expectations, time pressure (Shalley and Perry-Smith, 2001) and the need to meet the required demanded output (Zhang et al, 2017). On the other hand, FSB can be viewed as a job resource (Crans et al, 2022) within the JD-R theory, which helps manage job demands.…”

“…The JD-R model suggests that job resources can offset the detrimental effects of job demands. In the context of the JD-R model, FSB is considered a job resource (Crans et al, 2022), and performance pressure is a job demand (Adeel et al, 2023). Employees engage in FSB because they recognize the informational value of feedback in helping them improve their performance and regulate their behavior (Katz et al, 2023).…”

“…, 2004), job demands refer to the aspects of a job that require sustained effort and are associated with physical, cognitive or emotional strain. Performance pressure can be considered a job demand (Adeel et al. , 2023) as it involves high expectations, time pressure (Shalley and Perry-Smith, 2001) and the need to meet the required demanded output (Zhang et al.…”

When abusive supervision affects creative idea sharing: Understanding the role of employee cheating and organizational justice

“…In addition, the research analyzes the psychological mechanism through which the abusive behaviors of the supervisors affect the creative idea sharing of the employees. Research on abusive supervision has demonstrated that abusive supervisors leaves the subordinates more vulnerable to engage in cheating and other unethical counterproductive work behaviors [ 17 , 18 ]. This research also analyzes the mediating role played by cheating behavior in the association among abusive supervision as well as the creative idea-sharing behavior of the employees.…”