Supervisor Bottom-Line Mentality, Performance Pressure, and Workplace Cheating: Moderating Role of Negative Reciprocity

Abstract

Employee cheating at the workplace has reached epidemic proportions and is putting a significant dent on the revenues of corporations. This study evaluates workplace cheating behavior as a consequence of supervisor bottom-line mentality with performance pressure as the mediating mechanism. Most importantly, it scrutinizes the moderating function of negative reciprocity belief in the relation between bottom-line mentality, performance pressure, and cheating in a moderated-mediation model, through the lens of displaced aggression theory. We systematically conduct time-lagged studies in two different populations (Pakistan and United States). Data analysis reveals that (1) bottom-line mentality positively influences workplace cheating behavior through performance pressure and (2) negative reciprocity moderated this indirect relationship. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The double-edged sword effect of performance pressure on public employees: The mediation role of mission valence

“…As for public sector employees, one of the most important factors is performance pressure. It is influenced by bottom-line mentality, which leads to workplace cheating behavior ( Kamran et al, 2022 ). The strength of performance pressure depends on the coping process; during this process, individuals may categorize two types of stressors: challenge and hindrance stressors.…”

The Influence of Leader Bottom-Line Mentality on Miners’ Safety Behavior: A Moderated Parallel Mediation Model Based on the Dual-System Theory

“…Firstly, leaders with a bottom-line mentality set high performance goals for employees in order to ensure the financial performance of the organization, making it difficult for employees to balance safety and task performance. Excessive work stress and anger at leaders for belittling safety make employees vulnerable to falling into a state of emotional exhaustion [ 52 , 53 ]. Secondly, in order to better achieve their bottom-line goals, leaders may force employees to work for longer and more intensely, making it difficult for employees to recover their emotional resources [ 29 , 54 ].…”

How and why non-balanced reciprocity differently influence employees’ compliance behavior: The mediating role of thriving and the moderating roles of perceived cognitive capabilities of artificial intelligence and conscientiousness

“…The effect of generalized reciprocity (relative to negative reciprocity) on employees' compliance behavior Based on SET, a generic model of social exchange proposes two paths of exchange: if an organization provides benefits to employees, employees tend to engage in positive behaviors or outcomes for the organization; and if an organization harms employees, they may show negative behaviors or results for the organization (Cropanzano et al, 2017). Previous literature suggests that GR and NR differently influence employees' behaviors (Restubog et al, 2010;Kamran et al, 2022). However, the potential of GR relative to other forms of exchange (e.g., NR) to build strong social relations is the subject of debate in SET (Whitham, 2021).…”

“…GR and NR are intrinsic because they reflect organizations’ altruism and self-interest, respectively ( Sahlins, 1972 ). Previous studies showed that they could differently influence employees’ psychological states and behaviors, such as autonomous or intrinsic motivation ( Liu et al, 2021 ), deviant ( Restubog et al, 2010 ), or cheating behavior ( Kamran et al, 2022 ), affective commitment ( Quratulain et al, 2018 ), and social entrepreneurship intention ( Xiang and Zhang, 2022 ). Previous studies have demonstrated a generic model of SET social exchange ( Cropanzano et al, 2017 ).…”