Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT
published: 13 October 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719281
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Edited by:
Mu-Yen Chen,
National Cheng Kung
University, Taiwan
Reviewed by:
Susmita Mukhopadhyay,
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India
Billy Chiang,
Limkokwing University of Creative
Technology, Malaysia
*Correspondence:
Shiqian Wang
wangsq@ccdgut.edu.cn
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 02 June 2021
Accepted: 02 September 2021
Published: 13 October 2021
Citation:
Li L and Wang S (2021) Influence of
Paternalistic Leadership Style on
Innovation Performance Based on the
Research Perspective of the
Mediating Effect of the Constructive
Deviance of Employees.
Front. Psychol. 12:719281.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719281
Influence of Paternalistic Leadership
Style on Innovation Performance
Based on the Research Perspective
of the Mediating Effect of the
Constructive Deviance of Employees
Lin Li and Shiqian Wang*
Faculty of Management, City College of Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan, China
Innovation is the primary driving force behind the development of China as a modern
economic power. This study examines the impact of paternalistic leadership on
innovation, proposing a theoretical model using the three dimensions of paternalistic
leadership (i.e., benevolence, morality, and authoritarianism) as independent variables,
constructive deviance as a mediating variable, and innovation performance as the
dependent variable. Empirical results showed that benevolent and moral leadership
has a positive impact on innovation performance while authoritarian leadership has
a negative impact. Constructive deviance by employees has a positive impact on
innovation performance. Benevolent and moral leadership has a positive impact on the
constructive deviance of employees, while authoritarian leadership has a negative impact
on constructive deviance. In addition, benevolent and moral leadership has a positive
impact on innovation performance through the constructive deviance of employees, while
the impact of authoritarian leadership is negative. In practice, leaders should recognize
that constructive deviance is a double-edged sword and guide employees to engage
in reasonable constructive deviant behavior, thereby creating sound organizational
environments to foster innovation, eliminate barriers, and benefit from the positive impact
of the constructive deviance of employees to enhance innovation performance.
Keywords: paternalistic leadership, constructive deviance, innovation performance, mediating effect, high-tech
enterprise
INTRODUCTION
The modern development of China is driven by innovation. Some scholars hold that
the individual innovation of employees is the source of enterprise innovation and is
also the fundamental motivating force and foundation for improving enterprise innovation
performance (Li et al., 2013). Knowledge workers are the most active core resources in
the enterprise technological innovation system. Therefore, how to give full play to the
creativity of knowledge workers and improve their innovation performance is becoming
an increasingly critical concern. Leadership is also a core enterprise component and
has an important influence on innovation and organizational performance (Ma and
Zhang, 2018). Different management styles may have entirely different effects. With the
growing emphasis on localization in management, paternalistic leadership has emerged as a
Li and Wang Patriarchal Leadership and Innovation Performance
management style characteristic of East Asian societies and
contrasts with Western practices (Wu and Zhang, 2018).
Paternalistic managers are influenced by traditional Chinese
cultural concepts that reflect “mixed characteristics” involving
authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, and moral
leadership (Lin and Zhuang, 2014). Therefore, Western
leadership theories cannot fully explain the leadership style
and behavior of Chinese enterprises or their impact on
innovation performance.
Employee deviance initially referred to destructive behavior
that intentionally violates organization rules. However, the
current view is more complex, with employee deviant behavior
noticed as having both positive and negative impacts. Not all
deviant behavior will damage the interests of an organization,
and constructive deviant behavior may positively impact
organizational innovation (Narayanan and Murphy, 2017).
Constructive deviant behavior is an out-of-role behavior in
which employees take the initiative to violate organizational
norms to promote the interests of the organization (Kura
et al., 2016). Although this kind of behavior deviates from
organizational norms, it adheres to the moral standards of
the organization and benefits the organization. By flexibly
interpreting or following the organizational rules, employees can
engage in innovative behavior (Mertens et al., 2016). Especially
under more complex and unpredictable conditions, employees
may follow the principles of the organization while still actively
deviating from inappropriate organizational norms to promote
the healthy development of the organization.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Social Exchange Theory
The social exchange theory was first proposed by Homans
(1958). He pointed out that all human behaviors are exchange
behaviors, such as material exchange and nonmaterial exchange,
seeking to satisfy their needs and trying to achieve pay
and return equivalence (Homans, 1958). Blau (1964) revised
and developed the social exchange theory, pointing out that
individuals engage in social interaction to maintain positive
relationships, which are required to achieve reciprocity and
promote the development of social exchange behavior. Blau
divided exchange behavior into the economic exchange and
social exchange, where the former is based on the exchange
of interests, and the latter is based on the long-term mutually
beneficial relationships and in-depth mutual trust. The social
exchange theory provides an important theoretical basis for
the proposed relationship among paternalistic leadership, the
constructive deviance of employees, and innovation behavior.
The constructive deviance of an employee will be influenced
by interaction with others, and the close relationships between
leaders and subordinates would result from employees feeling
inspired by the benevolence and impartiality of leaders, forming
a high-quality hierarchical exchange relationship. Employees are
more willing to follow the leaders they find to be sympathetic,
which will improve work engagement and promote exchange
balance. This is beneficial to maintain the long-term sustainable
mutually beneficial relationships between leaders and employees.
Patriarchal Leadership Style and
Innovation Performance
Farh and Cheng (2000) proposed the paternalistic leadership
theory, noting that paternalistic leadership not only involves
tolerance, love, justice, and integrity but also entails strict
discipline and authority. They further added morality to
the original two paternalistic leadership style dimensions of
benevolence and authority. Farh and Cheng (2000) pointed out
that subordinates feel grateful to benevolent leaders and respect
moral leaders but feel obedience to and awe for authoritarian
leadership. That is, different leadership styles lead to different
reactions among subordinates, which is also the basis of analyzing
the effectiveness of paternalistic leadership style.
Benevolent leaders are always solicitous to their subordinates,
providing them with necessary resources and maintaining a close
association with them (Huang et al., 2014). Benevolent leaders
can not only increase the work enthusiasm of their subordinates
but also stimulate them to provide positive opinions for decision-
making (Lin and Zhuang, 2014). Moral leadership reflects
excellent personal cultivation and integrity, and moral leaders set
a good example for subordinates, make clear distinctions between
public and private interests, and provide emphasized fairness
and justice in decision-making, to maximize their credence
and respect. Conversely, authoritarian leaders focus more on
hierarchy, normally relying on institutional or personal authority
to suppress subordinates, which will reduce the organizational
identification and work enthusiasm of workers and will hinder
innovation performance (Liu et al., 2017). Thus, this study
proposes the following hypotheses:
H1: Benevolent leadership has a significant positive impact on
innovation performance.
H2: Moral leadership has a significant positive impact on
innovation performance.
H3: Authoritarian leadership has a negative impact on
innovation performance.
Constructive Deviance of Employees and
Innovation Performance
The definition suggested by Galperin (2012) of constructive
deviance holds that employees voluntarily violate organizational
norms to promote the wellbeing of the organization.
Constructive deviant behavior includes violating formal and
nonformal regulations. Individual innovation performance refers
to employees consciously creating, introducing, and applying
new ideas and methods to achieve innovative work (Janssen
and Van Yperen, 2004). Constructive deviant behavior means
that employees need to break outdated organizational rules to
improve organizational wellbeing. This type of behavior requires
a creative mindset and can enhance individual innovation
performance (Wang et al., 2018).
While workers may obey various rules and regulations to
ensure overall normal operations, conforming to conventional
practices and conventional ways of thinking may limit the
implementation of pioneering ideas and innovative approaches.
Constructive deviance means that employees need to break
from outdated organizational rules and adopt new processes
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Li and Wang Patriarchal Leadership and Innovation Performance
FIGURE 1 | Hypothesized model.
and norms for improving organizational value creation,
thus enhancing motivation for organizational change and
innovation (Kim and Choi, 2018). Constructive deviant
behavior helps employees find benefits through exploring
new possibilities. According to resource conservation theory,
individuals seek to protect their access to resources. To maintain
the exploratory advantage and obtain more resources, employees
who implement constructive deviant behavior are often willing
to attempt innovative ideas that can lead to improved innovation
performance (Malik and Lenka, 2019). Wang et al. (2018)
also pointed out that constructive deviant behavior can bring
explorative advantages to implementers in some important fields.
Constructive deviant behavior assists individuals in obtaining
sufficient information and resources, develops divergent
thinking, and adopts new ideas and practices, thus, further
enhancing innovation performance. In addition, employees
who carry out constructive deviant behaviors are regarded as
change agents. These people actively share resources, establish
trust relationships with other team members, and secure their
supports for innovation (Cohen and Ehrlich, 2019). These
supportive emotional resources from colleagues help to improve
individual innovation performance.
H4: Constructive deviance of employees has a positive impact
on innovation performance.
Patriarchal Leadership Style and
Constructive Deviance
While leaders have a certain degree of authority, their behaviors
are subject to the expectations of organizational norms of
employees and are easily observed and imitated by employees
(Sheng and Yuxin, 2018). Thus, different leadership styles have
different impacts on the innovative behavior of employees. Based
on the social identity theory, this study discusses the impact
of paternalistic leadership on deviant innovation behavior in
Chinese organizations. Constructive deviant behavior refers to
employees violating the organizational rules and regulations,
seeking to improve the organizational wellbeing. The social
identity theory examines harmonious relationships between
employees and the organization, staff believe that their values,
ideas, and practices within the organization are recognized as
unique and positive, and these positive cognitions will encourage
employees to engage in deviant innovation behavior.
Moral leadership refers to a set of behaviors that remain a good
example for employees, clearly distinguish between public and
private interests, and emphasize fairness and justice, resulting in
the enthusiasm of employees being closely related to the moral
conduct of their leaders (Cheng et al., 2004). Constructive deviant
behavior entails employees violating organizational norms and
regulations out of the belief that such behavior will ultimately
benefit the organizational wellbeing. Based on the social identity
theory, the self-perceptions, emotions, and behavior of employees
are affected by organizational norms, examples, and views. An
in-depth understanding of organizational goals and values will
encourage the deviant innovation behavior of employees, by
which they seek not only to benefit the organization but also to
achieve personal goals.
To a certain extent, the centralization of authoritarian
leadership results in decision-making based on personal
judgment or preference instead of organizational system and
rules, resulting in an unequal atmosphere within the organization
(Zhang et al., 2018). The long-term centralization of authority
and inequality will create an authoritarian environment (Ma
and Zhang, 2018) in which the innovative ideas of employees
are rejected by their leadership. This type of leadership actively
discourages violations of organizational rules and regulations
and thus deviant innovation behavior. Therefore, this study
speculates that constructive deviant behavior is less likely to occur
under authoritarian leadership:
H5: Benevolent leadership has a significant positive impact on
constructive deviance.
H6: Moral leadership has a significant positive impact on
constructive deviance.
H7: Authoritarian leadership has a significant negative impact
on constructive deviance.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Li and Wang Patriarchal Leadership and Innovation Performance
The Mediating Role of Constructive
Deviance
To ensure their authority, authoritarian leaders studiously
maintain distance from employees and will avoid close exchanges
with their subordinates, resulting in employees feeling a lack
of psychological security or positive attitudes toward initiating
innovation and team cooperation. The tolerance and support
of benevolent leadership create a free atmosphere that supports
subordinates, optimizing work results and efficiency, with leaders
sharing with and learning from team members. Moral leaders
rely on their charisma to influence and educate employees,
encouraging them to fully identify with the organizational values
and enhancing team cohesion and cooperation. Such leaders
consider the psychological state of their employees, encouraging
them to express their ideas and providing work resources and
feedback, giving employees a strong sense of organizational
attachment. The social exchange theory suggests that employees
with a high organizational attachment will proactively maintain
the interests of the organization, even if doing so requires actions
that deviate from established norms (Li and Liu, 2014). Ming and
Wenquan (2013) pointed out that leaders who treat employees
favorably will arouse a strong sense of mission and responsibility
toward the leaders and organization. This positive self-cognition
may cause employees to engage in deviant behavior as a means of
benefitting the organization. According to the active motivation
model proposed by Parker et al. (2010), leadership style is an
important work situational factor that can motivate employees to
engage in active behavior beyond job responsibilities. Thus, this
study proposes the following hypothesis:
H8: Constructive deviance plays a mediating role between
patriarchal leadership and innovation performance.
Research Method and Data Analysis
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework.
Variable Definitions
As shown in Table 1, existing variable definitions were adapted to
match the research purpose.
Variable Measurement
Cheng et al. (2003) proposed a paternalistic leadership scale with
three dimensions (i.e., benevolent leadership, moral leadership,
and authoritarian leadership), with each dimension involving 5
items, for a total of 15 items.
Galperin (2012) proposed a constructive deviance scale with
nine items, such as “In order to complete the task, sometimes I
will deviate from the rules.”
Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) proposed an innovation
performance scale including seven items, such as “Employees
apply innovative ideas into practice” and “Employees always put
forward some original solutions.”
Methods and Procedures
The data were collected by questionnaire. SPSS 22 was used
to perform the descriptive statistical analysis, and Pearson’s
correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationships
between variables (Statistical Product and Service Solutions,
TABLE 1 | Definition.
Name Definition Source
Paternalistic
leadership
Leadership behavior emphasizes
strong discipline and authority, along
with fatherly kindness and virtue.
Farh and Cheng
(2000)
Benevolent
leadership
Benevolent leadership focused on
individualized and holistic concerns
for the personal and familial wellbeing
of subordinates.
Cheng et al. (2000)
Moral leadership Leading by example and serving
others in the public interest.
Authoritarian
leadership
Leaders who determine policy and
make decisions autocratically,
demanding the obedience and loyalty
of subordinates.
Constructive
deviance
An out-of-role behavior by which
employees violate organizational
norms on their own initiative to
promote organizational interests.
Kura et al. (2016)
Innovation
performance
The proposing new and creative
ideas of employees to improve
organizational processes to enhance
the significance, usefulness, and
performance of the products and
services of the organization.
Janssen (2000)
IBM SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA1). The significance of the
mediating effect was computed using PROCESS by Hayes (2012),
using the bootstrapping technique. The sample included four
high-tech and manufacturing companies in the Yangtze River
Delta, with data gathered using online surveys, site surveys,
and commissioned surveys. The online survey was conducted
using the Questionnaire Star platform. The researcher established
contact with the target enterprises, explaining the goals of the
research, along with questionnaire instructions and anonymity
assurances. The research process involved two steps, namely,
pretest and formal test. The pretest was used to test the validity
and comprehensibility of all questionnaire items. There were 60
pretest questionnaires distributed, of which 53 were received and
analyzed. The pilot questionnaire was then modified to compose
the final questionnaire, which was distributed in December 2020,
with a total of 250 questionnaires distributed through various
channels, of which 230 valid responses were received, for a
response rate of 92%. Respondents were primarily aged under 35
years old and were 56.7% men. College graduates accounted for
63% of respondents, while 10% had a master’s degree and 5% had
PhDs. In terms of the employer, 47.2% of respondents worked at
private companies, followed by 19.5% at state-owned enterprises
and 17.7% at government/public institutions.
Correlation Analysis
Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics and the results of
correlation analysis.
1IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0.
Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Li and Wang Patriarchal Leadership and Innovation Performance
TABLE 2 | Correlation analysis.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Benevolent leadership 1
2. Moral leadership 0.209*** 1
3. Authoritarian leadership −0.064 −0.048 1
4. Constructive deviance 0.173*** 0.157*** −0.389 1
5. Innovation performance 0.338 0.109 −0.316** 0.148** 1
Mean 3.64 3.82 3.61 3.51 4.12
SD 0.244 0.197 0.228 0.257 0.285
*P<0.05, at 5% significance level, **P<0.01, at 1% significance level, ***P<0.001, at 0.1% significance level.
TABLE 3 | Reliability.
Scale Dimension N Cronbach’s Alpha
Paternalistic leadership Benevolent leadership 5 0.883
Moral leadership 5 0.711
Authoritarian leadership 5 0.921
Constructive deviance 9 0.834
Innovation performance 7 0.805
Reliability Test
The reliability of internal consistency was evaluated using
Cronbach’s alpha, with results as shown in Table 3, showing
very good to excellent internal consistency for all items
(Jietai et al., 2004).
Hypotheses Testing
The results of correlation analysis indicate the preliminary
verification of all hypotheses. To further verify the correlations,
Mplus7.0 was used to analyze the hypothetical relationships. The
five-factor model (i.e., benevolent leadership, moral leadership,
authoritarian leadership, constructive deviance, and innovation
performance) is found to have a high goodness of fit (2/df =2.907
<3, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =0.057
<0.08, comparative fit index (CFI) =0.941 >0.9).
The results show that benevolent leadership has a significant
positive relationship with innovation performance (β=0.17, p<
0.05), moral leadership has a significant positive relationship with
innovation performance (β=0.23, p<0.05), and authoritarian
leadership has a significant negative relationship with innovation
performance (β= −0.14, p<0.05), thus confirming hypotheses
H1, H2, and H3. Constructive deviance has a significant positive
relationship with innovation performance (β=0.27, p<0.01),
thus confirming hypothesis H4. Benevolent leadership has a
significant positive relationship with constructive deviance (β
=0.48, p<0.01), moral leadership has a significant positive
relationship with constructive deviance (β=0.35, p<0.01), and
authoritarian leadership has a significant negative relationship
with constructive deviance (β= −0.30, p<0.05), thus
confirming hypotheses H5, H6, and H7.
The significance of the mediating effect was computed using
PROCESS by Hayes (2012), using the bootstrapping technique.
Table 4 shows the results for 5,000 sampling iterations and
constructing 95% unbiased corrected CI.
Table 4 shows that, under the 95% CI, the bias correction
CI of the indirect effect of benevolent leadership on innovation
performance was [0.016, 0.121] excluding 0, which means that
the mediating effect of constructive deviance between the two
is significant and the effect is 0.053. In addition, the bias
correction CI of the direct effect between benevolent leadership
and innovation performance was [0.324, 0.537], also excluding 0,
indicating that the direct effect is significant. Hence, constructive
deviance has a partial mediating effect between benevolent
leadership and innovation performance. The bias correction
CI of the indirect effect of moral leadership on innovation
performance was [0.053, 0.235] excluding 0, which means that
the mediating effect of constructive deviance between the two is
significant and the effect is 0.128. In addition, the bias correction
CI of the direct effect between moral leadership and innovation
performance was [0.211, 0.431], also excluding 0, indicating
that the direct effect is significant. Hence, constructive deviance
has a partial mediating effect between moral leadership and
innovation performance. The bias correction CI of the indirect
effect of authoritarian leadership on innovation performance was
[−0.138, −0.028], excluding 0, which means that the mediating
effect of constructive deviance between the two is significant
and the effect is −0.085. In addition, the bias correction CI of
the direct effect between authoritarian leadership and innovation
performance was [0.136, 0.258], also excluding 0, indicating that
the direct effect is significant. Hence, constructive deviance has
a partial mediating effect between authoritarian leadership and
innovation performance. Thus, hypothesis H8 is confirmed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
While paternalistic leadership with Chinese characteristics
fits the present development situation in China, this study
seeks to understand the relationship between paternalistic
leadership and innovation performance. Prior research on
factors that impact constructive deviance focuses mainly on
work autonomy (Dietfried and Soren, 2015; Liu et al., 2017),
organizational innovation climate (Wang et al., 2018), and
employee creativity (Yang et al., 2019). Leadership style (Yi,
2018) should also be considered as an antecedent of constructive
deviance. Few studies have examined the mediating effect of
the constructive deviance of employees. This study explores the
influence of constructive deviance on innovation performance,
deepening our understanding of employee behavior and the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Li and Wang Patriarchal Leadership and Innovation Performance
TABLE 4 | The result of mediating effect.
Estimate SE 95% CI
Upper Lower
Indirect effect Benevolent leadership–Constructive deviance–Innovation performance 0.053 0.025 0.121 0.016
Moral leadership–Constructive deviance–Innovation performance 0.128 0.051 0.235 0.053
Authoritarian leadership–Constructive deviance–Innovation performance −0.085 0.035 −0.028 −0.138
Direct effect Benevolent leadership–Innovation performance 0.333 0.082 0.537 0.324
Moral leadership–Innovation performance 0.019 0.341 0.431 0.211
Authoritarian leadership–Innovation performance 0.056 0.132 0.258 0.136
Total effect Benevolent leadership–Innovation performance 0.386 0.106 0.277 0.143
Moral leadership–Innovation performance 0.147 0.031 0.302 0.264
Authoritarian leadership–Innovation performance −0.029 0.025 0.239 0.002
quality of interaction between leaders and employees. Based
on the social exchange theory, this study explored the
impact of paternalistic leadership on innovation performance.
Previous studies mainly focus on the self-awareness theory
(Wang and Tian, 2019) and the self-determination theory
(Wang and Tian, 2019) to explore mechanisms that impact
employee innovation.
Based on the social exchange theory, this is an empirical
study of the relationship between paternalistic leadership,
constructive deviance, and innovation performance. The results
provide scientific guidance and management suggestions
for organizations to enhance competitiveness and build
a harmonious organizational environment. Paternalistic
leadership is found to have a positive impact on the innovation
performance of employees, as does constructive deviance, which
plays a mediating role between paternalistic leadership and
innovation performance.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
This study is subjected to certain limitations that potentially
limit the generalizability of the findings. First, although the
questionnaire was found to have high reliability and validity,
it relies on subjective responses. Second, sampling is limited
to a small number of high-tech enterprises in a specific
industrial zone, and further studies should seek to verify the
findings with different industries in different areas. Finally, this
study considered only the constructive deviance of employees
as a mediating variable between paternalistic leadership and
innovation performance, but there may be other mediating
variables with a significant effect that should be explored.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors were part of developing the measuring instrument.
LL conceptualized this study, conducted the statistics, and
wrote the manuscript. SW wrote the research methodology and
constructive discussions. All authors contributed to the article
and approved the submitted version.
FUNDING
This work has been supported by City College of Dongguan
University of Technology, China. The Research Program is a
Study on the Mechanism of Employee Innovation Performance
in the perspective of open innovation (No. 2020YZDYB05R).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely appreciate the editor and reviewers for
their time and valuable comments.
REFERENCES
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., and Farh, J. L. (2003). 家长式
领导的三元模式:中国大陆企业组织的证据.Indigen. Psychol. Res. Chinese
Soc. 20, 209–252.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., and Farh, J. L.
(2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a
leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 7, 89–117.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x
Cheng, B. S., Chuo, L. F., and Farh, J. L. (2000). 家长式领导量表:三元模式的建
构与测量.Indigen. Psychol. Res. Chinese Soc. 14, 3–64.
Cohen, A., and Ehrlich, S. (2019). Exchange variables, organizational culture and
their relationship with constructive deviance. Manag. Res. Rev. 42, 1423–1446.
doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2018-0354
Dietfried, G., and Soren, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact
the emergence of bootlegging behavior? J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 32, 505–521.
doi: 10.1111/jpim.12215
Farh, J.-L., and Cheng, B.-S. (2000). A cultural analysis of
paternalistic leadership in Chinese organization. Indigen.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Li and Wang Patriarchal Leadership and Innovation Performance
Psychol. Res. Chinese Soc. 13, 127–180. doi: 10.1057/9780230511
590_5
Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance:
developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. J. Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 42, 2988–3025. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00971.x
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed
variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White
paper]. Available online at: http:/www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 63, 597–606.
doi: 10.1086/222355
Huang, P., Tian, G., and Li, W. (2014). The micro-processes of the
change in the cognition of the management of firms: a longitudinal case
study on the two national sengong groups. Manag. World. 6, 126–141.
doi: 10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2014.06.011
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness,
and innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 73, 287–302.
doi: 10.1348/096317900167038
Janssen, O., and Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the
quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and
job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 47, 368–384. doi: 10.5465/20159587
Jietai, H., Zhonglin, W., and Lei, Z. (2004). Test and application of the mediating
effects. Acta Psychol. Sin. 36, 614–620.
Kim, M. J., and Choi, J. N. (2018). Group identity and positive deviance in work
groups. J. Soc. Psychol. 158, 730–743. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1412931
Kura, K. M., Shamsudin, F. M., and Chauhan, A. (2016). Organizational trust as a
mediator between perceived organizational support and constructive deviance.
Int. J. Bus. Soc. 17, 1–18. doi: 10.33736/ijbs.506.2016
Li, G., Zhou, H., and Ding, R. (2013). The effects of moral self-regulation
on prosocial behavior and rule infraction. Acta Psychol. Sin. 45, 672–679.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00672
Li, H., and Liu, H. (2014). A literature review of constructive deviance
in organizations and prospects. Foreign Econ. Manag. 8, 45–52.
doi: 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2014.08.008
Lin, C., and Zhuang, B. (2014). The impact of paternalistic leadership on
management innovation: an integrated model. Stud. Sci. Sci. 32, 622–630.
doi: 10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2014.04.007
Liu, B., Qi, L., and Xu, L. (2017). Spare the rod and spoil the child? a
study on employee workplace deviant behavior. Nankai Bus. Rev. 11, 1–22.
doi: 10.1108/NBRI-03-2018-0019
Ma, L., and Zhang, Z. (2018). The influence of authoritarian leadership on
employees’ innovative behavior. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 35, 139–145.
Malik, P., and Lenka, U. (2019). Exploring the impact of perceived
AMO framework on constructive and destructive deviance mediating
role of employee engagement. Int. J. Manpower 40, 994–1011.
doi: 10.1108/IJM-05-2018-0164
Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kohlborn, T., and Kummer, T. F. (2016). A framework for
the study of positive deviance in organizations. Deviant Behav. 37, 1288–1307.
doi: 10.1080/01639625.2016.1174519
Ming, L., and Wenquan, L. (2013). A scenario simulation experimental study on
the dynamic mechanisms of CPM leadership factors. Nankai Bus. Rev. 16,
16–25.
Narayanan, K., and Murphy, S. E. (2017). Conceptual framework on
workplace deviance behavior: a review. J. Human Value 23, 218–233.
doi: 10.1177/0971685817713284
Parker,S. K., Bindl, U. K., and Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: a model of
proactive motivation. J. Manage. 36, 827–856. doi: 10.1177/0149206310363732
Sheng, X., and Yuxin, H. (2018). The influence of paternalistic leadership on
employees’ following selection. Jiangxi Soc. Sci. 7, 228–239.
Wang, H., Cui, Z., and Sun, Y. (2018). Impact of constructive deviance
on individual creative performance. R&D Manag. 3, 113–117.
doi: 10.13902/j.cnki.syyj.2018.05.013
Wang, Y., and Tian, Y. (2019). A research on the motivating mechanism
of inclusive leadership on employees’ constructive deviance. Foreign Econ.
Manage. 41, 55–69. doi: 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2019.03.00
Wu, K., and Zhang, Z. (2018). The effect of paternalistic leadership on the
turnover intention of employees: mediated by organizational identification.
Stud. Psychol. Behav. 16, 557–562.
Yang, G., Song J., and Ji, P. (2019). Employee creativity and
creative deviance: based on the research of psychological
entitlement and moral disengagement. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 1,
116–122.
Yi, J. (2018). A literature review of creative deviance and prospects. Sci.
Technol. Manage. Res. 10, 131–140. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2018.
10.018
Zhang, Q., Sun, Y., and Li, P. (2018). The impact of paternalistic leadership
on team members’ perception of chaxu climate in chinese context.
Human Resour. Dev. China 35, 69–80. doi: 10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2018.
07.006
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2021 Li and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution
or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 719281
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
